* ClaudeBrassel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006-10-26 12:44]:
> carp0: flags=8843<UP,BROADCAST,RUNNING,SIMPLEX,MULTICAST> mtu 1500
> carp: MASTER carpdev em0 vhid 1 advbase 1 advskew 100
> groups: carp
> inet 212.xxx.xxx.254 netmask 0xfffffffc broadcast 212.xxx.xxx.255
> ip_interroute="212.xx.xx.253"
> neighbor $ip_interroute {
> remote-as 8928
> descr "peering interroute"
> local-address 212.xxx.xxx.254
> holdtime 180
> holdtime min 3
> announce self
> }
you'll likely want a "depend on carp0" within the neighbor definition
for interroute, but taht is related to your issue.
> bgp1 # bgpctl sh next
> Nexthop State
> 212.xxx.xxx.253 valid
so .253 is the interroute router right?
[ show rib ]
> *> 195.68.0.0/17 212.xxx.xxx.254 100 0 8928 8220 i
please show "route -n get 212.xxx.xxx.253"
also, what release are you on? we fixed some cases where the interface
pointer was missing in messages on the routing socked, and I think that
was post-3.9
> If I delete the carp and bring the em0 with the ip up everything works great
yeah. carp plays fast with routes. and screws up. it fiddles with the
interface route, and that is broken for at least unnumbered interfaces.
ryan and I need to find some time to sit over this together.
nontheless. I have a similar setup with a carp interface to an exchange
point network, and that works just fine - with something close to 4.0.
--
Henning Brauer, [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED]
BS Web Services, http://bsws.de
Full-Service ISP - Secure Hosting, Mail and DNS Services
Dedicated Servers, Rootservers, Application Hosting - Hamburg & Amsterdam
