[nycbug-talk] ucarp question

[Yarema]

--On Wednesday, September 20, 2006 10:12 AM -0400 Isaac Levy 
<ike at lesmuug.org> wrote:

> On Sep 20, 2006, at 9:38 AM, Jeff Quast wrote:
>
>> On 9/20/06, Yarema <yds at coolrat.org> wrote:
>>>
>>> But I think the main advantage of ucarp over carp(4) is
>>> that you can do whatever you need in the up/down scripts.
>>> carp(4) does not have this type of flexibility.
>>>
>>
>> Of course not. Thats what ifstated(8) is for!
>
> That's a new-ish OpenBSD thing?  Sounds interesting...
>
> For the record, just looked it up:
> http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/man.cgi?
> query=ifstated&apropos=0&sektion=0&manpath=OpenBSD+3.9&format=html
> -or-
> http://tinyurl.com/nc9ud
>
> Hrm.... Niiiiice.

ifstated(8) does seem very nice.  I suppose on the FreeBSD side of the 
fence we might be able to hack something similar with net-snmp, but that's 
far more complex.

Actually the issue where ucarp vs. carp(8) makes a difference is that with 
carp(4) one ends up with the same IP nets being assigned to more than one 
interface -- the physical interface and the virtual carp(4) interface. 
This gets in the way running dhcpd(8).  Using ucarp should help get around 
this by keeping all the IP addresses on the same physical interface.

-- 
Yarema
http://yds.CoolRat.org/