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

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

Network Working Group                                   J. Loughney, Ed.
Internet-Draft                                               M. Stillman
Expires: April 1, 2004                                             Nokia
                                                                  Q. Xie
                                                                Motorola
                                                              R. Stewart
                                                                   Cisco
                                                            A. Silverton
                                                                Motorola
                                                        October 02, 2003


          Comparison of Protocols for Reliable Server Pooling
                    draft-ietf-rserpool-comp-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 1, 2004.

Copyright Notice

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

Abstract

   This document compares protocols that may be applicable for the
   Reliable Server Pooling problem space.  This document discusses the
   usage and applicability of these protocols for the Reliable Server
   Pooling architecture.





Loughney, et al.         Expires April 1, 2004                  [Page 1]


Internet-Draft          RSERPOOL Tech Comparison            October 2003


Table of Contents

   1.    Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3
   1.1   Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3
   1.2   Terminology  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3
   1.3   Abbreviations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3
   2.    Relation to Other Solutions  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
   2.1   CORBA  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
   2.2   DNS  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
   2.2.1 Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
   2.2.2 Technical Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6
   2.3   Service Location Protocol (SLP)  . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
   2.3.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
   2.3.2 What to Use  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
   2.3.3 Summary of SLP Issues  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
   2.4   L4/L7 Switching  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
   2.4.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
   2.4.2 L4 Switching . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
   2.4.3 L7 Switching . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
   2.4.4 Summary  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
   2.5   ASAP and ENRP  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
   2.5.1 ASAP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
   2.5.2 ENRP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
   3.    Comparison Against Requirements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
   4.    Security Concerns  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
   5.    Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
         Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
         Non-Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
         Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
         Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . 21





















Loughney, et al.         Expires April 1, 2004                  [Page 2]


Internet-Draft          RSERPOOL Tech Comparison            October 2003


1. Introduction

1.1 Overview

   In creating a solution to provide reliable server pools [1], there
   are a number of existing protocols, which appear to have similar
   properties as to what RSERPOOL is trying to accomplish. This document
   discusses the applicability of these protocols in meeting the
   requirements of Reliable Server Pooling [2].

   This study does not intend to be complete, rather intends to
   highlight several protocols which working group members have
   suggested.

1.2 Terminology

   This document uses the following terms:

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

   Pool: A collection of servers providing the same application
      functionality. Also called a Server Pool.

   Pool Handle: 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". Also called a Pool Name.

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

   Pool User: A server pool user.

   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 operational scope.


1.3 Abbreviations

   DA: Directory Agent in SLP.

   DPE: Distributed Processing Environment.

   CORBA: Common Object Request Broker Architecture.





Loughney, et al.         Expires April 1, 2004                  [Page 3]


Internet-Draft          RSERPOOL Tech Comparison            October 2003


   OMG: Object Management Group.

   ORB: Object Request Broker.

   PE: Pool Element.

   PU: Pool User.

   SA: Service Agent in SLP.

   SLP: Service Location Protocol.

   UA: User Agent in SLP.

   TTL: Time to live in DNS.


2. Relation to Other Solutions

   This section is intended to discuss the applicability of some
   existing solutions with regards to Reliable Server Pooling
   requirements [2].  The protocols discussed have been suggested as
   possibly overlapping with the problems space of RSERPOOL.

2.1 CORBA

   Often referred to as a Distributed Processing Environment (DPE),
   CORBA was mainly designed to provide location transparency for
   distributed applications. CORBA's distribution model encourages an
   object-based view, i.e., each communication endpoint is normally an
   object.

   CORBA has a number of variants, such as fault-tolerant CORBA, Real-
   time CORBA, etc.  CORBA has been used in a number of situations, for
   example, Real-time CORBA has been used in fighter aircraft and weapon
   systems.  Additionally, CORBA has been implemented in a wide range of
   devices, from attack submarines to Palm Pilots - the MICO open source
   ORB has been ported to the Palm Pilot, and the client- only
   application is 45 KB in size.

   CORBA, a DPE, sits above the communications layer that is the purview
   of most IETF work, specifically, RSERPOOL.  In a conceptual model of
   a middleware stack for highly available clustering, CORBA is
   considered an application service and not a messaging or clustering
   service.  A distributed application may utilize a CORBA ORB for
   location transparency at the application layer, and the ORB may in
   turn utilize RSERPOOL for its communications layer.  For example, a
   real-time CORBA ORB such as Tau, would benefit from having its



Loughney, et al.         Expires April 1, 2004                  [Page 4]


Internet-Draft          RSERPOOL Tech Comparison            October 2003


   interfaces extended to take advantage of RSERPOOL concepts.

2.2 DNS

   This section will answer the question why DNS is not appropriate as
   the sole solution for RSERPOOL. In addition, it highlights specific
   technical differences between RSERPOOL and DNS.

   During the 49th IETF December 13, 2000 plenary meeting Randy Bush
   presented a talk entitled "The DNS Today: Are we overloading the
   Saddlebags on an Old Horse?" This talk underlined the issue that DNS
   is currently overloaded with extraneous tasks and has the potential
   to break down entirely due to a growing number of feature
   enhancements.

   RSERPOOL and DNS are protocols with very different objectives.
   RSERPOOL is designed to provide a range of services up to the point
   of relieving an application of the overhead of maintaining a session
   with an active server.  DNS was not intended to handle such a range
   of functions.  DNS may, however, be able to handle some of the lower
   range of RSERPOOL functionality.

   One requirement of any solution proposed by RSERPOOL would be to
   avoid any additional requirements for DNS in order to support
   Reliable Server Pooling. Interworking between DNS and RSERPOOL will
   be considered so that additional burdens to DNS will not be added.

2.2.1 Requirements

   Any solution for RSERPOOL should meet certain requirements [2].
   These requirements are discussed below in relation to DNS.

      "Servers should be able to register to (become PEs) and deregister
      from a server pool transparently without an interruption in
      service.

      The RSERPOOL mechanisms must be able to support different server
      selection mechanisms. These are called server pool policies.

      The RSERPOOL architecture must be able to detect server failure
      quickly and be able to perform failover without service
      interruption.

      Server pools are identified by pool handles. These pool handles
      are only valid inside the operation scope. Interoperability
      between different namespaces has to be provided by other
      mechanisms."




Loughney, et al.         Expires April 1, 2004                  [Page 5]


Internet-Draft          RSERPOOL Tech Comparison            October 2003


2.2.2 Technical Issues

   This section discusses the relationship between DNS and the
   requirements for RserPool.

2.2.2.1 Host Resolver Problems

   A major issue that prevents the use of DNS as part of the RSERPOOL
   solution is the architecture of host resolvers. These are stub
   resolvers - which means that they require their local DNS servers to
   do recursion for them.

   In turn, this implies that setting TTL low or 0 will dramatically
   increase the load not only on the authoritative DNS servers - but
   also on these third party servers.

   A secondary effect of this is that the authoritative DNS will not
   know the IP address of the DNS client - only the IP address of the
   local DNS. This affects the ability to do global load balancing
   correctly.

   There is no way to get around these issues unless one requires all
   hosts to be full resolvers. Putting full resolvers on newer hosts
   isn't sufficient because the issues would still exist for all the
   legacy systems, which will form the bulk of the host population for
   years to come. The solution is not to use third party servers.

   Additionally, if the client can contact the server directly, then the
   server knows the real IP address of the client. Since there is no
   third party involved, the caching TTL can be set as low as desired
   (even to zero). That will increase load on the server, but nowhere
   else.

   Finally, DNS is based on a recursion. This recursion presents certain
   difficulties for RSERPOOL. Even if a host resolver is not a stub
   resolver, it has to go to another full resolver where 2 possibilities
   exists: either the mapping name-IP address is found or it has to do
   another recursive resolution of the name, staring from that
   intermediate resolver, until there is a cache hit in one of the
   intermediate resolvers or it is resolved by its root resolver (or
   home DNS server).

   This process of recursion means that there is no end-to-end
   communication between the host and its server where the name-to-IP
   mapping resides. That also means that a lot of timers are running in
   intermediate systems. Any updating of the transient status of the
   pool element or of the pool may need to be propagated through the
   DNS.



Loughney, et al.         Expires April 1, 2004                  [Page 6]


Internet-Draft          RSERPOOL Tech Comparison            October 2003


2.2.2.2 Dynamic Registration

   Registration / de-registration of servers is needed. It can be done
   with DNS by NOTIFY/IXFR. However, frequent updates and replication
   are incompatible.  This is not a DNS problem per se, but it has an
   effect on DNS as it is deployed.

   RSERPOOL MUST allow software server entities (i.e., PEs) to register
   themselves with a name server dynamically. They can also de-register
   themselves for purposes of preventative maintenance or can be
   de-registered by a name server that believes the server entity is no
   longer operational. This is a dynamic approach, which is coordinated
   through servers in the pool and among RSERPOOL name servers.

2.2.2.3 Load Balancing

   RFC 2782 [3] itself points out some of the limitations of using DNS
   SRV for load balancing between servers.

      Weight is only intended for static, not dynamic, server selection.
      Using SRV weight for dynamic server selection would require
      assigning unreasonably short TTLs to the SRV RRs, which would
      limit the usefulness of the DNS caching mechanism, thus increasing
      overall network load and decreasing overall reliability.

   Based on this, DNS can only really support stochastic load balancing,
   redirecting clients to servers randomly as various caches in various
   resolvers expire at random (although small) intervals. DNS offers
   excellent network scalability but poor control over load balance.

   As mentioned previously, the issue of doing DNS-based dynamic load
   balancing on short time scales will have impacts on third parties,
   due to the presence of stub resolvers.

2.2.2.4 Heartbeating & Status Monitoring

   DNS does not incorporate an application layer heartbeat. Heartbeating
   would dramatically boost traffic levels, and given the unavoidable
   third party dependencies of DNS, the resulting loading would be
   unacceptable. It is passive in the sense that it does not monitor or
   store information on the state of the host such as whether the host
   is up or down or what kind of load it is currently experiencing.

   RSERPOOL SHOULD monitor the state of each server entity on various
   hosts on a continual basis and can collect several state variables
   including up/down state and current load. If a server is no longer
   operational, eventually it will be dropped from the list of available
   servers maintained by the name server, so that subsequent application



Loughney, et al.         Expires April 1, 2004                  [Page 7]


Internet-Draft          RSERPOOL Tech Comparison            October 2003


   name queries will not resolve to this server address.

2.2.2.5 Name/Address Resolution Granularity

   The technical requirement for DNS name/address resolution is
   basically that given a name, find a host associated with this name
   and return its IP address(es). In other words, in DNS we have the
   following mapping:

        Name     ; a host machine

        -to-

        Address  ; IP address(es) to reach the host machine

   The technical requirement for RSERPOOL name/address resolution is
   that given a name (or pool handle), find a server pool associated
   with this name and return a list of _transport_ addresses (i.e., IP
   address(es) plus port number) for reaching a set of currently
   operational servers inside the pool. In other words, in RSERPOOL we
   have the following mapping:

        Name     ; a handle to a server pool

        -to-

        Address  ; transport address(es) (i.e., IP plus port number) to
                 ; reach a set of functionally identical server entities
                 ; (software processes). These software entities can be
                 ; distributed across multiple host machines.

   Without significant extensions, the current DNS would have difficulty
   achieving this type of name mapping.

2.2.2.6 Lack of Support for Real-time Fault Detection and Recovery

   Even if we could somehow overcome the aforementioned shortcomings of
   DNS in terms of providing the name resolution service to RSERPOOL, we
   still would not have the support for real-time fault detection and
   recovery (i.e., failover) which is a key requirement in RSERPOOL.

   To meet this requirement, a mechanism would need to be in place that
   would detect the unreachability of a message recipient and re-direct
   or re-route a user message to an alternate recipient in the same
   destination pool in real-time or semi-real-time. DNS currently
   contains no such mechanism.





Loughney, et al.         Expires April 1, 2004                  [Page 8]


Internet-Draft          RSERPOOL Tech Comparison            October 2003


2.2.2.7 Lack of Support for Redundancy Models

   Server pooling as defined in RSERPOOL requires support for different
   redundancy arrangements or models depending on the needs of the
   specific application. Commonly used models in practice includes N+M,
   N-active, etc. These models basically define how a PE behaves when
   another PE in the same pool fails and it is often critical for the
   application to have full control over this behavior of each PE in the
   pool. Without major extensions, it seems difficult for DNS to support
   such redundancy models.

2.3 Service Location Protocol (SLP)

2.3.1 Introduction

   SLP [4] is comprised of three components: User Agents (UA), Service
   Agents (SA) and Directory Agents (DA). User agents work on the user's
   behalf to contact a service. The UA retrieves service information
   from service agents or directory agents. A service agent works on
   behalf of one or more services to advertise services. A directory
   agent collects service advertisements.

   The directory agent of SLP simply acts as a cache and is passive in
   this regard. The directory agent is optional and SLP can function
   without it. It is incumbent upon the servers to update the cache as
   necessary by reregistering. The directory server is not required in
   small networks as the user agents can contact service agents directly
   using multicast. Unicast queries to SAs are possible subsequent to
   the UA having discovered them. User agents are encouraged to locate a
   directory at regular intervals if they can't find one initially,
   otherwise they can detect DAs by listening passively for DA
   advertisements.

2.3.2 What to Use

   Figure 1 shows how SLP might be realized to provide RSERPOOL endpoint
   name resolution (ENR) services:

         Pool User (PU)         ENR Service       Pool Endpoint (PE)
         +-------------+                              +---------+
         | APPLICATION |                              | SERVICE |
       +-+-------------+-+                        +---+---------+---+
       |ASAP/RSERPOOL API| <--------------------> |ASAP/RSERPOOL API|
       +-+----+--------+-+      +----------+      +-+--------+----+-+
         |    | SLP UA | <----> |  SLP DA  | <----> | SLP SA |    |
         |    +----+---+        +------+---+        +--------+    |
         |SCTP     |UDP|        | SCTP |UDP|        |UDP|    SCTP |
         +---------+---+        +------+---+        +---+---------+



Loughney, et al.         Expires April 1, 2004                  [Page 9]


Internet-Draft          RSERPOOL Tech Comparison            October 2003


                                  /       \
                                 /  mesh   \
                            +----+        +----+
                            | DA |--------| DA |
                            +----+        +----+


   Figure 1: RSERPOOL entities employing SLP for ENR services

   Notes:

   o  Each box constitutes a host (running a PU, PE or ENR server
      'stack'), though one host could support more than one of these
      functions.

   o  As far as the Application is concerned, it is using a framework
      for exchanging messages with services reliably.

   o  As far as the Service is concerned, it is making itself available
      to a reliable server pool by interacting with the framework API.

   o  The ASAP/RSERPOOL API obtains endpoint name resolution data in a
      timely and robust manner and uses it to determine how to route PU
      requests to PEs.

   o  The ENR service function is performed using SLP.  The PU employs a
      SLP UA to obtain information from a SLP DA.

   o  The ENR service function is performed using SLP.  The PU employs a
      SLP UA to obtain information from a SLP DA.

   o  The PE employs a SLP SA to register information with a SLP DA. As
      the SLP SA is 'mesh-enhanced,' it only registers with one DA of
      this type (as long as it detects that this DA is alive &
      responsive & returns 'OK' results).

   o  The SLP DA is part of a mesh.  It will forward PE state to other
      DAs in the mesh.  For example, it will forward the registrations
      the SLP SA made on behalf of the PE on right of Figure 1.

   o  SCTP is used for communication between entities.  Multicast UDP is
      used by SLP entities for active and passive discovery.  While the
      RSERPOOL architecture cannot rely upon multicast mechanisms, it
      can profit from them when these are present in the network

   SLPv2 will be needed, but SLPv2 alone does not fulfill RSERPOOL
   update requirements for timeliness.  This is achieved through mesh-
   enhancements to the Service Location Protocol (mSLP) [5].



Loughney, et al.         Expires April 1, 2004                 [Page 10]


Internet-Draft          RSERPOOL Tech Comparison            October 2003


   These enhancements make it possible for SAs to know of only a subset
   of all DAs.  Mesh-enhanced SAs need only forward their registrations
   to only one mesh-enhanced DA.  The mesh takes care of forwarding the
   message to the other DAs.

2.3.3 Summary of SLP Issues

   The most fundamental difference between SLP and RSERPOOL is that SLP
   is service-oriented while RSERPOOL is communication-oriented. More
   specifically, what SLP provides to its user is a mapping function
   from a name of a service to the location of the service provider, in
   the form of a URL string. The availability of the service provider is
   outside of the scope of SLP. How a service is accessible can be
   described by the SLP attribute list associated with the service URL.
   SLP is essentially a discovery protocol, not a transport protocol.
   Therefore, the granularity of SLP operation is at application service
   level.

   In contrast, RSERPOOL provides to its user is a mapping function from
   a communication destination name to a set of routable and reachable
   transport addresses that leads to a group of distributed software
   server entities registered under that name that collectively
   represent the named communication destination. With respect to SLP,
   this information could be represented in SLP attributes. RSERPOOL,
   however, also has the responsibility of reliably delivering a user
   message to one of these server entities.

   Currently, mSLP would need changes, for example it was designed to
   scale to ~10 DAs not ~100 DAs.  Additionally, SLP is currently
   designed to run on top of UDP and TCP. If SCTP support is needed,
   some additional specification work would be needed.

   SLP security makes no attempt to address the confidentiality of data
   transmitted between SLP agents. To properly address this concern, SLP
   agents would need to establish secure communication with each other.
   This would be achieved through the use of IPSec Encapsulating
   Security Payload.

   Server discovery, however, is something which SLP does well, and if
   used for RSERPOOL, this would be useful.

   Other difficulties and shortcomings for using SLP to implement
   RSERPOOL include:

   o  Due to the fact that the resolution granularity of SLP is at the
      service level, it relies on a syntax rich scheme to define
      services (e.g., printers > color printers > color printers with
      720+ resolution, etc). This implies that SLP implementation will



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


Internet-Draft          RSERPOOL Tech Comparison            October 2003


      need to perform syntax analysis, filtering, and parsing when a
      name is queried, and will need to dynamically search its name
      space to identify which entities are to be included in the
      response to a specific query. This type of complicated processing
      and searching for each query may severely limit the performance of
      SLP in a real-time world which is a key requirement of RSERPOOL.

   o  Without major extensions, SLP will not be able to provide a
      solution for real-time or semi-real-time fault detection and
      recovery. This is partially because SLP is a discovery protocol,
      not a communication protocol.


2.4 L4/L7 Switching

2.4.1 Introduction

   This section discusses L4 and L7 switching techniques and their
   relation to the RSERPOOL architecture [2]. Since these technologies
   are highly proprietary, it is difficult to discuss these techniques
   in a thorough manner.

   In both cases, the deployment of these techniques is dependent upon
   the type of switching equipment deployed and breaks the end-to-end
   communication model required by RSERPOOL.  These devices provide a
   specialized service intended to address a few network challenges,
   e.g., web caching and web cache load balancing, firewall load
   balancing, web server scaling, and streaming media load balancing.
   They are not robust methods for providing network reliability or
   highly reliable and highly available location transparent server
   clustering as required by RSERPOOL.

   The following sections will provide an overview and example of each
   technique and an accounting for key RSERPOOL architectural
   requirements not met.  See Section 3 for a more detailed accounting
   of requirements compliance.

2.4.2 L4 Switching

   L4 devices make switching decisions based on the TCP or UDP port
   numbers of the packet in transit.

2.4.2.1 Example

   Web caching is an example of L4 switching. The topology requires the
   introduction of an L4 capable switch in series with an existing
   network connection and L2/L3 switch.  This is of particular use to
   web cache configurations where, for example, all traffic destined for



Loughney, et al.         Expires April 1, 2004                 [Page 12]


Internet-Draft          RSERPOOL Tech Comparison            October 2003


   port 80 (HTTP) could be redirected to a web cache or distributed by
   the switch across a number of web caches to achieve load balancing.
   The L4 switch can react to a failed cache and cease to send traffic
   to that device by automatically detecting that it is unreachable.
   This is all accomplished without any configuration on a client
   device.

   An equally compelling use for this type of switching is load
   balancing across firewalls.  If the firewalls are employing stateful
   packet inspection for TCP connections, then the L4 switch must track
   which packets belong to which connection and see that all such
   packets are switched to the same firewall.

   An L4 switch is incapable of differentiating between packets
   containing cacheable objects and non-cacheable objects, therefore, L7
   devices, which look inside packets, are deployed where such
   determinations must be made.  In general, anytime that knowledge of
   the application level data is required to make a switching decision,
   L7 devices must be deployed.

2.4.2.2 Technical Issues

   The more general behavior of L4 switching, redirecting traffic based
   on destination UDP or TCP ports, is similar to a function provided by
   RSERPOOL.  Where it differs in this regard is that L4 switching is
   dependent upon the network infrastructure and not peer-to-peer or
   end-to-end as required by RSERPOOL.

   L4 switching meets the requirement of forwarding to active elements
   only, as a switch will detect unreachable PEs, but does not provide
   for the necessary registration and deregistration of PEs or
   resolution by name. L4 switches require the manual configuration of
   access control lists to determine switching behavior.  This is
   achieved in RSERPOOL by more flexible means and without any
   dependence on specialized network equipment.

   Most of the features of ASAP [6] and ENRP [7] are not met by a device
   employing L4 switching techniques.  See the comparison table in
   Section 5.

2.4.2.3 Security Issues

   It is not clear that L4 switching introduces any new security
   concerns. In fact, in a two-port security model, where secure
   RSERPOOL services are provided on one port, and similar, but insecure
   services, on another, L4 switching could be used to direct traffic to
   a secure or insecure PE or ENRP server as necessary.




Loughney, et al.         Expires April 1, 2004                 [Page 13]


Internet-Draft          RSERPOOL Tech Comparison            October 2003


2.4.3 L7 Switching

   As previously mentioned, L7 switching was developed to differentiate
   between the type of objects being directed by network switches.  In
   the L4 case, the devices cannot differentiate between the types of
   data, only the destination of the packets containing that data.  L7
   switches look at the application layer of a packet in transit to
   determine what type of object is contained within.

2.4.3.1 Example

   For an L7 switch to do this, it is necessary to intercept data
   midstream.  In the case of HTTP, which is carried over TCP, the L7
   switch must break the TCP handshake when a new request is made to the
   server attached to the switch.  This process begins during the
   initialization of the TCP connection and before the higher level
   protocol, i.e., HTTP, sends its request. The switch acts as the
   server during the TCP SYN, SYN ACK, ACK handshake between that server
   and the client.  Once the HTTP request is issued by the client and
   the switch decides that this is non-cacheable data that should be
   directed to the server as opposed to a web cache, the L7 switch sets
   up a second connection with the actual server through an additional
   three-way handshake.  The switch will forward the client's request to
   the server and for the duration of this connection, must graft the
   client-switch and switch-server connections together by modifying IP
   addresses and TCP ports on the fly.  Cacheable data is handled
   similarly, but is redirected to groups of web caches as opposed to
   the web servers.

2.4.3.2 Technical Issues

   It is not clear that L7 switching adds anything, as a general
   mechanism, beyond what is provided by L4 switching, towards providing
   a sufficient RSERPOOL architecture.

   While this technique can be very valuable as a means to scale web
   servers, it is apparent that it takes a significant amount of work on
   the part of the switch to realize these gains.  The nature of this
   method also requires that for each type of application traffic
   handled, a custom software module must be written and added to the
   switch operating system.  It is not known, due to the proprietary
   nature of these devices, if this can be done by the end user and/or
   added dynamically to deployed systems.

   It may be possible to write custom modules for a switch, given the
   appropriate access to hardware and software, to provide some type of
   enhanced reliability in a controlled network. But, it is the aim of
   RSERPOOL to provide a general mechanism that is widely deployable and



Loughney, et al.         Expires April 1, 2004                 [Page 14]


Internet-Draft          RSERPOOL Tech Comparison            October 2003


   highly portable.  L7 switching requires a significant amount of
   development to customize each of the endpoint switches to which PUs
   and PEs may be attached.

   Also of concern is the compatibility of SCTP with L7 techniques. The
   interception and subsequent splicing of sessions may nullify some of
   the inherent benefits of SCTP and certainly add additional and
   unnecessary complexity and latency to the transport layer. ASAP and
   ENRP along with the multi-homing and stream based behavior of SCTP
   provide more benefit than custom L7 switching would provide and at a
   significantly lower cost.

2.4.3.3 Security Issues

   While L7 switches do provide some robustness to TCP-based DoS attacks
   directed at servers by requiring a proper three-way handshake, and
   they can be used to redirect encrypted traffic to certain servers
   better capable of processing that traffic, they may break the
   security model of RSERPOOL.

   It may not be possible to make all the routing and switching
   decisions necessary to support RSERPOOL services without knowing more
   than just the destination address and port of a packet.  The
   necessary extended attributes are not elements of L4 or L7 switching,
   but are instead, parameters of ASAP and ENRP.  As the ENRP traffic is
   encrypted in RSERPOOL, the L7 devices would not be able to extract
   the necessary session layer data without becoming potential third
   party security liabilities.

2.4.4 Summary

   The L4/L7 switching techniques, being network oriented services, are
   not able to provide the communications session oriented behavior
   required by RSERPOOL.

   Adequate support for naming, as well as registration and
   deregistration services, is not provided by these devices.  RSERPOOL
   requires a fault tolerant name service as well as the ability to
   register and deregister PEs in real-time. To accomplish this with L4/
   L7 switching, one would need to define a standard protocol to allow
   the switches to communicate amongst themselves and, perhaps,
   implement a co-resident name server on the switch.

   The RSERPOOL communication model is broken as these mechanisms are
   deployed on switch hardware as opposed to end devices such as PEs,
   PUs, and ENRP servers. This implies a significant requirement for
   processing power and a lack of support for mobility. It is unlikely
   that one could or would build L4/L7 behavior into end devices and



Loughney, et al.         Expires April 1, 2004                 [Page 15]


Internet-Draft          RSERPOOL Tech Comparison            October 2003


   RSERPOOL requires peer-to-peer functionality.

   The equipment needed to deploy such solutions can be an order of
   magnitude more expensive per port than a traditional L2/L3 device and
   oftentimes must be deployed in addition to L2/L3 hardware.  It has
   been observed that L4/L7 devices show poor performance when acting as
   an L2/L3 switch.  This combined requirement for network
   infrastructure is not appropriate for RSERPOOL.

   L4/L7 switching while clearly good in certain areas, lacks the
   ability to provide a robust framework for location transparent
   clustering capable of scaling in size and performance from web server
   or other Internet applications to real-time telecommunications
   infrastructure.  There are a host of concerns with the ability of
   these techniques to meet critical RSERPOOL requirements in the areas
   of flexibility, adaptability, timing, security, etc.  The amount of
   effort required to achieve RSERPOOL functionality across L4/L7
   switches would amount to implementing RSERPOOL, as it is currently
   defined, on those very switches.

2.5 ASAP and ENRP

   ASAP [6] and ENRP [7] are being developed in the RSERPOOL working
   group.  Even though they are separate protocols, they are designed to
   work together.

2.5.1 ASAP

   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 defines each logical communication
   destination as a pool, providing full transparent support for
   server-pooling and load sharing. If multiple endpoints register under
   a the same name, a server pool is effectively created. It also allows
   dynamic system scalability - members of a server pool can be added or
   removed at any time without interrupting the service.

   ASAP monitors the reachability of the Pool Elements in order to
   provide fault tolerance. To support real-time or semi-real-time fault
   detection and recovery, ASAP makes use of the peer reachability
   feedback from either the transport layer (such as SCTP) or the upper
   layer protocol and re-send (or failover) user messages to alternate
   PEs in the destination pool. Load sharing and redundancy model
   support is provided in ASAP at the message sender side.  ASAP allows
   extensions to be made in the future to accommodate new load sharing
   policies and redundancy models.



Loughney, et al.         Expires April 1, 2004                 [Page 16]


Internet-Draft          RSERPOOL Tech Comparison            October 2003


   ASAP supports the "keepalive" monitoring of PEs by the name server
   and session failover, in which a set of application messages are
   defined as a "session" and ASAP provides best-effort transmission of
   all the messages in the "session" to the same PE in the destination
   pool.  For some classes of service, ASAP can provide failover for the
   remaining message in the "session" to an alternate PE if the first PE
   fails.

2.5.2 ENRP

   ENRP defines procedures and message formats of a pool registry
   service (or name service) for storing, bookkeeping, retrieving, and
   distributing pool operation and membership information. It allows
   Pool Elements to be dynamically added, updated and removed from
   service. There are also protocol mechanisms for detecting and
   removing unreachable Pool Elements.

   Within the operational scope of RSERPOOL, ENRP defines the procedures
   and message formats of a distributed, fault-tolerant registry service
   for storing, bookkeeping, retrieving, and distributing pool operation
   and membership information.  This is to avoid the name service itself
   becoming a single point of failure in the system.

   ENRP itself is dynamically scalable, meaning that new ENRP servers
   can be added and existing servers can be removed as needed. This
   feature can be used to achieve zero planned downtime upgrade of a
   system - a common requirement for many mission critical applications.

   ENRP is not designed to scale Internet wide. It uses a flat name
   space model to gain performance. Other protocols, such as DNS could
   be used to bridge small ENRP name spaces to create a large scale name
   space.

3. Comparison Against Requirements

   This section attempts to create a comparison table to compare the
   protocols which have been suggested as applicable to the RSERPOOL
   architecture.

                                                          ASAP
                                   | CORBA  | DNS | SLP | ENRP | L4/L7 |
      -----------------------------+--------+-----+-----+------+-------+
      Robustness                   |   Y    |  Y  |  Y  |  Y   |   Y   |
      -----------------------------+--------+-----+-----+------+-------+
      Failover Support             |   Y    |  P  |  P  |  Y   |   P   |
      -----------------------------+--------+-----+-----+------+-------+
      Communication Model          |   N    |  P  |  Y  |  Y   |   N   |
      -----------------------------+--------+-----+-----+------+-------+



Loughney, et al.         Expires April 1, 2004                 [Page 17]


Internet-Draft          RSERPOOL Tech Comparison            October 2003


      Processing Power             |   N    |  Y  |  Y  |  Y   |   N   |
      -----------------------------+--------+-----+-----+------+-------+
      Support of RSERPOOL          |   N    |  Y  |  N  |  N   |   N   |
       Unaware Clients             |        |     |     |      |       |
      -----------------------------+--------+-----+-----+------+-------+
      Registering and              |   N    |  P  |  P  |  Y   |   N   |
       Deregistering               |        |     |     |      |       |
      -----------------------------+--------+-----+-----+------+-------+
      Naming                       |   Y    |  Y  |  Y  |  Y   |   N   |
      -----------------------------+--------+-----+-----+------+-------+
      Name Resolution only to      |   Y    |  N  |  Y  |  Y   |   Y   |
       Active Elements             |        |     |     |      |       |
      -----------------------------+--------+-----+-----+------+-------+
      Server Selection Policies    |   Y    |  P  |  P  |  P   |   P   |
      -----------------------------+--------+-----+-----+------+-------+
      Timing Requirements and      |   P    |  N  |  Y  |  Y   |   P   |
       Scaling                     |        |     |     |      |       |
      -----------------------------+--------+-----+-----+------+-------+
      Scalability                  |   N    |  Y  |  Y  |  Y   |   Y   |
      -----------------------------+--------+-----+-----+------+-------+
      Security - General           |   Y    |  P  |  P  |  P   |   P   |
      -----------------------------+--------+-----+-----+------+-------+
      Security - Name Space        |   P    |  P  |  P  |  P   |   N   |
       Services                    |        |     |     |      |       |
      -----------------------------+--------+-----+-----+------+-------+

      Y = Yes, meets requirement
      P = Partially meets requirement
      N = No, does not meet requirement
      N/A = Not applicable

   Table1: Comparison Against Requirements

4. Security Concerns

   This type of non-protocol document does not directly affect the
   security of the Internet.

5. Acknowledgements

   The authors would like to thank Bernard Aboba, Erik Guttman, Matt
   Holdrege, Lyndon Ong, Christopher Ross, Micheal Tuexen and Werner
   Vogels for their invaluable comments and suggestions.

Normative References

   [1]  Tuexen, M., Xie, Q., Stewart, R., Shore, M. and J. Loughney,
        "Architecture for Reliable Server Pooling",



Loughney, et al.         Expires April 1, 2004                 [Page 18]


Internet-Draft          RSERPOOL Tech Comparison            October 2003


        draft-ietf-rserpool-arch-07 (work in progress), Oct 2003.

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

Non-Normative References

   [3]  Gulbrandsen, A., Vixie, P. and L. Esibov, "A DNS RR for
        specifying the location of services (DNS SRV)", RFC 2782,
        February 2000.

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

   [5]  Zhao, W., Schulzrinne, H. and E. Guttman, "Mesh-enhanced Service
        Location Protocol (mSLP)", RFC 3528, April 2003.

   [6]  Stewart, R., Xie, Q., Stillman, M. and M. Tuexen, "Aggregate
        Server Access Protocol (ASAP)", draft-ietf-rserpool-asap-07
        (work in progress), May 2003.

   [7]  Xie, Q., Stewart, R. and M. Stillman, "Enpoint Name Resolution
        Protocol (ENRP)", draft-ietf-rserpool-enrp-06 (work in
        progress), May 2003.

   [8]  Bradner, S., "The Internet Standards Process -- Revision 3", BCP
        9, RFC 2026, October 1996.


Authors' Addresses

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

   EMail: john.loughney@nokia.com












Loughney, et al.         Expires April 1, 2004                 [Page 19]


Internet-Draft          RSERPOOL Tech Comparison            October 2003


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

   Phone: +1-607-273-0724
   EMail: maureen.stillman@nokia.com


   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


   Aron J. Silverton
   Motorola, Inc.
   1301 East Algonquin Road
   Mail Drop 2246
   Schaumburg, IL  60196
   USA

   Phone: +1-847-576-8747
   EMail: aron.j.silverton@motorola.com











Loughney, et al.         Expires April 1, 2004                 [Page 20]


Internet-Draft          RSERPOOL Tech Comparison            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



Loughney, et al.         Expires April 1, 2004                 [Page 21]


Internet-Draft          RSERPOOL Tech Comparison            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.











































Loughney, et al.         Expires April 1, 2004                 [Page 22]


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