Dear all,
I am slightly confused about the config of HSRP. More specifically it is the
client default gateway that is confusing me. I have the following config for
redundant Ethernet on Routers 1 / 2:
interface FastEthernet0/1
ip address 10.254.0.1 255.255.255.0
duplex auto
speed auto
The default gateway of the client should be 10.254.0.103.
DW b6l%s
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] $$ Dear all,
I am slightly confused about the config of HSRP. More specifically it is
the
client default gateway that is confusing me. I have the following config
for
redundant Ethernet on Routers 1
In the case above, is the client gateway going to be 10.254.0.1 (IP
Address
of the Active router), which we are currently using, or is it 10.254.0.103
(HSRP IP Address)...
If clients set default gateway to 10.254.0.1, when that router fails,
HSRP won't be of any use. On the other hand
Clients will point to the HSRP address as their default gw
-Original Message-
From: Marko Milivojevic [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 05 September 2003 13:05
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: HSRP [7:74879]
In the case above, is the client gateway going to be 10.254.0.1 (IP
Address
How do all incoming routes/gateway branchoffice routes look?
Martijn
-Oorspronkelijk bericht-
Van: Robert Kimble [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Verzonden: donderdag 14 augustus 2003 16:57
Aan: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Onderwerp: hsrp and icmp redirects [7:73972]
Ok.
I'll try to explain what
Howdy all,
I have two 6509's with hsrp running between their msfc's.
OSPF is advertising the ip addresses of interfaces of the routers instead of
the virtual ip that I set up in hsrp.
Since hsrp fails over faster than ospf, I was wondering if there is a way to
have ospf advertise the virtual ip
Why would that not make sense?
Message Posted at:
http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7i=74023t=74017
--
**Please support GroupStudy by purchasing from the GroupStudy Store:
http://shop.groupstudy.com
FAQ, list archives, and subscription
delete it from your computer.
-Original Message-
From: Robert Kimble [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, August 15, 2003 9:43 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: hsrp default route in ospf [7:74017]
Howdy all,
I have two 6509's with hsrp running between their msfc's.
OSPF
Because the HSRP virtual IP address is used only by the directly connected
hosts (as a gateway), not by the remote devices that learn the routes via
OSPF.
Thanks,
Zsombor
Robert Kimble wrote:
Why would that not make sense?
Message Posted at:
http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7i
That makes sense.
I managed to find the same answer after doing some reading on Cisco's site.
I appreciate the info.
Thanks Zsombor!
Message Posted at:
http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7i=74026t=74017
--
**Please support GroupStudy by
. Last night I
brought up the second msfc and set up hsrp between the two. everything
worked great here in the office last night. However, this morning our
branch offices had no connectivity to us. My boss went in and turned
off icmp redirects on the vlan interfaces on the second msfc and
everything
Wow.
It must've been a late night last night.
I figured out the problem.
It had nothing to do with icmp.
Thank you!
Message Posted at:
http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7i=73974t=73974
--
**Please support GroupStudy by purchasing from
Ok.
I'll try to explain what happened as best as I can.
We have two 6509's each with an msfc and until last night we were only using
the msfc on one of them.
Last night I brought up the second msfc and set up hsrp between the two.
everything worked great here in the office last night. However
PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, July 28, 2003 12:28 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RES: HSRP + ARP Problem [7:73098]
maybe something in the switch . . .
are both routers active , noone in standby ?
_
Henrique Issamu Terada, CCIE # 7460
IT Support - Open Network
CPM
Bit of a strange one this. We have 2 7206 routers running HSRP that are
support by our telecoms provider. The fast ethernet interface of each is
connected into our 2950 along with a firewall.
From the switch, or firewall, I can ping either of the 'real' ip addresses
but not the virtual address. I
: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Onderwerp: HSRP + ARP Problem [7:73098]
Bit of a strange one this. We have 2 7206 routers running HSRP that are
support by our telecoms provider. The fast ethernet interface of each is
connected into our 2950 along with a firewall.
From the switch, or firewall, I can ping either
Could you debug HSRP for us?
Thought DEBUG STANDBY should do it.
Cisco 7200/7500 with PA-2FEISL
HSRP gets stuck in init state on PA-2FEISL module in 7200/7500.
CSCdr01156 (registered customers only)
software upgrade; see bug for revision details
Reset the interface using the shutdown
Diagram is below.
R1* * *R3
| * FR * |
R2* * *R4
I configured a HSRP between R1 and R2, R3 and R4.
R1,R3 are Active router.(R2,R4 are Standby router)
And I configured standby track in a Wan side of R1,R3.
When I disabled(shutdown the interface) the serial0/0
another 10 for the HSRP holdtimer.
mccloud mike wrote:
I have seen this problem before with frame. LMI being local to
the frame switch means the interface does not go down and
backups routes do not kick in. One way to overcome this is to
monitor layer 2 by using the #8220;frame-relay end
provider
nobody which then on taps into the frame cloud. So consider it alomost like
a
nobody point-to-point link to your local Carrier and then from there you
connect
nobody within the providers Frame Switch into their Frame Relay cloud. Now,
when
nobody you shutdown R1's Wan interface your HSRP
-arp. The
scenario I gave you resolves your issue with HSRP and the UP UP situation
for standby tracking. You want to generate a UP Down situation so you have a
true failover, which your current configuration cannot provide.. at least I
am not aware of another way. The advantage to sub-interfaces
Dear all
I have a question about frame-relay. Network Diagram is below.
R1* * *R3
| * FR * |
R2* * *R4
I configured a HSRP between R1 and R2, R3 and R4.
R1,R3 are Active router.(R2,R4 are Standby router)
And I configured standby track in a Wan side of R1,R3.
When I
you shutdown R1's Wan interface your HSRP failed over fine. The reason that
R3 was showing Up Up was that your circuit to your carrier from R3 did not
go down and it stil exhanges LMI with R3's Physical interface, your PVC
should have been showing INACTIVE at this point though. I would recommend
using
Hi,
Does anyone know if HSRP would be appropriate in the following scenario?
ROUTERA with T1 to corporate office
ROUTERB with IPSEC VPN to Corporate only used as a backup path in case the
T1 on ROUTERA fails
Is there any reason that this will not work or has anyone had experience
..that's what I thought...just needed a sanity check!
Thanks!
MADMAN wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
If router A anb B share an ethernet then sure HSRP was designed
exactly for this scenerio
Dave
Dain Deutschman wrote:
Hi,
Does anyone know if HSRP would be appropriate
If router A anb B share an ethernet then sure HSRP was designed
exactly for this scenerio
Dave
Dain Deutschman wrote:
Hi,
Does anyone know if HSRP would be appropriate in the following scenario?
ROUTERA with T1 to corporate office
ROUTERB with IPSEC VPN to Corporate only used
Hi,
I have a query regarding Extended object tracking used in HSRP.
Scenario:- We have two IPLCs , each connected to an MGX 8850 at each end.
The MGX 8850s have a FRSM card which is connected to Cisco3745 routers
running IOS ver 12.2(15)T, by back to back DTE-DCE cable combination. We
have
Does anybody see an issue setting up HSRP to work with a 3725 and 7206 rtr
or do the routers have to be the same model?
For example,
DS-3 pipe in the 7206
and
4 T-1's in the 3725
T-1's for failover with BGP on all the pipes including ds-3
or would I need either two 7206's or 3725's??
thx
You can do HSRP with different models. Don't need to be the same model of
router.
Robert Perez wrote:
Does anybody see an issue setting up HSRP to work with a 3725
and 7206 rtr
or do the routers have to be the same model?
For example,
DS-3 pipe in the 7206
and
4 T-1's in the 3725
T
Message -
From: Priscilla Oppenheimer
To:
Sent: Wednesday, March 19, 2003 1:37 AM
Subject: Re: Gratuitous ARP and HSRP [7:65633]
ericbrouwers wrote:
It is indeed related to the command use-bia. Here's a section
from the doc
An HSRP router using Gratuitous ARP isn't just related
Hello all,
I've read in the CCNP Switching Exam Cert. Guide that a standby router that
becomes active in an HSRP group, sends a gratuitous ARP to update the ARP
cache of the end stations with the new active MAC address...
This is strange, since the same virtual MAC address is used by active
:25 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Gratuitous ARP and HSRP [7:65633]
Hello all,
I've read in the CCNP Switching Exam Cert. Guide that a
standby router that
becomes active in an HSRP group, sends a gratuitous ARP to
update the ARP
cache of the end stations with the new active MAC
eric,
i can only comment in a limited way and only based on what i have
read. the lower end cisco products (like the 2500's i've been
deploying in remote offices) can only associate one virtual mac address
to an interface and so can only belong to a single hsrp group. if you
have a need
12.0(3.4)T, only one HSRP group is allowed if
usebbia is configured.
Thanks guys,
Eric
- Original Message -
From: garrett allen
To:
Sent: Tuesday, March 18, 2003 6:06 PM
Subject: Re: Gratuitous ARP and HSRP [7:65633]
eric,
i can only comment in a limited way and only based
Eric,
The gratuitous ARP is just to let the switch or bridge know that the port
that the virtual MAC is attached to has changed.
If an existing router is converted to HSRP, then the end stations will
continue to track the real MAC address, not the virtual one. You have to
reboot the end stations
ericbrouwers wrote:
It is indeed related to the command use-bia. Here's a section
from the doc
An HSRP router using Gratuitous ARP isn't just related to switches that have
to use a BIA. Unfortunately, most descriptions of HSRP, including ones I
have written myself, assume two routers
or news.
Priscilla
Priscilla Oppenheimer wrote:
ericbrouwers wrote:
It is indeed related to the command use-bia. Here's a
section
from the doc
An HSRP router using Gratuitous ARP isn't just related to
switches that have to use a BIA. Unfortunately, most
descriptions of HSRP, including
ericbrouwers wrote:
snip
I've
seen instances in the field that ARP caches contained the real
MAC instead of
the virtual MAC address when using HSRP.
One more comment on seeing the router's real MAC address.
It might interest you to know that, at least on my routers, the ARP reply
from
Hi group,
Let me apologise first for forwarding this stupid question as a
networking engineer. But i need you guy's answers just to show to my
client who doesnot believe what i'm saying.
We have two 6509's connected by 4-gig etherchannel and configured HSRP
groups in them for the default
HSRP
groups in them for the default gateway redundancy of each VLAN.
As you all know, default hello time is 3 sec and hold time is 10 sec.
I have reconfigured these timers to hello 1 sec and hold 4 sec.
Now client is unhappy because effectively I have increased the rate of
hello packet sending
Vajira
If time dealy during change over is not an issue, then use the default.
Kiran
From: Vajira Wijesinghe
Reply-To: Vajira Wijesinghe
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: HSRP timer dispute [7:64658]
Date: Thu, 6 Mar 2003 22:47:39 GMT
Hi group,
Let me apologise first for forwarding
I am configuring HSRP groups in the MSFCs of this SUP2. I am only being
allowed by the MFSC to configure 16 hsrp groups. this SUP2 is an upgrade
for the MFSC SUP1s we have. in the SUP1s I have configured a total of 50
vlans, each with its own HSRP group. That is 50 HSRP groups
Here
you are correct. The msfc-2 only allows 16 different hsrp groups.
We ran into that when we deployed sup-2/msfc-2 blades in our BB
and data Center gateways. Functionally it works fine having the
same group number..
Larry Letterman
Network Engineer
Cisco Systems
- Original Message
Why do you require all the groups I generally only define groups
when doing load balancing and HSRP otherwise the default works just fine.
Dave
rau ren wrote:
I am configuring HSRP groups in the MSFCs of this SUP2. I am only being
allowed by the MFSC to configure 16 hsrp groups
I'm currently experiencing an oddity with multicast traffic like HSRP that
I'm looking for some ideas on. For simplicity the network design consists
of 2 Cisco 3640 routers running HSRP between them connected to a single
Extreme [Black Diamond] switch. Basically...
extreme switch
You might want to look up the following document on CCO:
Avoiding HSRP Instability in a Switching Environment with Various Routing
Platforms.
Looks like www.cisco.com/warp/public/619/8.shtml
-Original Message-
From: John Starta [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, February 25
:53 PM
I'm currently experiencing an oddity with multicast traffic like HSRP
that
I'm looking for some ideas on. For simplicity the network design
consists
of 2 Cisco 3640 routers running HSRP between them connected to a single
Extreme [Black Diamond] switch. Basically...
extreme
Thanks Dave
From: MADMAN Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Simon Watson CC:
[EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: SRB HSRP
[7:62660] Date: Fri, 07 Feb 2003 15:34:50 -0600Hi, I would
have to look at the DLSW redundancy configs to give you a diffinitive
answer, (I can't memorize
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
-
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
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 enoughi can just image in the event of a storm
(mcast, bcast or
spt
loop) what would happen on that segment
comments in-line:
-Original Message-
From: MADMAN [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Thursday, February 13, 2003 9:36 AM
To: Vicky Mair
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: FW: HSRP question [7:62941]
Vicky Mair wrote:
true enoughi can just image in the event of a storm (mcast
]
Subject: Re: FW: HSRP question [7:62941]
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 phoneselsewhere on the campus
we use aux vlans and vlan interface
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
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
Hi Guys I'm going to install a secondary router on a Token-Ring Source
Route Bridge Network, and use HSRP between the two routers for
redundancy. On the current router the SRB config on the Token Ring
Interface is: source-bridge 101 2 300. On the secondary router's
Token-Ring interface is it ok
I have configured HSRP in SRB environments, they are two seperate
things. What I wouldn't do is connect a secondary router to this token
ring with a differant ring number!!!
Dave
Simon Watson wrote:
Hi Guys I'm going to install a secondary router on a Token-Ring Source
Route Bridge
Hi Madman
Are you recommending me to configure both Token-Ring HSRP interfaces with
the same SRB statement ? i.e source-bridge 101 2 300.
Thanks
Simon.
From: MADMAN Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Simon Watson CC:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: SRB HSRP [7:62660] Date: Fri
at this, it sounds like what you want to do, you need to
change your bridge number though as they should not match.
http://www.cisco.com/en/US/customer/tech/tk331/tk336/technologies_tech_note09186a0080094548.shtml
Simon Watson wrote:
Hi Madman
Are you recommending me to configure both Token-Ring HSRP
routers really are on different rings. The original poster
needs to figure this out.
Regardless, HSRP should work across the bridged rings. It would be like two
routers doing HSRP even though they are on different switched LANs. That
works (most of the time. ;-)
The HSRP routers communicate with each
I have a multicast server cluster in a VLAN behind a pair of 6509s with
MSFC2s. The pair of MSFCs is running HSRP. The default gateway for the
mcast cluster controller is the HSRP address. Everything works fine. It
dawned on me today that I might be able to reference the HSRP address as the
RP
I have seen times where if you connect the two routers through a switch,
that spanning-tree can disrupt the HSPR Hellos, and cause problems. If you
are connecting these two routers through a switch (or a swicthed
environment), make sure to use spanning-tree portfast on those ports so that
hi
this is a strange thing.
If the routers are connected via a switch make sure that port security is
disabled because the actice router has 2 MAC Adresses for the HSRP interface.
see you
Message Posted at:
http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7i=62136t=62064
HSRP PROBLEM
x.x.x.36 and x.x.x.37 are two routers.
x.x.x.x.36 config:
standby 1 ip x.x.x.35
standby 1 priority 150
standby 1 preempt delay minimum 2
standby 1 track serial0 10
x.x.x.x.37 config:
standby 1 ip x.x.x.35
standby 1 priority 140
standby 1 prempt
standby 1 track serial0 20
HSRP PROBLEM
x.x.x.36 and x.x.x.37 are two routers.
f0 interface config:
x.x.x.x.36 config:
standby 1 ip x.x.x.35
standby 1 priority 150
standby 1 preempt delay minimum 2
standby 1 track serial0 15
f0 interface config:
x.x.x.x.37 config:
standby 1 ip x.x.x.35
standby 1 priority 140
standby 1
what are the routers connected too that allows the routers
to talk hsrp to each other...?
Larry Letterman
Network Engineer
Cisco Systems
- Original Message -
From: Raj
To:
Sent: Tuesday, January 28, 2003 2:03 PM
Subject: URGENT HSRP PROBLEM [7:62064]
HSRP PROBLEM
x.x.x.36
Sorry, I don't have time to look into your problem. Try the Cisco article
Avoiding HSRP Instability in a Switching Environment with Various Router
Platforms. It might apply to your situation.
-Original Message-
From: Raj [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, January 28, 2003 4:04
the routers send hellp packets using a multicast address - check that this
is not being blocked somewhere.
-Original Message-
From: . [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: 28 January 2003 22:46
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: HSRP PROBLEM [7:62057]
HSRP PROBLEM
x.x.x.36 and x.x.x.37 are two
Symon
Things to check:
- are there any access lists or firewalling software preventing multicast
traffic between the routers and disconnected switch?
- are any of the switches stacked? If so, ensure software versions are
compatable.
- are there any duplex issues between switches. In
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Seems that after 11.3(9) they fixed a few bugs regarding HSRP.
You can try it.
http://www.cisco.com/univercd/cc/td/doc/product/software/ios113ed/rn113m/rn113mnt.htm#xtocid25
.2eu c
MArtijn
- -Oorspronkelijk bericht-
Van: [EMAIL PROTECTED
Hi Guys I'm going to a client's site that has a 2513 router with
11.3(11a) IOS (image is c2500-ds-l_113-11a.bin). 2 things: I'm looking
to set up HSRP on the router, should I have any issues with that level of
software ?Also are there an issues I should be aware of when configuring
HSRP on token
HSRP has been supported for a long time, even on Token Ring. It was
supported in 11.3, I think in all varieties, but you would have to check for
sure in the Release Notes to see if your particular image supports it, but I
bet it does.
You can find documentation for Cisco's older versions of IOS
On Monday 20 January 2003 03:12 pm, Priscilla Oppenheimer wrote:
HSRP has been supported for a long time, even on Token Ring. It was
supported in 11.3, I think in all varieties, but you would have to check
for sure in the Release Notes to see if your particular image supports
it, but I bet
Hi Guys I'm going to a client's site that has a 2513 router with
11.3(11a) IOS (image is c2500-ds-l_113-11a.bin). 2 things: I'm looking
to set up HSRP on the router, should I have any issues with that level of
software ?Also is there an issues I should be aware of when configuring
HSRP on token
Hi guys,
I have a 3550-12G that is connected to 5 switches.
There are also a 3640 and a 2600, that share an HSRP address, and both
of these routers are connected to one of the switches hanging off the
3550-12G..
From the 3550-12G I can't ping the HSRP address, but can ping the
physical address
Those of you that have 1700 series routers in your labs, take a look at bug
CSCdz64230. It had me chasing my tail a while this evening. The net net is
you get a flapping link, and nearly constant hsrp state changes and spanning
tree action.
TTFN,
Bill
Message Posted at:
http
In your scenario advertising same block over both links to your provider
will not help in load sharing. Redundancy is acheived but not sharing
because your ISP will receive two advertisments to the same block and BGP
only chooses the best route.
You can overcome this in many ways, for example
, December 23, 2002 11:43 AM
Subject: Re: HSRP and BGP [7:59735]
In your scenario advertising same block over both links to your provider
will not help in load sharing. Redundancy is acheived but not sharing
because your ISP will receive two advertisments to the same block and BGP
only chooses the best
Dear All,
Thanks all useful information.
Merry Christmas and Happy New Year!!!
rgds,
ivan
Message Posted at:
http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7i=59777t=59735
--
FAQ, list archives, and subscription info:
Hi,
I have 2 routers configured with HSRP and running BGP with single ISP. For
outbound traffic, it will go through the Active HSRP router.
How about Inbound traffic? Can the Inbound traffic be 'load shared'? (The
ISP already make the same preference on our route advertised)
Or the Inbound
to load sharing.
Brian
- Original Message -
From: Ivan Yip
To:
Sent: Sunday, December 22, 2002 6:18 PM
Subject: HSRP and BGP [7:59735]
Hi,
I have 2 routers configured with HSRP and running BGP with single ISP. For
outbound traffic, it will go through the Active HSRP router
Hi,
inbound traffic has nothing to do with HSRP.It all depends how your isp is
routing back traffic through bgp.so it means u can load balance on the two
links.
Message Posted at:
http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7i=59737t=59735
--
FAQ,
Hi,
inbound traffic has nothing to do with HSRP.It all depends how your isp is
routing back traffic through bgp.so it means u can load balance on the two
links.
Ivan Yip wrote:
Hi,
I have 2 routers configured with HSRP and running BGP with
single ISP. For outbound traffic, it will go
Hi,
I have 2 routers configured with HSRP and running BGP with single ISP. For
outbound traffic, it will go through the Active HSRP router.
How about Inbound traffic? Can the Inbound traffic be 'load shared'? (The
ISP already make the same preference on our route advertised
Hi All,
Thanks all your response.
Now two routers adverise same block /24 to the isp. I found that they are
'load shared' in this sense. Only 1 link is the active for Inbound. For
example, if I download files from outside, inbound is using say link1 and
link2 is idle and no packet coming in.
Ivan Yip wrote in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
Hi All,
Thanks all your response.
Now two routers adverise same block /24 to the isp. I found that they are
'load shared' in this sense. Only 1 link is the active for Inbound. For
example, if I download files from
uses EIGRP, so I know that EIGRP will just choose the best
route, which is fine.
My question is: is the best practice to use HSRP between R1-R3 and R2-R4
as the LAN default gateway on the respective site? Or should I just
choose one router as the gateway and let EIGRP choose the best path
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of
Edward Sohn
Sent: Thursday, December 12, 2002 5:59 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: HSRP [7:59148]
I have an HQ-to-Branch Office configuration with two separate VPN
connections like the following:
HQ LAN
__
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now.
http://mailplus.yahoo.com
Message Posted at:
http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7i=58907t=58907
--
FAQ, list archives,
r1
|
|
-
| |
| |
r2 r3
In the above configuration, r2 and r3 are configured
with HSRP.
I need to configure iBGP between r1, r2 and R3. Can I
configure neighbor from r1 to r2 and r3 using
I ran into this problem before and figured out I had to peer with the real
addresses. That worked out fine.
Xueyan
Message Posted at:
http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7i=58910t=58908
--
FAQ, list archives, and subscription info:
At 07:15 PM 12/10/2002 +, Kim Seng wrote:
r1
|
|
-
| |
| |
r2 r3
In the above configuration, r2 and r3 are configured
with HSRP.
I need to configure iBGP between r1, r2 and R3. Can I
. We have 2 HSRP groups set up
with 2 vlans in each group.
That's one way of looking at it. But it might help to keep things clear in
your mind if you consider that there really are four HSRP groups. You're
simply using each group number (and, as has been pointed out, the same
virtual MAC) twice
you need a standby HSRP group for each subnet.
Side note - Cisco recommends that Vlan correspond to subnets - it is easier
to keep track of things. Hope this helps
Elwood P. Suggins
CCNP
Message Posted at:
http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7i=58102t=57896
The way we have it is 2 routers connected to the 4000 switch with 4 vlans on
the switch. Have set up 4 subinterfaces on each router, 1 for each van. Each
with a separate ip address corresponding to the vlan number. We have 2 HSRP
groups set up with 2 vlans in each group. 1 router
Dennis,
It's better to have a unique HSRP group for each VLAN. Cisco bases the
virtual MAC address on the group. If you reuse the group number, you'll have
duplicate MAC addresses. Granted, they're on seperate VLANs and shouldn't
matter, but I had a Cat4000 that didn't like it at all
And..
on the new msfc-2 you only get 16 hsrp groups
supposedly the issue that chuck states below is
not an issue with the new msfc-2 for the 6509's
Chuck Church wrote:
Dennis,
It's better to have a unique HSRP group for each VLAN. Cisco bases the
virtual MAC address
: Tuesday, November 26, 2002 6:36 PM
Subject: Re: hsrp isl trunking [7:58144]
And..
on the new msfc-2 you only get 16 hsrp groups
supposedly the issue that chuck states below is
not an issue with the new msfc-2 for the 6509's
Chuck Church wrote:
Dennis,
It's
Come on, anyone??
Message Posted at:
http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7i=58093t=57896
--
FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html
Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL
In my Cisco Academy class, we are doing an lab with a lot of different
topics rolled into one lab. We have 2 routers set up with hsrp and has a
virtual ip address. Now a 4000 switch has 4 vlans configured on it and to
use isl trunking to the hsrp routers. These routers have 4 subinterfaces
1 - 100 of 588 matches
Mail list logo
