Last Modified: 2003-10-22
The WG will define architecture and requirements for management and access to server pools, including requirements from a variety of applications, building blocks and interfaces, different styles of pooling, security requirements and performance requirements, such as failover times and coping with heterogeneous latencies. This will be documented in an Informational RFC.
Scope:
The working group will focus on supporting high availability and scalability of applications through the use of pools of servers. This requires both a way to keep track of what servers are in the pool and are able to receive requests and a way for the client to bind to a desired server.
The Working Group will NOT address:
1) reliable multicast protocols - the use of multicast for reliable server pooling is optional. Reliable multicast protocols will be developed by the RMT WG.
2) synchronization/consistency of data between server pool elements, e.g. shared memory
3) mechanisms for sharing state information between server pool elements
4) Transaction failover. If a server fails during processing of a transaction this transaction may be lost. Some services may provide a way to handle the failure, but this is not guaranteed.
The WG will address client access mechanisms for server pools, specifically:
1) An access mechanism that allows geographically dispersed servers in the pool
2) A client-server binding mechanism that allows dynamic assignment of client to servers based on load balancing or application specific assignment policies.
3) Support of automatic reconfiguration of the client/server binding in case of server failure or administrative changes.
To the extent that new protocols are necessary to support the requirements for server pooling, these will be documented in a Standards Track RFC on client access to a binding service (i.e. name space) protocol.
The WG will also address use of proxying to interwork existing client access mechanisms to any new binding service.
The WG will address server pool management and a distributed service to support client/server binding, including:
1) A scalable mechanism for tracking server pool membership (incl. registration)
2) A scalable protocol for performing node failure detection, reconfiguration and failover, and otherwise managing the server pool (supporting caching, membership, query, authentication, and security)
3) A distributed service to support binding of clients to servers, based on information specific to the server pool. Given that this service is essential to access the server pool, a high degree of availability is necessary.
4) A means for allowing flexible load assignment and balancing policies
The protocols and procedures for server pool management will be documented in a Standards Track RFC.
The WG will address:
- transport protocol(s) that would be supported (eg. UDP, SCTP, TCP)
- any new congestion management issues
- relationship to existing work such as URI resolution mechanisms
Rserpool will consult with other IETF working groups such as Reliable multicast, DNS extensions, AAA, URN, WREC and Sigtran as appropriate and will not duplicate any of these efforts.
Done | Initial draft of Protocol Comparison | |
Done | Initial draft of Threat Analysis | |
Done | Initial draft of MIB | |
Done | Initial draft of Rserpool Services document | |
Done | Initial draft of Pool Management document | |
Done | Initial draft of Rserpool Architecture document | |
Done | Initial draft of Binding Service document | |
Done | Submit Requirements document to IESG for Informational RFC | |
Done | Submit Comparison document to IESG for Informational RFC | |
Done | Initial draft of Resrpool Requirements document | |
Done | Initial draft of TCP Mapping document | |
Done | Initial draft of Applicability Statement | |
Mar 03 | Submit Services document to IESG for Informational RFC | |
Done | Submit Architecture draft to IESG for Informational RFC | |
May 03 | Submit TCP mapping to IESG for Proposed Standard RFC | |
Done | Submit Threat Analysis to IESG for Informational RFC | |
Aug 03 | Submit Binding Service and Pool Management to IESG for Proposed Standard RFC | |
Aug 03 | Submit Applicability Statement to IESG for Informational RFC | |
Nov 03 | Submit MIB to IESG for Proposed Standard RFC |
RFC | Status | Title |
---|---|---|
RFC3237 | I | Requirements for Reliable Server Pooling |
check.Reliable Server Pooling WG (rserpool) Monday, November 10, 2003 ================================= CHAIRs: Lyndon Ong <lyong@ciena.com> Maureen Stillman <Maureen.Stillman@nokia.com> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draf t-conrad-rserpool-service-02.txt The Rserpool services draft is still under construction. Two modes are defined: basic and enhanced. Basic just performs server selection, that is, it uses a pool handle to get an IP address and ports of servers. Then the application must take care of all failure detection etc. Enhanced mode uses TCP+shim or SCTP. Data is transported through RSERPOOL service. The next draft needs to be reviewed as there have been a number of changes since the -02 draft. There have been a number of requests for a socket layer defined to make Rserpool more easily accessible to implementers. A high availability socket layer would be a useful addition. Some volunteers for a draft were identified. http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draf t-rserpool-tcpmapping-00.txt There have been no changes to the TCP Mapping document. The references in it need to be updated. This document is considered stable at this point. http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draf t-ietf-rserpool-arch-07.txt Rserpool architecture document has been submitted to the IESG for review. It was updated to point to the security threat document in the security considerations section. Comments received during last call were incorporated into the document before it was sent to the IESG for review. http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draf t-ietf-rserpool-common-param-04.txt http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draf t-ietf-rserpool-asap-07.txt http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draf t-ietf-rserpool-enrp-06.txt ENRP and ASAP issues and updates were addressed. Security considerations section was added to both ASAP and ENRP based on the work of the security design team over the last year. The decision to use TLS as the security mechanism for Rserpool was documented. A namespace consistency audit was added to ENRP. It was pointed out that the databases will not be 100% consistent with each other. A checksum is used to determine if the databases are in synch. If the checksums do not match, then a resynch is required. The use of multicast is still an open issue due to security concerns. Everyone should read the drafts carefully and send any comments. http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draf t-ietf-rserpool-threats-02.txt The security design team has completed its work after meeting for over a year. The threat document has been submitted to the IESG for review and comment. Several comments were incorporated during last call. Information regarding security of the ENRP namespace needs to be added to the ENRP document security considerations section. One outstanding issue is the TLS cipher suite. A MUST implement cipher suite needs to be implemented. This was brought up on the list. We agreed on AES as MUST implement at the meeting. The security design team declares victory and has meet all of its objectives. http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draf t-rserpool-applic-01.txt Applicability Statement draft is waiting on a new revision of the rserpool services document. These documents need to be in synchronization. The draft will be updated to reflect the changes in services. http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draf t-xie-rserpool-redundancy-model-00.txt Rserpool redundancy model support is not sufficient to support some commonly deployed high availability systems. This draft defines an extension to the load sharing policy to support an advanced N+M or N-way redundancy model. There was a request to incorporate this draft into ASAP/ENRP. There is potential IPR on this draft. Motorola will clarify the IPR issue. Decision will be made after Motorola provides more information on its IPR |