From: Brant I. Stevens (branto@branto.com)
Date: Wed Jan 05 2005 - 18:08:57 GMT-3
Depending on your persepective (un)fortunately, *nix hosts can gladly accept
multiple default-gateways. In my experience, it has been more of a pain in
the ass than a blessing.
On 01/04/2005 07:04 PM, "Edwards, Andrew M" <andrew.m.edwards@boeing.com>
wrote:
> Ok... So if they're unix based hosts... Can they accept multiple default
> gateways based on availability?
>
> I honestly don't know....
>
> andy
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Brian Dennis [mailto:bdennis@internetworkexpert.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, January 04, 2005 3:08 PM
> To: ccie2be; ccielab@groupstudy.com
> Subject: RE: dhcp default-router vs hsrp [bcc][faked-from]
>
>
> Tim,
>
> If I was the proctor and you asked me that question I would just
> tell you to choose the best solution because there is no clarity needed
> in that task. Here's why. The task didn't say anything about what type
> of hosts are in the VLAN so you can't be certain that they will accept
> two default gateways via DHCP. This means that the ONLY solution you
> can be certain will work for all possible hosts would be HSRP.
>
> Remember to choose the best solution with the information given.
> Don't try to outthink the question and don't add a bunch of "what if's"
> to the question. You'll drive yourself crazy thinking of solutions if
> you do.
>
> Brian Dennis, CCIE #2210 (R&S/ISP-Dial/Security)
> bdennis@internetworkexpert.com
>
> Internetwork Expert, Inc.
> http://www.InternetworkExpert.com
> Toll Free: 877-224-8987
> Direct: 775-745-6404 (Outside the US and Canada)
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: nobody@groupstudy.com [mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com] On Behalf Of
> ccie2be
> Sent: Tuesday, January 04, 2005 1:51 PM
> To: marvin greenlee; ccielab@groupstudy.com
> Subject: Re: dhcp default-router vs hsrp [bcc][faked-from]
>
> Hi Marvin,
>
> Thanks for your response.
>
> Given the difference in funtionality between these 2 methods, is it your
> opinion that in the lab,
>
> if all that is specified is the need for redundancy, we should be bias
> towards using hsrp?
>
> Thanks again, Tim
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "marvin greenlee" <marvin@ccbootcamp.com>
> To: "'ccie2be'" <ccie2be@nyc.rr.com>; <ccielab@groupstudy.com>
> Sent: Tuesday, January 04, 2005 4:45 PM
> Subject: RE: dhcp default-router vs hsrp [bcc][faked-from]
>
>
>> With DHCP, if multiple default routers are provided, it is up to the
> host
> to
>> determine the availability of the gateway, and, if necessary, switch
> to
> the
>> next default. Depending on the hosts' functionality, it may not
> properly
>> determine the availability.
>>
>> By configuring HSRP, you can remove the responsibility for determining
>
>> availability from the host, and let the routers do the work.
>>
>> - Marvin Greenlee, CCIE#12237, CCSI# 30483
>> Network Learning Inc
>> marvin@ccbootcamp.com
>> www.ccbootcamp.com (Cisco Training)
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: nobody@groupstudy.com [mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com] On Behalf
> Of
>> ccie2be
>> Sent: Tuesday, January 04, 2005 1:22 PM
>> To: Group Study
>> Subject: dhcp default-router vs hsrp [bcc][faked-from]
>> Importance: Low
>>
>> Hi guys,
>>
>> In IE lab 13, task 12.3, the requirement was to provide redundancy for
> dhcp
>> clients on a given lan segment -
>>
>> "The default gateway for these hosts should be R6. If R6 is down, R3
> should
>> be the default gateway."
>>
>> My immediate thought was to use the dhcp command, default-router <R6's
> addr>
>> <R3's addr>.
>>
>> But, the SG shows HSRP being configured instead.
>>
>> My question is in the real lab, if there's a similar requirement,
> would
>> either
>> approach be acceptable?
>>
>> I acknowledge that using hsrp is probably better for a couple of
> reasons -
>> faster switchover, works with all hosts - but
>>
>> if I used the default-router command, is that wrong?
>>
>> TIA, Tim
>>
>>
> _______________________________________________________________________
>> Subscription information may be found at:
>> http://www.groupstudy.com/list/CCIELab.html
>
> _______________________________________________________________________
> Subscription information may be found at:
> http://www.groupstudy.com/list/CCIELab.html
>
> _______________________________________________________________________
> Subscription information may be found at:
> http://www.groupstudy.com/list/CCIELab.html
>
> _______________________________________________________________________
> Subscription information may be found at:
> http://www.groupstudy.com/list/CCIELab.html
[GroupStudy removed an attachment of type application/pkcs7-signature which had a name of smime.p7s]
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Wed Feb 02 2005 - 22:10:18 GMT-3