Re: [Rserpool] ENRP Name Server Takeover Problem

[Qiaobing Xie <[e-mail]>]

Hi, Michael,

Michael Tuexen wrote:

> Qiaobing,
> 
> I discussed this with Thomas yesterday on the phone and we came to
> the same conclusion. Since this ASAP Transport Param is not required
> for registration it should be an optional parameter, I think.
> 
> So I'm suggesting to modify the PE parameter to
> 
>      0                   1                   2                   3
>      0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
>     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
>     |         Type = 0x8            |       Length=variable         |
>     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
>     |                         PE Identifier                         |
>     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
>     |                  Home ENRP Server Identifier                  |
>     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
>     |                      Registration Life                        |
>     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
>     :                      User Transport param                     :
>     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
>     :                 Member Selection Policy param                 :
>     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
>     :                       ASAP Transport param                    :
>     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
> 
> and the ASAP transport parameter
> - MUST be an SCTP transport parameter
> - is optional.
> 
> Do you agree on that? If yes, I can update the common parameter doc.

Yes, I agree. But the ASAP Trans Param probably need to have its own type/length with its 
data an SCTP trans param. Otherwise you won't be able to receive it if the order is allowed 
to be flexible (as you suggest below).

> 
> Another point came up on the discussion with Thomas. It is regarding
> the sequence of TLV fields in parameters/messages. Is the sequence
> required to be the one shown in the documents or are other
> sequences also acceptable?
> I would argue that they should be sent like they are shown, but the
> receiver should accepts them also in other orderings. But we have
> to state that somewhere ... after agreeing on a way to handle that.

This makes sense to me.

regards,
-Qiaobing

> 
> Best regards
> Michael
> 
> 
> On Aug 26, 2004, at 8:09 AM, Qiaobing Xie wrote:
> 
>> Thomas,
>>
>> This makes a lot of sense to me. My recommendation is to add a "ASAP  
>> Transport Param" field to the PE parameter that is a full SCTP  
>> transport TLV. Simply adding a SCTP port number field may be too  
>> restrictive since some PEs may want to use a separate NIC for its 
>> ASAP  communications.
>>
>> regards,
>> -Qiaobing
>>
>> Thomas Dreibholz wrote:
>>
>>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>>> Hash: SHA1
>>> Dear all,
>>> when a NS takes over the ownership of PEs owned by a failed NS, it  
>>> sends an ENDPOINT_KEEP_ALIVE message to each of the PEs which change  
>>> their ownership. As defined in KA2.4 of section 3.4 of the ASAP  
>>> draft, the PE should adapt the sender of an ENDPOINT_KEEP_ALIVE  
>>> message as its new NS.
>>> But, how does the new NS know the PEs' ASAP endpoint, that is  
>>> especially the SCTP port number the PE is listening on for ASAP  
>>> ENDPOINT_KEEP_ALIVES? The old (failed) NS has this information,  
>>> because the PE established an association to it. But the new NS does  
>>> not know. Therefore, a specification of the PE's ASAP endpoint must  
>>> be added to the Pool Element Parameter. Simply adding a field for 
>>> the  SCTP port number should already be sufficient. The addresses to 
>>> be  used can be assumed to be the same as specified in the User 
>>> Transport  parameter.
>>> Best regards
>>> - --  
>>> ====================================================================== =
>>>  Dipl.-Inform. Thomas Dreibholz
>>>  University of Essen,                            Room ES210
>>>  Inst. for Experimental Mathematics              Ellernstraße 29
>>>  Computer Networking Technology Group            D-45326 Essen/Germany
>>> -  
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- -
>>>  E-Mail:     [e-mail]
>>>  Homepage:   http://www.exp-math.uni-essen.de/~dreibh
>>> ====================================================================== =
>>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
>>> Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux)
>>> iD8DBQFBKd7Z32BbsHYPLWURAtToAKCrnGWS5cBOmqv/PNXPvkxKxVhWEACeNaM2
>>> rLi5vLWX8fIYJ9py+2iO1MA=
>>> =T53y
>>> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> rserpool mailing list
>>> [e-mail]
>>> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rserpool
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> rserpool mailing list
>> [e-mail]
>> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rserpool
>>
> 
> 


_______________________________________________
rserpool mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rserpool