Subject: Re: [VRRP] newbie vrrp question

From: "M. T. Hollinger" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 13 Nov 2003 23:23:35 -0500

At today's meeting, we discussed this thread and, I believe, achieved a
resolution.  Still, since I'd already written up a paragraph further
explaining why I think routers should accept and respond to packets like
pings (er, ICMP ECHO_REQUESTs) even if they don't have priority 255, here it
is:

I think it's presumptuous for us to assume that the network administrator
will want alarms going off the entire time the "IPv6 address owner" is
unavailable.  VRRP provides 255 priorities, suggesting that there might be
more than one Backup Router available for a single VRID.  If there are
several BR's available, and if it takes several days to get the main router
back online after a hardware failure, I believe the current Master should go
ahead and respond to pings.  Also, if someone wants to send an SNMP query,
and the current Master is not the "address owner", it could take a lot of
work to figure out the non-VRRP link-local address of the Master.

Today, Bob Hinden (the document author) commented that he has seen
implementations which do respond, and it doesn't seem to break VRRP.  I
expect this behavior in some implementations will be a configuration
parameter.  There seemed to be consensus to weaken the "MUST NOT" language
in the current draft, and Bob agreed to update the next revision of the
draft to reflect that decision.

            - M

_______________________________________________
vrrp mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/vrrp