| Newsgroups |
gmane.ietf.vrrp |
| Message-ID |
<[email protected]> |
Hi Scott,
Are you saying that there is a scenario in which all the VRRP routers
would transission to 'init'
state from a working master/backup state?
I did not understand what you mean by
- snip --
when the number or virtual routers is large, a single "VRRP router" trap
would be more efficient in both network and cpu utilization.
--
Which of these routers sends this trap? Probably you mean all the
routers should send this 'up' down trap?
-- snip -
Something like "up" and "down: <string_reason>".
--
When do we send 'up' ? When the router is in master state? And when do
we sent 'down'? In init state or back-up state?
we added a new field vrrpTrapNewMasterReason for vrrpTrapNewMaster.
Right now valid reasons are :
priority (0),
preempted (1),
masterNoResponse (2)
Thanks,
Kalyan
-----Original Message-----
From: ext Scott Kimble [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Tuesday, September 05, 2006 2:42 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: [VRRP] MIB VRRP router state
There are situations when the state of a VRRP router is such that it
prevents all of its virtual routers from becoming operational (master or
backup) or it transitions all of its virtual routers to non-operational
(init). In such cases, when the number or virtual routers is large, a
single "VRRP router" trap would be more efficient in both network and
cpu utilization.
It would be useful to extend the VRRP MIB such that it can convey the
state of the VRRP router. Something like "up" and "down:
<string_reason>".
--
[email protected]
1-408-504-4232
_______________________________________________
vrrp mailing list
[email protected]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/vrrp
_______________________________________________
vrrp mailing list
[email protected]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/vrrp