Re: [VRRP] vrrpv3 with global IPv6

Hi,

To the best of my knowledge, the one of the earlier drafts
mentioned link-local addresses only. This might be the reason
why certain implementations support link-local addresses
only.

The current standards supports virtual addresses that have
global scope.

Regards
John

> -----Original Message-----
> From: vrrp-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:vrrp-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf
Of
> Seiichi Kawamura
> Sent: Friday, July 30, 2010 5:42 AM
> To: vrrp@ietf.org
> Cc: randy@psg.com; narten@us.ibm.com; brian@innovationslab.net
> Subject: [VRRP] vrrpv3 with global IPv6
> 
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
> 
> I've been discussing this with a few people this week
> and thought that it was worth asking this list.
> 
> rfc5798 says in section 5.2.9
> 
>    For IPv6, the first address must be the IPv6 link-local address
>    associated with the virtual router.
> 
> It implies that a global address can be associated
> with the virtual router, but some routers
> implement link-local capability only becuase only the
> link-local address is mentioned here.
> 
> The problem is, operators need global scope addresses with
> virtual routers and we have to ask each vendor to
> implement it if they have not already done so. The main
> reason we need this is becausewe need to monitor the address
> from a remote network as we do with IPv4.
> 
> I just joined this list, but can someone
> tell me what was the thinking was  behind not
> mentioning global addresses in this RFC?
> 
> Thank you
> 
> Regards,
> Seiichi
> 
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32)
> 
> iEYEARECAAYFAkxSyLQACgkQcrhTYfxyMkJ4pgCfZ5DpajEGgTZiq9RIO/pvaaH9
> 88YAoIX2zvY6S8dx2vsLEjd6kHcZqEQ+
> =iuSh
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
> _______________________________________________
> vrrp mailing list
> vrrp@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/vrrp