Re: 5.2 ospfd and carp

2013-03-12 Thread Stuart Henderson
On 2013/03/12 09:27, Claudio Jeker wrote: > On Tue, Mar 12, 2013 at 08:10:12AM +, Stuart Henderson wrote: > > We changed the default state from UNKNOWN to INVALID, but backup is > > still DOWN (which probably needs to stay like that, most things do want > > it to work like this but ospfd is a s

Re: 5.2 ospfd and carp

2013-03-12 Thread Claudio Jeker
On Tue, Mar 12, 2013 at 08:10:12AM +, Stuart Henderson wrote: > We changed the default state from UNKNOWN to INVALID, but backup is > still DOWN (which probably needs to stay like that, most things do want > it to work like this but ospfd is a special case). Still this feels wrong -- at least

Re: 5.2 ospfd and carp

2013-03-12 Thread Stuart Henderson
We changed the default state from UNKNOWN to INVALID, but backup is still DOWN (which probably needs to stay like that, most things do want it to work like this but ospfd is a special case). Claudio Jeker wrote: >On Mon, Mar 11, 2013 at 10:44:21PM +, Stuart Henderson wrote: >> In gmane.os.

Re: 5.2 ospfd and carp

2013-03-12 Thread Kapetanakis Giannis
On 12/03/13 00:44, Stuart Henderson wrote: In gmane.os.openbsd.misc, you wrote: On 09/03/13 14:50, Stuart Henderson wrote: Yes, the routes to carp interfaces in BACKUP are advertised but with a low priority (better to have the route stay in the table, even if it goes to a backup firewall, rathe

Re: 5.2 ospfd and carp

2013-03-11 Thread Claudio Jeker
On Mon, Mar 11, 2013 at 10:44:21PM +, Stuart Henderson wrote: > In gmane.os.openbsd.misc, you wrote: > > On 09/03/13 14:50, Stuart Henderson wrote: > >> Yes, the routes to carp interfaces in BACKUP are advertised but with a > >> low priority (better to have the route stay in the table, even if

Re: 5.2 ospfd and carp

2013-03-11 Thread Stuart Henderson
In gmane.os.openbsd.misc, you wrote: > On 09/03/13 14:50, Stuart Henderson wrote: >> Yes, the routes to carp interfaces in BACKUP are advertised but with a >> low priority (better to have the route stay in the table, even if it goes >> to a backup firewall, rather than have it drop in and out). > >

Re: 5.2 ospfd and carp

2013-03-11 Thread Kapetanakis Giannis
On 11/03/13 16:13, Kapetanakis Giannis wrote: carp8 has the inet address. On backup firewall (10.0.0.3) the setup is similar (except metric 101) correction: even with same metric only the master in advertising. G

Re: 5.2 ospfd and carp

2013-03-11 Thread Kapetanakis Giannis
On 09/03/13 14:50, Stuart Henderson wrote: On 2012-11-16, Matt Hamilton wrote: Hi All, From what I've read previously I've seen that ospfd will advertise routes on carp interfaces that are in the BACKUP state. Is this still the case these days with 5.2? Whilst I'm sure I can do some magic wi

Re: 5.2 ospfd and carp

2013-03-09 Thread Stuart Henderson
On 2013-03-09, Stuart Henderson wrote: > On 2012-11-16, Matt Hamilton wrote: in other news: slrn message sorting confuses me at times. :-)

Re: 5.2 ospfd and carp

2013-03-09 Thread Stuart Henderson
On 2012-11-16, Matt Hamilton wrote: > Hi All, > From what I've read previously I've seen that ospfd will advertise > routes on carp interfaces that are in the BACKUP state. Is this > still the case these days with 5.2? Whilst I'm sure I can do some > magic with ifstated, I just wanted to make su

5.2 ospfd and carp

2012-11-16 Thread Matt Hamilton
Hi All, From what I've read previously I've seen that ospfd will advertise routes on carp interfaces that are in the BACKUP state. Is this still the case these days with 5.2? Whilst I'm sure I can do some magic with ifstated, I just wanted to make sure I'm not solving something that is already fi