Re: prioritizing carp interfaces

Hi, On Mon, 23.03.2009 at 17:22:55 +0100, Joerg Streckfuss streckf...@dfn-cert.de wrote: In my opinion preemption on both nodes effects that advskew is set to 240 on all interfaces and as a consequence there is no host which could advertise faster then the other host in the carp group.

Re: prioritizing carp interfaces

Hi, On Fri, 20.03.2009 at 14:28:46 +0100, Joerg Streckfuss streckf...@dfn-cert.de wrote: How does CARP behaves when on the master node two unimportantly interfaces fail and on the backup node only the uplink interface fails? Does CARP failover to the backup node and as consequence the whole

prioritizing carp interfaces

Hi list, I have a theoretical question regarding a CARP cluster and many CARP interfaces Assume we have a firewall comprising of two notes, each with 4 or more interfaces and only one uplink to the internet. The Cluster is in master/backup mode How does CARP behaves when on the master node two

Re: prioritizing carp interfaces

Hi list, I have a theoretical question regarding a CARP cluster and many CARP interfaces Assume we have a firewall comprising of two notes, each with 4 or more interfaces and only one uplink to the internet. The Cluster is in master/backup mode How does CARP behaves when on the master

Re: prioritizing carp interfaces

Well, looks interesting, but I didn't try it. It maybe too complicated, when redundancy need to be as simply as possible. Instead of this, you can just add another node(s), this is the safest solution, I think. Well, another node implies two nodes for redundancy. And two independant firewall