[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [VRRP] draft-ietf-vrrp-unified-spec-03.txt
- To: Pekka Savola <pekkas at netcore.fi>, Stephen Nadas <stephen.nadas at ericsson.com>
- Subject: Re: [VRRP] draft-ietf-vrrp-unified-spec-03.txt
- From: Mukesh Gupta <mukesh at juniper.net>
- Date: Tue, 14 Jul 2009 00:47:50 -0700
- Accept-language: en-US
- Acceptlanguage: en-US
- Cc: "mathis at psc.edu" <mathis at psc.edu>, "draft-ietf-vrrp-unified-spec at tools.ietf.org" <draft-ietf-vrrp-unified-spec at tools.ietf.org>, "touch at isi.edu" <touch at isi.edu>, "magnus at rsa.com" <magnus at rsa.com>, "Pasi.Eronen at nokia.com" <Pasi.Eronen at nokia.com>, Christian Vogt <christian.vogt at ericsson.com>, "vrrp at ietf.org" <vrrp at ietf.org>, "dromasca at avaya.com" <dromasca at avaya.com>, Jari Arkko <jari.arkko at piuha.net>, "M.Handley at cs.ucl.ac.uk" <M.Handley at cs.ucl.ac.uk>, "vrrp-chairs at tools.ietf.org" <vrrp-chairs at tools.ietf.org>
- Delivered-to: vrrp at core3.amsl.com
- In-reply-to: <alpine.LRH.2.00.0907140821570.26779 at netcore.fi>
- List-archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/vrrp>
- List-help: <mailto:vrrp-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
- List-id: Virtual Router Redundancy Protocol <vrrp.ietf.org>
- List-post: <mailto:vrrp@ietf.org>
- List-subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/vrrp>, <mailto:vrrp-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
- List-unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/vrrp>, <mailto:vrrp-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
- References: <DF78BDF6956FDD4780D5DAD88A073CF4026B4C34 at eusrcmw720.eamcs.ericsson.se> <alpine.LRH.2.00.0907140821570.26779 at netcore.fi>
- Thread-index: AcoERHRMYdnDjFfVSXSA3LAVctoFrAAEbj2g
- Thread-topic: draft-ietf-vrrp-unified-spec-03.txt
Pekka,
[WG chair hat off]
[Copying the WG list]
> - "Updates: 3768" (VRRPv2 spec) was added to the header. Should this
> be "Obsoletes: 3768". Has the WG thought about this? E.g. would
> you like implementations to transition to VRRPv3?
Mukesh> I agree that it should be "Obsoletes: 3768". The new spec does address a few issues in the VRRPv2 spec and the WG should recommend the implementations to transition to VRRPv3.
> Operational issues aside, as you know, there have already been
> v6-only draft-ietf-vrrp-ipv6-spec implementations that use Version
> code 3. This may or may not be a problem, depending on the
> differences of v6 parts of this spec and vrrp-ipv6-spec.
That's a good point. Steve, could you please check the differences between the v6 parts of this spec and the vrrp-ipv6-spec and see if both the version will be interoperable or not? If there are enough differences, we might have to increment the version number in this spec :(
Pekka, I just know of one implementation (Nokia) of vrrp-ipv6-spec. Do you know of any more?
Regards
Mukesh