Re: More ramblings from the annoying route engine guy...

[Pete <pete@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

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