Comments... - the project as it is appears to deliver a single VRRP daemon that serves all groups/instances that the host is participating in. Thus a change in the configuration of one has the potential to affect all others. Given this is a high-availability solution, is this wise?
- further, please explain why it is preferable to not use SMF instances to facilitate support of VRRP instances/groups. This would seem to me like a natural marriage, yet the design being put forward does not take advantage of this. - what additional properties of the SMF service are supported? e.g. pathname of the configuration file. Darren _______________________________________________ networking-discuss mailing list [email protected]
