On 20/08/2012 15:51, Nick Hilliard wrote:
> Last time I looked, the support looked like this:
>
> XR: v4: HSRPv1, VRRP v6: VRRP
> IOS: v4: HSRPv1, HSRPv2, VRRP, GLBP v6: HSRPv2, GLBP
>
> You'll notice a certain lack of joined-up thinking here.
Looks like IOS 15.2(4)M finally s
It's too early for me to say that. I know for HSRP I had to define a
group for IPv4 and a separate group for IPv6. Since it looks like VRRP
is out for me I haven't looked into that. And I have no idea about other
options for other manufacturers or specific implementations (NSRP, GSLB,
etc.). I
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 23:3
--- On Mon, 8/20/12, Owen DeLong wrote:
> From: Owen DeLong
> Subject: Re: HSRP vs VRRP for IPv6 on IOS-XE - rekindling an old flame
> To: sth...@nethelp.no
> Cc: nanog@nanog.org
> Date: Monday, August 20, 2012, 1:31 PM
> VRRP is to HSRP what 802.1q is to
> ISL...
>
&g
That's good to know. Seriously. I can point that out to the Cisco
guys... :)
-Hammer-
"I was a normal American nerd"
-Jack Herer
On 8/20/2012 3:10 PM, sth...@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
It's a good argument Owen. Unfortunately it looks like VRRP is not an
available feature on the ASR for IPv6 FHRP. I'm still trying to confirm
it but it is definitely not configurable in my version of code and if
it's "just coming out" in a "new release" there is no way I'm jumping in
with both
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
> 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, VRRPv6: HSRPv2
Not particularly relevant to th
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, VRRPv6: HSRPv2
Reflections of a madman... Why is parity
On 20/08/2012 15:41, -Hammer- wrote:
> Correction. Still looking for something IPv6 specific.
Last time I looked, the support looked like this:
XR: v4: HSRPv1, VRRP v6: VRRP
IOS: v4: HSRPv1, HSRPv2, VRRP, GLBP v6: HSRPv2, GLBP
You'll notice a certain lack of joined-up thin
Correction. Still looking for something IPv6 specific.
-Hammer-
"I was a normal American nerd"
-Jack Herer
On 8/20/2012 9:39 AM, -Hammer- wrote:
And two seconds after I hit send I find an updated article
http://www.cisco.com/en/US/docs/ios-xml/ios/ipapp_fhrp/configuration/xe-3s/fhp-vrrp.h
And two seconds after I hit send I find an updated article
http://www.cisco.com/en/US/docs/ios-xml/ios/ipapp_fhrp/configuration/xe-3s/fhp-vrrp.html
If you have more information I still welcome it. I'm going to go sit in
the corner now...
-Hammer-
"I was a normal American nerd"
-Jack He
12 matches
Mail list logo
