[155672] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: HSRP vs VRRP for IPv6 on IOS-XE - rekindling an old flame
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Tassos Chatzithomaoglou)
Tue Aug 21 02:39:10 2012
Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2012 09:38:25 +0300
From: Tassos Chatzithomaoglou <achatz@forthnetgroup.gr>
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
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@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
>
>
