Oh. Duh. That makes perfect sense... I can't test it until tomorrow morning but that solves all the problems, I think. -Adam
Chris Cappuccio <ch...@nmedia.net> wrote: >Adam Thompson [athom...@athompso.net] wrote: >> >> Well, you could - perhaps - flip this on its head. Instead of changing BGP, >> what about forcing one router to be the master (via advbase/advskew), >> advertising a lower BGP preference (probably by using both localpref for >> iBGP and path prepending for eBGP) from the slave, using pfsync (default, >> not defer) to sync the state tables, and simply assuming that if the slave >> becomes the master it's because the master is dead, so losing a few packets >> isn't the end of the world? > >If you're talking about eBGP..or even iBGP for that matter, an interesting >way to go could be: > >Two BGP sessions from different IPs (no CARP) >BGP next-hop pointing to CARP-protected IP
