Advantages of VRRP-E?

In comparing Cisco's HSRP vs. VRRP, the obvious advantage of VRRP is that it achieves the same goal using an open standard, although some note it also conserves an IP address, because the gateway's real IP is used instead of a Virtual IP.

HP/Brocade went in the opposite direction! They created VRRP-E, and what is its primary advantage? It uses a Virtual IP address rather than one of the one's assigned to the gateway's IP addresses! While I have read both their documentation, can someone explain a business advantage of this that justifies designing, implementing, and running a proprietary protocol?!

Here is what the vendor states--

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 address you are backing up for redundancy. The VRID is independent of the IP interfaces configured in the Layer 3 Switches. As a result, the protocol does not have an “Owner” as VRRP does.

•

There is no restriction on which router can be the default master router. In VRRP, the “Owner” (the Layer 3 Switch on which the IP interface that is used for the VRID is configured) must be the default Master.

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

pert

You can do more advanced priority changes with port tracking, it has a slow start timer that allows STP and routing to converge first, and IIRC you can still ping the VIP if the owner router dies. That's all that I can think of.

it_consultant

From doing both the CCNP and BCNP tracks, I would prefer the VRRP-E implementation by Brocade. However, I wish Brocade had a similar feature to gateway load balancing protocol.

pert

it_consultant wrote: »

From doing both the CCNP and BCNP tracks, I would prefer the VRRP-E implementation by Brocade. However, I wish Brocade had a similar feature to gateway load balancing protocol.

I find GLBP to be kind of useless, just load balance the number of VLANs. If you really want GLBP, move onto something like MCT.