draft-ietf-tsvwg-sctp-failover-04.txt   draft-ietf-tsvwg-sctp-failover-05.txt 
Network Working Group Y. Nishida Network Working Group Y. Nishida
Internet-Draft GE Global Research Internet-Draft GE Global Research
Intended status: Experimental P. Natarajan Intended status: Experimental P. Natarajan
Expires: December 30, 2014 Cisco Systems Expires: January 21, 2015 Cisco Systems
A. Caro A. Caro
BBN Technologies BBN Technologies
P. Amer P. Amer
University of Delaware University of Delaware
K. Nielsen K. Nielsen
Ericsson Ericsson
June 28, 2014 July 20, 2014
Quick Failover Algorithm in SCTP Quick Failover Algorithm in SCTP
draft-ietf-tsvwg-sctp-failover-04.txt draft-ietf-tsvwg-sctp-failover-05.txt
Abstract Abstract
One of the major advantages of SCTP is that it supports multi-homed One of the major advantages of SCTP is that it supports multi-homed
communication. A multi-homed SCTP end-point has the ability to communication. A multi-homed SCTP end-point has the ability to
withstand network failures by migrating the traffic from an inactive withstand network failures by migrating the traffic from an inactive
network to an active one. However, if the [RFC4960] specified network to an active one. However, if the [RFC4960] specified
failover operation is followed there can be a significant delay in failover operation is followed there can be a significant delay in
the migration to the active destination addresses, thus severely the migration to the active destination addresses, thus severely
reducing the effectiveness of SCTP multi-homed operation. reducing the effectiveness of SCTP multi-homed operation.
The memo complements RFC4960 by the introduction of the Potentially The memo complements RFC4960 by the introduction of the Potentially
Failed state and associated new Quick Failover operation to apply Failed state and associated new Quick Failover operation to apply
during network failure and specifies for SCTP senders to support this during network failure and specifies for SCTP senders to support this
more performance optimal failover procedure as an add-on to the more performance optimal failover procedure as an add-on to the
[RFC4960] failover operation. The memo in addition updates [RFC4960] [RFC4960] failover operation. The memo in addition complements
by clarifying a number of issues related to the path management [RFC4960] by introduction of alternative switchover operation modes
operation during periods of partial or complete network failures. for the data transfer path management after a failover. These
Finally the memo complements [RFC4960] by introduction of alternative operation modes offer for more performance optimal operation in some
switchover operation modes for the data transfer path management network environments. From the perspective of this memo the
after a failover. These operation modes offer for more performance implementation of the additional switchover operation modes is
optimal operation in some network environments. From the perspective considered optional.
of this memo the implementation of the additional switchover
operation modes is considered optional.
The procedures defined require only minimal modifications to the The procedures defined require only minimal modifications to the
current specification. The procedures are sender-side only and do current specification. The procedures are sender-side only and do
not impact the SCTP receiver. not impact the SCTP receiver.
Status of This Memo Status of This Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on December 30, 2014. This Internet-Draft will expire on January 21, 2015.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2014 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2014 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved. document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents publication of this document. Please review these documents
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License. described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Conventions and Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 2. Conventions and Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. Issues with the SCTP Path Management . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 3. Issues with the SCTP Path Management . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
4. SCTP with Potentially-Failed Destination State (SCTP-PF) . . 5 4. SCTP with Potentially-Failed Destination State (SCTP-PF) . . 5
4.1. SCTP-PF Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 4.1. SCTP-PF Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4.2. Permanent Failover . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 4.2. Permanent Failover . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
5. Socket API Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 5. Socket API Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
5.1. Support for the Potentially Failed Path State . . . . . . 11 5.1. Support for the Potentially Failed Path State . . . . . . 11
5.2. Peer Address Thresholds (SCTP_PEER_ADDR_THLDS) Socket 5.2. Peer Address Thresholds (SCTP_PEER_ADDR_THLDS) Socket
Option . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 Option . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
5.3. Exposing the Potentially Failed Path State 5.3. Exposing the Potentially Failed Path State
(SCTP_EXPOSE_POTENTIALLY_FAILED_STATE) Socket Option . . 13 (SCTP_EXPOSE_POTENTIALLY_FAILED_STATE) Socket Option . . 13
 End of changes. 6 change blocks. 
14 lines changed or deleted 12 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.41. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/