From: vrrp-bounces at ietf.org [mailto:vrrp-bounces at ietf.org] On Behalf Of liu.zhiwei1 at zte.com.cn
Sent: Tuesday, July 07, 2009 11:16 AM
To: Arnab Bakshi
Cc: vrrp at ietf.org
Subject: [VRRP] 答复: Re: vrrp faster backup
Dear Arnab
Thanks for your feedback.
Then when the priority value isn't zero, the Backup Router should waiting the Master Router time out.
Are they any other way when priority isn't zero?
Best Regards
 |
| |||||||
| Arnab Bakshi
<arnab.bakshi at gmail.com>
2009-07-06 20:52 |
|
Hi Liu,
As per RFC 3768, section 5.3.4 page 12:
The priority value zero (0) has special meaning indicating that the
current Master has stopped participating in VRRP. This is used to
trigger Backup routers to quickly transition to Master without having
to wait for the current Master to timeout.
This is one way I think if the master router gracefully indicates the other routers in the network.
Regards
Arnab
2009/7/6 <liu.zhiwei1 at zte.com.cn>
Dear All
I'm a new comer in IETF.
VRRP [RFC 3768] specifies an election protocol that dynamically assigns responsibility for a virtual router to one of the VRRP routers on a LAN.
This election process provides dynamic fail over in the forwarding responsibility should the Master become unavailable.
The router survivability capability provided by the Virtual Router Redundancy Protocol requirement: (3 * Master_Adver_Interval) + Skew_timer for Backup Router to declare Masterdown in the VRRP [RFC 3768].
It will be more than 3 second when the Master_Adver_Interval was 1 second.
In some LAN environments, the Backup Router needs faster method to declare the Master Router is fail.
As if (2 * Master_Adver_Interval) + Skew_timer or (1 * Master_Adver_Interval) + Skew_timer.
Are there a message type which permits the Backup Router could backup faster?
Best Regards
 |
| |||||||
_______________________________________________
vrrp mailing list
vrrp at ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/vrrp