Re: prioritizing carp interfaces

Hi, On Mon, 23.03.2009 at 17:22:55 +0100, Joerg Streckfuss wrote: > In my opinion preemption on both nodes effects that advskew is set to 240 on > all > interfaces and as a consequence there is no host which could advertise faster > then the other host in the carp group. that sounds plauible.

Re: prioritizing carp interfaces

Toni Mueller schrieb: > Hi, > > On Fri, 20.03.2009 at 14:28:46 +0100, Joerg Streckfuss > wrote: >> How does CARP behaves when on the master node two "unimportantly" interfaces >> fail and on the backup node only the uplink interface fails? Does CARP >> failover >> to the backup node and as conse

Re: prioritizing carp interfaces

Hi, On Fri, 20.03.2009 at 14:28:46 +0100, Joerg Streckfuss wrote: > How does CARP behaves when on the master node two "unimportantly" interfaces > fail and on the backup node only the uplink interface fails? Does CARP > failover > to the backup node and as consequence the whole network will be d

Re: prioritizing carp interfaces

> Well, looks interesting, but I didn't try it. It maybe too > complicated, when redundancy need to be as simply as possible. Instead > of this, you can just add another node(s), this is the safest solution, > I think. Well, another node implies two nodes for redundancy. And two independant firewa

Re: prioritizing carp interfaces

> Hi list, > > I have a theoretical question regarding a CARP cluster and many CARP > interfaces > > Assume we have a firewall comprising of two notes, each with 4 or more > interfaces and only one uplink to the internet. The Cluster is in > master/backup mode > > How does CARP behaves when on t

prioritizing carp interfaces

Hi list, I have a theoretical question regarding a CARP cluster and many CARP interfaces Assume we have a firewall comprising of two notes, each with 4 or more interfaces and only one uplink to the internet. The Cluster is in master/backup mode How does CARP behaves when on the master node two "