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

Vishwas Manral <vishwas.ietf@gmail.com> Mon, 24 January 2011 18:37 UTC

Return-Path: <vishwas.ietf@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: clouds@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: clouds@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 572FE28C0DF for <clouds@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 24 Jan 2011 10:37:09 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.455
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.455 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.144, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
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 LjUmFnzkNNN8 for <clouds@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 24 Jan 2011 10:37:05 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-ww0-f44.google.com (mail-ww0-f44.google.com [74.125.82.44]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 41CF528C0E6 for <clouds@ietf.org>; Mon, 24 Jan 2011 10:37:05 -0800 (PST)
Received: by wwa36 with SMTP id 36so5277729wwa.13 for <clouds@ietf.org>; Mon, 24 Jan 2011 10:40:00 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=awBf2/e6w50NAtfPcqZlpI/gx3ZD0v+Jj4+D+ZdzgKo=; b=AcPjGaLJ2JV28J3MUNeT5zvPDqX+D0OhfXshKOMRfVC4JLwkSsxc5lCb0bLm3Esyr1 B/4b+cIpE6TPKoBZXV6JHoYW8E7Sd+nqN6uhdfzgeBYcmLg48QPh/eYGMrogPSY9ozba 8z8C6ICqlQS9NezXEuu/8IvE/APonR3HKNoFM=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; b=oybLqc/8u/5bd991dB0B3Nn572La5EBNwsxCZBTFFZT4vbq4eKFokcJnhT0Qxi1Kku hLAYl2lGjN3SMQRJpXhc60vcqHWN7UiqqzRzoVRVO7p58t75qTaDYq9ludJXAI9YgfX1 sCrc3VSDck5Ls714lqauhvablkWxaU5rXsu8w=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.216.182.212 with SMTP id o62mr2756686wem.52.1295894399950; Mon, 24 Jan 2011 10:39:59 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.216.21.65 with HTTP; Mon, 24 Jan 2011 10:39:59 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <4D2EE067.3010102@kddilabs.jp>
References: <AANLkTimUgYk7FTi-F5kM_wfxmmG68ZCxKWHxKS_QR-Rk@mail.gmail.com> <4D2EE067.3010102@kddilabs.jp>
Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2011 10:39:59 -0800
Message-ID: <AANLkTikn5ixzODCnLSDa=5jh7Mc91MH2=VAJu1iFJaDT@mail.gmail.com>
From: Vishwas Manral <vishwas.ietf@gmail.com>
To: Hidetoshi Yokota <yokota@kddilabs.jp>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Cc: clouds@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [clouds] draft-yokota-cloud-service-mobility
X-BeenThere: clouds@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Clouds pre-BOF discussion list <clouds.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/clouds>, <mailto:clouds-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/clouds>
List-Post: <mailto:clouds@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:clouds-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/clouds>, <mailto:clouds-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2011 18:37:09 -0000

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 <yokota@kddilabs.jp>jp>:
> 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
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>