Re: terminology questions

Stephen Nadas wrote:
> Hi Huafeng, 
> 
>> I have some questions about the terms used in RFC 3768 and draft 02.
>>
>> 1. "IPvX address(es) associated with the virtual router" vs. 
>> "the virtual router's IPvX address(es)".
>>
>> Do they mean the same thing? I think so, but can anyone confirm this?
> 
> I think the term "IPvX address(es) associated with the virtual router"
> is consistently used in -02 to mean the addresses that are protected by
> VRRP, that is, if the master fails, it is packets addressed to these
> addresses that the backup will forward.  
> 
> The term "the virtual router's IPvX address(es)" seems to only be used
> in section 1.6: 
> 
>    IP Address Owner        The VRRP router that has the virtual router's
>                            IPvX address(es) as real interface
>                            address(es).  This is the router that, when
>                            up, will respond to packets addressed to one
>                            of these IPvX addresses for ICMP pings, TCP
>                            connections, etc.
> 
> Where it means the same. 

OK, I see.

>> 2. "Primary IP Address".
>>
>> It seems this concept applies only for IPv4? In IPv6 there's 
>> no such concept and we just call its counterpart "the 
>> link-local address"?
> 
> To my understanding, concept only applies to IPv4.  I'm not sure that I
> agree with 'and we just call its counterpart "the link-local address"'
> part of this bcos in general the semantics of IPv4 address != semantics
> of IPv6 link-local address. 

I think the semantics of the "Primary IP address" is to act as the 
source IP address of the VRRP advertisements. The IPv6 link-local 
address also serves for this purpose, right?
Why does the concept only apply for IPv4? I don't see a problem 
extending this concept to ipv6.
_______________________________________________
vrrp mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/vrrp