On Thu, Aug 03, 2006 at 02:26:40PM -0600, Tim Pushor wrote:
> Well, after playing a little with trunk(4), etherchannel, and carp I am
> wondering something:
>
> Trying to achieve both firewall redundancy (via carp) and ethernet
> redundancy (via trunk(4)), would it be possible and (and maybe even
> recommended) to have firewall-1 connected solely to switch-1 and
> firewall-2 connected solely to switch-2, forgo the trunk(4), and just
> use carp to detect if either of the switches has failed, and fail over
> to the other switch/firewall combo?
>
> Am I making sense?
I'm not entirely sure what you intend to achieve, but carp doesn't cross
switches (it works on the local Ethernet segment).
Joachim
