From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Grant Taylor Date: Fri, 07 Dec 2007 02:19:39 +0000 Subject: Re: [LARTC] Best setup for redundant routers. Message-Id: <4758ADBB.6030905@riverviewtech.net> List-Id: References: <7C454E01C5FAE748BEFE65F4C6B7FD8BFD2128@s-marcell.hemc.coop> In-Reply-To: <7C454E01C5FAE748BEFE65F4C6B7FD8BFD2128@s-marcell.hemc.coop> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: lartc@vger.kernel.org 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@mailman.ds9a.nl http://mailman.ds9a.nl/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lartc