Current Meeting Report

2.4.7 Virtual Router Redundancy Protocol (vrrp)

NOTE: This charter is a snapshot of the 53rd IETF Meeting in Minneapolis, MN USA. It may now be out-of-date. Last Modified: 21-Jan-02
Bob Hinden <>
Routing Area Director(s):
Randy Bush <>
Bill Fenner <>
Routing Area Advisor:
Bill Fenner <>
Mailing Lists:
To Subscribe: w
In Body: subscribe vrrp <your_name>
Description of Working Group:
The purpose of this working group is to define and develop a standard virtual router redundancy protocol for IPv4 and IPv6. A virtual router redundancy protocol is a protocol which allows several routers on a multiaccess link to utilize the same virtual IP address. One router will be elected as a master with the other routers acting as backups in case of the failure of the master router. The primary motivation to using a virtual router redundancy protocol is that host systems may be configured (manually or via DHCP) with a single default gateway, rather than running an active routing protocol. The protocol should also support the ability to load share traffic when both routers are up.

The goals of this working group are:

1. Define and develop a standard virtual router redundancy protocol for IPv4 and IPv6.

2. Develop VRRP MIB(s).

3. Separate specifications will be developed for IPv4 and IPv6.

4. Determine whether static (configuration based) load sharing is adequate or if some amount of dynamic load sharing is required.

5. Working group will examine security issues to determine what security threats it is appropriate for the VRRP protocol to handle and include the appropriate mechanisms in the VRRP protocol.

6. The internet draft "Virtual Router Redundancy Protocol" will be use as the basis of virtual router redundancy protocol. The working group will also consider other internet drafts related to this topic allowing for issues regarding change control, security, running code, etc.

7. Intellectual property issues regarding the technology to develop a virtual router redundancy protocol will be identified and addressed.

Goals and Milestones:
Jun 97   Charter Working Group
Jul 97   Issue new Internet Drafts for IPv4 version of the protocol.
Aug 97   Issue Internet Draft for IPv6 version of VRRP.
Aug 97   Review and finalize IPv4 Internet Drafts.
Aug 97   Resolve any intellectual property issues regarding protocol.
Sep 97   Submit revised IPv4 Internet Drafts to IESG for proposed standard.
Oct 97   Issue VRRP MIB drafts.
Oct 97   Issue revised draft for IPv6 version of VRRP.
Dec 97   Review and finalize IPv6 Internet Drafts.
Dec 97   Finalize MIB draft and submit to IESG.
Jan 98   Submit revised IPv6 Internet Drafts to IESG for proposed standard.
Request For Comments:
RFC2338PSVirtual Router Redundancy Protocol
RFC2787PSDefinitions of Managed Objects for the Virtual Router Redundancy Protocol using SNMPv2

Current Meeting Report

VRRP Working Group Minutes
Minneapolis IETF
March 18, 2002

Bob Hinden

Minutes taken by Rahul Bahadur.


Updated Milestones for working group charter
Update to VRRP (for IPv4)
VRRP for IPv6


Bob Hinden presented proposed agenda for the meeting.

Updated Milestones for working group charter

Proposed milestones:

July 2002 Resolve opens issues with IPSEC authentication methods

Oct 2002 Submit updated version of VRRP (for IPv4) for Proposed Standard

Dec 2002 Submit VRRP for IPv6 for Proposed Standard

2003 Conclude w.g. when new RFCs are published

In response to query from Bill Fenner added 02/03 deadline for MIB for VRRP for IPv6.

Feb 2003 Submit MIB for VRRP for IPv6 for Proposed Standard

Question as to whether v4 MIB should be enhanced (resulting in moving it to proposed standard again) or develop a new MIB for v6. Need to find a volunteer (please see MIB-specific notes again later in the minutes when v6 draft was discussed).

Update to VRRP (for IPv4)

Internet Draft: <draft-ietf-vrrp-spec-v2-06.txt>

Bob Hinden presented an update to the v4 draft. Several clarifications were required when this was proposed to standard and hence would like to cycle this again. Issues included:

1) Since proposed standard the document has evolved significantly through the contributions of several (new) people while some of the original authors have moved away. A proposed change to revise author list based on contribution level. Bill Fenner suggested revising editor list and moving original but now inactive authors to "Acknowledgements" section. Bob will contact authors to check for any objections to proposed changes.

2) Question whether to remove IPSEC AH and/or replace with VRRP-specific MD5. Bill Fenner commented that implementation experience was required to help decide. Also, there are a couple of ways of approaching this - shared key for a group or router-specific key. Brian Weiss commented that IPSEC AH-based security needed to be better defined for interoperability. Issues relate to manual keying v.s.. dynamic keying, replay protection, etc. Also Cisco is considering implementing this since Juniper already does or has plans of supporting it. Gregory Lebowitz commented that this method is already being considered for PIM-SM. Bill Fenner suggested that guidelines might need to be developed for protocols that have common characteristics (multicast over LAN, etc.). Maybe to be discussed at Routing Protocol Security Requirements (rpsec) BOF scheduled for Thursday, 03/21.

2) Gregory Lebowitz asked if there were plans of including synchronization based on other mechanisms (e.g. DHCP). Bob responded that no such plans at the moment. Bill Fenner responded that this would have to be part of another working group.

VRRP for IPv6

Internet Draft: <draft-ietf-vrrp-ipv6-spec-02.txt>

Bob Hinden presented the v6 draft. Issues included: New MIB to update RFC 2787. Bill Fenner commented that more detail is needed to understand whether v4 and v6 MIBs are sufficiently different to warrant separate MIBs. For example IGMP and MLD serve the same purpose for v4 and v6 respectively but are sufficiently different to warrant different MIBs. Bob commented that we need help from people with more MIB experience. Jessie Jewitt commented that it is usually easier to add to an existing MIB. She also offered to help with the v6 MIB pending employer approval.

Meeting Adjourned