Virtual Router Redundancy Protocol (VRRP) Version 3 for IPv4 and IPv6
RFC 5798
| Document | Type |
RFC - Proposed Standard
(March 2010; Errata)
Obsoletes RFC 3768
|
|
|---|---|---|---|
| Last updated | 2016-05-20 | ||
| Replaces | draft-nadas-vrrp-unified-spec | ||
| Stream | IETF | ||
| Formats | plain text pdf html bibtex | ||
| Reviews | |||
| Stream | WG state | (None) | |
| Document shepherd | No shepherd assigned | ||
| IESG | IESG state | RFC 5798 (Proposed Standard) | |
| Consensus Boilerplate | Unknown | ||
| Telechat date | |||
| Responsible AD | Adrian Farrel | ||
| Send notices to | (None) | ||
Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) S. Nadas, Ed. Request for Comments: 5798 Ericsson Obsoletes: 3768 March 2010 Category: Standards Track ISSN: 2070-1721 Virtual Router Redundancy Protocol (VRRP) Version 3 for IPv4 and IPv6 Abstract This memo defines the Virtual Router Redundancy Protocol (VRRP) for IPv4 and IPv6. It is version three (3) of the protocol, and it is based on VRRP (version 2) for IPv4 that is defined in RFC 3768 and in "Virtual Router Redundancy Protocol for IPv6". VRRP specifies an election protocol that dynamically assigns responsibility for a virtual router to one of the VRRP routers on a LAN. The VRRP router controlling the IPv4 or IPv6 address(es) associated with a virtual router is called the Master, and it forwards packets sent to these IPv4 or IPv6 addresses. VRRP Master routers are configured with virtual IPv4 or IPv6 addresses, and VRRP Backup routers infer the address family of the virtual addresses being carried based on the transport protocol. Within a VRRP router, the virtual routers in each of the IPv4 and IPv6 address families are a domain unto themselves and do not overlap. The election process provides dynamic failover in the forwarding responsibility should the Master become unavailable. For IPv4, the advantage gained from using VRRP is a higher-availability default path without requiring configuration of dynamic routing or router discovery protocols on every end-host. For IPv6, the advantage gained from using VRRP for IPv6 is a quicker switchover to Backup routers than can be obtained with standard IPv6 Neighbor Discovery mechanisms. Status of This Memo This is an Internet Standards Track document. This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF). It represents the consensus of the IETF community. It has received public review and has been approved for publication by the Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG). Further information on Internet Standards is available in Section 2 of RFC 5741. Information about the current status of this document, any errata, and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5798. Nadas Standards Track [Page 1] RFC 5798 VRRPv3 for IPv4 and IPv6 March 2010 Copyright Notice Copyright (c) 2010 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the document authors. All rights reserved. This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document. Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as described in the Simplified BSD License. This document may contain material from IETF Documents or IETF Contributions published or made publicly available before November 10, 2008. The person(s) controlling the copyright in some of this material may not have granted the IETF Trust the right to allow modifications of such material outside the IETF Standards Process. Without obtaining an adequate license from the person(s) controlling the copyright in such materials, this document may not be modified outside the IETF Standards Process, and derivative works of it may not be created outside the IETF Standards Process, except to format it for publication as an RFC or to translate it into languages other than English. Table of Contents 1. Introduction ....................................................4 1.1. A Note on Terminology ......................................4 1.2. IPv4 .......................................................5 1.3. IPv6 .......................................................6 1.4. Requirements Language ......................................6 1.5. Scope ......................................................7 1.6. Definitions ................................................7 2. Required Features ...............................................8 2.1. IPvX Address Backup ........................................8 2.2. Preferred Path Indication ..................................8 2.3. Minimization of Unnecessary Service Disruptions ............9 2.4. Efficient Operation over Extended LANs .....................9 2.5. Sub-Second Operation for IPv4 and IPv6 .....................9Show full document text