On 2013-10-04, Andy a...@brandwatch.com wrote:
area 0.0.0.1 {
interface em1 { metric 100 }
interface carp1
}
carp1 10.0.10.4/24 DOWN - master 00:00:00 0 0
em1 10.0.10.5/24 DR 00:00:00 unknown 00:18:22 1 1
you announce
On 02/10/13 12:31, Stuart Henderson wrote:
On 2013/10/02 12:26, Andy wrote:
No, but does it matter anyway? - Good point.. What I should have
really asked is how can I ensure that the route with the lowest
metric/cost is the one pointing to the master..
ospfd does that anyway (and DR/BDR are
Thanks for everyone's replies :)
We have to use CARP on the external interfaces as some of the internal
networks are RFC1918 and so NATing on the CARP etc.. Other internal
nets are routed! :-/
No, but does it matter anyway? - Good point.. What I should have
really asked is how can I ensure
On 2013/10/02 12:26, Andy wrote:
No, but does it matter anyway? - Good point.. What I should have
really asked is how can I ensure that the route with the lowest
metric/cost is the one pointing to the master..
ospfd does that anyway (and DR/BDR are only ospf roles determining
who synchronizes
Hello,
I have started deploying OSPF in our test environment before deploying
it out to the production network.
We have two Cisco ASR 1002 IOS XE routers in the middle of our Area 0
which have the Transit connections to the rest of the world etc.
And we have OpenBSD firewalls (CARP pairs
PS; Is there any support like BFD (Bidirectional Forward Detection) in
OpenBSD to improve the link failure detection time for OSPF and or BGP
seeing as the routers and OpenBSD boxes are connected via Layer 2
switches links (three types of up-links to the Cisco cores are being
used; VPLS, MPLS,
PS; Is there any support like BFD (Bidirectional Forward Detection) in
OpenBSD to improve the link failure detection time for OSPF and or BGP
seeing as the routers and OpenBSD boxes are connected via Layer 2
switches links (three types of up-links to the Cisco cores are being
used; VPLS,
On 01/10/13 14:32, Brian Hechinger wrote:
On Tue, Oct 01, 2013 at 09:19:20AM +0100, Andy wrote:
Also is there no way to have the CARP IP be the IP which is advertised
as the neighbor ensuring that traffic is always sent to the CARP IP
instead (I would MUCH prefer this!).
I spent an enormous
On Tue 01 Oct 2013 15:01:32 BST, Andy wrote:
On 01/10/13 14:32, Brian Hechinger wrote:
On Tue, Oct 01, 2013 at 09:19:20AM +0100, Andy wrote:
Also is there no way to have the CARP IP be the IP which is advertised
as the neighbor ensuring that traffic is always sent to the CARP IP
instead (I
For 5.4, plus54.html states:
Reinstate
ospfd(8)http://www.openbsd.org/cgi-bin/man.cgi?query=ospfdmanpath=OpenBSD%20Currentsektion=8format=htmlcode
to announce routes to backup carp interfaces, so that a specific route
is maintained during failover.
..which I think means it actually will announce
I have setup where central cisco connects downstream to branch office
cisco routers and upstream to the Internet via pair of CARPed firewalls.
Cisco routers speak OSPF between themselves, and I keep them all in area
0 (I don't see any reason to complicate it with more areas). Central cisco
router
I'm not sure because at that point I gave up on CARP completely and just let
OSPF failover to the secondary firewall if the first stops working.
-brian
On Oct 1, 2013, at 10:01, Andy a...@brandwatch.com wrote:
On 01/10/13 14:32, Brian Hechinger wrote:
On Tue, Oct 01, 2013 at 09:19:20AM
On 2013-10-01, Andy a...@brandwatch.com wrote:
Is there a way of ensuring that the CARP master is the one which is
FULL/DR, and the CARP backup is FULL/BDR?
No, but does it matter anyway? I don't believe it affects route selection,
and you wouldn't usually want more network instability from
13 matches
Mail list logo
