Besides VRRP not being proprietary, there are a few minor differences between the protocols as well:
With HSRP, each interface must have an IP address that is separate from the HSRP group address. VRRP lets you share the Master's interface IP address.
On Cisco devices, VRRP is configured to preempt by default, whereas HSRP is not configured to preempt by ...
1) Cisco propriteray
2) 1 Active & 1 standby router & 1 or more listening routers
3) use virtual ip add as gateway
4) hello 3 sec & holddown timer 10 sec
5) we can enable preempt manually (standby 1 preempt)
6) multicast at:220.127.116.11 (ver1), multicast at:18.104.22.168 (ver2). Both versions use udp port 1985
1) open standard (ietf)
You have multiple Linux solutions for first hop redundancy out of your LAN to the two routers (Quagga itself doesn't support VRRP but you can use Quagga in conjunction with any of these without any issues):
keepalived (as you've already mentioned)
uCARP - A Linux port of OpenBSD's CARP (Common Address Redundancy Protocol)
vrrpd - A sparsely documented and ...
This is the logical view of what you're trying to achieve:
Configure the router priorities for both VRRP 'a' and VRRP 'b' as follows:
Router 1: 110 (master)
Router 2: 100 (backup)
The configure interface tracking as follows:
Router 1 VRRP a: track interface R1b with a track priority of 90
Router 1 VRRP b: track interface R1a with a track priority of 90
VRRP-E is Brocade only. From Brocade documentation:
VRRP-E is a Brocade protocol that provides the benefits of VRRP
without the limitations. VRRP-E is unlike VRRP in the following ways:
There is no “Owner” router. You do not need to use an IP address configured on one of the Layer 3 Switches as the virtual router ID
(VRID), which is the ...
PIM messages are not sourced from HSRP VIP's so the RPF check fails since the HSRP VIP is your RPF neighbor. There are two ways around this though.
Set up a dynamic routing protocol between your router and the other sides routers so HSRP is not needed.
Configure static mroutes to the other sides actual interface IP's such as:
ip mroute 0.0.0.0 0.0.0.0 1.1....
The main current issue with the Brocade line is that you can only enable one at a time, per chassis. i.e. If you want to run VRRP-E, you'll never be able to run VRRP with another vendor on another port.
They are not compatible in any way. VRRP-E is proprietary.
It's all about the timers. There's an advertise interval and a master down interval (hello and hold time in HSRP and GLBP). The master sends VRRP advertisements according to the advertise interval. This lets the backup know that the master is up. If the backup doesn't receive an advertisement within the master down interval, it will transition to master. ...
You are really looking for the Brocade Track Ports and Track Priority features.
With these features configured, when the red connection fails, it will lower the priority of the green connection. This should then allow the blue connection to take over as master in the group.
Personally, I would also add a direct link between the two L3 switches as well.
I was able to resolve the issue. On the Kemp (with HA pair) you have the option of using a "Virtual MAC Address". If this box isn't checked, then the MAC of a load balancer VIP is that of the physical interface of the active Kemp unit. If this box is checked, then the MAC address of the VIP is a VRRP MAC. As you mentioned above the VRRP RFC states that the ...
You will need HSRP or VRRP for you FHRP if you want redundancy for your gateway. Each switch will need an SVI for each VLAN, and each VLAN will have its own FHRP group. You place the group for a VLAN on the SVI. The FHRP will use a path on the VLAN (dictated by STP) between the switches for the FHRP traffic.
One thing you want to carefully plan is that the ...
I can see a few ways of doing this:
Round robin DNS with multiple A records (as suggested in comments by JFL). This would require the clients to properly re-look up the addresses when required, and get rotated A records (small TTL would probably help) and/or properly try the different addresses themselves.
VRRP/HSRP (per your original question) This looks ...
These are two completely independent protocols. VRRP doesn't interact with OSPF, or vice versa.
VRRP will create a virtual gateway, and one router (layer-3 switch?) will be the primary and the other router will be the secondary which takes over if the primary router fails. This has nothing to do with the routing protocol.
The real concern with an FHRP is ...
First Hop Redundancy Protocols Configuration Guide, Cisco IOS XE Release 3S
VRRP Object Tracking
Object tracking is an independent process that manages creating, monitoring, and removing tracked objects such as the
state of the line protocol of an interface. Clients such as the Hot
Standby Router Protocol (HSRP), Gateway Load Balancing Protocol
(GLBP), and ...
The individual routers' physical interfaces do not share the master router's IP address. Each router must have different addresses configured on the physical interface. What that statement means is that the virtual interface may be assigned to the IP address of one of the physical interfaces. The physical interface which shares its address with the virtual ...
HSRP is Cisco-proprietary. VRRP is not (RFC 5798). There are probably other nitty gritty technical differences, but that is the major one. And IIRC VRRP doesn't have the ability to do interface tracking, while HSRP does - might be wrong on this though.
edit: RFC 5798 gives v6 support to VRRP. The original RFC was 2338.
FHRPs, like VRRP, and HSRP, don't load balance anything; that is not their purpose. The purpose of an FHRP is to give a virtual gateway, which can fail to a different physical router in the case of a primary router failure. The gateway is either statically configured on hosts, or assigned to the hosts by DHCP. Some people will also use the assigned gateway ...
Normal duplicate addressing defences should take care of this particular situation.
Specifically, when the client assigns .2 to some server, which is clashing with .2 already on your second router, the server will generate errors when it tries to bring the interface up, as pretty much all OS test for this. Misconfigured server will normally ARP for its own ...
I tend to agree with @jonathanjo but otherwise:
It is often forsaken, but VRRP - contrary to Cisco HSRP - does NOT require that the primary address of the interfaces belong to the same network as the virtual address. (In fact a VRRP advertisement packet can contain several virtual IP addresses).
So you can also assign whichever IP you want to the routers ...
As explained in the question comments, no it is not VRRP or STP, as those features address different needs.
STP is about links, i.e. layer 2, while VRRP is about IP gateways, i.e. layer 3.
In the case you get your layer 2 network split in half, like in your second diagram, yes all clients have a gateway to speak to, and so they can send data.
But how will ...
As @JFL has already pointed out, your failover concept has a problem when one of the switches or one of their interconnects fails - currently there's no L2 redundancy. This is because VRRP makes the L3 gateways redundant, not the L2 switches/links.
The best-practice approach would be to remove the chain of switches and connect each of them to both L3 ...
VRRP, and other FHRPs such as HSRP, allow you to have a default gateway configured on your hosts that does not really exist. One router will take over the virtual router IP and MAC addresses, and if that router fails, then another router that was in standby can take over the virtual addresses. This lets you have backup routers in case one router fails. Some ...
VRRP is used to create a virtual router that can be made redundant by using two routers in a cluster. One router is active, the other is in standby.
When the active router fails, the virtual router's IP and MAC addresses are taken over by the standby router. That way, you can create a failover scenario with next to no connectivity loss.
Using NAT with ...
You may not get the results you intend.
Router 2 dies then (mirrored for 3):
Router 1 routes all traffic via Router 3 OSPF ensures Router 4 loses
route to subnet 192.168.1.0/24 Therefore Router 4 lowers its VRRP
priority to 60 and devices use Router 5
Not quite. If R2 dies, R4 will still have a route to 192.168.1.0 -- it's through R5. So it ...
You actually don't have to do anything. VPC paired Nexus work exactly as you want them to.
The prerequisite is that all systems involved (i.e. the servers) are attached to the Nexus over a VPC enabled port channel of that given Nexus pair.
Please note: ...
Perhaps using a static mroute that points to the 'real' interface IP address, then a normal static route pointing to HSRP. then at least you get HSRP for unicast. OR point either the mroute or static route to the interface rather than an IP address.
The problem is that the remote routers are announcing themselves with PIM Hello messages from their own IP addresses and my router registers these addresses as PIM neighbours.
The gateway in the routing table however contains the HSRP virtual address. When the router wants to join the multicast group, it looks for the route to the Rendezvous Point which has ...
1) CISCO Proprietary
2) RFC 2281
3) Multicast group Ip:
4) Port No. UDP 1985
5) PREEMPT: By default disabled
6) Virtual Mac address: 0000.0c07.acxx
xx = HSRP group id
7) Ipv6 Support
8) Router roll:
1) IEEE STANDARD
2) RFC 3768
3) Multicast group Ip
The multicast address you're looking for is 22.214.171.124 [mac: 01005e.000012]. That is the control channel for all VRRP nodes.  Unless KEMP changed the code, CARP (UCARP) originates traffic using the VRRP unicast MAC [00005e.0001xx] -- that's where a switch would naturally learn it.
If you don't have a querier on the network (presumably in every ...
Assuming you're in a Cisco environment....have you enabled
ip pim sparse-mode
on all the interfaces between that device and the RP?
Also don't forget to have ip pim autorp listener so it finds the RP automatically.
Also - if you have redundant links between you and the RP...PIM routing (or branches) do not follow the same path as the regular routing table. ...