From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Apr 30 07:07:40 2009 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3243C10656CD for ; Thu, 30 Apr 2009 07:07:40 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from nvass9573@gmx.com) Received: from mail.gmx.com (unknown [213.165.64.42]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 6F04A8FC14 for ; Thu, 30 Apr 2009 07:07:39 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from nvass9573@gmx.com) Received: (qmail invoked by alias); 30 Apr 2009 07:07:37 -0000 Received: from ipa30.73.91.tellas.gr (EHLO [169.254.0.4]) [91.140.73.30] by mail.gmx.com (mp-eu004) with SMTP; 30 Apr 2009 09:07:37 +0200 X-Authenticated: #46156728 X-Provags-ID: V01U2FsdGVkX1+P9xhhLFKPuysghtkG2tgVHjZK3N/HUUADMPYX9D 3cVo6rSp220FdT Message-ID: <49F94E25.6000900@gmx.com> Date: Thu, 30 Apr 2009 10:07:17 +0300 From: Nikos Vassiliadis User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.21 (Windows/20090302) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Sebastiaan van Erk References: <49F81FF2.3040302@sebster.com> <1240999037.2645.3.camel@frodon.be-bif.ulb.ac.be> <49F8269E.2010201@sebster.com> <49F89FE1.6070807@freemail.gr> <49F8CC51.2030203@sebster.com> In-Reply-To: <49F8CC51.2030203@sebster.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Y-GMX-Trusted: 0 X-FuHaFi: 0.65 Cc: FreeBSD Questions Mailing List Subject: Re: CARP & bridge X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 30 Apr 2009 07:07:40 -0000 Sebastiaan van Erk wrote: > > Thanks for the suggestion. I tried it, but unfortunately the carp device > never leaves the INIT state when I put the ip on the bridge. :-( I did > find some similar problem here: > > http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=125816 I just noticed that. On -CURRENT carp tells you that's not supported: bridge0: carp is not supported for this interface type OTOH why do you even have to use the VIP from the remote side of the bridge? The only reason I can think of, for doing such a thing, is to get *all* traffic from the remote location through a "single" redundant router, the one with the VIP. Is this the case? Nikos