in the example I gave, from a 7500 router, I believe at the time isl was the only vlan sub-interface mode supported. That was why we did secondary ip's on the interfaces for the ip phones....elsewhere on the campus we use aux vlans and vlan interface with trunks...
Larry Letterman Network Engineer Cisco Systems ----- Original Message ----- From: "MADMAN" To: Sent: Thursday, February 13, 2003 9:36 AM Subject: Re: FW: HSRP question [7:62941] > Vicky Mair wrote: > > true enough....i can just image in the event of a storm (mcast, bcast or > spt > > loop) what would happen on that segment, specially running ip phones ;-) > > then again what you guys are doing could be (a) politically driven (b) > > transition phase. what about using auxvlan if indeed you guys are using ip > > phones. > > > > if my memory serves me correct aren't packets process switched between > > primary and secondaries ? > > Yes by default packets are process switched between secondaries. got > that call a few times, CPU is really busy, only to see all these > secondaries. "ip route-cache same-interface" helps a lot. > > Yes secondaries are often driven by layer 8 issues, networks that > grew out of control, cheezy ways to implement "VLANS" etc... > > Auxvlans are switch specific, at least I'm pretty sure. > > Dave > > > > > > thinking out loud :) > > > > > > regards, > > /vicky > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of > > Larry Letterman > > Sent: Wednesday, February 12, 2003 10:38 PM > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Subject: Re: HSRP question [7:62941] > > > > > > Issues I have with secondary ip address's : > > > > In the sh ip int br command, the 10.x.x.x secondary on the below interface > > does not show up.... > > > > The dhcp request for that interface will advertise out the primary > interface > > not the secondary address, so it is extremely difficult to get the > secondary > > ip address's a dhcp address.... > > > > It adds a lot of overhead to the interface connection tables and hsrp can > > act > > strange > > on certain routers, especially older routers with resource limits... > > > > interface FastEthernet1/0 > > description 590 Brennan St. > > ip address 10.17.212.2 255.255.255.0 secondary > > ip address 171.70.34.3 255.255.255.0 > > no ip redirects > > arp timeout 1740 > > standby priority 105 preempt > > standby ip 171.70.34.1 > > standby track Se6/0/0 > > standby 2 priority 105 preempt > > standby 2 ip 10.17.212.1 > > standby 2 track Se6/0/0 > > hold-queue 150 in > > > > > > sjbrn-gw1#sh ip int br > > Ethernet0/0 192.168.54.131 YES NVRAM up > > up > > FastEthernet1/0 171.70.34.3 YES NVRAM up > > up > > Serial6/0/0 171.68.2.22 YES NVRAM up > > up > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Larry Letterman > > Network Engineer > > Cisco Systems > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Kelly Cobean" > > To: "Larry Letterman" ; "Cisco groupstudy" > > > > Sent: Wednesday, February 12, 2003 7:01 PM > > Subject: RE: HSRP question > > > > > > > >>Larry, > >> Care to elaborate a little on the downside to doing this? We're doing > >>it in our network but I'd love to present some reasons why we shouldn't > > > > and > > > >>start looking at some proper VLAN config's. Right now we have something > >>like 6 class-c networks configured on a single interface of each of our > >>routers. I know it creates a really overpopulated broadcast domain...What > >>else should I be considering? Thanks. > >> > >>Kelly Cobean > >> > >>-----Original Message----- > >>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of > >>Larry Letterman > >>Sent: Wednesday, February 12, 2003 7:31 PM > >>To: MADMAN; CCIE FUN > >>Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >>Subject: Re: HSRP question > >> > >> > >>I have run hsrp on primary and secondary address's and it > >>works.. > >>However , I support Dave's thoughts that I dont like to do > >>it for prduction > >>networks or for long periods of time... > >> > >>Larry Letterman > >>Network Engineer > >>Cisco Systems > >> > >> > >>----- Original Message ----- > >>From: "MADMAN" > >>To: "CCIE FUN" > >>Cc: > >>Sent: Wednesday, February 12, 2003 3:29 PM > >>Subject: Re: HSRP question > >> > >> > >> > >>> Yes you can do this but I wouldn't design a network > >> > >>with secondaries. > >> > >>> Just because you can doesn't mean you should. > >> > >>Secondaries should be > >> > >>>used only for temporary situations, converting ip > >> > >>addresses for example. > >> > >>> have fun > >>> > >>> Dave > >>> > >>>CCIE FUN wrote: > >>> > >>>>Hi all > >>>>I have two routers running HSRP for a network subnet > >>>>lets say for e.g 1.1.1.0/24 on E0 of both the routers. > >>>> > >>>>now can i add secondary address to these routers on > >>>>Interface E0 and also run HSRP for these secondary > >>>>address. > >>>>I want to add about 10 secondary address. > >>>>how will the HSRP config be. Can i run HSRP for > >>>>multiple secondary addresses on these routers. > >>>> > >>>>thanks > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>__________________________________________________ > >>>>Do you Yahoo!? > >>>>Yahoo! Shopping - Send Flowers for Valentine's Day > >>>>http://shopping.yahoo.com > >>>>. > >>> > >>>-- > >>>David Madland > >>>CCIE# 2016 > >>>Sr. Network Engineer > >>>Qwest Communications > >>>612-664-3367 > >>> > >>>"You don't make the poor richer by making the rich > >> > >>poorer." --Winston > >> > >>>Churchill > >>>. > >>> > >> > >>__________________________________________________________ __ > >>. > -- > David Madland > CCIE# 2016 > Sr. Network Engineer > Qwest Communications > 612-664-3367 > > "You don't make the poor richer by making the rich poorer." --Winston > Churchill [EMAIL PROTECTED] Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=62980&t=62941 -------------------------------------------------- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
