Just noted one more difference with RFC 5798 and fixed section numbering in section 6.4.
Thanks, Acee > On Aug 23, 2023, at 10:47 AM, [email protected] wrote: > > > A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts > directories. This Internet-Draft is a work item of the Routing Area Working > Group (RTGWG) WG of the IETF. > > Title : Virtual Router Redundancy Protocol (VRRP) Version 3 for > IPv4 and IPv6 > Authors : Acee Lindem > Aditya Dogra > Filename : draft-ietf-rtgwg-vrrp-rfc5798bis-11.txt > Pages : 43 > Date : 2023-08-23 > > Abstract: > This document defines version 3 of the Virtual Router Redundancy > Protocol (VRRP) for IPv4 and IPv6. It is based on VRRP (version 2) > for IPv4 that is defined in RFC 3768 and in "Virtual Router > Redundancy Protocol for IPv6", and obsoletes the prevision > specification of this version documented in RFC 5798. 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 Active Router, and it forwards packets sent to > these IPv4 or IPv6 addresses. Active Routers are configured with > virtual IPv4 or IPv6 addresses, and Backup Routers infer the address > family of the virtual addresses being advertised based on the IP > protocol version. Within a VRRP Router, the Virtual Routers in each > of the IPv4 and IPv6 address families are independent of one another > and always treated as separate Virtual Router instances. The > election process provides dynamic failover in the forwarding > responsibility should the Active Router 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. > > The VRRP terminology has been updated to conform to inclusive > language guidelines for IETF technologies. The IETF has designated > National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) "Guidance for > NIST Staff on Using Inclusive Language in Documentary Standards" for > its inclusive language guidelines. > > The IETF datatracker status page for this Internet-Draft is: > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-rtgwg-vrrp-rfc5798bis/ > > There is also an HTML version available at: > https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-rtgwg-vrrp-rfc5798bis-11.html > > A diff from the previous version is available at: > https://author-tools.ietf.org/iddiff?url2=draft-ietf-rtgwg-vrrp-rfc5798bis-11 > > Internet-Drafts are also available by rsync at rsync.ietf.org::internet-drafts > > > _______________________________________________ > rtgwg mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg _______________________________________________ rtgwg mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg
