Questions on draft-ietf-vrrp-ipv4-timers-01.txt
"Steve Bates" <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.ietf.vrrp |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <000a01c62b75$67362ed0$e028fb80@sbates> |
Hi Bob, 1) Back in early December there was a flurry of comments about mismatched advertisement intervals causing multiple masters. The consensus seemed to be that virtual routers of a lower priority would ignore a mismatch if the higher priority interval was less than their configured interval and make the higher priority interval their own operational value when it was greater than their configured interval. I was under the impression that this would be reflected in the draft. True? 2) Does the addition of advertising interval granularity create a similar problem? 3) I don't dispute the desirability of a configurable advertisement count but I'm not sure we gain much passing it in the advertisement. Once again a mismatch creates the potential for multiple masters. If it were treated like the advertisement interval as discussed above it might be of marginal use to prevent flapping, but it's not as critical as the interval itself. 3) For the VRRPv4 packet there are only 4 bits available since the advertisement interval uses 12. Do you have an idea how to migrate this draft to the IPv6 case? Steve Bates Alcatel Internetworking 801-287-8934 _______________________________________________ vrrp mailing list [email protected] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/vrrp