It's too early for me to say that. I know for HSRP I had to define a
group for IPv4 and a separate group for IPv6. Since it looks like VRRP
is out for me I haven't looked into that. And I have no idea about other
options for other manufacturers or specific implementations (NSRP, GSLB,
etc.). I'm still hoping someone on this thread from Cisco or elsewhere
will confirm my findings. I'll update the thread with what our direct AS
folks come back with as well.
-Hammer-
"I was a normal American nerd"
-Jack Herer
On 8/21/2012 1:38 AM, Tassos Chatzithomaoglou wrote:
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 , [email protected] 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, [email protected]
