Здравствуйте, freebsd-hackers-request. I think it's not real because of implementation of TCP protocol (ACK numbers and so on). Maybe it's easier to use smthng like CARP to share 1 IP between multiple hosts, PFSYNC to share state tables of PF?
> Send freebsd-hackers mailing list submissions to > freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > You can reach the person managing the list at > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > than "Re: Contents of freebsd-hackers digest..." > Today's Topics: > 1. TCP/IP redundant connections (Artem Kazakov) > 2. Announcement: Devilator 1.0a for FreeBSD (Borja Marcos) > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > Message: 1 > Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2007 23:33:19 +0900 > From: "Artem Kazakov" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: TCP/IP redundant connections > To: "FreeBSD Hackers" <freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org> > Message-ID: > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 > Hello Everyone! > For my research project I'm working on making some network services redundant. > And I have one idea, but I'm not so good and operating system > internals, so could you please tell what do you think. If it is > possible at all. > So, I have two hosts, which are all the same and they have some > network service which I need to make available all the time. This > service has some internal state, which is synchronized over private > connection. And at one time only one of the servers actually works > with clients, the other on is just sitting there and kept > synchronized. > The clients have persistent TCP connections to the server, and in case > of failure they make UDP broadcasts searching for server and then > reconnect. So basically there is no need to use IP-sharing between two > of them. But if the server fails, the client usually notices that > after some time-out (tcp keep alive time out I suppose) which is not > very good in some cases. > So I want to utilize IP-sharing and TCP-connection synchronization > (which is not yet implemented by anyone as far as I know). I want it > in case of failure seamlessly to switch to the other machine. As far > as the internal state is synchronized, if it is possible to > synchronize open connections as well(and all the low level stuff as > packet sequence numbers and so on) it would allow to make switch-over > to the back-up server in a matter of seconds, and the clients would > stay connected. > Is is possible to do so ? And if yes, how difficult would it be for a > person who has solid background in general-tasks programming, but no > experience with low level system programming ? And what are the > possible cave-eats of this approach? > Thank you. > Artem Kazakov. -- С уважением, Алексей Бобок mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _______________________________________________ freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
