From: Nambi Appachigounder (nambi_gct@yahoo.co.in)
Date: Sun Jan 22 2006 - 11:29:20 GMT-3
Hi Nick,
I absolutely have no clue about the behaviour you are
observing.
My response was based on my understanding of HSRP RFC
2281.
This RFC defines the VIP as follows.
On a particular LAN, multiple hot standby groups may
coexist and
overlap. Each standby group emulates a single virtual
router. For each standby group, a single well-known
MAC address is allocated to the group, as well as an
IP address. The IP address SHOULD belong to the
primary subnet in use on the LAN, but MUST differ from
the addresses allocated as interface addresses on all
routers and hosts on the LAN, including virtual IP
addresses assigned to other HSRP groups.
http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc2281.html
Regards,
Nambi
--- Nick <seajay76@nate.com> wrote:
> Thank you Nambi!
>
> Unfortunately, when I configured the HSRP in that
> way below.
>
> I didn't encounter any error messages.
>
> However, I can reproduce it in the lab. It may take
> some time though.
>
> I'll post the result on the GS.
>
> Thank you again.
>
> Regards,
> Nick
>
> P.S. I'v never read any RFC before. Think it's time
> to read one :)
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Nambi Appachigounder" <nambi_gct@yahoo.co.in>
> To: "Nick" <seajay76@nate.com>; "Cisco
> certification" <ccielab@groupstudy.com>
> Sent: Sunday, January 22, 2006 9:51 PM
> Subject: Re: Question for Nambi~~~ VRRP vs Standby--
> ReallY??
>
>
> > Hi Nick,
> >
> > AFAIK HSRP will not allow us to use the interface
> > address as Virtual IP.It is very surprising that
> you
> > are able to do this.
> > Can you please shut/no shut e0/0 of R4 and see if
> you
> > see any error message.This may be the reason why
> you
> > get the duplicate address problem.
> >
> > In VRRP duplicate address problem will not
> occur.The
> > protocol itslef is designed like that.Please check
> > Section 4.1 of RFC 2338.
> > Also in VRRP you can track an interface with the
> track
> > object command.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Nambi.
> > --- Nick <seajay76@nate.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Hi, Nambi!
> >>
> >> Thank you for your explanation.
> >>
> >> In fact, I was able to CONFIGURE the virtual IP
> with
> >> the interface IP in HSRP configuration.
> >>
> >> Following are the configurations;
> >>
> >>
> >> LINK1 LINK2
> >> | |
> >> | |
> >> (s0/0) (s0/0)
> >> R4 R5
> >> (e0/0) (e0/0)
> >> +-----------+
> >>
> >>
> >> R4
> >>
> >> int s0/0
> >> desc ## LINK1 ##
> >> ip add 4.0.0.1 255.255.255.0
> >> !
> >> int e0/0
> >> ip add 10.0.0.1 255.255.255.0
> >> standby ip 10.0.0.1
> >> standby priority 110
> >> standby track serial 0/0 50
> >> standby preempt
> >>
> >> R5
> >>
> >> int s0/0
> >> desc ## LINK2 ##
> >> ip add 5.0.0.1 255.255.255.0
> >> !
> >> int e0/0
> >> ip add 10.0.0.2 255.255.255.0
> >> standby ip 10.0.0.1
> >> standby preempt
> >>
> >> But, here when I tried kill the s0/0 on R4, and
> both
> >> the routers showed
> >>
> >> the duplicate ARP messages for 10.0.0.1.
> >>
> >> So, if I can set the VIP with the physical
> interface
> >> IP,
> >>
> >> does it mean the VRRP can prevent the ARP dup
> >> problem?
> >>
> >> Since the VRRP doesn't support the "track"
> feature,
> >>
> >> it seems there,anyway, would be only one
> situation
> >> when R4 takes the active role,
> >>
> >> which is R4 e0/0 failure.
> >>
> >> Would give me some help on this??
> >>
> >> Regards,
> >> Nick
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> ----- Original Message -----
> >> From: "Nambi Appachigounder"
> <nambi_gct@yahoo.co.in>
> >> To: "Nick" <seajay76@nate.com>;
> >> <ccielab@groupstudy.com>
> >> Sent: Sunday, January 22, 2006 4:56 PM
> >> Subject: Re: VRRP vs Standby-- ReallY??
> >>
> >>
> >> > Yes.Lets say the address assignment is as
> follows.
> >> > R4 => 10.0.0.1/8
> >> > R5 => 10.0.0.2/8
> >> > End host => 10.0.0.3/8
> >> >
> >> > We need to configure VRRP on R4 and R5 with the
> >> > statement "vrrp 10 ip 10.0.0.1".In the end host
> >> you
> >> > need to give the gateway address as
> >> "10.0.0.1".Even if
> >> > R4 fails R5 will respond to packets sent to
> >> 10.0.0.1
> >> >
> >> > I think we don't need to bother abt IRDP when
> we
> >> go
> >> > for HSRP/VRRP.
> >> > To overcome the inefficiencies with Proxy ARP
> and
> >> IRDP
> >> > we chose HSRP/vrrp.Please correct me otherwise.
> >> >
> >> > Regards,
> >> > Nambi.
> >> > --- Nick <seajay76@nate.com> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> Wow, I didn't know that.
> >> >>
> >> >> Then, if requirements are like following, the
> >> >> solution would be to configure VRRP!!
> >> >>
> >> >> Requirement
> >> >> (1) Configure gateway redundancy so that
> clients
> >> in
> >> >> VLAN X can use R4 as a primary default
> gateway,
> >> >> and R5 in case of failure of R4.
> >> >>
> >> >> (2) The clients don't support IRDP.
> >> >>
> >> >> Am I right??
> >> >>
> >> >> Regards,
> >> >> Nick
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> ----- Original Message -----
> >> >> From: "Nambi Appachigounder"
> >> <nambi_gct@yahoo.co.in>
> >> >> To: "Scott Morris" <swm@emanon.com>;
> >> >> <RIDNEY_M_LAUDIANO.TTSP@ts.tsuneishi.co.jp>;
> >> >> "'Jtheunissen'" <jtheunissen@dodo.com.au>;
> >> >> <ccielab@groupstudy.com>
> >> >> Sent: Friday, January 20, 2006 9:49 PM
> >> >> Subject: RE: VRRP vs Standby
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> > Also in VRRP, VIP can be the same as
> interface
> >> IP
> >> >> but
> >> >> > in hsrp it is not possible.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Regards,
> >> >> > Nambi
> >> >> > --- Scott Morris <swm@emanon.com> wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >> >> Vrrp preempt IS indeed enabled by default,
> but
> >> >> you
> >> >> >> can change the delay if
> >> >> >> you want.
> >> >> >> Tracking was introduced in 12.3(2)T, so if
> you
> >> >> are
> >> >> >> on a 12.4 router, you
> >> >> >> will have that functionality.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Otherwise, it's pretty similar. (No
> >> >> authentication
> >> >> >> by default, unlike HSRP)
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Scott
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> >> >> From: nobody@groupstudy.com
> >> >> >> [mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com] On Behalf Of
> >> >> >> RIDNEY_M_LAUDIANO.TTSP@ts.tsuneishi.co.jp
> >> >> >> Sent: Thursday, January 19, 2006 9:16 PM
> >> >> >> To: Jtheunissen; ccielab@groupstudy.com
> >> >> >> Subject: Re: VRRP vs Standby
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> and a quick guess:
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> vrrp routers are configured to preempt by
> >> default
> >> >> >> and most importantly it
> >> >> >> has no mechanism to track interfaces
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> "Jtheunissen" <jtheunissen@dodo.com.au>
> wrote
> >> on
> >> >> >> 01/20/2006 09:52:27 AM:
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> ) Just a quick question what is the leading
> >> >> >> difference between VRRP and
> >> >> >> ) Standby options for fault tolerence ?.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> ) Jeff
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> )
> >> >>
> ________________________________________________
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> ) Message sent using Dodo Internet Webmail
> >> Server
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> )
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >
> >>
> >
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Wed Feb 01 2006 - 07:45:50 GMT-3