Re: [IPsec] Issue #177. (was: HA/LS terminology)

Rodney Van Meter <rdv@sfc.wide.ad.jp> Tue, 23 March 2010 21:30 UTC

Return-Path: <rdv@sfc.wide.ad.jp>
X-Original-To: ipsec@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ipsec@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 78BF03A6891 for <ipsec@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 23 Mar 2010 14:30:36 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -95.141
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-95.141 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.225, BAYES_50=0.001, DNS_FROM_OPENWHOIS=1.13, HELO_EQ_JP=1.244, HOST_EQ_JP=1.265, RELAY_IS_203=0.994, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
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 EwhVJOW2JRWw for <ipsec@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 23 Mar 2010 14:30:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.sfc.wide.ad.jp (mail.sfc.wide.ad.jp [203.178.142.146]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 37F823A6D0B for <ipsec@ietf.org>; Tue, 23 Mar 2010 14:30:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [IPv6:2001:df8::24:223:6cff:fe91:9b42] (unknown [IPv6:2001:df8:0:24:223:6cff:fe91:9b42]) by mail.sfc.wide.ad.jp (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id B73BD4DC87; Wed, 24 Mar 2010 06:30:24 +0900 (JST)
Message-Id: <51E62BEE-0A11-43E4-8301-E83ED1BCEA8A@sfc.wide.ad.jp>
From: Rodney Van Meter <rdv@sfc.wide.ad.jp>
To: Yoav Nir <ynir@checkpoint.com>
In-Reply-To: <1699285A-BDB7-40A6-BA58-5228AAE1133A@checkpoint.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed; delsp=yes
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v936)
Date: Wed, 24 Mar 2010 06:30:22 +0900
References: <7EF09073-9D20-4077-A8DD-59B84B1732D0@sfc.wide.ad.jp> <7bc30fde97954c9f651eb436c822dab7.squirrel@webmail.arsc.edu> <118D7A1E-6090-4D71-9FEB-89AEB189CA94@sfc.wide.ad.jp> <1699285A-BDB7-40A6-BA58-5228AAE1133A@checkpoint.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.936)
Cc: "ipsec@ietf.org" <ipsec@ietf.org>, Melinda Shore <shore@arsc.edu>
Subject: Re: [IPsec] Issue #177. (was: HA/LS terminology)
X-BeenThere: ipsec@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussion of IPsec protocols <ipsec.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec>, <mailto:ipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ipsec>
List-Post: <mailto:ipsec@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec>, <mailto:ipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 23 Mar 2010 21:30:36 -0000

On Mar 24, 2010, at 6:20 AM, Yoav Nir wrote:
>
> - For the cluster with just one member doing IKE and IPsec, I  
> propose "hot-standby cluster"
> - For the cluster with several members doing IKE and IPsec, I  
> propose to keep "load-sharing cluster"
>
> Is this fine with everyone?
>

I'm good with that, as long as we understand that both types of  
cluster may be either completely fault tolerant, partially fault  
tolerant, or not fault tolerant.  Of course, the taxonomy is simpler  
with only FT/not-FT, and most implementations will probably strive to  
be one or the other.

		--Rod