[IPsec] criteria for failure detection
"Hu, Jun (Jun)" <jun.hu@alcatel-lucent.com> Mon, 22 March 2010 19:13 UTC
Return-Path: <jun.hu@alcatel-lucent.com>
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 409C53A69EA for <ipsec@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 22 Mar 2010 12:13:13 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.99
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.99 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_20=-0.74, DNS_FROM_OPENWHOIS=1.13, J_CHICKENPOX_62=0.6]
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 Kodpy7AefwPe for <ipsec@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 22 Mar 2010 12:13:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ihemail1.lucent.com (ihemail1.lucent.com [135.245.0.33]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 191DE3A6B88 for <ipsec@ietf.org>; Mon, 22 Mar 2010 12:13:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ihrh1.emsr.lucent.com (h135-1-218-53.lucent.com [135.1.218.53]) by ihemail1.lucent.com (8.13.8/IER-o) with ESMTP id o2MJDI1k020351 for <ipsec@ietf.org>; Mon, 22 Mar 2010 14:13:18 -0500 (CDT)
Received: from USNAVSXCHHUB01.ndc.alcatel-lucent.com (usnavsxchhub01.ndc.alcatel-lucent.com [135.3.39.110]) by ihrh1.emsr.lucent.com (8.13.8/emsr) with ESMTP id o2MJDI0O027794 for <ipsec@ietf.org>; Mon, 22 Mar 2010 14:13:18 -0500 (CDT)
Received: from USNAVSXCHMBSC1.ndc.alcatel-lucent.com ([135.3.39.144]) by USNAVSXCHHUB01.ndc.alcatel-lucent.com ([135.3.39.110]) with mapi; Mon, 22 Mar 2010 14:13:17 -0500
From: "Hu, Jun (Jun)" <jun.hu@alcatel-lucent.com>
To: "ipsec@ietf.org" <ipsec@ietf.org>
Date: Mon, 22 Mar 2010 14:13:23 -0500
Thread-Topic: criteria for failure detection
Thread-Index: AcrJ8746oNuWfmIdRTyRvwnbz+cLuw==
Message-ID: <098C866D3766674B95CCF197E1C2489B0B82631361@USNAVSXCHMBSC1.ndc.alcatel-lucent.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
acceptlanguage: en-US
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.57 on 135.245.2.33
Subject: [IPsec] criteria for failure detection
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: Mon, 22 Mar 2010 19:13:13 -0000
Hi, First of all, I am not sure if this fit into existing "supported scenarios" criteria or it is a new one, the failure detection time is cirtical to some services runs over ipsec tunnel, such services like VoIP can only tolerate sub-second(or 1~2 seconds max) of transport failure, otherwise the call will be dropped. However , it seems to me that the current proposed solutions all depends on reception of "INVALID_SPI" from failed node AFTER reboot which usually take much longer time than 1~2 seconds. This will result to the interuption of those services. Of course, a good HA implementation may solve this issue, however a fast failure detection mechanism can also help the host to switch to a backup tunnel(or other route) asap before the service got interrupted. --------------- Hu Jun
- [IPsec] criteria for failure detection Hu, Jun (Jun)
- Re: [IPsec] criteria for failure detection Yoav Nir