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

List:       ietf-vrrp
Subject:    Re: [VRRP] RFC 5798 - ipv6 link-local configuration
From:       "Tim Harrison" <Tim.Harrison () Q9 ! com>
Date:       2012-05-22 14:11:20
Message-ID: 413FEEF1743111439393FB76D0221E481F37F9AC () leopard ! zoo ! q9networks ! com
[Download RAW message or body]


Alexey,

Current implementations for IPv6 (of which I'm aware) do force the operator to \
manually configure a link-local address along with the global unicast address, which \
can lead to some hassles - particularly in a multivendor environment.  For example, \
certain vendors require a hard coded link-local on the interface as well as in the \
virtual router config; certain vendors utilise the same command for the global \
unicast and link-local within the VRRP configuration, etc.

We've been working with multiple vendors to find a way to implement auto-generated \
link-local addresses based on the virtual MAC as an option.  There has been some \
traction and I haven't heard of any major showstoppers thus far; however, I could be \
out of the loop on the investigation or progress (or lack thereof).  The big problem \
is getting a solution that is standarised (if you will) across vendors.

Hopefully there can be some discussion about this particular topic here.

---

Tim Harrison
Manager, Network Engineering
Q9 Networks Inc.
http://www.q9.com/
416-848-3250

-----Original Message-----
From: vrrp-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:vrrp-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Alexey \
                Razuvaev
Sent: May 17, 2012 10:11
To: vrrp@ietf.org
Subject: [VRRP] RFC 5798 - ipv6 link-local configuration

Hi,
VRRPv3 for IPv6 specifies that the first address should be a link-local address. If \
that is configured by an operator and not generated by software, how do we make sure \
that there are no collisions with existing link local addresses? Since the protocol \
spec does not mention any link-local address range dedicated to VRRP, how do current \
implementations make sure that it doesn't collide with anyone else on the network? I \
understand that IPv4 has similar issues, but in IPv4 case the network would be \
statically configured, unlike in IPv6 case where link-local addresses are generated \
from MAC.

Additionally what is the reasoning behind not allowing to use Virtual MAC address to \
generate link-local address? It seems like it would simplify the set up, but I think \
I am missing some crucial detail.

Also, if I were to allow global IPv6 to be configured for virtual router, I would \
have to force the operator to also configure a link-local address, correct?

Thanks,
Alexey.
_______________________________________________
vrrp mailing list
vrrp@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/vrrp


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