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 pe
I didn't mean to scare anyone with the bizarre addressing. Maybe I went a
little overboard while trying to create an extreme situation.
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
forgott
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
HSRP is used when two or more routers share interfaces on the same LAN
subnet. The LAN interface IP addresses and the HSRP addresses must all
be in the same subnet unless you're purposefully trying to create some
bizarre behavior.
John
>>> "enabled" 9/10/02 8:59:30 AM >>>
Is there a rule stati
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
Thanks,
Sam
Message Posted at:
http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=
5 matches
Mail list logo