Home page logo

nanog logo nanog mailing list archives

Re: HSRP vs VRRP for IPv6 on IOS-XE - rekindling an old flame
From: Tassos Chatzithomaoglou <achatz () forthnetgroup gr>
Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2012 09:38:25 +0300

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).


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?


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

  By Date           By Thread  

Current thread:
[ Nmap | Sec Tools | Mailing Lists | Site News | About/Contact | Advertising | Privacy ]