Re: comment for draft-ietf-vrrp-unified-spec-00

Hi Georges, 
 
I am a bit confused here - draft is at -02 and went thru wg last call.
Is the current text in -02 satisfactory or not? 
 
Thanks,
Steve 

________________________________

From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of
Georges Chung
Sent: Monday, June 02, 2008 9:33 AM
To: [email protected]
Subject: [VRRP] RE: comment for draft-ietf-vrrp-unified-spec-00


I think Tomohiko has a point.

Sending a Router Advertisement with the interface's MAC as the source
link-layer address would refresh the hosts' Neighbor Cache entry with
the router's physical MAC address.  We want the hosts to use the virtual
MAC address of the router instead.

Can the draft be updated with this?

Thanks,
Georges


------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------

Hello Tomohiko, 

Thank you for your comment.  I am copying to the vrrp list as well for

any comments WG may have.    

Regards,
Steve 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: kura at iij.ad.jp [mailto:kura at iij.ad.jp] 

> Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2008 12:54 AM
> To: Stephen Nadas
> Subject: comment for draft-ietf-vrrp-unified-spec-00
> 
> Hello,
> 
> This is Tomohiko Kurahashi from IIJ which is an ISP in Japan.

> I have a comment for draft-ietf-vrrp-unified-spec-00, with 
> regard to the interaction with IPv6 Router Advertisements (RAs).
> 
> According to the draft, Master router (only) sends RA packets 

> for a virtual router, whose source address is the IPv6 
> link-local address associated with the virtual router (e.g. 
> link-local address of address owner), and source link-layer 
> address option is the virtual router MAC address.

> 
> In other hand, according to RFC 2461, both Master and Backup 
> routers are also able to send RA packets for themselves, 
> whose source address is their interface IPv6 link-local 
> address, and source link-layer address option is their 

> interface MAC address.
> 
> Under such situation that both kinds of RAs mentioned above 
> are being advertised, some hosts receiving former (first) may 
> set their default route to the virtual router, and others 

> receiving latter (first) may set to one of real routers. This 
> must be an unwilling result for network managers/administrators.
> 
> I think it should be mentioned explicitly in the draft that 

> VRRP routers MUST stop advertising the latter kind of RAs 
> automatically (or by configuration).
> 
> FYI, the following is Cisco manual of HSRP for IPv6.
> http://www.cisco.com/en/US/products/ps6350/products_configurat

> ion_guide_chapter09186a008078f345.html#wp1066077
> 
> I'm glad if you take my comment into consideration.
> 
> Best regards,
> --
> Tomohiko Kurahashi <kura at iij.ad.jp>

> Internet Initiative Japan Inc.

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