Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2005 21:22:48 +0300 From: Petri Helenius <pete@he.iki.fi> To: Claudio Jeker <cjeker@diehard.n-r-g.com> Cc: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Subject: Re: FreeVRRPd project status Message-ID: <425D6378.5080108@he.iki.fi> In-Reply-To: <20050413181931.GA16696@diehard.n-r-g.com> References: <425196F0.4020309@x-trader.de> <6731347a839d85db456b1c5a33bcf0b5@mac.com> <864qeibp0v.fsf@xps.des.no> <20050413171132.B96104@electra.nolink.net> <20050413181931.GA16696@diehard.n-r-g.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Claudio Jeker wrote: >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. > > > Did this recently change since looking at /etc/protocols it does not seem to be the case for most of them anyway? Pete
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?425D6378.5080108>