[158451] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: carping about CARP
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Robert E. Seastrom)
Fri Nov 30 09:35:31 2012
To: Henning Brauer <hb-nanog@bsws.de>
From: "Robert E. Seastrom" <rs@seastrom.com>
Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2012 09:35:10 -0500
In-Reply-To: <20121130130827.GB16865@quigon.bsws.de> (Henning Brauer's message
of "Fri, 30 Nov 2012 14:08:27 +0100")
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
Henning Brauer <hb-nanog@bsws.de> writes:
> * Robert E. Seastrom <rs@seastrom.com> [2012-11-30 13:46]:
>> My problem is not with Theo nor with the IETF. My problem is with a
>> crappy and credulous implementation. When an outage is caused by
>> redundancy software that comes from an organization that prides itself
>> on well-written code, the irony meter goes off the scale.
>
> vrrp and carp share the vhid space. you have to use unique vhids per
> network segment, that's about it.
>
> the openbsd box was nice enough to tell you about the mac address
> conflict, the other's didn't.
pfSense is FreeBSD, but who's counting? The problem is magnified when
ill-behaved software ends up in appliances. Good thing we were able
to get a shell on the box.
> if you looked at the carp boxes you had seen that carp had continued
> to work just fine. the mac address (which is basically "fixed prefix +
> vhid) conflict is your "outage". there's nothing we could do about
> that.
>
> and re IANA, they made it clear they would not give us a proto number
> no matter what; we didn't have a choice but to ignore that
> industry-money-driven committee.
Between choosing an Ethernet OUI which was assigned to IANA by IEEE
(another "industry-money-driven committee") and choosing protocol 112
(odds of coincidence 1 in what, 120 or so at the time?), "ignore" is
not the word I would have chosen here.
-r
