I've not done tons of testing with either option, but I'd be a lot more comfortable with using an FHRP.
Given the issues / oddities that have been found with the IPv6 stacks on various platforms, I would be somewhat hesitant to leave the clients to make decisions about which gateway to use on their own. I'd definitely be interested in hearing if anyone has extensively tested using short-lived RA's for failover though. Does failover work reliably across most common OS's? Oliver ------------------------------------- Oliver Garraux Check out my blog: www.GetSimpliciti.com/blog Follow me on Twitter: twitter.com/olivergarraux On Tue, Oct 23, 2012 at 1:23 PM, Peter Rathlev <[email protected]> wrote: > We're starting to deploy IPv6 in an access network and now we're > wondering if short-lived RAs or some first-hop redundancy protocol is > the best way to do things. > > Using a Sup2T, we tried configuring 2048 interface with IPv6 using RA > lifetime of 12 seconds and RA interval of 4 seconds. Failover times of > 12 seconds are adequate for this purpose. The CPU load is negligible and > the steady state packet rate doesn't seem to bother anything. It should > be comparable to HSRP regarding PPS. > > I haven't tested failover times yet but it seems it should be okay > according to: > > http://packetlife.net/blog/2011/apr/18/ipv6-neighbor-discovery-high-availability/ > > Any input on this? :-) > > -- > Peter > > > _______________________________________________ > cisco-nsp mailing list [email protected] > https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp > archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/ _______________________________________________ cisco-nsp mailing list [email protected] https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
