Re: server-to-server protocols
Erikas Aras Napjus <erikas+@cmu.edu> Wed, 16 April 1997 01:31 UTC
Received: from cnri by ietf.org id aa22946; 15 Apr 97 21:31 EDT
Received: from marge.bucknell.edu by CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa25202; 15 Apr 97 21:31 EDT
Received: from reef.bucknell.edu by mail.bucknell.edu; (5.65v3.2/1.1.8.2/17Jul96-0109PM) id AA14284; Tue, 15 Apr 1997 21:27:02 -0400
Date: Tue, 15 Apr 1997 21:27:02 -0400
Message-Id: <0nJ2HN200UM11RoLNz@andrew.cmu.edu>
Errors-To: droms@bucknell.edu
Reply-To: dhcp-v4@bucknell.edu
Originator: dhcp-v4@bucknell.edu
Sender: dhcp-v4@bucknell.edu
Precedence: bulk
From: Erikas Aras Napjus <erikas+@cmu.edu>
To: Multiple recipients of list <dhcp-v4@bucknell.edu>
Subject: Re: server-to-server protocols
X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas
X-Comment: Discussion of DHCP for IPv4
> I especially would like Erikas to join the discussion, as his comments in > Memphis regarding the use of SNMP to read and set configuration data > suggest another mechanism that might be useful (as an adjunct to the > protocol which distributes binding data, for example). Because of his > interest in extending CMU's proposed DHCP MIB, I would hope Pratik might > also participate. Sean jumped in already, but I'll say a few more things: SNMP might not be an unreasonable transport for whatever architecture we choose for the server-to-server protocol. Assuming you make use of some of SNMPv2 features, you have: SNMPGET to pull direct information SNMPGETBULK to pull lots of direct information (binding tables) SNMPINFORM to push information out reliably (unlike traps) As a transport, it's well tested with lots of reference implementations for lots of different applications. And, as Sean pointed out, it dovetails very well with our work on a DHCP MIB since the server-to-server information is likely to be very similar to the sort of client information we agreed should probably be available from the pure SNMP MIB. In fact, we might be interested in putting together a draft that addresses the different architectural aspects that have already been put forth with how they might be accomplished using SNMP as a transport. In terms of architecture (I haven't had enough time to read up on the whole thread, so excuse any blatantly incorrect statements), we can look at three types of information that could be passed between servers: * Addresses available for leasing on any given subnet. This probably needs some way of ensuring that addresses are handed out only by one server at a time, but ideally could distribute the available addresses amongst the servers automatically (or so I would think at least). In theory, you could put a new server into an existing mix and it would automatically pick up address space from the others if permitted. The trick here is figuring out what to do about the address space when a server is partitioned (intentionally or unintentionally) from the network. If we don't do this, it simply degenerates into a case where the address blocks are allocated manually on each server (losing load balancing). * Dynamic client binding information. This goes back to the desire to have redundency in leases between the servers so in the case of a failed server or a network partition, clients can reestablish their existing leases with a different server. Ideally, we want the basic information propagated out (push) to all servers as quickly as possible (SNMPINFORM) with the capability for a newly bootstrapped (hmmm) server to pull over all the leases at once (SNMPGET / SNMPGETBULK). We probably don't want to wait on a SNMPINFORM before responding to a request, so it makes more sense to give someone an address, then update the servers. * Static client binding information. This is just a subset of the dynamic case, although there might be a slightly different application. In theory, you could have a machine which "seeds" your server farm with static address allocations like a bootptab file might do on a server today. In our environment (semi-isolated case), we could have our database directly talk the server-to-server protocol to distribute static bindings and dynamic address allocations, but not have it be a DHCP server at all. (We currently us AFS to copy files between the database machine and our server machines which, frankly, isn't the greatest solution.) As I mentioned in the working group, we currently have a network monitoring system based upon SNMPINFORMs as a transport. The different "modules" of the system communicate with each other via SNMPINFORMs, thereby passing network event information around. It works pretty well and is pretty stable. It's fairly simple to extend the basic model to a DHCP environment instead. Anyway, I've rambled enough about things that others have probably already mentioned but haven't yet entered into my stream of consciousness... :-) --- Erikas
- server-to-server protocols Hibbs, R Barr (rbhibbs)
- Re: server-to-server protocols Ted Lemon
- Re: server-to-server protocols Hibbs, R Barr (rbhibbs)
- Re: server-to-server protocols Ted Lemon
- Re: server-to-server protocols Robert G. Cole
- Re: server-to-server protocols Hibbs, R Barr (rbhibbs)
- Re: server-to-server protocols Kim Kinnear
- Re: server-to-server protocols Ted Lemon
- Re: server-to-server protocols Hibbs, R Barr (rbhibbs)
- Re: server-to-server protocols Sean Goller
- Re: server-to-server protocols Ted Lemon
- Re: server-to-server protocols Ted Lemon
- Re: server-to-server protocols Erikas Aras Napjus
- Re: server-to-server protocols Erikas Aras Napjus
- Re: server-to-server protocols Mark Sirota
- Re: server-to-server protocols Ted Lemon
- Re: server-to-server protocols Kim Kinnear
- Re: server-to-server protocols Kim Kinnear