Which statement is true about VRRP implementations?

The correct statement regarding VRRP implementations is that you cannot have a standalone deployment. VRRP, which stands for Virtual Router Redundancy Protocol, is inherently designed for providing redundancy and high availability in a network environment. It allows multiple routers to work together to present the appearance of a single virtual router, enhancing reliability through failover capabilities.

In a standalone deployment, there would be no other routers to participate in VRRP, which undermines its primary purpose of providing fault tolerance and load balancing. Without other devices in play, VRRP cannot perform its function of enabling backup routers to take over if the primary router fails. Therefore, it is essential for VRRP to operate within a group of routers to be effective and fulfill its purpose of redundancy.

The other statements do not accurately reflect the VRRP implementation characteristics. For instance, VRRP membership settings are generally configured through routing protocols or system settings rather than directly through cpconfig in Check Point environments. Additionally, while VRRP can indeed work with ClusterXL, it does not inherently degrade performance, and having different VRIDs in the same network is permissible as long as they are configured correctly to avoid any clashes or misbehavior in routing.