From: kym blair (kymblair@xxxxxxxxxxx)
Date: Mon May 27 2002 - 01:55:48 GMT-3
Nigel,
We do not have to use secondary addresses on our current VLAN interfaces,
but we have set up multiple HSRP groups (hosts in one building use
192.6.15.1 as their default gateway and hosts in another building use
192.6.15.2 as their default gateway). Example:
R1#interface Vlan8
ip address 192.6.15.254 255.255.255.0
standby 8 ip 192.6.15.1
standby 8 priority 115 preempt
standby 9 ip 192.6.15.2
standby 9 priority 110
R2#interface VLAN8
ip address 192.6.15.253 255.255.255.0
standby 8 ip 192.6.15.1
standby 8 priority 110
standby 9 ip 192.6.15.2
standby 9 priority 115 preempt
Actually, our design is a little more elaborately: The Active 8 router is
6509A-MSFC1, the first standby is the 6509A-MSFC2, and the second standby is
the 6509B-MSFC2. The Active 9 router is 6509B-MFSC1, first standby
6509B-MSFC2, second standby 6509A-MSFC2.
This keeps most of the traffic local in both buildings, provides a standby
MSFC in the same switch, and a standby MSFC on the other switch.
Kym
>From: "Nigel Taylor" <nigel_taylor@hotmail.com>
>Reply-To: "Nigel Taylor" <nigel_taylor@hotmail.com>
>To: "ccielab" <ccielab@groupstudy.com>
>Subject: Re: hsrp problem
>Date: Sun, 26 May 2002 23:43:50 -0400
>
>Chenyan,
> My first thought is why would you have this secondary
>address
>configuration requirement. The second line which says "interface vlan8"
>tells me this is a
>catalyst 4000, 5000, 5500, or 6500 switch with a RSM, RSFC, or MSFC. Now
>this begs the question why would you ever need to configure a second
>address. I would have to say if this happens then someone didn't do their
>job. This simply would not make any sense, why? Because it would be easier
>to designate a port in a separate vlan and the create a matching layer
>three
>interface for the segment. In any case I did not think this would work but
>I found this link on CCO with no other references as to how this would be
>implemented.
>
>http://www.cisco.com/univercd/cc/td/doc/cisintwk/ics/cs009.htm#xtocid122336
>"Cisco IOS Software Releases 10.2(9), 10.3(6), and 11.0(2) allow standby IP
>addresses to respond to ping requests. Cisco Software Release 11.0(3)(1)
>provides improved support for the use of secondary IP addresses with HSRP".
>
>Now, in thinking about this I see the possibilities with MHSRP. Does anyone
>have a working environment or tested this in a lab. You would need an
>AGS+,
>3600, RSMs, AS5800 or the 7000 model routers.
>
>Further searching of CCO yielded this result..
>http://www.cisco.com/warp/public/cc/pd/iosw/iore/prodlit/768_pb.htm Well
>sure enough here is a good configuration example. Of course as I noted
>using a router I could see using this configuration, however in a switched
>network it would not make any sense.
>
>Nigel
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "chenyan" <chenyan@deeptht.com.cn>
>To: "ccielab" <ccielab@groupstudy.com>
>Sent: Sunday, May 26, 2002 9:43 PM
>Subject: hsrp problem
>
>
> > A configuration like that:
> > interface Vlan8
> > ip address 192.6.15.254 255.255.255.0 secondary
> > ip address 10.10.8.240 255.255.255.0
> > no ip redirects
> > no ip unreachables
> > standby 8 timers 5 15
> > standby 8 priority 100 preempt
> > standby 8 ip 192.6.15.253
> >
> > My question is what about the client in the network range of
>10.10.8.0/24?
> > What the result os this configuration?
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Thu Jun 13 2002 - 10:59:09 GMT-3