Re: managed switches and carp

2005-12-01 Thread Christopher Vance
On Thu, Dec 01, 2005 at 05:53:36PM +0100, Henning Brauer wrote: wow. what fucked up equipment is that? tell us so we can avoid it :) Alloy. We call them 'Annoy'. :-( Anyway, we now appear to have working switches of a different brand. Thanks, all. -- Christopher Vance

Re: managed switches and carp

2005-12-01 Thread Henning Brauer
* Christopher Vance <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005-12-01 06:50]: > My issue is that the managed switches we currently use (chosen before > I arrived...) suppress traffic from 'duplicate' MAC addresses, clamped > for a minimum of 300s. Both fw* think they're master. wow. what fucked up equipment is tha

Re: managed switches and carp

2005-12-01 Thread tony sarendal
On 01/12/05, Christopher Vance <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Thu, Dec 01, 2005 at 08:08:27AM +, tony sarendal wrote: > >> Which managed switch brands behave right with carp, allowing traffic from > >> carp source addresses on multiple ports without duplicate suppression? > > > >"duplicate sup

Re: managed switches and carp

2005-12-01 Thread Christopher Vance
On Thu, Dec 01, 2005 at 08:08:27AM +, tony sarendal wrote: Which managed switch brands behave right with carp, allowing traffic from carp source addresses on multiple ports without duplicate suppression? "duplicate suppression", makes the lack of per-vlan mac-address tables sound like a fea

Re: managed switches and carp

2005-12-01 Thread tony sarendal
> My issue is that the managed switches we currently use (chosen before > I arrived...) suppress traffic from 'duplicate' MAC addresses, clamped > for a minimum of 300s. Both fw* think they're master. > > Which managed switch brands behave right with carp, allowing traffic from > carp source addre