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

[Nicolas Chabbey <nchabbey () n3network ch>]

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.