>
> The spec is vague. It says you should, and you shouldn't.
> We belive the "should" is slightly more clear/strong.
Agreed. I am surprised it passed last call, in fact. In particular, the
terminology isn't clear for all the different routers, the coverage of ARP
and ICMP is minimal, and the requirements are poorly scoped ( for example,
if a packet is sent to a backup VRRP router from an interface other than the
LAN that the VRRP group(s) is(are) on, and that packet is destined for the
master router's real address, the backup router should forward the packet
out the LAN to the masters real address. The spec prohibits this.)
Perhaps I should have written, "Juniper follows the spec correctly, although
that is a subjective assessment, as the spec is vague."
regards,
chris
>
> Avi
>
> >
> > The spec is correct though. As I understand it, Cisco was
> pushing Juniper
> > hard on patent infringement issues in regards to HSRP.
> Apparently, that has
> > been resolved. There are more VRRP gotchas that I have
> been dealing with.
> > If anyone is interested, contact me offline and I can give
> you details.
> >
> > Regards,
> > chris
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Avi Freedman [mailto:freedman@freedman.net]
> > > Sent: Wednesday, April 04, 2001 12:51 AM
> > > To: ronjeremy@raemail.com
> > > Cc: juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
> > > Subject: Re: Ping VRRP virtual IP address
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Ideally, yes.
> > > Juniper says it would be against RFC.
> > >
> > > Some of us disagree; to help the cause, if other people who
> > > spend $ with
> > > Juniper could ask their Juniper reps for that "feature" to be
> > > implemented,
> > > it'd be appreciated...
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > >
> > > Avi
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Can I ping the virtual IP address of a juniper running VRRP?
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Aug 05 2002 - 10:42:41 EDT