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

Rodney Van Meter <rdv@sfc.wide.ad.jp> Tue, 23 March 2010 21:35 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 714983A6C73 for <ipsec@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 23 Mar 2010 14:35:34 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -95.186
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-95.186 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.180, 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 gnVsOzGnGkq5 for <ipsec@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 23 Mar 2010 14:35:33 -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 89EAB3A6BCE for <ipsec@ietf.org>; Tue, 23 Mar 2010 14:35:29 -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 A2F3E4D957; Wed, 24 Mar 2010 06:35:41 +0900 (JST)
From: Rodney Van Meter <rdv@sfc.wide.ad.jp>
To: "Melinda Shore" <shore@arsc.edu>
In-Reply-To: <1eac10bbf0fee9817dbc4c681868daa2.squirrel@webmail.arsc.edu>
X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
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> <1eac10bbf0fee9817dbc4c681868daa2.squirrel@webmail.arsc.edu>
Message-Id: <7851CFA5-E9BD-489B-8757-1BC69EF6729D@sfc.wide.ad.jp>
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 06:35:39 +0900
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.936)
Cc: "ipsec@ietf.org" <ipsec@ietf.org>, Yoav Nir <ynir@checkpoint.com>
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 21:35:34 -0000

On Mar 24, 2010, at 6:31 AM, Melinda Shore wrote:

> On Tue, March 23, 2010 1:20 pm, 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"
>
> I think "failover" is in broader use than "hot standby"
> and would tend to prefer it myself, but I think either is clear.
>

I'm okay with "failover cluster" as a description of the cluster  
type.  For the node itself, I think referring to it as the "hot  
standby node" is probably a little clearer than the "failover node".

But I'm okay either way, I'll leave it to the actual document editor.