3 ms·
If you force all links to be conceptually point to point, you probably make it harder to do some things. Already 1G and higher force full duplex, and 100base-TX
by toast0 2y ago
If you force all links to be conceptually point to point, you probably make it harder to do some things. Already 1G and higher force full duplex, and 100base-TX full duplex is very common. I've still got a couple 10baseT half duplex devices though.
I have redundant internet/nat routers at home (overkill!), and they communicate amongst each other to decide which is active and which isn't, but either way, the active one ARPs for the router address with 00-00-5E-00-01-01 as the mac address. The rest of the network just sends off-network packets to 00-00-5E-00-01-01, and failover happens because switches figure out what port is currently using that address.
I share a different mac address for the upstream connection, which is PPPoE (sadly), but same deal --- when failover happens, the new computer starts using the address and everything figures it out, because stations are allowed to move to different ports by design.
- zamadatix 2y agoYou can pretty much 1:1 what you describe in the redundancy case with IP, just replace the "relearn which port the MAC address associated with that IP is on" with "relearn which port the next hop for that IP is on". Things tend to get a little messier than people expect in figuring out the "what values do I use for the point to point links and how do they get assigned" step of things, though there are some clever answers there too.