I am curious, what is the deal breaker about VRRP requirement of having participating interfaces besides that it's two less addresses from your DHCP pool?
Ziyad Basheer On Tue, May 17, 2011 at 1:53 PM, Alex Bligh <[email protected]> wrote: > Ondrej, > > --On 16 May 2011 21:59:56 +0200 Ondrej Zajicek <[email protected]> > wrote: > > NSSA: >> This seems to be, surprisingly for me, the most requested >> feature, as it does not look hard to implement i will probably >> implement that in near future. >> > > Thanks > > > VRRP: >> Maybe. Is there any advantage if it is integrated in routing daemon >> (instead of using independent VRRP daemon)? I would guess that there >> isn't any interaction between VRRP and routing, but i don't have any >> experience with VRRP. >> > > We would be interested in a sane implementation of VRRP. We'd also > be even more interested in other interfaces redundancy protocols that > do not "waste" IP addresses (e.g. do not use IP addresses for the > native interfaces). One problem with VRRP is that it is allegedly > patent encumbered. > > -- > Alex Bligh >
