Hi,
I'm testing the pfSense CARP configuration on version
BETA3-PLUS-11548-PLUS-11567. Everything seems working fine exept that
both machines in the carp cluster is master. It's like the preemption
weren't enabled. In this version this option is missing in GUI setup
and supposed to be set by defa
> -Original Message-
> From: Ispanovits Imre [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Thursday, May 04, 2006 2:15 PM
> To: support@pfsense.com
> Subject: [pfSense Support] CARP preemption
>
>
> Hi,
>
> I'm testing the pfSense CARP configuration on version
> BETA3-P
Title: RE: [pfSense Support] CARP preemption
Are you using a dedicated interface for CARP sync?
-Original Message-
From: Ispanovits Imre [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Thursday, May 04, 2006 7:15 AM
To: support@pfsense.com
Subject: [pfSense Support] CARP preemption
Hi
On Thu, 4 May 2006 07:54:27 -0500
"Ebay" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Are you using a dedicated interface for CARP sync?
>
Yes of course.
--
Skype: ispanovits_imre
This is Linux Land.
In silent nights you can hear the windows machines rebooting
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
On Thu, 4 May 2006 15:10:16 +0200
"Holger Bauer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Even with preemption disabled you should not have 2 masters. A disabled
> preemption only means you more or less have a randomly chosen master and
> another node will become master only if the original master fails. You
Check the archives, others have had this problem and it ended up being
connectivity issues from a switch.
On 5/4/06, Ispánovits Imre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Thu, 4 May 2006 15:10:16 +0200
"Holger Bauer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Even with preemption disabled you should not have 2 maste
I can confirm Scott's words - I was one of the people with the problem.
My results where exactly the same as you are seeing (except mine was only on
one interface). Carp multicasts stuff on the interface at regualr intervals
and expects to see multicasts from the other system coming in. It is
On Thu, 4 May 2006 18:55:13 +0100
Peter Curran <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I can confirm Scott's words - I was one of the people with the problem.
>
> My results where exactly the same as you are seeing (except mine was only on
> one interface). Carp multicasts stuff on the interface at regual
Ispánovits Imre wrote:
In my case there is no switch between the two CARP boxes, but a Xover
cable. But I can suspect the cards, which are old 3Com ISA bus cards
That's probably why it's called "the road to dISAster"
Rainer
On Thu, 4 May 2006 11:20:29 -0400
"Scott Ullrich" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Check the archives, others have had this problem and it ended up being
> connectivity issues from a switch.
>
I will check the cards (they are linked with
a crossover cable).
Thanks
Imre
signature.asc
Description: P
On Thu, 04 May 2006 21:07:48 +0200
Rainer Duffner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Ispánovits Imre wrote:
> >
> > In my case there is no switch between the two CARP boxes, but a Xover
> > cable. But I can suspect the cards, which are old 3Com ISA bus cards
> >
> >
>
>
> That's probably why it's c
Have you added allow all rules on the pfsync interfaces?
On 5/4/06, Ispánovits Imre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Thu, 04 May 2006 21:07:48 +0200
Rainer Duffner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Ispánovits Imre wrote:
> >
> > In my case there is no switch between the two CARP boxes, but a Xover
> >
On Thu, 4 May 2006 15:46:12 -0400
"Scott Ullrich" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Have you added allow all rules on the pfsync interfaces?
>
Yes, I did.
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
On 5/4/06, Ispánovits Imre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Thu, 4 May 2006 15:46:12 -0400
"Scott Ullrich" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Have you added allow all rules on the pfsync interfaces?
>
Yes, I did.
What about the switch where both the wan and lan interfaces plug into?
They also need to b
On Thu, 4 May 2006 17:36:05 -0400
"Scott Ullrich" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> What about the switch where both the wan and lan interfaces plug into?
> They also need to be able to communicate with each other directly.
>
The WAN's are plugged into Cisco routers (SOHO series provided by the ISP
On Fri, 5 May 2006 09:18:01 +0200
Ispánovits Imre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, 4 May 2006 17:36:05 -0400
> "Scott Ullrich" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > What about the switch where both the wan and lan interfaces plug into?
> > They also need to be able to communicate with each othe
On 5/5/06, Ispánovits Imre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The WAN's are plugged into Cisco routers (SOHO series provided by the ISP).
> On the LAN there are several switches and also on the DMZ. But how could
> affect wan, lan or dmz interface the fully isolated interface used for carp
> synchron
On Fri, 5 May 2006 11:18:52 -0400
"Scott Ullrich" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 5/5/06, Ispánovits Imre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > The WAN's are plugged into Cisco routers (SOHO series provided by the
> > > ISP).
> > > On the LAN there are several switches and also on the DMZ. But how c
t: Re: [pfSense Support] CARP preemption
On Fri, 5 May 2006 11:18:52 -0400
"Scott Ullrich" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 5/5/06, Ispánovits Imre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > The WAN's are plugged into Cisco routers (SOHO series provided by the
>
On Fri, 5 May 2006 19:25:24 +0200
Ispánovits Imre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, 5 May 2006 11:18:52 -0400
> "Scott Ullrich" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > On 5/5/06, Ispánovits Imre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > The WAN's are plugged into Cisco routers (SOHO series provided by the
On Mon, 8 May 2006 19:49:52 +0200
Ispánovits Imre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, 5 May 2006 19:25:24 +0200
> Ispánovits Imre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > On Fri, 5 May 2006 11:18:52 -0400
> > "Scott Ullrich" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > On 5/5/06, Ispánovits Imre <[EMAIL PROTEC
21 matches
Mail list logo
