It seems to me that an offset list applied outbound
on one of the routers could make its routes less
attractive than the routes from the other router.
This should give you 1 primary set of routes and 1
backup set of routes. And does not require any
special configuration on the ASA.
HTH
Rick
Jason Link wrote:
Maybe that's the best option here. I can't seem to find any other way to do it
cleanly.
Thanks!
-----Original Message-----
From: Peter Rathlev <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, April 30, 2009 11:52 AM
To: Jason Link <[email protected]>
Cc: Cisco-nsp <[email protected]>
Subject: RE: [c-nsp] ASA / EIGRP / Redundant Interfaces
On Thu, 2009-04-30 at 11:39 -0500, Jason Link wrote:
Additionally, I'm not sure HSRP would help me in a situation like this,
since the way I understand it the ASA will still learn both routers
"real" IP address and will form a neighbor to each one. I would like to
avoid calling out the neighbor specifically, if I can help it.
Yes of course, if the ASA has to do EIGRP my suggestion is irrelevant. I
overlooked that somewhat since I'm not used to thinking about having
firewalls do dynamic routing. :-)
The HSRP thing would of course be with the ASA not participating in the
EIGRP. On the ASA side you would use static routes pointing at the HSRP
IP. On the router side you would use static routes pointing at the ASA
primary IP.
Regards,
Peter
_______________________________________________
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/
