HSRP vs VRRP for IPv6 on IOS-XE - rekindling an old flame

Tassos Chatzithomaoglou achatz at forthnetgroup.gr
Tue Aug 21 01:38:25 CDT 2012


Any idea what to do if you want to use a FHRP for >255 subinterfaces?
HSRP allows you to use the same group number under multiple subinterfaces, while VRRP doesn't.
I don't know if this is only a Cisco limitation (giving preference to their child).

--
Tassos

Owen DeLong wrote on 20/8/2012 23:31:
> VRRP is to HSRP what 802.1q is to ISL...
>
> I highly recommend using VRRP instead of HSRP because:
>
> 1.	It is a more robust protocol
> 2.	It is vendor agnostic
> 3.	Being vendor agnostic it is more likely to have a continuing future.
>
> Does anyone still use ISL?
>
> Owen
>
> On Aug 20, 2012, at 13:10 , sthaug at nethelp.no wrote:
>
>>> Yeah I see the disconnect. I'm assuming that what I see is what I get.
>>> Which means I'm going to stick with HSRP. If our AS team gives me any
>>> good feedback that I can share I will do so. Thanks Nick.
>>>
>>> XE: v4: HSRPv1, HSRPv2, VRRP                v6: HSRPv2
>> Not particularly relevant to the original question - however, I'd like
>> to mention that we've been using IPv6 VRRP on our Juniper routers for
>> well over a year. No particular problems so far.
>>
>> Steinar Haug, Nethelp consulting, sthaug at nethelp.no
>
>




More information about the NANOG mailing list