Chris Buechler wrote:
> That's correct, though for server load balancing. He's talking about
multi-WAN it seems.
Yes, I'm talking about multi-WAN aka ISP failover.
--
Veiko
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: discussion-unsubscr...@
On Fri, Dec 19, 2008 at 11:09 AM, Paul Mansfield
wrote:
> Veiko Kukk wrote:
>> Hi!
>>
>> I wonder if there are some good reasons why i'ts not possible to choose
>> CARP interfaces (virtual IP-s) for load balancer pools?
>> If not, then why can't I select carpx interfaces for ISP failover load
>> b
Veiko Kukk wrote:
> Hi!
>
> I wonder if there are some good reasons why i'ts not possible to choose
> CARP interfaces (virtual IP-s) for load balancer pools?
> If not, then why can't I select carpx interfaces for ISP failover load
> balancer pool?
> Please fix it or help me how to fix that in my i
On Fri, Dec 19, 2008 at 10:11 AM, Veiko Kukk wrote:
> Hi!
>
> I wonder if there are some good reasons why i'ts not possible to choose CARP
> interfaces (virtual IP-s) for load balancer pools?
Because you use only the physical interfaces, the CARP VIPs just go
with the physical interface.
---
Hi!
I wonder if there are some good reasons why i'ts not possible to choose
CARP interfaces (virtual IP-s) for load balancer pools?
If not, then why can't I select carpx interfaces for ISP failover load
balancer pool?
Please fix it or help me how to fix that in my installation.
---
Veiko
---
