Network Working Group P. Lei
Internet-Draft Cisco Systems, Inc.
Intended status: Informational L. Ong
Expires: January 7, 2008 Ciena Corporation
M. Tuexen
Muenster Univ. of Applied Sciences
T. Dreibholz
University of Duisburg-Essen
July 6, 2007
An Overview of Reliable Server Pooling Protocols
draft-ietf-rserpool-overview-02.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 January 7, 2008.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2007).
Abstract
The Reliable Server Pooling effort (abbreviated "RSerPool"), provides
an application-independent set of services and protocols for building
fault tolerant and highly available client/server applications. This
Lei, et al. Expires January 7, 2008 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft RSerPool Overview July 2007
document provides an overview of the protocols and mechanisms in the
reliable server pooling suite.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Aggregate Server Access Protocol (ASAP) Overview . . . . . . . 5
2.1. Pool Initialization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
2.2. Pool Entity Registration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
2.3. Pool Entity Selection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
2.4. Endpoint Keep-Alive . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
2.5. Failover Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
2.5.1. Cookie Mechanism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
2.5.2. Business Card Mechanism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3. Endpoint Handlespace Redundancy Protocol (ENRP) Overview . . . 7
3.1. Initialization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3.2. Server Discovery and Home Server Selection . . . . . . . . 8
3.3. Failure Detection, Handlespace Audit and
Synchronization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
3.4. Server Takeover . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4. Example Scenarios . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
4.1. Example Scenario using RSerPool Resolution Service . . . . 9
4.2. Example Scenario using RSerPool Session Services . . . . . 10
5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
7. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
8. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . . . . 14
Lei, et al. Expires January 7, 2008 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft RSerPool Overview July 2007
1. Introduction
The Reliable Server Pooling (RSerPool) protocol suite is designed to
provide client applications ("pool users") with the ability to select
a server (a "pool element") from among a group of servers providing
equivalent service (a "pool").
The RSerPool architecture supports high-availability and load
balancing by enabling a pool user to identify the most appropriate
server from the server pool at a given time. The architecture is
defined to support a set of basic goals:
o application-independent protocol mechanisms
o separation of server naming from IP addressing
o use of the end-to-end principle to avoid dependancies on
intermediate equipment
o separation of session availability/failover functionality from
application itself
o facilitate different server selection policies
o facilitate a set of application-independent failover capabilities
o peer-to-peer structure
The basic components of the RSerPool architecture are shown in
Figure 1below:
Lei, et al. Expires January 7, 2008 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft RSerPool Overview July 2007
.......................
------ . +-------+ .
/ ENRP \ . | | .
/---->| Server | . | PE 1 | .
| /--- \______/ . | | .
| | . +-------+ .
| | . .
| | . Server Pool .
| V . .
+-------+ . +-------+ .
| | . | | .
| PU 1 |-----------------.------| PE 2 | .
| | . | | .
+-------+ . +-------+ .
. .
. +-------+ .
. | | .
. | PE 3 | .
. | | .
. +-------+ .
.......................
Figure 1
A server pool is defined as a set of one or more servers providing
the same application functionality. The servers are called Pool
Elements (PEs). Multiple PEs in a server pool can be used to provide
fault tolerance or load sharing, for example. The PEs register into
and deregisters out of the pool using the Aggregate Server Access
Protocol ASAP [2].
Each server pool is identified by a unique byte string called the
pool handle (PH). The pool handle allows a mapping from the pool to
a specific Pool Element located by its IP address and port. The pool
handle is what is specified by the Pool User (PU) when it attempts to
access a server in the pool, again using ASAP. Both IPv4 and IPv6 PE
addresses are supported.
To resolve the pool handle to the address necessary to access a Pool
Element, the PU consults an entity called the Endpoint haNdlespace
Redundancy Protocol (ENRP) server. This server may be a standalone
server supporting many PUs or a part of the PU itself, however it is
envisioned that ENRP servers provide a fully distributed and fault-
tolerant registry service using ENRP [3] to maintain synchronization
of data concerning the pool handle mapping space.
RSerPool provides a number of tools to aid client migration between
servers on server failure: it allows the client to identify
Lei, et al. Expires January 7, 2008 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft RSerPool Overview July 2007
alternative servers, either on initial discovery or in real time; it
also allows the original server to provide a state cookie to the
client that can be forwarded to an alternative server to provide
application-specific state information.
The requirements for the Reliable Server Pooling framework are
defined in RFC3237 [1]. It is worth noting that the requirements on
RSerPool in the area of load balancing partially overlap with GRID
computing/high performance computing. However, the scope of both
areas is completely different: GRID and high performance computing
also cover topics like managing different administrative domains,
data locking and synchronization, inter-session communication and
resource accounting for powerful computation services, but the
intention of RSerPool is simply a lightweight realization of load
distribution and session management. In particular, these
functionalities are intended to be used on systems with small memory
and CPU resources only. Any further functionality is not in the
scope of RSerPool and can -- if necessary -- provided by the
application itself.
This document provides an overview of the RSerPool protocol suite,
specifically the Aggregate Server Access Protocol ASAP [2] and the
Endpoint Handlespace Redundancy Protocol ENRP [3]. In addition to
the protocol specifications, there is a common parameter format
specification COMMON [4] for both protocols, a definition of server
selection rules (pool policies) POLICIES [5], as well as a security
threat analysis THREATS [6].
2. Aggregate Server Access Protocol (ASAP) Overview
ASAP defines a straigt-forward set of mechanisms necessary to support
the creation and maintenance of pools of redundant servers. These
mechanisms include:
o registration of a new server into a server pool
o deregistration of an existing server from a pool
o resolution of a pool handle to a server or list of servers
o liveness detection for servers in a pool
o failover mechanisms for handling a server failure
Lei, et al. Expires January 7, 2008 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft RSerPool Overview July 2007
2.1. Pool Initialization
Pools come into existence when a PE registers the first instance of
the pool name with an ENRP server. They disappear when the last PE
deregisters. In other words, the starting of the first PE on some
machine causes the creation of the pool when the registration reaches
the ENRP server.
2.2. Pool Entity Registration
A new server joins an existing pool by sending a Registration message
via ASAP to an ENRP server, indicating the pool handle of the pool
that it wishes to join, a PE identifier for itself (chosen randomly),
information about its lifetime in the pool, and what transport
protocols and selection policy it supports. The ENRP server that it
first contacts is called its Home ENRP server, and maintains a list
of subscriptions by the PE as well as performs periodic audits to
confirm that the PE is still responsive.
Similar procedures are applied to de-register itself from the server
pool (or alternatively the server may simply let the lifetime that it
previously registered with expire, after which it is gracefully
removed from the pool.
2.3. Pool Entity Selection
When an endpoint wishes to be connected to a server in the pool, it
generates an ASAP Handle Resolution message and sends this to its
home ENRP server. The ENRP server resolves the handle based on its
knowledge of pool servers and returns a Handle Resolution Response
via ASAP. The response contains a list of the IP addresses of one or
more servers in the pool that can be contacted. The process by which
the list of servers is created may involve a number of policies for
server selection. The RSerPool protocol suite defines a few basic
policies and allows the use of external server selection input for
more complex policies.
2.4. Endpoint Keep-Alive
ENRP servers monitor the status of pool elements using the ASAP
Endpoint Keep-Alive message. A PE responds to the ASAP Keep-Alive
message with an Endpoint Keep-Alive Ack response.
In addition, a PU can notify its home ENRP server that the PE it used
has become unresponsive by sending an ASAP Endpoint Unreachable
message to the ENRP server.
Lei, et al. Expires January 7, 2008 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft RSerPool Overview July 2007
2.5. Failover Services
While maintaining application-independence, the RSerPool protocol
suite provides some simple hooks for supporting failover of an
individual session with a pool element. Generally, mechanisms for
failover that rely on application state or transaction status cannot
be defined without more specific knowledge of the application being
supported. However, some simple mechanisms supported by RSerPool
allow some level of failover that any application can use.
2.5.1. Cookie Mechanism
Cookies may optionally be generated by the ASAP layer and
periodically sent from the PE to the PU. The PU only stores the last
received cookie. In case of failover the PU sends this last received
cookie to the new PE. This method provides a simple way of state
sharing between the PEs. Please note that the old PE should sign the
cookie and the receiving PE should verify that signature. For the
PU, the cookie has no structure and is only stored and transmitted to
the new PE.
2.5.2. Business Card Mechanism
A PE can send a business card to its peer (PE or PU), containing its
pool handle and guidance concerning which other PEs the peer should
use for failover. This gives a PE a means of telling a PU what it
identifies as the "next best" PE to use in case of failure, which may
be based on pool considerations, such as load balancing, or user
considerations, such as PEs that have the most up-to-date state
information.
3. Endpoint Handlespace Redundancy Protocol (ENRP) Overview
A set of server pools, which is denoted as a handlespace, is managed
by ENRP servers. Pools are not valid in the whole Internet but only
in smaller domains, called the operational scope. The ENRP servers
use the ENRP protocol in order to maintain a distributed, fault-
tolerant, real-time registry service. ENRP servers communicate with
each other for information exchange, such as pool membership changes,
handlespace data synchronization, etc..
3.1. Initialization
Each ENRP server initially generates a 32-bit server ID that it uses
in subsequent messaging and remains unchanged over the lifetime of
the server. It then attempts to learn all of the other ENRP servers
within the scope of the server pool, either by using a pre-defined
Lei, et al. Expires January 7, 2008 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft RSerPool Overview July 2007
Mentor server or by sending out Presence messages on a well-known
multicast channel in order to determine other ENRP servers from the
responses and select one as Mentor. A Mentor can be any peer ENRP
server. The most current handlespace data is requested by Handle
Table Requests from the Mentor. The received answer in form of
Handle Table Response messages is unpacked into the local database.
After that, the ENRP server is ready to provide ENRP services.
3.2. Server Discovery and Home Server Selection
PEs can now register their presence with the newly functioning ENRP
server by using ASAP messages. They discover the new ENRP server
after the server sends out an ASAP Server Announce message on the
well-known ASAP multicast channel. PEs only have to register with
one ENRP server, as other ENRP servers supporting the pool will
synchronize their knowledge about pool elements using the ENRP
protocol.
The PE may have a configured list of ENRP servers to talk to, in the
form of a list of IP addresses, in which case it will start to setup
associations with some number of them and assign the first one that
responds to it as its Home ENRP Server.
Alternatively it can listen on the multicast channel for a set period
and when it hears an ENRP server, start an association. The first
server it gets up can then become its Home ENRP Server.
3.3. Failure Detection, Handlespace Audit and Synchronization
ENRP servers send ENRP Presence messages to all of their peers in
order to show their liveness. These Presence messages also include a
checksum computed over all PE identities for which the ENRP server is
in the role of a Home ENRP server. Each ENRP server maintains an up-
to-date list of its peers and can also compute the checksum expected
from a certain peer, according to its local handlespace database. By
comparing the expected sum and the sum reported by a peer (denoted as
handlespace audit), an inconsistency can be detected. In such a
case, the handlespace -- restricted to the PEs owned by that peer --
can be requested for synchronization, analogously to Section 3.2.
3.4. Server Takeover
If the unresponsiveness of an ENRP server is detected, the remaining
ENRP servers negotiate which other server takes over the Home ENRP
role for the PEs of the failed peer. After reaching a consensus on
the takeover, the ENRP server taking over these PEs sends a
notification to its peers (via ENRP) as well as to the PEs taken over
(via ASAP).
Lei, et al. Expires January 7, 2008 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft RSerPool Overview July 2007
4. Example Scenarios
4.1. Example Scenario using RSerPool Resolution Service
RSerPool can be used in a 'standalone' manner, where the application
uses RSerPool to determine the address of a primary server in the
pool, and then interacts directly with that server without further
use of RSerPool services. If the initial server fails, the
application uses RSerPool again to find the next server in the pool.
For pool user ("client") applications, if an ASAP implementation is
available on the client system, there are typically only three
modifications required to the application source code:
1. Instead of specifying the hostnames of primary, secondary,
tertiary servers, etc., the application user specifies a pool
handle.
2. Instead of using a DNS based service (e.g. the Unix library
function getaddrinfo()) to translate from a hostname to an IP
address, the application will invoke an RSerPool service
primitive GETPRIMARYSERVER that takes as input a pool handle, and
returns the IP address of the primary server. The application
then uses that IP address just as it would have used the IP
address returned by the DNS in the previous scenario.
3. Without the use of additional RSerPool services, failure
detection and failover procedures must be designed into each
application. However, when failure is detected on the primary
server, instead of invoking DNS translation again on the hostname
of a secondary server, the application invokes the service
primitive GETNEXTSERVER, which performs two functions in a single
operation.
1. First it indicates to the RSerPool layer the failure of the
server returned by a previous GETPRIMARYSERVER or
GETNEXTSERVER call.
2. Second, it provides the IP address of the next server that
should be contacted, according to the best information
available to the RSerPool layer at the present time (e.g. set
of available pool elements, pool element policy in effect for
the pool, etc.).
For pool element ("server") applications where an ASAP implementation
is available, two changes are required to the application source
code:
Lei, et al. Expires January 7, 2008 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft RSerPool Overview July 2007
1. The server should invoke the REGISTER service primitive upon
startup to add itself into the server pool using an appropriate
pool handle. This also includes the address(es) protocol or
mapping id, port (if required by the mapping), and pooling
policy(s).
2. The server should invoke the DEREGISTER service primitive to
remove itself from the server pool when shutting down.
When using these RSerPool services, RSerPool provides benefits that
are limited (as compared to utilizing all services), but nevertheless
quite useful as compared to not using RSerPool at all. First, the
client user need only supply a single string, i.e. the pool handle,
rather than a list of servers. Second, the decision as to which
server is to be used can be determined dynamically by the server
selection mechanism (i.e. a "pool policy" performed by ASAP; see ASAP
[2]). Finally, when failures occur, these are reported to the pool
via signaling present in ASAP [2] and ENRP [3], other clients will
eventually know (once this failure is confirmed by other elements of
the RSerPool architecture) that this server has failed.
4.2. Example Scenario using RSerPool Session Services
When the full suite of RSerPool services is used, all communication
between the pool user and the pool element is mediated by the
RSerPool framework, including session establishment and teardown, and
the sending and receiving of data. Accordingly, it is necessary to
modify the application to use the service primitives (i.e. the API)
provided by RSerPool, rather than the transport layer primitives
provided by TCP, SCTP, or whatever transport protocol is being used.
As in the previous case, sessions (rather than connections or
associations) are established, and the destination endpoint is
specified as a pool handle rather than as a list of IP addresses with
a port number. However, failover from one pool element to another is
fully automatic, and can be transparent to the application (so long
as the application has saved enough state in a state cookie):
The RSerPool framework control channel provides maintenance
functions to keep pool element lists, policies, etc. current.
Since the application data (e.g. data channel) is managed by the
RSerPool framework, unsent data (data not yet submitted by
RSerPool to the underlying transport protocol) is automatically
redirected to the newly selected pool element upon failover. If
the underlying transport layer supports retrieval of unsent data
(as in SCTP), retrieved unsent data can also be automatically re-
sent to the newly selected pool element.
Lei, et al. Expires January 7, 2008 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft RSerPool Overview July 2007
An application server (pool element) can provide a state cookie
(described in Section 2.5.1) that is automatically passed on to
another pool element (by the ASAP layer at the pool user) in the
event of a failover. This state cookie can be used to assist the
application at the new pool element in recreating whatever state
is needed to continue a session or transaction that was
interrupted by a failure in the communication between a pool user
and the original pool element.
The application client (pool user) can provide a callback function
that is invoked on the pool user side in the case of a failover.
This callback function can execute any application specific
failover code, such as generating a special message (or sequence
of messages) that helps the new pool element construct any state
needed to continue an in-process session.
Suppose in a particular peer-to-peer application, PU A is
communicating with PE B, and it so happens that PU A is also a PE
in pool X. PU A can pass a "business card" to PE B identifying it
as a member of pool X. In the event of a failure at A, or a
failure in the communication link between A and B, PE B can use
the information in the business card to contact an equivalent PE
to PU A from pool X.
Additionally, if the application at PU A is aware of some
particular PEs of pool X that would be preferred for B to contact
in the event that A becomes unreachable from B, PU A can provide
that list to the ASAP layer, and it will be included in A's
business card (see Section 2.5.2).
5. Security Considerations
This document does not identify security requirements beyond those
already documented in the ENRP and ASAP protocol specifications. A
security threat analysis of RSerPool is provided in THREATS [6].
6. IANA Considerations
This document does not require additional IANA actions beyond those
already identified in the ENRP and ASAP protocol specifications.
7. Acknowledgements
The authors wish to thank Maureen Stillman, Qiaobing Xie, Randall
Stewart, Scott Bradner, and many others for their invaluable
Lei, et al. Expires January 7, 2008 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft RSerPool Overview July 2007
comments.
8. Normative References
[1] Tuexen, M., Xie, Q., Stewart, R., Shore, M., Ong, L., Loughney,
J., and M. Stillman, "Requirements for Reliable Server Pooling",
RFC 3237, January 2002.
[2] Stewart, R., "Aggregate Server Access Protocol (ASAP)",
draft-ietf-rserpool-asap-15 (work in progress), January 2007.
[3] Stewart, R., "Endpoint Handlespace Redundancy Protocol (ENRP)",
draft-ietf-rserpool-enrp-15 (work in progress), January 2007.
[4] Stewart, R., "Aggregate Server Access Protocol (ASAP) and
Endpoint Handlespace Redundancy Protocol (ENRP) Parameters",
draft-ietf-rserpool-common-param-11 (work in progress),
October 2006.
[5] Tuexen, M. and T. Dreibholz, "Reliable Server Pooling Policies",
draft-ietf-rserpool-policies-04 (work in progress), March 2007.
[6] Stillman, M., "Threats Introduced by Rserpool and Requirements
for Security in response to Threats",
draft-ietf-rserpool-threats-06 (work in progress),
November 2006.
Authors' Addresses
Peter Lei
Cisco Systems, Inc.
955 Happfield Dr.
Arlington Heights, IL 60004
US
Phone: +1 773 695-8201
Email: peterlei@cisco.com
Lei, et al. Expires January 7, 2008 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft RSerPool Overview July 2007
Lyndon Ong
Ciena Corporation
PO Box 308
Cupertino, CA 95015
US
Email: Lyong@Ciena.com
Michael Tuexen
Muenster Univ. of Applied Sciences
Stegerwaldstr. 39
48565 Steinfurt
Germany
Email: tuexen@fh-muenster.de
Thomas Dreibholz
University of Duisburg-Essen, Institute for Experimental Mathematics
Ellernstrasse 29
45326 Essen, Nordrhein-Westfalen
Germany
Phone: +49 201 183-7637
Fax: +49 201 183-7673
Email: dreibh@exp-math.uni-essen.de
URI: http://www.exp-math.uni-essen.de/~dreibh/
Lei, et al. Expires January 7, 2008 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft RSerPool Overview July 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).
Lei, et al. Expires January 7, 2008 [Page 14]
