Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
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>