Hi, On Tue, Dec 31, 2013 at 07:54:10PM +0000, Phil Mayers wrote: > On 31/12/2013 19:40, Gert Doering wrote: > >On Tue, Dec 31, 2013 at 03:59:18PM +0000, Phil Mayers wrote: > >>(Note that changing the HSRP version does not have this property; the > >>old vMAC will be removed from the FDB, and the box won't forward traffic > >>destined to it) > > > >Could someone remind me why I have to change HSRP to v2 to be able to > > Not sure about that - maybe some fixed-size field in the HSRPv1 packet? > Been a while since I looked at it in a sniffer.
Having a different packet format for IPv6 makes sense, as, uh, it's not
IPv4 anyway :-) - but forcing me to move our IPv4 HSRP groups to v2 (which
incurs a reachability hit) to be able to enable *different* HSRP groups
for IPv6 later on is just so slightly annoying.
[..]
> HSRP has a lot of weird edge cases on Cisco gear. IIRC a lot of them
> relate to the size of the CPU MAC-address receive filter, and other
> tedious crap that wouldn't matter if they moved off CPUs from last
> millenium.
True. Plus programmers that have never worked with a real network,
where things actually *evolve* over time...
[..]
> In fairness to Cisco, other vendors have blind spots. Juniper makes you
> type a truly tedious amount of config to get VRRP working, though at
> least commit scripts can automate that out of existence.
True, that one was done by someone who never had to do a router setup
as well, I bet.
gert
--
USENET is *not* the non-clickable part of WWW!
//www.muc.de/~gert/
Gert Doering - Munich, Germany [email protected]
fax: +49-89-35655025 [email protected]
pgp4JCH_1TQ_s.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ cisco-nsp mailing list [email protected] https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
