Date: Thu, 16 Sep 2004 04:12:31 -0000 From: sam <samwun@hgdbroadband.com> To: pf4freebsd@freelists.org Subject: [pf4freebsd] why multiple CARP groups Message-ID: <4121C8A1.40304@hgdbroadband.com> In-Reply-To: <4121B403.2020400@hgdbroadband.com> References: <200408052130.51026.max@love2party.net> <200408161934.23219.max@love2party.net> <4120F693.8080305@hgdbroadband.com> <200408162008.20768.max@love2party.net> <4121772A.9020703@hgdbroadband.com> <20040817034647.GA4488@kt-is.co.kr> <4121A8E0.8040806@hgdbroadband.com> <4121B403.2020400@hgdbroadband.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Hi, I need to get adviced by someone for the usage of CARP+pfsync. With the BIG example as described in the following page: http://www.countersiege.com/doc/pfsync-carp/#big I don't understand why create a different CARP group for each application server instead of using only one CARP interface for 4 internal application servers is better. With only one CARP address for 4 application servers, traffic still can be redirected to another app server if one is died. Unless one CARP address is not efficient. Can anyone please explain the difference using multiple CARP groups instead of one CARP address? Thanks sam
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4121C8A1.40304>