idnits 2.17.1 draft-dreibholz-rserpool-score-05.txt: Checking boilerplate required by RFC 5378 and the IETF Trust (see https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info): ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ** The document seems to lack a License Notice according IETF Trust Provisions of 28 Dec 2009, Section 6.b.ii or Provisions of 12 Sep 2009 Section 6.b -- however, there's a paragraph with a matching beginning. Boilerplate error? (You're using the IETF Trust Provisions' Section 6.b License Notice from 12 Feb 2009 rather than one of the newer Notices. See https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info/.) Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/1id-guidelines.txt: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist : ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Miscellaneous warnings: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == The copyright year in the IETF Trust and authors Copyright Line does not match the current year -- The document seems to lack a disclaimer for pre-RFC5378 work, but may have content which was first submitted before 10 November 2008. If you have contacted all the original authors and they are all willing to grant the BCP78 rights to the IETF Trust, then this is fine, and you can ignore this comment. If not, you may need to add the pre-RFC5378 disclaimer. (See the Legal Provisions document at https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info for more information.) -- The document date (July 5, 2009) is 5409 days in the past. Is this intentional? Checking references for intended status: Informational ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == Outdated reference: A later version (-34) exists of draft-dreibholz-rserpool-asap-hropt-04 == Outdated reference: A later version (-31) exists of draft-dreibholz-rserpool-enrp-takeover-01 == Outdated reference: A later version (-33) exists of draft-dreibholz-rserpool-delay-03 Summary: 1 error (**), 0 flaws (~~), 4 warnings (==), 2 comments (--). Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about the items above. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2 Network Working Group T. Dreibholz 3 Internet-Draft University of Duisburg-Essen 4 Intended status: Informational M. Tuexen 5 Expires: January 6, 2010 Univ. of Applied Sciences Muenster 6 July 5, 2009 8 Reliable Server Pooling (RSerPool) Bakeoff Scoring 9 draft-dreibholz-rserpool-score-05.txt 11 Status of this Memo 13 This Internet-Draft is submitted to IETF in full conformance with the 14 provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. 16 Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering 17 Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that 18 other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet- 19 Drafts. 21 Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months 22 and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any 23 time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference 24 material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." 26 The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at 27 http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt. 29 The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at 30 http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html. 32 This Internet-Draft will expire on January 6, 2010. 34 Copyright Notice 36 Copyright (c) 2009 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the 37 document authors. All rights reserved. 39 This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal 40 Provisions Relating to IETF Documents in effect on the date of 41 publication of this document (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info). 42 Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights 43 and restrictions with respect to this document. 45 Abstract 47 This memo describes some of the scoring to be used in the testing of 48 Reliable Server Pooling protocols ASAP and ENRP at upcoming bakeoffs. 50 Table of Contents 52 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 53 2. Aggregate Server Access Protocol . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 54 2.1. Pool Element Communication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 55 2.2. Pool User Communication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 56 2.3. ENRP Server Communication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 57 3. Endpoint Handlespace Redundancy Protocol . . . . . . . . . . . 5 58 3.1. Peer Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 59 3.2. Update . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 60 3.3. Synchronization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 61 3.4. Takeover . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 62 4. Bonus Points . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 63 5. Reference Implementation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 64 6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 65 7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 66 8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 67 8.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 68 8.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 69 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 71 1. Introduction 73 This document will be used as a basis for point scoring at upcoming 74 RSerPool bakeoffs. Its purpose is similar to that described in 75 RFC1025. It is hoped that a clear definition of where and how to 76 score points will further the development of RSerPool. 78 Note that while attending a bakeoff no one else will score your 79 points for you. We trust that all implementations will faithfully 80 record their points that are received honestly. Note also that these 81 scores are NOT to be used for marketing purposes. They are for the 82 use of the implementations to know how well they are doing. The only 83 reporting that will be done is a basic summary to the Reliable Server 84 Pooling Working Group but please note that NO company or 85 implementation names will be attached. 87 2. Aggregate Server Access Protocol 89 The ASAP protocol is described in the follwing documents: 91 o [RFC5352] 93 o [RFC5354] 95 o [I-D.dreibholz-rserpool-asap-hropt] 97 o [I-D.dreibholz-rserpool-delay] 99 2.1. Pool Element Communication 101 These points will be scored for EACH peer implementation that you 102 successfully communicate with. 104 o 2 Successful ASAP Registration Request of a PE in a pool using 105 Round Robin policy and handling of ASAP Registration Response. 107 o 2 Failing ASAP Registration Request of a PE requesting Least Used 108 policy in a pool using Round Robin policy and appropriate handling 109 of ASAP Registration Response (e.g. printing error message, but 110 not retrying registration). 112 o 2 Successful re-registration of a PE in a pool using Round Robin 113 policy. 115 o 2 Successful ASAP Deregistration Request of the PE from its pool 116 and handling of ASAP Deregistration Response. 118 o 2 Successful handling of ASAP Endpoint Keep-Alive without Home bit 119 set, i.e. answering with ASAP Endpoint Keep-Alive Ack. 121 o 5 Successful handling of ASAP Endpoint Keep-Alive with Home bit 122 set: respond with ASAP Endpoint Keep-Alive Ack and use new ENRP 123 server for re-registration. 125 o 5 Successful connection to and registration at an ENRP server 126 announcing itself via multicast ASAP Announces. 128 o 1 Successful registration into pool using Least Used policy. 130 o 1 Successful registration into pool using Weighted Round Robin 131 policy. 133 o 1 Successful registration into pool using Random policy. 135 o 1 Successful registration into pool using Weighted Random policy. 137 2.2. Pool User Communication 139 These points will be scored for EACH peer implementation that you 140 successfully communicate with. 142 o 5 Successful ASAP Handle Resolution in a pool using Round Robin 143 policy, correct handling of ASAP Handle Resolution Response. 145 o 2 Successful failure reporting using ASAP Endpoint Unreachable. 147 o 5 Successful connection to and handle resolution at ENRP server 148 announcing itself via multicast ASAP Announces. 150 o 1 Successful handle resolution in a pool using Least Used policy. 152 o 1 Successful handle resolution in a pool using Weighted Round 153 Robin policy. 155 o 1 Successful handle resolution in a pool using Random policy. 157 o 1 Successful handle resolution in a pool using Weighted Random 158 policy. 160 2.3. ENRP Server Communication 162 These points will be scored for EACH peer implementation that you 163 successfully communicate with. 165 o 2 Successful handling of an ASAP Registration Request into a pool 166 using Round Robin policy (ENRP server answers with successful ASAP 167 Registration Response). 169 o 2 Rejecting registration of a PE requesting Round Robin policy 170 into a pool using Least Used policy. 172 o 5 Rejecting registration of a PE with all addresses *not* being 173 part of the ASAP association. 175 o 5 Successful registration of a PE with some addresses *not* being 176 part of the ASAP association. The invalid addresses may *not* go 177 into the handlespace. 179 o 5 Successful handling of ASAP Endpoint Unreachable messages. The 180 ENRP server must remove the given PE after MAX-BAD-PE-REPORTS=3 181 unreachability reports. 183 o 2 Sending regular ASAP Endpoint Keep-Alives to its PEs. 185 o 2 Removing PE not answering to ASAP Endpoint Keep-Alive. 187 3. Endpoint Handlespace Redundancy Protocol 189 The ENRP protocol is described in the follwing documents: 191 o [RFC5353] 193 o [RFC5354] 195 o [I-D.dreibholz-rserpool-enrp-takeover] 197 3.1. Peer Management 199 These points will be scored for EACH peer implementation that you 200 successfully communicate with. 202 o 2 Sending ENRP Presence to a new ENRP server. 204 o 2 Sending ENRP Presences in the interval given by PEER-HEARTBEAT- 205 CYCLE. 207 o 5 Requesting peer list from new ENRP server using ENRP Peer List 208 Request, handling ENRP Peer List Response and adding entries to 209 its own peer list. 211 o 2 Handling ENRP Peer List Request and replying with own peer list 212 in ENRP Peer List Response. 214 o 5 Requesting handlespace from new ENRP server using ENRP Handle 215 Table Request, handling ENRP Handle Table Response (without M-bit 216 set) and inserting entries into its own handlespace copy. 218 o 5 Requesting handlespace from new ENRP server using ENRP Handle 219 Table Request, handling ENRP Handle Table Response with M-bit set, 220 requesting more entries and inserting entries into its own 221 handlespace copy. 223 o 2 Handling ENRP Handle Table Request and replying own handlespace 224 in ENRP Handle Table Response (without M-bit). 226 o 10 Handling ENRP Handle Table Request and replying own handlespace 227 in ENRP Handle Table Response with M-bit set, remembering point to 228 continue from, responding next block of handlespace entries upon 229 following ENRP Handle Table Request, etc. until transfer of 230 handlespace data is complete. 232 o 5 Successful addition of new ENRP server announcing itself via 233 multicast ENRP Presence (including association establishment as 234 well as download of peer list and handlespace). 236 3.2. Update 238 These points will be scored for EACH peer implementation that you 239 successfully communicate with. 241 o 2 Handling an ENRP Handle Update adding a PE. 243 o 2 Handling an ENRP Handle Update updating a PE. The changes must 244 be entered into the local handlespace copy. 246 o 2 Handling an ENRP Handle Update removing a PE. 248 3.3. Synchronization 250 These points will be scored for EACH peer implementation that you 251 successfully communicate with. 253 o 5 Successful detection of different handlespace checksums upon 254 reception of ENRP Presence (due to additional PE), request of 255 Handle Table with W-bit set, integration of missing PE into local 256 handlespace copy and reporting the correct checksum in own ENRP 257 Presence. 259 o 5 Successful detection of different handlespace checksums upon 260 reception of ENRP Presence (due to out-of-date PE), request of 261 Handle Table with W-bit set, removal of PE from local handlespace 262 copy and reporting the correct checksum in own ENRP Presence. 264 o 10 Successful detection of different handlespace checksums upon 265 reception of ENRP Presence (due to multiple new and out-of-date PE 266 identities; size of PE identities is larger than maximum ENRP 267 message size), request of Handle Table with W-bit set, handling of 268 ENRP Handle Table Responses with M-bit set, removal of out-of-date 269 PEs, integration of new PEs into the local handlespace copy and 270 reporting correct checksum in own ENRP Presence. 272 3.4. Takeover 274 These points will be scored for EACH peer implementation that you 275 successfully communicate with. The setup contains your ENRP server 276 plus a set of peers running another implementation. 278 o 5 Successfully detecting the failure of a remote peer and 279 initiating a takeover procedure. 281 o 5 Acknowledging another peer's takeover and aborting own takeover 282 procedure. 284 o 10 Correctly handling a remote peer's Takeover Server message, 285 including ownership change for the remote peer's PEs. 287 o 10 Successfully taking over a dead peer, including ownership 288 change and informing the PEs taken over. 290 4. Bonus Points 292 You can also earn Bonus Points: 294 o 20 points for the ENRP server handling the largest number of PEs. 296 o 20 points for the ENRP server achieving the highest handle 297 resolution throughput for a pool containing 100 (should this be 298 larger?) PEs. 300 Please note that the whole period of the bakeoff is relevant. 302 5. Reference Implementation 304 The RSerPool reference implementation RSPLIB can be found at 306 [RSerPoolPage]. It supports the functionalities defined by 307 [RFC5351], [RFC5352], [RFC5353], [RFC5354] and [RFC5356] as well as 308 the options [I-D.dreibholz-rserpool-asap-hropt], 309 [I-D.dreibholz-rserpool-enrp-takeover] and 310 [I-D.dreibholz-rserpool-delay]. An introduction to this 311 implementation is provided in [Dre2006]. 313 6. Security Considerations 315 This document does only describe test scenarios and therefore does 316 not introduce any new security issues. 318 For security considerations of the RSerPool protocols see [RFC3237], 319 [RFC5351], [RFC5352], [RFC5353], [RFC5354]. [RFC5356] and in 320 particular [RFC5355]. 322 7. IANA Considerations 324 This document introduces no additional considerations for IANA. 326 8. References 328 8.1. Normative References 330 [RFC3237] Tuexen, M., Xie, Q., Stewart, R., Shore, M., Ong, L., 331 Loughney, J., and M. Stillman, "Requirements for Reliable 332 Server Pooling", RFC 3237, January 2002. 334 [RFC5351] Lei, P., Ong, L., Tuexen, M., and T. Dreibholz, "An 335 Overview of Reliable Server Pooling Protocols", RFC 5351, 336 September 2008. 338 [RFC5352] Stewart, R., Xie, Q., Stillman, M., and M. Tuexen, 339 "Aggregate Server Access Protocol (ASAP)", RFC 5352, 340 September 2008. 342 [RFC5353] Xie, Q., Stewart, R., Stillman, M., Tuexen, M., and A. 343 Silverton, "Endpoint Handlespace Redundancy Protocol 344 (ENRP)", RFC 5353, September 2008. 346 [RFC5354] Stewart, R., Xie, Q., Stillman, M., and M. Tuexen, 347 "Aggregate Server Access Protocol (ASAP) and Endpoint 348 Handlespace Redundancy Protocol (ENRP) Parameters", 349 RFC 5354, September 2008. 351 [RFC5355] Stillman, M., Gopal, R., Guttman, E., Sengodan, S., and M. 352 Holdrege, "Threats Introduced by Reliable Server Pooling 353 (RSerPool) and Requirements for Security in Response to 354 Threats", RFC 5355, September 2008. 356 [RFC5356] Dreibholz, T. and M. Tuexen, "Reliable Server Pooling 357 Policies", RFC 5356, September 2008. 359 [I-D.dreibholz-rserpool-asap-hropt] 360 Dreibholz, T., "Handle Resolution Option for ASAP", 361 draft-dreibholz-rserpool-asap-hropt-04 (work in progress), 362 January 2009. 364 [I-D.dreibholz-rserpool-enrp-takeover] 365 Dreibholz, T. and X. Zhou, "Takeover Suggestion Flag for 366 the ENRP Handle Update Message", 367 draft-dreibholz-rserpool-enrp-takeover-01 (work in 368 progress), January 2009. 370 [I-D.dreibholz-rserpool-delay] 371 Dreibholz, T. and X. Zhou, "Definition of a Delay 372 Measurement Infrastructure and Delay-Sensitive Least-Used 373 Policy for Reliable Server Pooling", 374 draft-dreibholz-rserpool-delay-03 (work in progress), 375 January 2009. 377 8.2. Informative References 379 [RSerPoolPage] 380 Dreibholz, T., "Thomas Dreibholz's RSerPool Page", 381 URL: http://tdrwww.iem.uni-due.de.de/dreibholz/rserpool/. 383 [Dre2006] Dreibholz, T., "Reliable Server Pooling -- Evaluation, 384 Optimization and Extension of a Novel IETF Architecture", 385 Ph.D. Thesis University of Duisburg-Essen, Faculty of 386 Economics, Institute for Computer Science and Business 387 Information Systems, URL: http:// 388 duepublico.uni-duisburg-essen.de/servlets/DerivateServlet/ 389 Derivate-16326/Dre2006-final.pdf, March 2007. 391 Authors' Addresses 393 Thomas Dreibholz 394 University of Duisburg-Essen, Institute for Experimental Mathematics 395 Ellernstrasse 29 396 45326 Essen, Nordrhein-Westfalen 397 Germany 399 Phone: +49-201-1837637 400 Fax: +49-201-1837673 401 Email: dreibh@iem.uni-due.de 402 URI: http://www.iem.uni-due.de/~dreibh/ 404 Michael Tuexen 405 University of Applied Sciences Muenster 406 Stegerwaldstrasse 39 407 48565 Steinfurt, Nordrhein-Westfalen 408 Germany 410 Email: tuexen@fh-muenster.de