>
> At least for the routing version of VRRP (that is, "no accept" mode),
> the virtual IP address is for the convenience of configuring routing on
> dumb hosts, and intentionally not for regular communication.
>
> Obviously, communication using that IP address won't work at all from
> the non-address-owning node, because when it's master, it's not allowed
> to accept packets there.
>
> From the address-owning node, it's possible, but usually you have better
> (less volatile) addresses to use. An address that moves around leaves
> questions about who exactly you're talking to.
>
> In the non-routing mode ("accept" mode), I'm not sure what the right
> practices are. That mode of operation is new (it's still just a draft,
> I think) and still isn't clear to me.
>
That's a good point. I will change the source selection logic to not
including the no_accepted IP addresses.
>> As far as I know, the IFF_ANNOUCE only indicate the plumbing/unplumbing
>> of the interface, not the address (the logical interface). That is why
>> we cannot use it for our purpose.
>>
> Ah, so you want the address on "plumbed-but-down" interfaces, is that it?
>
> Why can't IFF_ANNOUNCE on Solaris include an address ... ?
>
I am nervous to make such changes since that will probably confuse
applications consuming the IFF_ANNOUCE messages.
>>> When the VRRP router is first enabled, we check which VNIC is the
>>> associated VNIC and make sure it is created (otherwise, enable-router
>>> would fail). Then we listen to the PF_ROUTE messages to track all the IP
>>> addresses over this VNIC based on its interface name. If the VNICs is
>>> deleted or renamed in between, that would be a problem.
>>>
> Can they be deleted while IP is configured?
>
No, it cannot. But since we don't control the management of the IP
addresses, one could unplumb the VNIC while the VRRP router is enabled,
and even delete the VNIC and then probably create a inrelevant link with
the old VNIC name. That is what we want to avoid. Since the vrrpd would
assume that the new link is the VNIC that we need track the IP addresses
on and make the wrong assumption what would be the virtual IP addresses.
> I'm still confused about what the problems are. It'd be good to have a
> description of the problems in the specification to make it clear why
> these things are being held open.
>
Sure, I will try to make it clear.
>
>> Thanks for remind me of DR. I believe adding a router_rcm plugin is
>> possible.
>>
>
> It may be necessary.
>
I'll add it.
Thanks
- Cathy
>
>
