Re: [pcp] FW: New Version Notification for draft-vinapamula-flow-ha-01.txt

[<[e-mail]>]

Hi all,

I do agree with Tiru that an option would be more appropriate than associating a meaning with a reserved bit. 

For example: when used with PREFER_FAILURE, a client can be aware if its request has been honored by the server. This can be used for example to trigger counter measures by the PCP client such duplicating entries when several servers are available, shorten the lifetime for this mapping, etc. 

Cheers,
Med

>-----Message d'origine-----
>De : pcp [mailto:[e-mail]] De la part de Tirumaleswar Reddy
>(tireddy)
>Envoyé : vendredi 8 août 2014 10:22
>À : Suresh Kumar Vinapamula Venkata
>Cc : [e-mail]
>Objet : Re: [pcp] FW: New Version Notification for draft-vinapamula-flow-
>ha-01.txt
>
>Hi Suresh,
>
>Comments:
>
>[1] What is the reason for updating the reserved field in the PCP Common
>Request Packet Format ?
>A new PCP option can also be defined to signal if it's a critical flow or
>not.
>
>[1b] It may help the client to know if the flow is check pointed or not,
>this way the client can make a decision to prioritize the flows accordingly
>when multiple interfaces with associated PCP servers are involved.
>
>[1c] Success or fail response ((e.g. Quota exceeded) from PCP server can
>also help the client to remove check pointing for some of the existing
>flows so as to check point new flows.
>
>[2] This document describes a mechanism for a host to signal various
>   network functions' High Availability (HA) module to checkpoint
>   interested connections through PCP.
>
>Comment> The above line is not clear.
>
>[3]   Internet service continuity is critical in service provider
>        environment.  To achieve this, most service providers have active-
>        backup systems.
>
>Comment> Enterprise networks also typically deploy Active-Standby.
>
>[4] For service continuity of those connections on backup
>   when active fail, that corresponding state had to be checkpointed on
>   the backup.
>
>Nit> Replace "fail" with "fails"
>
>[5]   Typically, this is addressed by identifying long lived connections
>        and checkpointing state of only those connections that lived long
>         enough, to the backup for service continuity.
>
>Comment> You may want to add that identification is also done by DPI, which
>fails with encrypted traffic.
>
>[6]   2.  A connection may not be long lived but critical like shorter
>       phone conversations.
>
>Comment> Replace "phone conversation" with "VOIP conversation"
>
>[7]     3.  Similarly not every long lived connection need to be critical,
>       say a free-service connection of a hosted service need not be
>       checkpointed while a paid-service connection has to be
>       checkpointed.
>
>Comment> Why would the application client differentiate and not signal that
>it's a critical flow in both the cases. Are you envisioning that the
>application client software makes this decision internally or it involves
>human intervention from some UI to signal to the network that it's a
>critical flow.
>
>[8] How would this work when PCP authentication is used ?
>(I mean will authentication related info be also check pointed or client
>will have to authenticate afresh when backup becomes active and other
>related issues.)
>
>[9]   1.  Disruption in a phone connection is not desired.  Application
>       that is initiating a phone connection MUST mark connection HA bit
>       in the header, while initiating a PCP request for checkpointing.
>
>Comment> Are you referring to VoIP signaling connection ?
>
>[10]   2.  Similarly disruption in media streaming is not desired.  A user
>       hosting a media service, MUST mark HA bit in the header while
>       initiating a mapping request, and MAY mark connection associated
>       with that mapping, depending on whether the connection is from a
>       paid subscriber or from a free subscriber through a PEER request.
>       So checkpointing mapping doesn't result in auto checkpointing of
>       connections, as it gives flexibility to the end user to pick
>       specific connections only to checkpoint.
>
>Comment> I am not sure why this distinction is required b/w free and paid
>VoIP calls, free call could also be an emergency call or high-priority
>call.
>
>6.   In conjunction with NAT, other network functions that MAY maintain
>   state for each conneciton such as Stateful Firewall, IPSec, Load
>   balancing etc..., MAY register to PCP server, and MAY be triggered
>   for checkpointing respective state of that connection.
>
>Comment1> Are there stateless firewalls ?
>Comment 2> I did not understand this draft usage with load balancers and
>IPSec.
>
>Cheers,
>-Tiru
>
>
>>
>> On 6/13/14 4:19 PM, "Suresh Kumar Vinapamula Venkata"
>> <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>
>> >Hi
>> >
>> >This new version of draft address review comments received on the
>> >previous version. Kindly review.
>> >Sorry for the delay.
>> >
>> >Thanks
>> >Suresh
>> >
>> >On 6/13/14 4:14 PM, "[e-mail]"
>> ><[e-mail]>
>> >wrote:
>> >
>> >>
>> >>A new version of I-D, draft-vinapamula-flow-ha-01.txt has been
>> >>successfully submitted by Suresh Vinapamula and posted to the IETF
>> >>repository.
>> >>
>> >>Name:		draft-vinapamula-flow-ha
>> >>Revision:	01
>> >>Title:		Flow high availability through PCP
>> >>Document date:	2014-06-13
>> >>Group:		Individual Submission
>> >>Pages:		6
>> >>URL:
>> >>http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-vinapamula-flow-ha-01.txt
>> >>Status:
>> >>https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-vinapamula-flow-ha/
>> >>Htmlized:       http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-vinapamula-flow-ha-01
>> >>Diff:
>> >>http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-vinapamula-flow-ha-01
>> >>
>> >>Abstract:
>> >>   This document describes a mechanism for a host to signal various
>> >>   network functions' High Availability (HA) module to checkpoint
>> >>   interested connections through PCP.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of
>> >>submission until the htmlized version and diff are available at
>> >>tools.ietf.org.
>> >>
>> >>The IETF Secretariat
>> >>
>> >
>> >_______________________________________________
>> >pcp mailing list
>> >[e-mail]
>> >https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pcp
>
>_______________________________________________
>pcp mailing list
>[e-mail]
>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pcp