Re: How about one unified document?

Radia,

On Aug 2, 2007, at 9:56 AM, Radia Perlman wrote:

> Bob,
>
> You raise some interesting points, but the WG seems to have
> consensus on this and the ADs said "it is the

How was the consensus determined?  I only see responses from two  
people to your question (besides mine) on the mailing list.   Not  
exactly an overwhelming response.  Also, the group hasn't meet at an  
IETF meeting in a while.  To me it's hard see how a consensus can be  
declared with so few responses.  I suspect there are a lot more  
people on the mailing list.

It might be good for someone to take a first cut at a unified VRRP  
specification as an individual draft and then ask the question.

> right thing to do". There are very motivated people working
> on the document and we don't believe it will take a long time. Also,

I note the last VRRP for IPv6 draft was published in February.

> this should not interfere with getting VRRP for IPv4 to standard.

I assume you mean VRRP for IPv6.  How will this not interfere with  
getting VRRP for IPv6 to be a standard?  Your email said:

"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."

>
> And actually, the points you raise argue that we *should* make a  
> unified
> document, because we believe there will be implementations that will
> want to simultaneously support IPv4, IPv6, and subsecond timers,  
> and any
> possible interactions between these would be much better thought  
> through
> while writing the document than for each implementor to try to  
> figure it
> out independently.

Is there any data from the people who have implemented the current  
VRRP specification that they want a unified specification?

> And we already have a unified MIB for IPv4 and IPv6.

OK, my error.

Bob


>
> Radia & Mukesh
>
> Bob Hinden wrote:
>> 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


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