not supported. what you could do, is use p2p interfaces. then un-number
the interfaces to a loopback interface. will help you around the
addressing issue. or you could run private addresses over your WAN
links.
regards
.siva
On Mon, 29 May 2000, Martin, Christian wrote:
> Since this command was designed for dial backup, Cisco may not support it on
> two non-DDR interfaces, especially since an ATM interface is NBMA by
> default. Try it on the subinterfaces, however, you will need to have a line
> failure for this to work. You can force a subint failure by enabling OAM VC
> management. See CCO for details.
>
> ./chris
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Loureiro, Rodrigo [mailto:rodrigo.loureiro@netstream.com.br]
> > Sent: Monday, May 29, 2000 1:31 PM
> > To: cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
> > Subject: [nsp] ATM backup interface
> >
> >
> > Dear all,
> >
> > I have a Cisco 7513 operating with two ATM 155MB cards (slots
> > 5 and 8). I´m
> > trying to configure a redundant environment in such a way
> > that the slot8
> > card operates as a backup for the slot 5 one. I tried the following
> > configuration:
> >
> > interface ATM5/0
> > description ATM-Test
> > backup delay 1 never
> > backup interface ATM8/0
> > no ip address
> > no ip directed-broadcast
> > no atm ilmi-keepalive
> >
> > interface ATM5/0.1 point-to-point
> > description Test
> > ip address 192.168.0.1 255.255.255.252
> > no ip directed-broadcast
> > atm pvc 106 31 106 aal5snap
> >
> > interface ATM8/0
> > description ATM-Test Backup
> > no ip address
> > no ip directed-broadcast
> > atm pvc 1 0 16 ilmi
> > no atm ilmi-keepalive
> >
> > interface ATM8/0.1 point-to-point
> > description Test
> > ip address 192.168.0.1 255.255.255.252
> > no ip directed-broadcast
> > atm pvc 106 31 106 aal5snap
> >
> > I thought this configuration will work but the IOS still
> > complains about
> > overlap addresses, even knowing that slot 8 interface is the
> > backup. I think
> > it´s a IOS bug, because the code should return the warning
> > overlap addresses
> > in a situation where the two addresses were being used at the
> > same time, i
> > mean, this should be a advisory to warn the operator not to duplicate
> > addresses. The problem is that the addresses are not being
> > used at the same
> > time.
> > Does anyone know another way out to solve this problem
> > despite the dirty
> > solution of using a different ip addressing scheme in each
> > subinterface?
> >
> >
> > Regards,
> > --
> >
> > Rodrigo Loureiro
> > Netstream Telecom (AT&T LA)
> >
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Aug 04 2002 - 04:12:13 EDT