Which statement is true about VRRP implementations?

The correct statement regarding VRRP (Virtual Router Redundancy Protocol) is that you cannot have a standalone deployment. In VRRP implementations, the primary purpose is to ensure high availability and redundancy for default gateway addresses. This is achieved through a protocol that allows multiple routers on a local area network to participate in a common virtual router, with one serving as the master and others as backups.

In a standalone deployment, there is no redundancy feature provided by VRRP, as the essence of VRRP is to enable multiple routers to act as a unified router, providing failover and enhancing the reliability of the network. By its nature, VRRP cannot function effectively without multiple devices that can take over the virtual IP address in case the master fails. Thus, suggesting that a standalone setup can utilize VRRP contradicts the fundamental purpose of the protocol.

The other statements do not accurately describe the VRRP functionality. For instance, VRRP membership being enabled in cpconfig may not represent the configuration process typical across all environments. Additionally, while VRRP can indeed be utilized in conjunction with ClusterXL, performance degradation isn't a guaranteed result as it greatly depends on the network architecture and specific implementation. Lastly, having different VRIDs in the same physical network is allowed; different sub