Tim,
If you have not hard configured the MAC address then it will be the MAC of
the "virtual router". This MAC address is a combination of 3 things; vendor
code, well known HSRP virtual MAC address, and the group number of the
active router.
Below are listed some sources of information.
http://
At 12:17 AM 6/22/02, Tim Potier wrote:
>Lets say I have HSRP configured on a series of routers... I know clients are
>sending packets to the MAC/IP of the well known "virtual MAC" with Cisco
>equipment. Assume the receiving station recieves the packet directly from
>the router participating in HS
"Priscilla Oppenheimer" wrote in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> At 12:17 AM 6/22/02, Tim Potier wrote:
> >Lets say I have HSRP configured on a series of routers... I know clients
are
> >sending packets to the MAC/IP of the well known "virtual MAC" with Cisco
> >equipment.
There might be a Howard-inspired lesson in this. ;-)
In the Control Plane, the host ARPs for its default gateway, which in this
case is configured to be the HSRP virtual IP address of the routers.
In the Management Plane, the routers talk amongst themselves to make sure
that the virtual IP and
Thank you all!
Message Posted at:
http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=47225&t=47177
--
FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html
Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED
This brings up a question. I understand that after the initial "hi I will
be handling your requests please use me as your destination mac address".
(Router talking to client).
But what happens when the initial router fails and HSRP kicks in? After an
unreachable, would ClientA send out an arp o
This isn't quite right. See comments below.
"Kim Graham" wrote in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> This brings up a question. I understand that after the initial "hi I will
> be handling your requests please use me as your destination mac address".
> (Router talking to cl
Sometimes I suspect we get lost in forest, and all we can see are the trees.
Let's look at this from the perspective of how data is moved from here to
there. Comments below:
""Kim Graham"" wrote in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> This brings up a question. I understand t
At 10:19 AM 6/23/02, Kim Graham wrote:
>This brings up a question. I understand that after the initial "hi I will
>be handling your requests please use me as your destination mac address".
>(Router talking to client).
Well, there's not really an initial "hi," although I like the literary
sound
So you are saying the client never sees the MAC address of RouterA? It only
sees the MAC address of the "Virtual Router"?
Kim
>
> From: "Michael L. Williams"
> Date: 2002/06/23 Sun AM 11:29:24 EDT
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: HSRP [7:47177
address of the "Virtual Router"?
>
> Kim
>
> >
> > From: "Michael L. Williams"
> > Date: 2002/06/23 Sun AM 11:29:24 EDT
> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Subject: Re: HSRP [7:47177]
> >
> > This isn't quite right. See comments bel
the router is
maintaining on the same ip network it will arp for the BIA of the IS's
ethernet interface.
- Original Message -
From: "LongTrip"
To:
Sent: 23 June 2002 12:44 pm
Subject: Re: Re: HSRP [7:47177]
> So you are saying the client never sees the MAC address of
1:08:17 EDT
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: Re: HSRP [7:47177]
>
> Perhaps this will help explain
>
>
http://www.cisco.com/univercd/cc/td/doc/product/software/ios121/121cgcr/ip_c
> /ipcprt1/1cdip.htm#xtocid23
>
> Yes, HSRP creates a single "virtual" IP
way portion of the
conversation, not the return path (although implementational specifics might
force them to address the return path in some circumstances).
- Original Message -
From: "LongTrip"
To:
Sent: 23 June 2002 2:22 pm
Subject: Re: Re: HSRP [7:47177]
> hmmm maybe
ut that in the end what the
customer wanted me to do wuld have put him at more risk than if he left
things as they were. Not to mention the loss of bandwidth that HSRP would
have created for him.
>
>
> - Original Message -
> From: "LongTrip"
> To:
> Sent: 23 June
I will keep that in mind while investigating this and other things.
Thx :)
Kim
>
> From: "Kevin Cullimore"
> Date: 2002/06/23 Sun PM 03:08:54 EDT
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: Re: HSRP [7:47177]
>
> A useful notion to keep in mind is that hsrp and
At 3:08 PM -0400 6/23/02, Kevin Cullimore wrote:
>A useful notion to keep in mind is that hsrp and its un-patented
>counterparts (you'd think that during the past century, people would learn
>from IBM's example, but apparently that isn't the case) are profoundly
>asymmetric in scope:
>
>they are c
23 June 2002 3:30 pm
Subject: Re: Re: HSRP [7:47177]
> ""Kevin Cullimore"" wrote in message
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > A useful notion to keep in mind is that hsrp and its un-patented
> > counterparts (you'd think that
have written and what others wrote? (Although doing your own
research is a good idea too.)
Priscilla
>Kim
>
>
>
> >
> > From: "Thomas E. Lawrence"
> > Date: 2002/06/23 Sun PM 01:08:17 EDT
> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Subject: Re: Re: HSRP [7:47177
nversations in
different directions may be treated differently) is quite welcome.
Comments?
- Original Message -
From: "Howard C. Berkowitz"
To:
Sent: 23 June 2002 3:54 pm
Subject: Re: Re: HSRP [7:47177]
> At 3:08 PM -0400 6/23/02, Kevin Cullimore wrote:
> >A useful
-----
>From: "Howard C. Berkowitz"
>To:
>Sent: 23 June 2002 3:54 pm
>Subject: Re: Re: HSRP [7:47177]
>
>
>> At 3:08 PM -0400 6/23/02, Kevin Cullimore wrote:
>> >A useful notion to keep in mind is that hsrp and its un-patented
>> >counterparts (y
Comments in line.
>
> From: "Priscilla Oppenheimer"
> Date: 2002/06/23 Sun PM 08:19:23 EDT
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: Re: HSRP [7:47177]
>
> At 02:22 PM 6/23/02, LongTrip wrote:
> >hmmm maybe there was a misunderstanding on my part of an ear
HSRP in edge routers and
> more complex routing at a distribution tier.
>
> For that matter, people often don't consider L2 failover techniques
> (e.g., UplinkFast and EtherChannel) with switches feeding the HSRP
> routers as another aspect of no-single-point-of-failure.
>
RP in edge routers and
> > more complex routing at a distribution tier.
> >
> > For that matter, people often don't consider L2 failover techniques
> > (e.g., UplinkFast and EtherChannel) with switches feeding the HSRP
> > routers as another aspect of no-single-point-of-
24 matches
Mail list logo
