Chuck, You have a knack for finding simple solutions that nobody else has thought of! ;-)
I think it would work to have routers 3 and 4 in your example have a default route to the HSRP address. I can't think of any reason it wouldn't work. The only doc I found that mentioned it was an explanation of why PIM sparse mode doesn't work when doing this, but notice that the doc doesn't say other things won't work: http://www.cisco.com/warp/public/619/hsrpmcast.html Priscilla At 06:35 PM 5/28/02, Chuck wrote: >got to thinking about this for one reason or another. > >fundamentally, we look at HSRP as a means of providing failover from LAN >stations to redundant WAN links, as illustrated: > >wan_link_1 wan_link_2 > | | >router_1 (HSRP MAC/IP) router_2 > |--------------------------------------| > workstations > > > >suppose, however, I have a topology wherein I want downstream routers to >have HSRP protection: > > >wan_link_1 wan_link_2 > | | >router_1 (HSRP MAC/IP) router_2 > |--------------------------------------| > | workstations | > | | > router_3 router_4 > | | >downstream_group_1 downstream_group_2 > >If I were to set the quad zero route to the HSRP address configured for >routers 1 and 2, think this would work? > > >I'm wondering what the implications might be. any thoughts? > >Chuck ________________________ Priscilla Oppenheimer http://www.priscilla.com Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=45308&t=45302 -------------------------------------------------- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
