IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [BEHAVE] proprietary implementation v.s standardisedprotocols//re: draft-xu-behave-nat-state-sync-00

Mark Andrews <marka@isc.org> Wed, 02 December 2009 04:51 UTC

Return-Path: <marka@isc.org>
X-Original-To: behave@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: behave@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0E9733A69FA for <behave@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 1 Dec 2009 20:51:27 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.29
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.29 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.309, BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id wwYxHnG9k+bR for <behave@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 1 Dec 2009 20:51:26 -0800 (PST)
Received: from farside.isc.org (farside.isc.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:3:bb::5]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EF70E3A69F4 for <behave@ietf.org>; Tue, 1 Dec 2009 20:51:25 -0800 (PST)
Received: from drugs.dv.isc.org (drugs.dv.isc.org [IPv6:2001:470:1f00:820:214:22ff:fed9:fbdc]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "drugs.dv.isc.org", Issuer "ISC CA" (not verified)) by farside.isc.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5AC76E6069; Wed, 2 Dec 2009 04:51:16 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from marka@isc.org)
Received: from drugs.dv.isc.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by drugs.dv.isc.org (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id nB24pD45014602; Wed, 2 Dec 2009 15:51:13 +1100 (EST) (envelope-from marka@drugs.dv.isc.org)
Message-Id: <200912020451.nB24pD45014602@drugs.dv.isc.org>
To: Dan Wing <dwing@cisco.com>
From: Mark Andrews <marka@isc.org>
References: <4B156B5C.7060800@viagenie.ca> <003401ca72f1$7d0d0310$d40c6f0a@china.huawei.com> <000001ca72f4$1e1a30a0$c3f0200a@cisco.com> <200912020238.nB22c6v8005164@drugs.dv.isc.org> <002201ca7301$5db9a710$c3f0200a@cisco.com>
In-reply-to: Your message of "Tue, 01 Dec 2009 19:41:43 -0800." <002201ca7301$5db9a710$c3f0200a@cisco.com>
Date: Wed, 02 Dec 2009 15:51:12 +1100
Sender: marka@isc.org
Cc: behave@ietf.org, 'Xu Xiaohu' <xuxh@huawei.com>
Subject: Re: [BEHAVE] proprietary implementation v.s standardisedprotocols//re: draft-xu-behave-nat-state-sync-00
X-BeenThere: behave@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: mailing list of BEHAVE IETF WG <behave.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/behave>, <mailto:behave-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/behave>
List-Post: <mailto:behave@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:behave-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/behave>, <mailto:behave-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 02 Dec 2009 04:51:27 -0000

In message <002201ca7301$5db9a710$c3f0200a@cisco.com>, "Dan Wing" writes:
>  
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: marka@isc.org [mailto:marka@isc.org] 
> > Sent: Tuesday, December 01, 2009 6:38 PM
> > To: Dan Wing
> > Cc: 'Xu Xiaohu'; 'Simon Perreault'; behave@ietf.org
> > Subject: Re: [BEHAVE] proprietary implementation v.s 
> > standardisedprotocols//re: draft-xu-behave-nat-state-sync-00 
> > 
> > 
> > In message <000001ca72f4$1e1a30a0$c3f0200a@cisco.com>, "Dan 
> > Wing" writes:
> > > To my knowledge, sites do not run two different 
> > implementations of DNS server
> > > s
> > > (e.g., ISC BIND and InfoBlox, or Microsoft and Unbound) 
> > where both DNSs back
> > > up each other.  Like NAT, DNS needs to be rock-solid 
> > reliable, and a single
> > > packet could take out a DNS server.
> > 
> > Actually lots of sites use multiple vendors for DNS.   That being
> > said there is not of lot of state to share between DNS servers.
> 
> So they would update each other when one receives, say, a DNS UPDATE?

UPDATEs are forwarded to the master server that then applies the
update and sends out NOTIFY messages to say the zone contents have
changed.  The slaves then do a IXFR request triggered by the NOFIFY.

		             serial 1		           serial 1
client ->    UPDATE       -> slave -> FORWARED UPDATE    -> master 
							   serial 2
client <- UPDATE RESPONSE <- slave <- UPDATE RESPONSE    <- master
			     slaves <- NOTIFY (serial 2) <- master
			     slaves -> NOTIFY RESPONSE   -> master
			     slaves -> IXFR (serial 1)   -> master
			     slaves <- IXFR RESPONSE     <- master
			     serial 2

> -d
> 
> > DHCP servers on the other had need to share lots of state.  I don't
> > believe the failover draft (draft-ietf-dhc-failover-12) reached a
> > conclusion even though we implement most (all?) of it in our DHCP
> > servers.
> > 
> > Mark
> > -- 
> > Mark Andrews, ISC
> > 1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
> > PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742                 INTERNET: marka@isc.org
> 
-- 
Mark Andrews, ISC
1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742                 INTERNET: marka@isc.org

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email