Ideally, the draft would describe this further. Currently, it not
explicitly stated.
One use is for Router Advertisement - a virtual router would have to
use the virtual link-local address as the source address. When a
backup router transitions to master and starts sending out RAs, it
too would need to use the same source IP address.
Did someone see the need for this address for something else?
Cheers,
Georges
On Thu, Jul 3, 2008 at 1:27 AM, Huafeng Lu <Huafeng.Lv at sun.com> wrote:
G. C. ??:
Hi Huafeng,
Based on my understanding of the draft, we allow the configuration
of global addresses too.
In the VRRP Advertisement packet, the draft states that the first
address must be link-local. The other addresses can be global
addresses.
Regards,
Georges Chung
Thanks Georges. In other words, among the "IPvX addresses associated
with the virtual router", at least one must be link-local, right? If
so, why do we have to have a link-local virtual router address? (I
think the all the "IPvX addresses associated with the virtual
router" are the virtual addresses of the virtual router, and these
virtual addresses are to be protected by VRRP, right?)
Thanks.
--
Huafeng
On Wed, Jul 2, 2008 at 6:01 AM, Huafeng Lu <Huafeng.Lv at sun.com <mailto:Huafeng.Lv at sun.com
>> wrote:
Hi, VRRPers,
I'm new to this mail list...
While reading draft-ietf-vrrp-unified-spec-02, I found the
virtual IPv6
address to be covered by the virtual router should be a link-local
address. On the VRRP routers that compose the virtual router, the
addresses used to send VRRP advertisements are also link-local.
Is there
a reason to require link-local addresses? What's the possibility of
extending this to global addresses?
Thanks.
--
Huafeng
_______________________________________________
vrrp mailing list
vrrp at ietf.org <mailto:vrrp at ietf.org>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/vrrp
_______________________________________________
vrrp mailing list
vrrp at ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/vrrp