HSRP vs VRRP for IPv6 on IOS-XE - rekindling an old flame
achatz at forthnetgroup.gr
Tue Aug 21 06:38:25 UTC 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).
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?
> 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