05-08-2012 02:38 PM
Need some help in understanding the priority value , below is my ft track host conifg and the output
ft interface vlan 1003
ip address 1.1.1.1 255.255.255.252
peer ip address 1.1.1.2 255.255.255.252
no shutdown
ft peer 1
heartbeat interval 300
heartbeat count 10
ft-interface vlan 1003
ft group 10
peer 1
priority 255
peer priority 250
associate-context Admin
inservice
ft track host GATEWAY
track-host 10.1.3.2
peer track-host 10.1.3.3
probe PROBE_ICMP priority 100
peer probe PROBE_ICMP priority 50
/Admin# sh ft track summary
FT Group : 10
Status : in-service
Maintenance mode : MAINT_MODE_OFF
My State : FSM_FT_STATE_ACTIVE
My Config Priority : 255
My Net Priority : 255
My Preempt : Enabled
Context Name : Admin
Context Id : 0
Track Name : GATEWAY
Track type : TRACK_HOST
Host IP Address : 10.1.3.2
State : TRACK_UP
Priority : 0 ( why its shows the priority as 0 )
Probe name : PROBE_ICMP
State : TRACK_UP
Priority : 100
Have the priority for my ft group is 255 , and for ft track host is 100 (255-100) 155
and for the standy ft group is 250 and ft track host is 50 (250-50) 200
If the track host is not reachable then will it failover successfully as i have the higher priority value for ACE2 which is 200
05-08-2012 06:30 PM
Hello,
your first doubt is why priority is "0" in the output. We have two options when we create a track hot for a FT group, either assign priority to probe (which you have done) or we define priority to track host (not to probe) which will reduce the priority of the FT group in case all the associated probes attach to that track host has failed.
Configuring priority is useful in scenarioes where in we have multiple track hosts and we want to give priorities to various hosts. default is 0
Coming to you second q? in case both FT peer loss their track hosts there will be a failover (as per new priorities)
05-08-2012 07:07 PM
Gaurav thanks for your response
So inthat case my config should work ,there should not be any issues.Please let me know if I need add or delete any of the priority
05-08-2012 07:46 PM
see as far as FT fail over is concern this will work. But i am not very clear with your objective of FT tracking host. My doubt is why u r tracking different IP for both FT peer (10.1.3.2 for this peer and 10.1.3.3 for remote peer). what i understand the objective of tracking was to track a single device (like gateway) from both peers and change priorities for FT failover, so that device with no gateway reachable shound go standby.
in your case even when both peers have lost their track hosts still there will be a failover, not clear what failover will acheive.
but if its your requirement and this is what you want to achieve your configuration is good.
05-08-2012 08:13 PM
Still not clear with topolgy
10.1.3.2 and 10.1.3.3 are switches connected to ACE device respectively (ACE-1 connected to 10.1.3.2 and ACE 2 connected to 10.1.3.3). And then you are tracking 10.1.3.2 on ACE-1 and 10.1.3.3 on ACE-2. When 10.1.3.2 is unreachable ACE-1 priority reduce to 155 (255-100), so ACE-2 will take over. Now suppose ACE-2 also loss 10.1.3.3 then it will reduce its priority 200 (250.50), so its still higher it will remain Active.
now my q? what is 10.1.3.2 and 10.1.3.3 any ways related to ACE routing part (not physical connectivity). Are they gateway for routes or what. Or reframing the q? what will happen on ACE-1 traffic forwarding mechanism if 10.1.3.2 is lost (forget FT for time being). Will this make ACE-1 unreachable to rest of network? Similar for ACE-2 and 10.1.3.3
I hope u got what i want to know..
05-08-2012 08:22 PM
Gaurav thanks for explaining me in detail ,I guess the better choice would be to track interface vlan ,which ever is configured on ACE ,that way I will be tracking same vlan
ft track interface Admin
track-interface vlan 5
peer track interface vlan 5
priority 100
peer priority 50
This should solve my scenario I guess ,If ace 1 loses track of vlan 5 ,ACE2 should become primary,and when ACE1 vlan will be available it should become active as I have the preempt enabled .
Please let me know if it makes sense
05-08-2012 08:44 PM
i will again say yes it is also good for your setup of failover requirementand yes with your configuration your failover will work as expected.
Discover and save your favorite ideas. Come back to expert answers, step-by-step guides, recent topics, and more.
New here? Get started with these tips. How to use Community New member guide