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 , sth...@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, sth...@nethelp.no
