Re: More ramblings from the annoying route engine guy...
Joshua Coombs wrote:
> So, I've been slowly making progress getting my route schema working
> within LWIP. This is not the way to learn C. In any case, after
> chatting on #dragonflybsd I found out that many people are
> interested in something that rolls vrrp/carp/etc functionality in
> with loadbalancing, so loosing an interface doesn't drop a box, etc.
> I just happen to have been spending the last few days pounding on
> Extreme's and wonder if their schema could be of use.
>
> Extreme's are an entirely virtual interface driven system. For
> simplicity they call their interface's vlans, although they have
> nothing to 802.1q. IP interfaces are defined by individual vlans.
> These vlans are then bound to one or more physical interfaces. This
> lets you literally bind say, 192.168.1.1/24 to 4 gigabit ports. It
> might be cpu intensive, but instead of layering on carp/vrrp could
> this sort of schema work and allow even greater flexibility?
>
> Joshua Coombs
I think this functionality is called ``etherchanneling'' and it is
provided on a lot of routers. It sounds cool to me, but it's not really
similar to CARP or VRRP, where, for instance, if one machine goes down,
another takes over. I think these two could certainly work hand-in-hand;
assume two routers which are etherchanneling, one goes down and the
other takes over.
I'm not familiar with what route schema you are working on, but I'd be
interested in hearing what you're doing. One thing that would be nice to
have (that Linux and Windows do and we don't) is multipath routing: the
ability to send packets via different routes on different interfaces
either via round-robin or any other applicable algorithm.
I don't know what times you're generally available, but it'd be nice to
talk to you in #DragonFlyBSD about this work :).
Kind regards,
Devon H. O'Dell
討論串 (同標題文章)
完整討論串 (本文為第 2 之 7 篇)：