Skip to main content

Telechat Review of draft-ietf-rtgwg-vrrp-rfc5798bis-15

Request Review of draft-ietf-rtgwg-vrrp-rfc5798bis
Requested revision No specific revision (document currently at 18)
Type Telechat Review
Team Internet Area Directorate (intdir)
Deadline 2023-12-28
Requested 2023-12-12
Requested by Éric Vyncke
Authors Acee Lindem , Aditya Dogra
I-D last updated 2023-12-27
Completed reviews Rtgdir Early review of -12 by Russ White (diff)
Rtgdir Early review of -13 by Donald E. Eastlake 3rd (diff)
Secdir Early review of -13 by Mališa Vučinić (diff)
Genart Last Call review of -14 by Vijay K. Gurbani (diff)
Intdir Telechat review of -15 by Dave Thaler (diff)
Secdir Early review of -03 by Mališa Vučinić (diff)
Opsdir Early review of -02 by Tim Chown (diff)
Rtgdir Early review of -02 by Ben Niven-Jenkins (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Dave Thaler
State Completed
Request Telechat review on draft-ietf-rtgwg-vrrp-rfc5798bis by Internet Area Directorate Assigned
Posted at
Reviewed revision 15 (document currently at 18)
Result Ready w/issues
Completed 2023-12-27
See!Aqj-Bj9PNivcn-MfckCWPYEAplaCJw?e=5TZtui for a copy with
my comments and editorial nits inline.

1. I am confused by the discussion of "forwarding" packets addressed to the
Active Router's address.  The Abstract and Introduction seem to talk about
doing it but then section 8.3.1 says not to. 2. Missing discussion of DHCPv4. 
Section 1.3 seems to imply that static configuration of end hosts is the
primary mechanism for learning default routes, which is not the case for
clients or IoT devices as far as I know... DHCP is the default.  I believe VRRP
can still be used in a DHCP scenario and the document should say so. 3. Section
4.2's discussion of IPv6 is confusing to me (and I wrote one of the relevant
RFCs).  If there are two routers sending RA's on the same LAN, then by default
all hosts learn _both_ of them.  The text implies half learned one and half
"are using" the other one.  This text needs to be clarified and then probably
reference RFC 4191 and RFC 4311 for more discussion.  Even better would be to
update the text to specifically discuss the interaction between VRRP and 4311
(which I think would be straightforward), and if needed mention different cases
for the different host types in RFC 4191 section 3 (it's also possible that the
interaction with VRRP is the same for all the types and the types need not be
mentioned except to say that the interaction is the same for all the host types
there). 4. A couple places use "should" in cases where it's unclear whether it
means SHOULD or MUST (or even "MAY" when "may" occurs earlier in the text). 
This could adversely affect interoperability if it meant MUST and someone
interprets it as optional. 5. Section 8.3.2 says to log when multiple routers
advertise priority = 255, but doesn't say to log when multiple routers
advertise the same non-255 priority.  It says not to do that, so why wouldn't
you want to suggest logging any time the same priority is advertised by
multiple routers?  I.e., why is the logging recommendation limited to the 255
case? 6. Various grammatical nits.