Kalyan (Srinivas)Tata | 1 Jul 20:25 2010
Picon

Re: Going on Vacation 7/5 to 7/23


[Kalyan>] Hi Joan,
I am CCing the WG to get any input on the following. 

5) I think I asked about these before, the accessible-for-notify scalar 
objects
could become part of the Statistics table (as part of the row's objects)
and I think this proabably gives more
information (for example, if the notifications are disabled, then an 
operator will
still be able to see these "Reason" values).  There may need to be an 
additional
enum added, e.g. to vrrpv3ProtoErrReason, noError(0), etc..

I would encourage that this be considered.

[Kalyan>] Following are two descriptions. Please comment.

   vrrpv3StatisticsNewMasterReason OBJECT-TYPE 
        SYNTAX        INTEGER {
            notmaster (0), 
            priority  (1), 
            preempted (2), 
            masterNoResponse (3) 
        } 
        MAX-ACCESS   read-only 
        STATUS       current 
        DESCRIPTION 
            "This indicates the reason for the virtual router to transition to MASTER state. If the virtual router
never transitioned to master state, this should be set to notmaster(0). Otherwise this indicates the
(Continue reading)

Joan Cucchiara | 3 Jul 19:30 2010
Picon

Re: Going on Vacation 7/5 to 7/23


Hi Kalyan,

Following are NITs:

  notmaster (0),
* please capitalize as:  notMaster(0)

  vridError(4)
* please capitalize: vrIdError(4)

Thanks,
  -Joan

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Kalyan (Srinivas)Tata" <stata <at> checkpoint.com>
To: "Joan Cucchiara" <jcucchiara <at> mindspring.com>; "Mukesh Gupta" 
<mukesh <at> juniper.net>; "Adrian Farrel" <Adrian.Farrel <at> huawei.com>; 
<tata_kalyan <at> yahoo.com>; "Dan Romascanu (E-mail)" <dromasca <at> avaya.com>
Cc: <vrrp-chairs <at> tools.ietf.org>; <vrrp <at> ietf.org>
Sent: Thursday, July 01, 2010 2:25 PM
Subject: RE: Going on Vacation 7/5 to 7/23

[Kalyan>] Hi Joan,
I am CCing the WG to get any input on the following.

5) I think I asked about these before, the accessible-for-notify scalar
objects
could become part of the Statistics table (as part of the row's objects)
and I think this proabably gives more
(Continue reading)

Internet-Drafts | 12 Jul 23:30 2010
Picon

I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-vrrp-unified-mib-08.txt

A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts 
directories.
This draft is a work item of the Virtual Router Redundancy Protocol Working Group of the IETF.

	Title		: Definitions of Managed Objects for VRRPv3
	Author(s)	: K. Tata
	Filename	: draft-ietf-vrrp-unified-mib-08.txt
	Pages		: 27
	Date		: 2010-7-12
	
This specification defines a Management Information Base (MIB) for 
   use with SNMP-based network management.  In particular, it defines 
   objects for configuring, monitoring, and controlling routers that 
   employ the Virtual Router Redundancy Protocol Version 3 for both IPv4 
   and IPv6 as defined in RFC 5798. This memo obsoletes RFC 2787.

A URL for this Internet-Draft is:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-vrrp-unified-mib-08.txt

Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/

Below is the data which will enable a MIME compliant mail reader
implementation to automatically retrieve the ASCII version of the
Internet-Draft.
Attachment (draft-ietf-vrrp-unified-mib-08.txt): message/external-body, 69 bytes
_______________________________________________
vrrp mailing list
(Continue reading)

Seiichi Kawamura | 30 Jul 14:42 2010
Picon

vrrpv3 with global IPv6


I've been discussing this with a few people this week
and thought that it was worth asking this list.

rfc5798 says in section 5.2.9

   For IPv6, the first address must be the IPv6 link-local address
   associated with the virtual router.

It implies that a global address can be associated
with the virtual router, but some routers
implement link-local capability only becuase only the
link-local address is mentioned here.

The problem is, operators need global scope addresses with
virtual routers and we have to ask each vendor to
implement it if they have not already done so. The main
reason we need this is becausewe need to monitor the address
from a remote network as we do with IPv4.

I just joined this list, but can someone
tell me what was the thinking was  behind not
mentioning global addresses in this RFC?

Thank you

Regards,
Seiichi

(Continue reading)

John Cruz (johcruz | 30 Jul 19:35 2010
Picon

Re: vrrpv3 with global IPv6

Hi,

To the best of my knowledge, the one of the earlier drafts
mentioned link-local addresses only. This might be the reason
why certain implementations support link-local addresses
only.

The current standards supports virtual addresses that have
global scope.

Regards
John

> -----Original Message-----
> From: vrrp-bounces <at> ietf.org [mailto:vrrp-bounces <at> ietf.org] On Behalf
Of
> Seiichi Kawamura
> Sent: Friday, July 30, 2010 5:42 AM
> To: vrrp <at> ietf.org
> Cc: randy <at> psg.com; narten <at> us.ibm.com; brian <at> innovationslab.net
> Subject: [VRRP] vrrpv3 with global IPv6
> 
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
> 
> I've been discussing this with a few people this week
> and thought that it was worth asking this list.
> 
> rfc5798 says in section 5.2.9
> 
(Continue reading)

Seiichi Kawamura | 31 Jul 00:28 2010
Picon

Re: vrrpv3 with global IPv6


Hi John

John Cruz (johcruz) wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> To the best of my knowledge, the one of the earlier drafts
> mentioned link-local addresses only. This might be the reason
> why certain implementations support link-local addresses
> only.

Thanks for this. That would be reason enough to explain for
some of the implementations that have been around for a while.
I've heard of recent implementations that do not support global though...
> 
> The current standards supports virtual addresses that have
> global scope.

Can you point to a specific phrase in the RFC where it says so?
I could not find any mention of the word global in the RFC
nor any RFC2119 words relating to scopes of addresses.

Regards,
Seiichi

> 
> Regards
> John
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
(Continue reading)

John Cruz (johcruz | 31 Jul 01:00 2010
Picon

Re: vrrpv3 with global IPv6

Hi,

> >
> > The current standards supports virtual addresses that have
> > global scope.
> 
> Can you point to a specific phrase in the RFC where it says so?
> I could not find any mention of the word global in the RFC
> nor any RFC2119 words relating to scopes of addresses.

[John] The statement that the first virtual address must be
a link-local addresses implies that the other address can
have global scope. As you mention, global scope is not
explicitly mentioned.

John

> 
> Regards,
> Seiichi
> 
> >
> > Regards
> > John
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: vrrp-bounces <at> ietf.org [mailto:vrrp-bounces <at> ietf.org] On
Behalf
> > Of
> >> Seiichi Kawamura
(Continue reading)


Gmane