International Journal of Research in Electrical, Electronics and Communication

Engineering
Volume 4 Issue 1

Comparative Analysis of HSPR, VRRP and GLPB Network

Redundancy Protocols

Channabasavaraj P M*, Megha K R, Sushmitha M, Shwetha Baliga

R.V. College of Engineering
Corresponding author’s email id: channabasavarajapm.ec15@rvce.edu.in*
DOI: http://doi.org/ 10.5281/zenodo.3241301

Abstract
The existing redundancy protocols operate in L2 and the redundant switch
or router must be in the same physical network as the falling router for the
switchover to occur. The L2 redundancy protocol like HSPR, VRRP, and
GLPB are implemented and their results are compared. It can be seen that
VRRP having least hold time of 3.609 s, and also minimum hello time of 1
s. Hello time and hold time are the parameters considered while
implementing L2 redundancy. It also discusses about various advantages
and disadvantages of each protocol.

Keywords: HSPR, VRRP, GLPB, L2.

INTRODUCTION straight forward extension of the

Accessibility of a network system is a
noteworthy worry in all organizations
these days depend to basic degree of data
organizing. Numerous arrangements have
risen to address the availability issue, with
redundancy as an underlying principle for
some arrangements. Redundancy can be
connected to various layers of network
stack and different protocols were created
likewise. Besides, load balancing to
increase the efficiency becomes the
redundancy schemes.
Network redundancy is inevitable to avoid
single point of failover (SPOF), meaning
the component in the network whose
failure would cause the entire network to
not function or configurable. The main
components in a network system are
network path, equipment and the services.
The path in the network cannot include
multiple routes as Ethernet routing

43 Page 43- 49 © MANTECH PUBLICATIONS 2019. All Rights Reserved

 International Journal of Research in Electrical, Electronics and Communication
protocol does not allow the rings to
prevent loops which would cause data
flooding [4]. Hence a separate protocol
needs to be employed to allow for addition
of redundant paths.
In this paper various L2 redundancy
protocols like VRRP, HSPR, GLPB and
comparative analysis of them. In this paper
it throws a brief idea how to implement
based on hello time and hold time.
HOT STANDBY ROUTER
PROTOCOL (HSRP)
HSRP gives an answer for the issue where
both the doors flop, at that point there is an
extensive number of hosts that would lose
outside the system get to. HSRP permits
associated portals to be designed to give
repetition. HSRP does this by assigning
virtual MAC and IP address that will be
shared between two equipments. While the
standby device will always be seeing the
active device for the fail over, whenever
active device fails standby identifies the
failover and will act as active by taking
control over the devices.
There are two versions in HSRP. The
difference between them as far as general
useful is very little, but there are few
changes that cisco made when refreshing
to rendition2. Rendition 2 changes the
44 Page 43- 49 © MANTECH PUBLICATIONS 2019. All Rights Reserved
Engineering
Volume 4 Issue 1
multicast addresses that is utilized for
HSRP correspondence to stay away from
struggle with CGMP [3]. Some different
capabilities are with HSRP that allow
modifying its decision. By normally the
default HSRP value of priority is 100, the
valid range to give priority is 0 to 255
highest being the better value of priority.
HSRP likewise gives the capacity to
arrange numerous bunches on a solitary
interface. There are various diverse
reasons why different gatherings would
work thusly, including the capacity to offer
further excess setups and load adjusting
arrangement choices. The usage of HSRP
has one noteworthy impediment: one of
the doors dependably sits out of gear until
the point when dynamic gadget falls flat.
This squander the sending capability of
second device; to tackle this issue, uses
various HSRP gatherings.
VIRTUAL ROUTER REDUNDANCY
PROTOCOL (VRRP)
VRRP is an open standard that can be used
when we different hardware platforms. It
is basically similar to HSRP but varies in
few of the ways. The redundant individual
switches from VRRP group will speak
with master and assume their control and
responsibilities. It is possible to have
various VRRP bunches in a single subnet
 International Journal of Research in Electrical, Electronics and Communication
which was not in the case of HSRP. This is
very advantageous to spread the traffic of a
subnet.
The virtual master sends VRRP packets to
other switches in the group. The condition
of the virtual switch is conveyed in the
promotions. The VRRP advertisements are
in IP parcels and sent to the IP multicast
out to the VRRP group. These
advertisements are sent every second as a
matter of course.
VRRP have various validation choices to
guarantee the foundation running VRRP is
protected from harmful assaults. This
protocol is arranged with no notification or
verification, and any device designed in
the same VRRP group can influence of
functionality of the VRRP. There are some
alternatives: plaintext validation and MD5
confirmation. The MD5 decision is the
main genuine alternative on a creation
arrange.
GATEWAY LOAD BALANCING
PROTOCOL (GLPB)
The main reason for GLPB improvement
was to connect a requirement that existed
with the HSRP that is, simple usage of
load adjusting. The issue that exists is that
lone solitary switch inside a group is
consistently sending activity at any given
45 Page 43- 49 © MANTECH PUBLICATIONS 2019. All Rights Reserved
Engineering
Volume 4 Issue 1
time. At the point when just a solitary
switch is sending a information, a lot of sit
without moving transmission capacity is
left sitting off the interfaces of the standby
switches.[2]
GLPB works a bit unique compared to
other two L2 redundancy protocols. How
GLPB redundancy functions can be bit
confounding, particularly if the architect
has had involvement with HSRP or
potentially VRRP. With the GLPB there
are two unique way of repetition: AVG
excess and AVF repetition. AVG repletion
is similar to VRRP and HSRP.
AVF excess is somewhat unique. If the
device that is in charge of particular virtual
MAC address comes up short. One of the
current AVFs assumes control over the
sending obligations. This change is
conveyed to the current AVG, and over a
progression of timeouts, the activity is
exchanged from that particular virtual
MAC. Acquisitions for AVFs are
empowered as a matter of course. This
empowers alternate devices inside GLPB
to monitor when an AVF falls flat and
assume control over the obligations
proactively.
The weighting of particular AVFs can be
controlled both powerfully and statically.
 International Journal of Research in Electrical, Electronics and Communication
Engineering
Volume 4 Issue 1

At the point when designed statically, the COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS RESULT

system designer will arrange a particular
weighting to each AVF. At the point when
designed powerfully, GLPB utilizes the
status track to decide current AVF
weighting. Track item can utilize various
diverse criteria to decide their state that is
up or down. The most fundamental of
these is interface line convention state and
interface IP directing ability.
From table 1 it can be inferred that VRRP
has various advantages over HSRP and
GLPB. In VRRP hello time is 1 s while in
HSRP and GLPB it is 3 s. Also in VRRP
the hold time is 3.609 s whereas HSRP
and GLPB have 10 s. VRRP uses TCP
protocol unlike the other two which uses
UDP. The more important is VRRP is not
vendor specific it is not dependent on
hardware platform, most importantly it is
an open source standard defined by IEEE.

Table 1
Based HSRP VRRP GLPB
1 Router role Active/ standby Master/ Backup AVF/ AVG
2 Packet sender Active and Master AVF
standby
3 Protocol UDP TCP UDP
4 Pre-emption Default disable Default enable Disabled
5 Vendor Cisco IETF Cisco
6 Load balancing No No Yes
7 Hello time 3s 1s 3s
8 Hold time 10 s 3.609 s 10 s
9 Manual MAC Yes No Yes
assignment

46 Page 43- 49 © MANTECH PUBLICATIONS 2019. All Rights Reserved

 International Journal of Research in Electrical, Electronics and Communication
Engineering
Volume 4 Issue 1

CONCLUSION Load Balancing and Redundancy

It can be concluded that from the result Protocol for Network Routers "
table VRRP has better hold time of 3.609 s IEEE 11th International
nd hello time of 1 s. it is also not vendor Conference on Trust, Security and
specific it is open standard. GLPB Privacy in Computing and
provides load balancing, but in L3 only the Communications. April
hold time and hello time is considered a 2012,pp.210-215
major parameter.
III. José Ángel Araujo, Jesús Lázaro,
In the advancement of VRRP there must Armando Astarloa, Aitzol Zuloaga,
be L3 redundancy as well. Because L3 and José Ignacio Gárate " PRP and
redundancy is used to develop more HSR for High Availability
reliable network system in which single Networks in Power Utility
point failover is taken care by redundant Automation: A Method for
devices. This method extends the existing Redundant Frames Discarding,"
L2 redundancy protocol to the system IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON
which are not in the same network. SMART GRID, Sep 2015, vol.6,
pp.2325- 2332.
REFERENCES
I. James T. Yu “A Scalable IV. Aya Mahgoub, Dina Nadeem,
Architecture for High Availability Hadeer Ahmed, Hassan H.
Seamless Redundancy (HSR)” Halawa,Markus Rentschler ,
IEEE 19th International Ramez M. Daoud, Hassanein H.
Conference on High Performance Amer “A Quantitative Study of
Computing and Communications; Wi-Fi Interference on PRP-
IEEE 15th International ZigBee” 2014 IEEE Conference on
Conference on Smart City; IEEE Wireless Sensors (ICWiSE),
3rd International Conference on Subang, Malaysia, Oct 2014,pp.7-
Data Science and Systems, Jan 12
2017,pp.292.298
V. Gursimran Singh, M. Vijaya Raju"
II. Sarah Abdallah, Elias Najjar DUAL GATEWAY ROUTING
,Ayman Kayssi, " A Round Robin PROTOCOL" International

47 Page 43- 49 © MANTECH PUBLICATIONS 2019. All Rights Reserved

 International Journal of Research in Electrical, Electronics and Communication
Engineering
Volume 4 Issue 1

Conference on Computing International Conference on

Sciences, Coimbatore, 2012, pp. Modern Problems of Radio
26-30. Engineering, Telecommunications
and Computer Science (TCSET),
VI. Xiaochun Wu, Ligang Dong Lviv, 2016, pp. 488-491.
“Research and Design of the
Pseudo-VRRP based High IX. James T. Yu “A Practical and
Availability Mechanism in the Effective Approach to
ForCES Router ”Eighth Implementing High Availability
International Conference on Seamless Redundancy (HSR)” 18th
Networks, 2014, vol-2.pp.425-428 IEEE Workshop on Local &
Metropolitan Networks, Chapel
VII. Lily Yang, Ram Dantu, Todd A. Hill, North Carolina,2014,pp.395-
Anderson, and Ram Gopal, 399.
"Forwarding and Control Element
Separation (ForCES) Framework", Cite this Article As

IETF RFC 3746, April 2004. Channabasavaraj P M, Megha K R,

Sushmitha M, Shwetha Baliga (2019).
“Comparative Analysis of HSPR,
VIII. J.A. Araujo, J. Lázaro, A. Astarloa, VRRP and GLPB Network
A. Zuloag A. García “High Redundancy Protocols” International
Journal of Research in Electrical,
Availability Automation Networks: Electronics and Communication
PRP and HSR Ring Engineering, 4(1), 43- 49
Implementations”, 13th http://doi.org/ 10.5281/zenodo.3241301

AUTHORS’ PROFILE
[1] Channabasavarj P M
Department: Electronics and communication
College: R.V. College of Engineering
Email id: channabasavarajapm.ec15@rvce.edu.in

48 Page 43- 49 © MANTECH PUBLICATIONS 2019. All Rights Reserved

 International Journal of Research in Electrical, Electronics and Communication
Engineering
Volume 4 Issue 1

[2] Megha K R
Department: Electronics and communication
College: R.V. College of Engineering
Email id: meghakr.ec15@rvce.edu.in

[3] Sushmitha M
Department: Electronics and communication
College: R.V. College of Engineering
Email id: sushmithamn.ec15@rvce.edu.in

[4] Shwetha Baliga

Department: Electronics and communication
College: R.V. College of Engineering
Email id: shwethaprabhun@rvce.edu.in

49 Page 43- 49 © MANTECH PUBLICATIONS 2019. All Rights Reserved