From: Kay D (krsna83@gmail.com)
Date: Mon Jul 24 2006 - 10:15:22 ART
Is there a better way of doing MHSRP with Load Balancing in mind
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2 switches cat1 and cat2 ,,,with cat1 connected to servers s1 ,s2 (at
fa0/1,fa0/2)and cat2 connected to servers s3,s4 (at f0/1 , f0/2) . I have
connected servers s1,s2 to cat2
at (fa0/3 , fa0/4) and similiarly i have connected servers s3 , s4 to cat1
's fa0/3 , fa0/4 for redundancy .
Note: All the ports are in one vlan ie vlan 2
Now i am running MHSRP ,
I would like to restrict the number of MHSRP groups to 2 ,where
a.)cat1 is active for GROUP 1(value of 110) AND passive for GROUP 2
b.)cat2 is active for GROUP 2(value of 110) and passive for GROUP 1
Now i track the interface f0/1 at cat1 , if f0/1 is down then i reduce the
priority of group 1 to 90 ,,such that the cat2 would take over as active for
s1
So the question is based on the following ?
i run MSHRP on a vlan 2, and if fa0/1 on cat1 is down then all the traffic
from s2 also would go to cat2 eventhough Fa0/2 is up on cat1 .
if i am running MHSRP on fa0/1 ,2,3,4 routed ports individually ,,,and i
need to run 8 MHSRP groups which needs more processing power , if scale
the number of servers to
a larger number .
So avoiding these disadvantages ,,, is is there another solution ?
Apologies for making it so long
TIA ,
Kay D
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Tue Aug 01 2006 - 07:13:48 ART