Re: bonding + VLANs
Sven Hartge <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.linux.keepalived.devel |
|---|---|
| Organization | Newsfeed am Wurmloch |
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
Mark Lehrer <[email protected]> wrote: > Robert Sander <[email protected]> wrote: >> Is there a good explanation for this behaviour? > What kind of behaviour are you seeing? I could swear that I have done > this in the past, but it's been a couple of years. > Thinking back a bit, I would have put each VLAN's interface into its > own bridge instead of using the VLAN tagged interface directly. I'll > bet that the VLAN tag names conflict with alias names at some level, > e.g. maybe the ifcfg scripts or even keepalived can't deal with > "eth1.144:vip1" -- but I'll bet a bridge would work. Bridge? What bridge? Robert talks about VLANs on top of bonding interfaces, something like "bond0.123" Grüße, Sven. -- Sigmentation fault. Core dumped. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Download BIRT iHub F-Type - The Free Enterprise-Grade BIRT Server from Actuate! Instantly Supercharge Your Business Reports and Dashboards with Interactivity, Sharing, Native Excel Exports, App Integration & more Get technology previously reserved for billion-dollar corporations, FREE http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=190641631&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk _______________________________________________ Keepalived-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/keepalived-devel