dslreports logo
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc
Search similar:


uniqs
1189

Rommel
@190.121.233.x

Rommel

Anon

[Config] HSRP Config

Click for full size
Hi, lets see if some can help me with this... Sorry for my english isn't very good

I need to configure ah phisical address and a Virtual address to each interface GigabitEthernet so I can use some tracks and sla's on my switchcore to route the traffic. So all the ips are on the same vlan, the management vlan, but when configure on the interface it says 192.168.133.128 overlaps with GigabitEthernet0/0.

Do i have to use another vlan in other to do that? I new on this HSRP.

I try to put them in a different HSRP group and still does not work

Anyone?

TomS_
Git-r-done
MVM
join:2002-07-19
London, UK

TomS_

MVM

With a risk of this being homework, I'll bite.

Overlapping IPs should be self explanatory. A subnet can only exist on a single interface on the same router at any given time (notable exception being VRFs).

Adding VLANs wont help if you keep trying to use the same subnet.

The topology itself doesnt look particularly useful. What is the purpose of the link from the top router to the bottom switch?

Rommel
@190.121.233.x

Rommel

Anon

Hi, Its not homework is a laboratory Im building for a proyect I've assigned!

The purpos of the link from the NODO1 to SWCORE2 is that if the link between NODO1 and SWCORE1 go down, SWCORE1 degrate and SWCORE2 keeps sending traffic to NODO1 which is the one with the primary link.

The ip address has been given by the client so It won interfiere with his LAN.

So how could I solve this problem?

TomS_
Git-r-done
MVM
join:2002-07-19
London, UK

TomS_

MVM

IMO you would be better off taking out the link between NODO1 and SWCORE2, and using it between NODO1 and NODO2.

HSRP will take care of failing over between NODO1 and NODO2 if the NODO1-SWCORE1 link fails, and traffic will start routing via NODO2. Thats what HSRP is meant to do.

The link between NODO1 and NODO2 then allows traffic that comes in to NODO2 to continue to be routed to NODO1 and out via the "Skynet" 1841.

This exact scenario was covered in another thread recently, so I wont repeat it all, but I provided some sample configurations and other information: »been a while

Also, why use so many IP SLA trackers when you could juse use a routing protocol? Seems like youre trying to re-invent the wheel a bit there.
HELLFIRE
MVM
join:2009-11-25

HELLFIRE to Rommel

MVM

to Rommel
My question is which device(s) are under your control / management? If NODOx and SUNSOL are yours, 2nd
TomS_ See Profile 's suggestion about putting in place full physical link redundancy for all 4 devices --
something like this would be recommended.

I'm also scratching my head about your need for IP SLA when a routing protocol like RIP, OSPF or EIGRP would
be more desireable.

Regards

Rommel
@190.121.233.x

Rommel

Anon

About routing protocols, the client does not use them... all routing is done by routes. Its how the have work always so I need to work as they.

My boss is testing me 'cause he knows I really dont have much experience, however he told me to do my best and present him a work solution and they will decide.

My point is to present something that really work and covers all the clients needs.

The problem was that I wanted to use same segment on diferent interfaces, now Im building it in packet tracer with diferent segment to check if it will work before going to real routers.

All the routers and Switch are new, didnt have problem with switchcore 3560, all LAN works just fine, the issue is with the routers.

My experience is just a Year working most of the time with Switch so most of the configuration Im doing is after reading some...

TomS_
Git-r-done
MVM
join:2002-07-19
London, UK

TomS_

MVM

Well, there is always a time to implement change, and right now is a good time. You have an opportunity to improve the network design here, rather than continue old suboptimal practices.

With object tracking, convergence time is not likely to be as optimal as a routing protocol, particularly a link-state routing protocol like OSPF/IS-IS/EIGRP.

Link state routing protocols will immediately advertise topology changes to neighbors, ensuring that routing is maintained via alternate paths with as minimal interruption as possible.

With both routers participating in HSRP you dont need to worry about protecting against router interface failures. Just ensure that your routers are linked together, and use a routing protocol to shift traffic around the problem automatically.

If you place the link between NODO1 and NODO2, configure a routing protocol over that link, then if the NODO1-SWCORE1 link were to fail, the NODO1 interface would go down, withdrawing the route to the subnets of that interface. Since those subnets are still configured on NODO2, traffic will then route to NODO2 over the direct link from NODO1 and out via SWCORE2 to reach the hosts. Only if one of the SWCORE devices fails will you have unreachable hosts.

As per the diagram that HELLFIRE See Profile linked to, I would also highly recommend a LAG between SWCORE1 and SWCORE2. In the case that the SWCORE1-SWCORE2 link fails, you dont want a "split brain" situation where two routers advertise reachability for the same subnet, but there is no continuity of the subnet between the two routers. This will result in some hosts being blackholed. To further increase reliability of this link, ensure that each LAG member is on a different ASIC internally on the switch. That way a partial failure of the switch wont affect all of the LAG members.
markysharkey
Premium Member
join:2012-12-20
united kingd

markysharkey

Premium Member

+1 for all that.
Faced with the situation as presented, Toms options offer answers to most questions, some of which weren't even asked! It's a bit of a no brainer IMHO.
aryoba
MVM
join:2002-08-22

aryoba to Rommel

MVM

to Rommel
In addition to what others have said, I would not want to rely on IP SLA, HSRP, or any specific-vendor solution (in this case, Cisco solution) if I were you since they will not work on other vendors. The reason I brought this up was that you may want to keep your options open in case the client decides to bring in non-Cisco boxes or solutions into the mix; or even moving away from Cisco solutions altogether.

My rule of thumb is that always stick to something that works on all vendors. In routing design scenario such as this one; OSPF, RIP, or BGP are better approaches

Rommel
@190.121.233.x

Rommel

Anon

Thanks to all of u for your advice.

However I presented to my boss the solution using routing protocols and he said that is a good idea but as they (the client) does not use any routing protocols at level LAN it would be more complicated. More or lest is what he mean so I presented the other one witch HSRP and SLA's and after correcting one or two mistakes he told me that I have done a good effort 'cause he knows that I dont have much experience.

He said something like this: The best practice would be to implement a routing protocol but given the time the give us and what we know about they infrastructure, this solution u presented will be the one.
HELLFIRE
MVM
join:2009-11-25

HELLFIRE

MVM

I don't know about anyone else but after reading that I kinda feel like I got used to do someone's homework

Well, hopefully you took some learning away from this OP... best of luck with it!

Regards

TomS_
Git-r-done
MVM
join:2002-07-19
London, UK

TomS_

MVM

Maybe not homework, but someones job.

When do we get our cut OP?

Rommel
@190.121.233.x

Rommel

Anon

It was job related, and I thank u all for your advice, thought I did it as I though. But u gave some very good advise that I'll keep in mind for my future. This was practically my first ALONE job at WAN level that was assigned to me.

Thank u very much