Valid HSRP connection?

[Microbyte]

Hi I am dealing with limited choice in designing HSRP configuration.

There are three end nodes and two catalyst 6500s.

A --- Switch 1 ----- C
||
B --- Switch 2 ----- C

Switch 1 and Switch 2 are linked via trunk (layer 2).
between Node A and switch 1 are layer-3 link, and as well as node B and switch 2.
Connection between C and Switch 1 and 2 are done by HSRP.

IP address of A = 192.168.1.1 255.255.255.0
gateway 192.168.1.101
IP address of B = 192.168.1.2 255.255.255.0
IP address of Switch 1 = 192.168.1.101 255.255.255.0
gateway 192.168.1.102
IP address of Switch 2 = 192.168.1.102 255.255.255.0
IP address of C = 10.0.0.1 255.0.0.0
gateway 10.0.0.101
HSRP IP address switch A+B = 10.0.0.101 255.0.0.0

Node A and B are transmitting duplicate messages (redundant node).

Now here's my question.
Is there a problem setting up this network?
Even I implement HSRP on switch side facing node A and node B by creating priority?
Assuming all those IP addresses are not allowed to change.

Sorry for writing such a long thread. But any help is appreciated!



Microbyte

 

[UnaBomber]

IP address of A = 192.168.1.1 255.255.255.0
gateway 192.168.1.101
IP address of B = 192.168.1.2 255.255.255.0
IP address of Switch 1 = 192.168.1.101 255.255.255.0
gateway 192.168.1.102
IP address of Switch 2 = 192.168.1.102 255.255.255.0
IP address of C = 10.0.0.1 255.0.0.0
gateway 10.0.0.101
HSRP IP address switch A+B = 10.0.0.101 255.0.0.0

You have hsrp between two layer 3 devices, fine.

You have the default gateway of one of these layer 3 devices pointing to the other one's physical address, not clever, I presume you mean node B’s Default gateway = .102

You have configured the hsrp virtual router in a different subnet as the two layer 3 devices, (interesting, never tested that, but it looks like bad practise, why would you want to do that?).

What is stopping you creating two more layer 3 ports on your ML-switch, and assigning them addresses inside the 10.0.0.0/8 range? Anyway for packets coming back from A to C do you not *need* to have a physical interface address inside the subnet you are trying to route packets to?

What exactly are you trying to achieve here? I dont see the point of your config.

UnaBomber
ccnp mcse2k