From: Toh Soon, Lim (tohsoon28@gmail.com)
Date: Sat Sep 08 2007 - 14:56:50 ART
Hi Sadiq,
Yes, preemption is not necessary on the standby router in your case. However
it is required on the active router. I have labbed it as follows:
R5(config-if)#do sh stan bri
P indicates configured to preempt.
|
Interface Grp Prio P State Active Standby Virtual
IP
Fa0/0 1 120 Active local 110.99.50.6 110.99.50.1
R5(config-if)#shut
Sep 9 01:49:27 EDT: %HSRP-6-STATECHANGE: FastEthernet0/0 Grp 1 state Active
-> Init
R5(config-if)#no shut
R5(config-if)#do sh stan bri
P indicates configured to preempt.
|
Interface Grp Prio P State Active Standby Virtual
IP
Fa0/0 1 120 Standby 110.99.50.6 local 110.99.50.1
Without preemption, R5 becomes standby router when it comes back online.
Thank you.
B.Rgds,
Lim TS
On 9/9/07, Sadiq Yakasai <sadiqtanko@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hi guys,
>
> I have been thinking about the same thing for a while now... and this
> is what I have concluded:
>
> If you are not tracking any interface on the Active router, then
> pre-emption is really not needed on both routers I would think. This
> is so because there wouldnt be any situation when the Standby router
> would need to take over anyway, unless the Active router fails
> completely.
>
> See a scenario below pls:
>
> Suppose we have 2 routers:
>
> Active (priority = 120, preempt) and Standby (priority = 100)
>
> I dont have to have preempt enabled on the Standby router because
> there wont be a need for it anyway. When Active fails, Standby takes
> over. When Active comes back up, it takes over. End of story i
> think...
>
> But lets see what someone thinks about this though.
>
> _______________________________________________________________________
> Subscription information may be found at:
> http://www.groupstudy.com/list/CCIELab.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Oct 06 2007 - 12:01:10 ART