[141823] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: The stupidity of trying to "fix" DHCPv6
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Daniel Roesen)
Sun Jun 12 06:06:27 2011
Date: Sun, 12 Jun 2011 12:05:33 +0200
From: Daniel Roesen <dr@cluenet.de>
To: nanog@nanog.org
Mail-Followup-To: nanog@nanog.org
In-Reply-To: <4DF39AAD.5050304@kl.net>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On Sat, Jun 11, 2011 at 12:41:17PM -0400, Kevin Loch wrote:
> VRRPv3 (http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5798) is still a bit broken
> in that it makes mention of "MUST advertise RA's"
That's unintentional as per recent discussion on IETF VRRP mailing list
where I seeked for clarification as JUNOS complains on every commit
about no RAs for VRRP units.
See http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/vrrp/current/msg01447.html
and response.
I have yet to draft the RFC Erratum clarifying that unintentional
interpretation.
> and inexplicably limits VRRP addresses to link local only (?!)*.
I cannot see that in RFC5798, and implementations and operational
experience differs.
VRRP communications itself is via link-local addresses. There is a
requirement to have a link-local virtual address as well, but there
might be many more, e.g. global scope.
Otherwise a whole lot of IPv6 VRRP setups won't be working here. :)
We use global scope addresses as VRRP virtual router addresses.
Best regards,
Daniel
--
CLUE-RIPE -- Jabber: dr@cluenet.de -- dr@IRCnet -- PGP: 0xA85C8AA0
