Subject: Following my last mail whose subject was :"Query regarding the IP Owner term"..

From: Amnon Even-zohar <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2000 15:49:27 +0200

Hi !
What I actually meant to say was that in the scenario I described a ping to the virtual router will fail ,  a situation I don't think should happen. !!!!!!

10x again,
Regards,

Amnon Even Zohar
Atidim Technological Park, Bldg.4
Tel-Aviv 61131, Israel
Tel:    972-3-645-8595
Fax:  972-3-648-7368
E-mail: [email-masked]

---

From: "Danny J. Mitzel" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2000 20:36:03 -0800

On Wednesday, December 13, 2000 at 15:49 +0200,
Amnon Even-zohar writes:

>> What I actually meant to say was that in the scenario I described a ping to 
 > the virtual router will fail ,  a situation I don't think should happen. !!!
 > !!!

all routers must have at least one permanently assigned [``owned'']
address.  the way the protocol is defined all management operations,
SNMP operations, remote login, etc. should use this permanent address.
then by disallowing receipt/response to adopted addresses it allows
management tools to detect the failed router and consistently know
what device is being affected when taking management actions.  there
definitely seemed to be desire and consensus in the working group to
make this behavior consistent.

the odd effect in failover mode is that a host may be unable to ping
its default router and yet IP access through the nexthop address is
just fine.  I guess there could have been a special exception to allow
response to ICMP Echo Request to get around this anomoly.  however
opening that up for discussion could start a chain of requests for
exceptions, which makes implementation and interoperability more
troublesome, and also interferes with the desire to make failure
detection consistent (some management tools may be based on ICMP
Echo Request/Reply).