[V3] LB / Failure Detection

"Asveren, Tolga" <tasveren@rbbn.com> Mon, 30 March 2020 23:20 UTC

Return-Path: <tasveren@rbbn.com>
X-Original-To: v3@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: v3@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 394EB3A1570 for <v3@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 30 Mar 2020 16:20:03 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.198
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.198 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=rbbn.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 856YKN3Ed8d4 for <v3@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 30 Mar 2020 16:20:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from us-smtp-delivery-181.mimecast.com (us-smtp-delivery-181.mimecast.com [216.205.24.181]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EADD13A156F for <v3@ietf.org>; Mon, 30 Mar 2020 16:20:01 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=rbbn.com; s=mimecast20180816; t=1585610400; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type; bh=VoklanE5GprvNdfJ04cM2FQryDuLTZWRw0tWQy4vOX8=; b=qgfYLJu3XCq9J6172OWCRf1lP1IO6nHH3d5BGRA9TLIcptN9h0oONBmX1E4U1D2PK30FdO 4ATW0dWMYB3puCCWOQxcesLb3uq7mZ4tNX6ciNhy2rtPduOPnzMlKUOcOylAiR7MDAJ+9x vNwLR4qUq3jKhcYVCZ6uJLSoaYjUmY4=
Received: from NAM11-CO1-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (mail-co1nam11lp2174.outbound.protection.outlook.com [104.47.56.174]) (Using TLS) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP id us-mta-181-GARKHmsOOnOLc-7Y8CzXLg-1; Mon, 30 Mar 2020 19:19:57 -0400
Received: from BN7PR03MB3827.namprd03.prod.outlook.com (2603:10b6:408:23::13) by BN7PR03MB4563.namprd03.prod.outlook.com (2603:10b6:408:36::11) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.20.2856.20; Mon, 30 Mar 2020 23:19:55 +0000
Received: from BN7PR03MB3827.namprd03.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::1513:1e58:3df9:e82a]) by BN7PR03MB3827.namprd03.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::1513:1e58:3df9:e82a%7]) with mapi id 15.20.2856.019; Mon, 30 Mar 2020 23:19:55 +0000
From: "Asveren, Tolga" <tasveren@rbbn.com>
To: "v3@ietf.org" <v3@ietf.org>
Date: Mon, 30 Mar 2020 19:19:55 -0400
Thread-Topic: LB / Failure Detection
Thread-Index: AdYG6btUA0vrNC4WR7ioGZcCpQmceA==
Message-ID: <BN7PR03MB3827DB56F2D404541FF8A6C0A5CB0@BN7PR03MB3827.namprd03.prod.outlook.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
acceptlanguage: en-US
x-originating-ip: [73.80.74.66]
x-ms-publictraffictype: Email
x-ms-office365-filtering-correlation-id: 7602a86c-7638-4d9c-a9c1-08d7d500dbaa
x-ms-traffictypediagnostic: BN7PR03MB4563:
x-microsoft-antispam-prvs: <BN7PR03MB4563CD8F64050AB7E0492831A5CB0@BN7PR03MB4563.namprd03.prod.outlook.com>
x-ms-oob-tlc-oobclassifiers: OLM:3826;
x-forefront-prvs: 0358535363
x-forefront-antispam-report: CIP:255.255.255.255; CTRY:; LANG:en; SCL:1; SRV:; IPV:NLI; SFV:NSPM; H:BN7PR03MB3827.namprd03.prod.outlook.com; PTR:; CAT:NONE; SFTY:; SFS:(10009020)(4636009)(136003)(396003)(39860400002)(346002)(376002)(366004)(316002)(6916009)(478600001)(66946007)(33656002)(4744005)(71200400001)(76116006)(81156014)(7696005)(186003)(26005)(9686003)(55016002)(86362001)(66476007)(2906002)(66556008)(52536014)(5660300002)(64756008)(81166006)(8676002)(6506007)(66446008)(8936002); DIR:OUT; SFP:1101;
x-ms-exchange-senderadcheck: 1
x-microsoft-antispam: BCL:0;
x-microsoft-antispam-message-info: gdMayLBarSmE7rBEyxm5y1+RTQlAa8Sr9x42N/uPEXasZ46bF58rZB/ZvIvtV9W48V3a/dIewrK/nibQF1IjJ6ArLcHbfHQZRgbNRjR8tABeMjZbpGEpiDXM1w0HpknfHP9warwrlj7735JsT4qj58lKVMwRm7T8v7VXWysUJcb7Q/h50FTYP48glQmz49LXWAcBTKmfEpQBXYa/dAV9E9dpX8c9QQftViXsQqxFiWrCet7RPhnQjn+D0GCvaWpXcrT7xQdrFyuJ1/D1YBsw6vlwXlsnr1vcN5/q9wM3NSDsyWWt7eCKsCrrlAWzfavtGkQjGRps+kkAttL+lDYBs8a1bCFava31EAZ0TL8fTwWC/GVh5DKdW9A7mOUN5h6819sYRPN8DcTk1166b1YXe2/hD3cXq3KanVkTw8MWi99yYSkkcU+MzZ/0L4LoGffE
x-ms-exchange-antispam-messagedata: VKjMTinL1y9370deCF/kOvtBqpOjlcIxuOcxkuobF6ib2D6jMuCjBLnWtMTtB8/E+JneSrv10lAXajbrlmjTIyMIwcHQwhQEH4i/8zOYy3fEPmtPZGUZBLqDtS2OZ5EsQTnDTkldVXlvP9jultKkwQ==
x-ms-exchange-transport-forked: True
x-mc-unique: GARKHmsOOnOLc-7Y8CzXLg-1
x-originatororg: rbbn.com
x-ms-exchange-crosstenant-network-message-id: 7602a86c-7638-4d9c-a9c1-08d7d500dbaa
x-ms-exchange-crosstenant-originalarrivaltime: 30 Mar 2020 23:19:55.7186 (UTC)
x-ms-exchange-crosstenant-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-ms-exchange-crosstenant-id: 29a671dc-ed7e-4a54-b1e5-8da1eb495dc3
x-ms-exchange-crosstenant-mailboxtype: HOSTED
x-ms-exchange-crosstenant-userprincipalname: ZlIbNuJ05qR0QUfS9UpypsmOZmt5+WK2X/rbhmM4yTZ/01nQetQBpQS4dfO8mtEmYnvBLMyAEMxbKm052aLzCg==
x-ms-exchange-transport-crosstenantheadersstamped: BN7PR03MB4563
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mimecast-Spam-Score: 0
X-Mimecast-Originator: rbbn.com
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_BN7PR03MB3827DB56F2D404541FF8A6C0A5CB0BN7PR03MB3827namp_"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v3/nhFxiTfDhxIdh7LG77NI-VJEPec>
Subject: [V3] LB / Failure Detection
X-BeenThere: v3@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: <v3.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/v3>, <mailto:v3-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/v3/>
List-Post: <mailto:v3@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:v3-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v3>, <mailto:v3-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 30 Mar 2020 23:20:03 -0000

A basic question about how RIPT would make things better compared to RTP in terms of making use of Public Cloud Load-balancers:

With RTP: One can use L4 LB distributing traffic to a Redundancy Group. The pain point is that LB is slow in detecting failures of Redundancy Group members.
With RIPT media: One can use HTTP LB distributing traffic a Redundancy Group. I would think failure detection characteristics will be similar to L4 LB and delayed failure detection issue would continue to be an issue.

In a nutshell, what would one gain by using a HTTP LB instead of L4 LB?

Thanks,
Tolga


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notice: This e-mail together with any attachments may contain information of Ribbon Communications Inc. that
is confidential and/or proprietary for the sole use of the intended recipient.  Any review, disclosure, reliance or
distribution by others or forwarding without express permission is strictly prohibited.  If you are not the intended
recipient, please notify the sender immediately and then delete all copies, including any attachments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------