Date: Sun, 16 Dec 2007 13:03:13 -0800 From: Han Hwei Woo <hhw@astutehosting.com> To: Niki Denev <nike_d@cytexbg.com> Cc: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Subject: Re: is carp on if_bridge possible? Message-ID: <47659291.6050809@astutehosting.com> In-Reply-To: <2e77fc10712161021x378114eeh8cc0b2e0809800db@mail.gmail.com> References: <2e77fc10712132129o810a608v4ec6a742f9860a63@mail.gmail.com> <47625B80.3090904@FreeBSD.org> <2e77fc10712140937i19741f9cwe717499b18012a9a@mail.gmail.com> <2e77fc10712161021x378114eeh8cc0b2e0809800db@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Hi Niki, I hope I'm understanding you correctly, but the reason you're running if_lag is so that failover will occur even if there is a switch failure? If you enable preempt by setting: sysctl net.inet.carp.preempt=1, and you have a carp running on the routers' interface that goes through the switches, all the carp interfaces would failover in the event of a switch failure, including the external facing one. With bridging or link aggregation, there is nothing to stop a router from staying the master on the external interface, even if the switch it is connected to fails. Cheers, Han Hwei Woo Niki Denev wrote: > 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 > _______________________________________________ > freebsd-net@freebsd.org mailing list > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-net > To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-net-unsubscribe@freebsd.org" > > >
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?47659291.6050809>