Re: New Version Notification for draft-addogra-rtgwg-vrrp-rfc5798bis-06.txt

Gyan Mishra <hayabusagsm@gmail.com> Sun, 03 April 2022 22:00 UTC

Return-Path: <hayabusagsm@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: rtgwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rtgwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B98F23A1D68; Sun, 3 Apr 2022 15:00:16 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.096
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.096 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_REMOTE_IMAGE=0.01, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id qjOrlAX9PTEK; Sun, 3 Apr 2022 15:00:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pj1-x102b.google.com (mail-pj1-x102b.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::102b]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E64DB3A1D61; Sun, 3 Apr 2022 15:00:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-pj1-x102b.google.com with SMTP id ch16-20020a17090af41000b001ca867ef52bso1446657pjb.0; Sun, 03 Apr 2022 15:00:09 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20210112; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=FkLmnOiSVuoaBUJGHfrPh+xkV7lxooGoJaWoaB//R08=; b=f2N2mbegP1win8OBAJ5qxGnol4AhzGiUhCy5dN7b0n3Cbq+YYzHPC8EFCXFAM+RlyV Z+KTJiPtzIfJrVko0LNP/os4eps/q3AVOp9mL7n6X/suF6n5PjgcEcVdFEJV1ecwjcv2 u+whbOLbUtAcjI5JxLqqswxRryhdsv+0zpCIRHc+Z9X1CbeGiw7CERdSnC5PlL8e/obY E3XOicbTw4PsvVf7ZRj2RNXk/07Jhn50G7z5mYWXvna6lW/bZ88cIV1L+2N1slOTlpeh 7AUZZ/xrTp1XVO/1u3Y0iLEA9VUQXDBWXfT8LUdZ+PfruaxQNOOOOxrcuiRqW/61RgoY eiAQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=FkLmnOiSVuoaBUJGHfrPh+xkV7lxooGoJaWoaB//R08=; b=tPwViDIQaszWDHtvNtXcmQuqYSqkPgJ4PkERrr6JlyTfLxgp6pfns6eR48qg6YYJuP LoCLtWI1t7ECay5g79/RmhxG1YJa7oPQQQFz1nKDI/SLOeq+KbxBiLzSgsE4JRuKqz/n S81oG5+hniIBM4oCYU+4h19EvYt305WQ64PsmK5Y9cMgDf/ryrd2hN6k0OQB760w7Yov gt1Z4WpcIfmqazYhw6X1xIbA8RuxWWO6967MHvMQlly4vXBftL8VVasNQXeyadwCj3D8 wJ62NNo/CQ9CQMzSW4JXGHra2NAKqflrdAnhL4ZqukNN9elHZmWZLHAtkstTl8l2oMIj dKmQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM530gqggRYIDCJfOav7YsrBh7ihRpUq7OQhCDETi4ADsQL79deVrd S7ZqLXgEzEff3jEIfhE+t7rARGqe5E5K1/TRZLU=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJzI8eJ1/Sdp1WhIwJ7rtdbYC7OM6lDoPU1jVB76FpwRUeB6CUqnCCc0NqrSd52OBUZJ4pmqtCwOOssr3mEdzB4=
X-Received: by 2002:a17:90b:1bc6:b0:1c7:69d:e80f with SMTP id oa6-20020a17090b1bc600b001c7069de80fmr23218037pjb.202.1649023208625; Sun, 03 Apr 2022 15:00:08 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <164893213341.30826.491663858477931239@ietfa.amsl.com> <C4F69363-6505-497A-A348-69044AEB764E@cisco.com> <CABNhwV2NPOc5zA5S9NuSOgUe=1UhF7VjC61UPWofYjW+CWEgTw@mail.gmail.com> <9137C202-BF95-4EF9-82E1-C015A22975E2@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <9137C202-BF95-4EF9-82E1-C015A22975E2@cisco.com>
From: Gyan Mishra <hayabusagsm@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 3 Apr 2022 17:59:57 -0400
Message-ID: <CABNhwV1A4fNQZ3rqc__ZUj3MuLt5RcY9X6kBS2rDzWjfQ2hiVQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: New Version Notification for draft-addogra-rtgwg-vrrp-rfc5798bis-06.txt
To: "Acee Lindem (acee)" <acee@cisco.com>
Cc: Routing WG <rtgwg@ietf.org>, rtgwg-chairs <rtgwg-chairs@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000939a8c05dbc7222b"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtgwg/3RR6M5XG_561PnPkVwcL6SNmccE>
X-BeenThere: rtgwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Routing Area Working Group <rtgwg.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/rtgwg>, <mailto:rtgwg-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/rtgwg/>
List-Post: <mailto:rtgwg@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:rtgwg-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg>, <mailto:rtgwg-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 03 Apr 2022 22:00:18 -0000

Hi Acee

Understood.

Thanks

Gyan

On Sun, Apr 3, 2022 at 2:33 PM Acee Lindem (acee) <acee@cisco.com> wrote:

> Hi Gyan,
>
>
>
> *From: *Gyan Mishra <hayabusagsm@gmail.com>
> *Date: *Sunday, April 3, 2022 at 2:45 AM
> *To: *Acee Lindem <acee@cisco.com>
> *Cc: *Routing WG <rtgwg@ietf.org>rg>, rtgwg-chairs <rtgwg-chairs@ietf.org>
> *Subject: *Re: New Version Notification for
> draft-addogra-rtgwg-vrrp-rfc5798bis-06.txt
>
>
>
>
>
> Hi Acee
>
>
>
> I just read the draft and it looks very good.
>
>
>
> Just one comment on the Appendix A as those technologies are obsolete I
> think we can remove.
>
>
>
> I can remove the section about emulated ATM LANs since they are out of
> scope. However, for Token Ring and FDDI, there isn’t any move in the INT
> area to obsolete the RFCs related these technologies.
>
>
>
>    FDDI: RFC 1188 and RFC 2467
>
>    Token Ring: RFC 2470
>
>
>
> How do others feel?
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Acee
>
>
>
>
>
> Kind Regards
>
>
>
> Gyan
>
> On Sat, Apr 2, 2022 at 4:48 PM Acee Lindem (acee) <acee=
> 40cisco.com@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote:
>
> Chairs,
>
> This is the version for which I'd like to request WG adoption. I believe
> now I have not only changed the terminology to be inclusive but made it
> significantly more consistent throughout the document. I've also reworded
> to avoid the usage of "black hole" for an unreachable destination.
>
> I've also made the document more readable by eliminating awkward sentence
> construction and run-on sentences connected by semicolons.
>
> Thanks,
> Acee
>
>
>
> On 4/2/22, 4:42 PM, "internet-drafts@ietf.org" <internet-drafts@ietf.org>
> wrote:
>
>
>     A new version of I-D, draft-addogra-rtgwg-vrrp-rfc5798bis-06.txt
>     has been successfully submitted by Acee Lindem and posted to the
>     IETF repository.
>
>     Name:               draft-addogra-rtgwg-vrrp-rfc5798bis
>     Revision:   06
>     Title:              Virtual Router Redundancy Protocol (VRRP) Version
> 3 for IPv4 and IPv6
>     Document date:      2022-04-02
>     Group:              Individual Submission
>     Pages:              40
>     URL:
> https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-addogra-rtgwg-vrrp-rfc5798bis-06.txt
>     Status:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-addogra-rtgwg-vrrp-rfc5798bis/
>     Html:
> https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-addogra-rtgwg-vrrp-rfc5798bis-06.html
>     Htmlized:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-addogra-rtgwg-vrrp-rfc5798bis
>     Diff:
> https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-addogra-rtgwg-vrrp-rfc5798bis-06
>
>     Abstract:
>        This document defines the Virtual Router Redundancy Protocol (VRRP)
>        for IPv4 and IPv6.  It is version three (3) of the protocol, and it
>        is based on VRRP (version 2) for IPv4 that is defined in RFC 3768
> and
>        in "Virtual Router Redundancy Protocol for IPv6".  VRRP specifies an
>        election protocol that dynamically assigns responsibility for a
>        virtual router to one of the VRRP routers on a LAN.  The VRRP router
>        controlling the IPv4 or IPv6 address(es) associated with a virtual
>        router is called the VRRP Active Router, and it forwards packets
> sent
>        to these IPv4 or IPv6 addresses.  VRRP Active Routers are configured
>        with virtual IPv4 or IPv6 addresses, and VRRP Backup Routers infer
>        the address family of the virtual addresses being carried based on
>        the transport protocol.  Within a VRRP router, the virtual routers
> in
>        each of the IPv4 and IPv6 address families are a domain unto
>        themselves and do not overlap.  The election process provides
> dynamic
>        failover in the forwarding responsibility should the Active Router
>        become unavailable.  For IPv4, the advantage gained from using VRRP
>        is a higher-availability default path without requiring
> configuration
>        of dynamic routing or router discovery protocols on every end-host.
>        For IPv6, the advantage gained from using VRRP for IPv6 is a quicker
>        switchover to Backup Routers than can be obtained with standard IPv6
>        Neighbor Discovery mechanisms.
>
>        The VRRP terminology has been updated conform to inclusive language
>        guidelines for IETF technologies.  This document obsoletes VRRP
>        Version 3 [RFC5798].
>
>
>
>
>     The IETF Secretariat
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> rtgwg mailing list
> rtgwg@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg
>
> --
>
> [image: Image removed by sender.] <http://www.verizon.com/>
>
> *Gyan Mishra*
>
> *Network Solutions Architect *
>
> *Email gyan.s.mishra@verizon.com <gyan.s.mishra@verizon.com>*
>
> *M 301 502-1347*
>
>
>
-- 

<http://www.verizon.com/>

*Gyan Mishra*

*Network Solutions A**rchitect *

*Email gyan.s.mishra@verizon.com <gyan.s.mishra@verizon.com>*



*M 301 502-1347*