From owner-freebsd-hackers Fri Jan 28 4:29:56 2000 Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from fw.wintelcom.net (ns1.wintelcom.net [209.1.153.20]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5A14715AC4 for ; Fri, 28 Jan 2000 04:29:51 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from bright@fw.wintelcom.net) Received: (from bright@localhost) by fw.wintelcom.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) id EAA18660 for hackers@freebsd.org; Fri, 28 Jan 2000 04:54:40 -0800 (PST) Date: Fri, 28 Jan 2000 04:54:40 -0800 From: Alfred Perlstein To: hackers@freebsd.org Subject: downed IP addresses/redundancy Message-ID: <20000128045440.F7157@fw.wintelcom.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 1.0.1i Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG This is an idea I had to help people provide for reduntant servers. Many programs will bind to all interfaces to serve requests, however sometimes it's important that a service only appear on a single IP or interface. However you'd really like the server to be able to bind to 2 IP addresses, one that you're serving for and another in case your sister server goes down. My idea is that you'd be able to ifconfig an IP to an interface but leave the IP 'deactivated', when another server goes down you can activate the IP address so that it will now take incomming requests. A 'hack' way of doing this would be to use IPFW and only add the extra IP after firewalling it off, when it'd needed then remove the block on the IP address. Does anyone particularly like/hate this idea? Just wanted to share, and possibly get better suggestions. The main problem I see is that now you have to hack around with routing otherwise you can't talk to the machine who's IP you're holding for replacement. thanks, -- -Alfred Perlstein - [bright@wintelcom.net|alfred@freebsd.org] To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message