Dmitry Golubev wrote:
Hello,
And then bridge these interfaces together? I do not want to use any king of
switch simply to make the card respond for multiple MAC addrs. Moreover
I have seen VLAN probems with some eth cards that cannot work with
1504 byte packets
Well, any good switch (at least Cisco) has spanning tree on so that
such a bridge loop would not actually happen. But no, I mean that only
the 'live' router would have this MAC address. Maybe I don't understand
what you're saying, exactly, but multiple MACs are how things are done
in VRRP anyway. It's just a matter of whether you want multicast MACs
or not.
Anyway, Alexandre claims VLAN solution hacky. Do You use it in production?
I don't use it in production yet -- I'm about to start testing -- but I
got the idea from someone who does use it in production, and seems
quite satisfied that it works well, hacky or not. :) Check out the
Linux Virtual Router Project:
http://www.cs.fiu.edu/~flynnj/work/virtrouter.html
BR, Dmitry
======= At 2002-12-12, 15:05:00 you wrote: =======
Dmitry Golubev wrote:
But as far as I know, there is no VRRP implementations that fully comply
with rfc2338 as it requires multiple MAC addresses for the one poor linux
box's interface. Maybe, someone can suggest a working solution of this
problem?
Yes, there is a way -- the VLAN code in the linux kernel supports
setting the MAC address of virtual interfaces (eth0.5, for instance).
AFAIC, this is much superior (in concept) to multicast MACs, given the
Cisco problem.
I have seen one idea, but haven't tested it yet (hope someone can try it out):
To bridge the physical iface with TAP on which the vrrpd (or keepalived) is
running. In that case we could make the VRRP-router that fully comply with RFC.
For more info see: http://www.math.leidenuniv.nl/pipermail/bridge/2002-June/002021.html
BR, Dmitry
======= At 2002-12-11, 03:56:00 you wrote: =======
The daemon at http://www.keepalived.org/ is the VRRPd implementation
that's supposed to be the best. It's actually part of the Linux Virtual
Server project (layer 4 load balancer), but the author claims you should
be able to use it as a pure VRRP daemon -- although when I've read the
doc, I couldn't figure out how. (But don't be discouraged by my
impatience. :) It's supposed to be the most mature and ready-for-production.
There's also Jerome Etienne's reference implementation (don't have a
URL, but it's easy to Google). However, I've heard from more than place
that this is too proof-of-concept and perhaps not production-worthy.
Here's a link to a paper about running VRRPd as the hotspare protocol
for linux firewalls (uses Jerome Etienne's implementation):
http://www.gnusec.com/resource/security/docs/HAFirewallLinux-VRRP.pdf.
BTW, keep in mind that if you intend to use VRRP in an environment with
Cisco routers, you'll need to do some work on them too. Cisco routers do
not accept multicast MAC addresses as legit ARP replies by default.
Unfortunately, the VRRP RFC and all implementations use multicast MACs.
What that means is that you'll need to either 1) turn the switch on the
Cisco routers that makes them accept multicast MAC ARP replies (good),
or 2) put a static ARP entry in the Cisco routers for the VRRP multicast
MACs (better).
Hope that helps.
-S
Anton Tinchev wrote:
Can someone point me for good VRRPD (rfc2338) implementation on linux.
Some stable and live project
Thanks
_______________________________________________
LARTC mailing list / LARTC@mailman.ds9a.nl
http://mailman.ds9a.nl/mailman/listinfo/lartc HOWTO: http://lartc.org/
_______________________________________________
LARTC mailing list / LARTC@mailman.ds9a.nl
http://mailman.ds9a.nl/mailman/listinfo/lartc HOWTO: http://lartc.org/
_______________________________________________
LARTC mailing list / LARTC@mailman.ds9a.nl
http://mailman.ds9a.nl/mailman/listinfo/lartc HOWTO: http://lartc.org/
