Network Working Group Y. Nishida
Internet-Draft GE Global Research
Intended status: Experimental P. Natarajan
Expires: September 3, 2014 Cisco Systems
A. Caro
BBN Technologies
P. Amer
University of Delaware
K. Nielsen
Ericsson
March 2, 2014
Quick Failover Algorithm in SCTP
draft-ietf-tsvwg-sctp-failover-03.txt
Abstract
One of the major advantages of SCTP is supporting multi-homed
communication. If a multi-homed end-point has a redundant network
connections, the SCTP associations have a good chance to survive
network failures by migrating traffic from inactive networks to
active ones. However, if the SCTP standard is followed, there can be
a significant delay during the migration. During this period, SCTP
might not be able to transmit much data to the peer. This issue
drastically impairs the usability of SCTP in some situations. This
memo describes the issue of the SCTP failover mechanism and specifies
an alternative failover procedure for SCTP that improves its
performance during and after failover. The procedures require only
minimal modifications to the current specification.
Status of this Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on September 3, 2014.
Nishida, et al. Expires September 3, 2014 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft SCTP Quick Failover March 2014
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2014 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Conventions and Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3. Issues with the SCTP Path Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4. Existing Solutions for Smooth Failover . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4.1. Reduce Path.Max.Retrans (PMR) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4.2. Adjust RTO related parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
5. SCTP with Potentially-Failed Destination State (SCTP-PF) . . . 8
5.1. SCTP-PF Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
5.2. Effect of Path Bouncing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
5.3. Permanent Failover . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
6. Socket API Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
6.1. Support for the Potentially Failed Path State . . . . . . 12
6.2. Peer Address Thresholds (SCTP_PEER_ADDR_THLDS) Socket
Option . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
6.3. Exposing the Potentially Failed Path State
(SCTP_EXPOSE_POTENTIALLY_FAILED_STATE) Socket Option . . . 14
7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
8. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Nishida, et al. Expires September 3, 2014 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft SCTP Quick Failover March 2014
1. Introduction
The Stream Control Transmission Protocol (SCTP) as specified in
[RFC4960] supports multihoming at the transport layer -- an SCTP
association can bind to multiple IP addresses at each endpoint.
SCTP's multihoming features include failure detection and failover
procedures to provide network interface redundancy and improved end-
to-end fault tolerance.
In SCTP's current failure detection procedure, the sender must
experience Path.Max.Retrans (PMR) number of consecutive failed
retransmissions on a destination before detecting a path failure.
The sender fails over to an alternate active destination only after
failure detection. Until detecting the failover, the sender
continues to transmit data on the failed path, which degrades the
SCTP performance. Concurrent Multipath Transfer (CMT) [IYENGAR06] is
an extension to SCTP and allows the sender to transmit data on
multiple paths simultaneously. Research [NATARAJAN09] shows that the
current failure detection procedure worsens CMT performance during
failover and can be significantly improved by employing a better
failover algorithm.
This document specifies an alternative failure detection procedure
for SCTP (and CMT) that improves the SCTP (and CMT) performance
during a failover.
Also the operation after a failover impacts the performance of the
protocol. With [RFC4960] procedures, SCTP will, after a failover
from the primary path, switch back to use the primary path for data
transfer as soon as this path becomes available. From a performance
perspective, as confirmed in research [CARO02], such a switchback of
the data transmission path is not optimal in general. As an
alternative option to the switchback operation of [RFC4960], this
document specifies the support the Permanent Failover switchover
procedures proposed by [CARO02].
Nishida, et al. Expires September 3, 2014 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft SCTP Quick Failover March 2014
2. Conventions and Terminology
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].
Nishida, et al. Expires September 3, 2014 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft SCTP Quick Failover March 2014
3. Issues with the SCTP Path Management
SCTP can utilize multiple IP addresses for a single SCTP association.
Each SCTP endpoint exchanges the list of its usable addresses during
initial negotiation with its peer. Then the endpoints select one
address from the peer's list and define this as the primary
destination. During normal transmission, SCTP sends all user data to
the primary destination. Also, it sends heartbeat packets to all
idle destinations at a certain interval to check the reachability of
the path. Idle destinations normally include all non-primary
destinations.
If a sender has multiple active destination addresses, it can
retransmit data to secondary destination address, when the
transmission to the primary times out.
When a sender receives an acknowledgment for DATA or HEARTBEAT chunks
sent to one of the destination addresses, it considers that
destination to be active. If it fails to receive acknowledgments,
the error count for the address is increased. If the error counter
exceeds the protocol parameter 'Path.Max.Retrans', SCTP endpoint
considers the address to be inactive.
The failover process of SCTP is initiated when the primary path
becomes inactive (error counter for the primary path exceeds
Path.Max.Retrans). If the primary path is marked inactive, SCTP
chooses a new destination address from one of the active destinations
and start using this address to send data to. If the primary path
becomes active again, SCTP uses the primary destination for
subsequent data transmissions and stop using non-primary one.
One issue with this failover process is that it usually takes
significant amount of time before SCTP switches to the new
destination. Let's say the primary path on a multi-homed host
becomes unavailable and the RTO value for the primary path at that
time is around 1 second, it usually takes over 60 seconds before SCTP
starts to use the secondary path. This is because the recommended
value for Path.Max.Retrans in the standard is 5, which requires 6
consecutive timeouts before failover takes place. Before SCTP
switches to the secondary address, SCTP keeps trying to send packets
to the primary and only retransmitted packets are sent to the
secondary can be reached at the receiver. This slow failover process
can cause significant performance degradation and will not be
acceptable in some situations.
Another issue is that once the primary path is active again, the
traffic is switched back. This is not optimal in general.
Nishida, et al. Expires September 3, 2014 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft SCTP Quick Failover March 2014
4. Existing Solutions for Smooth Failover
The following approaches are conceivable for the solutions of this
issue.
4.1. Reduce Path.Max.Retrans (PMR)
Smaller values for Path.Max.Retrans shorten the failover duration.
In fact, this is recommended in some research results [JUNGMAIER02]
[GRINNEMO04] [FALLON08]. For example, if when Path.Max.Retrans=0,
SCTP switches to another destination on a single timeout. However,
smaller value for Path.Max.Retrans also results in spurious failover.
In addition, smaller Path.Max.Retrans values also affect
'Association.Max.Retrans' values. When the SCTP association's error
count (sum of error counts on all ACTIVE paths) exceeds
Association.Max.Retrans threshold, the SCTP sender considers the peer
endpoint unreachable and terminates the association. Therefore,
Section 8.2 in [RFC4960] recommends that Association.Max.Retrans
value should not be larger than the summation of the Path.Max.Retrans
of each of the destination addresses, else the SCTP sender considers
its peer reachable even when all destinations are INACTIVE. To avoid
such inconsistent behavior an SCTP implementation SHOULD reduce
Association.Max.Retrans accordingly whenever it reduces
Path.Max.Retrans. However, smaller Association.Max.Retrans value
increases chances of association termination during minor congestion
events.
Another issue is that the interval of heartbeat packet: 'HB.interval'
could be in the order of seconds (recommended value is 30 seconds).
When the primary path becomes inactive, the next HB can be
transmitted only seconds later. Meanwhile, the primary path may have
recovered. In such situations, post failover, an endpoint is forced
to wait on the order of seconds before the endpoint can resume
transmission on the primary path.
The advantage of tuning Path.Max.Retrans is that it requires no
modification to the current standard. However, as we discuss above
tuning Path.Max.Retrans ignores several recommendations in [RFC4960].
In addition, some research results indicate path bouncing caused by
spurious failover does not cause serious problems. We discuss the
effect of path bouncing in Section 5.2.
4.2. Adjust RTO related parameters
As several research results indicate, we can also shorten the
duration of failover process by adjusting RTO related parameters
[JUNGMAIER02] [FALLON08]. During failover process, RTO keeps being
doubled. However, if we can choose smaller value for RTO.max, we can
Nishida, et al. Expires September 3, 2014 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft SCTP Quick Failover March 2014
stop the exponential growth of RTO at some point. Also, choosing
smaller values for RTO.initial or RTO.min can contribute to keep RTO
value small.
Similar to reducing Path.Max.Retrans, the advantage of this approach
is that it requires no modification to the current specification,
although it needs to ignore several recommendations described in the
Section 15 of [RFC4960]. However, this approach requires to have
enough knowledge about the network characteristics between end
points. Otherwise, it can introduce adverse side-effects such as
spurious timeouts.
Nishida, et al. Expires September 3, 2014 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft SCTP Quick Failover March 2014
5. SCTP with Potentially-Failed Destination State (SCTP-PF)
5.1. SCTP-PF Description
SCTP-PF stems from the following two observations about SCTP's
failure detection procedure:
o In order to minimize performance impact during failover, the
sender should avoid transmitting data to the failed destination as
early as possible. In the current SCTP path management scheme,
the sender stops transmitting data to a destination only after the
destination is marked Failed. Thus, a smaller PMR value is ideal
so that the sender transitions a destination to the Failed state
quicker.
o Smaller PMR values increase the chances of spurious failure
detection where the sender incorrectly marks a destination as
Failed during periods of temporary congestion. Larger PMR values
are preferable to avoid spurious failure detection.
From the above observations it is clear that tweaking the PMR value
involves the following tradeoff -- a lower value improves performance
but increases the chances of spurious failure detection, whereas a
higher value degrades performance and reduces spurious failure
detection in a wide range of path conditions. Thus, tweaking the
association's PMR value is an incomplete solution to address
performance impact during failure.
This proposal introduces a new "Potentially-failed" (PF) destination
state in SCTP's path management procedure. The PF state was
originally proposed to improve CMT performance [NATARAJAN09]. The PF
state is an intermediate state between Active and Failed states.
SCTP's failure detection procedure is modified to include the PF
state. The new failure detection algorithm assumes that loss
detected by a timeout implies either severe congestion or failure en-
route. After a number of consecutive timeouts on a path, the sender
is unsure, and marks the corresponding destination as PF. A PF
destination is not used for data transmission except in special cases
(discussed below). The new failure detection algorithm requires only
sender-side changes. Details are:
1. The sender maintains a new tunable parameter called Potentially-
failed.Max.Retrans (PFMR). The recommended value of PFMR = 0
when quick failover is used. When PFMR is larger or equal to
PMR, quick failover is turned off.
2. Each time the T3-rtx timer expires on an active destination, the
error counter of that destination address will be incremented.
Nishida, et al. Expires September 3, 2014 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft SCTP Quick Failover March 2014
When the value in the error counter exceeds PFMR, the endpoint
should mark the destination transport address as PF.
3. The sender SHOULD avoid data transmission to PF destinations.
When all destinations are in either PF or Inactive state, the
sender MAY either move the destination from PF to Active state
(and transmit data to the active destination) or the sender MAY
transmit data to a PF destination. In the former scenario, (i)
the sender MUST NOT notify the ULP about the state transition,
and (ii) MUST NOT clear the destination's error counter. It is
recommended that the sender picks the PF destination with least
error count (fewest consecutive timeouts) for data transmission.
In case of a tie (multiple PF destinations with same error
count), the sender MAY choose the last active destination.
4. Only heartbeats MUST be sent to PF destination(s) once per RTO.
This means the sender SHOULD ignore HB.interval for PF
destinations. If an heartbeat is unanswered, the sender
increments the error counter and exponentially backs off the RTO
value. If error counter is less than PMR, the sender SHOULD
transmit another heartbeat immediately after T3-timer expiration.
5. When the sender receives an heartbeat ACK from a PF destination,
the sender clears the destination's error counter and transitions
the PF destination back to Active state. The sender should
perform slow-start as specified in Section 7.2.1 of [RFC4960]
when it sends data on this destination.
6. Additional (PMR - PFMR) consecutive timeouts on a PF destination
confirm the path failure, upon which the destination transitions
to the Inactive state. As described in [RFC4960], the sender (i)
SHOULD notify ULP about this state transition, and (ii) transmit
heartbeats to the Inactive destination at a lower frequency as
described in Section 8.3 of [RFC4960].
7. When all destinations are in the Inactive state, the sender picks
one of the Inactive destinations for data transmission. This
proposal recommends that the sender picks the Inactive
destination with least error count (fewest consecutive timeouts)
for data transmission. In case of a tie (multiple Inactive
destinations with same error count), the sender MAY choose the
last active destination.
8. ACKs for retransmissions do not transition a PF destination back
to Active state, since a sender cannot disambiguate whether the
ack was for the original transmission or the retransmission(s).
Nishida, et al. Expires September 3, 2014 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft SCTP Quick Failover March 2014
9. SCTP shall provide the means to expose the PF state of its
destinations as well as SCTP SHOULD notify the ULP of the state
transitions from Active to PF and from PF to Active state. SCTP
can provide the means to suppress exposure of PF state and
association state transitions and in this case the ULP MAY make
SCTP suppress exposure of PF state to ULP. In this case the ULP
will rely solely on the [RFC4960] state machine even if quick
failover function is activated in SCTP.
5.2. Effect of Path Bouncing
The methods described above can accelerate the failover process.
Hence, they might introduce the path bouncing effect where the sender
keeps changing the data transmission path frequently. This sounds
harmful to the data transfer, however several research results
indicate that there is no serious problem with SCTP in terms of path
bouncing effect [CARO04] [CARO05].
There are two main reasons for this. First, SCTP is basically
designed for multipath communication, which means SCTP maintains all
path related parameters (CWND, ssthresh, RTT, error count, etc) per
each destination address. These parameters cannot be affected by
path bouncing. In addition, when SCTP migrates the data transfer to
another path, it starts with the minimal or the initial CWND. Hence,
there is little chance for packet reordering or duplicating.
Second, even if all communication paths between the end-nodes share
the same bottleneck, the quick failover results in a behavior already
allowed by [RFC4960].
5.3. Permanent Failover
Post failover then, by [RFC4960] behavior, an SCTP sender migrates
the traffic back to the original primary destination once this
destination becomes active anew. As the CWND towards the original
primary destination has to be rebuilt once data transfer resumes, the
switch back to use the original primary path is not always optimal.
Indeed [CARO02] shows that the switch over to the original primary
may degrade SCTP performance compared to continuing data transmission
on the same path, especially, but not only, in scenarios where this
path's characteristics are better. In order to mitigate this
performance degradation, Permanent Failover operation was proposed in
[CARO02]. When SCTP changes the destination due to failover,
Permanent Failover marks it as new primary. This means Permanent
Failover allows SCTP sender to continue data transmission to the path
even after the old primary destination becomes active again. This is
achieved by having SCTP perform a switchover of the primary path to
an alternative working path rather than having SCTP switch back data
Nishida, et al. Expires September 3, 2014 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft SCTP Quick Failover March 2014
transfer to the (previous) primary path.
The manner of switchover operation that is most optimal in a given
scenario depends on the relative quality of a set primary path versus
the quality of alternative paths available as well as it depends on
the extent to which it is desired for the mode of operation to
enforce traffic distribution over a number of network paths. I.e.,
load distribution of traffic from multiple SCTP associations may be
sought to be enforced by distribution of the set primary paths with
[RFC4960] switchback operation. However as [RFC4960] switchback
behavior is suboptimal in certain situations, especially in scenarios
where a number of equally good paths are available, it is recommended
for SCTP to support also, as alternative behavior, the Permanent
Failover modes of operation where forced switch back to a previously
failed primary path is not always performed. The Permanent Failover
operation requires only sender side changes. Details, as originally
outlined in [CARO02], are:
1. The sender maintains a new tunable parameter, called
Primary.Switchover.Max.Retrans (PSMR). When the path error
counter on a set primary path exceeds PSMR, the SCTP
implementation autonomously selects and sets a new primary path.
2. The primary path selected by the SCTP implementation shall be the
path which at the given time would be chosen for data transfer.
A previously failed primary path may come in use as data transfer
path as per normal path selection when the present data transfer
path fails.
3. The recommended value of PSMR is PFMR when Permanent failover is
used. This means that no forced switchback to a previously
failed primary path is performed.
4. It must be possible to disable the Permanent Failover and obtain
the standard switchback operation of [RFC4960].
We recommend that SCTP-PF should stick to the standard RFC4960
behavior as default, i.e., switch back to the old primary destination
once the destination becomes active again. However, implementors MAY
implement Permanent Failover and MAY enable it based on network
configurations or users' requests.
Nishida, et al. Expires September 3, 2014 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft SCTP Quick Failover March 2014
6. Socket API Considerations
This section describes how the socket API defined in [RFC6458] is
extended to provide a way for the application to control and observe
the quick failover behavior.
Please note that this section is informational only.
A socket API implementation based on [RFC6458] is, by means of the
existing SCTP_PEER_ADDR_CHANGE event, extended to provide the event
notification when a peer address enters or leaves the potentially
failed state as well as the socket API implementation is extended to
expose the potentially failed state of a peer address in the existing
SCTP_GET_PEER_ADDR_INFO structure.
Furthermore, two new read/write socket options for the level
IPPROTO_SCTP and the name SCTP_PEER_ADDR_THLDS and
SCTP_EXPOSE_POTENTIALLY_FAILED_STATE are defined as described below.
The first socket option is used to control the values of the PFMR and
PSMR parameters described in Section 5. The second one controls the
exposition of the potentially failed path state.
Support for the SCTP_PEER_ADDR_THLDS and
SCTP_EXPOSE_POTENTIALLY_FAILED_STATE socket options need also to be
added to the function sctp_opt_info().
6.1. Support for the Potentially Failed Path State
As defined in [RFC6458], the SCTP_PEER_ADDR_CHANGE event is provided
if the status of a peer address changes. In addition to the state
changes described in [RFC6458], this event is also provided, if a
peer address enters or leaves the potentially failed state. The
notification as defined in [RFC6458] uses the following structure:
struct sctp_paddr_change {
uint16_t spc_type;
uint16_t spc_flags;
uint32_t spc_length;
struct sockaddr_storage spc_aaddr;
uint32_t spc_state;
uint32_t spc_error;
sctp_assoc_t spc_assoc_id;
}
[RFC6458] defines the constants SCTP_ADDR_AVAILABLE,
SCTP_ADDR_UNREACHABLE, SCTP_ADDR_REMOVED, SCTP_ADDR_ADDED, and
SCTP_ADDR_MADE_PRIM to be provided in the spc_state field. This
document defines in addition to that the new constant
Nishida, et al. Expires September 3, 2014 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft SCTP Quick Failover March 2014
SCTP_ADDR_POTENTIALLY_FAILED, which is reported if the affected
address becomes potentially failed.
The SCTP_GET_PEER_ADDR_INFO socket option defined in [RFC6458] can be
used to query the state of a peer address. It uses the following
structure:
struct sctp_paddrinfo {
sctp_assoc_t spinfo_assoc_id;
struct sockaddr_storage spinfo_address;
int32_t spinfo_state;
uint32_t spinfo_cwnd;
uint32_t spinfo_srtt;
uint32_t spinfo_rto;
uint32_t spinfo_mtu;
};
[RFC6458] defines the constants SCTP_UNCONFIRMED, SCTP_ACTIVE, and
SCTP_INACTIVE to be provided in the spinfo_state field. This
document defines in addition to that the new constant
SCTP_POTENTIALLY_FAILED, which is reported if the peer address is
potentially failed.
6.2. Peer Address Thresholds (SCTP_PEER_ADDR_THLDS) Socket Option
Applications can control the quick failover behavior by getting or
setting the number of consecutive timeouts before a peer address is
considered potentially failed or unreachable and before the primary
path is changed automatically. This socket option uses the level
IPPROTO_SCTP and the name SCTP_PEER_ADDR_THLDS.
The following structure is used to access and modify the thresholds:
struct sctp_paddrthlds {
sctp_assoc_t spt_assoc_id;
struct sockaddr_storage spt_address;
uint16_t spt_pathmaxrxt;
uint16_t spt_pathpfthld;
uint16_t spt_pathcpthld;
};
spt_assoc_id: This parameter is ignored for one-to-one style
sockets. For one-to-many style sockets the application may fill
in an association identifier or SCTP_FUTURE_ASSOC. It is an error
to use SCTP_{CURRENT|ALL}_ASSOC in spt_assoc_id.
Nishida, et al. Expires September 3, 2014 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft SCTP Quick Failover March 2014
spt_address: This specifies which peer address is of interest. If a
wildcard address is provided, this socket option applies to all
current and future peer addresses.
spt_pathmaxrxt: Each peer address of interest is considered
unreachable, if its path error counter exceeds spt_pathmaxrxt.
spt_pathpfthld: Each peer address of interest is considered
potentially failed, if its path error counter exceeds
spt_pathpfthld.
spt_pathcpthld: Each peer address of interest is not considered the
primary remote address anymore, if its path error counter exceeds
spt_pathcpthld. Using a value of 0xffff disables the selection of
a new primary peer address. If an implementation does not support
the automatically selection of a new primary address, it should
indicate an error with errno set to EINVAL if a value different
from 0xffff is used in spt_pathcpthld.
6.3. Exposing the Potentially Failed Path State
(SCTP_EXPOSE_POTENTIALLY_FAILED_STATE) Socket Option
Applications can control the exposure of the potentially failed path
state in the SCTP_PEER_ADDR_CHANGE event and the
SCTP_GET_PEER_ADDR_INFO as described in Section 6.1. The default
value is implementation specific.
This socket option uses the level IPPROTO_SCTP and the name
SCTP_EXPOSE_POTENTIALLY_FAILED_STATE.
The following structure is used to control the exposition of the
potentially failed path state:
struct sctp_assoc_value {
sctp_assoc_t assoc_id;
uint32_t assoc_value;
};
assoc_id: This parameter is ignored for one-to-one style sockets.
For one-to-many style sockets the application may fill in an
association identifier or SCTP_FUTURE_ASSOC. It is an error to
use SCTP_{CURRENT|ALL}_ASSOC in assoc_id.
assoc_value: The potentially failed path state is exposed if and
only if this parameter is non-zero.
Nishida, et al. Expires September 3, 2014 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft SCTP Quick Failover March 2014
7. Security Considerations
There are no new security considerations introduced in this document.
Nishida, et al. Expires September 3, 2014 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft SCTP Quick Failover March 2014
8. IANA Considerations
This document does not create any new registries or modify the rules
for any existing registries managed by IANA.
Nishida, et al. Expires September 3, 2014 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft SCTP Quick Failover March 2014
9. References
9.1. Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[RFC4960] Stewart, R., "Stream Control Transmission Protocol",
RFC 4960, September 2007.
9.2. Informative References
[CARO02] Caro Jr., A., Iyengar, J., Amer, P., Heinz, G., and R.
Stewart, "A Two-level Threshold Recovery Mechanism for
SCTP", Tech report, CIS Dept, University of Delaware ,
7 2002.
[CARO04] Caro Jr., A., Amer, P., and R. Stewart, "End-to-End
Failover Thresholds for Transport Layer Multihoming",
MILCOM 2004 , 11 2004.
[CARO05] Caro Jr., A., "End-to-End Fault Tolerance using Transport
Layer Multihoming", Ph.D Thesis, University of Delaware ,
1 2005.
[FALLON08]
Fallon, S., Jacob, P., Qiao, Y., Murphy, L., Fallon, E.,
and A. Hanley, "SCTP Switchover Performance Issues in WLAN
Environments", IEEE CCNC 2008, 1 2008.
[GRINNEMO04]
Grinnemo, K-J. and A. Brunstrom, "Performance of SCTP-
controlled failovers in M3UA-based SIGTRAN networks",
Advanced Simulation Technologies Conference , 4 2004.
[IYENGAR06]
Iyengar, J., Amer, P., and R. Stewart, "Concurrent
Multipath Transfer using SCTP Multihoming over Independent
End-to-end Paths.", IEEE/ACM Trans on Networking 14(5),
10 2006.
[JUNGMAIER02]
Jungmaier, A., Rathgeb, E., and M. Tuexen, "On the use of
SCTP in failover scenarios", World Multiconference on
Systemics, Cybernetics and Informatics , 7 2002.
[NATARAJAN09]
Natarajan, P., Ekiz, N., Amer, P., and R. Stewart,
Nishida, et al. Expires September 3, 2014 [Page 17]
Internet-Draft SCTP Quick Failover March 2014
"Concurrent Multipath Transfer during Path Failure",
Computer Communications , 5 2009.
[RFC6458] Stewart, R., Tuexen, M., Poon, K., Lei, P., and V.
Yasevich, "Sockets API Extensions for the Stream Control
Transmission Protocol (SCTP)", RFC 6458, December 2011.
Nishida, et al. Expires September 3, 2014 [Page 18]
Internet-Draft SCTP Quick Failover March 2014
Authors' Addresses
Yoshifumi Nishida
GE Global Research
2623 Camino Ramon
San Ramon, CA 94583
USA
Email: nishida@wide.ad.jp
Preethi Natarajan
Cisco Systems
510 McCarthy Blvd
Milpitas, CA 95035
USA
Email: prenatar@cisco.com
Armando Caro
BBN Technologies
10 Moulton St.
Cambridge, MA 02138
USA
Email: acaro@bbn.com
Paul D. Amer
University of Delaware
Computer Science Department - 434 Smith Hall
Newark, DE 19716-2586
USA
Email: amer@udel.edu
Karen E. E. Nielsen
Ericsson
Kistavaegen 25
Stockholm, 164 80
Sweden
Email: karen.nielsen@tieto.com
Nishida, et al. Expires September 3, 2014 [Page 19]