On Tue, Nov 01, 2011 at 07:31:10PM -0500, David Young wrote:
Considering the function of carp(4), I wonder why it is a kernel
function instead of a user daemon? It seems that you could accomplish
the same thing with a daemon that runs the CARP protocol and
adds/removes a backup interface from a bridge(4) as it is necessary.
In sum, I doubt that carp(4) provides enough utility to justify its
maintenance cost. If there are arguments to the contrary, I am
listening.
FWIW, the solaris equivalent (which is VRRP rather than CARP, for
whatever difference that really makes) does involve a kernel element.
I'm not certain if it is entirely in the kernel or if there's a
userspace element for protocol exchange, but the key point of having a
kernel device and interface is that you can attach config and
processes to a proper interface.