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

Vishwas Manral <vishwas.ietf@gmail.com> Thu, 13 January 2011 17:24 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 4CE133A6B39 for <clouds@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 13 Jan 2011 09:24:41 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.158
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.158 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.441, 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 S+L5yH4UgAKK for <clouds@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 13 Jan 2011 09:24:40 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-ew0-f44.google.com (mail-ew0-f44.google.com [209.85.215.44]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0094028C0F7 for <clouds@ietf.org>; Thu, 13 Jan 2011 09:24:39 -0800 (PST)
Received: by ewy8 with SMTP id 8so1013402ewy.31 for <clouds@ietf.org>; Thu, 13 Jan 2011 09:27:02 -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 :content-transfer-encoding; bh=bWH+s8CDpIN4ITAC3/1hVwimEtHFp209QrOC/FzBe3A=; b=Xea6FbjNdGZfq+L5nxw7oB0rcMTQ7EJTwEv94oEfNyfcdOMuaboppWolGq7CcmiK+7 wseXEzZMvTxeBzlPk8yRWVh8IxhcMVKRqEnQwVuEVDwIpzr9fHM5rxAP4G9OnCmzqKKB XAu7s2PvuM5nGDQQwAn0cmqEecmjnW9TD0saM=
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:content-transfer-encoding; b=H3OlykvaTlypogY8VJIdpMFb/pWrxcjrfV3NxkfO5PxHfXxOElAdJdiL4CDoCLNOE0 cjhI4UYufB8X23s/XDmy693tTx9PTf7OnyqW0tkKyme6qQbg/gk0sAdUP9vZ7HPx6mAl 9YAk8F3awsGBE6ATL7cAsSoqT5Bz6oKULsQpo=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.216.27.202 with SMTP id e52mr2120005wea.75.1294939575771; Thu, 13 Jan 2011 09:26:15 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.216.139.219 with HTTP; Thu, 13 Jan 2011 09:26:15 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <4D2EE26C.9060604@kddilabs.jp>
References: <AANLkTimUgYk7FTi-F5kM_wfxmmG68ZCxKWHxKS_QR-Rk@mail.gmail.com> <AANLkTikau03aemQbaA_wFNZ5wS5NUNzhzqzGsKdTrbBF@mail.gmail.com> <4D2EE26C.9060604@kddilabs.jp>
Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2011 09:26:15 -0800
Message-ID: <AANLkTi=zmuF0P1gynaivDcSvt10GQooR-2LravEMNef9@mail.gmail.com>
From: Vishwas Manral <vishwas.ietf@gmail.com>
To: Hidetoshi Yokota <yokota@kddilabs.jp>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
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: Thu, 13 Jan 2011 17:24:41 -0000

Hi Hidetoshi-san,

I would think TCP is a good option for this. PCE uses TCP too.

Thanks,
Vishwas

2011/1/13 Hidetoshi Yokota <yokota@kddilabs.jp>jp>:
> Hi Vishwas,
>
> Thanks again for your good input.
>
> (2011/01/12 11:17), Vishwas Manral wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> Some other things I can think of are NACK's and retransmission of
>> messages when no message is received.
>>
>> Also I assume the protocol will probably work over TCP. A prot number
>> needs to be defined for the same.
>
> We haven't decided the transport protocol, yet. If it is TCP or SCTP,
> then the retransmission procedure can be left to them, which I think
> would be simpler than employing UDP. NACK-like message is definitely
> needed when, for example, the requested operation cannot be performed.
> Maybe, we should define the status code in the ACK message to convey
> more detailed information. Port number is also definitely needed and
> this I-D will request IANA to assign a specific one at a later stage.
>
> Regards,
> --
> Hidetoshi
>
>> Thanks,
>> Vishwas
>>
>> On Tue, Jan 11, 2011 at 5:26 PM, Vishwas Manral<vishwas.ietf@gmail.com>  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.
>>> 2. Scalability issues will occur if keepalives all go to the manager
>>> node. In my view there can be a heirarchy of keepalives.
>>> 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.
>>> 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.
>>> 5. There needs to be authentication in the packets to provide some security.
>>> 6. There needs to be async messaging allowed both from server to
>>> client and client to server.
>>> 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.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Vishwas
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>