> On 8. Sep 2020, at 15:23, Julien Cigar <jul...@perdition.city> wrote: > > On Tue, Sep 01, 2020 at 10:13:23AM +0200, Julien Cigar wrote: >>> On Mon, Aug 31, 2020 at 01:55:52PM +0200, Michael Gmelin wrote: >>> >>> >>>> On 31. Aug 2020, at 10:37, Julien Cigar <jul...@perdition.city> wrote: >>>> >>>> On Fri, Aug 28, 2020 at 04:52:01PM +0200, Julien Cigar wrote: >>>>> Hello, >>>>> >>>>> I have a "highly available" router/firewall with the following >>>>> configuration (1). Those are plugged in two 2930F (with VSF) using LACP. >>>>> It works well, except that I have some weird issues with the CARP >>>>> demotion counter when I'm unplugging some interfaces involved in the >>>>> lagg/carp setup, for example if I unplug/replug igb0 and igb1 in this >>>>> case: >>>>> >>>>> (dmesg): >>>>> igb0: link state changed to DOWN >>>>> igb1: link state changed to DOWN >>>>> carp: demoted by 240 to 240 (send error 50 on vlan11) >>>>> carp: 11@vlan11: MASTER -> BACKUP (more frequent advertisement received) >>>>> vlan11: deletion failed: 3 >>>>> igb1: link state changed to UP >>>>> igb0: link state changed to UP >>>>> >>>>> then the CARP status stays to BACKUP unless I demote the CARP demotion >>>>> counter manually with: sudo sysctl net.inet.carp.demotion=-240: >>>>> >>>>> (dmesg): >>>>> carp: demoted by -240 to 0 (sysctl) >>>>> carp: 11@vlan11: BACKUP -> MASTER (preempting a slower master) >>>>> >>>>> I guess this is because it takes some time for lagg/lacp to converge and >>>>> thus carp thinks that there is a problematic condition as it experiences >>>>> problems with sending announcements.. >>>>> >>>>> What it the best way to handle this? >>>> >>>> I'm wondering if setting net.inet.carp.senderr_demotion_factor to "0" >>>> could be a solution? Are there any downsides of setting this to "0" >>>> instead of "240"? >>>> >>> >>> Sharing your pf.conf from both hosts could be helpful analyzing the issue. >> >> Here is my pf.conf (it's the same on both host): >> https://gist.github.com/silenius/b758851f03c28ef8caaa53cfe381c455 >> >> However, I don't think pf is the issue here, the problem is that there >> is a slight delay when LAGG/LACP converge and thus CARP increase the >> demotion counter by net.inet.carp.senderr_demotion_factor (240). > > I can confirm that after setting net.inet.carp.senderr_demotion_factor=0 > (instead of 240) it works as expected. >
Cool, thanks for posting the solution. I don’t think I ever used CARP with lagg (usually I had redundant firewalls with CARP and servers using lagg connected to both of them). Cheers, Michael >> >>> >>> -m >>> >>> >> >> -- >> Julien Cigar >> Belgian Biodiversity Platform (http://www.biodiversity.be) >> PGP fingerprint: EEF9 F697 4B68 D275 7B11 6A25 B2BB 3710 A204 23C0 >> No trees were killed in the creation of this message. >> However, many electrons were terribly inconvenienced. >> _______________________________________________ >> freebsd-net@freebsd.org mailing list >> https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-net >> To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-net-unsubscr...@freebsd.org" > > -- > Julien Cigar > Belgian Biodiversity Platform (http://www.biodiversity.be) > PGP fingerprint: EEF9 F697 4B68 D275 7B11 6A25 B2BB 3710 A204 23C0 > No trees were killed in the creation of this message. > However, many electrons were terribly inconvenienced. _______________________________________________ freebsd-net@freebsd.org mailing list https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-net To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-net-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
