Re: AD review of draft-ietf-vrrp-unified-mib

Hi,

Sorry for the delay around the IETF meeting.

All agreed with a small suggestion around RFC 3413

> Thanks again for the review - I made most of the changes suggested by you - I
> listed some of the changes for any comments &
> I have couple of questions/clarifications inline:
> 
>> Creation and deletion of a vrrpv3OperationsTable row
> 
> [kalyan>>>] This is what i have based on your suggestions. Please comment if
this
> looks OK
> 
>     vrrpv3OperationsEntry OBJECT-TYPE
>         SYNTAX       Vrrpv3OperationsEntry
>         MAX-ACCESS   not-accessible
>         STATUS       current
>         DESCRIPTION
>             "An entry in the vrrpv3OperationsTable containing the
>              operational characteristics of a virtual router.  On a
>              VRRP router, a given virtual router is identified by a
>              combination of ifIndex, VRID and the IP version.
>              ifIndex represents a interface of the router.
> 
>              A row must be created with vrrpv3OperationsStatus
>              set to initialize(1) and cannot transition to
>              backup(2) or master(3) until vrrpv3OperationsRowStatus

Re: AD review of draft-ietf-vrrp-unified-mib

Thanks Adrian,
I will have new draft ready this weekend.

Thanks
Kalyan
-----Original Message-----
From: Adrian Farrel [mailto:Adrian.Farrel <at> huawei.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, April 06, 2011 3:01 AM
To: Kalyan (Srinivas)Tata; draft-ietf-vrrp-unified-mib <at> tools.ietf.org
Cc: vrrp-chairs <at> tools.ietf.org; vrrp <at> ietf.org
Subject: RE: [VRRP] AD review of draft-ietf-vrrp-unified-mib

Hi,

Sorry for the delay around the IETF meeting.

All agreed with a small suggestion around RFC 3413

> Thanks again for the review - I made most of the changes suggested by 
> you - I listed some of the changes for any comments & I have couple of 
> questions/clarifications inline:
> 
>> Creation and deletion of a vrrpv3OperationsTable row
> 
> [kalyan>>>] This is what i have based on your suggestions. Please 
> comment if
this
> looks OK
> 
>     vrrpv3OperationsEntry OBJECT-TYPE

RFC5798 requires usage of RAs?

Hi,

JUNOS (Juniper router firmware) issues warnings when committing config
changes, noting that RAs are not configured for an interface where VRRP
for IPv6 is configured:

vrrpd[15299]: %CONFLICT-0-WARNING: 'router-advertisement' is not configured
for interface ge-9/2/2.662

RFC5798 states:

6.4.3.  Master
...
         (630) ++ MUST send ND Router Advertisements for the virtual
         router.

That makes no sense to us when RAs are generally not used on the
segment, and hosts are manually configured to point to the VRRP virtual
address as default gateway. We do not want to use RAs in some scenarios
at all.

I've found an older posting on this list, where someone raised the same
question (Q-2):
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/vrrp/current/msg00763.html

John Cruz' answer seems to clarify, but noone seemed to have envisioned
that the spec lingo actually motivates vendors to assume RAs as being
mandatory when implementing VRRPv6... :-/

RFC5798 states in the introductory section about IPv6 (1.3):

I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-vrrp-unified-mib-09.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-09.txt
    Pages         : 29
    Date          : 2011-04-26

   This specification defines a portion of the 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-09.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.

_______________________________________________
vrrp mailing list

Last Call: <draft-ietf-vrrp-unified-mib-09.txt> (Definitions of Managed Objects for VRRPv3) to Proposed Standard

The IESG has received a request from the Virtual Router Redundancy
Protocol WG (vrrp) to consider the following document:
- 'Definitions of Managed Objects for VRRPv3'
  <draft-ietf-vrrp-unified-mib-09.txt> as a Proposed Standard

The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the
ietf <at> ietf.org mailing lists by 2011-05-11. Exceptionally, comments may be
sent to iesg <at> ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the
beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting.

The file can be obtained via
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-vrrp-unified-mib/

IESG discussion can be tracked via
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-vrrp-unified-mib/

No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D.
_______________________________________________
vrrp mailing list
vrrp <at> ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/vrrp

Re: RFC5798 requires usage of RAs?

Hi Daniel, 

Sorry for the delay.  I think the spec language could be better- 
(630) etc probably should have said something more like 

"if ND RAs are in use, MUST send ND Router Advertisements for the virtual router. 

Thanks,
Steve 

-----Original Message-----
From: vrrp-bounces <at> ietf.org [mailto:vrrp-bounces <at> ietf.org] On Behalf Of Daniel Roesen
Sent: Friday, April 15, 2011 4:57 AM
To: vrrp <at> ietf.org
Subject: [VRRP] RFC5798 requires usage of RAs?

Hi,

JUNOS (Juniper router firmware) issues warnings when committing config changes, noting that RAs are not
configured for an interface where VRRP for IPv6 is configured:

vrrpd[15299]: %CONFLICT-0-WARNING: 'router-advertisement' is not configured for interface ge-9/2/2.662

RFC5798 states:

6.4.3.  Master
...
         (630) ++ MUST send ND Router Advertisements for the virtual
         router.

FW: [RTG-DIR] RtgDir review: draft-ietf-vrrp-unified-mib-09.txt

Hi WG

This is for your information. The review forms part of the IETF last call.

Thanks,
Adrian

> -----Original Message-----
> From: rtg-dir-bounces <at> ietf.org [mailto:rtg-dir-bounces <at> ietf.org] On Behalf Of
> Joel M. Halpern
> Sent: 28 April 2011 16:37
> To: rtg-ads <at> tools.ietf.org; rtg-dir <at> ietf.org; draft-ietf-vrrp-unified-
> mib.all <at> tools.ietf.org
> Subject: [RTG-DIR] RtgDir review: draft-ietf-vrrp-unified-mib-09.txt
> 
> Hello,
> 
> I have been selected as the Routing Directorate reviewer for this draft.
> The Routing Directorate seeks to review all routing or routing-related
> drafts as they pass through IETF last call and IESG review, and
> sometimes on special request. The purpose of the review is to provide
> assistance to the Routing ADs. For more information about the Routing
> Directorate, please see http://www.ietf.org/iesg/directorate/routing.html
> 
> Although these comments are primarily for the use of the Routing ADs, it
> would be helpful if you could consider them along with any other IETF
> Last Call comments that you receive, and strive to resolve them through
> discussion or by updating the draft.
> 
> 

Re: RFC5798 requires usage of RAs?

Hi,

On Thu, Apr 28, 2011 at 11:36:44AM -0400, Stephen Nadas wrote:
> Sorry for the delay.  I think the spec language could be better- 
> (630) etc probably should have said something more like 
> 
> "if ND RAs are in use, MUST send ND Router Advertisements for the virtual router. 

Indeed. Thanks for the confirmation.

My understanding of IETF procedures is, that an Errata submission would
be possible, valid way to unambiguate that language - which is advisable
to prevent further implementation confusion.

Shall I go ahead and draft up an erratum or do you want to take up
on that yourself?

Best regards,
Daniel

--

-- 
CLUE-RIPE -- Jabber: dr <at> cluenet.de -- dr <at> IRCnet -- PGP: 0xA85C8AA0
_______________________________________________
vrrp mailing list
vrrp <at> ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/vrrp

Re: RFC5798 requires usage of RAs?

If you have cycles to propose text, that would be helpful, IMO. 
Thanks,
Steve  

-----Original Message-----
From: vrrp-bounces <at> ietf.org [mailto:vrrp-bounces <at> ietf.org] On Behalf Of Daniel Roesen
Sent: Thursday, April 28, 2011 1:20 PM
To: vrrp <at> ietf.org
Subject: Re: [VRRP] RFC5798 requires usage of RAs?

Hi,

On Thu, Apr 28, 2011 at 11:36:44AM -0400, Stephen Nadas wrote:
> Sorry for the delay.  I think the spec language could be better-
> (630) etc probably should have said something more like
> 
> "if ND RAs are in use, MUST send ND Router Advertisements for the virtual router. 

Indeed. Thanks for the confirmation.

My understanding of IETF procedures is, that an Errata submission would be possible, valid way to
unambiguate that language - which is advisable to prevent further implementation confusion.

Shall I go ahead and draft up an erratum or do you want to take up on that yourself?

Best regards,
Daniel

--
CLUE-RIPE -- Jabber: dr <at> cluenet.de -- dr <at> IRCnet -- PGP: 0xA85C8AA0 _______________________________________________