IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Yoav Nir <ynir@checkpoint.com> Tue, 23 March 2010 21:43 UTC

Return-Path: <ynir@checkpoint.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 828873A68EA for <ipsec@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 23 Mar 2010 14:43:01 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.102
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.102 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.233, BAYES_50=0.001, DNS_FROM_OPENWHOIS=1.13, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
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 GO3S73nrohc7 for <ipsec@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 23 Mar 2010 14:43:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from michael.checkpoint.com (michael.checkpoint.com [194.29.32.68]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 545D13A68BB for <ipsec@ietf.org>; Tue, 23 Mar 2010 14:43:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from il-ex01.ad.checkpoint.com (il-ex01.checkpoint.com [194.29.34.26]) by michael.checkpoint.com (8.12.10+Sun/8.12.10) with ESMTP id o2NLh3sd006976; Tue, 23 Mar 2010 23:43:03 +0200 (IST)
X-CheckPoint: {4BA93530-0-1211DC2-2FFFF}
Received: from il-ex01.ad.checkpoint.com ([126.0.0.2]) by il-ex01.ad.checkpoint.com ([126.0.0.2]) with mapi; Tue, 23 Mar 2010 23:43:24 +0200
From: Yoav Nir <ynir@checkpoint.com>
To: Melinda Shore <shore@arsc.edu>
Date: Tue, 23 Mar 2010 23:43:01 +0200
Thread-Topic: Issue #177. (was: HA/LS terminology)
Thread-Index: AcrK0dzQWQzKTBwXTGikqOJAicUSHQ==
Message-ID: <3B0BF1DE-83E0-413E-A09E-146F8B2C7C9B@checkpoint.com>
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>
In-Reply-To: <1eac10bbf0fee9817dbc4c681868daa2.squirrel@webmail.arsc.edu>
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
Cc: Rodney Van Meter <rdv@sfc.wide.ad.jp>, "ipsec@ietf.org" <ipsec@ietf.org>
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 21:43:01 -0000

On Mar 23, 2010, at 2:31 PM, 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.
> 
> Melinda
> 
I did not want to use "fault tolerant" because some would take that term is broad and sometimes taken to mean things I would not like to specify, like RAID arrays, and dual power supplies.  I don't think we should use this item to mandate that the two cluster members should not be connected to the same power strip.

Anyway, "failover cluster" is OK, except that we've already used "failover" to describe an event that happens to both types of clusters.  So I think we can stay with "hot standby" and "load sharing"

Yoav

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email