Netgate Discussion Forum
    • Categories
    • Recent
    • Tags
    • Popular
    • Users
    • Search
    • Register
    • Login

    VARP availability

    Scheduled Pinned Locked Moved TNSR Feedback
    5 Posts 2 Posters 351 Views
    Loading More Posts
    • Oldest to Newest
    • Newest to Oldest
    • Most Votes
    Reply
    • Reply as topic
    Log in to reply
    This topic has been deleted. Only users with topic management privileges can see it.
    • M
      michmoor LAYER 8 Rebel Alliance
      last edited by

      Will TNSR support MLAG in the future? If so will the support for VARP also come into play?

      MLAG + VARP is the modern approach to building datacenters so im hoping at some point in the future it will be available.

      Firewall: NetGate,Palo Alto-VM,Juniper SRX
      Routing: Juniper, Arista, Cisco
      Switching: Juniper, Arista, Cisco
      Wireless: Unifi, Aruba IAP
      JNCIP,CCNP Enterprise

      fractal_boyF 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
      • fractal_boyF
        fractal_boy @michmoor
        last edited by

        hi @michmoor may I ask what is your use case scenario? What are you trying to achieve?

        M 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
        • M
          michmoor LAYER 8 Rebel Alliance @fractal_boy
          last edited by

          @fractal_boy
          VARP with MC-LAG allows for active-active forwarding. I don't want unused links in my datacenter.

          Firewall: NetGate,Palo Alto-VM,Juniper SRX
          Routing: Juniper, Arista, Cisco
          Switching: Juniper, Arista, Cisco
          Wireless: Unifi, Aruba IAP
          JNCIP,CCNP Enterprise

          fractal_boyF 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
          • fractal_boyF
            fractal_boy @michmoor
            last edited by

            @michmoor what about if you run VRRP on TNSR routers and split your active virtual IP's (masters) between TNSR's. You won't have unused links in this case — something like this drawing.

            66d4d90c-9c13-4642-b8d5-b1ac571e7f3a-image.png

            M 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
            • M
              michmoor LAYER 8 Rebel Alliance @fractal_boy
              last edited by michmoor

              @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.

              Firewall: NetGate,Palo Alto-VM,Juniper SRX
              Routing: Juniper, Arista, Cisco
              Switching: Juniper, Arista, Cisco
              Wireless: Unifi, Aruba IAP
              JNCIP,CCNP Enterprise

              1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
              • First post
                Last post
              Copyright 2025 Rubicon Communications LLC (Netgate). All rights reserved.