I have two switches at different sites connected via fiber. The two sites have redundant SAN and VM hosts so I have their Vlans spanning both sites. My goal is to have redundancy for connectivity and routing to/from Vlan105 (SAN Vlan) at both the High School and Town Hall sites. But this config doesn’t look correct.
Shouldn't the HS_MDF switch have the following statement in the EIGRP configuration?
network 172.18.5.0 0.0.0.255
!--- above since we only let vlan 30 interface participate in eigrp
Am I right in assuming that if the TH-Core switch went down, the HS_MDF switch would assume the Vlan105 IP address but no other subnets would know about it via EIGRP?
Thanks for the additional information. In the larger context that you have explained I agree with your original point that you should add both the network statement and the passive-interface statement to EIGRP.