Now, i came up with the following: when using pppoe kernel support, should i use the pppoe interface or the "real/physical" interface?
thanks in advance. On 8/9/06, Ryan McBride <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Tue, Aug 08, 2006 at 12:33:23PM +0200, Henning Brauer wrote: > > Why the carp "interface" cannot be used in context of the interface? > > well, because it is that way. Because of the way that the routing currently works, if both the carpdev 'physical' interface and the carp interfaces have addresses on the same subnet, incoming traffic to the carp address will appear on the carp interface, while outgoing traffic will appear on the physical interface. This causes some confusion for PF in the case of interface-bound states, and perhaps some other situations. If there is no address on the same segment on the physical interface, both directions of traffic traverse the carp interface. Rather than try to explain that you need some kind of hacked up workaround in case A (which gets easier with interface groups, but probably would need some code changes to be really useable), and a different approach for case B, we decided to make all traffic appear on the physical interface. It's a single case to remember, and the behaviour is consistent. We may have the opportunity to fix this behaviour in the future, as changes are made to the routing code, and changes are being contemplated for CARP routing behaviour. But for now, henning is correct. "Because it is that way".
