It's a problem when: people assume that symmetry exists when HSRP & similar L3 failover technologies are implemented.
It's a problem getting in the way of: people's understanding of those failover technologies. Otherwise, I'm thinking that the flexibility (wherein conversations in different directions may be treated differently) is quite welcome. Comments? ----- Original Message ----- From: "Howard C. Berkowitz" To: Sent: 23 June 2002 3:54 pm Subject: Re: Re: HSRP [7:47177] > At 3:08 PM -0400 6/23/02, Kevin Cullimore wrote: > >A useful notion to keep in mind is that hsrp and its un-patented > >counterparts (you'd think that during the past century, people would learn > >from IBM's example, but apparently that isn't the case) are profoundly > >asymmetric in scope: > > > >they are concerned with the host->default gateway portion of the > >conversation, not the return path (although implementational specifics might > >force them to address the return path in some circumstances). > > > Kevin, how is the asymmetry a problem? The HSRP linked routers > presumably have the same routing tables, although the backup might > have to ARP for its first packet forwarded. Even if that's an issue, > promiscuous ARP learning shouldn't be all that much of a problem. Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=47267&t=47177 -------------------------------------------------- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
