[Docs] [txt|pdf] [Tracker] [WG] [Email] [Diff1] [Diff2] [Nits]

Versions: (draft-xie-rserpool-asap) 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 RFC 5352

Network Working Group                                         R. Stewart
Internet-Draft                                                    Q. Xie
Intended status: Experimental
Expires: January 12, 2009                                    M. Stillman
                                                                   Nokia
                                                               M. Tuexen
                                      Muenster Univ. of Applied Sciences
                                                           July 11, 2008


                Aggregate Server Access Protocol (ASAP)
                    draft-ietf-rserpool-asap-21.txt

Status of this Memo

   By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any
   applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware
   have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes
   aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79.

   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
   Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups.  Note that
   other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-
   Drafts.

   Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
   and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
   time.  It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
   material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."

   The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
   http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt.

   The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
   http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.

   This Internet-Draft will expire on January 12, 2009.














Stewart, et al.         Expires January 12, 2009                [Page 1]

Internet-Draft      Aggregate Server Access Protocol           July 2008


Abstract

   Aggregate Server Access Protocol (ASAP) in conjunction with the
   Endpoint Handlespace Redundancy Protocol (ENRP)
   [I-D.ietf-rserpool-enrp] provides a high availability data transfer
   mechanism over IP networks.  ASAP uses a handle-based addressing
   model which isolates a logical communication endpoint from its IP
   address(es), thus effectively eliminating the binding between the
   communication endpoint and its physical IP address(es) which normally
   constitutes a single point of failure.

   In addition, ASAP defines each logical communication destination as a
   pool, providing full transparent support for server-pooling and load
   sharing.  It also allows dynamic system scalability - members of a
   server pool can be added or removed at any time without interrupting
   the service.

   ASAP is designed to take full advantage of the network level
   redundancy provided by the Stream Transmission Control Protocol
   (SCTP) [RFC4960].  Each transport protocol, other than SCTP, MUST
   have an accompanying transport mapping document.  It should be noted
   that ASAP messages passed between PE's and ENRP servers MUST use the
   SCTP transport protocol.

   The high availability server pooling is gained by combining two
   protocols, namely ASAP and ENRP, in which ASAP provides the user
   interface for pool handle to address translation, load sharing
   management, and fault management while ENRP defines the high
   availability pool handle translation service.






















Stewart, et al.         Expires January 12, 2009                [Page 2]

Internet-Draft      Aggregate Server Access Protocol           July 2008


Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
     1.1.  Definitions  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
     1.2.  Organization of this document  . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6
     1.3.  Scope of ASAP  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
       1.3.1.  Extent of the Handlespace  . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
     1.4.  Conventions  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
   2.  Message Definitions  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8
     2.1.  ASAP Parameter Formats . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8
     2.2.  ASAP Messages  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8
       2.2.1.  ASAP_REGISTRATION message  . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
       2.2.2.  ASAP_DEREGISTRATION message  . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
       2.2.3.  ASAP_REGISTRATION_RESPONSE message . . . . . . . . . . 10
       2.2.4.  ASAP_DEREGISTRATION_RESPONSE message . . . . . . . . . 11
       2.2.5.  ASAP_HANDLE_RESOLUTION message . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
       2.2.6.  ASAP_HANDLE_RESOLUTION_RESPONSE message  . . . . . . . 12
       2.2.7.  ASAP_ENDPOINT_KEEP_ALIVE message . . . . . . . . . . . 14
       2.2.8.  ASAP_ENDPOINT_KEEP_ALIVE_ACK message . . . . . . . . . 15
       2.2.9.  ASAP_ENDPOINT_UNREACHABLE message  . . . . . . . . . . 15
       2.2.10. ASAP_SERVER_ANNOUNCE message . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
       2.2.11. ASAP_COOKIE message  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
       2.2.12. ASAP_COOKIE_ECHO message . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
       2.2.13. ASAP_BUSINESS_CARD message . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
       2.2.14. ASAP_ERROR message . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
   3.  Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
     3.1.  Registration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
     3.2.  Deregistration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
     3.3.  Handle resolution  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
     3.4.  Endpoint keep alive  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
     3.5.  Unreachable endpoints  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
     3.6.  ENRP server hunt procedures  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
     3.7.  Handling ASAP Endpoint to ENRP Server Communication
           Failures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
       3.7.1.  SCTP Send Failure  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
       3.7.2.  T1-ENRPrequest Timer Expiration  . . . . . . . . . . . 29
       3.7.3.  Registration Failure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
     3.8.  Cookie handling procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
     3.9.  Business Card handling procedures  . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
   4.  Roles of Endpoints . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
   5.  SCTP Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
   6.  The ASAP Interfaces  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
     6.1.  Registration.Request Primitive . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
     6.2.  Deregistration.Request Primitive . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
     6.3.  CachePopulateRequest Primitive . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
     6.4.  CachePurgeRequest Primitive  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
     6.5.  DataSendRequest Primitive  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
       6.5.1.  Sending to a Pool Handle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36



Stewart, et al.         Expires January 12, 2009                [Page 3]

Internet-Draft      Aggregate Server Access Protocol           July 2008


       6.5.2.  Pool Element Selection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
       6.5.3.  Sending to a Pool Element Handle . . . . . . . . . . . 38
       6.5.4.  Send by Transport Address  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
       6.5.5.  Message Delivery Options . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
     6.6.  Data.Received Notification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
     6.7.  Error.Report Notification  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
     6.8.  Examples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
       6.8.1.  Send to a New Pool . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
       6.8.2.  Send to a Cached Pool Handle . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
     6.9.  PE send failure  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
       6.9.1.  Translation.Request Primitive  . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
       6.9.2.  Transport.Failure Primitive  . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
   7.  Timers, Variables, and Thresholds  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
     7.1.  Timers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
     7.2.  Variables  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
     7.3.  Thresholds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
   8.  IANA Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
     8.1.  A New Table for ASAP Message Types . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
     8.2.  Port numbers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
     8.3.  SCTP payload protocol identifier . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
     8.4.  Multicast addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
   9.  Security Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
     9.1.  Summary of Rserpool Security Threats . . . . . . . . . . . 49
     9.2.  Implementing Security Mechanisms . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
     9.3.  Chain of trust . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
   10. Acknowledgments  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55
   11. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
     11.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
     11.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
   Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58
   Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . . . . 59




















Stewart, et al.         Expires January 12, 2009                [Page 4]

Internet-Draft      Aggregate Server Access Protocol           July 2008


1.  Introduction

   The Aggregate Server Access Protocol (ASAP) when used in conjunction
   with Endpoint Name Resolution Protocol [I-D.ietf-rserpool-enrp]
   provides a high availability data transfer mechanism over IP
   networks.  ASAP uses a handle-based addressing model which isolates a
   logical communication endpoint from its IP address(es), thus
   effectively eliminating the binding between the communication
   endpoint and its physical IP address(es) which normally constitutes a
   single point of failure.

   When multiple receiver instances exist under the same handle (a.k.a,
   a server pool),an ASAP endpoint will select one Pool Element (PE),
   based on the current load sharing policy indicated by the server
   pool, and deliver its message to the selected PE.

   While delivering the message, ASAP can be used to monitor the
   reachability of the selected PE.  If it is found unreachable, before
   notifying the message sender (an ASAP user) of the failure, ASAP can
   automatically select another PE (if one exists) under that pool and
   attempt to deliver the message to that PE.  In other words, ASAP is
   capable of transparent fail-over amongst PE instances within a server
   pool.

   ASAP depends on ENRP which provides a high availability pool handle
   space.  ASAP is responsible for the abstraction of the underlying
   transport technologies, load distribution management, fault
   management, as well as presentation to the upper layer (aka an ASAP
   user) via a unified primitive interface.

   When SCTP [RFC4960] is used as the transport layer protocol, ASAP can
   seamlessly incorporate the link-layer redundancy provided by SCTP.

   This document defines the ASAP portion of the high availability
   server pool.

1.1.  Definitions

   This document uses the following terms:

   ASAP user:  Either a PE or PU that uses ASAP.

   Business Card:  When presented by a PU or PE it specifies the pool
      the sender belongs to and provides a list of alternate PEs in case
      of fail-overs.






Stewart, et al.         Expires January 12, 2009                [Page 5]

Internet-Draft      Aggregate Server Access Protocol           July 2008


   Operational scope:  The part of the network visible to pool users by
      a specific instance of the reliable server pooling protocols.

   Pool (or server pool):  A collection of servers providing the same
      application functionality.

   Pool handle:  A logical pointer to a pool.  Each server pool will be
      identifiable in the operational scope of the system by a unique
      pool handle.

   Pool element:  A server entity having registered to a pool.

   Pool user:  A server pool user.

   Pool element handle (or endpoint handle):  A logical pointer to a
      particular pool element in a pool, consisting of the pool handle
      and a destination transport address of the pool element.

   Handle space:  A cohesive structure of pool handles and relations
      that may be queried by an internal or external agent.

   Home ENRP server:  The ENRP server to which a PE or PU currently
      sends all namespace service requests.  A PE must only have one
      home ENRP server at any given time and both the PE and its home
      ENRP server MUST know and keep track of this relationship.  A PU
      should select one of the available ENRP servers as its Home ENRP
      server but the collective ENRP servers may change this by the
      sending or a ASAP_ENDPOINT_KEEP_ALIVE message.

   ENRP client channel:  The communication channel through which an ASAP
      User sends all namespace service requests.  The client channel is
      usually defined by the transport address of the Home ENRP server
      and a well known port number.  The channel MAY make use of
      multicast or a named list of ENRP servers.

   Network Byte Order:  Most significant byte first, a.k.a Big Endian.

   Transport address:  A Transport Address is traditionally defined by
      Network Layer address, Transport Layer protocol and Transport
      Layer port number.  In the case of SCTP running over IP, a
      transport address is defined by the combination of an IP address
      and an SCTP port number (where SCTP is the Transport protocol).

1.2.  Organization of this document

   Section 2 details the ASAP message formats.  In Section 3 we provide
   detailed ASAP procedures for the ASAP implementer.  Section 4
   summarizes which messages needs to be supported by which nodes and



Stewart, et al.         Expires January 12, 2009                [Page 6]

Internet-Draft      Aggregate Server Access Protocol           July 2008


   Section 5 describes the usage of SCTP.  In Section 6 details of the
   ASAP interface are given, focusing on the communication primitives
   between ASAP the applications above ASAP and ASAP itself, and the
   communications primitives between ASAP and SCTP (or other transport
   layers).  Also included in this discussion are relevant timers and
   configurable parameters as appropriate.  Section 7 provides threshold
   and protocol variables.

   It should be noted that variables, timers and constants are used in
   the text when necessary.  The complete list can be found in
   Section 7.

1.3.  Scope of ASAP

   The requirements for high availability and scalability do not imply
   requirements on shared state and data.  ASAP does not provide
   transaction failover.  If a host or application fails during the
   processing of a transaction, this transaction may be lost.  Some
   services MAY provide a way to handle the failure, but this is not
   guaranteed.  ASAP MAY provide hooks to assist an application in
   building a mechanism to share state but ASAP in itself does NOT share
   any state.

1.3.1.  Extent of the Handlespace

   The scope of ASAP/ENRP is NOT Internet wide.  The handlespace is
   neither hierarchical nor arbitrarily large like DNS.  A flat peer-to-
   peer model is detailed.  Pools of servers will exist in different
   administrative domains.  For example, suppose the use of ASAP and
   ENRP is wanted.  First, the PU may use DNS to contact an ENRP server.
   Suppose a PU in North America wishes to contact a server pool in
   Japan instead of North America.  The PU would use DNS to get the list
   of IP addresses of the Japanese server pool, that is, the ENRP client
   channel in Japan.  From there the PU would query the Home ENRP server
   it established and then directly contact the PE(s) of interest.

1.4.  Conventions

   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
   "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
   document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119].










Stewart, et al.         Expires January 12, 2009                [Page 7]

Internet-Draft      Aggregate Server Access Protocol           July 2008


2.  Message Definitions

   All messages as well as their fields described below shall be in
   Network Byte Order during transmission.  For fields with a length
   bigger than 4 bytes, a number in a pair of parentheses may follow the
   field name to indicate the length of the field in number of bytes.

2.1.  ASAP Parameter Formats

   The basic message format and all parameter formats can be found in
   [I-D.ietf-rserpool-common-param].  Note also that ALL ASAP messages
   exchanged between an ENRP server and a PE MUST use SCTP as transport,
   while ASAP messages exchanged between an ENRP server and a PU MUST
   use either SCTP or TCP as transport.  PE to PU data traffic MAY use
   any transport protocol specified by the PE during registration.

2.2.  ASAP Messages

   This section details the individual messages used by ASAP.  These
   messages are composed of a standard message format found in Section 4
   of [I-D.ietf-rserpool-common-param].  The parameter descriptions can
   be found in [I-D.ietf-rserpool-common-param].

   The following ASAP message types are defined in this section:


   Type       Message Name
   -----      -------------------------
   0x00       - (reserved by IETF)
   0x01       - ASAP_REGISTRATION
   0x02       - ASAP_DEREGISTRATION
   0x03       - ASAP_REGISTRATION_RESPONSE
   0x04       - ASAP_DEREGISTRATION_RESPONSE
   0x05       - ASAP_HANDLE_RESOLUTION
   0x06       - ASAP_HANDLE_RESOLUTION_RESPONSE
   0x07       - ASAP_ENDPOINT_KEEP_ALIVE
   0x08       - ASAP_ENDPOINT_KEEP_ALIVE_ACK
   0x09       - ASAP_ENDPOINT_UNREACHABLE
   0x0a       - ASAP_SERVER_ANNOUNCE
   0x0b       - ASAP_COOKIE
   0x0c       - ASAP_COOKIE_ECHO
   0x0d       - ASAP_BUSINESS_CARD
   0x0e       - ASAP_ERROR

                                 Figure 1






Stewart, et al.         Expires January 12, 2009                [Page 8]

Internet-Draft      Aggregate Server Access Protocol           July 2008


2.2.1.  ASAP_REGISTRATION message

   The REGISTRATION message is sent by a PE to its Home ENRP Server to
   either create a new pool or to add itself to an existing pool.  The
   PE sending the ASAP_REGISTRATION message MUST fill in the Pool Handle
   parameter and the Pool Element parameter.  The Pool Handle parameter
   specifies the name to be registered.  The Pool Element parameter MUST
   be filled in by the registrant as outlined in Section 3.1.  Note that
   the PE sending the registration message MUST send the message using
   an SCTP association.  Furthermore the IP address(es) of the PE that
   is registered within the Pool Element parameter MUST be a subset of
   the IP address(es) used in the SCTP association regardless of the
   registered transport protocol

    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 = 0x01 |0|0|0|0|0|0|0|0|        Message Length         |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   :                     Pool Handle Parameter                     :
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   :                     Pool Element Parameter                    :
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

   Pool Handle Parameter:

   See [I-D.ietf-rserpool-common-param]

   Pool Element Parameter:

   See [I-D.ietf-rserpool-common-param]

2.2.2.  ASAP_DEREGISTRATION message

   The ASAP_DEREGISTRATION message is sent by a PE to its Home ENRP
   Server to remove itself from a pool to which it registered.

    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 = 0x02 |0|0|0|0|0|0|0|0|        Message Length         |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   :                     Pool Handle Parameter                     :
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   :                    PE Identifier Parameter                    :
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+++

   Pool Handle Parameter:



Stewart, et al.         Expires January 12, 2009                [Page 9]

Internet-Draft      Aggregate Server Access Protocol           July 2008


   See [I-D.ietf-rserpool-common-param]

   PE Identifier Parameter:

   See [I-D.ietf-rserpool-common-param]

   The PE sending the ASAP_DEREGISTRATION MUST fill in the pool handle
   and the PE identifier parameter in order to allow the ENRP server to
   verify the identity of the endpoint.  Note that deregistration is NOT
   allowed by proxy, in other words a PE may only deregister itself.

2.2.3.  ASAP_REGISTRATION_RESPONSE message

   The ASAP_REGISTRATION_RESPONSE message is sent in response by the
   Home ENRP Server to the PE that sent a ASAP_REGISTRATION message.

    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 = 0x03 |0|0|0|0|0|0|0|R|        Message Length         |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   :                     Pool Handle Parameter                     :
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   :                    PE Identifier Parameter                    :
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   :                   Operational Error (optional)                :
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

   R (Reject) Flag:

   When set to '1', this flag indicates that the ENRP server sending
   this message has rejected the registration.  Otherwise when this flag
   is set to '0', this indicates the registration has been granted.

   Pool Handle Parameter:

   See [I-D.ietf-rserpool-common-param]

   PE Identifier Parameter:

   See [I-D.ietf-rserpool-common-param]

   Operational Error Parameter (optional):

   See [I-D.ietf-rserpool-common-param]

   This parameter is included if an error or some atypical events
   occurred during the registration process.  When the R flag is set to



Stewart, et al.         Expires January 12, 2009               [Page 10]

Internet-Draft      Aggregate Server Access Protocol           July 2008


   '1', this parameter, if present, indicates the cause of the
   rejection.  When the R flag is set to '0', this parameter, if
   present, serves as a warning to the registering PE, informing it that
   some of its registration values may have been modified by the ENRP
   server.  If the registration was successful and there is no warning,
   this parameter is not included.

2.2.4.  ASAP_DEREGISTRATION_RESPONSE message

   The ASAP_DEREGISTRATION_RESPONSE message is returned by the Home ENRP
   Server to a PE in response to a ASAP_DEREGISTRATION message or due to
   the expiration of the registration life of the PE in the pool

    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 = 0x04 |0|0|0|0|0|0|0|0|        Message Length         |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   :                     Pool Handle Parameter                     :
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   :                    PE Identifier Parameter                    :
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   :                   Operational Error (optional)                :
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

   Pool Handle Parameter:

   See [I-D.ietf-rserpool-common-param]

   PE Identifier Parameter:

   See [I-D.ietf-rserpool-common-param]

   Operational Error:

   See [I-D.ietf-rserpool-common-param]

   This parameter is included if an error or some atypical events
   occurred during the deregistration process.  If the deregistration
   was successful this parameter is not included.

2.2.5.  ASAP_HANDLE_RESOLUTION message

   The ASAP_HANDLE_RESOLUTION message is sent by either a PE or PU to
   its Home ENRP Server to resolve a pool handle into a list of pool
   elements that are members of the pool indicated by the pool handle.





Stewart, et al.         Expires January 12, 2009               [Page 11]

Internet-Draft      Aggregate Server Access Protocol           July 2008


    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 = 0x05 |0|0|0|0|0|0|0|S|        Message Length         |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   :                     Pool Handle Parameter                     :
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

   The 'S' bit:

   The 'S' bit, if set to '1', requests the Home ENRP server to send
   updates to this Pool dynamically when the Pool changes for the
   lifetime of the SCTP association.  Dynamic updates to the pool will
   consist of additional ASAP_HANDLE_RESOLUTION_RESPONSE messages,
   without the user needing to send in a ASAP_HANDLE_RESOLUTION.

   If the 'S' bit is set to '0' no dynamic updates are requested.

   Note that if a new Home ENRP server is adopted any 'dynamic update
   request' will need to be resent to the new Home ENPR server if the
   endpoint would like to continue to receive updates.  In other words,
   the ENRP servers do NOT share state regarding which of its PU's are
   requesting automatic update of state.  Thus upon change of Home ENRP
   Server the PU will need to resend a ASAP_HANDLE_RESOLUTION message
   with the 'S' bit set to 1.  Note also, that the 'S' bit will only
   cause dynamic update of a Pool when the Pool exists.  If a negative
   response is returned, no further updates to the Pool (when it is
   created) will occur.

   Pool Handle parameter:

   See [I-D.ietf-rserpool-common-param]

2.2.6.  ASAP_HANDLE_RESOLUTION_RESPONSE message

   The ASAP_HANDLE_RESOLUTION_RESPONSE message is sent in response by
   the Home ENRP server of the PU or PE that sent a
   ASAP_HANDLEE_RESOLUTION message or periodically upon Pool changes if
   the PU as requested Dynamic updates.












Stewart, et al.         Expires January 12, 2009               [Page 12]

Internet-Draft      Aggregate Server Access Protocol           July 2008


    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 = 0x06 |0|0|0|0|0|0|0|A|        Message Length         |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   :                     Pool Handle Parameter                     :
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   :             Overall PE Selection Policy (optional)            :
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   :               Pool Element Parameter 1 (optional)             :
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   :                              ...                              :
   :                                                               :
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   :               Pool Element Parameter N (optional)             :
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   :                   Operational Error (optional)                :
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

   A bit:

   This bit is set to '1' if the ENRP server accepts the request to send
   automatic updates (i.e. the S bit was set on the request).  If this
   bit is set to '0' either the ENRP server does NOT support automatic
   update, it has resource issues and cannot supply this feature or the
   user did not request it.

   Pool Handle parameter:

   See [I-D.ietf-rserpool-common-param]

   Overall PE Selection Policy (optional):

   See [I-D.ietf-rserpool-common-param]

   This parameter can be present when the response is positive.  If
   present, it indicates the overall pool member selection policy of the
   pool.  If not present, a round robin overall pool member selection
   policy is assumed.  This parameter is not present when the response
   is negative.

   Note, any load policy parameter within a Pool Element Parameter (if
   present) MUST be ignored, and MUST NOT be used to determine the
   overall pool member selection policy.

   Pool Element Parameters (optional):

   See [I-D.ietf-rserpool-common-param]



Stewart, et al.         Expires January 12, 2009               [Page 13]

Internet-Draft      Aggregate Server Access Protocol           July 2008


   When the response is positive, an array of PE parameters are
   included, indicating the current information about the PEs in the
   named pool.  At least one PE parameter MUST be present.  When the
   response is negative, no PE parameters are included.

   Operational Error (optional):

   See [I-D.ietf-rserpool-common-param]

   The presence of this parameter indicates that the response is
   negative (the handle resolution request was rejected by the ENRP
   server).  The cause code in this parameter (if present) will indicate
   the reason the handle resolution request was rejected (e.g., the
   requested pool handle was not found).  The absence of this parmaeter
   indicates that the response is positive.

2.2.7.  ASAP_ENDPOINT_KEEP_ALIVE message

   The ASAP_ENDPOINT_KEEP_ALIVE message is sent by an ENRP Server to a
   PE.  The ASAP_ENDPOINT_KEEP_ALIVE message is used to verify that the
   PE is reachable and requires the PE to adopt the sending server as
   its new Home ENRP Server if the H bit is set to 1.  Regardless of the
   setting of the H bit, an ASAP endpoint MUST respond with an
   ASAP_ENDPOINT_KEEP_ALIVE_ACK to any ASAP_ENDPOINT_KEEP_ALIVE messages
   that arrive.

    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 = 0x07 |0|0|0|0|0|0|0|H|        Message Length         |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                       Server Identifier                       |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   :                     Pool Handle Parameter                     :
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

   H (Home ENRP server) flag

   When set to '1', indicate that the ENRP server that sends this
   message want to be the home ENRP server of the receiver of this
   message.

   Server Identifier: 32 bit (unsigned integer)

   This is the ID of the ENRP server, as discussed in
   [I-D.ietf-rserpool-enrp].

   Pool Handle parameter:



Stewart, et al.         Expires January 12, 2009               [Page 14]

Internet-Draft      Aggregate Server Access Protocol           July 2008


   See [I-D.ietf-rserpool-common-param] .

2.2.8.  ASAP_ENDPOINT_KEEP_ALIVE_ACK message

   The ASAP_ENDPOINT_KEEP_ALIVE_ACK message is sent by a PE in response
   to an ASAP_ENDPOINT_KEEP_ALIVE message sent by an ENRP Server.

    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 = 0x08 |0|0|0|0|0|0|0|0|        Message Length         |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   :                     Pool Handle Parameter                     :
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   :                    PE Identifier Parameter                    :
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

   Pool Handle parameter:

   See [I-D.ietf-rserpool-common-param].

   PE Identifier parameter:

   See [I-D.ietf-rserpool-common-param].

2.2.9.  ASAP_ENDPOINT_UNREACHABLE message

   The ASAP_ENDPOINT_UNREACHABLE message is sent by either a PE or PU to
   its Home ENRP Server to report an unreachable PE.

    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 = 0x09 |0|0|0|0|0|0|0|0|        Message Length         |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   :                     Pool Handle Parameter                     :
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   :                    PE Identifier Parameter                    :
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

   Pool Handle parameter:

   See [I-D.ietf-rserpool-common-param].

   PE Identifier parameter:

   See [I-D.ietf-rserpool-common-param].




Stewart, et al.         Expires January 12, 2009               [Page 15]

Internet-Draft      Aggregate Server Access Protocol           July 2008


2.2.10.  ASAP_SERVER_ANNOUNCE message

   The ASAP_SERVER_ANNOUNCE message is sent by an ENRP Server such that
   PUs and PEs know the transport information necessary to connect to
   the ENRP server.

    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 = 0x0a |0|0|0|0|0|0|0|0|        Message Length         |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                       Server Identifier                       |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   :                       Transport param #1                      :
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   :                       Transport param #2                      :
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   :                                                               :
   :                             .....                             :
   :                                                               :
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   :                       Transport param #n                      :
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

   Server Identifier: 32 bit (unsigned integer)

   This is the ID of the ENRP server, as discussed in
   [I-D.ietf-rserpool-enrp].

   Transport parameters (optional):

   See [I-D.ietf-rserpool-common-param] for the SCTP and TCP Transport
   parameters.

   Only SCTP and TCP Transport parameters are allowed for use within the
   SERVER_ANNOUNCE message.

2.2.11.  ASAP_COOKIE message

   The ASAP_COOKIE message is sent by a PE to a PU allowing the PE to
   convey information it wishes to share using a control channel.

    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 = 0x0b |0|0|0|0|0|0|0|0|        Message Length         |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   :                         Cookie Parameter                      :



Stewart, et al.         Expires January 12, 2009               [Page 16]

Internet-Draft      Aggregate Server Access Protocol           July 2008


   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

   Cookie Parameter :

   See [I-D.ietf-rserpool-common-param].

2.2.12.  ASAP_COOKIE_ECHO message

   The ASAP_COOKIE_ECHO message is sent by a PU to a new PE when it
   detects a failure with the current PE to aid in failover.  The Cookie
   Parameter sent by the PE is the latest one received from the failed
   PE.

    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 = 0x0c |0|0|0|0|0|0|0|0|        Message Length         |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   :                         Cookie Parameter                      :
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

   Cookie Parameter:

   See [I-D.ietf-rserpool-common-param].

2.2.13.  ASAP_BUSINESS_CARD message

   The ASAP_BUSINESS_CARD message is sent by a PU to a PE or from a PE
   to a PU using a control channel to convey the pool handle and a
   preferred failover ordering.


    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 = 0x0d |0|0|0|0|0|0|0|0|        Message Length         |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   :                     Pool Handle Parameter                     :
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   :                   Pool Element Parameter-1                    :
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   :                              ..                               :
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   :                   Pool Element Parameter-N                    :
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

   Pool Handle parameter:




Stewart, et al.         Expires January 12, 2009               [Page 17]

Internet-Draft      Aggregate Server Access Protocol           July 2008


   See [I-D.ietf-rserpool-common-param].

   Pool Element parameters:

   See [I-D.ietf-rserpool-common-param].

2.2.14.  ASAP_ERROR message

   The ASAP_ERROR message is sent in response by an ASAP endpoint
   receiving an unknown message or an unknown parameter to the sending
   ASAP endpoint to report the problem or issue.


   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 = 0x0e |0|0|0|0|0|0|0|0|        Message Length         |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   :                 Operational Error Parameter                   :
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

   Operation Error parameter:

   See [I-D.ietf-rserpool-common-param].

   When an ASAP endpoint receives an ASAP message with an unknown
   message type or a message of known type that contains an unknown
   parameter, it SHOULD handle the unknown message or the unknown
   parameter according to the unrecognized message and parameter
   handling rules defined in Section 3.

   According to the rules, if an error report to the message sender is
   needed, the ASAP endpoint that discovered the error SHOULD send back
   an ASAP_ERROR message which includes an Operation Error parameter
   with the proper cause code, cause length, and case specific
   information.















Stewart, et al.         Expires January 12, 2009               [Page 18]

Internet-Draft      Aggregate Server Access Protocol           July 2008


3.  Procedures

   This section will focus on the methods and procedures used by an
   internal ASAP endpoint.  Appropriate timers and recovery actions for
   failure detection and management are also discussed.  Also please
   note that ASAP messages, sent between a PE and PU are identified by
   an SCTP Payload Protocol Identifier (PPID).

3.1.  Registration

   When a PE wishes to initiate or join a server pool it MUST use the
   procedures outlined in this section for registration.  Often, the
   registration will be triggered by a user request primitive (discussed
   in Section 6.1).  The PE MUST register using an SCTP association
   established between itself and the Home ENRP server.  If the PE has
   not established its Home ENRP server, it MUST follow the procedures
   specified in Section 3.6.

   Once the PE's ASAP endpoint has established its Home ENRP server the
   following procedures MUST be followed to register:

   R1)  The PE's SCTP endpoint used to communicate with the Home ENRP
      server MUST be bound to all IP addresses that will be used by the
      PE (irregardless of what transport protocol will be used to
      service user requests to the PE).

   R2)  The PE's ASAP endpoint MUST formulate an ASAP_REGISTRATION
      message as defined in Section 2.2.1.  In formulating the message,
      the PE MUST:

      R2.1)  Fill in the Pool Handle Parameter to specify which server
         pool the ASAP endpoint wishes to join.

      R2.2)  Fill in the PE identifier using a good quality randomly
         generated number ([RFC4086] provides some information on
         randomness guidelines).

      R2.3)  Fill in the Registration Life time parameter with the
         number of seconds that this registration is valid for.  Note a
         PE that wishes to continue service MUST re-register before the
         registration expires.

      R2.4)  Fill in a User Transport Parameter to specify the type of
         transport and the data/control channel usage the PE is willing
         to support.  Note, in joining an existing server pool, the PE
         MUST follow the overall transport type and overall data/control
         channel usage of the pool.  Otherwise, the registration may be
         rejected by the ENRP server.



Stewart, et al.         Expires January 12, 2009               [Page 19]

Internet-Draft      Aggregate Server Access Protocol           July 2008


      R2.5)  Fill in the preferred Pool Member Selection Policy
         parameter.

   R3)  Send the Registration message to the Home ENRP server using
      SCTP.

   R4)  Start a T2-registration timer.

   Note: the PE does not need to fill in the optional ASAP transport
   parameter.  The ASAP transport parameter will be filled in and used
   by the home ENRP server.

   If the T2-registration timer expires before receiving an
   ASAP_REGISTRATION_RESPONSE message, or a SEND.FAILURE notification is
   received from the SCTP layer, the PE shall start the Server Hunt
   procedure (see Section 3.6) in an attempt to get service from a
   different ENRP server.  After establishing a new Home ENRP server the
   PE SHOULD restart the registration procedure.

   At the reception of the registration response, the PE MUST stop the
   T2-Registration timer.  If the response indicates success, the PE is
   registered and will be considered an available member of the server
   pool.  If the registration response indicates a failure, the PE must
   either re-attempt registration after correcting the error or return a
   failure indication to the PE's upper layer.  The PE MUST NOT re-
   attempt registration without correcting the error condition.

   At any time a registered PE MAY wish to re-register to either update
   its member selection policy value or registration expiration time.
   When re-registering the PE MUST use the same PE identifier.

   After successful registration the PE MUST start a T4-reregistration
   timer.  At its expiration a re-registration SHOULD be made starting
   at step R1 including (at completion) restarting the T4-reregistration
   timer.

   Note that an implementation SHOULD keep a record of the number of
   registration (and reregistration) attempts it makes in a local
   variable that gets set to zero before the initial registration
   attempt to the Home ENRP server or after a successful re-
   registration.If repeated registration time-outs or failures occurs
   and the local count exceeds the Threshold 'MAX-REG-ATTEMPT' the
   implementation SHOULD report the error to its upper layer and stop
   attempting registration.

   The ENRP server handles the ASAP_REGISTRATION message according to
   the following rules:




Stewart, et al.         Expires January 12, 2009               [Page 20]

Internet-Draft      Aggregate Server Access Protocol           July 2008


   1.  If the named pool does not exist in the handlespace, the ENRP
       server MUST creates a new pool with that handle in the
       handlespace and add the PE to the pool as its first PE;

       When a new pool is created, the overall member selection policy
       of the pool MUST be set to the policy type indicated by the first
       PE, the overall pool transport type MUST be set to the transport
       type indicated by the PE, and the overall pool data/control
       channel configuration MUST be set to what is indicated in the
       Transport Use field of the User Transport parameter by the
       registering PE.

   2.  If the named pool already exists in the handlespace, but the
       requesting PE is not currently a member of the pool, the ENRP
       server will add the PE as a new member to the pool;

       However, before adding the PE to the pool, the server MUST check
       if the policy type, transport type, and transport usage indicated
       by the registering PE is consistent with those of the pool.  If
       different, the ENRP server MUST reject the registration.

   3.  If the named pool already exists in the handlespace AND the
       requesting PE is already a member of the pool, the ENRP server
       SHOULD consider this as a re-registration case.  The ENRP server
       MUST perform the same tests on policy, transport type, transport
       use, as described above.  If the re-registration is accepted
       after the test, the ENRP Server SHOULD replace the attributes of
       the existing PE with the information carried in the received
       ASAP_REGISTRATION message.

   4.  After accepting the registration, the ENRP server MUST assign
       itself the owner of this PE.  If this is a re-registration, the
       ENRP server MUST take over ownership of this PE regardless of
       whether the PE was previously owned by this server or by another
       server.  The ENRP server MUST also record the SCTP transport
       address from which it received the ASAP_REGISTRATION in the ASAP
       Transport parameter TLV inside the PE parameter of this PE.

   5.  The ENRP server may reject the registration due to other reasons
       such as invalid values, lack of resource, authentication failure,
       etc.

   In all above cases, the ENRP server MUST reply to the requesting PE
   with an ASAP_REGISTRATION_RESPONSE message.  If the registration is
   accepted, the ENRP server MUST set the 'R' flag in the
   ASAP_REGISTRATION_RESPONSE to '0'.  If the registration is rejected,
   the ENRP server MUST indicate the rejection by setting the 'R' flag
   in the ASAP_REGISTRATION_RESPONSE to '1'.



Stewart, et al.         Expires January 12, 2009               [Page 21]

Internet-Draft      Aggregate Server Access Protocol           July 2008


   If the registration is rejected, the ENRP server SHOULD include the
   proper error cause(s) in the ASAP_REGISTRATION_RESPONSE message.

   If the registration is granted (either a new registration or a re-
   registration case), the ENRP server MUST assign itself to be the home
   ENRP server of the PE, i.e., to "own" the PE.

      Implementation note: for better performance, the ENRP server may
      find it both efficient and convenient to internally maintain two
      separate PE lists or tables - one is for the PEs that are "owned"
      by the ENRP server and the other for all the PEs owned by its
      peer(s).

   Moreover, if the registration is granted, the ENRP server MUST take
   the handlespace update action to inform its peers about the change
   just made.  If the registration is denied, no message will be sent to
   its peers.

3.2.  Deregistration

   In the event a PE wishes to deregister from its server pool (normally
   via an upper layer requests see Section 6.2), it SHOULD use the
   following procedure.  It should be noted that an alternate method of
   deregistration is to NOT re-register and to allow the registration
   life of the PE to expire.  In this case a
   ASAP_DEREGISTRATION_RESPONSE message is sent to the PE's ASAP
   endpoint to indicate the removal of the PE from the pool it
   registered.

   When deregistering the PE SHOULD use the SCTP association that was
   used for registration with its Home ENRP server.  To deregister, the
   PE's ASAP endpoint MUST take the following actions:

   D1)  Fill in the Pool Handle parameter of the ASAP_DEREGISTRATION
      message ( Section 2.2.2) using the same Pool Handle parameter sent
      during registration.

   D2)  Fill in the PE Identifier parameter of the ASAP_DEREGISTRATION
      message.  The identifier MUST be the same as used during
      registration.  The use of the same Pool Handle and Pool Identifier
      parameters used in registration allows the identity of the PE ASAP
      endpoint be verified before deregistration can occur.

   D3)  Send the ASAP_DEREGISTRATION message to the Home ENRP server
      using the PE's SCTP association.






Stewart, et al.         Expires January 12, 2009               [Page 22]

Internet-Draft      Aggregate Server Access Protocol           July 2008


   D4)  Start a T3-Deregistration timer.

   If the T3-Deregistration timer expires before receiving either a
   ASAP_REGISTRATION_RESPONSE message, or a SEND.FAILURE notification
   from the PE's SCTP endpint, the PE's ASAP endpoint shall start the
   ENRP Server Hunt procedure (see Section 3.6) in an attempt to get
   service from another ENRP server.  After establishing a new Home ENRP
   server, the ASAP endpoint SHOULD restart the deregistration
   procedure.

   At the reception of the ASAP_DEREGISTRATION_RESPONSE, the PE's ASAP
   endpoint MUST stop the T3-deregistration timer.

   It should be noted that after a successful deregistration the PE MAY
   still receive requests for some period of time.  The PE MAY wish to
   remain active and service these requests or to exit and ignore these
   requests.

   Upon receiving the message, the ENRP server SHALL remove the PE from
   its handlespace.  Moreover, if the PE is the last one of the named
   pool, the ENRP server will remove the pool from the handlespace as
   well.

   If the ENRP server fails to find any record of the PE in its
   handlespace, it SHOULD consider the de-registration granted and
   completed, and send an ASAP_DEREGISTRATION_RESPONSE message to the
   PE.

   The ENRP server may reject the de-registration request for various
   reasons, such as invalid parameters, authentication failure, etc.

   In response, the ENRP server MUST send an
   ASAP_DEREGISTRATION_RESPONSE message to the PE.  If the de-
   registration is rejected, the ENRP server MUST indicate the rejection
   by including the proper Operational Error parameter.

   It should be noted that de-registration does not stop the PE from
   sending or receiving application messages.

   Once the de-registration request is granted AND the PE removed from
   its local copy of the handlespace, the ENRP server MUST take the
   handlespace update action to inform its peers about the change just
   made.  Otherwise, the ENRP server MUST NOT inform its peers.

3.3.  Handle resolution

   At any time a PE or PU may wish to resolve a handle.  This usually
   will occur when a ASAP Endpoint sends to a Pool handle (



Stewart, et al.         Expires January 12, 2009               [Page 23]

Internet-Draft      Aggregate Server Access Protocol           July 2008


   Section 6.5.1) to its home ENRP server or requests a cache population
   (Section 6.3).  It may also occur for other reasons (e.g. the
   internal ASAP PE wishes to know its peers for sending a message to
   all of them).  When an ASAP Endpoint (PE or PU) wishes to resolve a
   pool handle to a list of accesible transport addresses of the member
   PEs of the pool, it MUST take the following actions:

   NR1)  Fill in an ASAP_HANDLE_RESOLUTION message ( Section 2.2.5) with
      the Pool Handle to be resolved.

   NR2)  If the endpoint does not have a Home ENRP server start the ENRP
      Server Hunt procedures specified in Section 3.6 to obtain one.
      Otherwise, proceed to step NR3.

   NR3)  If a PE, send the ASAP_HANDLE_RESOLUTION message to the home
      ENRP server using SCTP or if a PU, send the ASAP_HANDLE_RESOLUTION
      message to the Home ENRP server using either TCP or SCTP.  If sent
      from a PE, the SCTP association used for registration SHOULD be
      used.

   NR4)  Start a T1-ENRPrequest timer.

   If the T1-ENRPrequest timer expires before receiving a response
   message, the ASAP endpoint SHOULD take the steps described in
   Section 3.7.2.  If a SEND.FAILURE notification is received from the
   SCTP or TCP layer, the ASAP endpoint SHOULD start the Server Hunt
   procedure (see Section 3.6) in an attempt to get service from a
   different ENRP server.  After establishing a new Home ENRP server,
   the ASAP endpoint SHOULD restart the handle resolution procedure.

   At the reception of the ASAP_HANDLE_RESOLUTION_RESPONSE message the
   ASAP endpoint MUST stop its T1-ENRPrequest timer.  After stopping the
   T1-ENRPrequest timer the ASAP endpoint SHOULD process the message as
   appropriate (e.g. populate a local cache, give the response to the
   ASAP user, and/or use the response to send the ASAP users message).

   Note that some ASAP endpoints MAY use a cache to minimize the number
   of handle resolutions sent.  If a cache is used, it SHOULD:

   C1)  Be consulted before sending a handle resolution.

   C2)  Have a stale timeout timer associated with each cache entry.  If
      the cache entry is determined to be stale upon a cache hit, a
      handle resolution message SHOULD be sent so the cache can be
      updated.






Stewart, et al.         Expires January 12, 2009               [Page 24]

Internet-Draft      Aggregate Server Access Protocol           July 2008


   C3)  In the case of a stale cache entry the implementation may in
      parallel update the cache and answer the request or it may block
      the user and wait for an updated cache before proceeding with the
      users request.

   C4)  If the cache entry is NOT stale, the endpoint SHOULD NOT send a
      handle resolution request but instead SHOULD use the entry from
      the cache.

   It should be noted that the impact of using a cache depends on the
   policy and the requirements of the application.  For some
   applications cache-usage can increase the performance of the system,
   for some it can decrease it.

   An ENRP server SHOULD be prepared to receive ASAP_HANDLE_RESOLUTION
   requests from PUs either over an SCTP association on the well-know
   SCTP port, or over a TCP connection on the well-know TCP port.

   Upon reception of the ASAP_HANDLE_RESOLUTION message, the ENRP server
   MUST first look up the pool handle in its handlespace.  If the pool
   exits, the home ENRP server MUST compose and send back an
   ASAP_HANDLE_RESOLUTION_RESPONSE message to the requesting PU.

   In the response message, the ENRP server SHOULD list all the PEs
   currently registered in this pool, in a list of PE parameters.  The
   ENRP server MUST also include a pool member selection policy
   parameter to indicate the overall member selection policy for the
   pool, if the current pool member selection policy is not round-robin.

   If the named pool does not exist in the handlespace, the ENRP server
   MUST reject the handle resolution request by responding with an
   ASAP_HANDLE_RESOLUTION_RESPONSE message carrying a Unknown Pool
   Handle error.

3.4.  Endpoint keep alive

   The ASAP_ENDPOINT_KEEP_ALIVE message is sent by an ENRP server to a
   PE in order to verify it is reachable.  If the transport level heart
   beat mechanism is insufficient, this message can be used in a heart
   beat mechanism for the ASAP level whose goal is determining the
   health status of the ASAP level in a timely fashion.  (The transport
   level heart beat mechanism may be insufficient due to either the time
   outs or the heart beat interval being set too long, or, that the
   transport level heart beat mechanism's coverage is limited only to
   the transport level at the two ends.)  Additionally, the
   ASAP_ENDPOINT_KEEP_ALIVE message has value in the reliability of
   fault detection if the SCTP stack is in the kernel.  In such a case,
   while SCTP level heartbeat monitors the end-to-end connectivity



Stewart, et al.         Expires January 12, 2009               [Page 25]

Internet-Draft      Aggregate Server Access Protocol           July 2008


   between the two SCTP stacks, the ASAP level heartbeat monitors the
   end-to-end liveliness of the ASAP layer above it.

   The use of the ASAP_ENDPOINT_KEEP_ALIVE message ( Section 2.2.7) and
   the ASAP_ENDPOINT_KEEP_ALIVE_ACK (Section 2.2.8) is described below.
   Upon reception of an ASAP_ENDPOINT_KEEP_ALIVE message, the following
   actions MUST be taken:

   KA1)  The PE must verify that the Pool Handle is correct and matches
      the Pool Handle sent in its earlier ASAP_REGISTRATION message.  If
      the Pool Handle does not match, the PE MUST silently discard the
      message.

   KA2)  Send an ASAP_ENDPOINT_KEEP_ALIVE_ACK (Section 2.2.8) as
      follows:



      KA2.1)  Fill in the Pool Handle Parameter with the PE's Pool
         Handle.

      KA2.2)  Fill in the PE Identifier parameter using the PE
         identifier used by this PE for registration.

      KA2.3)  Send the ASAP_ENDPOINT_KEEP_ALIVE_ACK message via the
         appropriate SCTP association for the ENRP server which sent the
         ASAP_ENDPOINT_KEEP_ALIVE message.

      KA2.4)  If the 'H' flag in the received ASAP_ENDPOINT_KEEP_ALIVE
         message is set, and the Server Identifier in the message is NOT
         the identity of your Home ENRP server (or it is not set e.g you
         have a no Home ENRP server) adopt the sender of the
         ASAP_ENDPOINT_KEEP_ALIVE message as the new home ENRP server.

3.5.  Unreachable endpoints

   Occasionally, an ASAP endpoint may realize a PE is unreachable.  This
   may occur by a specific SCTP error realized by the ASAP endpoint or
   via an ASAP user report via the Transport.Failure Primitive
   (Section 6.9.2).  In either case, the ASAP endpoint SHOULD report the
   unavailability of the PE by sending an ASAP_ENDPOINT_UNREACHABLE
   message to any ENRP server.  Before sending the
   ASAP_ENDPOINT_UNREACHABLE message, the ASAP Endpoint should fill in
   the Pool Handle parameter and PE identifier parameter of the
   unreachable endpoint.  If the sender is a PE, the message MUST be
   sent via SCTP.  It should be noted that an ASAP endpoint MUST report
   no more than once each time it encounters such an event.
   Additionally, when processing a Transport.Failure Primitive



Stewart, et al.         Expires January 12, 2009               [Page 26]

Internet-Draft      Aggregate Server Access Protocol           July 2008


   (Section 6.9.2) the ASAP endpoint MUST NOT send an
   ASAP_ENDPOINT_UNREACHABLE message unless the user has made a previous
   request to send data to the PE specified by the primitive.

   Upon the reception of an ASAP_ENDPOINT_UNREACHABLE message, a server
   MUST immediately send a point-to-point ASAP_ENDPOINT_KEEP_ALIVE
   message to the PE in question (the 'H' flag in the message SHOULD be
   set to '0' in this case).  If this ASAP_ENDPOINT_KEEP_ALIVE fails
   (e.g., it results in an SCTP SEND.FAILURE notification), the ENRP
   server MUST consider the PE as truly unreachable and MUST remove the
   PE from its handlespace.

   If the ASAP_ENDPOINT_KEEP_ALIVE message is transmitted successfully
   to the PE, the ENRP server MUST retain the PE in its handlespace.
   Moreover, the server SHOULD keep a counter to record how many
   ASAP_ENDPOINT_UNREACHABLE messages it has received reporting
   reachability problem relating to this PE.  If the counter exceeds the
   protocol threshold MAX-BAD-PE-REPORT, the ENRP server SHOULD remove
   the PE from its handlespace.

   Optionally, an ENRP server may also periodically send point-to-point
   ASAP_ENDPOINT_KEEP_ALIVE (with 'H' flag set to '0') messages to each
   of the PEs owned by the ENRP server in order to check their
   reachability status.  If the send of ASAP_ENDPOINT_KEEP_ALIVE to a PE
   fails, the ENRP server MUST consider the PE as unreachable and MUST
   remove the PE from its handlespace .  Note, if an ENRP server owns a
   large number of PEs, the implementation should pay attention not to
   flood the network with bursts of ASAP_ENDPOINT_KEEP_ALIVE messages.
   Instead, the implementation MUST distribute the
   ASAP_ENDPOINT_KEEP_ALIVE message traffic over a time period.  This
   can be achieved by varying the time between two
   ASAP_ENDPOINT_KEEP_ALIVE messages to the same PE randomly by plus/
   minus 50 percent.

3.6.  ENRP server hunt procedures

   Each PU and PE manages a list of transport addresses of ENRP servers
   it knows about.

   If multicast capabilities are used within the operational scope an
   ENRP server MUST send periodically every (N+1)*T6-Serverannounce an
   ASAP_SERVER_ANNOUNCE message (Section 2.2.10) which includes all the
   transport addresses available for ASAP communication on the multicast
   ENRP client channel where N is the number of ENRP servers the server
   has found via receiving ASAP_SERVER_ANNOUNCE messages.  This should
   result in a message rate of approximately 1 ASAP_SERVER_ANNOUNCE per
   T6-Serverannounce.




Stewart, et al.         Expires January 12, 2009               [Page 27]

Internet-Draft      Aggregate Server Access Protocol           July 2008


   If an ASAP_SERVER_ANNOUNCE message is received by a PU or PE, it
   SHOULD insert all new included transport addresses into its list of
   ENRP server addresses and start a T7-ENRPoutdate timer for each
   address.  For all already known included transport addresses, the T7-
   ENRPoutdate timer MUST be restarted for each address.  If no
   transport parameters are included in the ASAP_SERVER_ANNOUNCE
   message, the SCTP transport protocol is assumed to be used and the
   source IP address and the IANA registered ASAP port number is used
   for communication with the ENRP server.  If a T7-ENRPoutdate timer
   for a transport address expires, the corresponding address is deleted
   from the managed list of transport addresses of the PU or PE.

   If multicast capabilities are not used within the operational scope,
   each PU and PE MUST have a configured list of transport addresses of
   ENRP servers.

   At its startup or when it fails to communicate with its home ENRP
   server (i.e., timed-out on a ENRP request), a PE or PU MUST establish
   a new Home ENRP server (i.e. setup a TCP connection or SCTP
   association with a different ENRP server).

   To establish a home ENRP server the following rules MUST be followed:

   SH1)  The PE or PU SHOULD try to establish an association or
      connection with no more than three ENRP server's.  An ASAP
      endpoint MUST NOT establish more than three associations or
      connections.

   SH2)  The ASAP endpoint shall start a T5-Serverhunt timer.

   SH3)  If the ASAP endpoint establishes an association or connection
      it MUST stop its T5-Serverhunt timer.  The ASAP Endpoint SHOULD
      also reset the T5-Serverhunt timer to its initial value and then
      proceed to step SH6.

   SH4)  If an association or connection establishment fails, the ASAP
      endpoint SHOULD try to establish an association or connection
      using a different transport address.

   SH5)  If the T5-Serverhunt timer expires the following should be
      performed:

      SH5.1)  The ASAP endpoint MUST double the value of the T5-
         Serverhunt timer.  Note that this doubling is capped at the
         value RETRAN.max






Stewart, et al.         Expires January 12, 2009               [Page 28]

Internet-Draft      Aggregate Server Access Protocol           July 2008


      SH5.2)  The ASAP endpoint SHOULD stop the establishment of
         associations and connections with the transport addresses
         selected in step SH1.

      SH5.2)  The ASAP endpoint SHOULD repeat trying to establish an
         association or connection by proceeding to step SH1.  It SHOULD
         attempt to select a different set of transport addresses with
         which to connect.

   SH6)  The PE or PU shall pick one of the ENRP servers with which it
      was able to establish an association or connection, and send all
      subsequent ENRP request messages to this new Home ENRP server.

3.7.  Handling ASAP Endpoint to ENRP Server Communication Failures

   Three types of failure may occur when the ASAP endpoint at ether PE
   or PU tries to communicate with an ENRP server:

   A) SCTP send failure

   B) T1-ENRPrequest timer expiration

   C) Registration failure

3.7.1.  SCTP Send Failure

   This communication failure indicates that the SCTP layer was unable
   to deliver a message sent to an ENRP server.  In other words, the
   ENRP server is unreachable.

   In such a case, the ASAP endpoint MUST NOT re-send the undeliverable
   message.  Instead, it SHOULD discard the message and start the ENRP
   server hunt procedure as described in Section 3.6 .  After finding a
   new Home ENRP server, the ASAP endpoint should re-send the request.

   Note that an ASAP endpoint MAY also choose to NOT discard the
   message, but to queue it for retransmission after a new Home ENRP
   server is found.  If an ASAP endpoint does choose to discard the
   message, after a new Home ENRP server is found, the ASAP endpoint
   MUST be capable of reconstructing the original request.

3.7.2.  T1-ENRPrequest Timer Expiration

   When the T1-ENRPrequest timer expires, the ASAP endpoint should
   resend the original request to the ENRP server and restart the T1-
   ENRPrequest timer.  In parallel, the ASAP endpoint should begin the
   ENRP server hunt procedures described in Section 3.6.




Stewart, et al.         Expires January 12, 2009               [Page 29]

Internet-Draft      Aggregate Server Access Protocol           July 2008


   This should be repeated up to MAX-REQUEST-RETRANSMIT times.  After
   that, an Error.Report notification should be generated to inform the
   ASAP user and the ENRP request message associated with the T1-
   ENRPrequest timer should be discarded.  It should be noted that if an
   alternate ENRP server responds the ASAP endpoint SHOULD adopt the
   responding ENRP server as its new Home ENRP server and resend the
   request to the new Home ENRP server.

3.7.3.  Registration Failure

   Registration failure is discussed in Section 3.1.

3.8.  Cookie handling procedures

   Whenever a PE wants, and a control channel exists, it can send an
   ASAP_COOKIE message to a PU via the control channel.  The PU's ASAP
   endpoint stores the Cookie parameter and discards an older cookie if
   it is previously stored.

   Note: a control channel is a communication channel between a PU and
   PE that does not carry data passed to the user.  This is accomplished
   with SCTP by using a PPID to separate the ASAP messages (Cookie and
   Business Card) from normal data messages.

   If the PU's ASAP endpoint detects a failure and initiates a failover
   to a different PE, it SHOULD send the lastest received cookie
   parameter in an ASAP_COOKIE_ECHO message to the new PE as the first
   message on the control channel.  Upper layers may be involved in the
   failover procedure.

   The cookie handling procedure can be used for state sharing.
   Therefore a cookie should be signed by the sending PE ASAP endpoint
   and the cookie should be verified by the receiving PE's ASAP
   endpoint.  The details of the verification procedure are out of scope
   for this document.  It is only important that the PU always stores
   the last received Cookie Parameter and sends that back unmodified in
   case of a PE failure.

3.9.  Business Card handling procedures

   When communication begins between a PU and a PE either of which could
   be part of a PU/PE combination (i.e. a message is sent between the
   entities), a PE should always send a ASAP_BUSINESS_CARD message to a
   PU.  A PU should send a ASAP_BUSINESS_CARD message to a PE only if it
   is part of a PU/PE combination.  A ASAP_BUSINESS_CARD message MUST
   ONLY be sent if a control channel exists between a PU and PE.  After
   communication as been established between a PE and PU, a new
   ASAP_BUSINESS_CARD message may be sent at any time by either entity



Stewart, et al.         Expires January 12, 2009               [Page 30]

Internet-Draft      Aggregate Server Access Protocol           July 2008


   to update its failover order.

   The ASAP_BUSINESS_CARD message serves two purposes.  First it lists
   the pool handle.  For a PU which is part of a PU/PE combination which
   is contacting a PE this is essential so that the PE learns the pool
   handle of the PU/PE combination requesting service.  Secondly the
   ASAP_BUSINESS_CARD message tells the receiving entity a failover
   order that is recommended to follow.  This should facilitate
   rendezvous between entities that have been working together as well
   to control the load redistribution upon the failure of any PE.

   Upon receipt of an ASAP_BUSINESS_CARD message (see Section 2.2.13)
   the receiving ASAP endpoint SHOULD:

   BC1)  Unpack the message and if no entry exists in the translation
      cache of the receiving ASAP endpoint for the pool handle listed
      within the ASAP_BUSINESS_CARD message perform a
      ASAP_HANDLE_RESOLUTION for that pool handle.  If the translation
      cache does hold an entry for the pool handle, then it may be
      necessary to update the peer endpoint.

   BC2)  Unpack the message and populate a preferred list for failover
      order.  If the peers PE should fail this preferred list will be
      used guide the ASAP endpoint in the selection of an alternate PE.



























Stewart, et al.         Expires January 12, 2009               [Page 31]

Internet-Draft      Aggregate Server Access Protocol           July 2008


4.  Roles of Endpoints

   A PU MUST implement the handling of ASAP_HANDLE_RESOLUTION, and
   ASAP_HANDLE_RESOLUTION_RESPONSE messages.  Furthermore it MUST
   support the handling of ASAP_ERROR messages.  It MAY implement the
   handling of ASAP_COOKIE, ASAP_COOKIE_ECHO, and ASAP_BUSINESS_CARD
   messages.  It MAY also implement the handling of ASAP_SERVER_ANNOUNCE
   messages.

   A PE MUST implement the handling of ASAP_REGISTRATION,
   ASAP_DEREGISTRATION ASAP_REGISTRATION_RESPONSE, and
   ASAP_DEREGISTRATION_RESPONSE messages.  Furthermore it MUST support
   the handling of ASAP_ENDPOINT_KEEP_ALIVE,
   ASAP_ENDPOINT_KEEP_ALIVE_ACK, ASAP_ENDPOINT_UNREACHABLE, and
   ASAP_ERROR messages.  It SHOULD support the handling of ASAP_COOKIE,
   ASAP_COOKIE_ECHO, and ASAP_BUSINESS_CARD messages.  Furthermore it
   MAY support the handling of ASAP_SERVER_ANNOUNCE messages.

   An ENRP server MUST implement the handling of ASAP_REGISTRATION,
   ASAP_DEREGISTRATION ASAP_REGISTRATION_RESPONSE, and
   ASAP_DEREGISTRATION_RESPONSE messages.  Furthermore it MUST support
   the handling of ASAP_ENDPOINT_KEEP_ALIVE,
   ASAP_ENDPOINT_KEEP_ALIVE_ACK, ASAP_ENDPOINT_UNREACHABLE, and
   ASAP_ERROR messages.  Furthermore it MAY support the handling of
   ASAP_SERVER_ANNOUNCE messages.

   If a node acts as a PU and a PE, it MUST fullfil both roles.
























Stewart, et al.         Expires January 12, 2009               [Page 32]

Internet-Draft      Aggregate Server Access Protocol           July 2008


5.  SCTP Considerations

   Each ASAP message is considered as an SCTP user message.  The PPID
   registered for ASAP SHOULD be used.  The SCTP port used at the ENRP
   server might be preconfigured or announced in the
   ASAP_SERVER_ANNOUNCE message or the well known ASAP port.

   ASAP messages beloning to the control channel MUST be sent using the
   PPID registered for ASAP.  Messages belonging to the data channel
   MUST NOT use the PPID registered for ASAP.









































Stewart, et al.         Expires January 12, 2009               [Page 33]

Internet-Draft      Aggregate Server Access Protocol           July 2008


6.  The ASAP Interfaces

   This chapter will focus primarily on the primitives and notifications
   that form the interface between the ASAP-user and ASAP and that
   between ASAP and its lower layer transport protocol (e.g., SCTP).

   Note, the following primitive and notification descriptions are shown
   for illustrative purposes.  We believe that including these
   descriptions in this document is important to the understanding of
   the operation of many aspects of ASAP.  But an ASAP implementation is
   not required to use the exact syntax described in this section.

   An ASAP User passes primitives to the ASAP sub-layer to request
   certain actions.  Upon the completion of those actions or upon the
   detection of certain events, the ASAP layer will notify the ASAP
   user.

6.1.  Registration.Request Primitive

         Format: registration.request(poolHandle,
                                      User Transport parameter(s))

   The poolHandle parameter contains a NULL terminated ASCII string of
   fixed length.  The optional User Transport parameter(s) indicate
   specific transport parameters and types to register with.  If this
   optional parameter is left off, then the SCTP endpoint used to
   communicate with the ENRP server is used as the default User
   Transport parameter.  Note that any IP address contained within a
   User Transport parameter MUST be a bound IP address in the SCTP
   endpoint used to communicate with the ENRP server.

   The ASAP user invokes this primitive to add itself to the
   handlespace, thus becoming a Pool Element of a pool.  The ASAP user
   must register itself with the ENRP server by using this primitive
   before other ASAP users using the handlespace can send message(s) to
   this ASAP user by Pool Handle or by PE handle (see Section 6.5.1 and
   Section 6.5.3).

   In response to the registration primitive, the ASAP endpoint will
   send an ASAP_REGISTRATION message to the home ENRP server (See
   Section 2.2.1 and Section 3.1), and start a T2-registration timer.

6.2.  Deregistration.Request Primitive

         Format: deregistration.request(poolHandle)

   The ASAP PE invokes this primitive to remove itself from the Server
   Pool.  This should be used as a part of the graceful shutdown process



Stewart, et al.         Expires January 12, 2009               [Page 34]

Internet-Draft      Aggregate Server Access Protocol           July 2008


   by the application.

   A ASAP_DEREGISTRATION message will be sent by ASAP endpoint to the
   home ENRP server (see Section 2.2.2 and Section 3.2).

6.3.  CachePopulateRequest Primitive

          Format: cache_populate_request([Pool-Handle |
                                        Pool-Element-Handle])

   If the address type is a Pool handle and a local handle translation
   cache exists, the ASAP endpoint should initiate a mapping information
   query by sending an ASAP_HANDLE_RESOLUTION message on the Pool handle
   and update it local cache when the response comes back from the ENRP
   server.

   If a Pool-Element-Handle is passed then the Pool Handle is unpacked
   from the Pool-Element-Handle and the ASAP_HANDLE_RESOLUTION message
   is sent to the ENRP server for resolution.  When the response message
   returns from the ENRP server the local cache is updated.

   Note that if the ASAP service does NOT support a local cache this
   primitive performs NO action.

6.4.  CachePurgeRequest Primitive

      Format: cache_purge_request([Pool-Handle | Pool-Element-Handle])

   If the user passes a Pool handle and local handle translation cache
   exists, the ASAP endpoint should remove the mapping information on
   the Pool handle from its local cache.  If the user passes a Pool-
   Element-Handle then the Pool handle within is used for the
   cache_purge_request.

   Note that if the ASAP service does NOT support a local cache this
   primitive performs NO action.

6.5.  DataSendRequest Primitive

         Format: data_send_request(destinationAddress, typeOfAddress,
                                   message, sizeOfMessage, Options);

   This primitive requests ASAP to send a message to some specified Pool
   or Pool Element within the current Operational scope.

   Depending on the address type used for the send request, the senders
   ASAP endpoint may perform address translation and Pool Element
   selection before sending the message out.  This also MAY dictate the



Stewart, et al.         Expires January 12, 2009               [Page 35]

Internet-Draft      Aggregate Server Access Protocol           July 2008


   creation of a local transport endpoint in order to meet the required
   transport type.

   The data_send_request primitive can take different forms of address
   types as described in the following sections.

6.5.1.  Sending to a Pool Handle

   In this case the destinationAddress and typeOfAddress together
   indicates a pool handle.

   This is the simplest form of send_data_request primitive.  By
   default, this directs ASAP to send the message to one of the Pool
   Elements in the specified pool.

   Before sending the message out to the pool, the senders ASAP endpoint
   MUST first perform a pool handle to address translation.  It may also
   need to perform Pool Element selection if multiple Pool Elements
   exist in the pool.

   If the senders ASAP implementation does not support a local cache of
   the mapping information or if it does not have the mapping
   information on the pool in its local cache, it will transmit a
   ASAP_HANDLE_RESOLUTION message (see Section 2.2.5 and Section 3.3) to
   the current home ENRP server, and MUST hold the outbound message in
   queue while awaiting the response from the ENRP server (any further
   send request to this pool before the ENRP server responds SHOULD also
   be queued).

   Once the necessary mapping information arrives from the ENRP server,
   the senders ASAP will:

   A) map the pool handle into a list of transport addresses of the
      destination PE(s),

   B) if multiple PEs exist in the pool, ASAP will choose one of them
      and transmit the message to it.  In that case, the choice of the
      PE is made by ASAP endpoint of the sender based on the server
      pooling policy as discussed in Section 6.5.2

   C) Optionally create any transport endpoint that may be needed to
      communicate with the PE selected.

   D) if no transport association or connection exists towards the
      destination PE, ASAP will establish any needed transport state,






Stewart, et al.         Expires January 12, 2009               [Page 36]

Internet-Draft      Aggregate Server Access Protocol           July 2008


   E) send out the queued message(s) to the appropriate transport
      connection using the appropriate send mechanism (e.g. for SCTP the
      SEND primitive in [RFC4960] would be used), and,

   F) if the local cache is implemented, append/update the local cache
      with the mapping information received in the ENRP server's
      response.  Also, record the local transport information (e.g. the
      SCTP association id) if any new transport state was created.

   For more on the ENRP server request procedures see
   [I-D.ietf-rserpool-enrp].

   Optionally, the ASAP endpoint of the sender may return a Pool Element
   handle of the selected PE to the application after sending the
   message.  This PE handle can then be used for future transmissions to
   that same PE (see Section 6.5.3).

   Section 3.7 defines the fail-over procedures for cases where the
   selected PE is found unreachable.

6.5.2.  Pool Element Selection

   Each time an ASAP user sends a message to a pool that contains more
   than one PE, the senders ASAP endpoint must select one of the PEs in
   the pool as the receiver of the current message.  The selection is
   done according to the current server pooling policy of the pool to
   which the message is sent.

   Note, no selection is needed if the ASAP_SEND_TOALL option is set
   (see Section 6.5.5).

   Together with the server pooling policy, each PE can also specify a
   Policy Value for itself at the registration time.  The meaning of the
   policy value depends on the current server pooling policy of the
   group.  A PE can also change its policy value whenever it desires, by
   re-registering itself with the handlespace with a new policy value.
   Re-registration shall be done by simply sending another
   ASAP_REGISTRATION to its home ENRP server (See Section 2.2.1).

   One basic policy is defined in this document, others can be found in
   [I-D.ietf-rserpool-policies]

6.5.2.1.  Round Robin Policy

   When an ASAP endpoint sends messages by Pool Handle and Round-Robin
   is the current policy of that Pool, the ASAP endpoint of the sender
   will select the receiver for each outbound message by round-Robining
   through all the registered PEs in that Pool, in an attempt to achieve



Stewart, et al.         Expires January 12, 2009               [Page 37]

Internet-Draft      Aggregate Server Access Protocol           July 2008


   an even distribution of outbound messages.  Note that in a large
   server pool, the ENRP server might not send back all PEs to the ASAP
   client.  In this case the client or PU will be performing a round
   robin policy on a subset of the entire Pool.

6.5.3.  Sending to a Pool Element Handle

   In this case the destinationAddress and typeOfAddress together
   indicate an ASAP Pool Element handle.

   This requests the ASAP endpoint to deliver the message to the PE
   identified by the Pool Element handle.

   The Pool Element handle should contain the Pool Handle and a
   destination transport address of the destination PE or the Pool
   Handle and the transport type.  Other implementation dependent
   elements may also be cached in a Pool Element handle.

   The ASAP endpoint shall use the transport address and transport type
   to identify the endpoint to communicate with.  If no communication
   state exists with the peer endpoint (and is required by the transport
   protocol) the ASAP endpoint MAY setup the needed state and then
   invoke the SEND primitive for the particular transport protocol to
   send the message to the PE.

   In addition, if a local translation cache is supported the endpoint
   will:

   A) send out the message to the transport address (or association id)
      designated by the PE handle.

   B) determine if the Pool Handle is in the local cache.

      If it is NOT, the endpoint will:


      i) ask the home ENRP server for handle resolution on pool handle
         by sending an ASAP_HANDLE_RESOLUTION message (see
         Section 2.2.5), and

      ii)  use the response to update the local cache.

         If the pool handle is in the cache, the endpoint will only
         update the pool handle if the cache is stale.  A stale cache is
         indicated by it being older than the protocol parameter
         'stale.cache.value' (see Section 7.2).

   Section 3.5 and Section 6.9 defines the fail-over procedures for



Stewart, et al.         Expires January 12, 2009               [Page 38]

Internet-Draft      Aggregate Server Access Protocol           July 2008


   cases where the PE pointed to by the Pool Element handle is found
   unreachable.

   Optionally, the ASAP endpoint may return the actual Pool Element
   handle to which the message was sent (this may be different from the
   Pool Element handle specified when the primitive is invoked, due to
   the possibility of automatic fail-over).

6.5.4.  Send by Transport Address

   In this case the destinationAddress and typeOfAddress together
   indicate a transport address and transport type.

   This directs the senders ASAP endpoint to send the message out to the
   specified transport address.

   No endpoint fail-over is support when this form of send request is
   used.  This form of send request effectively by-passes the ASAP
   endpoint.

6.5.5.  Message Delivery Options

   The Options parameter passed in the various forms of the above
   data_send_request primitive gives directions to the senders ASAP
   endpoint on special handling of the message delivery.

   The value of the Options parameter is generated by bit-wise "OR"ing
   of the following pre-defined constants:

   ASAP_USE_DEFAULT: 0x0000  Use default setting.

   ASAP_SEND_FAILOVER: 0x0001  Enables PE fail-over on this message.  In
      case where the first selected PE or the PE pointed to by the PE
      handle is found unreachable, the sender's ASAP endpoint SHOULD re-
      select an alternate PE from the same pool if one exists, and
      silently re-send the message to this newly selected endpoint.

      Note that this is a best-effort service.  Applications should be
      aware that messages can be lost during the failover process, even
      if the underlying transport supports retrieval of unacknowledged
      data (e.g.  SCTP) (Example: messages acknowledged by the SCTP
      layer at a PE, but not yet read by the PE when a PE failure
      occurs.)  In the case where the underlying transport does not
      support such retrieval (e.g.  TCP), any data already submitted by
      ASAP to the transport layer may be lost upon failover.






Stewart, et al.         Expires January 12, 2009               [Page 39]

Internet-Draft      Aggregate Server Access Protocol           July 2008


   ASAP_SEND_NO_FAILOVER: 0x0002  This option prohibits the senders ASAP
      endpoint from re-sending the message to any alternate PE in case
      that the first selected PE or the PE pointed to by the PE handle
      is found unreachable.  Instead, the senders ASAP endpoint shall
      notify its upper layer about the unreachability with an
      Error.Report and return any unsent data.

   ASAP_SEND_TO_LAST: 0x0004  This option requests the senders ASAP
      endpoint to send the message to the same PE in the pool that the
      previous message destined to this pool was sent to.

   ASAP_SEND_TO_ALL: 0x0008  When sending by Pool Handle, this option
      directs the senders ASAP endpoint to send a copy of the message to
      all the PEs, except for the sender itself if the sender is a PE,
      in that pool.

   ASAP_SEND_TO_SELF: 0x0010  This option only applies in combination
      with ASAP_SEND_TO_ALL option.  It permits the senders ASAP
      endpoint also deliver a copy of the message to itself if the
      sender is a PE of the pool (i.e., loop-back).

   ASAP_SCTP_UNORDER: 0x1000  This option requests the transport layer
      to send the current message using un-ordered delivery (note the
      underlying transport must support un-ordered delivery for this
      option to be effective).

6.6.  Data.Received Notification

         Format: data.received(messageReceived, sizeOfMessage,
                               senderAddress, typeOfAddress)

   When a new user message is received, the ASAP endpoint of the
   receiver uses this notification to pass the message to its upper
   layer.

   Along with the message being passed, the ASAP endpoint of the
   receiver should also indicate to its upper layer the message senders
   address.  The senders address can be in the form of either an SCTP
   association id, TCP transport address, UDP transport address, or an
   ASAP Pool Element handle.

   A) If the handle translation local cache is implemented at the
      receiver's ASAP endpoint, a reverse mapping from the senders IP
      address to the pool handle should be performed and if the mapping
      is successful, the senders ASAP Pool Element handle should be
      constructed and passed in the senderAddress field.





Stewart, et al.         Expires January 12, 2009               [Page 40]

Internet-Draft      Aggregate Server Access Protocol           July 2008


   B) If there is no local cache or the reverse mapping is not
      successful, the SCTP association id or other transport specific
      identification (if SCTP is not being used) should be passed in the
      senderAddress field.

6.7.  Error.Report Notification


         Format: error.report(destinationAddress, typeOfAddress,
                              failedMessage, sizeOfMessage)

   An error.report should be generated to notify the ASAP user about
   failed message delivery as well as other abnormalities.

   The destinationAddress and typeOfAddress together indicates to whom
   the message was originally sent.  The address type can be either a
   ASAP Pool Element handle, association id, or a transport address.

   The original message (or the first portion of it if the message is
   too big) and its size should be passed in the failedMessage and
   sizeOfMessage fields, respectively.

6.8.  Examples

   These examples assume an underlying SCTP transport between the PE and
   PU.  Other transports are possible but SCTP is utilized in the
   examples for illustrative purposes.  Note that all communication
   between PU and ENRP server and PE and ENRP servers would be using
   SCTP.

6.8.1.  Send to a New Pool

   This example shows the event sequence when a Pool User sends the
   message "hello" to a pool which is not in the local translation cache
   (assuming local caching is supported).
















Stewart, et al.         Expires January 12, 2009               [Page 41]

Internet-Draft      Aggregate Server Access Protocol           July 2008


     ENRP Server                       PU         new-handle:PEx

       |                                |                 |
       |                              +---+               |
       |                              | 1 |               |
       |2. ASAP_HANDLE_RESOLUTION     +---+               |
       |<-------------------------------|                 |
       |                              +---+               |
       |                              | 3 |               |
       |4. ASAP_HANDLE_RESOLUTION_RSP +---+               |
       |------------------------------->|                 |
       |                              +---+               |
       |                              | 5 |               |
       |                              +---+  6. "hello1"  |
       |                                |---------------->|
       |                                |                 |


   1) The user at PU invokes:

      data_send_request("new-handle", handle-type, "hello1", 6, 0);

      The ASAP endpoint, in response, looks up the pool "new-handle" in
      its local cache but fails to find it.


   2) The ASAP endpoint of PU queues the message, and sends an
      ASAP_HANDLE_RESOLUTION request to the ENRP server asking for all
      information about pool "new-handle".

   3) A T1-ENRPrequest timer is started while the ASAP endpoint is
      waiting for the response from the ENRP server.

   4) The ENRP Server responds to the query with an
      ASAP_HANDLE_RESOLUTION_RESPONSE message that contains all the
      information about pool "new-handle".

   5) ASAP at PU cancels the T1-ENRPrequest timer and populate its local
      cache with information on pool "new-handle".

   6) Based on the server pooling policy of pool "new-handle", ASAP at
      PU selects the destination PE (PEx), sets up, if necessary, an
      SCTP association towards PEx (explicitly or implicitly), and send
      out the queued "hello1" user message.







Stewart, et al.         Expires January 12, 2009               [Page 42]

Internet-Draft      Aggregate Server Access Protocol           July 2008


6.8.2.  Send to a Cached Pool Handle

   This shows the event sequence when the ASAP user PU sends another
   message to the pool "new-handle" after what happened in
   Section 6.8.1.


     ENRP Server                       PU         new-handle:PEx

       |                                |                 |
       |                              +---+               |
       |                              | 1 |               |
       |                              +---+  2. "hello2"  |
       |                                |---------------->|
       |                                |                 |


   1) The user at PU invokes:

      pdata_send_request("new-handle", handle-type, "hello2", 6, 0);

      The ASAP endpoint, in response, looks up the pool "new-handle" in
      its local cache and find the mapping information.

   2) Based on the server pooling policy of "new-handle", ASAP at PU
      selects the PE (assume EPx is selected again), and sends out
      "hello2" message (assume the SCTP association is already set up).

6.9.  PE send failure

   When the ASAP endpoint in a PE or PU attempts to send a message to a
   PE and fails the failed sender will report the event as described in
   Section 3.5 .

   Additional primitive are also defined in this section to support
   those user applications that do not wish to use ASAP as the actual
   transport.

6.9.1.  Translation.Request Primitive

           Format: translation.request(Pool-Handle)

   If the address type is a Pool handle and a local handle translation
   cache exists, the ASAP endpoint should look within its translation
   cache and return the current known transport types, ports and
   addresses to the caller.

   If the Pool handle does not exist in the local handle cache or no



Stewart, et al.         Expires January 12, 2009               [Page 43]

Internet-Draft      Aggregate Server Access Protocol           July 2008


   handle cache exists, the ASAP endpoint will send an
   ASAP_HANDLE_RESOLUTION request using the Pool handle.  Upon
   completion of the handle resolution, the ASAP endpoint should
   populate the local handle cache (if a local handle cache is
   supported) and return the transport types, ports and addresses to the
   caller.

6.9.2.  Transport.Failure Primitive

       Format: transport.failure(Pool-Handle, Transport-address)

   If an external user encounters a failure in sending to a PE and is
   NOT using ASAP it can use this primitive to report the failure to the
   ASAP endpoint.  ASAP will send an ASAP_ENDPOINT_UNREACHABLE to the
   "home" ENRP server in response to this primitive.  Note ASAP SHOULD
   NOT send a ASAP_ENDPOINT_UNREACHABLE UNLESS the user has actually
   made a previous request to send data to the PE.


































Stewart, et al.         Expires January 12, 2009               [Page 44]

Internet-Draft      Aggregate Server Access Protocol           July 2008


7.  Timers, Variables, and Thresholds

   The following is a summary of the timers, variables, and pre-set
   protocol constants used in ASAP.

7.1.  Timers

   T1-ENRPrequest -  A timer started when a request is sent by ASAP to
      the ENRP server (providing application information is queued).
      Normally set to 15 seconds.

   T2-registration -  A timer started when sending an ASAP_REGISTRATION
      request to the home ENRP server, normally set to 30 seconds.

   T3-deregistration -  A timer started when sending a deregistration
      request to the home ENRP server, normally set to 30 seconds.

   T4-reregistration -  This timer is started after successful
      registration into the ENRP handle space and is used to cause a re-
      registration at a periodic interval.  This timer is normally set
      to 10 minutes or 20 seconds less than the Life Timer parameter
      used in the registration request (whichever is less).

   T5-Serverhunt -  This timer is used during the ENRP server hunt
      procedure and is normally set to 10 seconds.

   T6-Serverannounce -  This timer gives the time between the sending of
      consecutive ASAP_SERVER_ANNOUNCE messages.  It is normally set to
      1 second.

   T7-ENRPoutdate -  This timer gives the time a server announcement is
      valid.  It is normally set to 5 seconds.

7.2.  Variables

   stale_cache_value -  A threshold variable that indicates how long a
      cache entry is valid for.

7.3.  Thresholds

   MAX-REG-ATTEMPT -  The maximum number of registration attempts to be
      made before a server hunt is issued.  The default value of this is
      set to 2.

   MAX-REQUEST-RETRANSMIT -  The maximum number of attempts to be made
      when requesting information from the local ENRP server before a
      server hunt is issued.  The default value for this is 2.




Stewart, et al.         Expires January 12, 2009               [Page 45]

Internet-Draft      Aggregate Server Access Protocol           July 2008


   RETRAN-MAX -  This value represents the maximum time between
      registration attmempts and puts a ceiling on how far the
      registration timer will back-off.  The default value for this is
      normally set to 60 seconds.















































Stewart, et al.         Expires January 12, 2009               [Page 46]

Internet-Draft      Aggregate Server Access Protocol           July 2008


8.  IANA Considerations

   [NOTE to RFC-Editor:

      "RFCXXXX" is to be replaced by the RFC number you assign this
      document.

   ]

   This document (RFCXXX) is the reference for all registrations
   described in this section.  All registrations need to be listed on an
   RSerPool specific page.

8.1.  A New Table for ASAP Message Types

   ASAP Message Types have to be maintained by IANA.  Fourteen initial
   values should be assigned by IANA as described in Figure 1.  This
   requires a new table "ASAP Message Types":

   Type       Message Name                     Reference
   -----      -------------------------        ---------
   0x00       (reserved by IETF)               RFCXXXX
   0x01       ASAP_REGISTRATION                RFCXXXX
   0x02       ASAP_DEREGISTRATION              RFCXXXX
   0x03       ASAP_REGISTRATION_RESPONSE       RFCXXXX
   0x04       ASAP_DEREGISTRATION_RESPONSE     RFCXXXX
   0x05       ASAP_HANDLE_RESOLUTION           RFCXXXX
   0x06       ASAP_HANDLE_RESOLUTION_RESPONSE  RFCXXXX
   0x07       ASAP_ENDPOINT_KEEP_ALIVE         RFCXXXX
   0x08       ASAP_ENDPOINT_KEEP_ALIVE_ACK     RFCXXXX
   0x09       ASAP_ENDPOINT_UNREACHABLE        RFCXXXX
   0x0a       ASAP_SERVER_ANNOUNCE             RFCXXXX
   0x0b       ASAP_COOKIE                      RFCXXXX
   0x0c       ASAP_COOKIE_ECHO                 RFCXXXX
   0x0d       ASAP_BUSINESS_CARD               RFCXXXX
   0x0e       ASAP_ERROR                       RFCXXXX
   0x0b-0xff  (reserved by IETF)               RFCXXXX

   For registering at IANA an ASAP Message Type in this table a request
   has to be made to assign such a number.  This number must be unique.
   The "Specification Required" policy of [RFC5226] MUST be applied.

8.2.  Port numbers

   The references for the already assigned port numbers

      asap-tcp 3863/tcp




Stewart, et al.         Expires January 12, 2009               [Page 47]

Internet-Draft      Aggregate Server Access Protocol           July 2008


      asap-udp 3863/udp

      asap-sctp 3863/sctp

      asap-tcp-tls 3864/tcp

      asap-sctp-tls 3864/sctp

   should be updated to RFCXXXX.

8.3.  SCTP payload protocol identifier

   The reference for the already assigned ASAP payload protocol
   identifier 11 should be updated to RFCXXXX.

8.4.  Multicast addresses

   IANA needs to assign an IPv4 and an IPv6 mulitcast address.  The IPv4
   address should be part of the Internetwork Control Block
   (224.0.1/24).































Stewart, et al.         Expires January 12, 2009               [Page 48]

Internet-Draft      Aggregate Server Access Protocol           July 2008


9.  Security Considerations

   We present a summary of the of the threats to the Rserpool
   architecture and describe security requirements in response to
   mitigate the threats.  Next we present the security mechanisms, based
   on TLS, that are implementation requirements in response to the
   threats.  Finally, we present a chain of trust argument that examines
   critical data paths in Rserpool and shows how these paths are
   protected by the TLS implementation.

9.1.  Summary of Rserpool Security Threats

   Threats Introduced by Rserpool and Requirements for Security in
   Response to Threats [I-D.ietf-rserpool-threats] describes the threats
   to the Rserpool architecture in detail lists the security
   requirements in response to each threat.  From the threats described
   in this document, the security services required for the Rserpool
   protocol are enumerated below.

   Threat 1) PE registration/deregistration flooding or spoofing
   -----------
   Security mechanism in response: ENRP server authenticates the PE

   Threat 2) PE registers with a malicious ENRP server
   -----------
   Security mechanism in response: PE authenticates the ENRP server

   Threat 1 and 2 taken together results in mutual authentication of the
   ENRP server and the PE.

   Threat 3) Malicious ENRP server joins the ENRP server pool
   -----------
   Security mechanism in response: ENRP servers mutually authenticate

   Threat 4) A PU communicates with a malicious ENRP server for handle
   resolution
   -----------
   Security mechanism in response: The PU authenticates the ENRP server

   Threat 5) Replay attack
   -----------
   Security mechanism in response: Security protocol which has
   protection from replay attacks

   Threat 6) Corrupted data which causes a PU to have misinformation
   concerning a pool handle resolution
   -----------
   Security mechanism in response: Security protocol which supports



Stewart, et al.         Expires January 12, 2009               [Page 49]

Internet-Draft      Aggregate Server Access Protocol           July 2008


   integrity protection

   Threat 7) Eavesdropper snooping on handlespace information
   -----------
   Security mechanism in response: Security protocol which supports data
   confidentiality

   Threat 8) Flood of ASAP_ENDPOINT_UNREACHABLE messages from the PU to
   ENRP server
   -----------
   Security mechanism in response: ASAP must control the number of ASAP
   endpoint unreachable messages transmitted from the PU to the ENRP
   server.

   Threat 9) Flood of ASAP_ENDPOINT_KEEP_ALIVE messages to the PE from
   the ENRP server
   -----------
   Security mechanism in response: ENRP server must control the number
   of ASAP_ENDPOINT_KEEP_ALIVE messages to the PE

   To summarize the threats 1-7 require security mechanisms which
   support authentication, integrity, data confidentiality, protection
   from replay attacks.

   For Rserpool we need to authenticate the following:

      PU <----  ENRP Server (PU authenticates the ENRP server)
      PE <----> ENRP Server (mutual authentication)
      ENRP server <-----> ENRP Server (mutual authentication)

9.2.  Implementing Security Mechanisms

   We do not define any new security mechanisms specifically for
   responding to threats 1-7.  Rather we use an existing IETF security
   protocol, specifically [RFC3237], to provide the security services
   required.  TLS supports all these requirements and MUST be
   implemented.  The TLS_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA ciphersuite MUST be
   supported at a minimum by implementors of TLS for Rserpool.  For
   purposes of backwards compatibility, ENRP SHOULD support
   TLS_RSA_WITH_3DES_EDE_CBC_SHA.  Implementers MAY also support any
   other IETF approved ciphersuites.

   ENRP servers, PEs, PUs MUST implement TLS.  ENRP servers and PEs MUST
   support mutual authentication using PSK.  ENRP servers MUST support
   mutual authentication among themselves using PSK.  PUs MUST
   authenticate ENRP servers using certificates.

   TLS with PSK is mandatory to implement as the authentication



Stewart, et al.         Expires January 12, 2009               [Page 50]

Internet-Draft      Aggregate Server Access Protocol           July 2008


   mechanism for ENRP to ENRP authentication and PE to ENRP
   authentication.  For PSK, having a pre-shared-key constitutes
   authorization.The network administrators of a pool need to decide
   which nodes are authorized to participate in the pool.  The
   justification for PSK is that we assume that one administrative
   domain will control and manage the server pool.  This allows for PSK
   to be implemented and managed by a central security administrator.

   TLS with certificates is mandatory to implement as the authentication
   mechanism for PU to ENRP server.  PUs MUST autnthenticate ENRP
   servers using certificates.  ENRP servers MUST possess a site
   certificate whose subject corresponds to their canonical hostname.
   PUs MAY have certificates of their own for mutual authentication with
   TLS, but no provisions are set forth in this document for their use.
   All Rserpool elements that support TLS MUST have a mechanism for
   validating certificates received during TLS negotiation; this entails
   possession of one or more root certificates issued by certificate
   authorities (preferably well-known distributors of site certificates
   comparable to those that issue root certificates for web browsers).

   In order to prevent man-in-the-middle attacks, the client MUST verify
   the server's identity (as presented in the server's Certificate
   message).  The client's understanding of the server's identity
   (typically the identity used to establish the transport connection)
   is called the "reference identity".  The client determines the type
   (e.g., DNS name or IP address) of the reference identity and performs
   a comparison between the reference identity and each subjectAltName
   value of the corresponding type until a match is produced.  Once a
   match is produced, the server's identity has been verified, and the
   server identity check is complete.  Different subjectAltName types
   are matched in different ways.  The client may map the reference
   identity to a different type prior to performing a comparison.
   Mappings may be performed for all available subjectAltName types to
   which the reference identity can be mapped; however, the reference
   identity should only be mapped to types for which the mapping is
   either inherently secure (e.g., extracting the DNS name from a URI to
   compare with a subjectAltName of type dNSName) or for which the
   mapping is performed in a secure manner (e.g., using DNSSEC, or using
   user- or admin-configured host- to-address/address-to-host lookup
   tables)..

   If the server identity check fails, user-oriented clients SHOULD
   either notify the user or close the transport connection and indicate
   that the server's identity is suspect.  Automated clients SHOULD
   close the transport connection and then return or log an error
   indicating that the server's identity is suspect or both.  Beyond the
   server identity check described in this section, clients should be
   prepared to do further checking to ensure that the server is



Stewart, et al.         Expires January 12, 2009               [Page 51]

Internet-Draft      Aggregate Server Access Protocol           July 2008


   authorized to provide the service it is requested to provide.  The
   client may need to make use of local policy information in making
   this determination.

   If the reference identity is an internationalized domain name,
   conforming implementations MUST convert it to the ASCII Compatible
   Encoding (ACE) format as specified in Section 4 of [RFC3490] before
   comparison with subjectAltName values of type dNSName.  Specifically,
   conforming implementations MUST perform the conversion operation
   specified in Section 4 of [RFC3490] as follows: * in step 1, the
   domain name SHALL be considered a "stored string"; * in step 3, set
   the flag called "UseSTD3ASCIIRules"; * in step 4, process each label
   with the "ToASCII" operation; and * in step 5, change all label
   separators to U+002E (full stop).

   After performing the "to-ASCII" conversion, the DNS labels and names
   MUST be compared for equality according to the rules specified in
   Section 3 of RFC3490.  The '*' (ASCII 42) wildcard character is
   allowed in subjectAltName values of type dNSName, and then only as
   the left-most (least significant) DNS label in that value.  This
   wildcard matches any left-most DNS label in the server name.  That
   is, the subject *.example.com matches the server names a.example.com
   and b.example.com, but does not match example.com or a.b.example.com.

   When the reference identity is an IP address, the identity MUST be
   converted to the "network byte order" octet string representation RFC
   791[RFC0791][RFC2460][RFC2460].  For IP Version 4, as specified in
   RFC 791, the octet string will contain exactly four octets.  For IP
   Version 6, as specified in RFC 2460, the octet string will contain
   exactly sixteen octets.  This octet string is then compared against
   subjectAltName values of type iPAddress.  A match occurs if the
   reference identity octet string and value octet strings are
   identical.

   After a TLS layer is established in an session, both parties are to
   each independently decide whether or not to continue based on local
   policy and the security level achieved.  If either party decides that
   the security level is inadequate for it to continue, it SHOULD remove
   the TLS layer immediately after the TLS (re)negotiation has completed
   (see RFC4511)[RFC4511].  Implementations may reevaluate the security
   level at any time and, upon finding it inadequate, should remove the
   TLS layer.

   Implementations MUST support TLS with SCTP as described in [RFC3436]
   or TLS over TCP as described in [RFC4346].  When using TLS/SCTP we
   must ensure that RSerPool does not use any features of SCTP that are
   not available to an TLS/SCTP user.  This is not a difficult technical
   problem, but simply a requirement.  When describing an API of the



Stewart, et al.         Expires January 12, 2009               [Page 52]

Internet-Draft      Aggregate Server Access Protocol           July 2008


   RSerPool lower layer we have also to take into account the
   differences between TLS and SCTP.

   Threat 8 requires the ASAP protocol to limit the number of
   ASAP_ENDPOINT_UNREACHABLE messages (see Section 3.5 in this document)
   to the ENRP server.

   Threat 9 requires the ENRP protocol to limit the number of
   ASAP_ENDPOINT_KEEP_ALIVE messages from the ENRP server to the PE (see
   [I-D.ietf-rserpool-enrp]).

   There is no security mechanism defined for the multicast
   announcements.  Therefore a receiver of such an announcement can not
   consider the source address of such a message to be a trustworthy
   address of an ENRP server.  A receiver must also be prepared to
   receive a large number of multicast announcements from attackers.

9.3.  Chain of trust

   Security is mandatory to implement in Rserpool and is based on TLS
   implementation in all three architecture components that comprise
   Rserpool -- namely PU, PE and ENRP server.  We define an ENRP server
   that uses TLS for all communication and authenticates ENRP peers and
   PE registrants to be a secured ENRP server.

   Here is a description of all possible data paths and a description of
   the security.

   PU <---> secured ENRP Server (authentication of ENRP server;
            queries over TLS)
   PE <---> secured ENRP server (mutual authentication;
            registration/deregistration over TLS)
   secured ENRP server <---> secured ENRP server (mutual authentication;
            database updates using TLS)

   If all components of the system authenticate and communicate using
   TLS, the chain of trust is sound.  The root of the trust chain is the
   ENRP server.  If that is secured using TLS, then security will be
   enforced for all ENRP and PE components that try to connect to it.

   Summary of interaction between secured and unsecured components: If
   the PE does not use TLS and tries to register with a secure ENRP
   server, it will receive an error message response indicated as error
   due to security considerations and the registration will be rejected.
   If an ENRP server which does not use TLS tries to update the database
   of a secure ENRP server, then the update will be rejected.  If an PU
   does not use TLS and communicates with a secure ENRP server, it will
   get a response with the understanding that the response is not secure



Stewart, et al.         Expires January 12, 2009               [Page 53]

Internet-Draft      Aggregate Server Access Protocol           July 2008


   as the response can be tampered with in transit even if the ENRP
   database is secured.

   The final case is the PU sending a secure request to ENRP.  It might
   be that ENRP and PEs are not secured and this is an allowable
   configuration.  The intent is to secure the communication over the
   Internet between the PU and the ENRP server.

   Summary:

   Rserpool architecture components can communicate with each other to
   establish a chain of trust.  Secured PE and ENRP servers reject any
   communications with unsecured ENRP or PE servers.

   If the above is enforced, then a chain of trust is established for
   the Rserpool user.



































Stewart, et al.         Expires January 12, 2009               [Page 54]

Internet-Draft      Aggregate Server Access Protocol           July 2008


10.  Acknowledgments

   The authors wish to thank John Loughney, Lyndon Ong, Walter Johnson,
   Thomas Dreibholz, and many others for their invaluable comments and
   feedback.














































Stewart, et al.         Expires January 12, 2009               [Page 55]

Internet-Draft      Aggregate Server Access Protocol           July 2008


11.  References

11.1.  Normative References

   [RFC0791]  Postel, J., "Internet Protocol", STD 5, RFC 791,
              September 1981.

   [RFC2119]  Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
              Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.

   [RFC2460]  Deering, S. and R. Hinden, "Internet Protocol, Version 6
              (IPv6) Specification", RFC 2460, December 1998.

   [RFC3237]  Tuexen, M., Xie, Q., Stewart, R., Shore, M., Ong, L.,
              Loughney, J., and M. Stillman, "Requirements for Reliable
              Server Pooling", RFC 3237, January 2002.

   [RFC3436]  Jungmaier, A., Rescorla, E., and M. Tuexen, "Transport
              Layer Security over Stream Control Transmission Protocol",
              RFC 3436, December 2002.

   [RFC3490]  Faltstrom, P., Hoffman, P., and A. Costello,
              "Internationalizing Domain Names in Applications (IDNA)",
              RFC 3490, March 2003.

   [RFC4346]  Dierks, T. and E. Rescorla, "The Transport Layer Security
              (TLS) Protocol Version 1.1", RFC 4346, April 2006.

   [RFC4511]  Sermersheim, J., "Lightweight Directory Access Protocol
              (LDAP): The Protocol", RFC 4511, June 2006.

   [RFC4960]  Stewart, R., "Stream Control Transmission Protocol",
              RFC 4960, September 2007.

   [RFC5226]  Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an
              IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 5226,
              May 2008.

   [I-D.ietf-rserpool-policies]
              Tuexen, M. and T. Dreibholz, "Reliable Server Pooling
              Policies", draft-ietf-rserpool-policies-09 (work in
              progress), May 2008.

   [I-D.ietf-rserpool-common-param]
              Stewart, R., Xie, Q., Stillman, M., and M. Tuexen,
              "Aggregate Server Access Protocol (ASAP) and Endpoint
              Handlespace Redundancy  Protocol (ENRP) Parameters",
              draft-ietf-rserpool-common-param-17 (work in progress),



Stewart, et al.         Expires January 12, 2009               [Page 56]

Internet-Draft      Aggregate Server Access Protocol           July 2008


              May 2008.

   [I-D.ietf-rserpool-enrp]
              Xie, Q., Stewart, R., Stillman, M., Tuexen, M., and A.
              Silverton, "Endpoint Handlespace Redundancy Protocol
              (ENRP)", draft-ietf-rserpool-enrp-20 (work in progress),
              May 2008.

   [I-D.ietf-rserpool-threats]
              Stillman, M., Gopal, R., Guttman, E., Holdrege, M., and S.
              Sengodan, "Threats Introduced by RSerPool and Requirements
              for Security in Response to  Threats",
              draft-ietf-rserpool-threats-15 (work in progress),
              July 2008.

11.2.  Informative References

   [RFC4086]  Eastlake, D., Schiller, J., and S. Crocker, "Randomness
              Requirements for Security", BCP 106, RFC 4086, June 2005.
































Stewart, et al.         Expires January 12, 2009               [Page 57]

Internet-Draft      Aggregate Server Access Protocol           July 2008


Authors' Addresses

   Randall R. Stewart
   4875 Forest Drive
   Suite 200
   Columbia, SC  29206
   USA

   Phone:
   Email: randall@lakerest.net


   Qiaobing Xie
   USA

   Phone: +1 224-465-5954
   Email: Qiaobing.Xie@gmail.org


   Maureen Stillman
   Nokia
   127 W. State Street
   Ithaca, NY  14850
   USA

   Phone:
   Email: maureen.stillman@nokia.com


   Michael Tuexen
   Muenster Univ. of Applied Sciences
   Stegerwaldstr. 39
   48565 Steinfurt
   Germany

   Email: tuexen@fh-muenster.de















Stewart, et al.         Expires January 12, 2009               [Page 58]

Internet-Draft      Aggregate Server Access Protocol           July 2008


Full Copyright Statement

   Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2008).

   This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions
   contained in BCP 78, and except as set forth therein, the authors
   retain all their rights.

   This document and the information contained herein are provided on an
   "AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS
   OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY, THE IETF TRUST AND
   THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS
   OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF
   THE INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED
   WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.


Intellectual Property

   The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
   Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to
   pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in
   this document or the extent to which any license under such rights
   might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has
   made any independent effort to identify any such rights.  Information
   on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be
   found in BCP 78 and BCP 79.

   Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any
   assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an
   attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of
   such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this
   specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at
   http://www.ietf.org/ipr.

   The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any
   copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary
   rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement
   this standard.  Please address the information to the IETF at
   ietf-ipr@ietf.org.











Stewart, et al.         Expires January 12, 2009               [Page 59]


Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.108, available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/