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

Versions: 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12

Network Working Group                                     M. Tuexen, Ed.
Internet-Draft                        Univ. of Applied Sciences Muenster
Expires: April 11, 2004                                           Q. Xie
                                                          Motorola, Inc.
                                                              R. Stewart
                                                                M. Shore
                                                     Cisco Systems, Inc.
                                                             J. Loughney
                                                   Nokia Research Center
                                                        October 12, 2003


                Architecture for Reliable Server Pooling
                    draft-ietf-rserpool-arch-07.txt

Status of this Memo

   This document is an Internet-Draft and is in full conformance with
   all provisions of Section 10 of RFC2026.

   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 April 11, 2004.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2003). All Rights Reserved.

Abstract

   This document describes an architecture and protocols for the
   management and operation of server pools supporting highly reliable
   applications, and for client access mechanisms to a server pool.






Tuexen, et al.           Expires April 11, 2004                 [Page 1]


Internet-Draft    Architecture for Reliable Server Pooling  October 2003


Table of Contents

   1.    Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3
   1.1   Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3
   1.2   Terminology  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3
   1.3   Abbreviations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
   2.    Reliable Server Pooling Architecture . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
   2.1   RSerPool Functional Components . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
   2.2   RSerPool Protocol Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
   2.2.1 Endpoint Name Resolution Protocol  . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
   2.2.2 Aggregate Server Access Protocol . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6
   2.2.3 PU <-> NS Communication  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6
   2.2.4 PE <-> NS Communication  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
   2.2.5 PU <-> PE Communication  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
   2.2.6 NS <-> NS Communication  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8
   2.2.7 PE <-> PE Communication  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
   2.3   Failover Support . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
   2.3.1 Business Cards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
   2.3.2 Cookies  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
   2.4   Typical Interactions between RSerPool Components . . . . . . 11
   3.    Examples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
   3.1   Two File Transfer Examples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
   3.1.1 The RSerPool Aware Client  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
   3.1.2 The RSerPool Unaware Client  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
   3.2   Telephony Signaling Example  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
   3.2.1 Decomposed GWC and GK Scenario . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
   3.2.2 Collocated GWC and GK Scenario . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
   4.    Security Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
   5.    Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
         Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
         Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
         Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
         Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . 21


















Tuexen, et al.           Expires April 11, 2004                 [Page 2]


Internet-Draft    Architecture for Reliable Server Pooling  October 2003


1. Introduction

1.1 Overview

   This document defines an architecture, for providing a highly
   available reliable server function in support of a service or set of
   services. This is achieved is by forming a pool of servers, each of
   which is capable of supporting the desired service(s), and providing
   a name service that will resolve requests from a service user to the
   identity of a working server in the pool.

   To access a server pool, the pool user consults a name server. The
   name service itself can be provided by a pool of name servers using a
   shared protocol to make the name resolution function fault-tolerant.
   It is assumed that the name space is kept flat and designed for a
   limited scale in order to keep the protocols simple, robust and fast.

   The server pool itself is supported by a shared protocol between
   servers and the name service allowing servers to enter and exit the
   pool.  Several server selection mechanisms, called server pool
   policies, are supported for flexibility.

1.2 Terminology

   This document uses the following terms:

   Home Name Server: The Name Server a Pool Element has registered with.
      This Name Server supervises the Pool Element.

   Operation 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 (or pool name): A logical pointer to a pool. Each server
      pool will be identifiable in the operation scope of the system by
      a unique pool handle or "name".

   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 name of the
      pool and a destination transport address of the pool element.





Tuexen, et al.           Expires April 11, 2004                 [Page 3]


Internet-Draft    Architecture for Reliable Server Pooling  October 2003


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

   Name server: Entity which is responsible for managing and maintaining
      the name space within the RSerPool operation scope.


1.3 Abbreviations

   ASAP: Aggregate Server Access Protocol

   ENRP: Endpoint Name Resolution Protocol

   Home NS: Home Name Server

   NS: Name Server

   PE: Pool element

   PU: Pool user

   SCTP: Stream Control Transmission Protocol

   TCP: Transmission Control Protocol


2. Reliable Server Pooling Architecture

   In this section, we define a reliable server pool architecture.

2.1 RSerPool Functional Components

   There are three classes of entities in the RSerPool architecture:

   o  Pool Elements (PEs).

   o  Name Servers (NSs).

   o  Pool Users (PUs).

   A server pool is defined as a set of one or more servers providing
   the same application functionality. These servers are called Pool
   Elements (PEs). PEs form the first class of entities in the RSerPool
   architecture. Multiple PEs in a server pool can be used to provide
   fault tolerance or load sharing, for example.

   Each server pool is identified by a unique name which is simply a
   byte string, called the pool handle. This allows binary names to be



Tuexen, et al.           Expires April 11, 2004                 [Page 4]


Internet-Draft    Architecture for Reliable Server Pooling  October 2003


   used.

   These names are not valid in the whole internet but only in smaller
   domains, called the operational scope. Furthermore, the namespace is
   assumed to be flat, so that multiple levels of query are not
   necessary to resolve a name request.

   The second class of entities in the RSerPool architecture is the
   class of name servers (NSs). These name servers can resolve a pool
   handle to a list of information which allows the PU to access a PE of
   the server pool identified by the handle. This information includes:

   o  A list of IPv4 and/or IPv6 addresses.

   o  A protocol field specifying the transport layer protocol.

   o  A port number associated with the transport protocol, e.g. SCTP,
      TCP or UDP.

   Note that the RSerPool architecture supports both IPv4 and IPv6
   addressing.

   In each operational scope there must be at least one name server. All
   name servers within the operational scope have knowledge of all
   server pools within the operational scope.

   A third class of entities in the architecture is the Pool User (PU)
   class, consisting of the clients being served by the PEs of a server
   pool.

2.2 RSerPool Protocol Overview

   The RSerPool requested features can be obtained with the help of the
   combination of two protocols: ENRP (Endpoint Name Resolution
   Protocol) and ASAP (Aggregate Server Access Protocol).

2.2.1 Endpoint Name Resolution Protocol

   The name servers use a protocol called Endpoint Name Resolution
   Protocol (ENRP) for communication with each other to exchange
   information and updates about the server pools.

   ENRP is designed to provide a fully distributed fault-tolerant
   real-time translation service that maps a name to a set of transport
   addresses pointing to a specific group of networked communication
   endpoints registered under that name. ENRP employs a client-server
   model in which a name server will respond to the name translation
   service requests from endpoint clients.



Tuexen, et al.           Expires April 11, 2004                 [Page 5]


Internet-Draft    Architecture for Reliable Server Pooling  October 2003


   RFC3237 [8] also requires that the name servers should not resolve a
   pool handle to a transport layer address of a PE which is not in
   operation.  Therefore each PE is supervised by one specific name
   server, called the home NS of that PE.  If it detects that the PE is
   out of service all other name servers are informed by using ENRP.

2.2.2 Aggregate Server Access Protocol

   The PU wanting service from the pool uses the Aggregate Server Access
   Protocol (ASAP) to access members of the pool.  Depending on the
   level of support desired by the application, use of ASAP may be
   limited to an initial query for an active PE, or ASAP may be used to
   mediate all communication between the PU and PE, so that automatic
   failover from a failed PE to an alternate PE can be supported.

   ASAP uses a name-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 provides some mechanisms to support loadsharing
   between PEs within the same pool and to support the upper layer in
   case of a failover between PEs becomes necessary.

   ASAP is also used by a PE to join or leave a server pool.  It
   registers or deregisters itself by communicating with a name server,
   which will normally the home NS. ASAP allows dynamic system
   scalability, allowing the pool membership to change at any time.

2.2.3 PU <-> NS Communication

   The PU <-> NS communication is used for performing name queries. The
   PU sends a pool handle to the NS and gets back the information
   necessary for accessing a server in a server pool.

   This communication can be based on SCTP or TCP if the PU does not
   support SCTP. The protocol stack for an SCTP capable PU is given in
   Figure 1.












Tuexen, et al.           Expires April 11, 2004                 [Page 6]


Internet-Draft    Architecture for Reliable Server Pooling  October 2003


                       ********        ********
                       *  PU  *        *  NS  *
                       ********        ********

                       +------+        +------+
                       | ASAP |        | ASAP |
                       +------+        +------+
                       | SCTP |        | SCTP |
                       +------+        +------+
                       |  IP  |        |  IP  |
                       +------+        +------+

                    Protocol stack between PU and NS

                                Figure 1


2.2.4 PE <-> NS Communication

   The PE <-> NS communication is used for registration and
   deregistration of the PE in one or more pools and for the supervision
   of the PE by the home NS. This communication is based on SCTP, the
   protocol stack is shown in the following figure.

                       ********        ********
                       *  PE  *        *  NS  *
                       ********        ********

                       +------+        +------+
                       | ASAP |        | ASAP |
                       +------+        +------+
                       | SCTP |        | SCTP |
                       +------+        +------+
                       |  IP  |        |  IP  |
                       +------+        +------+
                    Protocol stack between PE and NS

                                Figure 2


2.2.5 PU <-> PE Communication

   The PU <-> PE communication can be divided into two parts:

   o  control channel

   o  data channel




Tuexen, et al.           Expires April 11, 2004                 [Page 7]


Internet-Draft    Architecture for Reliable Server Pooling  October 2003


   The data channel is used for the transmission of the upper layer
   data, the control channel is used to exchange RSerPool information.

   There are two supported scenarios:

   o  Multiplexed data and control channel. Both channels are
      transported over one transport connection. This can either be an
      SCTP association, with data and control channel are separated by
      the PPID, or an TCP connection, with data and control channel
      being handled by a TCP mapping layer.

   o  Data channel and no control channel. There is no restriction on
      the transport protocol in this case. Note that certain enhanced
      failover services (e.g. business cards, state cookies, message
      failover) are not available when this method is used.

   For a given pool, all PUs and PEs should make the same choice for the
   style of interaction between each other: that is, for a given pool,
   either all PEs and PUs in that pool use a multiplexed control/data
   channel for PU-PE communication, or all PEs and PUs in that pool use
   a data channel only for PU-PE communication.

   When the multiplexed data and control channel is used, enhanced
   failover services may be provided, including:

   o  The PE can send a business card to the PU for providing
      information to which other PE the PU should failover in case of a
      failover.

   o  The PE can send cookies to the PU. The PE would store only the
      last cookie and send it to the new PE in case of a failover.

   See Section 2.3 for further details.

2.2.6 NS <-> NS Communication

   The communication between name servers is used to share the knowledge
   about all server pools between all name servers in an operational
   scope.

   For this communication ENRP over SCTP is used and the protocol stack
   is shown in Figure 3.









Tuexen, et al.           Expires April 11, 2004                 [Page 8]


Internet-Draft    Architecture for Reliable Server Pooling  October 2003


                       ********        ********
                       *  NS  *        *  NS  *
                       ********        ********

                       +------+        +------+
                       | ENRP |        | ENRP |
                       +------+        +------+
                       | SCTP |        | SCTP |
                       +------+        +------+
                       |  IP  |        |  IP  |
                       +------+        +------+
                    Protocol stack between NS and NS

                                Figure 3

   When a name initializes a UDP multicast message may be transmitted
   for initial detection of other name servers in the operational scope.
   The other name servers send a response using a unicast UDP message.

2.2.7 PE <-> PE Communication

   This is a special case of the PU <-> PE communication. In this case
   the PU is also a PE in a server pool.

   There is one additional point here: The PE acting as a PU can send
   the PE the information that it is actually a PE of a pool. This means
   that the pool handle is transferred via the control channel. See
   Section 2.3 for further details.

2.3 Failover Support

   If the PU detects the failure of a PE it may fail over to a different
   PE. The selection to a new PE should be made such that most likely
   the new PE is not affected by the failed one.

   There are some mechanisms provided by RSerPool to support the
   failover to a new PE.

2.3.1 Business Cards

   A PE can send a business card to its peer containing its pool handle
   and optionally information to which other PEs the peer should
   failover.

   Presenting the pool handle is important in case of PE <-> PE
   communication in which one of the PEs acts as a PU for establishing
   the communication. The pool handle of the PE which initiated the
   communication may not be known by the peer.



Tuexen, et al.           Expires April 11, 2004                 [Page 9]


Internet-Draft    Architecture for Reliable Server Pooling  October 2003


   Providing information to which PE the PU should failover can also be
   very important. Consider the scenario presented in the following
   figure.

                   .......................
                   .      +-------+      .
                   .      |       |      .
                   .      |  PE 1 |      .
                   .      |       |      .
                   .      +-------+      .
                   .                     .
                   .     Server Pool     .
                   .                     .
                   .                     .
    +-------+      .      +-------+      .       +-------+
    |       |      .      |       |      .       |       |
    |  PU 1 |------.------|  PE 2 |------.-------|  PU 2 |
    |       |      .      |       |      .       |       |
    +-------+      .      +-------+      .       +-------+
                   .                     .
                   .                     .
                   .                     .
                   .                     .
                   .      +-------+      .
                   .      |       |      .
                   .      |  PE 3 |      .
                   .      |       |      .
                   .      +-------+      .
                   .......................
                 Two PUs accessing the same PE

                                Figure 4

   PU 1 is using PE 2 of the server pool. Assume that PE 1 and PE 2
   share state but not PE 2 and PE 3. Using the business card of PE 2 it
   is possible for PE 2 to inform PU 1 that it should fail over to PE 1
   in case of a failure.

   A slightly more complicated situation is if two pool users, PU 1 and
   PU 2, use PE 2 but both, PU 1 and PU 2, need to use the same PE. Then
   it is important that PU 1 and PU 2 fail over to the same PE. This can
   be handled in a way such that PE 2 gives the same business card to PU
   1 and PU 2.

2.3.2 Cookies

   Cookies may optionally be sent from the PE to the PU. The PU only
   stores the last received cookie. In case of fail over the PU sends



Tuexen, et al.           Expires April 11, 2004                [Page 10]


Internet-Draft    Architecture for Reliable Server Pooling  October 2003


   this last received cookie to the new PE. This method provides a
   simple way of state sharing between the PEs. Please note that the old
   PE should sign the cookie and the receiving PE should verify the
   signature. For the PU, the cookie has no structure and is only stored
   and transmitted to the new PE.

2.4 Typical Interactions between RSerPool Components

   The following drawing shows the typical RSerPool components and their
   possible interactions with each other:

     ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
     ~                                                  operation scope ~
     ~  .........................          .........................    ~
     ~  .        Server Pool 1  .          .        Server Pool 2  .    ~
     ~  .  +-------+ +-------+  .    (d)   .  +-------+ +-------+  .    ~
     ~  .  |PE(1,A)| |PE(1,C)|<-------------->|PE(2,B)| |PE(2,A)|<---+  ~
     ~  .  +-------+ +-------+  .          .  +-------+ +-------+  . |  ~
     ~  .      ^            ^   .          .      ^         ^      . |  ~
     ~  .      |      (a)   |   .          .      |         |      . |  ~
     ~  .      +----------+ |   .          .      |         |      . |  ~
     ~  .  +-------+      | |   .          .      |         |      . |  ~
     ~  .  |PE(1,B)|<---+ | |   .          .      |         |      . |  ~
     ~  .  +-------+    | | |   .          .      |         |      . |  ~
     ~  .      ^        | | |   .          .      |         |      . |  ~
     ~  .......|........|.|.|....          .......|.........|....... |  ~
     ~         |        | | |                     |         |        |  ~
     ~      (c)|     (a)| | |(a)               (a)|      (a)|     (c)|  ~
     ~         |        | | |                     |         |        |  ~
     ~         |        v v v                     v         v        |  ~
     ~         |     +++++++++++++++    (e)     +++++++++++++++      |  ~
     ~         |     +      NS     +<---------->+      NS     +      |  ~
     ~         |     +++++++++++++++            +++++++++++++++      |  ~
     ~         v            ^                          ^             |  ~
     ~     *********        |                          |             |  ~
     ~     * PU(A) *<-------+                       (b)|             |  ~
     ~     *********   (b)                             |             |  ~
     ~                                                 v             |  ~
     ~         :::::::::::::::::      (f)      *****************     |  ~
     ~         : Other Clients :<------------->* Proxy/Gateway * <---+  ~
     ~         :::::::::::::::::               *****************        ~
     ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
            RSerPool components and their possible interactions.


                                Figure 5

   In this figure  we can identify the following possible interactions:



Tuexen, et al.           Expires April 11, 2004                [Page 11]


Internet-Draft    Architecture for Reliable Server Pooling  October 2003


   (a) Server Pool Elements <-> NS: (ASAP) Each PE in a pool uses ASAP
      to register or de-register itself as well as to exchange other
      auxiliary information with the NS. The NS also uses ASAP to
      monitor the operational status of each PE in a pool.

   (b) PU <-> NS: (ASAP) A PU normally uses ASAP to request the NS for a
      name-to-address translation service before the PU can send user
      messages addressed to a server pool by the pool's name.

   (c) PU <-> PE: (ASAP) ASAP can be used to exchange some auxiliary
      information of the two parties before they engage in user data
      transfer.

   (d) Server Pool <-> Server Pool: (ASAP) A PE in a server pool can
      become a PU to another pool when the PE tries to initiate
      communication with the other pool. In such a case, the
      interactions described in (a) and (c) above will apply.

   (e) NS <-> NS: (ENRP) ENRP can be used to fulfill various Name Space
      operation, administration, and maintenance (OAM) functions.

   (f) Other Clients <-> Proxy/Gateway: standard protocols The proxy/
      gateway enables clients ("other clients"), which are not RSerPool
      aware, to access services provided by an RSerPool based server
      pool. It should be noted that these proxies/gateways may become a
      single point of failure.


3. Examples

   In this section the basic concepts of ENRP and ASAP will be
   described. First an RSerPool aware FTP server is considered. The
   interaction with an RSerPool aware and an non-aware client is given.
   Finally, a telephony example is considered.

3.1 Two File Transfer Examples

   In this section we present two separate file transfer examples using
   ENRP and ASAP. We present two separate examples demonstrating an
   ENRP/ASAP aware client and a client that is using a Proxy or Gateway
   to perform the file transfer. In this example we will use a FTP
   RFC959 [4] model with some modifications. The first example (the
   RSerPool aware one) will modify FTP concepts so that the file
   transfer takes place over SCTP. In the second example we will use TCP
   between the unaware client and the Proxy. The Proxy itself will use
   the modified FTP with RSerPool as illustrated in the first example.

   Please note that in the example we do NOT follow FTP RFC959 [4]



Tuexen, et al.           Expires April 11, 2004                [Page 12]


Internet-Draft    Architecture for Reliable Server Pooling  October 2003


   precisely but use FTP-like concepts and attempt to adhere to the
   basic FTP model. These examples use FTP for illustrative purposes,
   FTP was chosen since many of the basic concept are well known and
   should be familiar to readers.

3.1.1 The RSerPool Aware Client

   ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
   ~                                                  operation scope ~
   ~  .........................                                       ~
   ~  . "File Transfer Pool"  .                                       ~
   ~  .  +-------+ +-------+  .                                       ~
   ~ +-> |PE(1,A)| |PE(1,C)|  .                                       ~
   ~ |.  +-------+ +-------+  .                                       ~
   ~ |.      ^            ^   .                                       ~
   ~ |.      +----------+ |   .                                       ~
   ~ |.  +-------+      | |   .                                       ~
   ~ |.  |PE(1,B)|<---+ | |   .                                       ~
   ~ |.  +-------+    | | |   .                                       ~
   ~ |.      ^        | | |   .                                       ~
   ~ |.......|........|.|.|....                                       ~
   ~ |  ASAP |    ASAP| | |ASAP                                       ~
   ~ |(d)    |(c)     | | |                                           ~
   ~ |       v        v v v                                           ~
   ~ |   *********   +++++++++++++++                                  ~
   ~ + ->* PU(X) *   +      NS     +                                  ~
   ~     *********   +++++++++++++++                                  ~
   ~         ^     ASAP     ^                                         ~
   ~         |     <-(b)    |                                         ~
   ~         +--------------+                                         ~
   ~               (a)->                                              ~
   ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

               Architecture for RSerPool aware client.

                                Figure 6

   To effect a file transfer the following steps would take place.

   1.  The application in PU(X) would send a login request. The PU(X)'s
       ASAP layer would send an ASAP request to its NS to request the
       list of pool elements (using (a)). The pool handle to identify
       the pool would be "File Transfer Pool". The ASAP layer queues the
       login request.

   2.  The NS would return a list of the three PEs PE(1,A), PE(1,B) and
       PE(1,C) to the ASAP layer in PU(X) (using (b)).




Tuexen, et al.           Expires April 11, 2004                [Page 13]


Internet-Draft    Architecture for Reliable Server Pooling  October 2003


   3.  The ASAP layer selects one of the PEs, for example PE(1,B). It
       transmits the login request, the other FTP control data finally
       starts the transmission of the requested files (using (c)). For
       this the multiple stream feature of SCTP could be used.

   4.  If during the file transfer conversation, PE(1,B) fails, assuming
       the PE's were sharing state of file transfer, a fail-over to
       PE(1,A) could be initiated. PE(1,A) would continue the transfer
       until complete (see (d)). In parallel a request from PE(1,A)
       would be made to ENRP to request a cache update for the server
       pool "File Transfer Pool" and a report would also be made that
       PE(1,B) is non-responsive (this would cause appropriate audits
       that may remove PE(1,B) from the pool if the NS had not already
       detected the failure) (using (a)).


3.1.2 The RSerPool Unaware Client

   In this example we investigate the use of a Proxy server assuming the
   same set of scenario as illustrated above.

   In this example the steps will occur:

   1.  The FTP client and the Proxy/Gateway are using the TCP-based ftp
       protocol. The client sends the login request to the proxy (using
       (e)).

   2.  The proxy behaves like a client and performs the actions
       described under (1), (2) and (3) of the above description (using
       (a), (b) and (c)).

   3.  The ftp communication continues and will be translated by the
       proxy into the RSerPool aware dialect. This interworking uses (f)
       and (c).

   Note that in this example high availability is maintained between the
   Proxy and the server pool but a single point of failure exists
   between the FTP client and the Proxy, i.e. the command TCP connection
   and its one IP address it is using for commands.












Tuexen, et al.           Expires April 11, 2004                [Page 14]


Internet-Draft    Architecture for Reliable Server Pooling  October 2003


   ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
   ~                                                  operation scope ~
   ~  .........................                                       ~
   ~  . "File Transfer Pool"  .                                       ~
   ~  .  +-------+ +-------+  .                                       ~
   ~  .  |PE(1,A)| |PE(1,C)|  .                                       ~
   ~  .  +-------+ +-------+  .                                       ~
   ~  .      ^            ^   .                                       ~
   ~  .      +----------+ |   .                                       ~
   ~  .  +-------+      | |   .                                       ~
   ~  .  |PE(1,B)|<---+ | |   .                                       ~
   ~  .  +-------+    | | |   .                                       ~
   ~  .......^........|.|.|....                                       ~
   ~         |        | | |                                           ~
   ~         |    ASAP| | |ASAP                                       ~
   ~         |        | | |                                           ~
   ~         |        v v v                                           ~
   ~         |       +++++++++++++++          +++++++++++++++         ~
   ~         |       +      NS     +<--ENRP-->+      NS     +         ~
   ~         |       +++++++++++++++          +++++++++++++++         ~
   ~         |                                ASAP   ^                ~
   ~         |     ASAP       (c)                (b) |  ^             ~
   ~         +---------------------------------+  |  |  |             ~
   ~                                           |  v  | (a)            ~
   ~                                           v     v                ~
   ~         :::::::::::::::::     (e)->     *****************        ~
   ~         :   FTP Client  :<------------->* Proxy/Gateway *        ~
   ~         :::::::::::::::::     (f)       *****************        ~
   ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
                Architecture for RserPool unaware client.

                                Figure 7


3.2 Telephony Signaling Example

   This example shows the use of ASAP/RSerPool to support server pooling
   for high availability of a telephony application such as a Voice over
   IP Gateway Controller (GWC) and Gatekeeper services (GK).

   In this example, we show two different scenarios of deploying these
   services using RSerPool in order to illustrate the flexibility of the
   RSerPool architecture.

3.2.1 Decomposed GWC and GK Scenario

   In this scenario, both GWC and GK services are deployed as separate
   pools with some number of PEs, as shown in the following diagram.



Tuexen, et al.           Expires April 11, 2004                [Page 15]


Internet-Draft    Architecture for Reliable Server Pooling  October 2003


   Each of the pools will register their unique pool handle (i.e. name)
   with the NS. We also assume that there are a Signaling Gateway (SG)
   and a Media Gateway (MG) present and both are RSerPool aware.

                              ...................
                              .    Gateway      .
                              . Controller Pool .
       .................      .   +-------+     .
       .   Gatekeeper  .      .   |PE(2,A)|     .
       .     Pool      .      .   +-------+     .
       .   +-------+   .      .   +-------+     .
       .   |PE(1,A)|   .      .   |PE(2,B)|     .
       .   +-------+   .      .   +-------+     .
       .   +-------+   . (d)  .   +-------+     .
       .   |PE(1,B)|<------------>|PE(2,C)|<-------------+
       .   +-------+   .      .   +-------+     .        |
       .................      ........^..........        |
                                      |                  |
                                   (c)|               (e)|
                                      |                  v
           +++++++++++++++        *********       *****************
           +      NS     +        * SG(X) *       * Media Gateway *
           +++++++++++++++        *********       *****************
                  ^                   ^
                  |                   |
                  |     <-(a)         |
                  +-------------------+
                         (b)->

               Deployment of Decomposed GWC and GK.

                                Figure 8

   As shown in the previous figure, the following sequence takes place:

   1.  the Signaling Gateway (SG) receives an incoming signaling message
       to be forwarded to the GWC. SG(X)'s ASAP layer would send an ASAP
       request to its "local" NS to request the list of pool elements
       (PE's) of GWC (using (a)). The key used for this query is the
       pool handle of the GWC. The ASAP layer queues the data to be sent
       to the GWC in local buffers until the NS responds.

   2.  the NS would return a list of the three PE's A, B and C to the
       ASAP layer in SG(X) together with information to be used for
       load-sharing traffic across the gateway controller pool (using
       (b)).

   3.  the ASAP layer in SG(X) will select one PE (e.g., PE(2,C)) and



Tuexen, et al.           Expires April 11, 2004                [Page 16]


Internet-Draft    Architecture for Reliable Server Pooling  October 2003


       send the signaling message to it (using (c)). The selection is
       based on the load sharing information of the gateway controller
       pool.

   4.  to progress the call, PE(2,C) finds that it needs to talk to the
       Gatekeeper. Assuming it has already had gatekeeper pool's
       information in its local cache (e.g., obtained and stored from
       recent query to NS), PE(2,C) selects PE(1,B) and sends the call
       control message to it (using (d)).

   5.  We assume PE(1,B) responds back to PE(2,C) and authorizes the
       call to proceed.

   6.  PE(2,C) issues media control commands to the Media Gateway (using
       (e)).

   RSerPool will provide service robustness to the system if some
   failure would occur in the system.

   For instance, if PE(1, B) in the Gatekeeper Pool crashed after
   receiving the call control message from PE(2, C) in step (d) above,
   what most likely will happen is that, due to the absence of a reply
   from the Gatekeeper, a timer expiration event will trigger the call
   state machine within PE(2, C) to resend the control message. The ASAP
   layer at PE(2, C) will then notice the failure of PE(1, B) through
   (likely) the endpoint unreachability detection by the transport
   protocol beneath ASAP and automatically deliver the re-sent call
   control message to the alternate GK pool member PE(1, A). With
   appropriate intra-pool call state sharing support, PE(1, A) will be
   able to correctly handle the call and reply to PE(2, C) and hence
   progress the call.

3.2.2 Collocated GWC and GK Scenario

   In this scenario, the GWC and GK services are collocated (e.g., they
   are implemented as a single process). In such a case, one can form a
   pool that provides both GWC and GK services as shown in the figure
   below.

   The same sequence as described in 5.2.1 takes place, except that step
   (4) now becomes internal to the PE(3,C) (again, we assume Server C is
   selected by SG).









Tuexen, et al.           Expires April 11, 2004                [Page 17]


Internet-Draft    Architecture for Reliable Server Pooling  October 2003


        ........................................
        .  Gateway Controller/Gatekeeper Pool  .
        .                  +-------+           .
        .                  |PE(3,A)|           .
        .                  +-------+           .
        .           +-------+                  .
        .           |PE(3,C)|<---------------------------+
        .           +-------+                  .         |
        .    +-------+  ^                      .         |
        .    |PE(3,B)|  |                      .         |
        .    +-------+  |                      .         |
        ................|.......................         |
                        |                                |
                        +-------------+                  |
                                      |                  |
                                   (c)|               (e)|
                                      v                  v
           +++++++++++++++        *********       *****************
           +      NS     +        * SG(X) *       * Media Gateway *
           +++++++++++++++        *********       *****************
                  ^                   ^
                  |                   |
                  |     <-(a)         |
                  +-------------------+
                         (b)->

               Deployment of Collocated GWC and GK.

                                Figure 9


4. Security Considerations

   The RSerPool protocol must allow us to secure the RSerPool
   infrastructure. There are security and privacy issues that relate to
   the namespace, pool element registration and user queries of the
   namespace. In [2] a complete threat analysis of RSerPool components
   is presented.

5. Acknowledgements

   The authors would like to thank Bernard Aboba, Phillip Conrad, Harrie
   Hazewinkel, Matt Holdrege, Christopher Ross, Werner Vogels and many
   others for their invaluable comments and suggestions.

Normative References

   [1]  Bradner, S., "The Internet Standards Process -- Revision 3", BCP



Tuexen, et al.           Expires April 11, 2004                [Page 18]


Internet-Draft    Architecture for Reliable Server Pooling  October 2003


        9, RFC 2026, October 1996.

   [2]  Stillman, M., "Threats Introduced by Rserpool and Requirements
        for Security in response  to Threats",
        draft-ietf-rserpool-threats-02 (work in progress), October 2003.

Informative References

   [3]  Postel, J., "Transmission Control Protocol", STD 7, RFC 793,
        September 1981.

   [4]  Postel, J. and J. Reynolds, "File Transfer Protocol", STD 9, RFC
        959, October 1985.

   [5]  Guttman, E., Perkins, C., Veizades, J. and M. Day, "Service
        Location Protocol, Version 2", RFC 2608, June 1999.

   [6]  Ong, L., Rytina, I., Garcia, M., Schwarzbauer, H., Coene, L.,
        Lin, H., Juhasz, I., Holdrege, M. and C. Sharp, "Framework
        Architecture for Signaling Transport", RFC 2719, October 1999.

   [7]  Stewart, R., Xie, Q., Morneault, K., Sharp, C., Schwarzbauer,
        H., Taylor, T., Rytina, I., Kalla, M., Zhang, L. and V. Paxson,
        "Stream Control Transmission Protocol", RFC 2960, October 2000.

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


Authors' Addresses

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

   EMail: tuexen@fh-muenster.de












Tuexen, et al.           Expires April 11, 2004                [Page 19]


Internet-Draft    Architecture for Reliable Server Pooling  October 2003


   Qiaobing Xie
   Motorola, Inc.
   1501 W. Shure Drive, #2309
   Arlington Heights, IL  60004
   USA

   Phone: +1-847-632-3028
   EMail: qxie1@email.mot.com


   Randall R. Stewart
   Cisco Systems, Inc.
   8725 West Higgins Road
   Suite 300
   Chicago, IL  60631
   USA

   Phone: +1-815-477-2127
   EMail: rrs@cisco.com


   Melinda Shore
   Cisco Systems, Inc.
   809 Hayts Rd
   Ithaca, NY  14850
   USA

   Phone: +1 607 272 7512
   EMail: mshore@cisco.com


   John Loughney
   Nokia Research Center
   PO Box 407
   FIN-00045 Nokia Group  FIN-00045
   Finland

   EMail: john.loughney@nokia.com













Tuexen, et al.           Expires April 11, 2004                [Page 20]


Internet-Draft    Architecture for Reliable Server Pooling  October 2003


Intellectual Property Statement

   The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
   intellectual property 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; neither does it represent that it
   has made any effort to identify any such rights. Information on the
   IETF's procedures with respect to rights in standards-track and
   standards-related documentation can be found in BCP-11. Copies of
   claims of rights made available for publication 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 implementors or users of this specification can
   be obtained from the IETF Secretariat.

   The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any
   copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary
   rights which may cover technology that may be required to practice
   this standard. Please address the information to the IETF Executive
   Director.


Full Copyright Statement

   Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2003). All Rights Reserved.

   This document and translations of it may be copied and furnished to
   others, and derivative works that comment on or otherwise explain it
   or assist in its implementation may be prepared, copied, published
   and distributed, in whole or in part, without restriction of any
   kind, provided that the above copyright notice and this paragraph are
   included on all such copies and derivative works. However, this
   document itself may not be modified in any way, such as by removing
   the copyright notice or references to the Internet Society or other
   Internet organizations, except as needed for the purpose of
   developing Internet standards in which case the procedures for
   copyrights defined in the Internet Standards process must be
   followed, or as required to translate it into languages other than
   English.

   The limited permissions granted above are perpetual and will not be
   revoked by the Internet Society or its successors or assignees.

   This document and the information contained herein is provided on an
   "AS IS" basis and THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING
   TASK FORCE DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING
   BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INFORMATION



Tuexen, et al.           Expires April 11, 2004                [Page 21]


Internet-Draft    Architecture for Reliable Server Pooling  October 2003


   HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF
   MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.


Acknowledgment

   Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the
   Internet Society.











































Tuexen, et al.           Expires April 11, 2004                [Page 22]


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