RE: WG adoption poll for draft-nitish-vrrp-bfd-p2p

[Alexander Vainshtein <[e-mail]>]

Hi all,

I have several questions regarding the draft that I would like to clarify before providing any firm opinion regarding its adoption.



1.       The draft seems to deal just with VRRPv3 (RFC 5798) while completely ignoring VRRPv2 (RFC 3768). I wonder if this omission is due to some technical issue; if not, do the authors plan to extend the draft to cover also VRRPv2 in future? (The context for this question is that, AFAIK, VRRPv2 is more widely deployed for IPv4)

2.       Neither RFC 3768 nor RFC 5798 do not mention a “Master Down event”; rather they speak about “expiration of the Master_Down_Timer”. However, the draft uses the term “Master Down event” several times. Can I safely assume that it is the same as “expiration of the Master_Down_Timer”?

3.       While neither RFC 3768 nor RFC 5798 mention it, most VRRP implementations support tracking mechanisms that result in dynamic change of priorities of VRRP group members. The draft does not discuss what happens when priority of one of the group members changes. E.g.:

a.       Do the backup member that experiences such a change immediately send a new Backup Advertisement?

b.       Is the “Critical Path” re-estimated each time this happens etc.

4.       Both VRRPv2 and VRRPv3 support no-preemption mode. Please explain what happens if this mode is set in a VRRP group member whose priority becomes (due to dynamic changes) higher than that of the current Master?

5.       Suppose that the draft is used with VRRPv3 for IPv6. Is the Source IPv6 address of the Backup Advertisement packet a link-local address of the interface via which this message is transmitted? (This is explicitly specified in RFC 5798 for the VRRP Advertisement message, but not specified in the draft)

6.       In the scenario above, will the 1-hop IPv6 BFD session use link-local IPv6 addresses of the VRRP Master and its primary Backup? (I assume that the answer is positive, but it would be nice to see this in the draft and not to leave it for the implementers to guess).



Your timely feedback would be highly appreciated.



Regards, and lots of thanks in advance,

Sasha



Office: [phone]

Cell:      [phone]

Email:   [e-mail]



-----Original Message-----
From: Rtg-bfd [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Chris Bowers
Sent: Wednesday, January 10, 2018 11:23 PM
To: RTGWG <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]
Subject: WG adoption poll for draft-nitish-vrrp-bfd-p2p



RTGWG,



This email starts the two week WG adoption poll for draft-nitish-vrrp-bfd-p2p.



https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-nitish-vrrp-bfd-p2p/



Please indicate whether you support or oppose having RTGWG work on this topic with this draft as the starting point.



This WG adoption poll will end on Thursday, January 25th.



An IPR poll for this draft was conducted last month.



Thanks,

Chris



___________________________________________________________________________

This e-mail message is intended for the recipient only and contains information which is 
CONFIDENTIAL and which may be proprietary to ECI Telecom. If you have received this 
transmission in error, please inform us by e-mail, phone or fax, and then delete the original 
and all copies thereof.
___________________________________________________________________________