On Fri, Nov 30, 2012 at 08:48:48AM -0800, David Conrad wrote:
On Nov 30, 2012, at 5:08 AM, Henning Brauer <hb-nanog@bsws.de> wrote:
and re IANA, they made it clear they would not give us a proto number
As they should have. IANA abides by the rules laid down for it by the IETF/IESG/IAB. The openbsd folks couldn't be bothered to even write up a draft and chose to squat on a protocol number.
no matter what;
BS. If the openbsd folks followed the rules, they'd have gotten the number(s) they requested (assuming they were justified). There is no grand persecution here. There is management of a limited resource.
IETF already decided that VRRP was the way to go. So an alternative implementation would not have been accepted. The result would be a draft that would never be adopted and so it is back to start. Still carp packets can coexist with vrrp packets. They use a different version numbers. Also you need to use a different vhid but the same thing is true if you have 2 groups of vrrp on the same lan. If you configure something like VRRP you should run a quick tcpdump first and check if there are not unexpected packets showing up. This is especially important for any protocol that does a link local multicast or broadcast. This is basic network admin best practice (at least I expect that from a network engineer).
we didn't have a choice but to ignore that industry-money-driven committee.
Which 'industry-money-driven committee' would that be?
Did you ever read any of the IETF mailing lists and looked at the email addresses of those people pushing the hardest? At least in the ones I'm subscribed to the bias is obvious. -- :wq Claudio