From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > 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).
And in some cases, that could be true. Like if two switches were uplinked on the same L3 segment, CARP communications would traverse them. DS
