Date: Thu, 8 May 2014 12:08:28 +0000 From: "Bjoern A. Zeeb" <bzeeb-lists@lists.zabbadoz.net> To: Eygene Ryabinkin <rea@freebsd.org> Cc: net@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Allowing CARP to use arbitrary OUI prefix and allocating block from FreeBSD's OUI space assignment for that Message-ID: <1B71A1AC-8A85-415D-A413-CD01635B3123@lists.zabbadoz.net> In-Reply-To: <ht5ioSVMkYjTNaadctX3apO0nWQ@dHhGgwofm7uNfL6/X5%2BbGIkDUYs> References: <Nlrr646yWAdJ7EfNj9z5ymwq5ZQ@dHhGgwofm7uNfL6/X5%2BbGIkDUYs> <97B3C7CB-3E64-4FE0-81C8-F1FE6FB456A2@lists.zabbadoz.net> <ht5ioSVMkYjTNaadctX3apO0nWQ@dHhGgwofm7uNfL6/X5%2BbGIkDUYs>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 08 May 2014, at 09:50 , Eygene Ryabinkin <rea@freebsd.org> wrote: > No, we're conflicting with VRRP on the MAC address space. >=20 > And, as I understand, CARP in 10 hadn't changed protocol in any way, > it just refurbished now CARP instances are configured and attached to > the interfaces. Could be wrong here, though. Yes, that is why the problem remains. = http://svnweb.freebsd.org/base/head/sys/netinet/ip_carp.h?annotate=3D25308= 7#l86 #define CARP_VERSION 2 vs. RFC 3768, Virtual Router Redundancy Protocol (VRRP), 5.3.1. Version The version field specifies the VRRP protocol version of this packet. This document defines version 2. *boom* And the world is moving on ... RFC 5798, Virtual Router Redundancy Protocol (VRRP) Version 3 for IPv4 = and IPv6, 5.2.1. Version The version field specifies the VRRP protocol version of this packet. This document defines version 3. So, document CARP as Version 4 and then you have your own version of the = protocol and a good reason to change the EUI-48 assignment within the = IANA OUI maybe, maybe not. = http://www.iana.org/assignments/ethernet-numbers/ethernet-numbers.xhtml#et= hernet-numbers-1 00-01-00 to 00-01-FF VRRP (Virtual Router Redundancy Protocol) = [RFC5798] 00-02-00 to 00-02-FF VRRP IPv6 (Virtual Router Redundancy Protocol = IPv6) [RFC5798] Currently we are on Version 2 and VRRP (3768) is Version 2 and we share = the OUI but speak a different language. *boom* Currently you are worried that =93CARP" !=3D =93VRRP" and still uses the = same EUI-64. But that=92s a management problem. Server guys run = Solaris and VRRP[1] in the Solaris group, and Linux and VRRP in the = Linux Group, or FreeBSD and VRRP (yes people do) in the group that tries = to talk to the other two. If they don=92t talk to each other and the = networking guys put the servers in the same subnet, they probably = conflict. *boom* Needless to say that if they don=92t tell the = networking guys they conflict with the routers as well *boom*boom* Two different networking groups do redundancy failover and years later = connect their routers; 4 routers run VRRP, same VRID by default. = *boom* The samples you can find are plenty. People need to talk. The fact that your server guys use a non-unique = Ethernet address for CARP without talking to their local authority who=92s= in charge of the network first is nothing you can fix changing the = number. The fact that multiple deployments on the same subnet might = exist is nothing a number change will fix. I think the RFC uses the = word =93coordinate=94. The thing you can change is to fix the version number for CARP, document = the protocol (so your network guys become more aware of it though they = probably won=92t anyway); then you can make sure it doesn=92t conflict = on as much as is possible with it---just that you cannot always (as = described above) without talking. So it=92s about minimising the = impact, reading your log files, and talking to people. [1] = http://docs.oracle.com/cd/E23824_01/html/821-1453/gkfjq.html#scrolltoc =97=20 Bjoern A. Zeeb "Come on. Learn, goddamn it.", WarGames, 1983
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?1B71A1AC-8A85-415D-A413-CD01635B3123>