Is it true that the configuration below makes HSRP obsolete?

[keesepema]

I am puzzling with a redundant setup with HSRP. (See image in attachment).

There are three pc's connected to a switch. One pc in VLAN 10, one pc in VLAN 20 and the last one in VLAN 30.
Out of the switch there are two ports (g0/1 and g0/2) connected to two different routers with trunk links allowing vlan 10,20 and 30 traffic.

Both routers are configured with router on a stick.

Now I want to configure HSRP on both routers. R1 will be the active router and R2 standby.

It leads to this configuration:

R1

int g0/0/0
no sh

int g0/0/0.10
encap dot1q 10
ip add 192.168.10.1 255.255.255.0
stan ver 2
stan 10 ip 192.168.10.254
stan 10 preempt
stan 10 prio 110

int g0/0/0.20
encap dot1q 20
ip add 192.168.20.1 255.255.255.0
stan ver 2
stan 20 ip 192.168.20.254
stan 20 preempt
stan 20 prio 110

int g0/0/0.30
encap dot1q 30
ip add 192.168.30.1 255.255.255.0
stan ver 2
stan 30 ip 192.168.30.254
stan 30 preempt
stan 30 prio 110

R2 has exact the same configuration, except for the preempt and prio lines.

In both routers all subinterface gateways are configured as 192.168.x.1.
Therefore I think I don't need to configure HSRP, because redundancy is alreeay built in.

Am I right?

[MHM Cisco World]

This not correct, having both subinterface in both router in same vlan same IP 

This make issue in your network

You need to specify different IP for example. 2 and use VIP of hsrp as GW for host 

This how hsrp work.

MHM

[Georg Pauwen · Accepted solution]

Hello,

this what R2 should look like:

R2

int g0/0/0
no sh

int g0/0/0.10
encap dot1q 10
ip add 192.168.10.2 255.255.255.0
stan ver 2
stan 10 ip 192.168.10.254
!
int g0/0/0.20
encap dot1q 20
ip add 192.168.20.2 255.255.255.0
stan ver 2
stan 20 ip 192.168.20.254
!
int g0/0/0.30
encap dot1q 30
ip add 192.168.30.2 255.255.255.0
stan ver 2
stan 30 ip 192.168.30.254

Gateway IP addresses of the hosts should be the .254 addresses.