RE: Advertisement Interval Vs Timeout

Hi,

I haven't looked at the sub-second timer draft yet.
But if the advertisement interval in VRRP for IPv6 can be
as low as 10 ms (1 centisecond), then we can fail-over in
30 ms, right? Isn't this sufficient?

John

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mukesh Gupta [mailto:[email protected]] 
> Sent: Saturday, April 14, 2007 6:30 PM
> To: Don Provan; [email protected]
> Subject: RE: [VRRP] Advertisement Interval Vs Timeout
> 
> Don,
> 
> I like your suggestion about changing the Advertisement_Interval to
> Minimum_Advertisement_Interval.  I am assuming that there is no
> opposition to this change.  If anybody on the WG thinks that 
> it is a bad
> idea, please speak up.
> 
> John, what is your opinion on this?  If everybody agrees, please
> incorporate this change in the next rev.
> 
> Don, section 16 in the VRRPv3 draft can quickly update you on 
> how it is
> different than VRRPv2.
> 
> I don't like the version number scheme as well but I guess it is too
> late to change that now :(  VRRP is not the only protocol 
> with the weird
> version numbers for IPv4 and IPv6; OSPF is another one for example.
> 
> Let's proceed with the sub-second timer draft as an option to VRRPv2
> unless someone has a better idea.
> 
> Regards
> Mukesh
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Don Provan [mailto:[email protected]]
> > Sent: Saturday, April 14, 2007 2:52 PM
> > To: [email protected]
> > Subject: RE: [VRRP] Advertisement Interval Vs Timeout
> > 
> > I took Mukesh's advice and looked over the IPv6 -08 spec.
> > It's really good! I claim that the draft describes exactly
> > the timer behavior we want (both in IPv4 and IPv6) except
> > for one flaw: it says the master should send an advertisement
> > once every Advertisement_Interval instead of allowing the
> > master to send advertisements at any rate it wants but no
> > *slower* than once every Advertisement_Interval.
> > 
> > If the master were allowed to send at faster rates,
> > more than three advertisements could be sent per timeout
> > interval, which is what people experimenting with
> > faster timeouts tell us they found was necessary for
> > stability in that environment.
> > 
> > Now, of course, it's a little strange if the
> > Advertisement_Interval isn't the interval the master
> > advertises at. Perhaps we should just rename it
> > Minimum_Advertisement_Interval and call it a day?
> > (In a perfect world, I'd want to just rewrite the
> > entire protocol and spec to base everything on the
> > timeout and calculate the minimum advertisement interval
> > from that, but that seems like a lot of work for no gain.)
> > 
> > I recommend this change for the IPv6 spec, at least.
> > 
> > But if the VRRPv3 spec is what we want for fast timers,
> > shouldn't we work towards making v3 go both ways? Or making
> > a v3 for IPv4? Or should we just continue on the original
> > path of adding this new time behavior as an option in the
> > v2 IPv4 spec? I think I already mentioned that I didn't
> > pay attention to why the VRRPv3 spec was made IPv6 specific,
> > so I don't know how we got where we are, but it seems a
> > shame to have two specs if we don't need them.
> > 
> > -don
> 
> _______________________________________________
> vrrp mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/vrrp
> 

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