Subject: RE: [VRRP] And subsecond timers for IPv4

From: [email-masked]
Date: Mon, 18 Aug 2003 19:36:26 -0500

What about someone coming up with a draft about this detailing all 
the schemes and interoperability issues ?

We can make the decision about whether we should go forward with that
or not after reading the draft ?

Anyone wants to volunteer ??

Regards,
Mukesh

> -----Original Message-----
> From: ext Radia Perlman - Boston Center for Networking
> [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Friday, August 15, 2003 3:13 PM
> To: [email-masked]; [email-masked]
> Cc: [email-masked]
> Subject: RE: [VRRP] And subsecond timers for IPv4
> 
> 
> 
> 	From: "Don Provan" <[email-masked]>
> >>the fact
> >>that only the master system sends VRRP packets makes it really hard
> >>to negotiate.
> 
> Ah right. But perhaps that very property makes it possible without the
> extra bits for "I could support higher".
> 
> Because maybe if the master can support faster granularity, it sends
> both the v2 VRRP messages with 1 second, and the v4(?) with, say,
> a timer of 13/100 seconds. Then all the v4 nodes will quickly jump
> in when he dies, but any v2 nodes will clunkily sit around and not
> notice for several seconds, but if there are any other v4 nodes, 
> they will have in the meantime taken over as master.
> 
> So the downside is the extra v2 VRRP message. But other than that
> it seems like it would work. If there are any other v4 nodes they
> would (regardless of priority) jump in ahead of any v2 nodes (assuming
> the VRRPv4 message had a timer much less than a second).
> 
> Radia
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> vrrp mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/vrrp
> 

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