On Thu, 24 Mar 2022 18:03:29 +0100 Vincent Bernat <ber...@debian.org> wrote:
> Unfortunately, I don't think it's worth reporting the issue upstream
> as they don't like us lagging > so many versions late.
Agreed.
After looking twice, I notice the VIP is in the same subnet as the peer.
If you don't have any other address on the subnet, I don't see how this
could work. If you have, maybe it would be better to use a /32 for the
VIP.
Would you mind to elaborate?
The setup is as follows:
* peer 1, local IP 208.80.153.188/29
* peer 2, local IP 208.80.153.189/29
* VIP 208.80.153.190/29
I honestly don't know how this relates to the execution error itself. Do
you think the address assignment fails because some misconfigured netmask?
