[155657] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: HSRP vs VRRP for IPv6 on IOS-XE - rekindling an old flame
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (-Hammer-)
Mon Aug 20 17:26:57 2012
Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2012 16:26:07 -0500
From: -Hammer- <bhmccie@gmail.com>
To: nanog@nanog.org
In-Reply-To: <01BC2B28-2E9C-4AAA-922C-62A03A641DB3@delong.com>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
It's a good argument Owen. Unfortunately it looks like VRRP is not an
available feature on the ASR for IPv6 FHRP. I'm still trying to confirm
it but it is definitely not configurable in my version of code and if
it's "just coming out" in a "new release" there is no way I'm jumping in
with both feet. I'll have to stick with HSRP and LL addressing. If
anyone knows different please let me know. Thanks
PS: Yes, I still have some ISL. :( On legacy environments only though. I
promise. Nothing new in years...
-Hammer-
"I was a normal American nerd"
-Jack Herer
On 8/20/2012 3:31 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
> 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@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@nethelp.no
>
>
