On Wed, 2009-08-05 at 13:15 -0700, Peter Memishian wrote: > > Yes, once the VNIC is plumbed, it will not be renamed/deleted. But vrrpd > > cannot be assured that the VNIC is always plumbed when the VRRP router > > is created. Administrators can always unplumb the VNIC whenever they > > want, even the VRRP router that relies on the VNIC is already enabled. > > Sure -- so this is just a safeguard against an edge case, which I see as > mostly an implementation matter and not really core to the architecture. > I'm fine with it.
The addition of the RCM module is architecture, and the justification of its introduction is because VRRP is trying to prevent accidental misconfiguration of VNICs in use by VRRP. Weighing the cost of introducing an RCM module against the benefit of preventing an edge case is likely a judgment call, which is why this discussion has dragged on. My personal opinion is that simply not holding the VNICs open would yield a simpler architecture at the risk of administrators accidentally breaking their VRRP routers by renaming or deleting VNICs. Note that they can break VRRP by doing other things that this case doesn't prevent. Since the case is derailed, this will likely be one of the topics of discussion during the in-person review. -Seb
