Re: [clouds] draft-yokota-cloud-service-mobility

[Vishwas Manral <[e-mail]>]

Hi Yokota-san,

Another thing I was thinking about was actually aligning the work with
NEA work (which has a few similar requirements).

Thanks,
Vishwas

2011/1/13 Hidetoshi Yokota <[e-mail]>:
> Hi Vishwas,
>
> Thanks a lot for your input. The current draft is the initial cut, so
> there should be many to add ;-). Please also see inline:
>
> (2011/01/12 10:26), Vishwas Manral wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> I looked at the document and there are a few very basic things I
>> wanted to state that need to be added:
>>
>> 1. There needs to be a capability exchange from the Execution node to
>> the Manager node.
>
> Yes, that should be done at the registration phase. I should add it with
> an appropriate option format.
>
>> 2. Scalability issues will occur if keepalives all go to the manager
>> node. In my view there can be a heirarchy of keepalives.
>
> Are you suggesting an intermediate node that collects the keep-alives
> from some group of managed nodes and sends an aggregated message to the
> manager?
>
>> 3. There should be a heirarchy of manager nodes too, considering the
>> number of Execution nodes that need to be managed. So there should be
>> a messaging exchange allowed between Manager and Manager node.
>
> I see. Either hierarchical structure (manager of managers) or
> peer-to-peer structure (inter-manager) will be needed when the scale
> becomes larger.
>
>> 4. All TLV and headers should have length of 16 bits atleast. 8 bits
>> is not scalable at all with the amount of information that is there.
>
> Good suggestion. Will expand the field length.
>
>> 5. There needs to be authentication in the packets to provide some security.
>
> Ok. Maybe, some option that can carry MAC (Message Authentication Code)
> should be added. Or, do you think the whole message should be encrypted?
> In that case, we should mandate IPSec connection between the Manager
> Node and Execution Node.
>
>> 6. There needs to be async messaging allowed both from server to
>> client and client to server.
>
> Ok. I will add something like NOTIFY manage, which is spontaneous and
> can be sent by either side at any time.
>
>> 7. There is already a PCE framework that exists. We need to look at
>> it. It is used for simialr purposes in a TE network.
>
> Could you tell me any reference document such as RFC or conference
> paper, please?
>
> Regards,
> --
> Hidetoshi
>
>> Thanks,
>> Vishwas
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>