RE: draft-ietf-vrrp-unified-mib-06 - AdvInterval

Kalyan,

 

As the sub-second timers work is picking up, I think it would be better
if the MIB draft supported the sub-second draft.

 

Adding the support in the MIB later would be much more work than what it
is now.

 

Please work with Don/Bob and others to figure out what we need in the
MIB draft to support the sub-second draft.

 

Thanks!

- Mukesh

 

 

________________________________

From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] 
Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2007 12:11 PM
To: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]
Subject: RE: [VRRP] draft-ietf-vrrp-unified-mib-06 - AdvInterval

 

Hi Mukesh and Radia,

 

    It is your call as to how we should proceed with advInterval for
VRRP over IPv4.

 

Anyone planning to revive draft-ietf-vrrp-ipv4-timers-02 ?

Thanks, 
Kalyan 

 

 

________________________________

From: ext [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] 
Sent: Tuesday, March 27, 2007 2:58 PM
To: [email protected]; [email protected]
Subject: RE: [VRRP] draft-ietf-vrrp-unified-mib-06 - AdvInterval

Joe,

 

MIB Drs advised me to check the WG if it wants the MIB to support any
future changes to advInterval for VRRP over IPv4 or

support VRRPv2 and VRRPv3 as it is today.

 

If the consensus is to support future changes - Then, as you mentioned,
we need to know 

    - Should it support draft-ietf-vrrp-ipv4-timers-02 . (which
unified-mib-06  dose not as you mentioned) 

    and/or

    - should it support advInterval similar to VRRPv3 (which it dose
support) 

 

It would be good to know what the WG thinks will be the most likely
future direction on this 

 

Thanks, 
Kalyan 

 

 

________________________________

From: ext Fioramonti, Joseph [mailto:[email protected]] 
Sent: Tuesday, March 27, 2007 5:52 AM
To: Tata Kalyan (Nokia-ES/MtView); [email protected]
Subject: RE: [VRRP] draft-ietf-vrrp-unified-mib-06 - AdvInterval

Kalyan,

 

If your intention is to support a resurrected version of
draft-ietf-vrrp-ipv4-timers-02 (VRRPv4), then I think that we need a
little more.  In that expired draft...

*         Advertisement interval granularity can be seconds,
centiseconds, or milliseconds.

*         Advertisement count is configurable.

*         VR Mode is a new field.

 

On the other hand, if the intention is to run something more like VRRPv3
over IPv4, then we might be OK.

 

Thanks,

--Joe.

 

________________________________

From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] 
Sent: Monday, March 26, 2007 7:38 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: RE: [VRRP] draft-ietf-vrrp-unified-mib-06 - AdvInterval

 

Hi,

It is my understanding that VRRP unified MIB should take into account
the possibility of supporting

centisecond (sub second) timers for VRRP over IPv4 at a future time. 

 

I am sending this to get a consensus on this as advised by MIB Drs. 

Thanks, 
Kalyan

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