Post your config files and you will be more likely to get correct answers, otherwise it is more of a guessing game.
-----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, October 22, 2008 10:24 PM To: misc@openbsd.org Subject: load balanced carp and local routes Greetings list. I have a set of four load-balanced carp servers. Here are there hostname.carp files: box1: inet 10.104.72.0 255.255.224.0 NONE carpdev em0 balancing ip-stealth carpnodes 1:0,2:100,3:100,4:100 box2: inet 10.104.72.0 255.255.224.0 NONE carpdev em0 balancing ip-stealth carpnodes 1:100,2:0,3:100,4:100 box3: inet 10.104.72.0 255.255.224.0 NONE carpdev em0 balancing ip-stealth carpnodes 1:100,2:100,3:0,4:100 box4: inet 10.104.72.0 255.255.224.0 NONE carpdev em0 balancing ip-stealth carpnodes 1:100,2:100,3:100,4:0 We notice that the first box (or whichever box holds vhid 1, advskew 0) has the following route: 10.104.72.0 10.104.72.0 UH 0 4 - carp0 Thus when box1 pings the carp IP, it responds to itself and none of the other carp hosts sees the traffic. This behavior is expected, and useful to us. The other three boxes however do not have this route, possessing instead a route for the carp IP that points to em0: 10.104.72.0 00:00:5e:00:01:01 UHLc 1 27000 - em0 When one of the other three boxes attempts to ping the carp IP all four boxes sees the traffic and none of them responds. This behaviour is neither expected, nor useful to us. So my question is, what is carp thinking in this configuration? Am I wrong to expect that all four load balanced carp hosts should contain a local route to the carpdev for a shared carp IP? Why would vhid1,advskew0 be different than the other three? Thanks in advance. --dave josephsen [demime 1.01d removed an attachment of type application/pgp-signature]
