On Sat, Mar 6, 2010 at 17:26, PP;Q Q P(P8P?P8QP8P= <chipits...@gmail.com> wrote: > no, I want routes exactly to carp.
That sounds odd. Routes are something different than what particular host responds to frames directed to a specific hardware address. If I understand the rest of your description correctly, you want only the master bgpd to have sessions and to somehow distribute its routes to the backup(s), with the backups starting with that 'state' and initiate connections to your BGP peers whenever a master goes down. I doubt that'll work. In your scenario, if your master goes down, there are no longer any BGP sessions up with any of your peers. If I'm not mistaken, that will cause them to withdraw the prefixes you previously advertised from their tables and no longer forward traffic to you. When your new master is promoted, it will set up a new session with your peers. This is probably not the sort of failover you want to see happening in production. I suspect that's just one reason why Henning and Claudio made their suggestions. The N sessions for N CARP members allows for your remote peers to maintain a path back towards you and for you to have a working path out. It is very likely the path of least pain and anguish with smooth failover. Unless of course static routing were an option. While not sexy, it's simple (fewer moving parts) and still allows you to use CARP. Regards, Rogier
