RE: Questions on draft-ietf-vrrp-ipv4-timers-02.txt

Bob,
 
In regard to the responses for both 1 & 2, that's what I'm driving at.
We've changed the rules to allow a mismatched packet to reach the state
machine but haven't addressed in the draft how the state machine should
react.
 
For 3, another thought, if aig were some logarithmic function:  1/(10 ** x)
where x is the value of the field, we could support values for as long as
there are bits without modifying a RFC. On the other hand, fixed values do
conserve bits.  I have no strong feelings one way or the other.
 
For 4, the reason I say we don't gain much is because the value being passed
is the Master's value.  Since we've already shown in 2 that this value can
be meaningless to a less capable backup virtual router the question is how
much autonomy should a backup have?  One advantage to a configured
advertisement count is that a backup on an unreliable link can adjust its
value independently to avoid flapping.
 
And finally, for 5,  not passing the advertisement count would also free up
space.  IPv4 and IPv6 should be as silmilar as possible. 
 
Steve


-----Original Message-----
From: Hott, Robert W CIV B35-Branch [mailto:[email protected]] 
Sent: Monday, March 27, 2006 9:50 PM
To: Steve Bates; [email protected]
Cc: Odonoghue, Karen F CIV B35-Branch
Subject: RE: [VRRP] Questions on draft-ietf-vrrp-ipv4-timers-02.txt



Steve, 

  Sorry I missed your comments the first go around. I did get them 
and missed responding. Thank you for hitting me with them again. You 
have some good questions. I think the draft needs to have wording 
added to clarify what needs to happen. I also think some discussion 
on the reflector is in order with regard to timers, granularity, and 
counts. Thank you for the comments. See my response and observations 
below. Hopefully this will get some discussion going!! 

Bob Hott 

-----Original Message----- 
From: Steve Bates [mailto:[email protected]] 
Sent: Wednesday, March 22, 2006 18:04 
To: Hott, Robert W CIV B35-Branch; [email protected] 
Subject: [VRRP] Questions on draft-ietf-vrrp-ipv4-timers-02.txt 


Hi Bob, 

I've posted these comments before but I'll rephrase them based on the 02 
draft. 

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, based on 
Radia's response to your original December 2nd post, that this would be 
reflected in the draft.  Other than the omission of the phrase "the receiver

MUST discard the packet" in the final paragraph of section 4.1 I don't see 
anything about this.  

Steve, removing the phrase from Section 4.1 about discarding the packet 
was needed so that mismatches would get handled in the STATE MACHINE. 
If the Advertisements were discarded, multiple Masters could occur. 
Now, with regard to which timer to use, I think that the consensus was 
to use the MASTER values when there was a mis-match. Clock granularity could

impact what is actually used, see my response to your question #2, below. 
When I look at your questions and the draft, I think the draft needs 
to better identify and discuss the values used; whether it is the 
configured value, the value received from the MASTER, etc... 


2) This may become a greater issue with the addition of advertising interval

granularity.  It's conceivable that one implementation might not be able to 
support as fine(?) a granularity as another, while both are type 2 virtual 
routers.  For example, suppose a higher priority virtual router A is 
configured with adver_cnt = 3, aig = 1, and adver_int = 1, while a lower 
priority virtual router B is configured with adver_cnt = 3, aig = 2, and 
adver_int = 1.  Virtual router B MUST accept virtual router A's values to 
avoid flapping - unless it discards the FAST ADVERTISEMENT and creates a two

master situation.  Conversely, if the priorities are reversed B's values are

useless to A if A is incapable of supporting the finer granularity but at 
least A will maintain it's backup state.  Am I mistaken? 


Okay, so here is how it should work, not saying that the wording is in 
place: 

If Router A is Master (or any router with a granularity less than its 
Backups), then the Master will propagate its values to the Backups. 
The Backups, in this case Router B, should be able to set its 
timer (Master_Down_Timer) based on the received adver_cnt and adver_int 
in the advertised clock granularity (centiseconds) units, since its 
own clock granularity was milliseconds. This should work fine. 

Now for the opposite situation, where the Master has a clock 
granularity greater that its Backups. So, Router B is now the Master 
and Router A is the Backup. Here, Router B sends the advertisement 
once every millisecond. Since Router A cannot set its timer to 1 
millisecond, it should set its timer based upon its own lowest setting. 
In this case, 1 centisecond should be used. Router A won't failover to 
become Master as fast as Router B would like (3 microseconds) but it 
will eventually become Master, as soon as it can. Once Router B 
becomes the Master, if it does, it would use its configured settings. 

I think the draft needs to better describe which settings should be 
used, based upon clock granularity. Thus, the Master_Down_Interval 
needs to reflect the Master settings and the internal settings.  

3) The two bit granularity field seems a bit shortsighted.  A) There are 
some RTOSes where a "tick" is defined as 1/60th of a second.  This makes 
achieving centisecond granularity difficult.  A decisecond value would be 
nice.  B) But if we do that we've used up all the values in the field.  Ten 
years from now we'll be on terabit networks and someone may want microsecond

granularity.  Another bit might be a good idea. 

I tend to agree with you about the need for more bits for granularity. 
This kind of relates to your last question, below. I figured that 
the last bit would be used for microseconds, but wondered about the 
decisecond need. I thought that the 10 bits for centiseconds would 
cover the decisecond requirement. 

4) I don't dispute the desirability of  a configurable advertisement count 
but I'm not sure we gain much passing it in the advertisement. 

The issue that I have with the current Master_Down_Interval is that it 
is based upon a fixed Advertisement Count of 3. As you move into lower 
time intervals between Advertisements, missing 3 Advertisements is very 
likely and flapping occurs. I think that missing 3 Advertisements was 
reasonable when the failovers were in the order of seconds. I guess 
one option would be to change to way that the advertisement_interval 
is calculated and only pass the acceptable outage period ( failover_time). 
What do you / everyone think about that? So, in the Advertisement, you 
would pass the desired failover time. On the Master, it is configured to 
send Advertisements every 
(Failover_Time / Configured_number_per_interval). The Backups would 
only care about Failover_Time and clock granularity. 


5) For the VRRPv3 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? 

I think the right way to handle this for IPv6 is to do the same thing 
for both V4 and V6. If the discussion on your 4th question moves the 
standard to specify a failover time, then I think there will be 
enough room to specify a clock granularity. My original proposal 
was not to introduce a new version of VRRP, but add a new 
message type. If IPv4 and IPv6 were aligned, maybe it would be 
better to use a single type advertisement and introduce a new 
version. What do folks think? 


Steve Bates 

Bob Hott

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