Re: draft-ietf-vrrp-unified-spec-03.txt

Pekka,

[WG chair hat off]
[Copying the WG list]

>  - "Updates: 3768" (VRRPv2 spec) was added to the header.  Should this
>    be "Obsoletes: 3768".  Has the WG thought about this?  E.g. would
>    you like implementations to transition to VRRPv3?

Mukesh> I agree that it should be "Obsoletes: 3768".  The new spec does address a few issues in the VRRPv2 spec and the WG should recommend the implementations to transition to VRRPv3.

>    Operational issues aside, as you know, there have already been
>    v6-only draft-ietf-vrrp-ipv6-spec implementations that use Version
>    code 3.  This may or may not be a problem, depending on the
>    differences of v6 parts of this spec and vrrp-ipv6-spec.

That's a good point.  Steve, could you please check the differences between the v6 parts of this spec and the vrrp-ipv6-spec and see if both the version will be interoperable or not?  If there are enough differences, we might have to increment the version number in this spec :(

Pekka, I just know of one implementation (Nokia) of vrrp-ipv6-spec. Do you know of any more?

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