Re: Query regarding number of paths for Multi-homing scenario

Padmalochan Moharana <padman.m@gmail.com> Thu, 05 August 2010 12:42 UTC

Return-Path: <padman.m@gmail.com>
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 A3CFD3A6A7B for <tsvwg@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 5 Aug 2010 05:42:59 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.399
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.399 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.200, 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 L+SxZM1I7vuQ for <tsvwg@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 5 Aug 2010 05:42:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-iw0-f172.google.com (mail-iw0-f172.google.com [209.85.214.172]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 85BF63A697B for <tsvwg@ietf.org>; Thu, 5 Aug 2010 05:42:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by iwn36 with SMTP id 36so169806iwn.31 for <tsvwg@ietf.org>; Thu, 05 Aug 2010 05:43:28 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:received:in-reply-to :references:date:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=DT4exRadM9+ntx0t+L3gAibdd1YqK99NLY8RBQOwk8M=; b=ARjglBE96S9aonT8wIGiYDOOS39nBT6sqKwiKpyBbehKARsfAR3AQIfHdHieeafNGI g+ZPyHfadKHi3s00aFfu/zDvxRVidGzDMx4YHlnQThZ0BikzAAVmxhgfUVAIlVpNVIFK Ti7QWS2MFz4+IADAP3e0WUvjSGURFEHzqfBvE=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=ia8dKMbtqu1ydlDiJ3v8GwDDojgO3vFgA/Ux+2v4ZLsm/in+4ju55mnawsvt6ogWvG 76gIPEOCy+WU6oqk50Jx/GysuRKL7A4hmlWKbPRjTmAYl8Lj/a0+Fb+anxYtQaaK+9nS zn2iKdEivwjqa+nijHS3oe3Onp0SBXTbiUMgg=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.231.144.15 with SMTP id x15mr12288449ibu.73.1281012208691; Thu, 05 Aug 2010 05:43:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.231.160.82 with HTTP; Thu, 5 Aug 2010 05:43:28 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <412D5B60-2D1A-4453-9523-F403591F3804@lurchi.franken.de>
References: <AANLkTimrr79sYJFno-sAamDw80XyU5iB6LPNL-Se-zmv@mail.gmail.com> <412D5B60-2D1A-4453-9523-F403591F3804@lurchi.franken.de>
Date: Thu, 05 Aug 2010 18:13:28 +0530
Message-ID: <AANLkTim-gsC4_24TVpXqMcOAJh1EWjnjxv-wVPBskokr@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Query regarding number of paths for Multi-homing scenario
From: Padmalochan Moharana <padman.m@gmail.com>
To: Michael Tuexen <Michael.Tuexen@lurchi.franken.de>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
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 12:42:59 -0000

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?

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
>>
>
>