Personally, I don't think it's actually useful, but here's an
explanation from the RFC: (I'm not sure I understand it... :)
8.4. Potential Forwarding Loop
A VRRP router SHOULD not forward packets addressed to the IP
Address(es) it becomes Master for if it is not the owner. Forwarding
these packets would result in unnecessary traffic. Also in the case
of LANs that receive packets they transmit (e.g., token ring) this
can result in a forwarding loop that is only terminated when the IP
TTL expires.
One such mechanism for VRRP routers is to add/delete a reject host
route for each adopted IP address when transitioning to/from MASTER
state.
My guess would be that while the basic concept of VRRP is great,
actually it's a pretty simple protocol. So the IETF had to add/change
something, anything, to make it more different from HSRP, and avoid
copyright issues. But that's just me.
Tamas
On 05/14/2012 11:52 PM, Steven Raymond wrote:
On May 14, 2012, at 2:31 PM, Niels Bakker wrote:
Add 'ip address 10.99.99.1/22 secondary' to the backup router's ve205
for that.
-- Niels.
Good suggestion, but they outfoxed me:
telnet@router(config-vif-205)#ip address 10.99.99.1 255.255.252.0 secondary
IP/Port: Errno(13) Backup VRRP router already uses this IP address
I am "okay" with the other suggestions that the ping problem is
according to RFC standards. Just wonder why that would be considered
useful, if indeed required by spec.
Thank you!!
_______________________________________________
foundry-nsp mailing list
[email protected]
http://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/foundry-nsp
_______________________________________________
foundry-nsp mailing list
[email protected]
http://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/foundry-nsp
