Subject: [VRRP] vrrpv3 with global IPv6

From: Seiichi Kawamura <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 30 Jul 2010 21:42:29 +0900

I've been discussing this with a few people this week
and thought that it was worth asking this list.

rfc5798 says in section 5.2.9

   For IPv6, the first address must be the IPv6 link-local address
   associated with the virtual router.

It implies that a global address can be associated
with the virtual router, but some routers
implement link-local capability only becuase only the
link-local address is mentioned here.

The problem is, operators need global scope addresses with
virtual routers and we have to ask each vendor to
implement it if they have not already done so. The main
reason we need this is becausewe need to monitor the address
from a remote network as we do with IPv4.

I just joined this list, but can someone
tell me what was the thinking was  behind not
mentioning global addresses in this RFC?

Thank you

Regards,
Seiichi

---

From: "John Cruz (johcruz)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 30 Jul 2010 10:35:08 -0700

Hi,

To the best of my knowledge, the one of the earlier drafts
mentioned link-local addresses only. This might be the reason
why certain implementations support link-local addresses
only.

The current standards supports virtual addresses that have
global scope.

Regards
John

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf
Of
> Seiichi Kawamura
> Sent: Friday, July 30, 2010 5:42 AM
> To: [email-masked]
> Cc: [email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked]
> Subject: [VRRP] vrrpv3 with global IPv6
> 
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
> 
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32)
> 
> iEYEARECAAYFAkxSyLQACgkQcrhTYfxyMkJ4pgCfZ5DpajEGgTZiq9RIO/pvaaH9
> 88YAoIX2zvY6S8dx2vsLEjd6kHcZqEQ+
> =iuSh
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
> _______________________________________________
> vrrp mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/vrrp

---

From: Seiichi Kawamura <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 31 Jul 2010 07:28:34 +0900

Hi John

> why certain implementations support link-local addresses

Thanks for this. That would be reason enough to explain for
some of the implementations that have been around for a while.
I've heard of recent implementations that do not support global though...
> The current standards supports virtual addresses that have

Can you point to a specific phrase in the RFC where it says so?
I could not find any mention of the word global in the RFC
nor any RFC2119 words relating to scopes of addresses.

Regards,
Seiichi

---

From: "John Cruz (johcruz)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 30 Jul 2010 16:00:05 -0700

Hi,

> nor any RFC2119 words relating to scopes of addresses.

[John] The statement that the first virtual address must be
a link-local addresses implies that the other address can
have global scope. As you mention, global scope is not
explicitly mentioned.

John

> iEYEARECAAYFAkxTUhEACgkQcrhTYfxyMkKL1wCgjlVy8g4RhiMF1Upq++3zs3Vi
> nCkAn34uQUGI4XJtaFXuh+i0C+k2gsJR
> =OL8C