Hello again, Thinking about this, if you've used overlapping IPv4 addresses with "backup interface" it must had sent a gratuitous ARP. Otherwise you would had experienced quite the network outage waiting for the neighbors device ARP entry to timeout, no?
Sam On Wed, Aug 13, 2014 at 6:14 PM, Gert Doering <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi, > > On Wed, Aug 13, 2014 at 04:44:49PM +0100, Sam Stickland wrote: > > I'm exploring redundancy possibilities for a router hand off without a > > dynamic routing protocol. It's ugly and I'm not going to explain all the > > details here, but I basically have this configuration on a router: > > > > interface Gi1/1 > > backup interface Gi1/2 > > ip address 192.168.1.1 255.255.255.252 > > > > interface Gi1/2 > > ip address 192.168.1.1 255.255.255.252 > > I can't answer your question, but have one of my own - can you do IPv6 > with this nowadays? "backup interface" suppresses the "I have seen this > IP config elsewhere!" check, but they forgot to do this for IPv6 as well > (and I have lost the need to do backup interface, as we moved to > 6500s and just do port-channels or "put both interface into the same > vlan, use SVI"). > > gert > -- > USENET is *not* the non-clickable part of WWW! > // > www.muc.de/~gert/ > Gert Doering - Munich, Germany > [email protected] > fax: +49-89-35655025 > [email protected] > _______________________________________________ cisco-nsp mailing list [email protected] https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
