[c-nsp] replacing CARP with Cisco possible ?

["Rolf Hanßen"]

Hi,

any idea how other providers offer such redundancy to end customers (if
they do at all) ?
We have a mass of customers with /29 or /28 networks and losing IPs isn't
an option in such cases imo.
Using bigger networks would require giving up vlan separation each
customer, no option either.

regards
Rolf

> On Thu, 2012-03-01 at 16:30 +0100, "Rolf Hanßen" wrote:
>> Is there a way to configure virtual IPs that do not belong to the
>> "hard-coded" network (ip address x.x.x.x y.y.y.y) of the interface ?
>> I see that it is possible to configure other IPs, but this results in a
>> warning and there is no possibility to set the netmask at all.
>
> I was wondering the same some years ago. Take a look at this thread:
>
> http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/2007-November/045409.html
>
> We never got it to work. ARP requests are sourced from the real address,
> and you cannot add a "connected static" route for a VRF enabled
> interface, i.e. "ip route vrf A 192.168.1.0 255.255.255.0 Vlan50" fails.
>
> Also keep in mind that TTL exceeded replies (traceroute) would source
> from the "real" interface address.
>
>> Is there a possibility to have static routes that are only active if the
>> node has enabled the virtual IP ?
>
> This in itself would be possible with an EEM script that follows the
> HSRP log messages and adjusts the configuration. It would trigger a
> configuration change, so Rancid or whatever you might use would log a
> change every time the HSRP state changes.
>
>> Is there anything else to take care of ?
>> Any limitations except the 4096 HSRP-IDs ?
>
> That's 256 for HSRPv1 by the way.
>
> --
> Peter
>
>
>