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 , sthaug@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, sthaug@nethelp.no