Multiple Virtual Address Question

"Nigg, Gary" <[email protected]>
Newsgroups gmane.ietf.vrrp
Message-ID <2CC6F9DF286DD04585648C28E4D8C0C0CFBC4E@MABOSEVS2.ets.enterasys.com>
VRRP Mailing List,
 
I have come across a VRRP configuration and am curious how the VRRP
protocol (RFC 3768) should handle the following situation.  Within a
single Virtual Router, there is a single VRRP advertisement that is
transmitted by the VRRP Master.  This advertisement contains only one
priority field for the multiple Virtual Addresses that may be present in
the packet.   How should the protocol function if the set of Virtual
Addresses contains IP addresses that are both "owned" and "not-owned" by
the local VRRP Router?  Does the protocol strictly prohibit this
scenario and require that 2 VRIDs be defined on the common LAN? Section
3 (VRRP Overview) paragraph 2 seems to hint at this.  Or is this an
allowable configuration?  And if so, what should the VRRP Priority value
be in the corresponding VRRP Advertisement (255 or 1-254)?  I have seen
3 different implementations by various vendors:
 
1) Reject this configuration
2) If any one of the virtual addresses within the set is locally owned,
set the Priority = 255
3) If any one of the virtual addresses within the set is NOT locally
owned, set the Priority to the configured value (1-254; default = 100) 
 
If #2 or #3 are implemented, it further adds to the confusion as what to
do in this situation based on Section 7.1 (Receiving VRRP Packets):
MUST verify that the VRID is configured on the receiving interface and
the local router is not the IP Address owner (Priority equals 255
(decimal)).
 
In other words, is a non-local virtual-address in #2 now considered an
IP owner because the Priority is 255?  I understand that this can create
multiple VRRP Masters for a single Virtual Router but would like some
feedback.  It seems the only logical choice is to require #1.  FYI...The
configuration that brought this question up had a VRID using 2 routers
with physical interface IP addresses A & B while the virtual addresses
were A & C.
 
Thanks in advance for your help.
 
Sincerely,
Gary Nigg

_______________________________________________
vrrp mailing list
[email protected]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/vrrp
lmpx.com only provides a reader for public news (NNTP) servers. It is not affiliated with the servers or forums shown here and is not responsible for the content of articles, which is written by their respective authors.