carping about CARP

Fri Nov 30 21:01:54 UTC 2012

On Fri, Nov 30, 2012 at 08:48:48AM -0800, David Conrad wrote:
> On Nov 30, 2012, at 5:08 AM, Henning Brauer <hb-nanog at bsws.de> wrote:
> > and re IANA, they made it clear they would not give us a proto number
> 
> As they should have. IANA abides by the rules laid down for it by the
> IETF/IESG/IAB. The openbsd folks couldn't be bothered to even write up a
> draft and chose to squat on a protocol number.
> 
> > no matter what;
> 
> BS. If the openbsd folks followed the rules, they'd have gotten the
> number(s) they requested (assuming they were justified). There is no
> grand persecution here.  There is management of a limited resource.
> 

IETF already decided that VRRP was the way to go. So an alternative
implementation would not have been accepted. The result would be a draft
that would never be adopted and so it is back to start.

Still carp packets can coexist with vrrp packets. They use a different
version numbers. Also you need to use a different vhid but the same thing
is true if you have 2 groups of vrrp on the same lan. If you configure
something like VRRP you should run a quick tcpdump first and check
if there are not unexpected packets showing up. This is especially
important for any protocol that does a link local multicast or broadcast.
This is basic network admin best practice (at least I expect that from a
network engineer).

> > we didn't have a choice but to ignore that industry-money-driven committee.
> 
> Which 'industry-money-driven committee' would that be?

Did you ever read any of the IETF mailing lists and looked at the email
addresses of those people pushing the hardest? At least in the ones I'm
subscribed to the bias is obvious.

-- 
:wq Claudio