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.

Given that, then do we even need to send the timeout interval?
Would it be valid to have different timeout periods configured?

--Joe.

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