Subject: [VRRP] VRRP IPSEC-AH FSM extension

From: Alexandre Cassen <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 31 Jan 2003 00:10:00 +0100

Hi Mukesh,

I am currently writing the draft we discussed in a previous mail... In 
the discussion I need to offer an extended VRRP FSM design to expose all 
possible AH case. The FSM diagram I propose is the following :

                              +---------------+
             +----------------|               |----------------+
             |                |     Fault     |                |
             |  +------------>|               |<------------+  |
             |  |             +---------------+             |  |
             |  |                     ^                     |  |
             |  |                     |                     |  |
             |  |             +---------------+             |  |
             |  |  +--------->|               |<---------+  |  |
             |  |  |          |  Initialize   |          |  |  |
             |  |  |  +-------|               |-------+  |  |  |
             |  |  |  |       +---------------+       |  |  |  |
             |  |  |  |                               |  |  |  |
             V  |  |  V                               V  |  |  V
          +---------------+                       +---------------+
          |               |---------------------->|               |
          |    Master     |                       |    Backup     |
          |               |<----------------------|               |
          +---------------+                       +---------------+

I just add a new STATE : the FAULT state. This state is reflecting an 
interface physical state : shut or no shut, due to hardware failure, 
media link detection failure, ... All layer1 related errors. Since VRRP 
is extremly interface state dependent, I really think this state must be 
considered. There is two point of view, integrating this state directly 
into Master and Backup state but creating a new dedicated state  can be 
, IMHO, better for devel point of view, since FSM implementation is 
simplest. Especially for IPSEC-AH extension. What is your opinion ?

Best regards,
Alexandre

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

---

From: Mukesh Gupta <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 30 Jan 2003 19:00:20 -0800

Hi Alexandre,

I am going to india for 15 days and will be back on 16th Feb. I will get
back to you after that.

In the meantime, I would appreciate if WG members could discuss the proposal
in WG and express their opinion/comments.

Thanks..
- Mukesh