On 12/6/2007 11:40 AM, Shane McKinley wrote:
Wouldn't the redundant VRRP cause an IP address conflict?
No. Let me try to explain using pseudo IP addresses. For the sake of
discussion we will use the RFC test network of 192.0.2.0/24. (All IPs
below will be just the last octet in said subnet.)
Real routers A and B (RA and RB respectively) and virtual routers A and
B (VA and VB respectively) will make up the routers of the network.
Have RA be primary for VA's IP and backup for VB's IP. Then have RB be
backup for VA's IP and primary for VB's IP. So you would have four IPs
in use (RA, RB, VA, and VB). You would only have clients use VA and /
or VB as their default gateway(s).
So, if you have the following IPs used:
VA = .254
VB = .253
RA = .252
RB = .251
Real router A would have it's ""management IP of .252 and participate
(as the primary) in the VRRP virtual router A IP / MAC address of .254
and (as the secondary) in the VRRP virtual router B IP / MAC address of
.253.
Real router B would have it's ""management IP of .251 and participate
(as the secondary) in the VRRP virtual router A IP / MAC address of .254
and (as the primary) in the VRRP virtual router B IP / MAC address of .253.
As you can see there are four IP addresses used, two are what clients
would use as potential default gateways and two are for management of
the real routers.
With the two different IPs that you can hand out to clients, you could
do some load balancing by having some clients use one virtual router and
others use the other virtual router.
Heck, if you wanted to you could even add a third real router (RC) to be
a tertiary router for virtual routers.
If not, that would be sweet. I would have redundancy for my redundancy.
Start thinking about how sweet things can be....
Grant. . . .
_______________________________________________
LARTC mailing list
LARTC@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://mailman.ds9a.nl/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lartc
