Proposed Re-Charter and Milestones

Folks,

The chairs would like to update the charter and the milestones of the WG
as attached.  Please review it and comment.

If we do not hear anything back, we will assume that it is acceptable to
the list and will send it to the ADs.

Thanks!
Radia & Mukesh

The purpose of this working group is to define and develop a standard
virtual router redundancy protocol for IPv4 and IPv6.  A virtual
router redundancy protocol is a protocol which allows several
routers on a multiaccess link to utilize the same virtual IP address.
One router will be elected as a master with the other routers acting as
backups in case of the failure of the master router.  The primary
motivation to using a virtual router redundancy protocol is that host
systems may be configured (manually or via DHCP) with a single default
gateway, rather than running an active routing protocol.  The protocol 
shall support sub-second detection of a master router failure 
and should support the ability to load share traffic when 
more than one router is up. 


The goals of this working group are:

1. Define and develop a standard virtual router redundancy protocol
    for IPv4 and IPv6 in one unified specification.

Re: How about one unified document?

Hi,

On Jul 11, 2007, at 10:54 AM, Radia Perlman wrote:

> After discussion with Mukesh, we both agree that instead of a VRRP  
> for IPv4 and
> one for IPv6 and one for subsecond timers, it would be nice to  
> obsolete all of those
> with a single document that covers all.
>
> Rather than finalizing the IPv6 document, it would be nice to use  
> it as a base for
> the unified document, adding in the subsecond timers as well as  
> IPv4 support into
> one document. Then we'd have a unified protocol document as well as  
> a unified MIB document.
>
> What do people think? And if people think this is a good idea,  
> would anyone like to
> volunteer to be the editor of this document?

I have been thinking about this and I don't think it is a good idea.   
My reasons include:

  - The basic VRRP (for IPv4) is broadly implemented and at Draft  
standard.  The new document will, of course, have to start at Propose  
Standard.  To me this is a step in the wrong direction.

  - A new unified document will be a lot more complicated and will  
cause confusion for implementers and their customers.  There will be  

Re: How about one unified document?

Bob,

You raise some interesting points, but the WG seems to have
consensus on this and the ADs said "it is the
right thing to do". There are very motivated people working
on the document and we don't believe it will take a long time. Also,
this should not interfere with getting VRRP for IPv4 to standard.

And actually, the points you raise argue that we *should* make a unified
document, because we believe there will be implementations that will
want to simultaneously support IPv4, IPv6, and subsecond timers, and any
possible interactions between these would be much better thought through
while writing the document than for each implementor to try to figure it
out independently.

And we already have a unified MIB for IPv4 and IPv6.

Radia & Mukesh

Bob Hinden wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Jul 11, 2007, at 10:54 AM, Radia Perlman wrote:
>
>> After discussion with Mukesh, we both agree that instead of a VRRP 
>> for IPv4 and
>> one for IPv6 and one for subsecond timers, it would be nice to 
>> obsolete all of those
>> with a single document that covers all.
>>

Re: How about one unified document?

Radia,

On Aug 2, 2007, at 9:56 AM, Radia Perlman wrote:

> Bob,
>
> You raise some interesting points, but the WG seems to have
> consensus on this and the ADs said "it is the

How was the consensus determined?  I only see responses from two  
people to your question (besides mine) on the mailing list.   Not  
exactly an overwhelming response.  Also, the group hasn't meet at an  
IETF meeting in a while.  To me it's hard see how a consensus can be  
declared with so few responses.  I suspect there are a lot more  
people on the mailing list.

It might be good for someone to take a first cut at a unified VRRP  
specification as an individual draft and then ask the question.

> right thing to do". There are very motivated people working
> on the document and we don't believe it will take a long time. Also,

I note the last VRRP for IPv6 draft was published in February.

> this should not interfere with getting VRRP for IPv4 to standard.

I assume you mean VRRP for IPv6.  How will this not interfere with  
getting VRRP for IPv6 to be a standard?  Your email said:

"Rather than finalizing the IPv6 document, it would be nice to use it  

RE: How about one unified document?

Hi Bob and list, 

We have implemented fast-timers-02 and we want a standardized protocol
supporting sub-second timers for IPv4 going forward.  

Earlier Don Provan had agreed to progress that draft, he looked at it,
concluded that it was easier and better to make a unified draft and
argued for this on this list.  I agree with his reasoning; I think it
will in the long run be better to have one protocol that just behaves
correctly depending upon whether it is in protecting IPv4 or IPv6
addresses.       

Please see my other comments inline.  

Thanks and regards,
Steve   

> 
> I have been thinking about this and I don't think it is a 
> good idea.   
> My reasons include:
> 
>   - The basic VRRP (for IPv4) is broadly implemented and at 
> Draft standard.  The new document will, of course, have to 
> start at Propose Standard.  To me this is a step in the wrong 
> direction.
> 

I agree that to get to the end goal, the unified approach will take
longer to push through the full stand.  Otoh, I think the

RE: How about one unified document?

I am very sorry, the previous e-mail got away a little too early.  I
meant to save it but sent it instead.  

The unfinished sentence is a completed thought below. 

Thanks and regards,
Steve  

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Stephen Nadas (RL/TNT) 
> Sent: Monday, August 06, 2007 11:26 AM
> To: 'Bob Hinden'; vrrp <at> ietf.org
> Cc: Radia Perlman
> Subject: RE: [VRRP] How about one unified document?
> 
> Hi Bob and list, 
> 
> We have implemented fast-timers-02 and we want a standardized 
> protocol supporting sub-second timers for IPv4 going forward.  
> 
> Earlier Don Provan had agreed to progress that draft, he 
> looked at it, concluded that it was easier and better to make 
> a unified draft and argued for this on this list.  I agree 
> with his reasoning; I think it will in the long run be better 
> to have one protocol that just behaves correctly depending 
> upon whether it is in protecting IPv4 or IPv6 addresses.       
> 
> Please see my other comments inline
> 
> Thanks and regards,

RE: How about one unified document?

Hi Bob and list,

> 
> It might be good for someone to take a first cut at a unified 
> VRRP specification as an individual draft and then ask the question.
> 

We are actively working on such a draft; I am hoping (but not promising)
to be able to make this available within a couple of weeks.  

[snipped]
> Is there any data from the people who have implemented the 
> current VRRP specification that they want a unified specification?
> 

Please see my previous email(s). 

[snipped]

Thanks and regards,
Steve  

_______________________________________________
vrrp mailing list
vrrp <at> ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/vrrp

RE: How about one unified document?

Bob,

> How was the consensus determined?  I only see responses from two
> people to your question (besides mine) on the mailing list.   Not
> exactly an overwhelming response.  Also, the group hasn't meet at an
> IETF meeting in a while.  To me it's hard see how a consensus can be
> declared with so few responses.  I suspect there are a lot more
> people on the mailing list.

The consensus was determined based on a few positive responses, a few
private email exchanges, a few hallway discussions during the last IETF
and not even a single negative response.  It was first proposed by Don
on 4/15 and we have not heard a single person on the list saying that it
is a bad idea so far including the ADs who supported the idea as soon as
they heard about it.

Note that consensus is always determined on the mailing list so the WG
not having had a face to face meeting has nothing to do with the
consensus.

> It might be good for someone to take a first cut at a unified VRRP
> specification as an individual draft and then ask the question.

Sure.  The current editors are planning to submit it as an individual
draft and we will circulate the idea on the list again before we accept
it as a WG draft.

> Is there any data from the people who have implemented the current
> VRRP specification that they want a unified specification?

Do we like the same books?

_______________________________________________
vrrp mailing list
vrrp <at> ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/vrrp

Do we like the same books?

_______________________________________________
vrrp mailing list
vrrp <at> ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/vrrp