RE: Adapter failover using Virtual IP and Proxy ARP -- one questi on

[CWilt@xxxxxxxxxxxx]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Larry Bolhuis [mailto:lbolhuis@xxxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Tuesday, June 29, 2004 3:23 PM
> To: Midrange Systems Technical Discussion
> Subject: Re: Adapter failover using Virtual IP and Proxy ARP -- one
> question
> 
> 
> Charles,
> 
>   It's possible that you could make this work but only if you have a 
> bridge between the T-R and Enet segments of your network. Even then 
> though the bridge would have to pass the gratuitous ARP packets which 
> are sent out when an adapter fails..  What I'm not sure of now is how 
> you make the T/R and Enet adapters work on the same IP subnet without 
> confusing the system or the client systems.   What are your 
> IP addresses 
> and subnet masks for the various interfaces?

Yea, I wondered about that one myself.

According to the Network guy, we've got a particular switch that cost us 18K
8 years ago that handles it seamlessly.

The interfaces are:
Token xxx.xxx.114.32 
Fiber xxx.xxx.114.91 
Ether xxx.xxx.114.232
Ether xxx.xxx.114.233

netmask is 255.255.255.0 for all of them.


> 
>   Sure you can have multiple virtuals no problem there but the key to 
> redundancy is to use just one virtual that's 'attached' to multiple 
> physicals in the same subnet. And don't forget the schowler 
> routes for 
> load balancing!
> 
>   - Larry
> 

Ah yes, the schowler routes.  Thanks for reminding me.  I've got that
document here too.

Question: if I include the TR.  Is there anyway to make sure the virtual IPs
don't associate to it unless everything else is down?  I seem to recall
seeing something about the virtual IPs associating to whatever interface
comes up first.  I really don't want 100Mb ethernet traffic being routed
over 16Mb TR unless absolutely necessary ;-)

Charles