On Fri, Jul 22, 2005 at 03:52:06PM +0100, Stephen Marley wrote: > On Fri, Jul 22, 2005 at 09:30:07AM -0400, stan wrote: > > fxp0: flags=8943<UP,BROADCAST,RUNNING,PROMISC,SIMPLEX,MULTICAST> mtu 1500 > > address: 00:90:27:43:79:0e > > media: Ethernet autoselect (10baseT) > > status: active > > inet 205.159.77.11 netmask 0xffffff00 broadcast 205.159.77.255 > > inet6 fe80::290:27ff:fe43:790e%fxp0 prefixlen 64 scopeid 0x1 > > fxp1: flags=8843<UP,BROADCAST,RUNNING,SIMPLEX,MULTICAST> mtu 1500 > > address: 00:a0:c9:de:a3:19 > > media: Ethernet autoselect (10baseT) > > status: active > > inet 192.168.254.253 netmask 0xffffff00 broadcast 192.168.254.255 > > inet6 fe80::2a0:c9ff:fede:a319%fxp1 prefixlen 64 scopeid 0x2 > > fxp2: flags=8943<UP,BROADCAST,RUNNING,PROMISC,SIMPLEX,MULTICAST> mtu 1500 > > address: 00:a0:c9:71:16:2e > > media: Ethernet autoselect (10baseT) > > status: active > > inet 170.85.106.253 netmask 0xffffff80 broadcast 170.85.106.255 > > inet6 fe80::2a0:c9ff:fe71:162e%fxp2 prefixlen 64 scopeid 0x3 > > Why are your fxps on 10baseT? Are you using hubs instead of switches? > Can't you use an x-over for pfsync?
Yes, at the moment (testing) they are all pluged inot 10MB hubs, including the pfsysnc. > > > So, this leaves 2 questions. > > > > 1. The docs say that bringing down the carp interface, should force a > > failover, is this wrong? > > I would have thought that downing the physical interfaces is a more > realistic test. Pulling cables is good too. Agreed, the only reason I went down teh dowing carp road was the explicti note in the docs. > > > 2. If I want to hook in other things (eg mail) on failover, should I build > > and usef ifstaed, or is there a better way? > > Ifstated may work, but perhaps pen is worth looking at > http://siag.nu/pen/ Thansk, I'll check it out. More testing this weekend. Thansk for the help! -- U.S. Encouraged by Vietnam Vote - Officials Cite 83% Turnout Despite Vietcong Terror - New York Times 9/3/1967
