Last Modified: 2003-10-15
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" (draft-hinden-vrrp-00.txt) 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.
|Done||Charter Working Group|
|Done||Issue new Internet Drafts for IPv4 version of the protocol.|
|Done||Review and finalize IPv4 Internet Drafts.|
|Done||Issue Internet Draft for IPv6 version of VRRP.|
|Done||Submit revised IPv4 Internet Drafts to IESG for proposed standard.|
|Done||Issue VRRP MIB drafts.|
|Done||Issue revised draft for IPv6 version of VRRP.|
|Done||Finalize MIB draft and submit to IESG.|
|Done||Resolve open issues with authentication methods|
|Done||Issue VRRPv3 (VRRP for IPv6) MIB drafts|
|Done||Submit updated version of VRRP (IPv4) for Draft Standard|
|Oct 03||Submit VRRP for IPv6 (VRRPv3) for Proposed Standard|
|Dec 03||Submit MIB for VRRPv3 for Proposed Standard|
|Dec 03||Review the WG goals and future potential|
|RFC2338||PS||Virtual Router Redundancy Protocol|
|RFC2787||PS||Definitions of Managed Objects for the Virtual Router Redundancy Protocol using SNMPv2|
list.Virtual Router Redundancy Protocol WG (vrrp) Thursday, November 13, 2003 at 0900-1130 in Rochester Room Chairs: Mukesh Gupta Mukesh.Gupta@nokia.com Radia Perlman firstname.lastname@example.org Minutes taken by Karen O'Donoghue. The chairs provided a proposed agenda as follows: Introduction and Review Agenda VRRP MIB Milestones/Plans Current Drafts' status VMACs vs ND CARP (Common Address Redundancy Protocol) Miscellaneous Issues A discussion of the appropriate approach for the VRRP MIB was led by Kalyan Tata. He presented a summary of the arguments for maintaining a separate MIB for IPv4 and IPv6 or for merging the two MIBs into a single unified MIB for both. Bert Wijnen clarified a misunderstanding on the part of the working group on the meaning of deprecation and the impact on backward compatibility. The consensus of the room was to pursue the unified MIB approach. Mukesh Gupta discussed the current status of the working group efforts including milestones and current drafts. A revised list of milestones based on slight delays in current efforts was presented. VRRPv2 (for IPv4) is in the IESG review process with some minor clarifications being completed. VRRPv3 (for IPv6) needs to resolve the VMAC versus ND issue. The VRRP MIB draft needs resolution of the separated versus unified MIB approaches. With the completion of these remaining work items, the working group needs to consider where to go next. Mark Hollinger led a discussion of the issue of Neighbor Discovery (ND) versus Virtual MAC (VMAC) for VRRPv3. He discussed the historical context of the use of VMAC. He also presented the advantages and disadvantages for using VMAC. A number of scenarios were presented along with the performance of VMAC in each scenario. Finally, a summary list of changes were proposed for the incorporation of ND into VRRPv3. Radia Perlman asked the room who wanted VMAC removed and who wanted ND used instead. Bob Hinden pointed out that a proper evaluation of the ND approach could not be without seeing the actual modifications to the document. Bob Hinden and Mark Hollinger agreed to discuss the details offline. A decision can only be made once a concrete proposal is on the table. Jun-ihiro itojun Hagino from the OpenBSD community presented the common address redundancy protocol (CARP). Points of contact for the effort include mcbride@openbsd and email@example.com. The goal of the CARP effort is to have a protocol in this problem space that is completely patent-free. The CARP community has evaluated VRRP and believes both VRRP and CARP do not infringe on any HSRP claims. Bob Hinden questioned the validity of this analysis and whether or not Cisco would agree with that analysis. The primary technical differences between CARP and VRRP were summarized. The discussion evolved back to the topic of patents. Scott Bradner expressed a concern about the CARP community not having discussed their analysis with Cisco. Bob Hinden questioned the mechanics of the reliability mechanism used by CARP. The conclusion of the discussion was that an internet-draft needs to be prepared in order to seriously consider CARP in the context of this working group. The chairs asked if there were any additional topics from the floor. Mark Hollinger asked about the status of the subsecond work discussed at the Vienna IETF. Karen O'Donoghue admitted that she had not completed the draft on this issue in time for the draft cutoff. The routing AD indicated that the BFD (bi-directional forwarding) work being discussed in the routing area should be considered here as well. The routing AD agreed to forward the BFD material to the VRRP WG. The meeting was adjourned.