IEOC - Internetwork Expert's Online Community

I have been thinking a long time about this task and failed to do it without introducing additional IP addresses.

The suggested solution introduces 2 additional IP addresses (albeit from the network already assigned to the router interfaces). Isn't this breaking the rule ('do not change or add any ip addresses...')?

best regards
Matthias

I agree.  The wording of the task makes it seem as though the the group ip addresses should be .3 and .6 (the actual physical interfaces of the two gateways).  I struggled with this for a bit before moving on, and when I finally looked at the solution I was a little peeved.  This problem should probably be reworded.  But, hey, I just spent some more time playing around with (and breaking) HSRP, so thats always good in the long run.

However, is there actually a way to solve this without adding new addresses? If so, I couldn't figure it out.

Hi,

I've just been doing this lab today and came across this one myself. Agree the wording makes it seem that adding IP addresses is no allowed. So I was stuck on this for a bit as I knew HSRP wouldn't allow using the physical IP addresses (i.e. .3 & .6) as standby addresses too.
I haven't ever used VRRP before tonight, but I found that VRRP allows what HSRP doesn't, i.e. physical IP can be used as a VRRP address.

So, creating two vrrp groups, one for each physical address gives a working solution without adding any new IP addresses.

HTH,
Gavin

Forgot to mention. Also tried GLBP tonight (as I'd never used that before either) and GLBP is like HSRP, i.e. can't use physical IP as a standby address.

GavinS:

So, creating two vrrp groups, one for each physical address gives a working solution without adding any new IP addresses.

Correct, its one of the benefits of VRRP - and in my opinion the only valid solution - it looks like the author originally wrote it for VRRP and then either forgot or someone else did the solution :)