Re: VRRP versions & Misc L2s (was RE: DISCUSS and COMMENT: draft-ietf-vrrp-unified-spec )

Concerning 1) - yes, clarification of the terminology in the
introduction section on the lines of what you explain here would
probably help, so if you can draw a proposal for text I would be happy
to consider it. Also, should this document be marked on the header as an
update to RFC 3768? 

Dan


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Stephen Nadas [mailto:[email protected]] 
> Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 2008 3:16 PM
> To: Romascanu, Dan (Dan); [email protected]
> Cc: [email protected]; 
> [email protected]; [email protected]
> Subject: VRRP versions & Misc L2s (was RE: DISCUSS and 
> COMMENT: draft-ietf-vrrp-unified-spec )
> 
> Hi Dan, 
> 
> Thank you for these comments.  I will fix and/or consider 
> clarifications for the next pass. 
> 
> Regarding DISCUSS: 
> 
> 1) Perhaps it is clarifying to say that the text discussing 
> the VRRP version came from the v6 draft, and there is no such 
> text in 3768.  But
> 3768 does send packets with the version field set to 2 and I 
> think all "VRRPv3" is trying to say is that  the unified 
> draft sends packets with
> the version field set to 3.       
> 
> 2) I do not know of such deployments and I'd be happy to 
> loose all of this text, perhaps VRRP list knows more.  
> 
> Thanks,
> Steve   
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Dan Romascanu [mailto:[email protected]]
> > Sent: Tuesday, November 04, 2008 16:09
> > To: [email protected]
> > Cc: [email protected];
> > [email protected]
> > Subject: DISCUSS and COMMENT: draft-ietf-vrrp-unified-spec
> > 
> > Discuss:
> > 1. The version management and transition plan for VRRP is unlear to 
> > me. The Introduction section mentions that this is 'version 
> three (3) 
> > of the protocol and it is based on VRRP (version 2) for 
> IPv4 that is 
> > defined in RFC 3768 and on 
> draft-ieft-vrrp-ipv6-spec-08.txt'. However 
> > RFC 3768 does not make the claim to be VRRPv2, itlooks like this 
> > terminology was decided later and is defined here for the 
> first time. 
> > On the other hand draft-ieft-vrrp-ipv6-spec-08.txt which VRRPv3 is 
> > based upon is just an informative reference and is actually 
> an expired 
> > I-D? Should not this document update RFC 3768, and should 
> not at least 
> > part of the migration and coexistence issues in Appendix A 
> be moved to 
> > the Operational Issues section?
> > 
> > 2. I do not understand what is the logic of including a section 9 
> > 'Operation over FDDI, Token Ring, and ATM LANE' in this 
> document. Has 
> > anybody heard about a deployment of any of these layer 2 networks 
> > lately, and with VRRP atop of them?
> > 
> > Comment:
> > 
> > Appendix B and part of Appendix C excepting the part refering to 
> > changes from RFC 3768 should be dropped at publication.
> > 
> > 
> 
_______________________________________________
vrrp mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/vrrp