Subject: RE: [VRRP] Explanation of virtual MAC addresss

From: [email-masked]
Date: Mon, 8 Sep 2003 17:06:07 -0500

> One could easily argue for an extension to the base spec that
> allowed this.  However, given VRRP's current place on the standards
> track, such a big change is probably unlikely to the base protocol.

You are right. This will be a too big change at this stage.

What about we comeup with an extension to the base spec
(VRRPv2) which allowed this and also the sub-second timers ?

What about VRRP for IPv6. I am observing that the WG is 
inclined towards NOT using VMACs (??). Are there people who
would like to keep the VMACs in VRRPv3 (VRRP for IPv6) ?
If not, then we should update the current draft with 
this change.

regards
Mukesh

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

---

From: Jeffrey Haas <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 8 Sep 2003 18:12:15 -0400

> (VRRPv2) which allowed this and also the sub-second timers ?

This seems reasonable and addresses people's general concerns.

> If not, then we should update the current draft with 

Have we asked the wisdom of the ipv6 WG regarding current
best wisdom for link local addresses before we decide to throw out
what is known to just work, at least in IPv4?

-- 
Jeff Haas 
NextHop Technologies