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

Versions: 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

Network Working Group                                       T. Dreibholz
Internet-Draft                              University of Duisburg-Essen
Intended status: Informational                                 M. Tuexen
Expires: July 9, 2010                 Univ. of Applied Sciences Muenster
                                                         January 5, 2010


           Reliable Server Pooling (RSerPool) Bakeoff Scoring
                 draft-dreibholz-rserpool-score-06.txt

Abstract

   This memo describes some of the scoring to be used in the testing of
   Reliable Server Pooling protocols ASAP and ENRP at upcoming bakeoffs.

Status of this Memo

   This Internet-Draft is submitted to IETF in full conformance with the
   provisions of BCP 78 and 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 July 9, 2010.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2010 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors.  All rights reserved.

   This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
   Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
   (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
   publication of this document.  Please review these documents
   carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect



Dreibholz & Tuexen        Expires July 9, 2010                  [Page 1]


Internet-Draft          RSerPool Bakeoff Scoring            January 2010


   to this document.  Code Components extracted from this document must
   include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
   the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
   described in the BSD License.


Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
   2.  Aggregate Server Access Protocol  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
     2.1.  Pool Element Communication  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
     2.2.  Pool User Communication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
     2.3.  ENRP Server Communication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
   3.  Endpoint Handlespace Redundancy Protocol  . . . . . . . . . . . 5
     3.1.  Peer Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
     3.2.  Update  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
     3.3.  Synchronization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
     3.4.  Takeover  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
   4.  Bonus Points  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
   5.  Reference Implementation  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
   6.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
   7.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
   8.  References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
     8.1.  Normative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
     8.2.  Informative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

























Dreibholz & Tuexen        Expires July 9, 2010                  [Page 2]


Internet-Draft          RSerPool Bakeoff Scoring            January 2010


1.  Introduction

   This document will be used as a basis for point scoring at upcoming
   RSerPool bakeoffs.  Its purpose is similar to that described in
   RFC1025.  It is hoped that a clear definition of where and how to
   score points will further the development of RSerPool.

   Note that while attending a bakeoff no one else will score your
   points for you.  We trust that all implementations will faithfully
   record their points that are received honestly.  Note also that these
   scores are NOT to be used for marketing purposes.  They are for the
   use of the implementations to know how well they are doing.  The only
   reporting that will be done is a basic summary to the Reliable Server
   Pooling Working Group but please note that NO company or
   implementation names will be attached.


2.  Aggregate Server Access Protocol

   The ASAP protocol is described in the follwing documents:

   o  [RFC5352]

   o  [RFC5354]

   o  [I-D.dreibholz-rserpool-asap-hropt]

   o  [I-D.dreibholz-rserpool-delay]

2.1.  Pool Element Communication

   These points will be scored for EACH peer implementation that you
   successfully communicate with.

   o  2 Successful ASAP Registration Request of a PE in a pool using
      Round Robin policy and handling of ASAP Registration Response.

   o  2 Failing ASAP Registration Request of a PE requesting Least Used
      policy in a pool using Round Robin policy and appropriate handling
      of ASAP Registration Response (e.g. printing error message, but
      not retrying registration).

   o  2 Successful re-registration of a PE in a pool using Round Robin
      policy.

   o  2 Successful ASAP Deregistration Request of the PE from its pool
      and handling of ASAP Deregistration Response.




Dreibholz & Tuexen        Expires July 9, 2010                  [Page 3]


Internet-Draft          RSerPool Bakeoff Scoring            January 2010


   o  2 Successful handling of ASAP Endpoint Keep-Alive without Home bit
      set, i.e. answering with ASAP Endpoint Keep-Alive Ack.

   o  5 Successful handling of ASAP Endpoint Keep-Alive with Home bit
      set: respond with ASAP Endpoint Keep-Alive Ack and use new ENRP
      server for re-registration.

   o  5 Successful connection to and registration at an ENRP server
      announcing itself via multicast ASAP Announces.

   o  1 Successful registration into pool using Least Used policy.

   o  1 Successful registration into pool using Weighted Round Robin
      policy.

   o  1 Successful registration into pool using Random policy.

   o  1 Successful registration into pool using Weighted Random policy.

2.2.  Pool User Communication

   These points will be scored for EACH peer implementation that you
   successfully communicate with.

   o  5 Successful ASAP Handle Resolution in a pool using Round Robin
      policy, correct handling of ASAP Handle Resolution Response.

   o  2 Successful failure reporting using ASAP Endpoint Unreachable.

   o  5 Successful connection to and handle resolution at ENRP server
      announcing itself via multicast ASAP Announces.

   o  1 Successful handle resolution in a pool using Least Used policy.

   o  1 Successful handle resolution in a pool using Weighted Round
      Robin policy.

   o  1 Successful handle resolution in a pool using Random policy.

   o  1 Successful handle resolution in a pool using Weighted Random
      policy.

2.3.  ENRP Server Communication

   These points will be scored for EACH peer implementation that you
   successfully communicate with.





Dreibholz & Tuexen        Expires July 9, 2010                  [Page 4]


Internet-Draft          RSerPool Bakeoff Scoring            January 2010


   o  2 Successful handling of an ASAP Registration Request into a pool
      using Round Robin policy (ENRP server answers with successful ASAP
      Registration Response).

   o  2 Rejecting registration of a PE requesting Round Robin policy
      into a pool using Least Used policy.

   o  5 Rejecting registration of a PE with all addresses *not* being
      part of the ASAP association.

   o  5 Successful registration of a PE with some addresses *not* being
      part of the ASAP association.  The invalid addresses may *not* go
      into the handlespace.

   o  5 Successful handling of ASAP Endpoint Unreachable messages.  The
      ENRP server must remove the given PE after MAX-BAD-PE-REPORTS=3
      unreachability reports.

   o  2 Sending regular ASAP Endpoint Keep-Alives to its PEs.

   o  2 Removing PE not answering to ASAP Endpoint Keep-Alive.


3.  Endpoint Handlespace Redundancy Protocol

   The ENRP protocol is described in the follwing documents:

   o  [RFC5353]

   o  [RFC5354]

   o  [I-D.dreibholz-rserpool-enrp-takeover]

3.1.  Peer Management

   These points will be scored for EACH peer implementation that you
   successfully communicate with.

   o  2 Sending ENRP Presence to a new ENRP server.

   o  2 Sending ENRP Presences in the interval given by PEER-HEARTBEAT-
      CYCLE.

   o  5 Requesting peer list from new ENRP server using ENRP Peer List
      Request, handling ENRP Peer List Response and adding entries to
      its own peer list.





Dreibholz & Tuexen        Expires July 9, 2010                  [Page 5]


Internet-Draft          RSerPool Bakeoff Scoring            January 2010


   o  2 Handling ENRP Peer List Request and replying with own peer list
      in ENRP Peer List Response.

   o  5 Requesting handlespace from new ENRP server using ENRP Handle
      Table Request, handling ENRP Handle Table Response (without M-bit
      set) and inserting entries into its own handlespace copy.

   o  5 Requesting handlespace from new ENRP server using ENRP Handle
      Table Request, handling ENRP Handle Table Response with M-bit set,
      requesting more entries and inserting entries into its own
      handlespace copy.

   o  2 Handling ENRP Handle Table Request and replying own handlespace
      in ENRP Handle Table Response (without M-bit).

   o  10 Handling ENRP Handle Table Request and replying own handlespace
      in ENRP Handle Table Response with M-bit set, remembering point to
      continue from, responding next block of handlespace entries upon
      following ENRP Handle Table Request, etc. until transfer of
      handlespace data is complete.

   o  5 Successful addition of new ENRP server announcing itself via
      multicast ENRP Presence (including association establishment as
      well as download of peer list and handlespace).

3.2.  Update

   These points will be scored for EACH peer implementation that you
   successfully communicate with.

   o  2 Handling an ENRP Handle Update adding a PE.

   o  2 Handling an ENRP Handle Update updating a PE.  The changes must
      be entered into the local handlespace copy.

   o  2 Handling an ENRP Handle Update removing a PE.

3.3.  Synchronization

   These points will be scored for EACH peer implementation that you
   successfully communicate with.

   o  5 Successful detection of different handlespace checksums upon
      reception of ENRP Presence (due to additional PE), request of
      Handle Table with W-bit set, integration of missing PE into local
      handlespace copy and reporting the correct checksum in own ENRP
      Presence.




Dreibholz & Tuexen        Expires July 9, 2010                  [Page 6]


Internet-Draft          RSerPool Bakeoff Scoring            January 2010


   o  5 Successful detection of different handlespace checksums upon
      reception of ENRP Presence (due to out-of-date PE), request of
      Handle Table with W-bit set, removal of PE from local handlespace
      copy and reporting the correct checksum in own ENRP Presence.

   o  10 Successful detection of different handlespace checksums upon
      reception of ENRP Presence (due to multiple new and out-of-date PE
      identities; size of PE identities is larger than maximum ENRP
      message size), request of Handle Table with W-bit set, handling of
      ENRP Handle Table Responses with M-bit set, removal of out-of-date
      PEs, integration of new PEs into the local handlespace copy and
      reporting correct checksum in own ENRP Presence.

3.4.  Takeover

   These points will be scored for EACH peer implementation that you
   successfully communicate with.  The setup contains your ENRP server
   plus a set of peers running another implementation.

   o  5 Successfully detecting the failure of a remote peer and
      initiating a takeover procedure.

   o  5 Acknowledging another peer's takeover and aborting own takeover
      procedure.

   o  10 Correctly handling a remote peer's Takeover Server message,
      including ownership change for the remote peer's PEs.

   o  10 Successfully taking over a dead peer, including ownership
      change and informing the PEs taken over.


4.  Bonus Points

   You can also earn Bonus Points:

   o  20 points for the ENRP server handling the largest number of PEs.

   o  20 points for the ENRP server achieving the highest handle
      resolution throughput for a pool containing 100 (should this be
      larger?)  PEs.

   Please note that the whole period of the bakeoff is relevant.


5.  Reference Implementation

   The RSerPool reference implementation RSPLIB can be found at



Dreibholz & Tuexen        Expires July 9, 2010                  [Page 7]


Internet-Draft          RSerPool Bakeoff Scoring            January 2010


   [RSerPoolPage].  It supports the functionalities defined by
   [RFC5351], [RFC5352], [RFC5353], [RFC5354] and [RFC5356] as well as
   the options [I-D.dreibholz-rserpool-asap-hropt],
   [I-D.dreibholz-rserpool-enrp-takeover] and
   [I-D.dreibholz-rserpool-delay].  An introduction to this
   implementation is provided in [Dre2006].


6.  Security Considerations

   This document does only describe test scenarios and therefore does
   not introduce any new security issues.

   For security considerations of the RSerPool protocols see [RFC3237],
   [RFC5351], [RFC5352], [RFC5353], [RFC5354].  [RFC5356] and in
   particular [RFC5355].


7.  IANA Considerations

   This document introduces no additional considerations for IANA.


8.  References

8.1.  Normative References

   [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.

   [RFC5351]  Lei, P., Ong, L., Tuexen, M., and T. Dreibholz, "An
              Overview of Reliable Server Pooling Protocols", RFC 5351,
              September 2008.

   [RFC5352]  Stewart, R., Xie, Q., Stillman, M., and M. Tuexen,
              "Aggregate Server Access Protocol (ASAP)", RFC 5352,
              September 2008.

   [RFC5353]  Xie, Q., Stewart, R., Stillman, M., Tuexen, M., and A.
              Silverton, "Endpoint Handlespace Redundancy Protocol
              (ENRP)", RFC 5353, September 2008.

   [RFC5354]  Stewart, R., Xie, Q., Stillman, M., and M. Tuexen,
              "Aggregate Server Access Protocol (ASAP) and Endpoint
              Handlespace Redundancy Protocol (ENRP) Parameters",
              RFC 5354, September 2008.




Dreibholz & Tuexen        Expires July 9, 2010                  [Page 8]


Internet-Draft          RSerPool Bakeoff Scoring            January 2010


   [RFC5355]  Stillman, M., Gopal, R., Guttman, E., Sengodan, S., and M.
              Holdrege, "Threats Introduced by Reliable Server Pooling
              (RSerPool) and Requirements for Security in Response to
              Threats", RFC 5355, September 2008.

   [RFC5356]  Dreibholz, T. and M. Tuexen, "Reliable Server Pooling
              Policies", RFC 5356, September 2008.

   [I-D.dreibholz-rserpool-asap-hropt]
              Dreibholz, T., "Handle Resolution Option for ASAP",
              draft-dreibholz-rserpool-asap-hropt-04 (work in progress),
              January 2009.

   [I-D.dreibholz-rserpool-enrp-takeover]
              Dreibholz, T. and X. Zhou, "Takeover Suggestion Flag for
              the ENRP Handle Update Message",
              draft-dreibholz-rserpool-enrp-takeover-01 (work in
              progress), January 2009.

   [I-D.dreibholz-rserpool-delay]
              Dreibholz, T. and X. Zhou, "Definition of a Delay
              Measurement Infrastructure and Delay-Sensitive  Least-Used
              Policy for Reliable Server Pooling",
              draft-dreibholz-rserpool-delay-03 (work in progress),
              January 2009.

8.2.  Informative References

   [RSerPoolPage]
              Dreibholz, T., "Thomas Dreibholz's RSerPool Page",
              URL: http://tdrwww.iem.uni-due.de.de/dreibholz/rserpool/.

   [Dre2006]  Dreibholz, T., "Reliable Server Pooling -- Evaluation,
              Optimization and Extension of a Novel IETF Architecture",
              Ph.D. Thesis University of Duisburg-Essen, Faculty of
              Economics, Institute for Computer Science and Business
              Information Systems, URL: http://
              duepublico.uni-duisburg-essen.de/servlets/DerivateServlet/
              Derivate-16326/Dre2006-final.pdf, March 2007.












Dreibholz & Tuexen        Expires July 9, 2010                  [Page 9]


Internet-Draft          RSerPool Bakeoff Scoring            January 2010


Authors' Addresses

   Thomas Dreibholz
   University of Duisburg-Essen, Institute for Experimental Mathematics
   Ellernstrasse 29
   45326 Essen, Nordrhein-Westfalen
   Germany

   Phone: +49-201-1837637
   Fax:   +49-201-1837673
   Email: dreibh@iem.uni-due.de
   URI:   http://www.iem.uni-due.de/~dreibh/


   Michael Tuexen
   University of Applied Sciences Muenster
   Stegerwaldstrasse 39
   48565 Steinfurt, Nordrhein-Westfalen
   Germany

   Email: tuexen@fh-muenster.de






























Dreibholz & Tuexen        Expires July 9, 2010                 [Page 10]


Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.129d, available from https://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/