Re: More ramblings from the annoying route engine guy...
Matthew Dillon 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
Hi, would this not be covered fairly well by a combination of Link
Aggregation (802.ad) Spanning Tree along with carp. That way you have
your 4 gige ports in a aggregate group with a second redundant aggregate
group for failover. Then having another layer of failover with carp, or
something along those lines. It would need some modifications to the
code but i think less than the schema you envisage.
Pete
討論串 (同標題文章)
完整討論串 (本文為第 6 之 7 篇)：