Date: Thu, 11 Aug 2011 12:25:31 +0400 From: Gleb Smirnoff <glebius@FreeBSD.org> To: Freddie Cash <fjwcash@gmail.com> Cc: net@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: new CARP implementation Message-ID: <20110811082531.GR43567@glebius.int.ru> In-Reply-To: <CAOjFWZ7eAME34-zFe7ateDmRmkqWi2Bdow%2Bg4QE_Msa2phCWiQ@mail.gmail.com> References: <20110810160526.GO43567@FreeBSD.org> <CAOjFWZ7eAME34-zFe7ateDmRmkqWi2Bdow%2Bg4QE_Msa2phCWiQ@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wed, Aug 10, 2011 at 09:38:04AM -0700, Freddie Cash wrote: F> However, I'm not sure I understand the reasoning for removing the carpX F> pseudo-interface. It's really nice having the symmetry between carpX, F> vlanX, brX, and other pseudo-interfaces, and keeping the configuration F> details separate from the underlying physical interface. F> F> This now makes creating/configuring CARP different from creating/configuring F> VLANs. :( This is done because VLANs _are_ interfaces, they are tunnels within ethernet interfaces, splitting one interface into a bunch. Bridges are interfaces, as well as LACP trunks (lagg(4)), since they group a number of interfaces into one. CARP addresses _are not_ interfaces, they are addresses. IMHO, implementing them as virtual interface subtly attached to a real one, was a layering violation. -- Totus tuus, Glebius.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20110811082531.GR43567>