IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [dhcwg] Review of draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-failover-protocol-00

"Bernie Volz (volz)" <volz@cisco.com> Mon, 30 November 2015 18:56 UTC

Return-Path: <volz@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4150B1A891B for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 30 Nov 2015 10:56:24 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.511
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.511 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 4iLBLDJXtY64 for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 30 Nov 2015 10:56:23 -0800 (PST)
Received: from alln-iport-6.cisco.com (alln-iport-6.cisco.com [173.37.142.93]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EF0581A87E9 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Mon, 30 Nov 2015 10:56:22 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=1881; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1448909782; x=1450119382; h=from:to:subject:date:message-id:references:in-reply-to: content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=XywinhY7paJLhjONT7gKptGAFJVXK0Y3UT4UauuqMU8=; b=PcMAY/k0u8NscIhIJ3NoAY87ouw4p+mJdekzc4b03AgoKdN7FZdGGuyY VPyulkz4orxLvsuCfutSM055MknvMkoxuNalIpwLONcA7WhXRCth0VH4e siA7Qg2X7cicmDnm4f+EH6E98uSZ+SgDcIESHhvEXx00OhLGNwEz5k0Su k=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: A0D+AQDcmlxW/5JdJa1egzuBQga+KQENgWaGDwKBMzgUAQEBAQEBAYEKhDQBAQEEOjcUBAIBCBEEAQEBHgkHMhQJCAEBBAESCIgmu0IBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEYi1KENIUFBZZXAY0wnGcBHwEBQoIRHYFWcoQnQ4EHAQEB
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.20,365,1444694400"; d="scan'208";a="213249546"
Received: from rcdn-core-10.cisco.com ([173.37.93.146]) by alln-iport-6.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 30 Nov 2015 18:56:22 +0000
Received: from XCH-ALN-005.cisco.com (xch-aln-005.cisco.com [173.36.7.15]) by rcdn-core-10.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id tAUIuMfr019752 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Mon, 30 Nov 2015 18:56:22 GMT
Received: from xch-aln-003.cisco.com (173.36.7.13) by XCH-ALN-005.cisco.com (173.36.7.15) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1104.5; Mon, 30 Nov 2015 12:56:21 -0600
Received: from xch-aln-003.cisco.com ([173.36.7.13]) by XCH-ALN-003.cisco.com ([173.36.7.13]) with mapi id 15.00.1104.000; Mon, 30 Nov 2015 12:56:21 -0600
From: "Bernie Volz (volz)" <volz@cisco.com>
To: Brian Haberman <brian@innovationslab.net>, "dhcwg@ietf.org" <dhcwg@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [dhcwg] Review of draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-failover-protocol-00
Thread-Index: AdErfq2gGB7Fb3AjRjOotiZ72EDNggAOD/sAAABbDIAAAn/bgAADSN8AAAvO4LA=
Date: Mon, 30 Nov 2015 18:56:21 +0000
Message-ID: <107b7da98459404f9e43c9a166cc894a@XCH-ALN-003.cisco.com>
References: <66cb478301394af2a9981ed20fd9942d@XCH-ALN-003.cisco.com> <B25C3B4C-69B5-4818-A145-CDAC106E940C@cisco.com> <5AE56C14-0E13-4F63-94F9-F8409C5E0C94@cisco.com> <29AE5313-D17E-4F78-BBBC-395BB0AE3589@thehobsons.co.uk> <565C95C8.4070601@innovationslab.net>
In-Reply-To: <565C95C8.4070601@innovationslab.net>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: [10.98.1.197]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dhcwg/L8ZSvkgqMngyRqkYstWqXq9uRxM>
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] Review of draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-failover-protocol-00
X-BeenThere: dhcwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: <dhcwg.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/dhcwg>, <mailto:dhcwg-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/dhcwg/>
List-Post: <mailto:dhcwg@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dhcwg-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg>, <mailto:dhcwg-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 30 Nov 2015 18:56:24 -0000

Sorry if I confused things as I did say "-	7.1 (Time Skew) - Should we require NTP to synchronize the clocks on failover partners?". The point wasn't about NTP (I don't really care how someone synchronizes the time), but to require synchronized time (we might say "(i.e., using NTP or other mechanisms)" or something similar).

- Bernie

-----Original Message-----
From: dhcwg [mailto:dhcwg-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Brian Haberman
Sent: Monday, November 30, 2015 1:31 PM
To: dhcwg@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] Review of draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-failover-protocol-00

As the AD who shepherds the time-related WGs...

On 11/30/15 11:56 AM, Simon Hobson wrote:
> Kim Kinnear <kkinnear@cisco.com> wrote:
> 
>> Folks,
>> 
>> One of Bernie's comments on the failover draft was:
>> 
>>> -          7.1 (Time Skew) - Should we require NTP to synchronize
>>> the clocks on failover partners?
>> 
>> The current draft (-00.txt) has a capability to allow the failover 
>> protocol to operate with two machines which have clock skew of a 
>> largely arbitrary amount (limited in some way to perhaps 24 hours or 
>> something).  So two systems that are 3-5 minutes apart (the usual 
>> skew, if any) will work fine.
>> 
>> Bernie is suggesting that we require failover partners to have 
>> essentially synchronized time by requiring NTP sync.  If they are 
>> synchronized to the level of 1-2 seconds, that would be synchronized 
>> for the purposes of this protocol.  We aren't talking milliseconds 
>> here.
> 
> I see two points :
> 
> 1) If the time should be synced, then I would suggest merely requiring 
> that, rather than specifying NTP - ie specify the what rather than the 
> how.

The above makes sense since NTP is not the only protocol available to synchronize time.

Regards,
Brian

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email