Re: [VRRP] : VRRP IPV6 Session Configuration with different link local local address

Sreenatha Setty <sreenatha.setty@ibtechnology.com> Wed, 23 October 2013 05:51 UTC

Return-Path: <sreenatha.setty@ibtechnology.com>
X-Original-To: vrrp@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: vrrp@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2F6E511E82E6 for <vrrp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 22 Oct 2013 22:51:09 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.299
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.299 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.300, BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ot9ukSwWi0E1 for <vrrp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 22 Oct 2013 22:51:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ipinternal.indiabulls.com (ipinternal.indiabulls.com [202.54.119.192]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8E13711E8149 for <vrrp@ietf.org>; Tue, 22 Oct 2013 22:51:02 -0700 (PDT)
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AqEEACBjZ1KsEMj1/2dsb2JhbABZsAeSXoFDdIIlAQEBAQMwCj8SAQgNBAMBAgsGDgoHRAoJAQQLAwUIh2wDsQYDiXWMYIE1gQgxDRCDCYEKA4k9jGeONYhjgWk
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.93,553,1378837800"; d="scan'208";a="34748187"
Received: from GRGHEXCHANGE.grgh.indiabulls.com (172.16.200.20) by GGN-ICAS.grgh.indiabulls.com (172.16.200.245) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 14.3.123.3; Wed, 23 Oct 2013 11:20:59 +0530
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Content-Class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Wed, 23 Oct 2013 11:20:58 +0530
Message-ID: <DB36B077CF387C4989BCC57D685FA30102F2BFBE@GRGHEXCHANGE.grgh.indiabulls.com>
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Thread-Topic: : VRRP IPV6 Session Configuration with different link local local address
Thread-Index: Ac7PsS4iUzmMCVf6RHKz17m11Bzk6Q==
From: Sreenatha Setty <sreenatha.setty@ibtechnology.com>
To: <vrrp@ietf.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Cc: psandhya81@yahoo.com
Subject: Re: [VRRP] : VRRP IPV6 Session Configuration with different link local local address
X-BeenThere: vrrp@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Virtual Router Redundancy Protocol <vrrp.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/vrrp>, <mailto:vrrp-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/vrrp>
List-Post: <mailto:vrrp@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:vrrp-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/vrrp>, <mailto:vrrp-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 23 Oct 2013 05:51:09 -0000

Hi Sandhya,
    Good catch from the RFC.

    - MAY verify that "Count IPvX Addrs" and the list of IPvX
address(es) match the IPvX Address(es) configured for the VRID. If the
above check fails, the receiver SHOULD log the event and MAY indicate
via network management that a misconfiguration was detected.

      Here, "misconfiguration" word is used. We should not allow any
misconfiguration in the network. So we can discard the packet.  Then
both routers will start acting as Master and now it is up to network
administrator to resolve the misconfiguration.

Thanks,
Sreenatha    

Message: 1
Date: Tue, 22 Oct 2013 03:41:24 -0700 (PDT)
From: Sandhya Puppala <psandhya81@yahoo.com>;
To: "vrrp@ietf.org"; <vrrp@ietf.org>;
Subject: Re: [VRRP] vrrp Digest, Vol 88, Issue 2
Message-ID:
	<1382438484.49051.YahooMailNeo@web160102.mail.bf1.yahoo.com>;
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"



Hi Sreenatha,

Thank you for your response.
I agree with you. I also feel, both should be Master, but in RFC 5798.
In section 7.1
If any one of the above checks fails, the receiver MUST discard the
packet, SHOULD log the event, and MAY indicate via network management
that an error occurred.?

- MAY verify that "Count IPvX Addrs" and the list of IPvX address(es)
match the IPvX Address(es) configured for the VRID. If the above check
fails, the receiver SHOULD log the event and MAY indicate via network
management that a misconfiguration was detected. 


It is not mentioned to drop the packet. In the same section for other
failed cases it clearly mentioned to drop the packet.
Please let me know your comments.


Thanks,Sandhya



Disclaimer : 
This email communication may contain privileged and confidential information and is intended for the use of the addressee only.If you are not an intended recipient you are requested not to reproduce, copy disseminate or in any manner distribute this email communication as the same is strictly prohibited. If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender immediately by return e-mail and delete the communication sent in error. Email communications cannot be guaranteed to be secure & error free and IB Technology is not liable for any errors in the email communication or for the proper, timely and complete transmission thereof.