IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Dime] I have a doubt in Failover and Fallback mechanisms present under DIAMETER.

Jouni Korhonen <jouni.nospam@gmail.com> Fri, 28 February 2014 14:12 UTC

Return-Path: <jouni.nospam@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: dime@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dime@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 988511A01F8 for <dime@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 28 Feb 2014 06:12:33 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] 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 sHh9-HMbv-49 for <dime@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 28 Feb 2014 06:12:32 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-la0-x231.google.com (mail-la0-x231.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4010:c03::231]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B91E71A027F for <dime@ietf.org>; Fri, 28 Feb 2014 06:12:31 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-la0-f49.google.com with SMTP id mc6so2725322lab.36 for <dime@ietf.org>; Fri, 28 Feb 2014 06:12:29 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=subject:mime-version:content-type:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=uuFeB8qpq7eFjVOxoctX0zFGIbke6JEymnd9N9j4k/Q=; b=JPJcVp6MUPpSqsnVo25GW4G3lJF0IZIQLU3RmMrehrMoA2GdhGa9OIva351jZrO0P7 jGOXRNnmcj8eIRIzCxj1KHJV04yI9XLtqoYeYXPVjdoeOh8J2ElKPUvSfClROq4a81dV tMvcVtGV9L6IF+zvqzLw0yGzcGcX4CJByyc7KmX7U5fEk6WcFawhXFegznk5kMAzNfBl YCndqZXbHlDu5IgpIJvtUlOUVwDH7bZJ//MHOb5Oi0j9rX4tlel4Hd8/jXHxY0n96rRy wophVYDZWiKNEUPk5Q3HQK6fdnFG9NuJC2uDyoSJaoEAM0qn7fgmMUXCJ8WwmONArI7t noJQ==
X-Received: by 10.112.140.202 with SMTP id ri10mr10996893lbb.9.1393596749208; Fri, 28 Feb 2014 06:12:29 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [188.117.15.108] ([188.117.15.108]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id g8sm13820490lae.1.2014.02.28.06.12.28 for <multiple recipients> (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Fri, 28 Feb 2014 06:12:28 -0800 (PST)
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.6 \(1510\))
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
From: Jouni Korhonen <jouni.nospam@gmail.com>
X-Priority: 3
In-Reply-To: <abcd1234abc123ab12a0000033191000010000005101@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2014 16:12:27 +0200
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <CCFF0C90-01D3-4408-949B-619DB92AA03B@gmail.com>
References: <abcd1234abc123ab12a0000033191000010000005101@gmail.com>
To: Kevin Peterson <qh.resu01@gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1510)
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dime/Ml2p6HQ1YQdcGrTPRWTq6rpP50Y
Cc: dime@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Dime] I have a doubt in Failover and Fallback mechanisms present under DIAMETER.
X-BeenThere: dime@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Diameter Maintanence and Extentions Working Group <dime.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/dime>, <mailto:dime-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dime/>
List-Post: <mailto:dime@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dime-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dime>, <mailto:dime-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2014 14:12:33 -0000

Kevin,

Are you now referring to Diameter applications that maintain state or not?
In case of the former, your client has learned the identity of the server
and will continue sending messages to it (i.e. the secondary) during the
lifetime of the entire session.

In case of latter, each request would have a different session-id.

- Jouni


On Feb 19, 2014, at 1:24 PM, Kevin Peterson <qh.resu01@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi, 
> 
> Failover and Fallback procedures we know very well.
> 
> Suppose initial message was supposed to send to primary peer, but peer went down and message has been forwarded to Secondary peer i.e. Failover. Now suppose if Primary Peer has come up and according to DIAMETER theory the message should go to primary peer. So the next message will be Update message. Which will have the same session id which was used with the initial message. 
> 
> Now my doubt is how the primary peer will recognize the session-id of update message. Because it has no info for that session. The session was created with the secondary peer. 
> 
> Thanks,
> Kevin Peterson
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> DiME mailing list
> DiME@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dime

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email