Re: [nanog] Cisco GLBP/HSRP question -- Has it ever been dis

[Nicolas Chabbey <nchabbey () n3network ch>]

Are there any good reasons of using proprietary FHRPs like HSRP and GLBP
over VRRP ?

I know that one reason may be interoperability with some vendors
equipment and old gears, but VRRPv3 is now widely used, in particular
for IPv6.

Also VRRP can be easily extended with proprietary extensions and looks
very similar to HSRP in its operation.

Regards.

On 04/08/2019 21:40, cyrus ramirez via NANOG wrote:
> If you're looking for vendor neutral FHRP, VRRP has RFC documentation.
> GLBP and HSRP are Cisco proprietary protocols and are protected
> information other than the study material and how too out there.
>
> Cyrus
>
> Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android
> <https://go.onelink.me/107872968?pid=InProduct&c=Global_Internal_YGrowth_AndroidEmailSig__AndroidUsers&af_wl=ym&af_sub1=Internal&af_sub2=Global_YGrowth&af_sub3=EmailSignature>
>
>     On Sat, Aug 3, 2019 at 10:19 AM, Chriztoffer Hansen
>     <chriztoffer () netravnen de> wrote:
>
>     Saku Ytti wrote on 03/08/2019 15:49:
>     > I don't think any work for GLBP exists in IETF.
>
>     A shot in the dark. Correct.
>
>     
> https://www.google.com/#q=%28"GLBP"%7C"Gateway+Load+Balancing"+Protocol%7C"Global+Load+Balancing"+Protocol%29+AND+inurl%3Adatatracker+AND+inurl%3Aietf
>
>     (My IETF history is short. =I won't know any older history.)
>
>     ... I doubt any current or previous Cisco folks on the list would want
>     to chirm in about history from inside Cisco on the GLBP topic...(?)
>
>
>     -- 
>     Best regards,
>     Chriztoffer