The stupidity of trying to "fix" DHCPv6

Daniel Roesen dr at cluenet.de
Sun Jun 12 05:05:33 CDT 2011


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 at cluenet.de -- dr at IRCnet -- PGP: 0xA85C8AA0




More information about the NANOG mailing list