Date: Sun, 16 Dec 2007 13:21:56 -0500 From: "Niki Denev" <nike_d@cytexbg.com> To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Subject: Re: is carp on if_bridge possible? Message-ID: <2e77fc10712161021x378114eeh8cc0b2e0809800db@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <2e77fc10712140937i19741f9cwe717499b18012a9a@mail.gmail.com> References: <2e77fc10712132129o810a608v4ec6a742f9860a63@mail.gmail.com> <47625B80.3090904@FreeBSD.org> <2e77fc10712140937i19741f9cwe717499b18012a9a@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Dec 14, 2007 12:37 PM, Niki Denev <nike_d@cytexbg.com> wrote: > > On Dec 14, 2007 5:31 AM, Bruce M. Simpson <bms@freebsd.org> wrote: > > > > Niki Denev wrote: > > > Hello, > > > > > > Is this possible? > > > I've tried adding IFT_BRIDGE next to IFT_ETHER and IFT_L2VLAN in ip_carp.c > > > but this probably is not enough. Any ideas? > > > > > > > CARP is 'special' in that it needs to add its own MAC addresses to your > > interface, needs a bit of special cooperation between the IP layer and > > the MAC layer, and it's more than likely that this doesn't work with > > if_bridge. > > > > Like Max says, this is an unusual configuration.... what are you trying > > to do? > > > > BMS > > > > > > I'm trying to setup a highly redundant configuration of > two routers and two rstp capable switches behind them. > Each of the router is connected to each of the switches, > and it's two interfaces are part of a bridge group. > this way i can handle router and/or switch failure without > disconnecting the site. > The problem is that this a remote site which must not go offline by > any means, and thus the unusual setup. > > Hope that this explains it. > > Niki > Maybe using bridge with rstp for failover was not the best idea, and i switched to if_lagg and if_carp on top of it. It seems to work properly and is exactly what i wanted to achieve. Thanks, Niki
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?2e77fc10712161021x378114eeh8cc0b2e0809800db>