Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Security Operating Systems BSD

OpenBSD's Common Address Redundancy Protocol 36

Posted by timothy from the you-know-my-name-look-up-the-number dept.
Jessie writes "OpenBSD just gained high availability functionality in the form of a new protocol named CARP, the Common Address Redundancy Protocol. This feature was a long time in the coming due to Cisco's patent on VRRP, requiring the development of something completely new and more secure. This article on KernelTrap offers details on OpenBSD's impressive new protocol, from how it works to how it got its name."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

OpenBSD's Common Address Redundancy Protocol More

OpenBSD's Common Address Redundancy Protocol

Comments Filter:
  • The link provided requires a user name / password.
  • My favorite part:

    Marc Balmer wrote:
    > Was the name CARP deliberately choosen? There already exists CARP since 2001, see RFC 3040 (Cache Array Routing Protocol)

    I suggested a different name (same four letters, different order, took a cheap shot at Cisco in the process), but Ryan didn't seem to care for it for some reason. 8)

    BTW, the kerneltrap article renders perfectly in IE, but not Mozilla 1.4?!

  • Please RFC this (Score:5, Insightful)

    by geirt ( 55254 ) on Monday October 20, 2003 @04:34AM (#7258958)
    I understand that Theo and friends are pissed off [google.com] by the IETF, but I really hope that they write an RFC for carp, so that we can have a compatible version for other OSes. Are there any detailed descriptions of CARP on the net yet ?

    • Re:Please RFC this (Score:5, Insightful)

      by gladbach ( 527602 ) on Wednesday October 22, 2003 @12:33AM (#7278679)
      absolutely. Get this into freebsd and linux, and we'd have a true winner on our hands. Yet another killer feature that would allow bsd and linux to continue to take over the enterprise
      • Well, it's really not necessary to RFC the CARP protocol as it will not prevent it from being patented, if that is the case with VRRP. VRRP had been published in RFC form for quite some time(April 1998): Virtual Router Redundancy Protocol [rfc-editor.org] I'm not familiar with the detail regarding Cisco appropriating this protocol, though I though VRRP was developed as an alternate to Cisco's HSRP, and had been included in various competing load balancers(Alteon?), prior to Cisco implementing the protocol(actually prior to p
        • Well, it's really not necessary to RFC the CARP protocol as it will not prevent it from being patented,

          Umm, that isn't the point of standardizing the protocol at all. Creating an RFC defines a standard and reference which other implementors can refer to, and other implementations can claim to support. This is good for everyone, as it should help to improve interoperability. Besides, there needs to be a real description of this protocol written down *somewhere*, so why not make it an RFC, so it can be
    • why should other free operating systems take advantage of CARP? Did anyone care about UltraSparc III chip documentation? No, developers of other operating systems happily signed NDAs - knowing well that no other operating system can take advantage of this infos:

      http://news.com.com/2100-1001-975941.html

      maybe totally intolerant and flameable - I dont represent anyone - but hey: wanna user carp? use penbsd;
  • It's hard to say failure when the top [netcraft.com] 50 uptime websites are all hosted on some variant of BSD. Crazy...

Slashdot Top Deals

Think of it! With VLSI we can pack 100 ENIACs in 1 sq. cm.!

Close