<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" version="2.0"><channel><title><![CDATA[Configurar Carp com 2 links mais 1 switch]]></title><description><![CDATA[<p dir="auto">Boa dia pessoal,</p>
<p dir="auto">Gostaria de saber se consigo configurar CARP com dois links mais um switch ou preciso de 4 links.  Segue as informações.</p>
<p dir="auto">Meu cenário hoje:</p>
<p dir="auto">link embratel–-----<br />
      10Mbps          |_____________</p>
<p dir="auto">pfsense  --- switch lan<br />
                              _____________<br />
                            |<br />
link GVT-------------<br />
    10 Mbps</p>
<ul>
<li>3 placas de rede ( 2 wan e 1 lan)</li>
<li>configurado balanceamento e failover.</li>
</ul>
<p dir="auto">Gostaria de manter o atual cenário, pois não posso perde desempenho da internet.  Preciso configurar redundância (carp) do meu firewall, caso meu servidor pare de funcionar automaticamente a outra máquina assume.</p>
<p dir="auto">Minha duvida é a seguinte, nesse caso preciso contratar mais dois links ou posso adicionar um switch entre o meu link e o pfsense?  Acredito se colocar um switch vai dar duplicidade nos IPs.Qual cenário é o correto 1 ou 2?</p>
<p dir="auto">Cenário 1<br />
link embratel---------<br />
                              |_____________<br />
                                                        pfsense 1<br />
                                _____________<br />
                              |<br />
link GVT---------------<br />
                                                        |_____________<br />
                                                                switch LAN<br />
                                                          _____________<br />
                                                        |<br />
comprar novo link                            |<br />
                          |_____________<br />
                                          pfsense 2<br />
                            _____________      <br />
                            |<br />
comprar novo link</p>
<p dir="auto">Cenário 2<br />
link embratel-                                                ____ pfsense 1<br />
                    |_____________  __________|<br />
                                                  __________|<br />
                                            switch<br />
                      ________________________   <br />
                    |                          __________|____pfsense 2<br />
link GVT--------</p>
<p dir="auto">Obrigado</p>
]]></description><link>https://forum.netgate.com/topic/76166/configurar-carp-com-2-links-mais-1-switch</link><generator>RSS for Node</generator><lastBuildDate>Sun, 07 Jun 2026 08:47:17 GMT</lastBuildDate><atom:link href="https://forum.netgate.com/topic/76166.rss" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/><pubDate>Mon, 24 Nov 2014 10:44:10 GMT</pubDate><ttl>60</ttl><item><title><![CDATA[Reply to Configurar Carp com 2 links mais 1 switch on Thu, 27 Nov 2014 14:29:44 GMT]]></title><description><![CDATA[<p dir="auto">Boa leitura, abaixo texto da documentação oficial que tenho da subscrição gold.<br />
Boa leitura</p>
<p dir="auto">Layer 2 Redundancy<br />
The diagrams earlier in this chapter did not describe layer 2 (switch) redundancy, to avoid throwing<br />
too many concepts at readers simultaneously. Now that you have an understanding of hardware<br />
redundancy with pfSense, this section covers the layer 2 design elements you should consider when<br />
planning a redundant network. This chapter assumes a two system deployment, though this scales to<br />
as many installations as you require.<br />
If both your redundant pfSense systems are plugged into the same switch on any interface, that switch<br />
becomes a single point of failure. To avoid this single point of failure, the best choice is to deploy two<br />
switches for each interface (other than the dedicated pfsync interface).<br />
The Routed IPs diagram is network-centric, not showing the switch infrastructure. The Figure 25.12,<br />
“Diagram of HA with Redundant Switches” illustrates how that environment looks with a redundant<br />
switch infrastructure.</p>
<p dir="auto">Switch Configuration<br />
When using multiple switches, you should interconnect them. As long as you have a single connection<br />
between the two switches, and do not bridge on either of the firewalls, this is safe with any type of<br />
switch. Where using bridging, or where multiple interconnections exist between the switches, care<br />
must be taken to avoid layer 2 loops. You will need a managed switch that is capable of using Spanning<br />
Tree Protocol (STP) to detect and block ports that would otherwise create switch loops. When using<br />
STP, if an active link dies, e.g. switch failure, then a backup link can automatically be brought up<br />
in its place.<br />
In pfSense 2.0 and higher, support also exists for lagg(4) link aggregation and link failover interface<br />
which will allows you to have multiple network interfaces plugged into one or more switches for<br />
increased fault tolerance. See the section called “LAGG (Link Aggregation)” for more information<br />
on configuring link aggregation.<br />
Host Redundancy<br />
It is more difficult to obtain host redundancy for your critical systems inside the firewall. Each system<br />
could have two network cards and a connection to each group of switches using Link Aggregation<br />
Control Protocol (LACP) or similar vendor-specific functionality. Servers could also have multiple<br />
network connections, and depending on the OS you may be able to run CARP on a set of servers so<br />
that they would be redundant as well. Providing host redundancy is more specific to the capabilities<br />
of your switches and your server operating system, which is outside the scope of this book.<br />
Other Single Points of Failure<br />
When trying to design a fully redundant network, there are many single points of failure that sometimes<br />
get missed. Depending on the level of uptime you are hoping to achieve, there are more and more<br />
things to consider than a simple switch failure. Here are a few more examples for redundancy on a<br />
wider scale:<br />
• Each redundant segment should have isolated power.<br />
Firewall Redundancy /<br />
High Availability<br />
487<br />
• Redundant systems should be on separate breakers.<br />
• Use multiple UPS banks/generators.<br />
• Use multiple power providers, entering opposite sides of the building where possible.<br />
• Even a Multi-WAN configuration is no guarantee of Internet uptime.<br />
• Use multiple Internet connection technologies (DSL, Cable, T1, Fiber, Wireless).<br />
• If any two carriers use the same pole/tunnel/path, they could both be knocked out at the same time.<br />
• Have backup cooling, redundant chillers or a portable/emergency air conditioner.<br />
• Consider placing the second set of redundant equipment in another room, another floor, or another<br />
building.<br />
• Have a duplicate setup in another part of town or another city. Why buy one when you can buy<br />
two for twice the price?<br />
• I hear hosting is cheap on Mars, but the latency is killer.</p>
]]></description><link>https://forum.netgate.com/post/498009</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://forum.netgate.com/post/498009</guid><dc:creator><![CDATA[jvicente]]></dc:creator><pubDate>Thu, 27 Nov 2014 14:29:44 GMT</pubDate></item><item><title><![CDATA[Reply to Configurar Carp com 2 links mais 1 switch on Thu, 27 Nov 2014 14:21:59 GMT]]></title><description><![CDATA[<p dir="auto"><a class="plugin-mentions-user plugin-mentions-a" href="/user/fabiomoraes055">@<bdi>fabiomoraes055</bdi></a>:</p>
<blockquote>
<p dir="auto">Boa dia pessoal,</p>
<p dir="auto">Gostaria de saber se consigo configurar CARP com dois links mais um switch ou preciso de 4 links.  Segue as informações.</p>
<p dir="auto">Meu cenário hoje:</p>
<p dir="auto">link embratel–-----<br />
      10Mbps          |_____________</p>
<p dir="auto">pfsense  --- switch lan<br />
                              _____________<br />
                            |<br />
link GVT-------------<br />
    10 Mbps</p>
<ul>
<li>3 placas de rede ( 2 wan e 1 lan)</li>
<li>configurado balanceamento e failover.</li>
</ul>
<p dir="auto">Gostaria de manter o atual cenário, pois não posso perde desempenho da internet.  Preciso configurar redundância (carp) do meu firewall, caso meu servidor pare de funcionar automaticamente a outra máquina assume.</p>
<p dir="auto">Minha duvida é a seguinte, nesse caso preciso contratar mais dois links ou posso adicionar um switch entre o meu link e o pfsense?  Acredito se colocar um switch vai dar duplicidade nos IPs.Qual cenário é o correto 1 ou 2?</p>
<p dir="auto">Cenário 1<br />
link embratel---------<br />
                              |_____________<br />
                                                        pfsense 1<br />
                                _____________<br />
                              |<br />
link GVT---------------<br />
                                                        |_____________<br />
                                                                switch LAN<br />
                                                          _____________<br />
                                                        |<br />
comprar novo link                            |<br />
                          |_____________<br />
                                          pfsense 2<br />
                            _____________      <br />
                            |<br />
comprar novo link</p>
<p dir="auto">Cenário 2<br />
link embratel-                                                ____ pfsense 1<br />
                    |_____________  __________|<br />
                                                  __________|<br />
                                            switch<br />
                      ________________________   <br />
                    |                          __________|____pfsense 2<br />
link GVT--------</p>
<p dir="auto">Obrigado</p>
</blockquote>
<p dir="auto">fabiomoraes055,</p>
<p dir="auto">O cenario dois funciona tranquilo.</p>
]]></description><link>https://forum.netgate.com/post/498007</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://forum.netgate.com/post/498007</guid><dc:creator><![CDATA[jvicente]]></dc:creator><pubDate>Thu, 27 Nov 2014 14:21:59 GMT</pubDate></item><item><title><![CDATA[Reply to Configurar Carp com 2 links mais 1 switch on Tue, 25 Nov 2014 12:54:52 GMT]]></title><description><![CDATA[<p dir="auto">Cara, eu utilizo Carp assim:</p>
<p dir="auto">LINK1 - Switch (Ou roteador ligando na porta wan o LINK1) -  Pfsense1<br />
                                                                                        -  Pfsense2</p>
<p dir="auto">LINK2 - Switch (Ou roteador ligando na porta wan o LINK2) -  Pfsense1<br />
                                                                                        -  Pfsense2</p>
<p dir="auto">Obs:  Alguns Provedores (Como GVT e Velox) fornecem um Modem que possui 4 portas LAN, nesse caso vc não precisa de Switch, basta ligar 2 cabos, um no Pfsense 1 e outro no Pfsense2.</p>
]]></description><link>https://forum.netgate.com/post/497432</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://forum.netgate.com/post/497432</guid><dc:creator><![CDATA[victorfmaraujo]]></dc:creator><pubDate>Tue, 25 Nov 2014 12:54:52 GMT</pubDate></item><item><title><![CDATA[Reply to Configurar Carp com 2 links mais 1 switch on Mon, 24 Nov 2014 18:43:15 GMT]]></title><description><![CDATA[<p dir="auto">Cara,</p>
<p dir="auto">Eu não cheguei a testar esta configuração, mas pretendo seguir para ver se dá certo:</p>
<p dir="auto">http://www.pfsense-br.org/blog/2012/04/configurando-o-pfsense-2-0-em-modo-cluster-com-carp/</p>
<p dir="auto">Se conseguir fazer funcionar, avisa a gente!</p>
]]></description><link>https://forum.netgate.com/post/497284</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://forum.netgate.com/post/497284</guid><dc:creator><![CDATA[tibaonline]]></dc:creator><pubDate>Mon, 24 Nov 2014 18:43:15 GMT</pubDate></item></channel></rss>