Date: Thu, 8 May 2014 09:37:37 +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: <97B3C7CB-3E64-4FE0-81C8-F1FE6FB456A2@lists.zabbadoz.net> In-Reply-To: <Nlrr646yWAdJ7EfNj9z5ymwq5ZQ@dHhGgwofm7uNfL6/X5%2BbGIkDUYs> References: <Nlrr646yWAdJ7EfNj9z5ymwq5ZQ@dHhGgwofm7uNfL6/X5%2BbGIkDUYs>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 08 May 2014, at 08:10 , Eygene Ryabinkin <rea@freebsd.org> wrote: > As current CARP implementation somewhat hijacks OUI MAC space for VRRP > (00:00:5e:00:01:$VRID) and this sometimes create problems, because > routing people tend to be different from the ones that run CARP > clusters, so their VRID/VHID can clash inside single L2 domain, and > this often leads to breakages (because of same MAC values for the > different clustered instances), It often leads to a bit of logging about =93hey I don=92t know this = =91version' of VRRP=94 (well yeah) on some $vendor devices who should = know better by now. Apart from that I thought the different version number was sufficient = (as it is for other protocols, and so have others who actually started = to write a draft for an independent submission early last year and = stalled on it). I am actually not in the loop on what we ended up with = in 10 but I guess given the new CARP started to understand the old stuff = glebius did not end up bumping it finally in FreeBSD? So the problem = might remain that we are on a conflicting =93VRRP/CARP version=94? In addition you should, of course, use secrets with the VRRP/CARP as = otherwise you deserve to have real clashes that do unexpected things to = your deployment. Just my -1cts /bz =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?97B3C7CB-3E64-4FE0-81C8-F1FE6FB456A2>