Date: Tue, 14 Jun 2005 14:16:05 +0400 From: Yar Tikhiy <yar@comp.chem.msu.su> To: Josh Kayse <josh.kayse@gmail.com> Cc: freebsd-net@freebsd.org, freebsd-pf@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Carp Suppression Message-ID: <20050614101605.GB470@comp.chem.msu.su> In-Reply-To: <7c8f2792050613090040c924c3@mail.gmail.com> References: <7c8f2792050610090049064e11@mail.gmail.com> <7c8f279205061116021f55e8da@mail.gmail.com> <7c8f279205061307103b1782f4@mail.gmail.com> <20050613153550.GA54388@comp.chem.msu.su> <7c8f2792050613090040c924c3@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, Jun 13, 2005 at 12:00:36PM -0400, Josh Kayse wrote: > Definitely a typo on my part. It should be > ifp->if_link_state = LINK_STATE_UP > > The reason we are using CARP on a PLIP interface is to allow us to > have redundant connections between 2 transparent bridging firewalls. > Instead of sending packets over our network, we isolate them onto a > PLIP interface and crossover interface. We then use ifstaded to > monitor the carp interfaces and shut down bridging on one of the > machines. This point alone is interesting. FreeBSD doesn't seem to track link state on most non-MII interfaces yet, including SLIP, PPP, and PLIP. Doing so on interfaces that support a sort of keep-alives would be easy though. In theory, were real link state support available on such interfaces, you would be able to run ifstated on them directly. However, the whole design of your network looks like a hack to me. Why not to use conventional IP routing together with pfsync and CARP on the main network segments? > I will refrain from submitting any code to the community in the future. IMHO refraining from the submission of _untested_ code would suffice ;-) -- Yar
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20050614101605.GB470>