Which statements accurately describe VRRP concepts and operation?

The statement about VRRP indicating that if two routers have the same priority, the router with the highest IP address becomes the master is accurate. In a Virtual Router Redundancy Protocol (VRRP) setup, multiple routers can act as a single virtual router, and one router is elected as the master to handle traffic. The election process for the master router is primarily determined by the priority value assigned to each router.

However, when two routers are configured with the same priority, the protocol uses their IP addresses as a tiebreaker. The router with the higher IP address will take over the role of the master. This mechanism helps ensure that there is always a definitive master router in the event of a tie based on priority, enhancing the reliability and efficiency of the VRRP setup.

As for the other statements, they address important aspects of VRRP, but do not fully align with how the protocol operates. The mention of a unique VRRP instance in a switch pertains to the scalability of VRRP, but doesn’t clarify the concept thoroughly. The requirement for a configured priority on both devices implies a need for communication of priorities, which is not strictly necessary for a master election to take place since the highest IP can decide in case of a tie