Cisco Support Community
cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 
Announcements

Welcome to Cisco Support Community. We would love to have your feedback.

For an introduction to the new site, click here. And see here for current known issues.

Interesting find with VRRP

All,

I'm using VRRP in GNS, and I noticed something. I've got the following:

RTRA:

int fa0/1

ip address 10.125.95.1

vrrp 1 track 1

vrrp 1 priority 110

vrrp 1 ip 10.125.95.1

RTRB:

ip address 10.125.95.3

vrrp 1 ip 10.125.95.1

If I track the serial interface on RTRA in the VRRP group, and the serial interface goes down, with the ip address set the same as the virtual address, the group doesn't move over. If I set the physical ip address to .2 instead of .1, and I leave the virtual at .1, the tracking works and the group moves over.

I'm wondering why it matters which address I have on the interface if I'm tracking a different interface.

Thanks,

John

HTH, John *** Please rate all useful posts ***
1 ACCEPTED SOLUTION

Accepted Solutions
Cisco Employee

Re: Interesting find with VRRP

John,

This is probably due to the VRRP RFC 3768 statement in section 5.3.4: The priority value for the VRRP router that owns the IP address(es) associated with the virtual router MUST be 255 (decimal). As the RTRA is the owner of the virtual router IP address (its real IP address is the same as the VRRP group's IP address), its priority is, according to the RFC, 255. The command "vrrp priority" seems to be ignored here, and/or the tracking does not influence the priority of the router - I haven't tried it myself but this is my general idea about it.

Test it and have a look at the priorities displayed in the show vrrp outputs with the tracked interface being up and down. I believe that this is the way to go for finding out what's going on.

Best regards,

Peter

5 REPLIES
Cisco Employee

Re: Interesting find with VRRP

John,

This is probably due to the VRRP RFC 3768 statement in section 5.3.4: The priority value for the VRRP router that owns the IP address(es) associated with the virtual router MUST be 255 (decimal). As the RTRA is the owner of the virtual router IP address (its real IP address is the same as the VRRP group's IP address), its priority is, according to the RFC, 255. The command "vrrp priority" seems to be ignored here, and/or the tracking does not influence the priority of the router - I haven't tried it myself but this is my general idea about it.

Test it and have a look at the priorities displayed in the show vrrp outputs with the tracked interface being up and down. I believe that this is the way to go for finding out what's going on.

Best regards,

Peter

Re: Interesting find with VRRP

I agree with you Peter. It has always been this way.

Restrictions for VRRP Object Tracking

If a VRRP group is the IP address owner, its priority is fixed at 255 and can not be reduced through object tracking.

http://www.cisco.com/en/US/docs/ios/12_3t/12_3t2/feature/guide/gtvrrptk.html

Simon

Cisco Employee

Re: Interesting find with VRRP

Simon,

Thank you very much for confirming my suspicion!

Best regards,

Peter

Re: Interesting find with VRRP

Peter,

You're 100% correct. The priority is 255, but I thought when tracking, the priority of the non-tracked interface wouldn't matter. Apparently it does though.

Thanks,

John

HTH, John *** Please rate all useful posts ***
Cisco Employee

Re: Interesting find with VRRP

John,

You are heartily welcome. I have also learned something new, thanks to you and Simon. Thanks!

Best regards,

Peter

205
Views
0
Helpful
5
Replies