I can see that there's another problem. If the net would happen to be in a VRF, I can't use
ip route vrf TEST 192.168.0.0 255.255.255.0 Vlan2 to make the net visible in routing. This may be a no-brainer, but what would I do in that case? It gives me the usual error: % For VPN routes, must specify a next hop IP address if not a point-to-point interface How can I make the route look connected in that case? Theres no problem unless the interface is in a VRF. Regards, Peter Rathlev On Tue, 2007-11-20 at 12:38 +0100, Peter Rathlev wrote: > Hello, > > I was wondering: I can configure this: > > interface Vlan2 > ip address 10.0.0.1 255.255.255.0 > standby 1 ip 192.168.0.1 > stadnby 1 preempt > ! bla bla bla > ! > > But is it a good idea? Is there any special reason to always choose a > standby IP-address from the same subnet as the interface address? I > guess there would be some issues about ICMP redirects and unreachables, > but that's not a big concern. > > I've been searching cisco.com, and all examples always use the same > subnet, but I can't find anything saying it's a bad idea to use > different subnets. > > Thank you, > Peter Rathlev > > > _______________________________________________ > cisco-nsp mailing list [email protected] > https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp > archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/ _______________________________________________ cisco-nsp mailing list [email protected] https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
