RE: Advertisement Interval Vs Timeout

Hi Mukesh,

Then why change Advertisement_Interval to
Minimum_Advertisement_Interval in the VRRP for IPv6 draft?

John 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mukesh Gupta [mailto:[email protected]] 
> Sent: Tuesday, April 17, 2007 7:04 AM
> To: John Cruz (johcruz); Don Provan; [email protected]
> Subject: RE: [VRRP] Advertisement Interval Vs Timeout
> 
> John,
> 
> As far as I remember, it was sufficient for the VRRPv3 (VRRP for IPv6)
> but the sub-second draft was trying to fix the same thing for VRRPv2
> (VRRP for IPv4) because we did not have enough space for extension of
> Advertisement Interval in VRRPv2.
> 
> Regards
> Mukesh
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: John Cruz (johcruz) [mailto:[email protected]]
> > Sent: Monday, April 16, 2007 8:20 AM
> > To: Mukesh Gupta; Don Provan; [email protected]
> > Subject: RE: [VRRP] 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