[c-nsp] HSRP vs VRRP

Tim Durack tdurack at gmail.com
Thu Oct 20 14:07:29 EDT 2005


The Cisco recommend way of deploying HSRP (but you probably know that.)

Assuming you have enough interfaces on the routers, each router
connects to each switch, each switch is it's own network:

 -----------     -----------
| RTR-1 |    | RTR-2 |
 -----------     -----------
      |      \  /      |
      |       \/       |
 ----------- /  \  ----------
| SW-1  |    | SW-2  |
 -----------      -----------
      |                |
   ------           ------
  | H1 |          | H2 |
   ------           ------

Anything else leaves you with the risk of a black-hole if something fails.

I do agree with your original assessment that HSRP might not be very
elegant. But it does work, it's allowed us to do fiber swings at the
edge without interruption.

Tim:>

On 10/20/05, Gert Doering <gert at greenie.muc.de> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Wed, Oct 19, 2005 at 07:38:51PM -0400, Tim Durack wrote:
> > 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...
>
> Interesting suggestion, given that we're talking about possible
> problems with *HSRP* and *VRRP*.
>
> So how do you run HSRP from different subnets?
>
> (Of course there are nice HA solutions where a host has multiple ethernet
> cards in different IP subnets, and will announce a service IP via OSPF or
> whatever, but that's not what we're discussing in this thread)
>
> 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
>



More information about the cisco-nsp mailing list