Network Working Group M. Tuexen
Internet-Draft Siemens AG
Expires: November 30, 2002 Q. Xie
Motorola, Inc.
R. Stewart
M. Shore
Cisco Systems, Inc.
L. Ong
Ciena Corporation
J. Loughney
Nokia Research Center
M. Stillman
Nokia
June 2002
Architecture for Reliable Server Pooling
draft-ietf-rserpool-arch-03.txt
Status of this Memo
This document is an Internet-Draft and is in full conformance with
all provisions of Section 10 of RFC2026.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that
other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-
Drafts.
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."
The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at http://
www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt.
The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.
This Internet-Draft will expire on November 30, 2002.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2002). All Rights Reserved.
Abstract
This document describes an architecture and protocols for the
Tuexen, et al. Expires November 30, 2002 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft Architecture for Reliable Server Pooling June 2002
management and operation of server pools supporting highly reliable
applications, and for client access mechanisms to a server pool.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.1 Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.2 Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.3 Abbreviations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2. Reliable Server Pooling Architecture . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.1 RSerPool Functional Components . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.2 RSerPool Protocol Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
2.2.1 Endpoint Name Resolution Protocol . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
2.2.2 Aggregate Server Access Protocol . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
2.2.3 PU <-> NS Communication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
2.2.4 PE <-> NS Communication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
2.2.5 PU <-> PE Communication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
2.2.6 NS <-> NS Communication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
2.2.7 PE <-> PE Communication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
2.3 Failover Support . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
2.3.1 Testament . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
2.3.2 Cookies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
2.3.3 Application level acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
2.3.4 Business Cards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
2.4 Typical Interactions between RSerPool Components . . . . . . 11
3. Examples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
3.1 Two File Transfer Examples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
3.1.1 The RSerPool Aware Client . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
3.1.2 The RSerPool Unaware Client . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
3.2 Telephony Signaling Example . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
3.2.1 Decomposed GWC and GK Scenario . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
3.2.2 Collocated GWC and GK Scenario . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
4. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
Full Copyright Statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
Tuexen, et al. Expires November 30, 2002 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft Architecture for Reliable Server Pooling June 2002
1. Introduction
1.1 Overview
This document defines a proposed architecture, which can be used to
provide highly available services. The way this is achieved is by
using servers grouped into pools. Therefore, if a client wants to
access a server pool, it will be able to use any of the servers in
the server pool. Several server selection mechanisms, called server
pool policies, are supported.
To access a server pool, the pool user consults a name server. The
name space for the server pools is flat, rather than hierachical. A
group of fault tolerant name servers are provided to resolve pool
name queries from the pools user.
1.2 Terminology
This document uses the following terms:
Home Name Server: The Name Server a Pool Element has registered with.
This Name Server supervises the Pool Element.
Operation scope: The part of the network visible to pool users by a
specific instance of the reliable server pooling protocols.
Pool (or server pool): A collection of servers providing the same
application functionality.
Pool handle (or pool name): A logical pointer to a pool. Each server
pool will be identifiable in the operation scope of the system by
a unique pool handle or "name".
Pool element: A server entity having registered to a pool.
Pool user: A server pool user.
Pool element handle (or endpoint handle): A logical pointer to a
particular pool element in a pool, consisting of the name of the
pool and a destination transport address of the pool element.
Name space: A cohesive structure of pool names and relations that may
be queried by an internal or external agent.
Name server: Entity which is responsible for managing and maintaining
the name space within the RSerPool operation scope.
Tuexen, et al. Expires November 30, 2002 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft Architecture for Reliable Server Pooling June 2002
1.3 Abbreviations
ASAP: Aggregate Server Access Protocol
ENRP: Endpoint Name Resolution Protocol
Home NS: Home Name Server
NS: Name Server
PE: Pool element
PU: Pool user
SCTP: Stream Control Transmission Protocol
TCP: Transmission Control Protocol
Tuexen, et al. Expires November 30, 2002 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft Architecture for Reliable Server Pooling June 2002
2. Reliable Server Pooling Architecture
In this section, we define a reliable server pool architecture.
2.1 RSerPool Functional Components
There are three classes of entities in the RSerPool architecture:
o Pool Elements (PEs).
o Name Servers (NSs).
o Pool Users (PUs).
A server pool is defined as a set of one or more servers providing
the same application functionality. These servers are called Pool
Elements (PEs). PEs form the first class of entities in the RSerPool
architecture. Multiple PEs in a server pool can be used to provide
fault tolerance or load sharing, for example.
Each server pool will be identifiable by a unique name which is
simply a byte string, called the pool handle. This allows binary
names to be used.
These names are not valid in the whole internet but only in smaller
parts, called the operational scope. Furthermore, the namespace is
flat.
The second class of entities in the RSerPool architecture is the
class of the name servers. These name servers can resolve a pool
handle to a list of information which allows the PU to access a PE of
the server pool identified by the handle. This information includes:
o A list of IPv4 and/or IPv6 addresses.
o A protocol field of the IP header specifying the upper layer
protocol.
o A port number if the upper layer protocol is SCTP, TCP or UDP.
Please note that the RSerPool architecture supports both IPv4 and
IPv6 addressing. A PE can also support multiple transport layers.
In each operational scope there must be at least one name server.
Most likely there will be more than one. All these name servers have
the complete knowledge about all server pools in the operational
scope. The name servers use a protocol called Endpoint Name
Resolution Protocol (ENRP) for communication with each other to make
Tuexen, et al. Expires November 30, 2002 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft Architecture for Reliable Server Pooling June 2002
sure that all have the same information about the server pools.
A client being served by a PE of a server pool is called a Pool User
(PU). This is the third class of entities in the RSerPool
architecture.
If the PU wants to be served by a PE of a particular server pool it
must know the pool handle of the server pool. The PU then uses the
Aggregate Server Access Protocol (ASAP) to query for transport layer
addresses of PEs belonging to the server pool identified by the pool
handle.
RFC3237 [7] also requires that the name servers should not resolve a
pool handle to a transport layer address of a PE which is not in
operation. Therefore each PE is supervised by one specific name
server, called the home NS of that PE. If it detects that the PE is
out of service all other name servers are informed by using ENRP.
ASAP is also used by a server to join or leave a server pool. It
registers or deregisters itself by communicating with a name server,
which will normally the home NS.
2.2 RSerPool Protocol Overview
The RSerPool requested features can be obtained with the help of the
combination of two protocols: ENRP (Endpoint Name Resolution
Protocol) and ASAP (Aggregate Server Access Protocol).
2.2.1 Endpoint Name Resolution Protocol
ENRP is designed to provide a fully distributed fault-tolerant real-
time translation service that maps a name to a set of transport
addresses pointing to a specific group of networked communication
endpoints registered under that name. ENRP employs a client-server
model with which an name server will respond to the name translation
service requests from endpoint clients running on the same host or
running on different hosts.
2.2.2 Aggregate Server Access Protocol
ASAP in conjunction with ENRP provides a fault tolerant data transfer
mechanism over IP networks. ASAP uses a name-based addressing model
which isolates a logical communication endpoint from its IP
address(es), thus effectively eliminating the binding between the
communication endpoint and its physical IP address(es) which normally
constitutes a single point of failure.
In addition, ASAP defines each logical communication destination as a
Tuexen, et al. Expires November 30, 2002 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft Architecture for Reliable Server Pooling June 2002
server pool, providing full transparent support for server-pooling
and load sharing. It also allows dynamic system scalability -
members of a server pool can be added or removed at any time without
interrupting the service.
2.2.3 PU <-> NS Communication
The PU <-> NS communication is used for doing name queries. The PU
sends a pool handle to the NS and gets back the information necessary
for accessing a server in a server pool.
******** ********
* PU * * NS *
******** ********
+------+ +------+
| ASAP | | ASAP |
+------+ +------+
| SCTP | | SCTP |
+------+ +------+
| IP | | IP |
+------+ +------+
Protocol stack between PU and NS (SCTP variant)
If the PU does not use SCTP based services it may not be appropriate
to implement SCTP of PUs just to do the name queries. Therefore ASAP
over TCP can be used for doing the name queries. The protocol stack
is shown in the following figure.
******** ********
* PU * * NS *
******** ********
+------+ +------+
| ASAP | | ASAP |
+------+ +------+
| TCP | | TCP |
+------+ +------+
| IP | | IP |
+------+ +------+
Protocol stack between PU and NS (TCP variant)
2.2.4 PE <-> NS Communication
The PE <-> NS communication is used for registration and
deregistration of the PE in one ore more pools and for the
Tuexen, et al. Expires November 30, 2002 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft Architecture for Reliable Server Pooling June 2002
supervision of the PE by the home NS. This communication is based on
SCTP, the protocol stack is shown in the following figure.
******** ********
* PE * * NS *
******** ********
+------+ +------+
| ASAP | | ASAP |
+------+ +------+
| SCTP | | SCTP |
+------+ +------+
| IP | | IP |
+------+ +------+
Protocol stack between PE and NS
2.2.5 PU <-> PE Communication
The PU <-> PE communication can be divided into two parts:
o control channel
o data channel
The data channel is used for the transmission of the upper layer
data. The ASAP layer at the PU and PE may or may not be involved in
the handling of the data channel.
The control channel can be established from the PU side, if needed,
to transport the following information:
o The PE can send a testament to the PU for providing information to
which other PE the PU should failover in case of a failover.
o The PE can send cookies to the PU. The PE would store only the
last cookie and send it to the new PE in case of a failover.
o Both the PE and PU can send application level acknowledgements to
provide a user controlled buffer management at the RSerPool layer.
See Section 2.3 for further details.
The control channel is transported using the ASAP protocol making use
of SCTP or TCP as its transport protocol. The control and data
channel may be tranported over a single transport layer connection.
Tuexen, et al. Expires November 30, 2002 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft Architecture for Reliable Server Pooling June 2002
2.2.6 NS <-> NS Communication
The communication between name servers is used to share the knowledge
about all server pools between all name servers in an operational
scope.
******** ********
* NS * * NS *
******** ********
+------+ +------+
| ENRP | | ENRP |
+------+ +------+
| SCTP | | SCTP |
+------+ +------+
| IP | | IP |
+------+ +------+
Protocol stack between NS and NS
For this communication ENRP over SCTP is used.
When a name server boots up a UDP multicast message may be sent out
for initial detection of other name servers in the operational scope.
The other name servers send an answer using a unicast UDP message.
2.2.7 PE <-> PE Communication
This is a special case of the PU <-> PE communication. In this case
the PU is also a PE in a server pool.
There is one additional point here: The PE acting as a PU can send
the PE the information that it is acually a PE of pool. This means
that the pool handle is transferred via the control channel. Also a
testament can be can be sent from the PE acting as a PU to the PE.
See Section 2.3 for further details.
2.3 Failover Support
If the PU detects the failure of a PE it may fail over to a different
PE. The selection to a new PE should be made such that most likely
the new PE is not affected by the failed one. This means, for
example, in case of the failure of a TCP connection between a PU and
a PE the PU should not fail over to a SCTP association on the same
host. It is better to use a different host. Therefore it is
possible for a PE to register multiple transports.
There are some mechanisms provided by RSerPool to support the
failover to a new PE.
Tuexen, et al. Expires November 30, 2002 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft Architecture for Reliable Server Pooling June 2002
2.3.1 Testament
Consider the szenario given in the following figure.
.......................
. +-------+ .
. | | .
. | PE 1 | .
. | | .
. +-------+ . .
. .
. Server Pool .
. .
. .
+-------+ . +-------+ . +-------+
| | . | | . | |
| PU 1 |------.------| PE 2 |------.-------| PU 2 |
| | . | | . | |
+-------+ . +-------+ . +-------+
. .
. .
. .
. .
. +-------+ .
. | | .
. | PE 3 | .
. | | .
. +-------+ .
.......................
Two PE accessing the same PE
PU 1 is using PE 2 of the server pool. Assume that PE 1 and PE 2
share state but not PE 2 and PE 3. Using the testament it is
possible for PE 2 to inform PU 1 that it should fail over to PE 1 in
case of a failure.
A slightly more complicated situation is if two pool users, PU 1 and
PU 2, use PE 2 but both, PU 1 and PU 2, need to use the same PE.
Then it is important that PU 1 and PU 2 fail over to the same PE.
This can be handled in a way such that PE 2 gives the same testament
to PU 1 and PU 2.
2.3.2 Cookies
Cookies are sent from the PE to the PU whenever the PE wants this to
do. The PU only stores the last received cookie. In case of a fail
over it sends this last recveived cookie to the new PE. This method
provides a simple way of state sharing between the PE. Please note
Tuexen, et al. Expires November 30, 2002 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft Architecture for Reliable Server Pooling June 2002
that the PE should sign the cookie and the receiving PE has to
verifiy the signature. For the PU is cookie has no structure and is
does only store it.
2.3.3 Application level acknowledgements
In case of a failure an upper layer might want to retrieve some data
from the communication to to failed PE and transfer it to the new
one. Because this data retrieval problem can not be completely
solved in a general way (and provide neither message loss nor message
duplication) the ASAP layer only provides the support of application
layer acknowledgements. ASAP uses this for upper layer supported
buffer management in the ASAP layer.
2.3.4 Business Cards
In case of a PE to PE communication one of the PEs acts as a PU for
establishing the communication. But the peer does not know the pool
handle of the PE which initiated the communication. A business card
can be used for the PE acting as a PE to provide the peer with the
pool handle. So even in case the PE which acts as a PU fails the
other PE can fail over to a different PE in the pool of the PE which
was initially acting as a PU.
2.4 Typical Interactions between RSerPool Components
The following drawing shows the typical RSerPool components and their
possible interactions with each other:
Tuexen, et al. Expires November 30, 2002 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft Architecture for Reliable Server Pooling June 2002
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~ operation scope ~
~ ......................... ......................... ~
~ . Server Pool 1 . . Server Pool 2 . ~
~ . +-------+ +-------+ . (d) . +-------+ +-------+ . ~
~ . |PE(1,A)| |PE(1,C)|<-------------->|PE(2,B)| |PE(2,A)|<---+ ~
~ . +-------+ +-------+ . . +-------+ +-------+ . | ~
~ . ^ ^ . . ^ ^ . | ~
~ . | (a) | . . | | . | ~
~ . +----------+ | . . | | . | ~
~ . +-------+ | | . . | | . | ~
~ . |PE(1,B)|<---+ | | . . | | . | ~
~ . +-------+ | | | . . | | . | ~
~ . ^ | | | . . | | . | ~
~ .......|........|.|.|.... .......|.........|....... | ~
~ | | | | | | | ~
~ (c)| (a)| | |(a) (a)| (a)| (c)| ~
~ | | | | | | | ~
~ | v v v v v | ~
~ | +++++++++++++++ (e) +++++++++++++++ | ~
~ | + NS +<---------->+ NS + | ~
~ | +++++++++++++++ +++++++++++++++ | ~
~ v ^ ^ | ~
~ ********* | | | ~
~ * PU(A) *<-------+ (b)| | ~
~ ********* (b) | | ~
~ v | ~
~ ::::::::::::::::: (f) ***************** | ~
~ : Other Clients :<------------->* Proxy/Gateway * <---+ ~
~ ::::::::::::::::: ***************** ~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
RSerPool components and their possible interactions.
In this figure we can identify the following possible interactions:
(a) Server Pool Elements <-> NS: (ASAP) Each PE in a pool uses ASAP
to register or de-register itself as well as to exchange other
auxiliary information with the NS. The NS also uses ASAP to
monitor the operational status of each PE in a pool.
(b) PU <-> NS: (ASAP) A PU normally uses ASAP to request the NS for a
name-to-address translation service before the PU can send user
messages addressed to a server pool by the pool's name.
(c) PU <-> PE: (ASAP) ASAP can be used to exchange some auxiliary
information of the two parties before they engage in user data
transfer.
Tuexen, et al. Expires November 30, 2002 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft Architecture for Reliable Server Pooling June 2002
(d) Server Pool <-> Server Pool: (ASAP) A PE in a server pool can
become a PU to another pool when the PE tries to initiate
communication with the other pool. In such a case, the
interactions described in (a) and (c) above will apply.
(e) NS <-> NS: (ENRP) ENRP can be used to fulfill various Name Space
operation, administration, and maintenance (OAM) functions.
(f) Other Clients <-> Proxy/Gateway: standard protocols The proxy/
gateway enables clients ("other clients"), which are not RSerPool
aware, to access services provided by an RSerPool based server
pool. It should be noted that these proxies/gateways may become a
single point of failure.
Tuexen, et al. Expires November 30, 2002 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft Architecture for Reliable Server Pooling June 2002
3. Examples
[Editors note] This section has not been updated. The examples will
be updated after the architecture has been finalized.
In this section the basic concepts of ENRP and ASAP will be
described. First an RSerPool aware FTP server is considered. The
interaction with an RSerPool aware and an non-aware client is given.
Finally, a telephony example is considered.
3.1 Two File Transfer Examples
In this section we present two separate file transfer examples using
ENRP and ASAP. We present two separate examples demonstrating an
ENRP/ASAP aware client and a client that is using a Proxy or Gateway
to perform the file transfer. In this example we will use a FTP
RFC959 [2] model with some modifications. The first example (the
RSerPool aware one) will modify FTP concepts so that the file
transfer takes place over SCTP. In the second example we will use
TCP between the unaware client and the Proxy. The Proxy itself will
use the modified FTP with RSerPool as illustrated in the first
example.
Please note that in the example we do NOT follow FTP RFC959 [2]
precisely but use FTP-like concepts and attempt to adhere to the
basic FTP model. These examples use FTP for illustrative purposes,
FTP was chosen since many of the basic concept are well known and
should be familiar to readers.
Tuexen, et al. Expires November 30, 2002 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft Architecture for Reliable Server Pooling June 2002
3.1.1 The RSerPool Aware Client
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~ operation scope ~
~ ......................... ~
~ . "File Transfer Pool" . ~
~ . +-------+ +-------+ . ~
~ +-> |PE(1,A)| |PE(1,C)| . ~
~ |. +-------+ +-------+ . ~
~ |. ^ ^ . ~
~ |. +----------+ | . ~
~ |. +-------+ | | . ~
~ |. |PE(1,B)|<---+ | | . ~
~ |. +-------+ | | | . ~
~ |. ^ | | | . ~
~ |.......|........|.|.|.... ~
~ | ASAP | ASAP| | |ASAP ~
~ |(d) |(c) | | | ~
~ | v v v v ~
~ | ********* +++++++++++++++ ~
~ + ->* PU(X) * + NS + ~
~ ********* +++++++++++++++ ~
~ ^ ASAP ^ ~
~ | <-(b) | ~
~ +--------------+ ~
~ (a)-> ~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Architecture for RSerPool aware client.
To effect a file transfer the following steps would take place.
1. The application in PU(X) would send a login request. The PU(X)'s
ASAP layer would send an ASAP request to its NS to request the
list of pool elements (using (a)). The pool handle to identify
the pool would be "File Transfer Pool". The ASAP layer queues
the login request.
2. The NS would return a list of the three PEs PE(1,A), PE(1,B) and
PE(1,C) to the ASAP layer in PU(X) (using (b)).
3. The ASAP layer selects one of the PEs, for example PE(1,B). It
transmits the login request, the other FTP control data finally
starts the transmission of the requested files (using (c)). For
this the multiple stream feature of SCTP could be used.
4. If during the file transfer conversation, PE(1,B) fails, assuming
the PE's were sharing state of file transfer, a fail-over to
Tuexen, et al. Expires November 30, 2002 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft Architecture for Reliable Server Pooling June 2002
PE(1,A) could be initiated. PE(1,A) would continue the transfer
until complete (see (d)). In parallel a request from PE(1,A)
would be made to ENRP to request a cache update for the server
pool "File Transfer Pool" and a report would also be made that
PE(1,B) is non-responsive (this would cause appropriate audits
that may remove PE(1,B) from the pool if the NS had not already
detected the failure) (using (a)).
3.1.2 The RSerPool Unaware Client
In this example we investigate the use of a Proxy server assuming the
same set of scenario as illustrated above.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~ operation scope ~
~ ......................... ~
~ . "File Transfer Pool" . ~
~ . +-------+ +-------+ . ~
~ . |PE(1,A)| |PE(1,C)| . ~
~ . +-------+ +-------+ . ~
~ . ^ ^ . ~
~ . +----------+ | . ~
~ . +-------+ | | . ~
~ . |PE(1,B)|<---+ | | . ~
~ . +-------+ | | | . ~
~ .......^........|.|.|.... ~
~ | | | | ~
~ | ASAP| | |ASAP ~
~ | | | | ~
~ | v v v ~
~ | +++++++++++++++ +++++++++++++++ ~
~ | + NS +<--ENRP-->+ NS + ~
~ | +++++++++++++++ +++++++++++++++ ~
~ | ASAP ^ ~
~ | ASAP (c) (b) | ^ ~
~ +---------------------------------+ | | | ~
~ | v | (a) ~
~ v v ~
~ ::::::::::::::::: (e)-> ***************** ~
~ : FTP Client :<------------->* Proxy/Gateway * ~
~ ::::::::::::::::: (f) ***************** ~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Architecture for RserPool unaware client.
In this example the steps will occur:
1. The FTP client and the Proxy/Gateway are using the TCP-based ftp
Tuexen, et al. Expires November 30, 2002 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft Architecture for Reliable Server Pooling June 2002
protocol. The client sends the login request to the proxy (using
(e)).
2. The proxy behaves like a client and performs the actions
described under (1), (2) and (3) of the above description (using
(a), (b) and (c)).
3. The ftp communication continues and will be translated by the
proxy into the RSerPool aware dialect. This interworking uses
(f) and (c).
Note that in this example high availability is maintained between the
Proxy and the server pool but a single point of failure exists
between the FTP client and the Proxy, i.e. the command TCP
connection and its one IP address it is using for commands.
3.2 Telephony Signaling Example
This example shows the use of ASAP/RSerPool to support server pooling
for high availability of a telephony application such as a Voice over
IP Gateway Controller (GWC) and Gatekeeper services (GK).
In this example, we show two different scenarios of deploying these
services using RSerPool in order to illustrate the flexibility of the
RSerPool architecture.
3.2.1 Decomposed GWC and GK Scenario
In this scenario, both GWC and GK services are deployed as separate
pools with some number of PEs, as shown in the following diagram.
Each of the pools will register their unique pool handle (i.e. name)
with the NS. We also assume that there are a Signaling Gateway (SG)
and a Media Gateway (MG) present and both are RSerPool aware.
Tuexen, et al. Expires November 30, 2002 [Page 17]
Internet-Draft Architecture for Reliable Server Pooling June 2002
...................
. Gateway .
. Controller Pool .
................. . +-------+ .
. Gatekeeper . . |PE(2,A)| .
. Pool . . +-------+ .
. +-------+ . . +-------+ .
. |PE(1,A)| . . |PE(2,B)| .
. +-------+ . . +-------+ .
. +-------+ . (d) . +-------+ .
. |PE(1,B)|<------------>|PE(2,C)|<-------------+
. +-------+ . . +-------+ . |
................. ........^.......... |
| |
(c)| (e)|
| v
+++++++++++++++ ********* *****************
+ NS + * SG(X) * * Media Gateway *
+++++++++++++++ ********* *****************
^ ^
| |
| <-(a) |
+-------------------+
(b)->
Deployment of Decomposed GWC and GK.
As shown in the previous figure, the following sequence takes place:
1. the Signaling Gateway (SG) receives an incoming signaling message
to be forwarded to the GWC. SG(X)'s ASAP layer would send an
ASAP request to its "local" NS to request the list of pool
elements (PE's) of GWC (using (a)). The key used for this query
is the pool handle of the GWC. The ASAP layer queues the data to
be sent in local buffers until the NS responds.
2. the NS would return a list of the three PE's A, B and C to the
ASAP layer in SG(X) together with information to be used for
load-sharing traffic across the gateway controller pool (using
(b)).
3. the ASAP layer in SG(X) will select one PE (e.g., PE(2,C)) and
send the signaling message to it (using (c)). The selection is
based on the load sharing information of the gateway controller
pool.
4. to progress the call, PE(2,C) finds that it needs to talk to the
Gatekeeper. Assuming it has already had gatekeeper pool's
Tuexen, et al. Expires November 30, 2002 [Page 18]
Internet-Draft Architecture for Reliable Server Pooling June 2002
information in its local cache (e.g., obtained and stored from
recent query to NS), PE(2,C) selects PE(1,B) and sends the call
control message to it (using (d)).
5. We assume PE(1,B) responds back to PE(2,C) and authorizes the
call to proceed.
6. PE(2,C) issues media control commands to the Media Gateway (using
(e)).
RSerPool will provide service robustness to the system if some
failure would occur in the system.
For instance, if PE(1, B) in the Gatekeeper Pool crashed after
receiving the call control message from PE(2, C) in step (d) above,
what most likely will happen is that, due to the absence of a reply
from the Gatekeeper, a timer expiration event will trigger the call
state machine within PE(2, C) to resend the control message. The
ASAP layer at PE(2, C) will then notice the failure of PE(1, B)
through (likely) the endpoint unreachability detection by the
transport protocol beneath ASAP and automatically deliver the re-sent
call control message to the alternate GK pool member PE(1, A). With
appropriate intra-pool call state sharing support, PE(1, A) will be
able to correctly handle the call and reply to PE(2, C) and hence
progress the call.
3.2.2 Collocated GWC and GK Scenario
In this scenario, the GWC and GK services are collocated (e.g., they
are implemented as a single process). In such a case, one can form a
pool that provides both GWC and GK services as shown in the figure
below.
Tuexen, et al. Expires November 30, 2002 [Page 19]
Internet-Draft Architecture for Reliable Server Pooling June 2002
........................................
. Gateway Controller/Gatekeeper Pool .
. +-------+ .
. |PE(3,A)| .
. +-------+ .
. +-------+ .
. |PE(3,C)|<---------------------------+
. +-------+ . |
. +-------+ ^ . |
. |PE(3,B)| | . |
. +-------+ | . |
................|....................... |
| |
+-------------+ |
| |
(c)| (e)|
v v
+++++++++++++++ ********* *****************
+ NS + * SG(X) * * Media Gateway *
+++++++++++++++ ********* *****************
^ ^
| |
| <-(a) |
+-------------------+
(b)->
Deployment of Collocated GWC and GK.
The same sequence as described in 5.2.1 takes place, except that step
(4) now becomes internal to the PE(3,C) (again, we assume Server C is
selected by SG).
Tuexen, et al. Expires November 30, 2002 [Page 20]
Internet-Draft Architecture for Reliable Server Pooling June 2002
4. Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank Bernard Aboba, Harrie Hazewinkel,
Matt Holdrege, Christopher Ross, Werner Vogels and many others for
their invaluable comments and suggestions.
Tuexen, et al. Expires November 30, 2002 [Page 21]
Internet-Draft Architecture for Reliable Server Pooling June 2002
References
[1] Postel, J., "Transmission Control Protocol", STD 7, RFC 793,
September 1981.
[2] Postel, J. and J. Reynolds, "File Transfer Protocol", STD 9, RFC
959, October 1985.
[3] Bradner, S., "The Internet Standards Process -- Revision 3", BCP
9, RFC 2026, October 1996.
[4] Guttman, E., Perkins, C., Veizades, J. and M. Day, "Service
Location Protocol, Version 2", RFC 2608, June 1999.
[5] Ong, L., Rytina, I., Garcia, M., Schwarzbauer, H., Coene, L.,
Lin, H., Juhasz, I., Holdrege, M. and C. Sharp, "Framework
Architecture for Signaling Transport", RFC 2719, October 1999.
[6] Stewart, R., Xie, Q., Morneault, K., Sharp, C., Schwarzbauer,
H., Taylor, T., Rytina, I., Kalla, M., Zhang, L. and V. Paxson,
"Stream Control Transmission Protocol", RFC 2960, October 2000.
[7] Tuexen, M., Xie, Q., Stewart, R., Shore, M., Ong, L., Loughney,
J. and M. Stillman, "Requirements for Reliable Server Pooling",
RFC 3237, January 2002.
Authors' Addresses
Michael Tuexen
Siemens AG
ICN WN CC SE 7
D-81359 Munich
Germany
Phone: +49 89 722 47210
EMail: Michael.Tuexen@icn.siemens.de
Qiaobing Xie
Motorola, Inc.
1501 W. Shure Drive, #2309
Arlington Heights, IL 60004
USA
Phone: +1-847-632-3028
EMail: qxie1@email.mot.com
Tuexen, et al. Expires November 30, 2002 [Page 22]
Internet-Draft Architecture for Reliable Server Pooling June 2002
Randall R. Stewart
Cisco Systems, Inc.
8725 West Higgins Road
Suite 300
Chicago, IL 60631
USA
Phone: +1-815-477-2127
EMail: rrs@cisco.com
Melinda Shore
Cisco Systems, Inc.
809 Hayts Rd
Ithaca, NY 14850
USA
Phone: +1 607 272 7512
EMail: mshore@cisco.com
Lyndon Ong
Ciena Corporation
10480 Ridgeview Drive
Cupertino, CA 95014
USA
EMail: lyong@ciena.com
John Loughney
Nokia Research Center
PO Box 407
FIN-00045 Nokia Group FIN-00045
Finland
EMail: john.loughney@nokia.com
Maureen Stillman
Nokia
127 W. State Street
Ithaca, NY 14850
USA
Phone: +1-607-273-0724
EMail: maureen.stillman@nokia.com
Tuexen, et al. Expires November 30, 2002 [Page 23]
Internet-Draft Architecture for Reliable Server Pooling June 2002
Full Copyright Statement
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2002). All Rights Reserved.
This document and translations of it may be copied and furnished to
others, and derivative works that comment on or otherwise explain it
or assist in its implementation may be prepared, copied, published
and distributed, in whole or in part, without restriction of any
kind, provided that the above copyright notice and this paragraph are
included on all such copies and derivative works. However, this
document itself may not be modified in any way, such as by removing
the copyright notice or references to the Internet Society or other
Internet organizations, except as needed for the purpose of
developing Internet standards in which case the procedures for
copyrights defined in the Internet Standards process must be
followed, or as required to translate it into languages other than
English.
The limited permissions granted above are perpetual and will not be
revoked by the Internet Society or its successors or assigns.
This document and the information contained herein is provided on an
"AS IS" basis and THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING
TASK FORCE DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING
BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INFORMATION
HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF
MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
Acknowledgement
Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the
Internet Society.
Tuexen, et al. Expires November 30, 2002 [Page 24]
