Feature requests

[Ziyad Basheer]

I am curious, what is the deal breaker about VRRP requirement of having
participating interfaces besides that it's two less addresses from your DHCP
pool?

Ziyad Basheer

On Tue, May 17, 2011 at 1:53 PM, Alex Bligh <alex at alex.org.uk> wrote:

> Ondrej,
>
> --On 16 May 2011 21:59:56 +0200 Ondrej Zajicek <santiago at crfreenet.org>
> wrote:
>
>  NSSA:
>> This seems to be, surprisingly for me, the most requested
>> feature, as it does not look hard to implement i will probably
>> implement that in near future.
>>
>
> Thanks
>
>
>  VRRP:
>> Maybe. Is there any advantage if it is integrated in routing daemon
>> (instead of using independent VRRP daemon)? I would guess that there
>> isn't any interaction between VRRP and routing, but i don't have any
>> experience with VRRP.
>>
>
> We would be interested in a sane implementation of VRRP. We'd also
> be even more interested in other interfaces redundancy protocols that
> do not "waste" IP addresses (e.g. do not use IP addresses for the
> native interfaces). One problem with VRRP is that it is allegedly
> patent encumbered.
>
> --
> Alex Bligh
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://trubka.network.cz/pipermail/bird-users/attachments/20110517/433d6bfd/attachment-0001.html>