From: Alec (clapun@graduate.hku.hk)
Date: Wed Aug 13 2003 - 13:57:01 GMT-3
It depends on the type of network fault. In case a DIRECT link down,
failover should be fast. However, if the packet somewho got stuck in the
middleway, the protocol relies of the expiry of the hello and dead timers
which for sure induce significantly longer delay.
regards,
alec
----- Original Message -----
From: <dcopleston@manfinancial.com>
To: <cchurch@wamnet.com>; <raj_ccie@yahoo.com>; <ccielab@groupstudy.com>
Sent: Wednesday, August 13, 2003 11:27 PM
Subject: RE: HSRP / VRRP
> The main advantage of VRRP over HSRP (i.e. a feature that HSRP cannot do)
is
> secure authentication Hellos and other VRRP traffic. HSRP does allow
> authentication but this is transmitted in plaintext and is best to avoid
> configuration errors with clashing groups causing immediate issues whereas
> VRRP uses MD5 hashes and so the authentication text cannot easily be
sniffed
> from the multicasts. The wider support of VRRP also means that you could
> potentially use multiple vendors products in the same VRRP vrid.
>
> VRRP does have a simpler state machine and so may be by default faster at
> failing over but as Chuck mentions timers can be tweaked and so this is
> perhaps not a key difference for most environments.
>
> Daniel
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Charles Church [mailto:cchurch@wamnet.com]
> Sent: 13 August 2003 16:17
> To: Rajagopal S; ccielab@groupstudy.com
> Subject: RE: HSRP / VRRP
>
>
> Raj,
>
> HSRP has hello and dead timers that can be changed to decrease the
> fail-over time. Lowering the keepalive interval on a tracked interface
can
> speed that up as well. So I wouldn't necessarily say that VRRP has a
speed
> advantage over HSRP.
>
> Chuck Church
> CCIE #8776, MCNE, MCSE
> Wam!Net Government Services
> 13665 Dulles Technology Dr. Ste 250
> Herndon, VA 20171
> Office: 703-480-2569
> Cell: 703-819-3495
> cchurch@wamnet.com
> PGP key: http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?search=chuck+church&op=index
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: nobody@groupstudy.com [mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com]On Behalf Of
> Rajagopal S
> Sent: Wednesday, August 13, 2003 10:31 AM
> To: ccielab@groupstudy.com
> Subject: HSRP / VRRP
>
>
> Hi ,
>
> As far as LAN redundancy is concerned, we had been using HSRP between
> two routers. By this, In case the first router fails, it takes around
> 10-15 secs for the LAN to come up on the standby router.
>
> I have studied in Cisco documents that VRRP can almost instantaneously
> bring up the LAN on the standby router (in case the primary router
> fails !! ) . Has anybody tested this ?
>
> Is there any other difference (other than command sets) between HSRP
> and VRRP ?
>
> Cheers
> Raj
>
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software
>
>
> _______________________________________________________________________
> You are subscribed to the GroupStudy.com CCIE R&S Discussion Group.
>
> Subscription information may be found at:
> http://www.groupstudy.com/list/CCIELab.html
>
>
> _______________________________________________________________________
> You are subscribed to the GroupStudy.com CCIE R&S Discussion Group.
>
> Subscription information may be found at:
> http://www.groupstudy.com/list/CCIELab.html
>
>
> _______________________________________________________________________
> You are subscribed to the GroupStudy.com CCIE R&S Discussion Group.
>
> Subscription information may be found at:
> http://www.groupstudy.com/list/CCIELab.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Tue Sep 02 2003 - 18:53:58 GMT-3