draft-ietf-tsvwg-sctp-failover-07.txt   draft-ietf-tsvwg-sctp-failover-08.txt 
Network Working Group Y. Nishida Network Working Group Y. Nishida
Internet-Draft GE Global Research Internet-Draft GE Global Research
Intended status: Standards Track P. Natarajan Intended status: Standards Track P. Natarajan
Expires: April 26, 2015 Cisco Systems Expires: April 27, 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
October 23, 2014 October 24, 2014
Quick Failover Algorithm in SCTP Quick Failover Algorithm in SCTP
draft-ietf-tsvwg-sctp-failover-07.txt draft-ietf-tsvwg-sctp-failover-08.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.
skipping to change at page 2, line 15 skipping to change at page 2, line 15
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 April 26, 2015. This Internet-Draft will expire on April 27, 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
skipping to change at page 3, line 8 skipping to change at page 3, line 8
6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
8. Proposed Change of Status (to be Deleted before Publication) 14 8. Proposed Change of Status (to be Deleted before Publication) 14
9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Appendix A. Discussions of Alternative Approaches . . . . . . . 15 Appendix A. Discussions of Alternative Approaches . . . . . . . 15
A.1. Reduce Path.Max.Retrans (PMR) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 A.1. Reduce Path.Max.Retrans (PMR) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
A.2. Adjust RTO related parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 A.2. Adjust RTO related parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Appendix B. Discussions for Path Bouncing Effect . . . . . . . . 16 Appendix B. Discussions for Path Bouncing Effect . . . . . . . . 17
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
The Stream Control Transmission Protocol (SCTP) as specified in The Stream Control Transmission Protocol (SCTP) as specified in
[RFC4960] supports multihoming at the transport layer -- an SCTP [RFC4960] supports multihoming at the transport layer -- an SCTP
association can bind to multiple IP addresses at each endpoint. association can bind to multiple IP addresses at each endpoint.
SCTP's multihoming features include failure detection and failover SCTP's multihoming features include failure detection and failover
procedures to provide network interface redundancy and improved end- procedures to provide network interface redundancy and improved end-
to-end fault tolerance. to-end fault tolerance.
skipping to change at page 14, line 12 skipping to change at page 14, line 12
discussed in [RFC4960] and [RFC6458]. There are no new security discussed in [RFC4960] and [RFC6458]. There are no new security
considerations introduced in this document. considerations introduced in this document.
7. IANA Considerations 7. IANA Considerations
This document does not create any new registries or modify the rules This document does not create any new registries or modify the rules
for any existing registries managed by IANA. for any existing registries managed by IANA.
8. Proposed Change of Status (to be Deleted before Publication) 8. Proposed Change of Status (to be Deleted before Publication)
The initial status of this document was Experimental. However, Initially this work looked to entail some changes of the Congestion
because of its usefulness, simple design and the existence of Control (CC) operation of SCTP and for this reason the work was
multiple active implementations, it has been changed to PS by WG proposed as Experimental. These intended changes of the CC operation
consensus. have since been judged to be irrelevant and are no longer part of the
specification. As the specification entails no other potential
harmful features, consensus exists in the wg to bring the work
forward as PS.
Initially concerns have been expressed about the possibility for the
mechanism to introduce path bouncing with potential harmful network
impacts. These concerns are believed to be unfounded. This issue is
addressed in Appendix B.
It is noted that the feature specified by this document is
implemented by multiple SCTP SW implementations and furthermore that
various variants of the solution have been deployed in Telco
signaling environments for several years with good results.
9. References 9. References
9.1. Normative References 9.1. Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[RFC4960] Stewart, R., "Stream Control Transmission Protocol", RFC [RFC4960] Stewart, R., "Stream Control Transmission Protocol", RFC
4960, September 2007. 4960, September 2007.
 End of changes. 6 change blocks. 
9 lines changed or deleted 22 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/