Quick Failover Algorithm in SCTP
draft-ietf-tsvwg-sctp-failover-03

The information below is for an old version of the document
Document Type Active Internet-Draft (tsvwg WG)
Authors Yoshifumi Nishida  , Preethi Natarajan  , Armando Caro  , Paul Amer  , Karen Nielsen 
Last updated 2014-03-02
Replaces draft-nishida-tsvwg-sctp-failover
Stream IETF
Intended RFC status Experimental
Formats pdf htmlized (tools) htmlized bibtex
Reviews
Stream WG state WG Document
Document shepherd None
IESG IESG state AD is watching
Consensus Boilerplate Unknown
Telechat date
Responsible AD Martin Stiemerling
Send notices to tsvwg-chairs@tools.ietf.org, draft-ietf-tsvwg-sctp-failover@tools.ietf.org
Network Working Group                                         Y. Nishida
Internet-Draft                                        GE Global Research
Intended status: Experimental                               P. Natarajan
Expires: September 3, 2014                                 Cisco Systems
                                                                 A. Caro
                                                        BBN Technologies
                                                                 P. Amer
                                                  University of Delaware
                                                              K. Nielsen
                                                                Ericsson
                                                           March 2, 2014

                    Quick Failover Algorithm in SCTP
                 draft-ietf-tsvwg-sctp-failover-03.txt

Abstract

   One of the major advantages of SCTP is supporting multi-homed
   communication.  If a multi-homed end-point has a redundant network
   connections, the SCTP associations have a good chance to survive
   network failures by migrating traffic from inactive networks to
   active ones.  However, if the SCTP standard is followed, there can be
   a significant delay during the migration.  During this period, SCTP
   might not be able to transmit much data to the peer.  This issue
   drastically impairs the usability of SCTP in some situations.  This
   memo describes the issue of the SCTP failover mechanism and specifies
   an alternative failover procedure for SCTP that improves its
   performance during and after failover.  The procedures require only
   minimal modifications to the current specification.

Status of this Memo

   This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
   provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.

   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
   Task Force (IETF).  Note that other groups may also distribute
   working documents as Internet-Drafts.  The list of current Internet-
   Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.

   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."

   This Internet-Draft will expire on September 3, 2014.

Nishida, et al.         Expires September 3, 2014               [Page 1]
Internet-Draft             SCTP Quick Failover                March 2014

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2014 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors.  All rights reserved.

   This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
   Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
   (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
   publication of this document.  Please review these documents
   carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
   to this document.  Code Components extracted from this document must
   include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
   the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
   described in the Simplified BSD License.

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3
   2.  Conventions and Terminology  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
   3.  Issues with the SCTP Path Management . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
   4.  Existing Solutions for Smooth Failover . . . . . . . . . . . .  6
     4.1.  Reduce Path.Max.Retrans (PMR)  . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6
     4.2.  Adjust RTO related parameters  . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6
   5.  SCTP with Potentially-Failed Destination State (SCTP-PF) . . .  8
     5.1.  SCTP-PF Description  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8
     5.2.  Effect of Path Bouncing  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
     5.3.  Permanent Failover . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
   6.  Socket API Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
     6.1.  Support for the Potentially Failed Path State  . . . . . . 12
     6.2.  Peer Address Thresholds (SCTP_PEER_ADDR_THLDS) Socket
           Option . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
     6.3.  Exposing the Potentially Failed Path State
           (SCTP_EXPOSE_POTENTIALLY_FAILED_STATE) Socket Option . . . 14
   7.  Security Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
   8.  IANA Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
   9.  References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
     9.1.  Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
     9.2.  Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
   Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

Nishida, et al.         Expires September 3, 2014               [Page 2]
Internet-Draft             SCTP Quick Failover                March 2014
Show full document text