* Charles Price [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2007-12-13 23:46]:
yes,that is the result of games carp plays with routes (which it
shouldn not, imo, but anyway). it should finally work as advertised in
-current even with unnumbered carpdevs.
Hi Henning,
Updating to -current did the trick. Thanks
yes,that is the result of games carp plays with routes (which it
shouldn not, imo, but anyway). it should finally work as advertised in
-current even with unnumbered carpdevs.
Hi Henning,
Updating to -current did the trick. Thanks very much.
What was the problem here?
Charlie
I've been looking into this some more. Are there any issues which
CARP/OpenBGPd when machines in the CARP group do not have an IP address of
their own - ie. they have only a shared CARP address?
I find that in this situation, when the CARP master fails the backup router
correctly becomes
* Charles Price [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2007-12-10 22:59]:
I've been looking into this some more. Are there any issues which
CARP/OpenBGPd when machines in the CARP group do not have an IP address of
their own - ie. they have only a shared CARP address?
I find that in this situation, when the
yes,that is the result of games carp plays with routes (which it
shouldn not, imo, but anyway). it should finally work as advertised in
-current even with unnumbered carpdevs.
Hi Henning,
Thanks for the quick response. I will update to -current tomorrow and let you
know how I get on.
All
Hi,
I have a pair of routers running OpenBSD 4.2 release, each with four ethernet
interfaces (fxp0, fxp1, fxp2, fxp3) and carp on all four interfaces. fxp0 and
fxp1 are /30 networks over which I run BGP sessions to our upstream
providers.
Router A is the primary machine with advskew 0 and
6 matches
Mail list logo