Hi Kevin

Yes, i wasn't totally clear on where the OP wanted to use HSRP either but the most logical way to set this up is to inter-vlan route on the core switches.

Could you just explain what you mean by

"The HSRP would be between the core switches, offering a service to one interface of the 3845"

Thanks

Jon

Jon,

[P.P.S. Before I get even more confused, perhaps we need a better idea how the original poster imagined the topology ;-)]

[P.S. I just looked at your posting again, and I think I was talking at cross-purposes. I was thinking about HSRP on the router side rather than on the inter-VLAN side. I had assumed that the external router and the two core switches were on a VLAN with HSRP between the core switches, with the external router having a static route to 192.168.5.1. I had the idea that was what the OP was imagining. But as you point out, the better architecture is to use P2P layer-3 interface between the core switches and the 3845, and do the redundancy at layer-3.]

I mean that it would work the way you had it in your config. That is, the two core switches would be members of an HSRP group, presenting an HSRP "ip standby" address on the VLAN. One interface of the 2845 would then route to that standby address.

So many times I have seen people try to make two Ethernet interfaces on the same router be part of an HSRP group, to get link-redundancy. But that does not work because it would depend on the the two interfaces being on the same subnet, which of course is not possible.

HSRP can provide redundancy between two router, but it cannot provide link redundancy between two interfaces of the same router.

Kevin Dorrell

Luxembourg

Kevin

Okay that makes sense. I guess i was just confused as to why you said "one" interface on the router as you could have both interfaces connected back to the 2 core switches and the router wouldn't use the HSRP address anyway if you were running a routing protocol between it and the core switches.

Jon