Re: Query regarding number of paths for Multi-homing scenario
Michael Tuexen <Michael.Tuexen@lurchi.franken.de> Thu, 05 August 2010 13:13 UTC
Return-Path: <Michael.Tuexen@lurchi.franken.de>
X-Original-To: tsvwg@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: tsvwg@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C94C63A6B18 for <tsvwg@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 5 Aug 2010 06:13:58 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599]
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 OqPHgGqmJg35 for <tsvwg@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 5 Aug 2010 06:13:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-n.franken.de (drew.ipv6.franken.de [IPv6:2001:638:a02:a001:20e:cff:fe4a:feaa]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 617083A6B1A for <tsvwg@ietf.org>; Thu, 5 Aug 2010 06:13:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.1.195] (p5481DF04.dip.t-dialin.net [84.129.223.4]) (Authenticated sender: micmac) by mail-n.franken.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id BFF9E1C0C0BCE; Thu, 5 Aug 2010 15:14:25 +0200 (CEST)
Subject: Re: Query regarding number of paths for Multi-homing scenario
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1081)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"
From: Michael Tuexen <Michael.Tuexen@lurchi.franken.de>
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTim-gsC4_24TVpXqMcOAJh1EWjnjxv-wVPBskokr@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 05 Aug 2010 15:14:25 +0200
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <BE1531AC-61E3-4964-875B-60BF78D367DE@lurchi.franken.de>
References: <AANLkTimrr79sYJFno-sAamDw80XyU5iB6LPNL-Se-zmv@mail.gmail.com> <412D5B60-2D1A-4453-9523-F403591F3804@lurchi.franken.de> <AANLkTim-gsC4_24TVpXqMcOAJh1EWjnjxv-wVPBskokr@mail.gmail.com>
To: Padmalochan Moharana <padman.m@gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1081)
Cc: tsvwg <tsvwg@ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: tsvwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Transport Area Working Group <tsvwg.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tsvwg>, <mailto:tsvwg-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/tsvwg>
List-Post: <mailto:tsvwg@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:tsvwg-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tsvwg>, <mailto:tsvwg-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 05 Aug 2010 13:13:58 -0000
On Aug 5, 2010, at 2:43 PM, Padmalochan Moharana wrote: > Hi Michael, > > Thanks for the quick answer. I have one more doubt. > > In below scenario, suppose the network cable connected to NIC having > primary IP 192.168.1.2 is unplugged. Should endpoint B send data to > endpoint A using secondary IP i.e. 192.168.1.3? This is implementation dependent. You can not rely on it. Most likely your setup is not substantially better than a single homed one. Also having multiple IP addresses from the same subnet on one or more interface of a host results in platform specific behaviour on the IP layer. Best regards Michael > > Br, > Padmalochan > > On Thu, Aug 5, 2010 at 5:59 PM, Michael Tuexen > <Michael.Tuexen@lurchi.franken.de> wrote: >> On Aug 5, 2010, at 2:15 PM, Padmalochan Moharana wrote: >> >>> Hi All, >>> >>> I have some doubt regarding the number path use by an sctp association >>> during multi-homing scenario. >>> >>> Suppose end point “A” is single homed (having IP 192.168.1.1) and >>> endpoint “B” is multi-home (having IP 192.168.1.2 and 192.168.1.3). As >>> per definition of path in the rfc-4960 (section 1.3.) >>> >>> Path: The route taken by the SCTP packets sent by one SCTP endpoint to >>> a specific destination transport address of its peer SCTP endpoint. >>> Sending to different destination transport addresses does not >>> necessarily guarantee getting separate paths. >>> >>> As for endpoint “A” two destination address is available then two path >>> is available to send packets to endpoint B from A. >>> >>> As for endpoint “B” only one address is available then only one path >>> is available to send data to endpoint A. >>> >>> Again as per the section >>> 6.4.1. Failover from an Inactive Destination Address >>> >>> When retransmitting data that timed out, if the endpoint is >>> multi-homed, it should consider each source-destination address pair >>> in its retransmission selection policy. When retransmitting timed-out >>> data, the endpoint should attempt to pick the most divergent source- >>> destination pair from the original source-destination pair to which >>> the packet was transmitted. >>> >>> >>> My doubts: >>> 1- How many paths are available for endpoint B to reach endpoint A? >> There is only one destination address available for endpoint B. >>> 2- Should endpoint B send HEARTBEAT to endpoint A from 192.168.1.3 >>> (secondary IP of B) in regular interval to test the reachablity of A >>> using that IP? >> HEARTBEATs are used to monitor idle destination addresses. So endpoint B >> supervises only the one IP address of endpoint A. >>> 3- Can endpoint B send DATA to A (192.168.1.1) from IP 192.168.1.3 >>> (secondary IP of B)? >> Sure. Endpoint A will accept all SCTP packets, no matter if they come >> from 192.168.1.2 or 192.168.1.3. However, the ports must be OK and the >> v-tag must be OK. >>> 4- Should endpoint A discard the DATA that received from >>> 192.168.1.3(secondary IP of B)? >> No. >> >> Best regards >> Michael >>> >>> Regards, >>> Padmalochan >>> >> >> >
- Query regarding number of paths for Multi-homing … Padmalochan Moharana
- Re: Query regarding number of paths for Multi-hom… Michael Tuexen
- Re: Query regarding number of paths for Multi-hom… Padmalochan Moharana
- Re: Query regarding number of paths for Multi-hom… Michael Tuexen