Which of the following descriptions about VRRP load sharing is incorrect?

Question

Options

• AVRRP load balancing is consistent with the message negotiation process of VRRP master and backup.
• BOne of the ways to achieve VRRP load is to configure multiple backup groups.
• CTo ensure normal business, there is only one Master device in each VRRP backup group.
• DOne VRRP device can serve as the Master device for multiple backup groups.

• A
  5% (3)
• B
  84% (47)
• C
  9% (5)
• D
  2% (1)

Explanation

Option B is incorrect because it describes configuring multiple VRRP backup groups as merely "one of the ways" to achieve VRRP load sharing - but this is not just one option among many; it IS the mechanism. VRRP has no built-in traffic distribution within a single group, so splitting load across multiple groups (each with a different master device) is the standard and essential method, not simply a choice.

Why the other options are correct (and thus not the answer):

• A is correct: VRRP load sharing still uses the same protocol message exchange, priority-based election, and preemption negotiation as standard VRRP - no special process is added.
• C is correct: Each VRRP backup group enforces exactly one master at a time by design, ensuring a single active gateway and preventing split-brain scenarios.
• D is correct: A single physical router can simultaneously be the master for one VRRP group while acting as backup in another - this is precisely how load sharing is structured (Router A is master of Group 1, Router B is master of Group 2).

Memory tip: Think of VRRP load sharing as a "job-sharing arrangement" - each router takes ownership (master) of a different group, and no group ever has two bosses. If you remember "one master per group" (C) and "one router, multiple roles" (D), you'll know that multiple groups is the only path to load sharing, making B's "one of the ways" phrasing a red flag.

No community discussion yet for this question.