Date: Sat, 17 Sep 2011 23:40:06 -0400 (EDT) From: "Brian Seklecki (Mobile)" <lavalamp@probikesllc.com> To: Daniel Kalchev <daniel@digsys.bg> Cc: "freebsd-stable@freebsd.org" <freebsd-stable@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: CARP interfaces and mastership issue Message-ID: <alpine.BSF.2.00.1109172331080.45497@vger.digitalfreaks.org> In-Reply-To: <60645CA5-D1E5-4AF9-9C56-66FA755B0280@digsys.bg> References: <4E71C059.5060404@hi-media.com> <4E7218A4.4000205@my.gd> <alpine.BSF.2.00.1109151208210.45497@vger.digitalfreaks.org> <CAE63ME4tLpSzfC1ENwaPs1iB-r1yHRs2Zj138iyM%2BW3s6vWyCA@mail.gmail.com> <60645CA5-D1E5-4AF9-9C56-66FA755B0280@digsys.bg>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> >> What would help here, is for a carp interface to wait a given delay >> (tunable through a sysctl ?) after creation or after being brought up I see now. The tunable sounds like a good idea; we should check OpenBSD, they probably already implemented something and we're behind. If not, a "preempt dampener" feature would be an awesome return feature. Might need to implment another state: MASTER-LISTENING (or LEARNING) ah a STP. ~BAS > > I have the same observation. Perhaps it can just avoid going up > initially --- it will become master anyway if it does not hear anything > on the interface.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?alpine.BSF.2.00.1109172331080.45497>