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

[gtaylor at tnetconsulting.net (Grant Taylor)]

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 â?? of traffic to go to one GLBP 
peer and the remaining â?? 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.



-- 
Grant. . . .
unix || die

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 4008 bytes
Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
URL: <http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/attachments/20190805/4659cb65/attachment.bin>