On Tue, 2012-10-23 at 19:15 +0100, Phil Mayers wrote: > HSRPv6 gives you access to the "track" stuff which can be useful to have > more explicit control over how you failover and when.
Right, that's a rather good point. > In addition, HSRP packets flow between routers, not router->hosts. The > implications of missing a few RAs in a row with very short-lived RAs are > unclear, and possibly undesirable. I actually thought that router->hosts was better overall. I can't think of an example right now but I'm almost certain I've seen or thought of scenarios where that would cope with some errors that router->router wouldn't catch. But that's probably academic if anything. :-) > We use HSRPv6 on sup720 and are happy with it. We do however use "ipv6 > nd prefix" to lower the prefix lifetime, because I think the RFC > defaults are absurd. AFAICT the default lifetime is 30 days, at least for 15.0(1)SY1. I'm not sure I see the problem with that. I consider it equivalent to a DHCP lease time of 30 days, something we only not do because of address depletion, right? Or am I missing something? -- Peter _______________________________________________ cisco-nsp mailing list [email protected] https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
