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

Hidetoshi Yokota <yokota@kddilabs.jp> Tue, 25 January 2011 15:09 UTC

Return-Path: <yokota@kddilabs.jp>
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 76B013A6807 for <clouds@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 25 Jan 2011 07:09:55 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, 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 VbZbKjPFk-E2 for <clouds@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 25 Jan 2011 07:09:54 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mandala.kddilabs.jp (mandala.kddilabs.jp [IPv6:2001:200:601:12::16]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E5CB43A67F0 for <clouds@ietf.org>; Tue, 25 Jan 2011 07:09:53 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (mandala.kddilabs.jp [127.0.0.1]) by mandala.kddilabs.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id AD6E5174816E; Wed, 26 Jan 2011 00:12:50 +0900 (JST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at kddilabs.jp
Received: from mandala.kddilabs.jp ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mandala.kddilabs.jp [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id BQaddgnlcfpA; Wed, 26 Jan 2011 00:12:50 +0900 (JST)
Received: from ultra.mip.kddilabs.jp (ultra.mip.kddilabs.jp [172.19.90.145]) by mandala.kddilabs.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id 654EB174814D; Wed, 26 Jan 2011 00:12:50 +0900 (JST)
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (unknown [10.8.0.6]) by ultra.mip.kddilabs.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id 52D7F1B85F; Wed, 26 Jan 2011 00:12:47 +0900 (JST)
Message-ID: <4D3EE86B.5050008@kddilabs.jp>
Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2011 00:12:43 +0900
From: Hidetoshi Yokota <yokota@kddilabs.jp>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.0; en; rv:1.9.2.13) Gecko/20101207 Thunderbird/3.1.7
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Vishwas Manral <vishwas.ietf@gmail.com>
References: <AANLkTimUgYk7FTi-F5kM_wfxmmG68ZCxKWHxKS_QR-Rk@mail.gmail.com> <4D2EE067.3010102@kddilabs.jp> <AANLkTikn5ixzODCnLSDa=5jh7Mc91MH2=VAJu1iFJaDT@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTikn5ixzODCnLSDa=5jh7Mc91MH2=VAJu1iFJaDT@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-2022-JP
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
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: Tue, 25 Jan 2011 15:09:55 -0000

Hi Vishwas,

Thanks for your information. Are there any reference documents?

Regards,
-- 
Hidetoshi

(2011/01/25 3:39), Vishwas Manral wrote:
> 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
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
> 
> 
>