12-01-2011 09:48 AM
Hello, I have the following problem:
I have 4 HP5406zl, two of these are running VRRP as vrid 1.
From some weeks, in order to setup another router, I configured the last pair of 5406zl to run VRRP as VRID 2.
The behavior of these switches looks "normal" i.e. both pairs properly manage their virtual ip addresses.
However, the first pair of switches are logging a message like this:
W 12/01/11 17:51:57 00776 vrrp: No VR with vrid 2 found on vid 11
and the second pair:
W 11/16/11 16:31:44 00776 vrrp: No VR with vrid 1 found on vid 11
I need the VLAN 11 be propagated between these two pairs.
I would like that each pair ignore the vrrp of the other pair. I believed that choosing a different vrid number was sufficient.
02-22-2013 02:41 AM
Any answer to this question? I too am having a related issue.
Two 5406 switches using VRRP on vlan 2 (vrid 2)
Also have a load ballancer running on the same vlan using VRRP on vrid 5.
The 5406 switches have the logs filled with:
W 02/22/13 11:10:14 00776 vrrp: No VR with vrid 5 found on vid 2(944515)
How do I set the 5406 switches to ignore vrid 5?
05-13-2013 06:03 AM
Same problem here, but I am using 3500yl switches on one side and hav an ISP with juniper routers on the other side. I have vrid 2 on my side, they have vrid 1 on their side and I get :
vrrp: No VR with vrid 1 found on vid 4088
I would also like to know how to suppress these alarms in the log since they are irrelevant.
Best Regards Kristian Modess
07-24-2013 06:08 AM
After several tries, it seems that on the second vrrp pair I cannot get a shared virtual ip address on the Vlan 11.
The main pair has a virtual ip address on that shared vlan.
Some time ago, I tryed 2 configurations , one had the above logging problem, the other had a bad asymmetric routing problem.
So, the second vrrp pair could work, but without a virtual ip address on that vlan.
In order to reach the networks routed by the second vrrp pair, the first pair shoud know two routes for those networks.
So far, I used static routing only, but for a redundant setup, a dynamic routing protocol seems required.
I recently tested by using rip, but the route change takes about 80 seconds, that is unacceptably long.