@johnpoz I know I thought maybe he could be my study buddy for a while but never responded so I gave up .

There are plans for it, but we don't have a timeline to share at the moment. As tends to be the case, it's more involved than one might initially think.

@fractal_boy Sure but thats a bit legacy when it comes to datacenter design to be honest. Having multiple VRRP groups isn't a modern design. VARP also wont have traffic run over the MLAG link but VRRP will. Even thinking about multiple VRRP groups in my use case isn't scalable. I have over 100 SVIs in production and development environments. Its starts getting unwieldy edit: Looking at your drawing, forget end user or servers downstream. Pretend its a dual homed switch or server that has a LAG up to the MC-LAG. It can send frames to either spine. That alone would warrant VARP.

@binbinyoulee not at this moment, maybe in the future. What are your use cases for arm64?

@fractal_boy very nice. Exactly what I’m looking for

@boblovesbacon created an internal feature request to add this MIB. Ticket number #16743

@michmoor said in VRRP tracking: How do i submit a feature request to have VRRP track the route instead of an interface? Its not uncommon to have an uplink L3 nexthop not be directly connected so even if the interface goes down the nexthop is still accessible. Tracking route gives another way to influence VRRP master/router selection. Juniper and Cisco offer this feature. A feature request (#12423) has been opened on Netgate's internal tracker for this. Thank you.