The following errata report has been submitted for RFC9568,
"Virtual Router Redundancy Protocol (VRRP) Version 3 for IPv4 and IPv6".
--
You may review the report below and at:
https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid8298
--
Type
The following errata report has been submitted for RFC9568,
"Virtual Router Redundancy Protocol (VRRP) Version 3 for IPv4 and IPv6".
--
You may review the report below and at:
https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid8301
--
Type
HI Fan,
> On Feb 17, 2025, at 1:54 AM, Fan Zhang
> wrote:
>
> Hi Acee,
>
> I agree that 'ietf-nd' does not seem appropriate for this YANG model
> and should be changed. However, 'ietf-nd-arp' could be confusing since
> ARP is for IPv4. How about 'ietf-ipv6-address-resolution' ?
That is good a
Hi Tanxin,
Sorry for late replay. Below are the answers to your questions:
1. This draft proposes a fast notification packet used in scenarios such as
congestion notification and failure notification. In which layer does this
packet work, or is it a universal packet applicable to various protoc
The following errata report has been submitted for RFC9568,
"Virtual Router Redundancy Protocol (VRRP) Version 3 for IPv4 and IPv6".
--
You may review the report below and at:
https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid8299
--
Type
The following errata report has been submitted for RFC9568,
"Virtual Router Redundancy Protocol (VRRP) Version 3 for IPv4 and IPv6".
--
You may review the report below and at:
https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid8300
--
Type
The YANG data model defined in this document is useful for operators, and
the document is relatively complete. I support WG adoption.
Best regards
Deng Lijie
Yingzhen Qu 于2025年2月11日周二 14:35写道：
> Hi,
>
>
> This email begins a 2 week WG adoption poll for the following draft:
>
> YANG Data Mo
Hi,
The preliminary agenda for IETF 122 has been posted:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/122/agenda
The RTGWG session is scheduled on Thursday Session I 09:30-11:30,
March 20th, 2025.
Please send slot requests to r
tgwg-cha...@ietf.org before the end of the day
Wednesday Mar 5th. Please in
Further to the following, section 8.3.2 explicitly allows there to be more than
one VRRP
router to be configured with priority 255, by virtue of the use of SHOULD
rather than MUST):
8.3.2. Recommendations Regarding Setting Priority Values
A priority value of 255 designates a particular router
