<html><DIV>
<P>layer 8 politics</P>
<P>layer 9 finance<BR><BR></P></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>>From: Priscilla Oppenheimer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
<DIV></DIV>>Reply-To: Priscilla Oppenheimer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
<DIV></DIV>>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
<DIV></DIV>>Subject: Re: Question on HSRP
<DIV></DIV>>Date: Wed, 07 Mar 2001 10:15:46 -0800
<DIV></DIV>>Received: from [63.104.50.75] by hotmail.com (3.2) with ESMTP id
MHotMailBC6FC87E004FD820F3963F68324B0B6214; Wed Mar 07 10:28:20 2001
<DIV></DIV>>Received: from localhost (mail@localhost)by groupstudy.com
(8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id OAA12655;Wed, 7 Mar 2001 14:29:40 -0500
<DIV></DIV>>Received: by groupstudy.com (bulk_mailer v1.12); Wed, 7 Mar 2001
14:22:16 -0500
<DIV></DIV>>Received: (from listserver@localhost)by groupstudy.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id
OAA11313GroupStudy Mailer; Wed, 7 Mar 2001 14:22:14 -0500
<DIV></DIV>>Received: from gate.ashland.k12.or.us ([208.1.81.242])by groupstudy.com
(8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA11283GroupStudy Mailer; Wed, 7 Mar 2001 14:22:12 -0500
<DIV></DIV>>Received: from [10.32.101.240] by gate.ashland.k12.or.usfor
[EMAIL PROTECTED] KAA13153; Wed Mar 7 10:13:17 2001
<DIV></DIV>>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Wed Mar 07 10:28:43 2001
<DIV></DIV>>Message-Id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
<DIV></DIV>>X-Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
<DIV></DIV>>X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2
<DIV></DIV>>In-Reply-To: <985n0a$j8s$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
<DIV></DIV>>References: <98423i$l2e$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
<DIV></DIV>>Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
<DIV></DIV>>Precedence: bulk
<DIV></DIV>>
<DIV></DIV>>Now, this is the kind of situation the various design certs should test
on!
<DIV></DIV>>&;-)
<DIV></DIV>>
<DIV></DIV>>Regarding your actual question, have you considered a Layer-8 solution?
<DIV></DIV>>Depending on who you talk to, Layer 8 deals with money, politics,
planning,
<DIV></DIV>>etc. My thinking is that you should select a provider that gives you
peace
<DIV></DIV>>of mind regarding resiliency within the provider's network. Howard
talked
<DIV></DIV>>about scope. Worrying about routes failing within your provider's
network
<DIV></DIV>>should be outside your scope. Sure, you might have to pay extra for
this
<DIV></DIV>>"peace of mind." But can you get a service-level agreement that gives
you this?
<DIV></DIV>>
<DIV></DIV>>Now, if your link to the provider dies, then you should be able to
failover
<DIV></DIV>>to the other provider. That much is within your scope. But worrying
about
<DIV></DIV>>routes within your providers' networks should theoretically be outside
your
<DIV></DIV>>scope.
<DIV></DIV>>
<DIV></DIV>>Priscilla
<DIV></DIV>>
<DIV></DIV>>At 09:10 AM 3/7/01, NetEng wrote:
<DIV></DIV>> >Thanks to everyone for the help. My questions have been answered
(for now).
<DIV></DIV>> >What I'm trying to do is; I have multiple remote offices where I
want to
<DIV></DIV>> >create a VPN tunnel across one provider to the corporate office.
In case
<DIV></DIV>> >that the provider goes down, I need to have the second provider
take over
<DIV></DIV>> >(with a new tunnel of course). The fail-over with BGP is the easy
part. The
<DIV></DIV>> >other guy working on this thinks everything should be running in
HSRP, and I
<DIV></DIV>> >don't/didn't think HSRP would allow the stand-by router to become
active
<DIV></DIV>> >with the failure being somewhere in the providers network. I
thought that I
<DIV></DIV>> >could run them in parallel and let a dynamic routing protocol do
the
<DIV></DIV>> >deciding. However, I heard IPSEC breaks routing protocols. I also
heard that
<DIV></DIV>> >you can run them throught a GRE tunnel and not encrypt them. This
is all
<DIV></DIV>> >still theory until we get some equipment in to do the pilot. Has
anyone
<DIV></DIV>> >tried doing this? I'll try this out (track command) and thanks
again for the
<DIV></DIV>> >info.
<DIV></DIV>> >
<DIV></DIV>> >Collin
<DIV></DIV>> >
<DIV></DIV>> >P.S. Priscilla your book rocks.
<DIV></DIV>> >
<DIV></DIV>> >""NetEng"" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote in message
<DIV></DIV>> >98423i$l2e$[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:98423i$l2e$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
<DIV></DIV>> > > Does HSRP work at the interface level or is the entire
router on
<DIV></DIV>> > > acvtive/stand-by? In other words, if I have two routers
working in HSRP
<DIV></DIV>> >and
<DIV></DIV>> > > a link goes down somewhere down the line, will the first
router know to
<DIV></DIV>> > > fail-over to the second router (with a good link)? I have
one router
<DIV></DIV>> > > connected to one ISP and a second router connected to a
second ISP. Can
<DIV></DIV>> > > these routers be run in HSRP or must they be running in
parallel and let a
<DIV></DIV>> > > dynamic routing protocol (BGP on the outside and let's say
EIGRP on the
<DIV></DIV>> > > inside) decide? TIA.
<DIV></DIV>> > >
<DIV></DIV>> > >
<DIV></DIV>> > > _________________________________
<DIV></DIV>> > > FAQ, list archives, and subscription info:
<DIV></DIV>> >http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html
<DIV></DIV>> > > Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<DIV></DIV>> > >
<DIV></DIV>> >
<DIV></DIV>> >
<DIV></DIV>> >_________________________________
<DIV></DIV>> >FAQ, list archives, and subscription info:
<DIV></DIV>> >http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html
<DIV></DIV>> >Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<DIV></DIV>>
<DIV></DIV>>
<DIV></DIV>>________________________
<DIV></DIV>>
<DIV></DIV>>Priscilla Oppenheimer
<DIV></DIV>>http://www.priscilla.com
<DIV></DIV>>
<DIV></DIV>>_________________________________
<DIV></DIV>>FAQ, list archives, and subscription info:
http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html
<DIV></DIV>>Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
<DIV></DIV><br clear=all><hr>Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at <a
href="http://explorer.msn.com">http://explorer.msn.com</a><br></p></html>
_________________________________
FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html
Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
