Re: VRRPv3 Implementation Report

I probably should have said nothing prevents an implementation from
providing a config control and some recommendation and/or rationale for
users to turn it to True.     

It is my thinking that without such a config control the default is
False.  I think spec says this, and i would prefer to leave it as is.   

I could be persuaded to add text along suggested lines if VRRP list so
indicates.    

Thanks, 
Steve 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Don Provan [mailto:[email protected]] 
> Sent: Thursday, October 16, 2008 15:00
> To: Stephen Nadas; 'Lin Tao'; 'Mukesh Gupta'
> Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]
> Subject: RE: [VRRP] VRRPv3 Implementation Report
> 
> > Nothing prevents your implementation from defaulting to Accept Mode 
> > yes. The spec provides the ability to do what you want.
> 
> Well, the draft specifically says "Default is False".
> And although it doesn't say so explicitly, I think the specs 
> could be interpreted as *requiring* Accept Mode as a 
> configurable control. (I know I read it that way in the 
> earlier RFCs, even as I pondered ignoring the
> requirement....)
> 
> If either or both of these are intended to be only 
> recommendations, any future version of the spec should say 
> that explicitly. I think I've already made it clear that I 
> would support that position.
> 
> -don
> 
_______________________________________________
vrrp mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/vrrp