[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       ietf-vrrp
Subject:    RE: [VRRP] Multiple Virtual Address Question
From:       "Don Provan" <dprovan () bivio ! net>
Date:       2007-02-23 18:25:50
Message-ID: 008001c75778$0bd61520$9618a8c0 () corp ! networkrobots ! com
[Download RAW message or body]

[Attachment #2 (text/plain)]

> Assign address A to router 1. Assign vrrp associate IP's A&C to VR1 in
> routerA. I will ensure that C will not be assigned to any router.

I guess I wasn't clear enough. Priority is assigned to a router, not to
an address. So a router must own all addresses in a VR or none of them.
If you want it to own one but not another, you use two VRs.

> Hence I have a secondary IP address in router 1
> (only) for forwarding the packet. Is this extension is a violation to
> standards?

I suppose you could call it a violation of the standard, but the
important point is that there's no way to express it: the protocol
has a priority that expresses the router's relation to the VR: there
simply is no concept of (and no field to express) a router's
"priority" for a particular address.

> Or do I really need to use another VRID for C? The problem
> in using a different VRID is that it will not ensure both the
> instanses are masters in a single router which is my requirement for
> secondary IP.

Then Router1 should own C. Is there some problem with that?

Didn't I take this conversation off line? Why do you think
the whole group needs to discuss it?

-don provan

_______________________________________________
vrrp mailing list
vrrp@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/vrrp


[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]