Subject: VRRP W.G. Minutes / Los Angeles IETF

From: Bob Hinden <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 24 Apr 1998 09:09:35 -0700

IETF VRRP Working Group Meeting
April 1, 1998
Los Angeles IETF
--------------------------------

Robert Hinden / Nokia, Chair
Minutes taken by Joe Eykholt / Nokia

Agenda:
   Agenda Bashing
   Status
   Intellectual Property Issues
   Review of VRRP MIB Draft
   VRRP for IPv6

Status
   IESG advanced VRRP to Proposed Standard on 18 Mar 1998,
   based on Draft 6.

Intellectual Property Issues:

   Two patents that may have impact on VRRP are:

   cisco: Standby Routing Protocol, 5,473,599, December 5, 1995.

   IBM: Cluster patent, 5,371,852.

   Patent info available via http://womplex.ibm.com/patent

   Martin McNealus (sp?) from cisco said a few words about the
   cisco patent.  cisco claims VRRP infringes on the HSRP 
   patent.  Since HSRP was submitted to the working group,
   to standardize VRRP instead of HSRP would be an attempt
   to compromise patent rights.

   [Note: Patents are public and there is no issue with standards
   documents infringing on patents.  Infringement occurs when patented
   idea are included in shipping products]

   Q.  Would cisco license the patent to implementors of HSRP
   and/or VRRP? 
   A.  HSRP yes, VRRP no.

   Comments from others:  The IBM patent may have precedence.
   Both patents may apply separately.

   cisco contacts for patent issues are Martin McNealus (sp?),
   Robert Barr (sp?) and Steve Gordon (sp?).

VRRP MIB - Brian Jewel, 3COM

   Feedback from the December IETF and e-mail list has been
   incorporated into the Rev 01 draft.

   Fred Baker is assisting the MIB doc as the IETF official
   MIB representative.

   Additional feedback has been incorporated into the 
   Rev 02 draft.

   Q.  Some fields are per-interface (not per-interface AND
   per VRID), for example the authentication method and key,
   but are described by the MIB as per-interface and per VRID.
   This could result in a conflict in settings.  How should
   this be resolved?

   Discussion: 
      Q.  Are there any other fields similar to this
	      in other MIBS.  
      A.  There's a similar object in RFC 2275 
	      (SNMP V3 security).  

      Q.  Do these have to be in the MIB or not?
      Q.  Make it read-only instead of read-create?
      Comment:  Another MIB can be obtained.
      Comment:  OK to put this in by ifindex/VRid.

   It was requested that specific suggestions be posted to the list.

   Q.  Why would the major key be the ifindex and the minor key
   be the VRID instead of the other way around?

   A.  The VRID has to be unique on a link, but it's possible to
   have the same VRID on different interfaces.

   Q.  What was the reason for not indexing by IP address for the
   vrrpAssoIpAddrEntry table.  [indexed by  { ifIndex,
   vrrpOperVrId, vrrpAssoIpAddrIndex }].

   Danny Mitzel, Nokia, agreed with using the IP address - "it
   makes row creation clearer"

   Brian said this is addressed in other MIBs (RFC 1903) and
   is a common problem in other MIBs.
   He'll consider and may post something to the mailing list.

   Comment:  in this case IPaddress will make the row unique.

   The group was asked if there were any objections to making
   this change.  There were none.

   Brian said the 02 revision should be done in a month or so.
   Will incorporate any input received.

IPv6 changes for VRRP.

   Suggestion:  Test with two IPv6 routers, cranking down the
   router advertisement frequency to see if a solution is
   needed.   Hosts should switch when one router dies.
   If times are too long, we could change IPv6 or do something
   with VRRP for IPv6.   It'd be nice not to need VRRP for IPv6.

-----------------------------------------------------------------