Adam Thompson [[email protected]] wrote: > > Well, you could - perhaps - flip this on its head. Instead of changing BGP, > what about forcing one router to be the master (via advbase/advskew), > advertising a lower BGP preference (probably by using both localpref for > iBGP and path prepending for eBGP) from the slave, using pfsync (default, > not defer) to sync the state tables, and simply assuming that if the slave > becomes the master it's because the master is dead, so losing a few packets > isn't the end of the world?
If you're talking about eBGP..or even iBGP for that matter, an interesting way to go could be: Two BGP sessions from different IPs (no CARP) BGP next-hop pointing to CARP-protected IP
