RE: Reviving draft-ietf-vrrp-ipv4-timers-02

> The reason to add units is not that we need it today (we don't).  Its
> because someone might need it in the future.

If someone needs smaller units or larger units or different units
in the future, we have a plan: they should use a different packet
type for exactly the same reasons we are using a different packet
type.

If, on the other hand, no one ever needs different units in the
future, then we'd be wasting effort implementing them now.

> RFC 2338/3768 and draft-ietf-vrrp-ipv6-spec-08 both say that 
> the purpose for
> sending the advertisement interval is to troubleshoot 
> misconfigured routers.
> I assume that would still be at least a part of the purpose.  
> Do you have
> some other purpose in mind?

The exist protocol versions mistakenly think the advertisement
interval needs to be synchronized, but that's only because the
advertisement interval and the timeout interval are synonymous
for the current protocol's purposes: in essence we were always
checking the timeout interval, but we were doing it by
comparing the value divided by 3. As you yourself pointed out,
the correlation no longer holds because both intervals need
to be independently configurable. When we revisit the
assumptions of the existing protocols now that we realize the
two variables are independent, it's plain that only the timeout
interval needs to be synchronized for correct protocol behavior.

Two cooperating routers having different advert intervals is
no longer a misconfiguration. It's just an implementation
decision, not a problem that needs troubleshooting.

-don

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