[c-nsp] HSRP vs VRRP

[Tim Durack]

I didn't see any mention of Etherchannel in your reply.

I would put SW1 and SW2 on different subnets, avoiding any nasty bridging
stuff...

Tim:>

On 10/18/05, Gert Doering <gert at greenie.muc.de> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> On Tue, Oct 18, 2005 at 02:07:29PM -0400, Tim Durack wrote:
> > That's why it's preferable to design things so R1 is connected to SW1
> and
> > SW2, same for R2.
> > This will avoid partitioning the network under various failure modes.
>
> How do you do that? Etherchannel is only going to work when going
> from a router to the same switch (counting 3750 stacks as "single switch"
> here, for the purpose of the argument), and BVI'ing two ethernets on
> the router will usually end up in abysmal performance.
>
> So how to connect R1 (and R2) to SW1 and SW2 into the same VLAN?
>
> [..]
> > The assymetric situation has caught us out when running urpf filtering
> on
> > interfaces that are also running HSRP.
>
> Yep, another thing to watch out for.
>
> > It basically means you can't always ping the interface addresses. Only
> > affects monitoring though, not transit.
>
> Think "reflexive access lists" and/or "ip inspect"...
>
> gert
>
> --
> USENET is *not* the non-clickable part of WWW!
> //www.muc.de/~gert/
> Gert Doering - Munich, Germany gert at greenie.muc.de
> fax: +49-89-35655025 gert at net.informatik.tu-muenchen.de
>