On Sat, Jun 11, 2011 at 12:41:17PM -0400, Kevin Loch wrote:
VRRPv3 (http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5798) is still a bit broken in that it makes mention of "MUST advertise RA's"
That's unintentional as per recent discussion on IETF VRRP mailing list where I seeked for clarification as JUNOS complains on every commit about no RAs for VRRP units. See http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/vrrp/current/msg01447.html and response. I have yet to draft the RFC Erratum clarifying that unintentional interpretation.
and inexplicably limits VRRP addresses to link local only (?!)*.
I cannot see that in RFC5798, and implementations and operational experience differs. VRRP communications itself is via link-local addresses. There is a requirement to have a link-local virtual address as well, but there might be many more, e.g. global scope. Otherwise a whole lot of IPv6 VRRP setups won't be working here. :) We use global scope addresses as VRRP virtual router addresses. Best regards, Daniel -- CLUE-RIPE -- Jabber: dr@cluenet.de -- dr@IRCnet -- PGP: 0xA85C8AA0