From owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Aug 11 21:47:09 2011 Return-Path: Delivered-To: net@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7E7C4106564A; Thu, 11 Aug 2011 21:47:09 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from fjwcash@gmail.com) Received: from mail-vw0-f54.google.com (mail-vw0-f54.google.com [209.85.212.54]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 111228FC1B; Thu, 11 Aug 2011 21:47:08 +0000 (UTC) Received: by vws18 with SMTP id 18so2737456vws.13 for ; Thu, 11 Aug 2011 14:47:08 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=/iJ0zcyTHjfZZOhIE21vpdsKqoM0PcOZMjZ5sEBi6N0=; b=UBpX5VUgCEB5V3ZYJj9Qa4xWJYimIxvNjHCNu3aF84Ra7fn6TSgu9AKJrqTVG2Fzh3 ZDcdJURo/wDRtcPrT6KRjnOlkpSaHeHNzHtLxCWckCKkwqCFG1zPF+qKdaq3sjuQv5zW iIzplxH9CzTpuTqGjypNTw9JOAtUCsfrgPB2k= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.52.96.228 with SMTP id dv4mr146721vdb.144.1313099228209; Thu, 11 Aug 2011 14:47:08 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.220.186.134 with HTTP; Thu, 11 Aug 2011 14:47:08 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <20110811082531.GR43567@glebius.int.ru> References: <20110810160526.GO43567@FreeBSD.org> <20110811082531.GR43567@glebius.int.ru> Date: Thu, 11 Aug 2011 14:47:08 -0700 Message-ID: From: Freddie Cash To: Gleb Smirnoff Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.5 Cc: net@freebsd.org Subject: Re: new CARP implementation X-BeenThere: freebsd-net@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Networking and TCP/IP with FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 11 Aug 2011 21:47:09 -0000 2011/8/11 Gleb Smirnoff > 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