Network Working Group Q. Xie
Internet-Draft Motorola
Intended status: Experimental R. Stewart
Expires: March 25, 2008 Cisco Systems, Inc.
M. Stillman
Nokia
M. Tuexen
Muenster Univ. of Applied Sciences
A. Silverton
Motorola, Inc.
September 22, 2007
Endpoint Handlespace Redundancy Protocol (ENRP)
draft-ietf-rserpool-enrp-17.txt
Status of this Memo
By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any
applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware
have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes
aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79.
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 March 25, 2008.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2007).
Xie, et al. Expires March 25, 2008 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft Endpoint Handlespace Redundancy September 2007
Abstract
The Endpoint Handlespace Redundancy Protocol (ENRP) is designed to
work in conjunction with the Aggregate Server Access Protocol (ASAP)
to accomplish the functionality of the Reliable Server Pooling
(RSerPool) requirements and architecture. Within the operational
scope of RSerPool, ENRP defines the procedures and message formats of
a distributed, fault-tolerant registry service for storing,
bookkeeping, retrieving, and distributing pool operation and
membership information.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
1.1. Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
1.2. Conventions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2. ENRP Message Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
2.1. ENRP_PRESENCE message . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
2.2. ENRP_HANDLE_TABLE_REQUEST message . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
2.3. ENRP_HANDLE_TABLE_RESPONSE message . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
2.4. ENRP_HANDLE_UPDATE message . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
2.5. ENRP_LIST_REQUEST message . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
2.6. ENRP_LIST_RESPONSE message . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
2.7. ENRP_INIT_TAKEOVER message . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
2.8. ENRP_INIT_TAKEOVER_ACK message . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
2.9. ENRP_TAKEOVER_SERVER message . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
2.10. ENRP_ERROR message . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
3. ENRP Operation Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
3.1. Methods for Communicating amongst ENRP Servers . . . . . . 17
3.2. ENRP Server Initialization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
3.2.1. Generate a Server Identifier . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
3.2.2. Acquire Peer Server List . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
3.2.3. Download ENRP Handlespace Data from Mentor Peer . . . 21
3.3. Handle PE Registration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
3.3.1. Rules on PE Re-registration . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
3.4. Handle PE De-registration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
3.5. Pool Handle Translation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
3.6. Server Handlespace Update . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
3.6.1. Announcing Addition or Update of PE . . . . . . . . . 27
3.6.2. Announcing Removal of PE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
3.7. Detecting and Removing Unreachable PE . . . . . . . . . . 28
3.8. Helping PE and PU to Discover Home ENRP Server . . . . . . 29
3.9. Maintaining Peer List and Monitoring Peer Status . . . . . 29
3.9.1. Discovering New Peer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
3.9.2. Server Sending Heartbeat . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
3.9.3. Detecting Peer Server Failure . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
3.10. Taking-over a Failed Peer Server . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
Xie, et al. Expires March 25, 2008 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft Endpoint Handlespace Redundancy September 2007
3.10.1. Initiating Server Take-over Arbitration . . . . . . . 31
3.10.2. Take-over Target Peer Server . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
3.11. Handlespace Data Auditing and Re-synchronization . . . . . 32
3.11.1. Auditing Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
3.11.2. PE Checksum Calculation Algorithm . . . . . . . . . . 33
3.11.3. Re-synchronization Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
3.12. Handling Unrecognized Message or Unrecognized Parameter . 35
4. Variables and Thresholds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
4.1. Variables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
4.2. Thresholds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
5.1. A New Table for ENRP Message Types . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
5.2. A New Table for Update Action Types . . . . . . . . . . . 37
5.3. Multicast Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
6.1. Summary of Rserpool Security Threats . . . . . . . . . . . 39
6.2. Implementing Security Mechanisms . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
6.3. Chain of trust . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
7. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
8.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
8.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . . . . 47
Xie, et al. Expires March 25, 2008 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft Endpoint Handlespace Redundancy September 2007
1. Introduction
ENRP is designed to work in conjunction with ASAP [9] to accomplish
the functionality of RSerPool as defined by its requirements [5].
Within the operational scope of RSerPool, ENRP defines the procedures
and message formats of a distributed fault-tolerant registry service
for storing, bookkeeping, retrieving, and distributing pool operation
and membership information.
Whenever appropriate, in the rest of this document we will refer to
this RSerPool registry service as ENRP handlespace, or simply
handlespace because it manages all pool handles.
1.1. Definitions
This document uses the following terms:
Operational 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: A logical pointer to a pool. Each server pool will be
identifiable in the operational scope of the system by a unique
pool handle.
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 pool handle
and a destination transport address of the pool element.
Handle space: A cohesive structure of pool handles and relations
that may be queried by an internal or external agent.
ENRP client channel: The communication channel through which an ASAP
User (either a PE or PU) requests ENRP handlespace service. The
client channel is usually defined by the transport address of the
home server and a well-known port number. The channel MAY make
use of multi-cast or a named list of ENRP servers.
Xie, et al. Expires March 25, 2008 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft Endpoint Handlespace Redundancy September 2007
ENRP server channel: Defined by a well-known multicast IP address
and a well known port number. All ENRP servers in an operational
scope can send multicast messages to other servers through this
channel. PEs are also allowed to multicast on this channel
occasionally;
Home ENRP server: The ENRP server to which a PE or PU currently
belongs. A PE MUST only have one home ENRP server at any given
time and both the PE and its home ENRP server MUST keep track of
this master/slave relationship between them. A PU SHOULD select
one of the available ENRP servers as its home ENRP server, but the
ENRP server does not need to know, nor does it need to keep track
of this relationship.
1.2. Conventions
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in RFC2119 [2].
Xie, et al. Expires March 25, 2008 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft Endpoint Handlespace Redundancy September 2007
2. ENRP Message Definitions
In this section, we define the format of all ENRP messages. These
are messages sent and received amongst ENRP servers in an operational
scope. Messages sent and received between a PE/PU and an ENRP server
are part of ASAP and are defined in [9]. A common format, that is
defined in [8], is used for all ENRP and ASAP messages.
Most ENRP messages contains a combination of fixed fields and TLV
parameters. The TLV (Type-Length_value) parameters are also defined
in [8].
All messages, as well as their fields/parameters described below,
MUST be transmitted in network byte order (a.k.a. Big Endian,
meaning the most significant byte is transmitted first).
For ENRP, the following message types are defined in this section:
Type Message Name
----- -------------------------
0x00 - (reserved by IETF)
0x01 - ENRP_PRESENCE
0x02 - ENRP_HANDLE_TABLE_REQUEST
0x03 - ENRP_HANDLE_TABLE_RESPONSE
0x04 - ENRP_HANDLE_UPDATE
0x05 - ENRP_LIST_REQUEST
0x06 - ENRP_LIST_RESPONSE
0x07 - ENRP_INIT_TAKEOVER
0x08 - ENRP_INIT_TAKEOVER_ACK
0x09 - ENRP_TAKEOVER_SERVER
0x0a - ENRP_ERROR
0x0b-0xff - (reserved by IETF)
Figure 1
Except for the ENRP_PRESENCE message, the usage of the ENRP server
channel is for further study. The usage of point-to-point
communications is assumed in this specification.
2.1. ENRP_PRESENCE message
This ENRP message is used to announce (periodically) the presence of
an ENRP server, or to probe the status of a peer ENRP server. This
message is either send on the ENRP server channel or point-to-point
to another ENRP server.
Xie, et al. Expires March 25, 2008 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft Endpoint Handlespace Redundancy September 2007
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Type = 0x01 |0|0|0|0|0|0|0|0| Message Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Sending Server's ID |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Receiving Server's ID |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
: PE Checksum Param :
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
: Server Information Param (optional) :
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
R (reply_required) flag: 1 bit
Set to '1' if the sender requires a response to this message,
otherwise set to '0'. If sent to the ENRP server channel this
field MUST be set to '0'.
Sending Server's ID: 32 bit (unsigned integer)
This is the ID of the ENRP server which sent this message.
Receiving Server's ID: 32 bit (unsigned integer)
This is the ID of the ENRP server to which this message is
intended. If the message is not intended for an individual
server (e.g., the message is multicasted to a group of
servers), this field MUST be sent with all 0's. If the message
is send point-to-point this field MAY be sent with all 0's.
PE Checksum Parameter:
This is a TLV that contains the latest PE checksum of the ENRP
server who sends the ENRP_PRESENCE. This parameter SHOULD be
included for handlespace consistency auditing. See
Section 3.11.1 for details.
Server Information Parameter:
If this parameter is present, it contains the server
information of the sender of this message (Server Information
Parameter is defined in [8]). This parameter is optional.
However, if this message is sent in response to a received
"reply required" ENRP_PRESENCE from a peer, the sender then
Xie, et al. Expires March 25, 2008 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft Endpoint Handlespace Redundancy September 2007
MUST include its server information.
Note, at startup an ENRP server MUST pick a randomly generated, non-
zero 32-bit unsigned integer as its ID and MUST use this same ID
until the ENRP server is rebooted.
2.2. ENRP_HANDLE_TABLE_REQUEST message
An ENRP server sends this message to one of its peers to request a
copy of the handlespace data. This message is normally used during
server initialization or handlespace re-synchronization.
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Type = 0x02 |0|0|0|0|0|0|0|W| Message Length = 0xC |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Sending Server's ID |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Receiving Server's ID |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
W (oWn-children-only) flag: 1 bit
Set to '1' if the sender of this message is only requesting
information about the PEs owned by the message receiver.
Otherwise, set to '0'.
Sending Server's ID:
See Section 2.1.
Receiving Server's ID:
See Section 2.1.
2.3. ENRP_HANDLE_TABLE_RESPONSE message
The PEER_NAME_TABLE_RESPONSE message is sent by an ENRP server in
response to a received PEER_NAME_TABLE_REQUEST message to assist peer
server initialization or handle-space synchronization.
Xie, et al. Expires March 25, 2008 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft Endpoint Handlespace Redundancy September 2007
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Type = 0x03 |0|0|0|0|0|0|M|R| Message Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Sending Server's ID |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Receiving Server's ID |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
: :
: Pool entry #1 (optional) :
: :
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
: :
: ... :
: :
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
: :
: Pool entry #n (optional) :
: :
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
M (More_to_send) flag: 1 bit
Set to '1' if the sender of this message has more pool entries
to send in subsequent ENRP_HANDLE_TABLE_RESPONSE messages.
Otherwise, set to '0'.
R (Reject) flag: 1 bit
MUST be set to '1' if the sender of this message is rejecting a
handlespace request. In this case, pool entries MUST not be
included. This might happen if the sender of this message is
in the middle of initializing its database or it is under high
load.
Message Length: 16 bits (unsigned integer)
Indicates the entire length of the message including the header
in number of octets.
Note, the value in Message Length field will NOT cover any
padding at the end of this message.
Xie, et al. Expires March 25, 2008 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft Endpoint Handlespace Redundancy September 2007
Sending Server's ID:
See Section 2.1.
Receiving Server's ID:
See Section 2.1.
Pool entry #1-#n:
If the R flag is set to '0', at least one pool entry SHOULD be
present in this message. Each pool entry MUST start with a
Pool Handle parameter as defined in section 3.1.7, and is
followed by one or more Pool Element parameters in TLV format,
as shown below:
+---------------------------+
: Pool handle :
+---------------------------+
: PE #1 :
+---------------------------+
: PE #2 :
+---------------------------+
: ... :
+---------------------------+
: PE #n :
+---------------------------+
2.4. ENRP_HANDLE_UPDATE message
The PEER_NAME_UPDATE message is sent by the home ENRP server of a PE
to all peer servers to announce registration, reregistration, or
deregistration of the PE in the handle-space.
Xie, et al. Expires March 25, 2008 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft Endpoint Handlespace Redundancy September 2007
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Type = 0x04 |0|0|0|0|0|0|0|0| Message Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Sending Server's ID |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Receiving Server's ID |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Update Action | (reserved) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
: Pool Handle Parameter :
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
: Pool Element Parameter :
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Message Length: 16 bits (unsigned integer)
Indicates the entire length of the message including the header
in number of octets.
Note, the value in Message Length field will NOT cover any
padding at the end of this message.
Update Action: 16 bits (unsigned integer)
This field indicates the requested action of the specified PE.
The field MUST be set to one of the following values:
0x0000 - ADD_PE: Add or update the specified PE in the ENRP
handlespace
0x0001 - DEL_PE: Delete the specified PE from the ENRP
handlespace.
0x0002 - 0xFFFF: Reserved by IETF.
Other values are reserved by IETF and MUST not be used.
Reserved: 16 bits
This field MUST be set to all 0's by sender and ignored by the
receiver.
Xie, et al. Expires March 25, 2008 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft Endpoint Handlespace Redundancy September 2007
Sending Server's ID:
See Section 2.1.
Receiving Server's ID:
See Section 2.1.
Pool handle:
Specifies to which the PE belongs.
Pool Element:
Specifies the PE.
2.5. ENRP_LIST_REQUEST message
The PEER_LIST_REQUEST message is sent to request a current copy of
the ENRP server list. This message is normally sent from a newly
activated ENRP server to an established ENRP server as part of the
initialization process.
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Type = 0x05 |0|0|0|0|0|0|0|0| Message Length = 0xC |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Sending Server's ID |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Receiving Server's ID |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Sending Server's ID:
See Section 2.1.
Receiving Server's ID:
See Section 2.1.
Xie, et al. Expires March 25, 2008 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft Endpoint Handlespace Redundancy September 2007
2.6. ENRP_LIST_RESPONSE message
The PEER_LIST_RESPONSE message is sent in response from an ENRP
server that receives a PEER_LIST_REQUEST message to return
information about known ENRP servers.
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Type = 0x06 |0|0|0|0|0|0|0|R| Message Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Sending Server's ID |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Receiving Server's ID |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
: Server Information Parameter of Peer #1 :
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
: ... :
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
: Server Information Parameter of Peer #n :
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
R (Reject) flag: 1 bit
This flag MUST be set to '1' if the sender of this message is
rejecting a PEER_LIST_REQUEST message. If this case occurs,
the message MUST NOT include any Server Information Parameters.
Message Length: 16 bits (unsigned integer)
Indicates the entire length of the message in number of octets.
Note, the value in Message Length field will NOT cover any
padding at the end of this message.
Sending Server's ID:
See Section 2.1.
Receiving Server's ID:
See Section 2.1.
Xie, et al. Expires March 25, 2008 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft Endpoint Handlespace Redundancy September 2007
Server Information Parameter of Peer #1-#n:
Each contains a Server Information Parameter of a peer known to
the sender. The Server Information Parameter is defined in
[8].
2.7. ENRP_INIT_TAKEOVER message
The ENRP_INIT_TAKEOVER message is sent by an ENRP server (the
takeover initiator) to announce its intention of taking over a
specific peer ENRP server. It is send to all its peers.
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Type = 0x07 |0|0|0|0|0|0|0|0| Message Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Sending Server's ID |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Receiving Server's ID |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Targeting Server's ID |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Sending Server's ID:
See Section 2.1.
Receiving Server's ID:
See Section 2.1.
Targeting Server's ID: 32-bit (unsigned integer)
This is the ID of the peer ENRP that is the target of this
takeover attempt.
2.8. ENRP_INIT_TAKEOVER_ACK message
The PEER_INIT_TAKEOVER_ACK message is sent in response to a takeover
initiator to acknowledge the reception of the PEER_INIT_TAKEROVER
message and that it does not object to the takeover.
Xie, et al. Expires March 25, 2008 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft Endpoint Handlespace Redundancy September 2007
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Type = 0x08 |0|0|0|0|0|0|0|0| Message Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Sending Server's ID |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Receiving Server's ID |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Targeting Server's ID |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Sending Server's ID:
See Section 2.1.
Receiving Server's ID:
See Section 2.1.
Targeting Server's ID:
This is the ID of the peer ENRP that is the target of this
takeover attempt.
2.9. ENRP_TAKEOVER_SERVER message
The PEER_TAKEOVER_REGISTRAR message is sent by the takeover initiator
to declare the enforcement of a takeover to all active peer ENRP
servers.
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Type = 0x09 |0|0|0|0|0|0|0|0| Message Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Sending Server's ID |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Receiving Server's ID |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Targeting Server's ID |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Xie, et al. Expires March 25, 2008 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft Endpoint Handlespace Redundancy September 2007
Sending Server's ID:
See Section 2.1.
Receiving Server's ID:
See Section 2.1.
Targeting Server's ID:
This is the ID of the peer ENRP that is the target of this
takeover operation.
2.10. ENRP_ERROR message
The ENRP_ERROR message is sent by a registrar to report an
operational error to a peer ENRP server.
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Type = 0x0a |0|0|0|0|0|0|0|0| Message Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Sending Server's ID |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Receiving Server's ID |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
: Operational Error Parameter :
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Sending Server's ID:
See Section 2.1.
Receiving Server's ID:
See Section 2.1.
Operational Error Parameter:
This parameter, defined in [8], indicates the type of error(s)
being reported.
Xie, et al. Expires March 25, 2008 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft Endpoint Handlespace Redundancy September 2007
3. ENRP Operation Procedures
In this section, we discuss the operation procedures defined by ENRP.
An ENRP server MUST follow these procedures when sending, receiving,
or processing ENRP messages.
Many of the RSerPool events call for both server-to-server and PU/
PE-to-server message exchanges. Only the message exchanges and
activities between an ENRP server and its peer(s) are considered
within the ENRP scope and are defined in this document.
Procedures for exchanging messages between a PE/PU and ENRP servers
are defined in [9].
3.1. Methods for Communicating amongst ENRP Servers
Within an RSerPool operational scope, ENRP servers need to
communicate with each other in order to exchange information such as
the pool membership changes, handlespace data synchronization, etc.
Two types of communications are used amongst ENRP servers:
o point-to-point message exchange from one ENPR server to a specific
peer server, and
o announcements from one server to all its peer servers in the
operational scope.
Point-to-point communication is always carried out over an SCTP
association between the sending server and the receiving server.
Announcements are communicated out with one of the following two
approaches:
1. The sending server sends the announcement message to the ENRP
server channel. This must also handle the relation between the
ENRP server channel and the operational scope. The usage of the
ENRP server channel is for further study.
2. The sending server sends multiple copies of the announcement, one
to each of its peer servers, over a set of point-to-point SCTP
associations between the sending server and the peers.
In order to maximize inter-operability of ENRP servers, the following
rules MUST be followed:
1. At the startup time, a new ENRP server SHOULD make a decision on
whether it will enable IP multicast for ENRP announcements. This
Xie, et al. Expires March 25, 2008 [Page 17]
Internet-Draft Endpoint Handlespace Redundancy September 2007
decision should be based on preconfigured information such as the
availability of IP multicast and the security requirements from
the user of RSerPool.
2. If an ENRP server disables multicast, it then:
A. MUST NOT subscribe to the well-known server multicast
channel, i.e., it only receives peer announcements over SCTP
associations, and
B. MUST transmit all its out-going announcements over point-to-
point SCTP associations with its peers.
3. If an ENRP server enables itself to use multicast, it then:
A. MUST subscribe to the well-known server multicast channel to
ready itself for receiving peers' multicast announcements,
B. MUST also be prepared to receive peer announcements over
point-to-point SCTP associations from peers.
C. MUST track internally which peers are multicast-enabled and
which are not. Note: A peer is always assumed to be
multicast-disabled until/unless an ENRP message of any type
is received from that peer over the well-known server
multicast channel.
D. when sending out an announcement, MUST send a copy to the
ENRP server channel AND a copy to each of the peers that are
marked as multicast-disabled over a point-to-point SCTP
association.
3.2. ENRP Server Initialization
This section describes the steps a new ENRP server needs to take in
order to join the other existing ENRP servers, or to initiate the
handlespace service if it is the first ENRP server started in the
operational scope.
3.2.1. Generate a Server Identifier
A new ENRP server MUST generate a non-zero, 32-bit server Id that is
as unique as possible in the operational scope and this server Id
MUST remain unchanged for the lifetime of the server. Normally, a
good 32-bit random number will be good enough as the server Id
(RFC4086 [11] provides some information on randomness guidelines).
Note, there is a very remote chance (about 1 in about 4 billion) that
Xie, et al. Expires March 25, 2008 [Page 18]
Internet-Draft Endpoint Handlespace Redundancy September 2007
two ENRP servers in an operational scope will generate the same
server Id and hence cause a server Id conflict in the pool. However,
no severe consequence of such a conflict has been identified.
3.2.2. Acquire Peer Server List
At startup, the ENRP server (initiating server) will first attempt to
learn all existing peer ENRP servers in the same operational scope,
or to determine that it is alone in the scope.
The initiating server uses an existing peer server to bootstrap
itself into service. We call this peer server the mentor server.
3.2.2.1. Finding the mentor server
If the initiating server is told about an existing peer server
through some administrative means (such as DNS query, configuration
database, startup scripts, etc), the initiating server SHOULD then
use this peer server as its mentor server and SHOULD skip the
remaining steps in this subsection.
If multiple existing peer servers are specified, the initiating
server SHOULD pick one of them as its mentor server, keep the others
as its backup mentor servers, and skip the remaining steps in this
subsection.
If no existing peer server is specified to the initiating server AND
if multicast is available in the operational scope, the following
mentor server discovery procedures SHOULD be followed:
1. The initiating server SHOULD first join the ENRP server channel.
2. When the first ENRP_PRESENCE message arrives, the server SHOULD
take the sender of this received response as its mentor server.
This completes the discovery of the mentor server.
If ENRP_PRESENCE messages are also received from other peers (a
likely event when multiple peers exist in the operational scope
at the time the new server started), the initiating server SHOULD
keep a list of those responded as its backup mentor servers (see
below).
3. If no response to its ENRP_PRESENCE message are received after
TIMEOUT-SERVER-HUNT seconds, the initiating server SHOULD repeat
steps 2) and 3) for up to MAX-NUMBER-SERVER-HUNT times. After
that, if there is still no response, the initiating server MUST
assume that it is alone in the operational scope.
Xie, et al. Expires March 25, 2008 [Page 19]
Internet-Draft Endpoint Handlespace Redundancy September 2007
4. If the initiating server determined that it is alone in the
scope, it MUST skip the procedures in Section 3.2.2.2 and
Section 3.2.3 and MUST consider its initialization completed and
start offering ENRP services.
Note, if multicast is not available (or not allowed for reasons such
as security concerns) in the operational scope, at least one peer
server MUST be specified to the initiating server through
administrative means, unless the initiation server is the first
server to start in the operational scope.
Note, if the administratively specified mentor peer(s) fails and the
ENRP server channel is available, the initiating server SHOULD use
the auto-discover procedure defined in steps 1-5 above.
3.2.2.2. Request complete server list from mentor peer
Once the initiating server finds its mentor peer server (by either
discovery or administrative means), the initiating server MUST send
an ENRP_LIST_REQUEST message to the mentor peer server to request a
copy of the complete server list maintained by the mentor peer (see
Section 3.9 for maintaining server list).
The initiating server SHOULD start a MAX-TIME-NO-RESPONSE timer every
time it finishes sending an ENRP_LIST_REQUEST message. If the timer
expires before receiving a response from the mentor peer, the
initiating server SHOULD abort and send a new server list request to
a backup mentor peer, if one is available.
Upon the reception of this request, the mentor peer server SHOULD
reply with an ENRP_LIST_RESPONSE message and include in the message
body all existing ENRP servers known by the mentor peer.
Upon the reception of the ENRP_LIST_RESPONSE message from the mentor
peer, the initiating server MUST use the server information carried
in the message to initialize its own peer list.
However, if the mentor itself is in the process of startup and not
ready to provide a peer server list (for example, the mentor peer is
waiting for a response to its own ENRP_LIST_REQUEST to another
server), it MUST reject the request by the initiating server and
respond with an ENRP_LIST_RESPONSE message with the R flag set to
'1', and with no server information included in the response.
In the case where its ENRP_LIST_REQUEST is rejected by the mentor
peer, the initiating server SHOULD either wait for a few seconds and
re-send the ENRP_LIST_REQUEST to the mentor server, or if there is a
backup mentor peer available, select another mentor peer server and
Xie, et al. Expires March 25, 2008 [Page 20]
Internet-Draft Endpoint Handlespace Redundancy September 2007
send the ENRP_LIST_REQUEST to the new mentor server.
3.2.3. Download ENRP Handlespace Data from Mentor Peer
After a peer list download is completed, the initiating server MUST
request a copy of the current handlespace data from its mentor peer
server, by taking the following steps:
1. The initiating server MUST first send a ENRP_HANDLE_TABLE_REQUEST
message to the mentor peer, with W flag set to '0', indicating
that the entire handlespace is requested.
2. Upon the reception of this message, the mentor peer MUST start a
download session in which a copy of the current handlespace data
maintained by the mentor peer is sent to the initiating server in
one or more ENRP_HANDLE_TABLE_RESPONSE messages (Note, the mentor
server may find it particularly desirable to use multiple
ENRP_HANDLE_TABLE_RESPONSE messages to send the handlespace when
the handlespace is large, especially when forming and sending out
a single response containing a large handlespace may interrupt
its other services).
If more than one ENRP_HANDLE_TABLE_RESPONSE message are used
during the download, the mentor peer MUST use the M flag in each
ENRP_HANDLE_TABLE_RESPONSE message to indicate whether this
message is the last one for the download session. In particular,
the mentor peer MUST set the M flag to '1' in the outbound
ENRP_HANDLE_TABLE_RESPONSE if there is more data to be
transferred and MUST keep track of the progress of the current
download session. The mentor peer MUST set the M flag to '0' in
the last ENRP_HANDLE_TABLE_RESPONSE for the download session and
close the download session (i.e., removing any internal record of
the session) after sending out the last message.
3. During the downloading, every time the initiating server receives
an ENRP_HANDLE_TABLE_RESPONSE message, it MUST transfer the data
entries carried in the message into its local handlespace
database, and then check whether or not this message is the last
one for the download session.
If the M flag is set to '1' in the just processed
ENRP_HANDLE_TABLE_RESPONSE message, the initiating server MUST
send another ENRP_HANDLE_TABLE_REQUEST message to the mentor peer
to request for the next ENRP_HANDLE_TABLE_RESPONSE message.
4. When unpacking the data entries from a ENRP_HANDLE_TABLE_RESPONSE
message into its local handlespace database, the initiating
server MUST handle each pool entry carried in the message using
Xie, et al. Expires March 25, 2008 [Page 21]
Internet-Draft Endpoint Handlespace Redundancy September 2007
the following rules:
A. If the pool does not exist in the local handlespace, the
initiating server MUST create the pool in the local
handlespace and add the PE(s) in the pool entry to the pool.
When creating the pool, the initiation server MUST set the
overall member selection policy type of the pool to the
policy type indicated in the first PE.
B. If the pool already exists in the local handlespace, but the
PE(s) in the pool entry is not currently a member of the
pool, the initiating server MUST add the PE(s) to the pool.
C. If the pool already exists in the local handlespace AND the
PE(s) in the Pool entry is already a member of the pool, the
initiating server SHOULD replace the attributes of the
existing PE(s) with the new information. ENRP will make sure
that the information keeps up to date.
5. When the last ENRP_HANDLE_TABLE_RESPONSE message is received from
the mentor peer and unpacked into the local handlespace, the
initialization process is completed and the initiating server
SHOULD start to provide ENRP services.
Under certain circumstances, the mentor peer itself may not be able
to provide a handlespace download to the initiating server. For
example, the mentor peer is in the middle of initializing its own
handlespace database, or it has currently too many download sessions
open to other servers.
In such a case, the mentor peer MUST reject the request by the
initiating server and respond with an ENRP_HANDLE_TABLE_RESPONSE
message with the R flag set to '1', and with no pool entries included
in the response.
In the case where its ENRP_HANDLE_TABLE_REQUEST is rejected by the
mentor peer, the initiating server SHOULD either wait for a few
seconds and re-send the ENRP_HANDLE_TABLE_REQUEST to the mentor
server, or if there is a backup mentor peer available, select another
mentor peer server and send the ENRP_HANDLE_TABLE_REQUEST to the new
mentor server.
A handlespace download session that has been started may get
interrupted for some reason. To cope with this, the initiating
server SHOULD start a timer every time it finishes sending an
ENRP_HANDLE_TABLE_REQUEST to its mentor peer. If this timer expires
without receiving a response from the mentor peer, the initiating
Xie, et al. Expires March 25, 2008 [Page 22]
Internet-Draft Endpoint Handlespace Redundancy September 2007
server SHOULD abort the current download session and re-start a new
handlespace download with a backup mentor peer, if one is available.
Similarly, after sending out an ENRP_HANDLE_TABLE_RESPONSE, and the
mentor peer set the M-bit to 1 to indicate that it has more data to
send, it SHOULD start a session timer. If this timer expires without
receiving another request from the initiating server, the mentor peer
SHOULD abort the session, cleaning out any resource and record of the
session.
3.3. Handle PE Registration
To register itself with the handlespace, a PE sends an
ASAP_REGISTRATION message to its home ENRP server. The format of
ASAP_REGISTRATION message and rules of sending it are defined in [9].
In the ASAP_REGISTRATION message, the PE indicates the handle of the
pool it wishes to join in a pool handle parameter, and its complete
transport information and any load control information in a PE
parameter.
The ENRP server handles the ASAP_REGISTRATION message according to
the following rules:
1. If the named pool does not exist in the handlespace, the ENRP
server MUST creates a new pool with that handle in the
handlespace and add the PE to the pool as its first PE;
When a new pool is created, the overall member selection policy
of the pool MUST be set to the policy type indicated by the first
PE, the overall pool transport type MUST be set to the transport
type indicated by the PE, and the overall pool data/control
channel configuration MUST be set to what is indicated in the
Transport Use field of the User Transport parameter by the
registering PE.
2. If the named pool already exists in the handlespace, but the
requesting PE is not currently a member of the pool, the ENRP
server will add the PE as a new member to the pool;
However, before adding the PE to the pool, the server MUST check
if the policy type, transport type, and transport usage indicated
by the registering PE is consistent with those of the pool. If
different, the ENRP server MUST reject the registration.
3. If the named pool already exists in the handlespace AND the
requesting PE is already a member of the pool, the ENRP server
SHOULD consider this as a re-registration case. The ENRP server
Xie, et al. Expires March 25, 2008 [Page 23]
Internet-Draft Endpoint Handlespace Redundancy September 2007
MUST perform the same tests on policy, transport type, transport
use, as described above. If the re-registration is accepted
after the test, the ENRP Server SHOULD replace the attributes of
the existing PE with the information carried in the received
ASAP_REGISTRATION message.
4. After accepting the registration, the ENRP server MUST assign
itself the owner of this PE. If this is a re-registration, the
ENRP server MUST take over ownership of this PE regardless of
whether the PE was previously owned by this server or by another
server. The ENRP server MUST also record the SCTP transport
address from which it received the ASAP_REGISTRATION in the ASAP
Transport parameter TLV inside the PE parameter of this PE.
5. The ENRP server may reject the registration due to other reasons
such as invalid values, lack of resource, authentication failure,
etc.
In all above cases, the ENRP server MUST reply to the requesting PE
with an ASAP_REGISTRATION_RESPONSE message. If the registration is
accepted, the ENRP server MUST set the 'R' flag in the
ASAP_REGISTRATION_RESPONSE to '0'. If the registration is rejected,
the ENRP server MUST indicate the rejection by setting the 'R' flag
in the ASAP_REGISTRATION_RESPONSE to '1'.
If the registration is rejected, the ENRP server SHOULD include the
proper error cause(s) in the ASAP_REGISTRATION_RESPONSE message.
If the registration is granted (either a new registration or a re-
registration case), the ENRP server MUST assign itself to be the home
ENRP server of the PE, i.e., to "own" the PE.
Implementation note: for better performance, the ENRP server may
find it both efficient and convenient to internally maintain two
separate PE lists or tables - one is for the PEs that are "owned"
by the ENRP server and the other for all the PEs owned by its
peer(s).
Moreover, if the registration is granted, the ENRP server MUST take
the handlespace update action as described in Section 3.6 to inform
its peers about the change just made. If the registration is denied,
no message will be sent to its peers.
3.3.1. Rules on PE Re-registration
A PE may re-register itself to the handlespace with a new set of
attributes in order to, for example, extend its registration life,
change its load factor value, etc. as described in the ASAP
Xie, et al. Expires March 25, 2008 [Page 24]
Internet-Draft Endpoint Handlespace Redundancy September 2007
specification.
A PE may modify its load factor value at any time via re-
registration. Based on the number of PEs in the pool and the pool's
overall policy type, this operation allows the PE to dynamically
control its share of inbound messages received by the pool (also see
Section ???? in [9] for more on load control).
Moreover, when re-registering, the PE MUST NOT change its policy
type. The server MUST reject the re-registration if the PE attempt
to change its policy type. In the rejection, the server SHOULD
attach an error code "Pooling Policy Inconsistent".
Regardless whether it is the current owner of the PE, if the re-
registration is granted to the PE, the ENRP server MUST assign itself
to be the new home ENRP server of the PE.
Moreover, if the re-registration is granted, the ENRP server MUST
take the handlespace update action as described in Section 3.6 to
inform its peers about the change just made. If the re-registration
is denied, no message will be sent to its peers.
3.4. Handle PE De-registration
To remove itself from a pool, a PE sends an ASAP_DEREGISTRATION
message to its home ENRP server. The complete format of
ASAP_DEREGISTRATION message and rules of sending it are defined in
[9].
In the ASAP_DEREGISTRATION message the PE indicates the handle of the
pool it belongs to in a pool handle parameter and provides its PE
identifier.
Upon receiving the message, the ENRP server SHALL remove the PE from
its handlespace. Moreover, if the PE is the last one of the named
pool, the ENRP server will remove the pool from the handlespace as
well.
If the ENRP server fails to find any record of the PE in its
handlespace, it SHOULD consider the de-registration granted and
completed, and send an ASAP_DEREGISTRATION_RESPONSE message to the
PE.
The ENRP server may reject the de-registration request for various
reasons, such as invalid parameters, authentication failure, etc.
In response, the ENRP server MUST send an
ASAP_DEREGISTRATION_RESPONSE message to the PE. If the de-
Xie, et al. Expires March 25, 2008 [Page 25]
Internet-Draft Endpoint Handlespace Redundancy September 2007
registration is rejected, the ENRP server MUST indicate the rejection
by including the proper Operational Error parameter.
It should be noted that de-registration does not stop the PE from
sending or receiving application messages.
Once the de-registration request is granted AND the PE removed from
its local copy of the handlespace, the ENRP server MUST take the
handlespace update action described in Section 3.6 to inform its
peers about the change just made. Otherwise, the ENRP server MUST
NOT inform its peers.
3.5. Pool Handle Translation
A PU uses the pool handle translation service of an ENRP server to
resolve a pool handle to a list of accessible transport addresses of
the member PEs of the pool.
This requires the PU to send an ASAP_HANDLE_RESOLUTION message to its
home ENRP server and in the ASAP_HANDLE_RESOLUTION message specify
the pool handle to be translated in a Pool Handle parameter.
Complete definition of the ASAP_HANDLE_RESOLUTION message and the
rules of sending it are defined in [9].
An ENRP server SHOULD be prepared to receive ASAP_HANDLE_RESOLUTION
requests from PUs either over an SCTP association on the well-know
SCTP port, or over a TCP connection on the well-know TCP port.
Upon reception of the ASAP_HANDLE_RESOLUTION message, the ENRP server
MUST first look up the pool handle in its handlespace. If the pool
exits, the home ENRP server MUST compose and send back an
ASAP_HANDLE_RESOLUTION_RESPONSE message to the requesting PU.
In the response message, the ENRP server SHOULD list all the PEs
currently registered in this pool, in a list of PE parameters. The
ENRP server MUST also include a pool member selection policy
parameter to indicate the overall member selection policy for the
pool, if the current pool member selection policy is not round-robin.
If the named pool does not exist in the handlespace, the ENRP server
MUST reject the handle resolution request by responding with an
ASAP_HANDLE_RESOLUTION_RESPONSE message carrying a Unknown Poor
Handle error.
The complete format of ASAP_HANDLE_RESOLUTION_RESPONSE message and
the rules of receiving it are defined in [9].
Xie, et al. Expires March 25, 2008 [Page 26]
Internet-Draft Endpoint Handlespace Redundancy September 2007
3.6. Server Handlespace Update
This includes a set of update operations used by an ENRP server to
inform its peers when its local handlespace is modified, e.g.,
addition of a new PE, removal of an existing PE, change of pool or PE
properties.
3.6.1. Announcing Addition or Update of PE
When a new PE is granted registration to the handlespace or an
existing PE is granted a re-registration, the home ENRP server uses
this procedure to inform all its peers.
This is an ENRP announcement and is sent to all the peer of the home
ENRP server. See Section 3.1 on how announcements are sent.
An ENRP server MUST announce this update to all its peers in a
ENRP_HANDLE_UPDATE message with the Update Action field set to
ADD_PE, indicating the addition of a new PE or the modification of an
existing PE. The complete new information of the PE and the pool its
belongs to MUST be indicated in the message with a PE parameter and a
Pool Handle parameter, respectively.
The home ENRP server SHOULD fill in its server Id in the Sending
Server's ID field and leave the Receiving Server's ID blank (i.e.,
all 0's).
When a peer receives this ENRP_HANDLE_UPDATE message, it MUST take
the following actions:
1. If the named pool indicated by the pool handle does not exist in
its local copy of the handlespace, the peer MUST create the named
pool in its local handlespace and add the PE to the pool as the
first PE. It MUST then copy in all other attributes of the PE
carried in the message.
When the new pool is created, the overall member selection policy
of the pool MUST be set to the policy type indicated by the PE.
2. If the named pool already exists in the peer's local copy of the
handlespace AND the PE does not exist, the peer MUST add the PE
to the pool as a new PE and copy in all attributes of the PE
carried in the message.
3. If the named pool exists AND the PE is already a member of the
pool, the peer MUST replace the attributes of the PE with the new
information carried in the message.
Xie, et al. Expires March 25, 2008 [Page 27]
Internet-Draft Endpoint Handlespace Redundancy September 2007
3.6.2. Announcing Removal of PE
When an existing PE is granted de-registration or is removed from its
handlespace for some other reasons (e.g., purging an unreachable PE,
see Section 3.7), the ENRP server MUST uses this procedure to inform
all its peers about the change just made.
This is an ENRP announcement and is sent to all the peer of the home
ENRP server. See Section 3.1 on how announcements are sent.
An ENRP server MUST announce the PE removal to all its peers in an
ENRP_HANDLE_UPDATE message with the Update Action field set to
DEL_PE, indicating the removal of an existing PE. The complete
information of the PE and the pool its belongs to MUST be indicated
in the message with a PE parameter and a Pool Handle parameter,
respectively.
The sending server MUST fill in its server ID in the Sending Server's
ID field and leave the Receiving Server's ID blank (i.e., set to all
0's).
When a peer receives this ENRP_HANDLE_UPDATE message, it MUST first
find pool and the PE in its own handlespace, and then remove the PE
from its local handlespace. If the removed PE is the last one in the
pool, the peer MUST also delete the pool from its local handlespace.
If the peer fails to find the PE or the pool in its handlespace, it
SHOULD take no further actions.
3.7. Detecting and Removing Unreachable PE
Whenever a PU finds a PE unreachable (e.g., via an SCTP SEND.FAILURE
Notification, see section 10.2 of [4]), the PU SHOULD send an
ASAP_ENDPOINT_UNREACHABLE message to its home ENRP server. The
message SHOULD contain the pool handle and the PE Id of the
unreachable PE.
Upon the reception of an ASAP_ENDPOINT_UNREACHABLE message, a server
MUST immediately send a point-to-point ASAP_ENDPOINT_KEEP_ALIVE
message to the PE in question (the 'H' flag in the message SHOULD be
set to '0' in this case). If this ASAP_ENDPOINT_KEEP_ALIVE fails
(e.g., it results in an SCTP SEND.FAILURE notification), the ENRP
server MUST consider the PE as truly unreachable and MUST remove the
PE from its handlespace and take actions described in Section 3.6.2.
If the ASAP_ENDPOINT_KEEP_ALIVE message is transmitted successfully
to the PE, the ENRP server MUST retain the PE in its handlespace.
Moreover, the server SHOULD keep a counter to record how many
Xie, et al. Expires March 25, 2008 [Page 28]
Internet-Draft Endpoint Handlespace Redundancy September 2007
ASAP_ENDPOINT_UNREACHABLE messages it has received reporting
reachability problem relating to this PE. If the counter exceeds the
protocol threshold MAX-BAD-PE-REPORT, the ENRP server SHOULD remove
the PE from its handlespace and take actions described in
Section 3.6.2.
Optionally, an ENRP server may also periodically send point-to-point
ASAP_ENDPOINT_KEEP_ALIVE (with 'H' flag set to '0') messages to each
of the PEs owned by the ENRP server in order to check their
reachability status. If the send of ASAP_ENDPOINT_KEEP_ALIVE to a PE
fails, the ENRP server MUST consider the PE as unreachable and MUST
remove the PE from its handlespace and take actions described in
Section 3.6.2. Note, if an ENRP server owns a large number of PEs,
the implementation should pay attention not to flood the network with
bursts of ASAP_ENDPOINT_KEEP_ALIVE messages. Instead, the
implementation MUST distribute the ASAP_ENDPOINT_KEEP_ALIVE message
traffic over a time period.
The complete definition and rules of sending
ASAP_ENDPOINT_UNREACHABLE and receiving ASAP_ENDPOINT_KEEP_ALIVE
messages are described in [9].
3.8. Helping PE and PU to Discover Home ENRP Server
At its startup time, or whenever its current home ENRP server is not
providing services, a PE or PU will attempt to find a new home
server. For this reason, the PE or PU will need to maintain a list
of currently available ENRP servers in its scope.
To help the PE or PU maintaining this list, an ENRP server, if it is
enabled for multicast, SHOULD periodically send out an
ASAP_SERVER_ANNOUNCE message every SERVER-ANNOUNCE-CYCLE seconds to
the well-known ASAP multicast channel. And in the
ASAP_SERVER_ANNOUNCE message the ENRP server SHOULD include all the
transport addresses available for ASAP communications. If the ENRP
server only supports SCTP for ASAP communications, the transport
information MAY be omitted in the ASAP_SERVER_ANNOUNCE message.
For the complete procedure of this, see Section 3.6?? in [9].
3.9. Maintaining Peer List and Monitoring Peer Status
An ENRP server MUST keep an internal record on the status of each of
its known peers. This record is referred to as the server's "peer
list"
Xie, et al. Expires March 25, 2008 [Page 29]
Internet-Draft Endpoint Handlespace Redundancy September 2007
3.9.1. Discovering New Peer
If a message of any type is received from a previously unknown peer,
the ENRP server MUST consider this peer a new peer in the operational
scope and add it to the peer list.
The ENRP server MUST send an ENRP_PRESENCE message with the Reply-
required flag set to '1' to the source address found in the arrived
message. This will force the new peer to reply with its own
ENRP_PRESENCE containing its full server information (see
Section 2.1).
3.9.2. Server Sending Heartbeat
Every PEER-HEARTBEAT-CYCLE seconds, an ENRP server MUST announce its
continued presence to all its peer with a ENRP_PRESENCE message. In
the ENRP_PRESENCE message, the ENRP server MUST set the
'Replay_required' flag to '0', indicating that no response is
required.
The arrival of this periodic ENRP_PRESENCE message will cause all its
peers to update their internal variable "peer_last_heard" for the
sending server (see Section 3.9.3 for more details).
3.9.3. Detecting Peer Server Failure
An ENRP server MUST keep an internal variable "peer_last_heard" for
each of its known peers and the value of this variable MUST be
updated to the current local time every time a message of any type
(point-to-point or announcement) is received from the corresponding
peer.
If a peer has not been heard for more than MAX-TIME-LAST-HEARD
seconds, the ENRP server MUST immediately send a point-to-point
ENRP_PRESENCE with 'Reply_request' flag set to '1' to that peer.
If the send fails or the peer does not reply after MAX-TIME-NO-
RESPONSE seconds, the ENRP server MUST consider the peer server dead
and SHOULD initiate the takeover procedure defined in Section 3.10.
3.10. Taking-over a Failed Peer Server
In the following descriptions, we call the ENRP server that detects
the failed peer server and initiates the take-over the "initiating
server" and the failed peer server the "target server." This allows
PE to continue to operate in case of a failure of their Home ENRP
server.
Xie, et al. Expires March 25, 2008 [Page 30]
Internet-Draft Endpoint Handlespace Redundancy September 2007
3.10.1. Initiating Server Take-over Arbitration
The initiating server SHOULD first start the take-over arbitration
process by sending a ENRP_INIT_TAKEOVER message to all its peer
servers. See Section 3.1 on how announcements are sent. In the
message, the initiating server MUST fill in the Sending Server's ID
and Targeting Server's ID. The goal is that only one ENRP server
takes over the PE from the target.
After announcing the ENRP_INIT_TAKEOVER message, the initiating
server SHOULD wait for an ENRP_INIT_TAKEOVER_ACK message from each of
its known peers, except of the target server.
Each peer receiving a ENRP_INIT_TAKEOVER message from the initiating
server SHOULD take the following actions:
1. If the peer server determines that itself is the target server
indicated in the ENRP_INIT_TAKEOVER message, it MUST immediately
announce an ENRP_PRESENCE message to all its peer ENRP servers in
an attempt to stop this take-over process. This indicates a
false failure detection case by the initiating server. The
initiating server MUST stop the takeover operation.
2. If the peer server finds that it has already started its own
take-over arbitration process on the same target server, it MUST
perform the following arbitration:
A. If the peer's server ID is smaller in value than the Sending
Server's ID in the arrived ENRP_INIT_TAKEOVER message, the
peer server SHOULD immediately abort its own take-over
attempt. Moreover, the peer SHOULD mark the target server as
"not active" on its internal peer list so that its status
will no longer be monitored by the peer, and reply the
initiating server with an ENRP_INIT_TAKEOVER_ACK message.
B. Otherwise, the peer MUST ignore the ENRP_INIT_TAKEOVER
message and take no action.
3. If the peer finds that it is neither the target server nor is in
its own take-over process, the peer SHOULD: a) mark the target
server as "not active" on its internal peer list so that its
status will no longer be monitored by this peer, and b) reply to
the initiating server with an ENRP_INIT_TAKEOVER_ACK message.
Once the initiating server has received ENRP_INIT_TAKEOVER_ACK
message from _all_ of its currently known peers (except for the
target server), it SHOULD consider that it has won the arbitration
and SHOULD proceed to complete the take-over, following the steps
Xie, et al. Expires March 25, 2008 [Page 31]
Internet-Draft Endpoint Handlespace Redundancy September 2007
described in Section 3.10.2.
However, if it receives an ENRP_PRESENCE from the target server at
any point in the arbitration process, the initiating server MUST
immediately abort the take-over process and mark the status of the
target server as "active".
3.10.2. Take-over Target Peer Server
The initiating ENRP server SHOULD first send, via an announcement, a
ENRP_TAKEOVER_SERVER message to inform all its active peers that the
take-over is enforced. The target server's ID MUST be filled in the
message. The initiating server SHOULD then remove the target server
from its internal peer list.
Then it SHOULD examine its local copy of the handlespace and claim
ownership of each of the PEs originally owned by the target server,
by following these steps:
1. mark itself as the home ENRP server of each of the PEs originally
owned by the target server;
2. send a point-to-point ASAP_ENDPOINT_KEEP_ALIVE message, with the
'H' flag set to '1', to each of the PEs. This will trigger the
PE to adopt the initiating sever as its new home ENRP server;
When a peer receives the ENRP_TAKEOVER_SERVER message from the
initiating server, it SHOULD update its local peer list and PE cache
by following these steps:
1. remove the target server from its internal peer list;
2. update the home ENRP server of each PE in its local copy of the
handlespace to be the sender of the message, i.e., the initiating
server.
3.11. Handlespace Data Auditing and Re-synchronization
Message losses or certain temporary breaks in network connectivity
may result in data inconsistency in the local handlespace copy of
some of the ENRP servers in an operational scope. Therefore, each
ENRP server in the operational scope SHOULD periodically verify that
its local copy of handlespace data is still in sync with that of its
peers.
This section defines the auditing and re-synchronization procedures
for an ENRP server to maintain its handlespace data consistency.
Xie, et al. Expires March 25, 2008 [Page 32]
Internet-Draft Endpoint Handlespace Redundancy September 2007
3.11.1. Auditing Procedures
A checksum covering the data which should be the same is exchanged to
figure out if the data is the same or not.
The auditing of handlespace consistency is based on the following
procedures:
1. An ENRP server SHOULD keep a separate PE checksum (a 32-bit
integer internal variable) for each of its known peers and for
itself. For an ENRP server with 'k' known peers, we denote these
internal variables as "pe_checksum_pr0", "pe_checksum_pr1", ...,
"pe_checksum_prk", where "pe_checksum_pr0" is the server's own PE
checksum. The list of what these checksums cover and a detailed
algorithm for calculating them is given in Section 3.11.2.
2. Each time an ENRP server sends out an ENRP_PRESENCE, it MUST
include in the message its current PE checksum (i.e.,
"pe_checksum_pr0").
3. When an ENRP server (server A) receives a PE checksum (carried in
an arrived ENRP_PRESENCE) from a peer ENRP server (server B),
server A SHOULD compare the PE checksum found in the
ENRP_PRESENCE with its own internal PE checksum of server B
(i.e., "pe_checksum_prB").
4. If the two values match, server A will consider that there is no
handlespace inconsistency between itself and server B and should
take no further actions.
5. If the two values do NOT match, server A SHOULD consider that
there is a handlespace inconsistency between itself and server B
and a re-synchronization process SHOULD be carried out
immediately with server B (see Section 3.11.3).
3.11.2. PE Checksum Calculation Algorithm
When an ENRP server (server A) calculate an internal PE checksum for
a peer (server B), it MUST use the following algorithm.
Let us assume that in server A's internal handlespace there are
currently 'M' PEs that are owned by server B. Each of the 'M' PEs
will then contribute to the checksum calculation with the following
byte block:
Xie, et al. Expires March 25, 2008 [Page 33]
Internet-Draft Endpoint Handlespace Redundancy September 2007
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
: Pool handle string of the pool the PE belongs (padded with :
: zeros to next 32-bit word boundary if needed) :
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| PE Id (4 octets) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Note, these are not TLVs. This byte block gives each PE a unique
byte pattern in the scope. The 16-bit PE checksum for server B
"pe_checksum_prB" is then calculated over the byte blocks contributed
by the 'M' PEs one by one. The PE checksum calculation MUST use the
Internet algorithm described in [1].
Server A MUST calculate its own PE checksum (i.e., "pe_checksum_pr0")
in the same fashion, using the byte blocks of all the PEs owned by
itself.
Note, whenever an ENRP finds that its internal handlespace has
changed (e.g., due to PE registration/deregistration, receiving peer
updates, removing failed PEs, downloading handlespace pieces from a
peer, etc.), it MUST immediately update all its internal PE checksums
that are affected by the change.
Implementation Note: when the internal handlespace changes (e.g., a
new PE added or an existing PE removed), an implementation needs not
to re-calculate the affected PE checksum; it can instead simply
update the checksum by adding or subtracting the byte block of the
corresponding PE from the previous checksum value.
3.11.3. Re-synchronization Procedures
If an ENRP server determines that there is inconsistency between its
local handlespace data and a peer's handlespace data with regarding
to the PEs owned by that peer, it MUST perform the following steps to
re-synchronize the data:
1. The ENRP server SHOULD first "mark" every PE it knows about that
is owned by the peer in its local handlespace database;
2. The ENRP server SHOULD then send an ENRP_HANDLE_TABLE_REQUEST
message with W flag set to '1' to the peer to request a complete
list of PEs owned by the peer;
3. Upon reception of the ENRP_HANDLE_TABLE_REQUEST message with W
flag set to '1', the peer server SHOULD immediately respond with
an ENRP_HANDLE_TABLE_RESPONSE message listing all PEs currently
Xie, et al. Expires March 25, 2008 [Page 34]
Internet-Draft Endpoint Handlespace Redundancy September 2007
owned by the peer.
4. Upon reception of the ENRP_HANDLE_TABLE_RESPONSE message, the
ENRP server SHOULD transfer the PE entries carried in the message
into its local handlespace database. If an PE entry being
transferred already exists in its local database, the ENRP server
MUST replace the entry with the copy found in the message and
remove the "mark" from the entry.
5. After transferring all the PE entries from the received
ENRP_HANDLE_TABLE_RESPONSE message into its local database, the
ENRP server SHOULD check whether there are still PE entries that
remain "marked" in its local handlespace. If so, the ENRP server
SHOULD silently remove those "marked" entries.
Note, similar to what is described in Section 3.2.3, the peer may
reject the ENRP_HANDLE_TABLE_REQUEST or use more than one
ENRP_HANDLE_TABLE_RESPONSE message to respond.
3.12. Handling Unrecognized Message or Unrecognized Parameter
When an ENRP server receives an ENRP message with an unknown message
type or a message of known type that contains an unknown parameter,
it SHOULD handle the unknown message or the unknown parameter
according to the unrecognized message and parameter handling rules
defined in Sections 3 and 4 in [8].
According to the rules, if an error report to the message sender is
needed, the ENRP server that discovered the error SHOULD send back an
ENRP_ERROR message with proper error cause code.
Xie, et al. Expires March 25, 2008 [Page 35]
Internet-Draft Endpoint Handlespace Redundancy September 2007
4. Variables and Thresholds
4.1. Variables
peer_last_heard - the local time that a peer server was last heard
(via receiving either a multicast or point-to-point message from
the peer).
pe_checksum_pr - the internal 32-bit PE checksum that an ENRP server
keeps for a peer. A separate PE checksum is kept for each of its
known peers as well as for itself.
4.2. Thresholds
MAX-NUMBER-SERVER-HUNT - the maximal number of attempts a sender
will make to contact an ENRP server (Default=3 times).
TIMEOUT-SERVER-HUNT - pre-set threshold for how long a sender will
wait for a response from an ENRP server (Default=5 seconds).
PEER-HEARTBEAT-CYCLE - the period for an ENRP server to announce a
heartbeat message to all its known peers. (Default=30 secs.)
SERVER-ANNOUNCE-CYCLE - the period for an ENRP server to announce a
SERVER_ANNOUNCE message to all PEs and PUs. (Default=5 secs.)
MAX-TIME-LAST-HEARD - pre-set threshold for how long an ENRP server
will wait before considering a silent peer server potentially
dead. (Default=61 secs.)
MAX-TIME-NO-RESPONSE - pre-set threshold for how long a message
sender will wait for a response after sending out a message.
(Default=5 secs.)
MAX-BAD-PE-REPORT - the maximal number of unreachability reports on
a PE that an ENRP server will allow before purging this PE from
the handlespace. (Default=3)
Xie, et al. Expires March 25, 2008 [Page 36]
Internet-Draft Endpoint Handlespace Redundancy September 2007
5. IANA Considerations
[NOTE to RFC-Editor:
"RFCXXXX" is to be replaced by the RFC number you assign this
document.
]
This document (RFCXXX) is the reference for all registrations
described in this section. All registrations need to be listed on an
RSerPool specific page.
5.1. A New Table for ENRP Message Types
ENRP Message Types have to be maintained by IANA. Ten initial values
should be assigned by IANA as described in Figure 1. This requires a
new table "ENRP Message Types":
Type Message Name Reference
----- ------------------------- ---------
0x00 (reserved by IETF) RFCXXXX
0x01 ENRP_PRESENCE RFCXXXX
0x02 ENRP_HANDLE_TABLE_REQUEST RFCXXXX
0x03 ENRP_HANDLE_TABLE_RESPONSE RFCXXXX
0x04 ENRP_HANDLE_UPDATE RFCXXXX
0x05 ENRP_LIST_REQUEST RFCXXXX
0x06 ENRP_LIST_RESPONSE RFCXXXX
0x07 ENRP_INIT_TAKEOVER RFCXXXX
0x08 ENRP_INIT_TAKEOVER_ACK RFCXXXX
0x09 ENRP_TAKEOVER_SERVER RFCXXXX
0x0a ENRP_ERROR RFCXXXX
0x0b-0xff (reserved by IETF) RFCXXXX
For registering at IANA an ENRP Message Type in this table a request
has to be made to assign such a number. This number must be unique.
The "Specification Required" policy of RFC2434 [3] MUST be applied.
5.2. A New Table for Update Action Types
Update Types have to be maintained by IANA. Two initial values
should be assigned by IANA. This requires a new table "Update Action
Types":
Type Update Action Reference
------------- -------------------- ---------
0x0000 ADD_PE RFCXXXX
0x0001 DEL_PE RFCXXXX
Xie, et al. Expires March 25, 2008 [Page 37]
Internet-Draft Endpoint Handlespace Redundancy September 2007
0x0002-0xffff (reserved by IETF) RFCXXXX
For registering at IANA an Update Action Type in this table a request
has to be made to assign such a number. This number must be unique.
The "Specification Required" policy of RFC2434 [3] MUST be applied.
5.3. Multicast Addresses
IANA should assign one multicast address for the ENRP server channel
and another one for the ENRP client channel.
Xie, et al. Expires March 25, 2008 [Page 38]
Internet-Draft Endpoint Handlespace Redundancy September 2007
6. Security Considerations
We present a summary of the threats to the RSerPool architecture and
describe security requirements in response to mitigate the threats.
Next we present the security mechanisms, based on TLS, that are
implementation requirements in response to the threats. Finally, we
present a chain of trust argument that examines critical data paths
in RSerPool and shows how these paths are protected by the TLS
implementation.
6.1. Summary of Rserpool Security Threats
Threats Introduced by RSerPool and Requirements for Security in
Response to Threats [10] describes the threats to the RSerPool
architecture in detail lists the security requirements in response to
each threat. From the threats described in this document, the
security services required for the RSerPool protocol are enumerated
below.
Threat 1) PE registration/deregistration flooding or spoofing
-----------
Security mechanism in response: ENRP server authenticates the PE
Threat 2) PE registers with a malicious ENRP server
-----------
Security mechanism in response: PE authenticates the ENRP server
Threat 1 and 2 taken together results in mutual authentication of the
ENRP server and the PE.
Threat 3) Malicious ENRP server joins the ENRP server pool
-----------
Security mechanism in response: ENRP servers mutually authenticate
Threat 4) A PU communicates with a malicious ENRP server for handle
resolution
-----------
Security mechanism in response: The PU authenticates the ENRP server
Threat 5) Replay attack
-----------
Security mechanism in response: Security protocol which has
protection from replay attacks
Threat 6) Corrupted data which causes a PU to have misinformation
concerning a pool handle resolution
-----------
Security mechanism in response: Security protocol which supports
Xie, et al. Expires March 25, 2008 [Page 39]
Internet-Draft Endpoint Handlespace Redundancy September 2007
integrity protection
Threat 7) Eavesdropper snooping on handlespace information
-----------
Security mechanism in response: Security protocol which supports data
confidentiality
Threat 8) Flood of ASAP_ENDPOINT_UNREACHABLE messages from the PU to
ENRP server
-----------
Security mechanism in response: ASAP must control the number of ASAP
endpoint unreachable messages transmitted from the PU to the ENRP
server.
Threat 9) Flood of ASAP_ENDPOINT_KEEP_ALIVE messages to the PE from
the ENRP server
-----------
Security mechanism in response: ENRP server must control the number
of ASAP_ENDPOINT_KEEP_ALIVE messages to the PE
To summarize the threats 1-7 require security mechanisms which
support authentication, integrity, data confidentiality, protection
from replay attacks.
For RSerPool we need to authenticate the following:
PU <---- ENRP Server (PU authenticates the ENRP server)
PE <----> ENRP Server (mutual authentication)
ENRP server <-----> ENRP Server (mutual authentication)
6.2. Implementing Security Mechanisms
We do not define any new security mechanisms specifically for
responding to threats 1-7. Rather we use an existing IETF security
protocol, specifically [5], to provide the security services
required. TLS supports all these requirements and MUST be
implemented. The TLS_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA ciphersuite MUST be
supported at a minimum by implementors of TLS for RSerPool. For
purposes of backwards compatibility, ENRP SHOULD support
TLS_RSA_WITH_3DES_EDE_CBC_SHA. Implementers MAY also support any
other IETF approved ciphersuites.
ENRP servers, PEs, PUs MUST implement TLS. ENRP servers and PEs must
support mutual authentication. ENRP servers must support mutual
authentication among themselves. PUs MUST authenticate ENRP servers.
ENRP servers and PEs SHOULD possess a site certificate whose subject
corresponds to their canonical hostname. PUs MAY have certificates
Xie, et al. Expires March 25, 2008 [Page 40]
Internet-Draft Endpoint Handlespace Redundancy September 2007
of their own for mutual authentication with TLS, but no provisions
are set forth in this document for their use. All RSerPool elements
that support TLS MUST have a mechanism for validating certificates
received during TLS negotiation; this entails possession of one or
more root certificates issued by certificate authorities (preferably
well-known distributors of site certificates comparable to those that
issue root certificates for web browsers).
Implementations MUST support TLS with SCTP as described in [6] or TLS
over TCP as described in [7]. When using TLS/SCTP we must ensure
that RSerPool does not use any features of SCTP that are not
available to an TLS/SCTP user. This is not a difficult technical
problem, but simply a requirement. When describing an API of the
RSerPool lower layer we have also to take into account the
differences between TLS and SCTP.
Threat 8 requires the ASAP protocol to limit the number of
ASAP_ENDPOINT_UNREACHABLE messages (see Section 3.5 in [9]) to the
ENRP server.
Threat 9 requires the ENRP protocol to limit the number of
ASAP_ENDPOINT_KEEP_ALIVE messages from the ENRP server to the PE (see
section Section 3.7).
6.3. Chain of trust
Security is mandatory to implement in RSerPool and is based on TLS
implementation in all three architecture components that comprise
RSerPool -- namely PU, PE and ENRP server. We define an ENRP server
that uses TLS for all communication and authenticates ENRP peers and
PE registrants to be a secured ENRP server.
Here is a description of all possible data paths and a description of
the security.
PU <---> secured ENRP Server (authentication of ENRP server;
queries over TLS)
PE <---> secured ENRP server (mutual authentication;
registration/deregistration over TLS)
secured ENRP server <---> secured ENRP server (mutual authentication;
database updates using TLS)
If all components of the system authenticate and communicate using
TLS, the chain of trust is sound. The root of the trust chain is the
ENRP server. If that is secured using TLS, then security will be
enforced for all ENRP and PE components that try to connect to it.
Summary of interaction between secured and unsecured components: If
Xie, et al. Expires March 25, 2008 [Page 41]
Internet-Draft Endpoint Handlespace Redundancy September 2007
the PE does not use TLS and tries to register with a secure ENRP
server, it will receive an error message response indicated as error
due to security considerations and the registration will be rejected.
If an ENRP server which does not use TLS tries to update the database
of a secure ENRP server, then the update will be rejected. If an PU
does not use TLS and communicates with a secure ENRP server, it will
get a response with the understanding that the response is not secure
as the response can be tampered with in transit even if the ENRP
database is secured.
The final case is the PU sending a secure request to ENRP. It might
be that ENRP and PEs are not secured and this is an allowable
configuration. The intent is to secure the communication over the
Internet between the PU and the ENRP server.
Summary:
RSerPool architecture components can communicate with each other to
establish a chain of trust. Secured PE and ENRP servers reject any
communications with unsecured ENRP or PE servers.
If the above is enforced, then a chain of trust is established for
the RSerPool user.
Xie, et al. Expires March 25, 2008 [Page 42]
Internet-Draft Endpoint Handlespace Redundancy September 2007
7. Acknowledgements
The authors wish to thank John Loughney, Lyndon Ong, Walter Johnson,
Thomas Dreibholz, and many others for their invaluable comments and
feedback.
Xie, et al. Expires March 25, 2008 [Page 43]
Internet-Draft Endpoint Handlespace Redundancy September 2007
8. References
8.1. Normative References
[1] Braden, R., Borman, D., Partridge, C., and W. Plummer,
"Computing the Internet checksum", RFC 1071, September 1988.
[2] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement
Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[3] Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an IANA
Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 2434,
October 1998.
[4] 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.
[5] Tuexen, M., Xie, Q., Stewart, R., Shore, M., Ong, L., Loughney,
J., and M. Stillman, "Requirements for Reliable Server
Pooling", RFC 3237, January 2002.
[6] Jungmaier, A., Rescorla, E., and M. Tuexen, "Transport Layer
Security over Stream Control Transmission Protocol", RFC 3436,
December 2002.
[7] Dierks, T. and E. Rescorla, "The Transport Layer Security (TLS)
Protocol Version 1.1", RFC 4346, April 2006.
[8] Stewart, R., "Aggregate Server Access Protocol (ASAP) and
Endpoint Handlespace Redundancy Protocol (ENRP) Parameters",
draft-ietf-rserpool-common-param-12 (work in progress),
July 2007.
[9] Stewart, R., "Aggregate Server Access Protocol (ASAP)",
draft-ietf-rserpool-asap-16 (work in progress), July 2007.
[10] Gopal, R., Guttman, E., Holdrege, M., Sengodan, S., and M.
Stillman, "Threats Introduced by Rserpool and Requirements for
Security in response to Threats",
draft-ietf-rserpool-threats-08 (work in progress),
September 2007.
8.2. Informative References
[11] Eastlake, D., Schiller, J., and S. Crocker, "Randomness
Requirements for Security", BCP 106, RFC 4086, June 2005.
Xie, et al. Expires March 25, 2008 [Page 44]
Internet-Draft Endpoint Handlespace Redundancy September 2007
Authors' Addresses
Qiaobing Xie
Motorola, Inc.
1501 W. Shure Drive, 2-F9
Arlington Heights, IL 60004
US
Phone:
Email: qxie1@email.mot.com
Randall R. Stewart
Cisco Systems, Inc.
4875 Forest Drive
Suite 200
Columbia, SC 29206
USA
Phone:
Email: rrs@cisco.com
Maureen Stillman
Nokia
127 W. State Street
Ithaca, NY 14850
US
Phone:
Email: maureen.stillman@nokia.com
Michael Tuexen
Muenster Univ. of Applied Sciences
Stegerwaldstr. 39
48565 Steinfurt
Germany
Email: tuexen@fh-muenster.de
Xie, et al. Expires March 25, 2008 [Page 45]
Internet-Draft Endpoint Handlespace Redundancy September 2007
Aron J. Silverton
Motorola, Inc.
1301 E. Algonquin Road
Room 2246
Schaumburg, IL 60196
USA
Phone: +1 847-576-8747
Email: aron.j.silverton@motorola.com
Xie, et al. Expires March 25, 2008 [Page 46]
Internet-Draft Endpoint Handlespace Redundancy September 2007
Full Copyright Statement
Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2007).
This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions
contained in BCP 78, and except as set forth therein, the authors
retain all their rights.
This document and the information contained herein are provided on an
"AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS
OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY, THE IETF TRUST AND
THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM 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.
Intellectual Property
The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to
pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in
this document or the extent to which any license under such rights
might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has
made any independent effort to identify any such rights. Information
on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be
found in BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any
assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an
attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of
such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this
specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at
http://www.ietf.org/ipr.
The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any
copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary
rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement
this standard. Please address the information to the IETF at
ietf-ipr@ietf.org.
Acknowledgment
Funding for the RFC Editor function is provided by the IETF
Administrative Support Activity (IASA).
Xie, et al. Expires March 25, 2008 [Page 47]
