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
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,
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
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
#
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"?
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
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
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
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.
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
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)
Each host has two IPv4 carp interfaces, all on one interface (carp0 and
carp1), and host C has an additional carp2 with only an IP
11 matches
Mail list logo
