Re: VRRPv3 Implementation Report

Lin, 

> 3. Design of Procotol: The aim of the VRRP is to provide a 
> redundancy router forwarding packet, not the practice. It is 
> not concerned by forwarding whether or not the high level 
> application packet destined to the VIP is processed. 
> Actually, these packet is used by management. It's not 
> convenient that these packet is discarded.

Nothing prevents your implementation from defaulting to Accept Mode yes.
The spec provides the ability to do what you want. 

> 
> There is the same reason for IPv6. So we propose to abandon 
> this Accept_Mode. Please review our opinnion. Thank you very much.
> 

I don't understand what you mean by "abandon".  The point of the unified
draft was to make things the same for v4 and v6 and with this in mind,
it was easier to add accept-mode to IPv4 than not to, with the intention
that it would default to False precisely for the reasons Don gives
below.      


> > Well, I understand the point about Accept_Mode, but my sentiments
> > run exactly the opposite way. While for practical reasons 
> Accept_Mode
> > being off can be harder to implement on some systems, logically the
> > difference in simplicity is enormous: with Accept_Mode=Off, 
> the *only*
> > impact of VRRP on the IPv4 code is the addition of a single 
> ARP entry.
> > Accept_Mode=On forces VRRP to add and remove an IP end point, a
> > significantly more heavy handed operation. (But, as it happens, the
> > *only* available approach on some systems, which is what makes it
> > seem simpler in practice.)

[snip]

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