No - this is not the problem. I have quadruple checked all this and it is consistent and correct.
I have just tried increasing the advertising frequency on the slave, but although it flicked to 'backup' status briefly because of the change, it reverted to 'master' shortly after. I have also tried reversing the sense: ie making the master the slave, the slave the master. The position is the same as it was before, with both systems claiming to be Master. Frustrating! /peter On Friday 24 March 2006 09:32, Amorim, Nuno Alexandre (ext) wrote: > Hello Peter > > I had a similar issue. Verify the netmask of the carp interface. It is the > same has the network. > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Peter Curran [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: sexta-feira, 24 de Março de 2006 0:09 > To: support@pfsense.com > Subject: Re: [pfSense Support] Carp is a bit confused... > > Hi Scott > > On Thursday 23 March 2006 23:00, Scott Ullrich wrote: > > > I have two boxes in parallel, running with Carp used to service 6 > > > addresses in total - 3 on the WAN interface and the remaining 3 spread > > > between 3 internal interfaces. All seems to work OK - when I check the > > > Carp status on FW1 all CARP addresses show up as Master. However, when > > > I check the same on FW2 all addresses except 1 show up as Backup - the > > > odd one out shows up as Master. The logs show 'arp_rtrequest: bad > > > gateway y.y.y.y (!AF_LINK)', where y.y.y.y is the affected Carp address > > > - this seems to occur every few seconds, so I assume that Carp is > > > trying to assert control over the address. Any idea what is wrong? > > > > Is this a vlan? > > No - it is a real interface. The LAN interface is a VLAN, but that seems > to be OK. > > > > My second problem concerns Failover Ipsec. When I check the SAD on the > > > active firewall I see a pair of entries for a live IPsec tunnel, > > > however the same information is not shown on the other firewall. Is > > > this expected behaviour? > > > > SASYNCD is not fully working yet. We need some help in finishing the > > port. So yes. > > OK - what is outstanding on the port (apart from the minor bug in the GUI > and a need for a better way to handle the AES key)? > > /peter > > -- > This message has been scanned for viruses and > dangerous content by MailScanner, and is > believed to be clean. > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
