Re: Default Value of Accept_Mode

John,

Could you please explain a little more about the interoperability issues that you are referring to?

As far as I understand, an operator will see different behavior from the devices with different default values when he/she tries to connect to the virtual address.  However, it should not cause any protocol interoperability issues.  Moreover, the operator would be able to change the default value using the configurable knob to see consistent behavior from all the devices.

Regards
Mukesh

From: John Cruz (johcruz) [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Monday, October 05, 2009 11:49 AM
To: Mukesh Gupta; [email protected]
Cc: [email protected]; Adrian Farrel
Subject: RE: [VRRP] Default Value of Accept_Mode

Hi Mukesh,

Leaving the default value to be implementation
dependent may not be a good idea as it will cause
interoperability issues in environments where
customers  have a mix of devices from different
vendors.

John

From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Mukesh Gupta
Sent: Friday, October 02, 2009 4:26 PM
To: [email protected]
Cc: [email protected]; Adrian Farrel
Subject: [VRRP] Default Value of Accept_Mode

[WG Chair Hat Off]

Folks,

During the IESG review of the unified VRRP draft, Dan, Operations and Management AD, questioned the default value of the Accept_Mode in the draft.  The current default value is False and he would like us to reconsider that (his comments in the end of this email).

We had discussions about this on the mailing list.  However, I don't remember having a clear WG consensus for either default value.

Given the fact that the default value has absolutely no impact on the interoperability and the fact that both the values have their pros and cons, we are proposing that the draft should leave the default value to the implementations.  The draft would say that the implementations are free to choose any default value.

Please let us know if you agree/disagree.  If we do not hear anything back, we will assume that the WG agrees :)

Regards
Mukesh

Dan's  Comment:
=============
3. Accept_Mode defaulting to false seems unrealistic at least in deployments
I've seen.  Using accept-data config knob seems very common. Unless enable
Accept_Mode, when the virtual address moves to the Backup, the virtual address
no longer responds to ping; I've also seen an implementation to reject pings to
the virtual IP when it's in Master mode, but this seems like an implementation
bug if so (I'd like a confirmation if this is the case).

In any case, this restriction makes troubleshooting and deployment a pain; hosts
and management systems often ping the gateway address to see if the network is
working, and this kills that assumption.

Unless the WG has recently discussed and reached consensus that Accept_Mode
should still default to false, I'd consider revisiting this position.

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