headers
Stephen Nadas | 5 Oct 2007 19:15
Picon
Favicon

RE: FW: I-D ACTION:draft-nadas-vrrp-unified-spec-00.txt

Hi Don, 

I had some cycles to work on this and have reworded text to address
[SJN4,6,7,8] (labels from the from the earlier note actually... ) 

Seems to me that [SJN1, 2, 3] are somewhat intertwined.  But based on
this note: 

A) wrt [SJN2, SJN3] I am confused bcos I'm not sure whether we are now
saying that for skew time to work right everyone needs to use same
granularity and hence the text is ok as is.  Or else I am waiting on
text from you?    

B) wrt to [SJN5] this note seems to say leave text as it is. 

Please advise.

Thanks,
Steve 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Don Provan [mailto:dprovan <at> bivio.net] 
> Sent: Saturday, September 15, 2007 5:06 PM
> To: Stephen Nadas
> Cc: vrrp <at> ietf.org
> Subject: RE: [VRRP] FW: I-D 
> ACTION:draft-nadas-vrrp-unified-spec-00.txt 
> 
> > [SJN1] I might change "it makes no sense" to "it may not 
> make [SJN1]
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 4 comments |
headers
Don Provan | 5 Oct 2007 20:39
Favicon

RE: FW: I-D ACTION:draft-nadas-vrrp-unified-spec-00.txt

Hi, Steve.

Thanks for yanking me back on course: I was off on a
tangent that I've now abandoned, so consider the extra
ideas mere food for thought. I'll get back to business:

1. Forget granularity. I don't think we've ever mentioned
it, so I don't think we need to start now. Sorry for the
distraction. But I do want to mention that with a
centisecond timer, the skew time theoretically requires
a timer accurate to 0.04 milliseconds. But I'm happy to
leave this issue as an implementation detail.

2. SJN2: I do want to promote to full status the idea
that routers can be configured to different timeouts,
with the (undefended) requirement that longer timeouts
must have lower priorities. So I'd like to see this
in section 5.2.7 and, to the extent appropriate, removed
from the appendix.

3. SJN5: If the consensus is that my claim is correct
(i.e., that PREEMPT should apply only to how you treat
lower priority routers), then 6.4.3 should mention
explicitly that the PREEMPT flag should not be considered
in the case of *being* preempted. I would also update the
description of the flag itself to make clear it only
applies to whether this system preempts lower priority
systems. I don't recall whether there's any text that
explicitly requires PREEMPT to be set the same in all
routers, but obviously any such text should be removed.
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 3 comments |
headers
Stephen Nadas | 6 Oct 2007 22:06
Picon
Favicon

RE: FW: I-D ACTION:draft-nadas-vrrp-unified-spec-00.txt

Hi Don,  

My responses are inline.  I think I can drop -01 soon.  

Thanks,
Steve  

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Don Provan [mailto:dprovan <at> bivio.net] 
> Sent: Friday, October 05, 2007 2:39 PM
> To: Stephen Nadas
> Cc: vrrp <at> ietf.org
> Subject: RE: [VRRP] FW: I-D 
> ACTION:draft-nadas-vrrp-unified-spec-00.txt 
> 
> Hi, Steve.
> 
> Thanks for yanking me back on course: I was off on a tangent 
> that I've now abandoned, so consider the extra ideas mere 
> food for thought. I'll get back to business:
> 
> 1. Forget granularity. I don't think we've ever mentioned it, 
> so I don't think we need to start now. Sorry for the 
> distraction. But I do want to mention that with a centisecond 
> timer, the skew time theoretically requires a timer accurate 
> to 0.04 milliseconds. But I'm happy to leave this issue as an 
> implementation detail.

Forgotten.
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Stephen Nadas | 17 Oct 2007 03:22
Picon
Favicon

RE: FW: I-D ACTION:draft-nadas-vrrp-unified-spec-00.txt

Hi Don and list,

I have just posted draft-nadas-vrrp-unified-spec-01.txt.  

I would like to ask the working group to consider taking up this draft
as a working group document. 

Thanks and regards, 
Steve  

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Stephen Nadas 
> Sent: Saturday, October 06, 2007 4:06 PM
> To: 'Don Provan'
> Cc: vrrp <at> ietf.org
> Subject: RE: [VRRP] FW: I-D 
> ACTION:draft-nadas-vrrp-unified-spec-00.txt 
> 
> Hi Don,  
> 
> My responses are inline.  I think I can drop -01 soon.  
> 
> Thanks,
> Steve  
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Don Provan [mailto:dprovan <at> bivio.net]
> > Sent: Friday, October 05, 2007 2:39 PM
> > To: Stephen Nadas
> > Cc: vrrp <at> ietf.org
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 1 comment |
headers
Don Provan | 24 Oct 2007 22:59
Favicon

RE: FW: I-D ACTION:draft-nadas-vrrp-unified-spec-00.txt

Looks good to me. Just one typo in A.1 point 1.
-don

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Stephen Nadas [mailto:stephen.nadas <at> ericsson.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, October 16, 2007 6:23 PM
> To: Don Provan
> Cc: vrrp <at> ietf.org
> Subject: RE: [VRRP] FW: I-D 
> ACTION:draft-nadas-vrrp-unified-spec-00.txt 
> 
> 
> Hi Don and list,
> 
> I have just posted draft-nadas-vrrp-unified-spec-01.txt.  
> 
> I would like to ask the working group to consider taking up this draft
> as a working group document. 
> 
> Thanks and regards, 
> Steve  
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Stephen Nadas 
> > Sent: Saturday, October 06, 2007 4:06 PM
> > To: 'Don Provan'
> > Cc: vrrp <at> ietf.org
> > Subject: RE: [VRRP] FW: I-D 
> > ACTION:draft-nadas-vrrp-unified-spec-00.txt 
> >
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Mukesh Gupta | 25 Oct 2007 07:53
Favicon

Draft draft-nadas-vrrp-unified-spec-01.txt as a WG item

Folks,

The chairs would like to determine the consensus on accepting draft
draft-nadas-vrrp-unified-spec-01.txt as a WG item for replacing VRRP for
IPv6 (draft-ietf-vrrp-ipv6-spec-08.txt).

If anyone is opposed to accepting this document, please respond to the
list saying that you oppose accepting the document as a WG document, and
provide the reasons for your opposition.

If you support accepting the draft as a WG item, please respond with
your Yes as well.

Regards
Radia & Mukesh

-----Original Message-----
From: Stephen Nadas [mailto:stephen.nadas <at> ericsson.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, October 16, 2007 6:23 PM
To: Don Provan
Cc: vrrp <at> ietf.org
Subject: RE: [VRRP] FW: I-D ACTION:draft-nadas-vrrp-unified-spec-00.txt 

Hi Don and list,

I have just posted draft-nadas-vrrp-unified-spec-01.txt.  

I would like to ask the working group to consider taking up this draft
as a working group document.
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 7 comments |
headers
Don Provan | 25 Oct 2007 20:43
Favicon

RE: Draft draft-nadas-vrrp-unified-spec-01.txt as a WG item

I think it's swell. :-)
-don

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mukesh Gupta [mailto:mukesh.gupta <at> tropos.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, October 24, 2007 10:54 PM
> To: vrrp <at> ietf.org
> Subject: [VRRP] Draft draft-nadas-vrrp-unified-spec-01.txt as 
> a WG item
> 
> 
> Folks,
> 
> The chairs would like to determine the consensus on accepting draft
> draft-nadas-vrrp-unified-spec-01.txt as a WG item for 
> replacing VRRP for
> IPv6 (draft-ietf-vrrp-ipv6-spec-08.txt).
> 
> If anyone is opposed to accepting this document, please respond to the
> list saying that you oppose accepting the document as a WG 
> document, and
> provide the reasons for your opposition.
> 
> If you support accepting the draft as a WG item, please respond with
> your Yes as well.
> 
> Regards
> Radia & Mukesh
> 
>
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Joe Fioramonti XJ | 25 Oct 2007 23:40
Picon
Favicon

RE: Draft draft-nadas-vrrp-unified-spec-01.txt as a WG item

Yes.

-----Original Message-----
From: Mukesh Gupta [mailto:mukesh.gupta <at> tropos.com] 
Sent: Thursday, October 25, 2007 1:54 AM
To: vrrp <at> ietf.org
Subject: [VRRP] Draft draft-nadas-vrrp-unified-spec-01.txt as a WG item

Folks,

The chairs would like to determine the consensus on accepting draft
draft-nadas-vrrp-unified-spec-01.txt as a WG item for replacing VRRP for
IPv6 (draft-ietf-vrrp-ipv6-spec-08.txt).

If anyone is opposed to accepting this document, please respond to the
list saying that you oppose accepting the document as a WG document, and
provide the reasons for your opposition.

If you support accepting the draft as a WG item, please respond with
your Yes as well.

Regards
Radia & Mukesh

-----Original Message-----
From: Stephen Nadas [mailto:stephen.nadas <at> ericsson.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, October 16, 2007 6:23 PM
To: Don Provan
Cc: vrrp <at> ietf.org
Subject: RE: [VRRP] FW: I-D ACTION:draft-nadas-vrrp-unified-spec-00.txt
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Hott, Robert W CIV NSWCDD, W13 | 26 Oct 2007 12:42
Picon
Favicon

RE: Draft draft-nadas-vrrp-unified-spec-01.txt as a WG item

I definitely think that this draft should be accepted as a WG item. I
vote YES.

Bob Hott 

-----Original Message-----
From: Mukesh Gupta [mailto:mukesh.gupta <at> tropos.com] 
Sent: Thursday, October 25, 2007 1:54
To: vrrp <at> ietf.org
Subject: [VRRP] Draft draft-nadas-vrrp-unified-spec-01.txt as a WG item

Folks,

The chairs would like to determine the consensus on accepting draft
draft-nadas-vrrp-unified-spec-01.txt as a WG item for replacing VRRP for
IPv6 (draft-ietf-vrrp-ipv6-spec-08.txt).

If anyone is opposed to accepting this document, please respond to the
list saying that you oppose accepting the document as a WG document, and
provide the reasons for your opposition.

If you support accepting the draft as a WG item, please respond with
your Yes as well.

Regards
Radia & Mukesh

-----Original Message-----
From: Stephen Nadas [mailto:stephen.nadas <at> ericsson.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, October 16, 2007 6:23 PM
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 1 comment |
headers
Ramya Shekar (rashekar | 27 Oct 2007 14:00
Picon
Favicon

Need info reg interface IP used as VIP in VRRP

Hi all,
 
Can anyone explain how the behavior of VRRP is when interface ip is configured as a VIP?
 
In particular, I need this scenario. 
 
    * Router A and router B exist with VRRP configured in them.
    
    * VR ID is 1 & VIP is interface ip address of A in both routers A and B and hence A is Master with priority 255 & B is Backup.
   
    * Through object tracking, priority of A is reduced from 255 (say the case being another interface in router A going down & by tracking, the priority of VR 1 in router A goes down).
 
    *  In this case, will A be preempted by B and thus will B become the master of the VIP which is the same as one of the interface ip addresses of router A? Or will A continue to remain the Master as the VIP is its interface IP address?
 
Thanks,
Ramya  
_______________________________________________
vrrp mailing list
vrrp <at> ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/vrrp
Permalink | Reply | 2 comments |

Gmane