enabled wrote: > > I didn't mean to scare anyone with the bizarre addressing. > Maybe I went a > little overboard while trying to create an extreme situation.
No problem. ;-) More below... > > I have not done HSRP in some time and I got confused by > likening HSRP peers > to IPSec or ISAKMP peers (where peer IP addresses can be > specified). I had > forgotten about the virtual MAC and ARP. =) > > --------- > Here's what I have: > - 2 sites in the same metro area- A and Z > - Both sites have similar sized links to the same provider. > > Here's the problem I am trying to solve: > 1. Need fail-over, if not load-sharing (most inbound traffic is > headed to A > and it has enough capacity on it's own, so load-sharing isn't > critical). > 2. Both sites to be connected by high speed metro fiber. I am > trying to > decide whether to route or bridge this link. I was told that I > could use > HSRP on the provider routers for fail-over if I bridged and > kept the HSRP > addresses in the same subnet. This could work. But keep in mind that what HSRP does for you is provide redundancy for the host-default gateway link. Sorry to harp on this again, but this will only work if your hosts are on the same subnet also. In other words, if your campus networks at these two sites are all bridged and switched already, then you should be OK with this solution of also bridging across the new high-speed metro fiber. Another option is a routing protocol. Of course, this is free advice based on little data, so be careful with it. ;-) Priscilla > ---------- > > I know this sounds like a job for BGP, but I wanted to explore > all options. > > Thanks, > > Sam > > > > At 09:56 PM 9/10/2002 +0000, you wrote: > >enabled wrote: > > > > > > Is there a rule stating that addresses in a HSRP group need > to > > > be in the > > > same subnet? > > > > > > For example can I have 2 devices with the following > addresses: > > > RouterA: 10.10.10.1 > > > RouterB: 172.16.10.1 > > > HSRP address: 192.168.10.1 > > > >What problem are you trying to solve? Haven't heard that one > in a while!? ;-) > > > >Why would 10.10.10.1 and 172.16.10.1 be offering redundant > default gateway > >services to the same hosts? (Recall that HSRP provides > redundancy for the > >end host-to-default gateway link.) An end host's default > gateway must be on > >the same LAN (broadcast domain, IP subnet) as the end host. > The end host > >ARPs to find the MAC address to send off-net packets to. The > ARP broadcast > >contains the IP address of the default gateway that the host > is searching. > >With HSRP, the active router responds with the "phantom" MAC > address. > > > >Priscilla > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > > Sam > > Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=53127&t=52991 -------------------------------------------------- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
