<html><head></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; "><br><div><div>On May 14, 2012, at 2:31 PM, Niels Bakker wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><blockquote type="cite"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="border-collapse: separate; font-family: Monaco; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; orphans: 2; text-align: -webkit-auto; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-border-horizontal-spacing: 0px; -webkit-border-vertical-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-decorations-in-effect: none; -webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; font-size: medium; ">Add 'ip address 10.99.99.1/22 secondary' to the backup router's ve205 for that.<br><br><br><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre; "> </span>-- Niels.<br></span></blockquote></div><br><div>Good suggestion, but they outfoxed me:</div><div><br></div><div><div>telnet@router(config-vif-205)#ip address 10.99.99.1 255.255.252.0 secondary </div><div>IP/Port: Errno(13) Backup VRRP router already uses this IP address</div></div><div><br></div><div>I am "okay" with the other suggestions that the ping problem is according to RFC standards. Just wonder why that would be considered useful, if indeed required by spec.</div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div>Thank you!!</div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div></body></html>