Re: carp + 5.1/5.2 woes [PARTIALLY SOLVED]

2013-01-03 Thread Toni Mueller
Hi, thanks for the insight. On Thu, Jan 03, 2013 at 01:37:38AM +, Stuart Henderson wrote: > On 2013-01-02, Toni Mueller wrote: > >> /bsd: in6_ifloop_request: ADD operation failed for 3ffe:3ffe::0001 > >> (errno=17) > > 17 is EEXIST - see errno(2) for a list of these - there's probably > a

Re: carp + 5.1/5.2 woes [PARTIALLY SOLVED]

2013-01-02 Thread Stuart Henderson
On 2013-01-02, Toni Mueller wrote: > Hi, > > > I have just discovered that I made a configuration error that had > resulted in the undesired, but correct, carp behaviour for IPv4. Ie, > OpenBSD operates as desired for this case. Ah good :) > That leaves these questions open: > > On Wed, Jan 02,

Re: carp + 5.1/5.2 woes [PARTIALLY SOLVED]

2013-01-02 Thread Toni Mueller
Hi, I have just discovered that I made a configuration error that had resulted in the undesired, but correct, carp behaviour for IPv4. Ie, OpenBSD operates as desired for this case. That leaves these questions open: On Wed, Jan 02, 2013 at 01:39:25PM +0100, Toni Mueller wrote: > I also have tro

Re: carp + 5.1/5.2 woes

2013-01-02 Thread Toni Mueller
Hi, On Wed, Jan 02, 2013 at 05:47:23PM +, Stuart Henderson wrote: > On 2013-01-02, Toni Mueller wrote: > > A: 5.1 (IPv4: master) > > B: 5.0 (IPv4: backup) > > C: 5.2 (IPv4: master, IPv6: backup) > > Is this 5.0 release or is it "something close to 5.0"? the (working!) 5.0 machine runs #

Re: carp + 5.1/5.2 woes

2013-01-02 Thread Stuart Henderson
On 2013-01-02, Toni Mueller wrote: > Hi, > > I have a setup with three machines, all i386, and all plugged into > one switch: > > A: 5.1 (IPv4: master) > B: 5.0 (IPv4: backup) > C: 5.2 (IPv4: master, IPv6: backup) Is this 5.0 release or is it "something close to 5.0"?

Re: carp + 5.1/5.2 woes

2013-01-02 Thread Toni Mueller
Hi, On Wed, Jan 02, 2013 at 04:53:02PM +0100, Patrick Lamaiziere wrote: > Le Wed, 2 Jan 2013 13:39:25 +0100, Toni Mueller a > écrit : > > With this setup, carp1 will stay in BACKUP mode when I say "ifconfig > > carp1 advskew 120" on A, while on B, it would go into MASTER > > immediately. > > Hm

Re: carp + 5.1/5.2 woes

2013-01-02 Thread Patrick Lamaiziere
Le Wed, 2 Jan 2013 13:39:25 +0100, Toni Mueller a écrit : Hello, > With this setup, carp1 will stay in BACKUP mode when I say "ifconfig > carp1 advskew 120" on A, while on B, it would go into MASTER > immediately. Hmm, did you check the value of the carp demote counter? # ifconfig -g carp (ju

Re: carp + 5.1/5.2 woes

2013-01-02 Thread Peter Hessler
Doubtful, CARP has not changed protocol for many years. You might be thinking of pfsync, but that is mostly forwards compatible for a couple releases now. On 2013 Jan 02 (Wed) at 15:30:48 +0100 (+0100), mxb wrote: :Yes, this sounds familiar. : :On 2 jan 2013, at 14:37, Mark Felder wrote: : :> D

Re: carp + 5.1/5.2 woes

2013-01-02 Thread mxb
Yes, this sounds familiar. On 2 jan 2013, at 14:37, Mark Felder wrote: > Didn't the CARP protocol change between these releases? I don't think it's compatible. I'm sure someone else will chime in with the details, but I believe I remember reading this on the list.

Re: carp + 5.1/5.2 woes

2013-01-02 Thread Mark Felder
On Wed, 2 Jan 2013 13:39:25 +0100 Toni Mueller wrote: > A: 5.1 (IPv4: master) > B: 5.0 (IPv4: backup) > C: 5.2 (IPv4: master, IPv6: backup) Didn't the CARP protocol change between these releases? I don't think it's compatible. I'm sure someone else will chime in with the details, but I belie