[c-nsp] FHRP's and STP

[Tim Durack]

That's an interesting idea - tying FHRP state to STP state. Would reduce
config complexity, as FHRP would "inherit" state from STP, and could reduce
FHRP load (which I'm most interested in.)

Cisco have introduced HSRP group follow:

int g1/1.10
 encapsulation dot1q 10
 ...
 standby 10 name VLAN10
 ...
int g1/1.20
 encapsulation dot1q 20
 ...
 standby 20 name VLAN20
 standby 20 follow VLAN10
end

Not what you are asking for, but potentially useful. Unfortunately it
doesn't seem to work on VLAN interfaces on a 6500.

Tim:>

On Mon, Nov 17, 2008 at 9:25 PM, Kevin Graham <
kgraham at industrial-marshmallow.com> wrote:

> Is there a way to (safely) force any of the FHRP's into a multiple-active
> setup
> such that the first router to see a packet can route it? Namely, I'm
> frustrated
> by instances w/ L3 switches where the L2 topology (via STP) doesn't match
> the
> L3 topology (via a FHRP) resulting in cases where traffic gets L2 switched
> by a
> FHRP standby on its way to the active router only to get punted back again.
>
> A tracking object based on STP state would probably be sufficient, though
> being
> able to assign multiple routers to an active forwarding group seems ideal.
> Am I
> missing something obviously?
>
> _______________________________________________
> cisco-nsp mailing list  cisco-nsp at puck.nether.net
> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
> archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
>