OT - Quagga/CARP

[Michael DeMan]

Hi All,

Thanks for the information.

This is a huge problem for me, we badly need redundancy  
capabilities.  I'm surprised something like this hasn't been  
addressed long ago.  I guess a lot of the focus is on SMP and 'big  
servers' and not router/appliance functionality in the newer FBSD  
releases.

Anyway, thanks very much for the information.  I'm going to have to  
figure out some kind of workaround on my architecture.  In the worst  
case, I can shut off OSPF on the edge routers and use static routes  
upstream and OSPF from there, but that is going to be a real  
nightmare for network maintenance over the long haul.

Thanks for the information anyway.  This has been driving me nuts the  
past few months.

- mike

On Mar 16, 2006, at 11:37 AM, Bruce M Simpson wrote:

> On Thu, Mar 16, 2006 at 07:35:20PM +0100, Bart Van Kerckhove wrote:
>> Is this by design, or just lack of time/interest?
>> If anyone feels up to the task of  fixing/implementing what's  
>> needed to make
>> this work, we'd be happy to sponsor its development.
>
> This is a collision between the connected route implicitly created
> by configuring an interface which has the same prefix length as
> an existing route in the FreeBSD FIB.
>
> This is a known issue and is by design.
>
> Most BSD-derived implementations have this limitation. It needs to be
> resolved in preparation for equal-cost multipath.
>
> Sadly whilst I'd be more than happy to work on this (with or without
> funding), I don't have the free time to do so, but I may be able to
> eke out spare time to look at patches.
>
> Regards,
> BMS
> _______________________________________________
> freebsd-net at freebsd.org mailing list
> http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-net
> To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-net-unsubscribe at freebsd.org"
>