Through an interface that *must* be up (or we should fail over), there is no address that can be the subject of a ping. Everything is dynamically assigned via DHCP, all L2 switching on that side is incapable of having even a loopback address.
On 10/26/08 4:23 AM, "Andrew Beekhof" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > why the reluctance to use ping? > > On Fri, Oct 24, 2008 at 21:25, tje <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> I'm in a situation where I don't have an address that can work as a ping >> address (don't ask). In this case I really just want to detect if the >> freakin ethernet link is gone. I've looked at how ipfail works inside, and >> I've looked at the description of pingd options - both seem to require a >> node to ping. >> >> So unless someone has a solution, I'm going to implement the capability to >> detect port/link down independent of a ping mechanism. I'm thinking of using >> the apis (like ipfail - we are currently using v1). Seems I will need to >> edit the main app to get parsing added to the cfg. >> >> If anyone has views otherwise, please speak up. I'll ask for Corp perms to >> contribute the work back.. >> >> Jeff >> >> _______________________________________________________ >> Linux-HA-Dev: [email protected] >> http://lists.linux-ha.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-ha-dev >> Home Page: http://linux-ha.org/ >> > _______________________________________________________ > Linux-HA-Dev: [email protected] > http://lists.linux-ha.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-ha-dev > Home Page: http://linux-ha.org/ _______________________________________________________ Linux-HA-Dev: [email protected] http://lists.linux-ha.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-ha-dev Home Page: http://linux-ha.org/
