RE: values for VRRP AuthType field

Moreover, the whole VRRP authentication mechanism has been obsoleted in
3768 (that obsoletes 2338).  The new values are:

      0 - No Authentication
      1 - Reserved
      2 - Reserved

Regards
Mukesh

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Wijnen, Bert (Bert) [mailto:[email protected]]
> Sent: Monday, May 29, 2006 6:55 AM
> To: Bhargavi Rajaraman; [email protected]
> Subject: RE: [VRRP] values for VRRP AuthType field
> 
> In principle, when ENUMerated INTEGERs are used in MIB modules,
> then we prefer to start the list of enumerations at 1 (and not zero).
> So possibly MIB doctor review (or the MIB editor already knew)
> has suggested to start at 1.
> 
> If there are good underlying reasons to start at zero, then we
> (MIB doctors) tend to accept that (certainly these days). But we
> then want some text to the DESCRIPTION clause that explains WHY
> the list starts at zero. Possibly the MIB authors and the WG did
> not feel strong that there had to be an exact mapping.
> 
> So possibly it would have been OK to map the values from the
> protocol (2338) directly onto values in the ENUMerated list.
> But since that was not done back when RFC2787 was approved,
> I think it is best to live with it. It means you have to add one
> to the value in the protocol in order to get to the value in the
> MIB and vise versa.
> 
> Bert
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Bhargavi Rajaraman
> > [mailto:[email protected]]
> > Sent: Monday, May 29, 2006 13:08
> > To: [email protected]
> > Subject: [VRRP] values for VRRP AuthType field
> >
> >
> > Hi All
> >
> > RFC 2338 - which is a standards RFC for VRRP has defined values for
> > authentication type as
> >
> > 0 -  No authentication
> > 1 - Simple text password
> > 2 -  IP Authentication header.
> >
> > but RFC 2787 which has definitions for all VRRP managed
> > objects has defined
> > the values for vrrpOperAuthType
> >  as
> >
> > 1 -  No authentication
> > 2 - Simple text password
> > 3 -  IP Authentication header.
> >
> > Why is there a conflict between the values specified in RFC
> > 2338 (protocol
> > RFC) and RFC 2787 (RFC for managed objects). When ethereal is used
to
> > capture and decode packets, it takes the values for AuthType
> > as mentioned in
> > RFC 2338 .
> >
> > Thanks
> > Bhargavi.
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > vrrp mailing list
> > [email protected]
> > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/vrrp
> >
> 
> _______________________________________________
> vrrp mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/vrrp

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