Talk:Common Address Redundancy Protocol

Citation Necessary?
Can someone provide a citation to support this sentence?:

Because VRRP fixed problems with the HSRP protocol, Cisco began using VRRP instead, while still claiming it as its own. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 164.67.97.133 (talk) 02:44, 17 April 2009 (UTC)


 * The statement is false, plain and simple. Cisco routers and switches running IOS today support HSRP, VRRP, and GLBP for redundant gateways. Cisco NX-OS and IOS-XR support HSRP and VRRP. HSRP, VRRP, and GLBP are distinct. They use different MAC addresses, different multicast addresses, different timers, and different terminology. The configuration is different on Cisco devices, as well. I read the referenced page and all I see is Cisco saying that VRRP infringes on their patents and copies ideas from HSRP -- not the other way around. HSRP came out in 1994 and VRRP came out in 1999.


 * Cisco did release HSRP Version 2 in 2008 that added support for millisecond timers and more than 256 groups. Later, in 2010, VRRP Version 3 was released that added support for millisecond timers. VRRP is still limited to 256 groups like HSRP Version 1.


 * The only real advantage VRRP has ever had over HSRP is the ability to assign the same IP address to the group as well as to an interface, saving an IP. Cisco never added that feature to HSRP or GLBP. Also, since VRRP is an open standard, vendors other than Cisco have implemented it.&mdash;Kjsehyrt (talk) 19:37, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Strong bias in history section
This section is poorly worded, lopsided and contains several statements of either a speculative nature, or else which need to be backed up by appropriate citations.


 * Because VRRP fixed problems with the HSRP protocol
 * Cisco informed the OpenBSD developers that it would enforce its patent on HSRP
 * Cisco's position may have been due to their lawsuit with Alcatel
 * Cisco's licensing terms prevented an open-source VRRP implementation
 * They designed CARP to use cryptography.

2001:4D68:2002:100:0:0:0:110 (talk) 23:06, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

I just rewrote the section. I think I addressed "poorly worded" and "lopsided". The concerns over missing citations and speculation remain (all except one). I updated the bullet list above to reflect the latest wording. The eliminated concern was:


 * To avoid infringing the HSRP patent, they ensured their idea for CARP was fundamentally different

The new wording doesn't attribute intent, so we no longer need a citation. I replaced that sentence with:


 * OpenBSD focuses on security.

I believe this to be a generally accepted fact. It is stated in the second paragraph of our OpenBSD article. Alas our article lacks an inline citation for this claim. Finding a citation isn't worth the effort (at least, not to me) because this isn't a statement that is likely to get challenged. If anyone disagrees, please flag it or find a citation.

Black Walnut (talk) 10:40, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Cisco Copyright infringement
This might help in the section above (Strong bias in history section). It is related to Cisco's patent claims on HSRP / VRRP.

https://www.ietf.org/ietf-ftp/IPR//VRRP-CISCO

https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/19/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.253.195.17 (talk) 22:45, 27 February 2016 (UTC)


 * No. The section is still wrong. (See my comments under the "Citation Necessary?" section above.) I will remove the offending statement.&mdash;Kjsehyrt (talk) 19:39, 16 April 2024 (UTC)