Good point. I forgot about this one. Apparently, you can have four active forwarders per group. The load is balanced across them via the virtual MAC addresses.
I could implement something similar to my open VRRP implementation (I wrote about it on the ML recently), but only if it's a wanted features. I don't think it's overly complex to do, but of course it won't be covered by any current RFCs. Regards. On 05/08/2019 19:55, Grant Taylor via NANOG wrote: > On 8/5/19 9:19 AM, Nicolas Chabbey wrote: >> Are there any good reasons of using proprietary FHRPs like HSRP and >> GLBP over VRRP ? > > I thought that GLBP had functionality that allowed both participants to > be active/active. I.e. you could cause ⅔ of traffic to go to one GLBP > peer and the remaining ⅓ go to the other GLBP peer. > > It's my understanding that neither HSRP nor VRRP support this > active/active operation and that they are purely active/passive. > > Sure, you can have multiple HSRP / VRRP IPs and spread the load via > client configuration. But that's outside of the scope of the protocols > themselves. > > Please correct me if I'm wrong. > > >
