IETF Logo Mail Archive

quick failover in SCTP

Yoshifumi Nishida <nishida@sfc.wide.ad.jp> Tue, 17 August 2010 10:15 UTC

Return-Path: <yoshifumi.nishida@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 EF5BD3A687E for <tsvwg@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 17 Aug 2010 03:15:47 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -101.341
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.341 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.635, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
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 SIaB3ce0RIld for <tsvwg@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 17 Aug 2010 03:15:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ww0-f44.google.com (mail-ww0-f44.google.com [74.125.82.44]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CFAC63A6803 for <tsvwg@ietf.org>; Tue, 17 Aug 2010 03:15:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by wwi17 with SMTP id 17so721213wwi.13 for <tsvwg@ietf.org>; Tue, 17 Aug 2010 03:16:21 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:sender:received:date :x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=aBCCNfvHyg2pRPyLEP4JQLhp84vgoJv9kxD3bzFtRyE=; b=lEn5/+MFDY0g9WfSSvUXFqV0GYJIz466KWcG5HGfSK976YK3L6zPgn2qW90gtv7ArN IXHoceFiMZN7uAMoiuphNc2hVcJSXJ7/7bqhSxqPv3XPoFY6nOi5FCmFaTeE1uH8BbsK kjYNu4UBg2txEYo9A6gGu2eLsJRvOL4kzwHG0=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:sender:date:x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject :from:to:cc:content-type; b=KCW/o1SzqbNwSMvyK/kJc92svX1RuIyAa6hmaCYYovjMVzsPFIWG1nSXTXmXgR6/mF Z7GcA7dgY/j5Mu6fRppqet2zHffWMVZUMTb3+4keHMsd+P657d6YhSgX6YdBsYjDJpxy MhcQ9UxoryqweX5XS6JetCQSuQKvz/8qwWt+A=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.216.165.77 with SMTP id d55mr5575875wel.23.1282040181823; Tue, 17 Aug 2010 03:16:21 -0700 (PDT)
Sender: yoshifumi.nishida@gmail.com
Received: by 10.216.47.6 with HTTP; Tue, 17 Aug 2010 03:16:21 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Tue, 17 Aug 2010 03:16:21 -0700
X-Google-Sender-Auth: 8rsdll_srB6JSoVWq_Ky-pb-tY0
Message-ID: <AANLkTi=07JfcQOKhfLouaU8N6=r57Koh9fKw+j3=O56R@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: quick failover in SCTP
From: Yoshifumi Nishida <nishida@sfc.wide.ad.jp>
To: tsvwg@ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0016e659fd14a019e2048e023d89"
Cc: Preethi Natarajan <prenatar@cisco.com>
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: Tue, 17 Aug 2010 10:15:48 -0000

Hi folks,
This is a follow-up from the Maastricht meeting.
Preethi and I are proposing quick failover algorithm in SCTP and gave a
presentation about this one.

In my feeling, the community seems to be positive in enhancing the SCTP
standard to some extent to address this issue.
Also, in my understanding, Michael and Randy suggested that minor updates in
the current spec can have the similar effects as the PF approach can do.
So,  we're going to start with investigating the alternatives for PF
approach and would like to know about the detail of the suggestion.
If Michael and Randy could give us some info about this, we would be
grateful very much.
Also, if someone who has comments or feedbacks for this, please let us know.

Thank you so much.
--
Yoshifumi Nishida
nishida@sfc.wide.ad.jp

v2.39.1 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status