[dhcwg] load balancing RFC - what happens if you insert a new server?

"Lisa Guo" <lguo@tahoenetworks.com> Fri, 07 September 2001 01:31 UTC

Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA13293; Thu, 6 Sep 2001 21:31:21 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from optimus.ietf.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id VAA13923; Thu, 6 Sep 2001 21:30:45 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from ietf.org (odin [132.151.1.176]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id VAA13895 for <dhcwg@ns.ietf.org>; Thu, 6 Sep 2001 21:30:43 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from mail.tahoenetworks.com (nat2.tahoenetworks.com [63.99.114.2]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA13241 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Thu, 6 Sep 2001 21:29:16 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from TNEXVS02 ([10.10.1.132]) by mail.tahoenetworks.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.1600); Thu, 6 Sep 2001 18:31:05 -0700
content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C1373C.C2840631"
Date: Thu, 6 Sep 2001 18:31:04 -0700
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.4417.0
Message-ID: <416B5AF360DED54088DAD3CA8BFBEA6E0149D1@TNEXVS02.tahoenetworks.com>
Thread-Topic: load balancing RFC - what happens if you insert a new server?
Thread-Index: AcE3PMJKgNcWWBCiTJKysfgnTdvn3g==
From: "Lisa Guo" <lguo@tahoenetworks.com>
To: <dhcwg@ietf.org>
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 07 Sep 2001 01:31:05.0332 (UTC) FILETIME=[C310FB40:01C1373C]
Subject: [dhcwg] load balancing RFC - what happens if you insert a new server?
Sender: dhcwg-admin@ietf.org
Errors-To: dhcwg-admin@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 1.0
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <dhcwg.ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: dhcwg@ietf.org

Hi,
 
  I was looking for discussion on this on the archive website but
couldn't find any, so if this has been discussed before, I apologize.
 
  The load balancing RFC (3074) describes a hashing algorithm that
is used by servers and relay agents to serve the clients in a
deterministic
way. I assume that the purpose is that the same server always serve
the same client, from the initial discover/offer/request/ack to
subsequent
messages, such as renew, release, etc. What happens if a new server
is added to the pool of servers that share the load? In order to use the
new server, some of the hash bucket should be assigned to this new
server now. But if one does that, messages related to an existing lease
would be forwarded to the new server instead of the one that actually
allocated the IP address in the first place.
 
  Does anyone have a workaround on this?
 
Thanks,
Lisa 
-----------------------
Lisa Guo
Tahoe Networks, Inc.