Many years ago, there was one person, somewhat had a reaction like yours, over a disagreement about the performance capability of a specific small router. Some cannot take any critique, implying they're mistaken, no matter how it's offered.
That person eventually was banned, not for being, I believe, mistaken, or even being unwilling to accept the possibility of being mistaken, but by going down the path you've just started on. I.e., I would suggest in future replies, you be a bit more temperate in your writing. For example, "snarky jerk" and/or "Did you wife leave you today?".
I'll be the first to admit, I'm not the best at offering constructive critique, tactfully. If someone says 2+2=5, my tendency is mostly to just state bluntly state 2+2=4.
Trying to be more tactful, is why I write: "Possibly you need . . ." or "perhaps you intended" or "Well, it's not really", all, implying, I hoped, I (at least) might have misunderstood what your wrote. But, might it also be possible, you really don't understand all the nuances of HSRP and/or GLBP? I recognize that can be difficult to accept, but whether true or not, you cannot advance in learning until you accept it might be true.
Further, I concluded with "If the forgoing doesn't make sense, post a new topic question on whatever aspect(s) are unclear to you.", i.e. I'm open to discussion.
Notwithstanding the above, there are a couple of your comments, that are worthwhile.
"If there's something wrong I wrote, you can just help me and others understand."
Yes, actually that's something I always consider.
This particular posting was initially posted 12/24/2008!
I think many of us consider adding replies to such old posts not very useful, mainly because of technology developments, since.
That's the principle reason why I didn't want to jump into lengthy explanations and also suggested any follow-up be on a new posting.
There are other reasons too. Such as, do you really want explanations? If not, why waste my time.
For others, assuming they see the "issues" I did in your comments, no explanation is needed. To those that don't see the "issues", they might not actually care to know, but if they do care, they too are welcome to ask. If they don't care, again a waste of my time. If they do care, and ask, I'll respond, usually trying to whatever level of detail they need to answer their query.
Hopefully, the above does this for your reply to mine, but furthering explanations, let's touch upon, "virtual router", to which you provide references to its usage, all, though, in the context of HSRP.
Hmm, well let's start by an Internet search for those words or that term, "virtual router".
Does HSRP jump to the top of the search results?
Hmm, try searching for the terms "cisco" "virtual router" or words "cisco virtual router", again does HSRP jump to the top of the search results? When I try, it does not, but results might vary based on search engine.
What such search results, show us, "virtual router" is used lots of ways with various meanings.
(One, which immediately comes to my mind, is true virtual routers, i.e. running distinctly separate router instances [not VRFs] on one physical router. Possibly Cisco now supports that on the 9K routers, but Brand J, I believe, has had that for some time. I also think of a router image running under an emulator, like GNS3 or CML as a "virtual router". Of course, HSRP predates these newer technologies, or even, perhaps SVIs. But, IMO, if you still tie "virtual router" to HSRP, without being clear about what this fully means in just a HSRP context, it can lead to confusion when you encounter the same term elsewhere.)
Your references, do indeed have the term "virtual router" but, again, in the context of just HSRP.
If you search for "virtual router" and "hsrp" you'll get references like yours, but try searching for "virtual router" and "glbp" or "virtual router" and "vrrp". HSRP, GLBP and VRRP all run on routers, also L3 switches. So, unless you further clarify "virtual router", how does that term, alone, distinguish a "big difference" between HSRP and GLBP?
Now, let's examine your first reference. "virtual router" is only mentioned once, excluding the "Similar Reads" sections where it's used as "Virtual Router Redundancy Protocol (VRRP)".
Where it's used, just the one time, not in context of VRRP, is it italicized? No!
Bolded? No! Text somehow highlighted? No!
But, in the section "Some important terms related to HSRP :", we first have "1. Virtual IP :"! Might there be a reason for this emphasis difference? Might there be a reason why I too suggested using IP address or virtual IP rather than router or virtual router, respectively?
Is the above helpful to you? I hope so. There so much you can learn from others! I've certainly have, especially in active participation. Nothing quite like trying to answer questions, to improve your understanding about something.
BTW, I also note your account started today. I.e. possibly you've only just started reading this site, and perhaps haven't read many of the postings I've done over the years. Further, you might be unaware of the significance of my VIP and Hall-of-Fame awards. Neither make me an "expert", both are mostly awarded for active assistance, the latter, generally, for a long, long time. So, (especially) because of those, you might give me the benefit of the doubt, that if my reply appears "smug, snide, pedantic", in may just be by appearance, and not intention, and maybe not as "useless" as it appears either. In other words, I'm probably not a "jerk", although "snarky", maybe. Regarding my wife leaving me today, that's ridiculous, I didn't even beat her once today. ; )
