Subject: [VRRP] Some comments on draft-ietf-vrrp-ipv6-spec-08.txt

From: "Stephen Nadas \(RL/TNT\)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2007 12:20:24 -0500

Hello Bob, John, and list, 

We read -08 and have some comments (some of these have appeared before
on the list, but since there's a new version of the draft perhaps this
is a good time to re-air them.) 

Issue 1:  
We think that the draft should mention that one MUST NOT run DAD on
interfaces where the VRRP protected IP address == interface IP address.
It may even make sense to say one MUST NOT run DAD on any VRRP protected
address.  In either case, the usual result for DAD on such addresses is
a DAD failure.    

Issue 2: 
With respect to the load balancing discussion in 4.2, consider a case
where the servers need different weights.  It may not make sense to rely
on router advertisements alone to balance the host load between the
routers.  We would like to see this mentioned in 4.2 (it would be fine
to also mention that the details of the load balancing are out of
scope...)  Because of this, we also would like to see the "MUST send ND
Router Advertisements for the virtual router" text in 6.4.3 softened,
since in such a case another means would be needed for hosts to learn
their gateway and then the ND RAs wouldn't serve any purpose.  

Issue 3: 
It's clear that each VRRP group needs a link-local address.  If there
are several VRRP routers, it is cumbersome for the operator to configure
the same VRRP protected LL address on all of them.  Why not have a
mechanism to derive a "VRRP link local address", perhaps using the VRRP
MAC?  

Issue 4: 
in sections 6.4.1 & 6.4.2 it says rtr MUST send unsolicited ND Neighbor
Advertisements w/target address of VRRP link local and virtual MAC.  The
rtr could be configured with global addresses as well - Why not send
unsolicited ND NA msgs for these VRRP protected addresses as well? 

Thanks,
Steve 

Stephen Nadas                           Ericsson IPI       
[email-masked]              920 Main Campus Dr. 
Voice:  +1-919-472-9935 Fax: x/9999     Suite 500 
Mobile: +1-919-522-0991 ECN: 802 29935  Raleigh, NC 27606  
 
-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Monday, March 05, 2007 3:50 PM
To: [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-vrrp-ipv6-spec-08.txt 

A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts
directories.
This draft is a work item of the Virtual Router Redundancy Protocol
Working Group of the IETF.

	Title		: Virtual Router Redundancy Protocol for IPv6
	Author(s)	: R. Hinden, J. Cruz
	Filename	: draft-ietf-vrrp-ipv6-spec-08.txt
	Pages		: 32
	Date		: 2007-3-5
	
This memo defines the Virtual Router Redundancy Protocol (VRRP) for
   IPv6.  It is version three (3) of the protocol.  It is based on the
   original version of VRRP (version 2) for IPv4 that is defined in
   RFC2338.
[snipped]

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

---

From: "John Cruz \(johcruz\)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2007 22:30:08 -0700

Hi Steve,

It may take me some time to understand and respond to each of
the issues that you have mentioned. Shall we take one issue at a
time and try to reach a closure? Lets take the simplest one.

Issue 4 needs to be taken into account in the draft.
In the initial version of the draft, only one address (the
link-local address) was protected. Now, the draft supports more
than one virtual address per group. Unless there is any objection,
I'll update the draft as you have suggested.

John

---

From: "Stephen Nadas \(RL/TNT\)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2007 12:16:20 -0500

Hi John, 

My bad, I missed this post last week.  No problems here taking each
issue 1 by 1. 
  
Steve 

-----Original Message-----
From: John Cruz (johcruz) [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Friday, March 16, 2007 1:30 AM
To: Stephen Nadas (RL/TNT)
Cc: [email-masked]; [email-masked]
Subject: RE: [VRRP] Some comments on draft-ietf-vrrp-ipv6-spec-08.txt 

Hi Steve,

It may take me some time to understand and respond to each of the issues
that you have mentioned. Shall we take one issue at a time and try to
reach a closure? Lets take the simplest one.

Issue 4 needs to be taken into account in the draft.
In the initial version of the draft, only one address (the link-local
address) was protected. Now, the draft supports more than one virtual
address per group. Unless there is any objection, I'll update the draft
as you have suggested.

John

> 
> Issue 4: 
> in sections 6.4.1 & 6.4.2 it says rtr MUST send unsolicited ND 
> Neighbor Advertisements w/target address of VRRP link local and 
> virtual MAC.  The rtr could be configured with global addresses as 
> well - Why not send unsolicited ND NA msgs for these VRRP protected 
> addresses as well?
>