On Thu, Mar 27, 2008 at 2:37 PM, Chris Donovan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi Andreas,
>
>
>  >  >  Hmm I'm not sure how to configure the VLAN interface as you describe.
>  >  >  I am sure I need to build it as it's own device.  It can't as far as I
>  >  >  know be a sub interface of an already existing interface.  I think
>  >  >  what you are saying (please correct me) is that in order to have a
>  >  >  trunked interface, or an interface that does 802.1q tagging, is to
>  >  >  have say:
>  >  >  eth0 inet 1.2.3.4
>  >  >  eth0:0.65 inet 2.3.4.5
>  >  >
>  >  >  ?  How do you tell the system it's supposed to be tagging
>  >  >  packets/frames?  I'm not sure what you mean.  In all fairness I use
>  >  >  vconfig to create my vlans, as that's the only way I know how to.  I
>  >
>  >  Current distributions can do that vconfig stuff for you within the
>  >  network configuration scripts. Depending on your distribution you have
>  >  to adapt your config files. No matter who configures your interfaces,
>  >  before you start heartbeat you should have one configured interface in
>  >  each lan/vlan e.g:
>
>  This functionality still requires the "vlan" package in order to do so.

yes

>
>
>  >  eth0 with IP 1.2.3.4
>  >  eth0.65 with IP 2.3.4.5
>
>  Why do I need to waste IP addresses?  I don't need to for a native interface.

hmm ... yes, you are right. Should also work without. No need to waste
an IP address ;-)

>
>
>  >  In your heartbeat config configure IPaddr2 resources where you
>  >  reference to "eth0.65", and you will end up with an alias on your vlan
>  >  tagged interface eth0.65:
>  >
>  >  eth0 with IP 1.2.3.4
>  >  eth0.65 with IP 2.3.4.5
>  >  eth0.65:0 with IP 2.3.4.7 <-- alias added by heartbeat
>
>  I suppose what is rather confusing is that I'm not being clear enough
>  in what I'm looking for.  I'm sure I already have my answer, but I'd
>  like to be sure.
>
>  In your example I _must_ waste an IP address per node in order to
>  allow heartbeat2 to cope with the lack of VLAN support?  Is this
>  correct?  It seems lazy to me, but I can accept it, and move on if
>  that is the case.

see above

>
>  Originally I had asked is there any developmental thoughts on perhaps
>  getting VLANs directly supported by heartbeat2.  Maybe write an
>  IPaddr3 resource type??  Where can I submit this_idea_ if it hasn't
>  been considered yet?

It's all Open Source ... happy programming and share your code  ;-)

Regards,
Andreas

>
>  Thanks for your time,
>
>
>
>  Chris-
>  _______________________________________________
>  Linux-HA mailing list
>  [email protected]
>  http://lists.linux-ha.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-ha
>  See also: http://linux-ha.org/ReportingProblems
>
_______________________________________________
Linux-HA mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.linux-ha.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-ha
See also: http://linux-ha.org/ReportingProblems

Reply via email to