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

Vishwas Manral <vishwas.ietf@gmail.com> Wed, 12 January 2011 02:15 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 A53693A6849 for <clouds@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 11 Jan 2011 18:15:23 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.458
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.458 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.141, 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 hERc+hw6Sy7t for <clouds@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 11 Jan 2011 18:15:22 -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 A0DC43A6837 for <clouds@ietf.org>; Tue, 11 Jan 2011 18:15:22 -0800 (PST)
Received: by wwa36 with SMTP id 36so99464wwa.13 for <clouds@ietf.org>; Tue, 11 Jan 2011 18:17:40 -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=xPrG+3CVAUKuRwmLoVTwPaDOA2htyiyi1S+yQ1VDxr4=; b=gl6SUT9req0ZCO7bGSfAVX13oCJf3CogiXmWMFmUPoCiDrE+TULBCYqg9W/iOAAXCA 8ciNsEnjRDCtolBGgyowivxunQlxu+tbD1N2w66LpnibmjK8ORk+1kcv7nDmu9UU7hBT TrJDWRul1FVlkdiaq/mpius+mZF3RRcrbGHY4=
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=ZY0uwIskh3e0/SNPPsB6GQ7qAMVb4jfwFtBiva2b+OWPJ3iCXoz2okeBrhnXECj+3c 2NtpUoBXezqUI7Fl8/F3sYhQQAhM6WsEc3lT6U4hY3xBQwbmX58KPtAregYcv4NSCIeA kGLSuFXzAAXZT7htC3ihTZmnwuZ9pfv9iOnrA=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.216.27.202 with SMTP id e52mr280611wea.75.1294798660220; Tue, 11 Jan 2011 18:17:40 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.216.139.219 with HTTP; Tue, 11 Jan 2011 18:17:40 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTimUgYk7FTi-F5kM_wfxmmG68ZCxKWHxKS_QR-Rk@mail.gmail.com>
References: <AANLkTimUgYk7FTi-F5kM_wfxmmG68ZCxKWHxKS_QR-Rk@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2011 18:17:40 -0800
Message-ID: <AANLkTikau03aemQbaA_wFNZ5wS5NUNzhzqzGsKdTrbBF@mail.gmail.com>
From: Vishwas Manral <vishwas.ietf@gmail.com>
To: clouds@ietf.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
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: Wed, 12 Jan 2011 02:15:23 -0000

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.

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
>