Hi Greg, > On Jul 21, 2025, at 12:34 PM, Greg Mirsky <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi Acee, > thank you for sharing your comments and suggestions. Please find my notes > below tagged GIM>>. > > Regards, > Greg > > On Mon, Jul 21, 2025 at 6:07 PM Acee Lindem <[email protected]> wrote: > As requested by the chairs, I'm reposting my RTGWG comments on this draft. > > Like the other draft, I'd like to hear about your use cases for deployment of > more than 3 VRRP routers for the same Virtual Router (same LAN segment and > VRID). > GIM>> Is there any limitation or a recomendation in Operational Consideration > in RFC 9568 for the number of VRRP routers in the given VRID?
There is no limitation. But instead of avoiding my question with a question, can you actually respond to my question? > > This draft requires implementation of P2MP BFD (RFC 8562) as a pre-requisite. > Who has implemented this draft? > GIM>> In the course of publishing RFC 8562, at least one released > implementation was noted. As for the draft, to the best of my knowledge, PoC > was completed. Can you be more explicit in your response? > > > The draft shouldn't need to modify the VRRP packets. Given the P2MP BFD and > itsanw applicability to a Virtual Router needs to be enabled on the > participating VRRP routers, you shouldn't need to modify the VRRP encodings. > The BFD encapsulation in the draft can be used and the Virtual Router can be > determined by the IPv4/IPv6 source address. If RFC 8562 requires the > descriminator, it could configured or your document could modify RFC 8562 to > avoid bastardizing BFD. > GIM>> That is an interesting suggestion; thank you. Will look into > constructing My Discriminator using VRID. > Note that other protocols using BFD for fast failure detection do not require > BFD information to be advertised in the protocol packets (e.g., OSPF and > IS-IS). That would work as well, though it would seem more flexibility just to remove the unnecessary P2MP BFD requirement to know the descriminator in advance. > GIM>> AFAIK, IGPs use respective extensions to advertise My Discriminator for > use in Seamless BFD (RFC 7880). Does that count as BFD-related information > advertised by the IGP? No - this is basic usage of BFD for protocol fast failure detect. > > > The draft in under specified as it doesn't include of the additions need to > the RFC 9568 pseudo code specifications. However, I REALLY don't want to see > any additions to section 7. > GIM>> The intention of the proposal is to have no impact on Section 7 of RFC > 9568. Am I missing something here? You're not missing anything if you remove the gratuitous extension of the VRRP advertisement encoding just to use BFD. Acee > > > Thanks, > Acee > > > > _______________________________________________ rtgwg mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
