Date: Thu, 16 Sep 2004 04:01:52 -0000 From: Max Laier <max@love2party.net> To: pf4freebsd@freelists.org, DrumFire <dpphln@tin.it> Subject: [pf4freebsd] Re: Carp ported on FreeBSD. Message-ID: <200402231926.21674.max@love2party.net> In-Reply-To: <20040223190255.017e47ca.dpphln@tin.it> References: <20040223190255.017e47ca.dpphln@tin.it>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Monday 23 February 2004 20:02, DrumFire wrote: > Hi, > > this morning i've seen that also device carp was ported to FreeBSD. > > My ask is: Which are reasons to port carp device into FreeBSD? > FreeBSD users can use /usr/ports/net/freevrrpd to make a > HighAvailab-FailOver solutions with pf/pfsync, or it's better > use CARP device? What's the difference between this 2 implementations? FreeVRRPd does not support IPv6 (afair). Loadbalancing is integrated into= =20 CARP already. CARP is in-kernel which is a matter of taste, but I prefer=20 in-kernel solutions over userland deamons for things like this. The differences set aside. CARP has the edge of active development at=20 OpenBSD and direct coupling with pf. N.B.: I didn't touch the carp stuff in a while, so I don't know if it=20 works with current (or with current OpenBSD peers), but work will restart= =20 for sure. --=20 Best regards, | mlaier@freebsd.org Max Laier | ICQ #67774661 http://pf4freebsd.love2party.net/ | mlaier@EFnet
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200402231926.21674.max>