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

-Hammer- bhmccie at gmail.com
Tue Aug 21 08:29:58 CDT 2012


It's too early for me to say that. I know for HSRP I had to define a 
group for IPv4 and a separate group for IPv6. Since it looks like VRRP 
is out for me I haven't looked into that. And I have no idea about other 
options for other manufacturers or specific implementations (NSRP, GSLB, 
etc.).  I'm still hoping someone on this thread from Cisco or elsewhere 
will confirm my findings. I'll update the thread with what our direct AS 
folks come back with as well.

-Hammer-

"I was a normal American nerd"
-Jack Herer

On 8/21/2012 1:38 AM, Tassos Chatzithomaoglou wrote:
> 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