Date: Thu, 11 Aug 2011 14:47:08 -0700 From: Freddie Cash <fjwcash@gmail.com> To: Gleb Smirnoff <glebius@freebsd.org> Cc: net@freebsd.org Subject: Re: new CARP implementation Message-ID: <CAOjFWZ5rq%2B9gYh_Z4uoGj4v6GEJrsXiJepzQn_CogLbDasxhuQ@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <20110811082531.GR43567@glebius.int.ru> References: <20110810160526.GO43567@FreeBSD.org> <CAOjFWZ7eAME34-zFe7ateDmRmkqWi2Bdow%2Bg4QE_Msa2phCWiQ@mail.gmail.com> <20110811082531.GR43567@glebius.int.ru>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
2011/8/11 Gleb Smirnoff <glebius@freebsd.org> > 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. > > Thinking about it some more, and doing some reading on how VRRP and CARP work, I'm starting to see things from your point of view. Now you just need to figure out a way to make ifconfig(8) show which IPs on an interface are controlled via CARP. Perhaps add it to the carp: line as well? Or make the carp: a multi-line option? Or something along those lines? -- Freddie Cash fjwcash@gmail.com
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CAOjFWZ5rq%2B9gYh_Z4uoGj4v6GEJrsXiJepzQn_CogLbDasxhuQ>