Re: RFC5798 requires usage of RAs?
Stephen Nadas <[email protected]> Thu, 28 Apr 2011 11:36:44 -0400
| Newsgroups | gmane.ietf.vrrp |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <450AE4BEC513614F96969DDA34F35934192892832D@EUSAACMS0701.eamcs.ericsson.se> |
Hi Daniel, Sorry for the delay. I think the spec language could be better- (630) etc probably should have said something more like "if ND RAs are in use, MUST send ND Router Advertisements for the virtual router. Thanks, Steve -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Daniel Roesen Sent: Friday, April 15, 2011 4:57 AM To: [email protected] Subject: [VRRP] RFC5798 requires usage of RAs? Hi, JUNOS (Juniper router firmware) issues warnings when committing config changes, noting that RAs are not configured for an interface where VRRP for IPv6 is configured: vrrpd[15299]: %CONFLICT-0-WARNING: 'router-advertisement' is not configured for interface ge-9/2/2.662 RFC5798 states: 6.4.3. Master ... (630) ++ MUST send ND Router Advertisements for the virtual router. That makes no sense to us when RAs are generally not used on the segment, and hosts are manually configured to point to the VRRP virtual address as default gateway. We do not want to use RAs in some scenarios at all. I've found an older posting on this list, where someone raised the same question (Q-2): http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/vrrp/current/msg00763.html John Cruz' answer seems to clarify, but noone seemed to have envisioned that the spec lingo actually motivates vendors to assume RAs as being mandatory when implementing VRRPv6... :-/ RFC5798 states in the introductory section about IPv6 (1.3): IPv6 hosts on a LAN will usually learn about one or more default routers by receiving Router Advertisements sent using the IPv6 Neighbor Discovery (ND) protocol [RFC4861]. Given that it says "usually", it recognizes that there are scenarios where RAs are NOT being used. Unfortunately several bits of language in the RFC doesn't reflect that, so I would like to suggest changing specifically rule 630 and section 8.2.3 to reflect no-RA scenarios. Best regards, Daniel _______________________________________________ vrrp mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/vrrp _______________________________________________ vrrp mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/vrrp