[c-nsp] EIGRP HSRP Successors

[Randy]

there is no value in forming 20+ eigrp neighbor relationships across the same-L2-trunk.
Form one eigrp-neighbor-relationship on an SVI of choice and announce the remaining SVI prefixes from both switches by setting the passive-int vlan x within router eigrp x
./Randy

--- On Sun, 7/24/11, Dan Letkeman <danletkeman at gmail.com> wrote:

> From: Dan Letkeman <danletkeman at gmail.com>
> Subject: [c-nsp] EIGRP HSRP Successors
> To: "cisco-nsp" <cisco-nsp at puck.nether.net>
> Date: Sunday, July 24, 2011, 2:06 PM
> Hello,
> 
> I'm working on a test configuration for hsrp between two
> switches
> where i'm running eigrp, and I'm wondering if its best
> practice to
> leave the added successors in the route list?
> 
> For example, after I made vlan 501 into an hsrp enabled
> vlan between
> the two switches it added itself as an equal path route to
> the
> original one on vlan 4001.
> 
> P 10.11.56.0/24, 2 successors, FD is 3840
>         via 10.5.8.2 (3840/3584),
> Vlan501
>         via 10.100.4.1 (3840/3584),
> Vlan4001
> P 172.16.8.0/23, 2 successors, FD is 3584
>         via 10.5.8.2 (3584/3328),
> Vlan501
>         via 10.100.200.1 (67840/3328),
> Vlan2200
> P 192.168.72.0/24, 2 successors, FD is 3840
>         via 10.5.8.2 (3840/3584),
> Vlan501
>         via 10.100.4.1 (3840/3584),
> Vlan4001
> P 172.16.42.0/24, 2 successors, FD is 4096
>         via 10.5.8.2 (4096/3840),
> Vlan501
>         via 10.100.4.1 (4096/3840),
> Vlan4001
> 
> 
> If I want to hsrp enable all of the vlan's on the switch so
> that its
> completly redundant, I might have up to 10-20 equal paths
> between the
> switches....is this ok practice to leave it like
> this?  Or should I be
> removing the routes somehow?
> 
> Thanks,
> Dan.
> _______________________________________________
> 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/
>