James Carlson wrote:
Sangeeta Misra writes:
As Jim pointed out in a earlier email, VRRP *as defined* by RFC 3768
only provides HA for forwarder- it would not work for server-type
application. CARP may be different ( not sure yet) . Another issue is
that CARP seems to reuse VRRP's IP protocol number( 112). THis might
affect CARP's deployment in a datacenter scenario where provider's gear
is running VRRP.
I doubt that's a serious problem as both solutions require you to
configure master/slave pairs explicitly.
And there's nothing to stop us from using a completely different
number for CARP as it isn't officially assigned. In addition, it was
deliberately chosen to conflict with VRRP.
Darren
_______________________________________________
networking-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
