IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

"Dan Wing" <dwing@cisco.com> Wed, 02 December 2009 05:14 UTC

Return-Path: <dwing@cisco.com>
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 B13CD28C0ED for <behave@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 1 Dec 2009 21:14:58 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.321
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.321 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.278, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
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 mCH0Hys0yivA for <behave@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 1 Dec 2009 21:14:57 -0800 (PST)
Received: from sj-iport-5.cisco.com (sj-iport-5.cisco.com [171.68.10.87]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B5C083A69F4 for <behave@ietf.org>; Tue, 1 Dec 2009 21:14:57 -0800 (PST)
Authentication-Results: sj-iport-5.cisco.com; dkim=neutral (message not signed) header.i=none
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: ApsEAC6GFUurRN+K/2dsb2JhbACKN7RgmCwChC8E
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.47,327,1257120000"; d="scan'208";a="112521168"
Received: from sj-core-4.cisco.com ([171.68.223.138]) by sj-iport-5.cisco.com with ESMTP; 02 Dec 2009 05:14:48 +0000
Received: from dwingwxp01 ([10.32.240.195]) by sj-core-4.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.14.3) with ESMTP id nB25ElIH011831; Wed, 2 Dec 2009 05:14:47 GMT
From: "Dan Wing" <dwing@cisco.com>
To: <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> <200912020451.nB24pD45014602@drugs.dv.isc.org>
Date: Tue, 1 Dec 2009 21:14:47 -0800
Message-ID: <005301ca730e$5e44bd20$c3f0200a@cisco.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 11
In-reply-to: <200912020451.nB24pD45014602@drugs.dv.isc.org>
X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3350
Thread-index: AcpzCxgfECyaalRGTfWGdMjbmvEYdQAAzHpQ
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 05:14:58 -0000

 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: marka@isc.org [mailto:marka@isc.org] 
> Sent: Tuesday, December 01, 2009 8:51 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 <002201ca7301$5db9a710$c3f0200a@cisco.com>om>, "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>om>, "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 

They're both master servers; you can't invoke DNS's master/secondary
concept here.  :-)

-d


> 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

v2.8.7 | Report a Bug | By Email