From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Tim Pushor wrote: > > Steve Glaus wrote: > >> > >> Ok, I gotcha, trunk just looked like a ready mad solution > for what I > >> was trying to do... Could you tell me WHY it's not able to be used > >> for that and what it is for? > >> I've gone the pf route before to but it seems to add a lot of > >> complexity to my ruleset > >> > > trunk(4) is mainly used to provide redundancy or performance > > enhancement on the same network. I was using it to provide switch > > redundancy by putting one cable in one switch, one in the > other, and > > the switches connected together. If I lose a switch, it > keeps chugging > > along. > > > > > Alright. Just so I understand.. COULD it be used to do what > I'm trying to do? When you trunk two network interfaces > together, are they adressless? Do the devices on the switch > address the IP of the pseudo trunk interface?
Trunk(4) provides link redundancy. Say you had a NIC on a box cabled into a switch. That switch port dies, your box falls off the network. Introduce trunk, now you have two NICs in your box, cabled to two switch ports. One port dies (or one NIC); you have a redundant link to the switch and your box stays online. Read the manual and you'll find it has other uses as well (e.g. thoughput aggregation traditionally) but what you described is really not what it would be. Your word was "routing", which is certainly not what it does (higher in the stack than trunk(4).) DS
