Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2005 20:19:09 +0200 From: Claudio Jeker <cjeker@diehard.n-r-g.com> To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Subject: Re: FreeVRRPd project status Message-ID: <20050413181931.GA16696@diehard.n-r-g.com> In-Reply-To: <20050413171132.B96104@electra.nolink.net> References: <425196F0.4020309@x-trader.de> <6731347a839d85db456b1c5a33bcf0b5@mac.com> <864qeibp0v.fsf@xps.des.no> <20050413171132.B96104@electra.nolink.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wed, Apr 13, 2005 at 05:14:52PM +0200, Lars Erik Gullerud wrote: > On Thu, 7 Apr 2005, Dag-Erling Smørgrav wrote: > > >Charles Swiger <cswiger@mac.com> writes: > >>It's dead, I think: Cisco's lawyers started making predatory noises > >>about their "intellectual property". Some people from NetBSD are > >>working on a replacement called CARP, which you might want to check > >>out-- it seems that FreeBSD will be picking up support for this soon, > >>as well. > > > >CARP comes from OpenBSD, not NetBSD, and is already in FreeBSD. > > ...and can't safely be deployed in a lot of datacenter scenarios where > the providers gear is running VRRP, since the OpenBSD-folks didn't bother > to read up on how the process of obtaining a protocol number works, and > hence used the one assigned to VRRP after a half-baked attempt at getting > one themselves. Hence making CARP pretty much useless for ISPs, no matter > how good it may or may not be otherwise. > This is not true. First of all the "OpenBSD-folks" asked IANA for protocol numbers for CARP and pfsync but IANA denied it. The reason was that CARP was not developped through an official standards organization. -- :wq Claudio
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20050413181931.GA16696>