Re: How about one unified document?

Hi,

On Jul 11, 2007, at 10:54 AM, Radia Perlman wrote:

> After discussion with Mukesh, we both agree that instead of a VRRP  
> for IPv4 and
> one for IPv6 and one for subsecond timers, it would be nice to  
> obsolete all of those
> with a single document that covers all.
>
> Rather than finalizing the IPv6 document, it would be nice to use  
> it as a base for
> the unified document, adding in the subsecond timers as well as  
> IPv4 support into
> one document. Then we'd have a unified protocol document as well as  
> a unified MIB document.
>
> What do people think? And if people think this is a good idea,  
> would anyone like to
> volunteer to be the editor of this document?

I have been thinking about this and I don't think it is a good idea.   
My reasons include:

  - The basic VRRP (for IPv4) is broadly implemented and at Draft  
standard.  The new document will, of course, have to start at Propose  
Standard.  To me this is a step in the wrong direction.

  - A new unified document will be a lot more complicated and will  
cause confusion for implementers and their customers.  There will be  
inevitable small differences between the two that will cause  
confusion and may even lead to interoperability problems.

  - There are a number of difference between the two versions (IPv4  
and IPv6) due to the way ARP (IPv4) and Neighbor Discovery (IPv6)  
work.  I think this may even affect the VRRP state machine.  I think  
it will hard to do a combined specification that will make the  
differences clear.  Again, this will likely cause confusion for  
people implementing the protocol.

  - There is a risk that in creating the unified document a new  
incompatible version of VRRP for IPv4 will be created.  It will be  
hard to resist the "let's add this feature" temptation.  I don't see  
any significant benefit in doing this.

  - Given the differences in the protocol, I don't think creating a  
unified VRRP specification will result in a unified MIB.  I doubt  
anyone who has an implementation for the current will want to  
implement a new unified MIB.

  - The VRRP for IPv6 specification is close to being finished.   
Creating a unified document will delay it for a long time.  Given the  
state of IPv4 address allocation, I think vendors will want a  
finished VRRP for IPv6 specification much sooner.

Overall, this seems like a lot of work, little if any technical  
benefit, and a lot of negatives.

Further, the VRRP working group not very active.  This would be a big  
undertaking for a working group that has very light traffic on the  
mailing list and hasn't meet at an IETF in a long time.  I think the  
working group would be better off finishing the VRRP for IPv6  
specification, deciding if there is enough interest to finish the sub- 
second timers for IPv4 specification, and then close the working group.

Bob















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