I support adoption.
I think the Abstract should be trimmed down a bit. It is very long.
I agree with Dhruv that the IANA Considerations could use a little
tweaking. While I do not think it essential that the registries be named,
it might be useful to some future reader. It should be consistent and list
the IPv4 VRRP MAC addresses. I'm also not sure why the MAC addresses are
listed as "reserved" while everything else is "assigned". MAC addresses
under the IANA OUI are fully under the authority of IANA and assigned for
particular uses like other codepoints. Here is a suggested replacement IANA
Considerations section:
IANA Considerations
In the "IPv4 Multicast Address Space Registry", IANA has assigned
the IPv4 multicast address 224.0.0.18 for VRRP.
In the "IPv6 Multicast Address Space Registry", IANA has assigned
the IPv6 link-local scope multicast address FF02:0:0:0:0:0:0:12 for
VRRP for IPv6.
In the "IANA Unicast 48-bit MAC Addresses" registry, IANA has
assigned blocks of Ethernet unicast addresses as follows (in hex):
IPv4 VRRP 00-00-5E-00-01-00 to 00-00-5E-00-01-FF
IPv6 VRRP 00-00-5E-00-02-00 to 00-00-5E-00-02-FF
Thanks,
Donald
===============================
Donald E. Eastlake 3rd +1-508-333-2270 (cell)
2386 Panoramic Circle, Apopka, FL 32703 USA
[email protected]
Thanks,
Donald
===============================
Donald E. Eastlake 3rd +1-508-333-2270 (cell)
2386 Panoramic Circle, Apopka, FL 32703 USA
[email protected]
On Thu, Jul 14, 2022 at 9:07 AM Dhruv Dhody <[email protected]> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I support adoption.
>
> Now that we are doing bis, could we improve the IANA section a bit -- it
> would help to identify the registry and explicit instructions to update the
> references, for instance. Also for ethernet, isn't IPv4 allocation
> missing -> "00-01-00 to 00-01-FF"?
>
> Section "11.2.6. 0 - Reserved" and the VRP packet with the field being
> called "0" but the description as "This reserved field MUST be set to
> zero..." reads wrong. I suggest either using "reserved" in the figure and
> section title or just using MBZ - must be zero and not call it reserved.
>
> Thanks!
> Dhruv
>
>
>
> On Fri, Jul 1, 2022 at 8:23 AM Yingzhen Qu <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>> Dear RTGWG,
>>
>> This email begins a working group adoption call for the following draft:
>>
>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-addogra-rtgwg-vrrp-rfc5798bis/
>>
>> Please indicate your support or objections by July 17th, 2022.
>>
>> Authors, please respond to the list indicating whether you are aware of any
>> IPR that applies to the draft..
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Yingzhen
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> rtgwg mailing list
>> [email protected]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg
>>
> _______________________________________________
> rtgwg mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg
>
_______________________________________________
rtgwg mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg
