On Fri, Dec 12, 2008 at 3:12 PM, Stephan A. Rickauer < stephan.ricka...@ini.phys.ethz.ch> wrote:
> On Fri, 2008-12-12 at 14:57 +0100, ropers wrote: > > Maybe --possibly-- my own understanding is sorely lacking. Let me try > > to explain. The following requires a non-proportional font: > > > > Is this what your CARP setup looks like? > > > > external network > > | | > > OpenBSD#0 OpenBSD#1 > > | | > > internal network > > > > If so, are the CARP advertisements being sent via the external or > > internal network? > > Your diagram would use two CARP interfaces, not just one. One for the > external and one for the internal network. Thus, you'd have carp0 > (external) and carp1 (internal), both would exchange ads via multicast > by default over their underlying physical interfaces. > > Yes, this is our setup ;) - at least the relevant part of it. > > > I was under the impression that it should be possible to exchange CARP > > advertisements via the dedicated link (--------), though I have to > > admit that I haven't actually built such a network yet -- I'm planning > > to do that shortly. Maybe others can weigh in? > > One can use 'carppeer' to not send multicast but unicast. However, I was > under the impression one still needs to do peering on the same link as > the carp interfaces sit. > > Can one use the same 'carppeer ded.ica.ted.ip' statement for all carp > interfaces altogether (and the other dedicated peer IP on the other)? What's the point on using CARP to send advertisements over a dedicated link? The dedicated link is typically a cross-over cable (i.e. used for pfsync) and hence, in case of a switch port failure (or cable failure), CARP won't be able to see this.
