Network Working Group T. Dreibholz Internet-Draft University of Duisburg-Essen Expires: October 6, 2006 M. Tuexen Univ. of Applied Sciences Muenster April 04, 2006 Reliable Server Pooling (RSerPool) Bakeoff Scoring draft-dreibholz-rserpool-score-00.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 October 6, 2006. Copyright Notice Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2006). Abstract This memo describes some of the scoring to be used in the testing of Reliable Server Pooling protocols ASAP and ENRP at upcoming bakeoffs. 1. Introduction This document will be used as a basis for point scoring at upcoming Dreibholz & Tuexen Expires October 6, 2006 [Page 1] Internet-Draft RSerPool Bakeoff Scoring April 2006 RSerPool bakeoffs. Its purpose is similar to that described in RFC1025. It is hoped that a clear definition of where and how to score points will further the development of RSerPool. Note that while attending a bakeoff no one else will score your points for you. We trust that all implementations will faithfully record their points that are received honestly. Note also that these scores are NOT to be used for marketing purposes. They are for the use of the implementations to know how well they are doing. The only reporting that will be done is a basic summary to the Reliable Server Pooling Working Group but please note that NO company or implementation names will be attached. 2. Aggregate Server Access Protocol The ASAP protocol is described in the follwing documents: o draft-ietf-rserpool-asap [3] o draft-ietf-rserpool-common-param [5] 2.1. Pool Element Communication These points will be scored for EACH peer implementation that you successfully communicate with. o 2 Successful ASAP Registration Request of a PE in a pool using Round Robin policy and handling of ASAP Registration Response. o 2 Failing ASAP Registration Request of a PE requesting Least Used policy in a pool using Round Robin policy and appropriate handling of ASAP Registration Response (e.g. printing error message, but not retrying registration). o 2 Successful re-registration of a PE in a pool using Round Robin policy. o 2 Successful ASAP Deregistration Request of the PE from its pool and handling of ASAP Deregistration Response. o 2 Successful handling of ASAP Endpoint Keep-Alive without Home bit set, i.e. answering with ASAP Endpoint Keep-Alive Ack. o 5 Successful handling of ASAP Endpoint Keep-Alive with Home bit set: respond with ASAP Endpoint Keep-Alive Ack and use new ENRP server for re-registration. Dreibholz & Tuexen Expires October 6, 2006 [Page 2] Internet-Draft RSerPool Bakeoff Scoring April 2006 o 5 Successful connection to and registration at an ENRP server announcing itself via multicast ASAP Announces. o 1 Successful registration into pool using Least Used policy. o 1 Successful registration into pool using Weighted Round Robin policy. o 1 Successful registration into pool using Random policy. o 1 Successful registration into pool using Weighted Random policy. 2.2. Pool User Communication These points will be scored for EACH peer implementation that you successfully communicate with. o 5 Successful ASAP Handle Resolution in a pool using Round Robin policy, correct handling of ASAP Handle Resolution Response. o 2 Successful failure reporting using ASAP Endpoint Unreachable. o 5 Successful connection to and handle resolution at ENRP server announcing itself via multicast ASAP Announces. o 1 Successful handle resolution in a pool using Least Used policy. o 1 Successful handle resolution in a pool using Weighted Round Robin policy. o 1 Successful handle resolution in a pool using Random policy. o 1 Successful handle resolution in a pool using Weighted Random policy. 2.3. ENRP Server Communication These points will be scored for EACH peer implementation that you successfully communicate with. o 2 Successful handling of an ASAP Registration Request into a pool using Round Robin policy (ENRP server answers with successful ASAP Registration Response). o 2 Rejecting registration of a PE requesting Round Robin policy into a pool using Least Used policy. Dreibholz & Tuexen Expires October 6, 2006 [Page 3] Internet-Draft RSerPool Bakeoff Scoring April 2006 o 5 Rejecting registration of a PE with all addresses *not* being part of the ASAP association. o 5 Successful registration of a PE with some addresses *not* being part of the ASAP association. The invalid addresses may *not* go into the handlespace. o 5 Successful handling of ASAP Endpoint Unreachable messages. The ENRP server must remove the given PE after MAX-BAD-PE-REPORTS=3 unreachability reports. o 2 Sending regular ASAP Endpoint Keep-Alives to its PEs. o 2 Removing PE not answering to ASAP Endpoint Keep-Alive. 3. Endpoint Handlespace Redundancy Protocol The ENRP protocol is described in the follwing documents: o draft-ietf-rserpool-enrp [3] o draft-ietf-rserpool-common-param [5] 3.1. Peer Management These points will be scored for EACH peer implementation that you successfully communicate with. o 2 Sending ENRP Presence to a new ENRP server. o 2 Sending ENRP Presences in the interval given by PEER-HEARTBEAT- CYCLE. o 5 Requesting peer list from new ENRP server using ENRP Peer List Request, handling ENRP Peer List Response and adding entries to its own peer list. o 2 Handling ENRP Peer List Request and replying with own peer list in ENRP Peer List Response. o 5 Requesting handlespace from new ENRP server using ENRP Handle Table Request, handling ENRP Handle Table Response (without M-bit set) and inserting entries into its own handlespace copy. o 5 Requesting handlespace from new ENRP server using ENRP Handle Table Request, handling ENRP Handle Table Response with M-bit set, requesting more entries and inserting entries into its own Dreibholz & Tuexen Expires October 6, 2006 [Page 4] Internet-Draft RSerPool Bakeoff Scoring April 2006 handlespace copy. o 2 Handling ENRP Handle Table Request and replying own handlespace in ENRP Handle Table Response (without M-bit). o 10 Handling ENRP Handle Table Request and replying own handlespace in ENRP Handle Table Response with M-bit set, remembering point to continue from, responding next block of handlespace entries upon following ENRP Handle Table Request, etc. until transfer of handlespace data is complete. o 5 Successful addition of new ENRP server announcing itself via multicast ENRP Presence (including association establishment as well as download of peer list and handlespace). 3.2. Update These points will be scored for EACH peer implementation that you successfully communicate with. o 2 Handling an ENRP Handle Update adding a PE. o 2 Handling an ENRP Handle Update updating a PE. The changes must be entered into the local handlespace copy. o 2 Handling an ENRP Handle Update removing a PE. 3.3. Synchronization These points will be scored for EACH peer implementation that you successfully communicate with. o 5 Successful detection of different handlespace checksums upon reception of ENRP Presence (due to additional PE), request of Handle Table with W-bit set, integration of missing PE into local handlespace copy and reporting the correct checksum in own ENRP Presence. o 5 Successful detection of different handlespace checksums upon reception of ENRP Presence (due to out-of-date PE), request of Handle Table with W-bit set, removal of PE from local handlespace copy and reporting the correct checksum in own ENRP Presence. o 10 Successful detection of different handlespace checksums upon reception of ENRP Presence (due to multiple new and out-of-date PE identities; size of PE identities is larger than maximum ENRP message size), request of Handle Table with W-bit set, handling of ENRP Handle Table Responses with M-bit set, removal of out-of-date Dreibholz & Tuexen Expires October 6, 2006 [Page 5] Internet-Draft RSerPool Bakeoff Scoring April 2006 PEs, integration of new PEs into the local handlespace copy and reporting correct checksum in own ENRP Presence. 3.4. Takeover TBD 4. Bonus Points You can also earn Bonus Points: 20 points for the ENRP server handling the largest number of PEs. 20 points for the ENRP server achieving the highest handle resolution throughput. Please note that the whole period of the bakeoff is relevant. 5. Security Considerations This document does only describe test scenarios and therefore does not introduce any new security issues. For security considerations of the protocols see draft-ietf-rserpool-asap [3], draft-ietf-rserpool-enrp [3], and draft-ietf-rserpool-common-param [5]. 6. References 6.1. Normative References [1] Coene, L., "Stream Control Transmission Protocol Applicability Statement", RFC 3257, April 2002. [2] Tuexen, M., "Architecture for Reliable Server Pooling", draft-ietf-rserpool-arch-10 (work in progress), July 2005. [3] Stewart, R., "Aggregate Server Access Protocol (ASAP)", draft-ietf-rserpool-asap-13 (work in progress), February 2006. [4] Stewart, R., "Endpoint Handlespace Redundancy Protocol (ENRP)", draft-ietf-rserpool-enrp-13 (work in progress), February 2006. [5] Stewart, R., "Aggregate Server Access Protocol (ASAP) and Endpoint Handlespace Redundancy Protocol (ENRP) Parameters", Dreibholz & Tuexen Expires October 6, 2006 [Page 6] Internet-Draft RSerPool Bakeoff Scoring April 2006 draft-ietf-rserpool-common-param-10 (work in progress), February 2006. [6] Tuexen, M. and T. Dreibholz, "Reliable Server Pooling Policies", draft-ietf-rserpool-policies-02 (work in progress), February 2006. [7] Conrad, P. and P. Lei, "Services Provided By Reliable Server Pooling", draft-ietf-rserpool-service-02 (work in progress), October 2005. [8] Silverton, A., "Reliable Server Pooling Sockets API Extensions", draft-ietf-rserpool-api-00 (work in progress), October 2005. [9] Stillman, M., "Threats Introduced by Rserpool and Requirements for Security in response to Threats", draft-ietf-rserpool-threats-05 (work in progress), July 2005. [10] Dreibholz, T., "Applicability of Reliable Server Pooling for Real-Time Distributed Computing", draft-dreibholz-rserpool-applic-distcomp-01 (work in progress), February 2006. [11] Coene, L., "Reliable Server Pooling Applicability for IP Flow Information Exchange", draft-coene-rserpool-applic-ipfix-02 (work in progress), February 2006. [12] Dreibholz, T. and J. Pulinthanath, "Applicability of Reliable Server Pooling for SCTP-Based Endpoint Mobility", draft-dreibholz-rserpool-applic-mobility-00 (work in progress), March 2006. [13] Xie, Q., "RSERPOOL Redundancy-model Policy", draft-xie-rserpool-redundancy-model-03 (work in progress), November 2004. 6.2. Informative References [14] Dreibholz, T., "Thomas Dreibholz's RSerPool Page", URL: http://tdrwww.exp-math.uni-essen.de/dreibholz/rserpool/. Dreibholz & Tuexen Expires October 6, 2006 [Page 7] Internet-Draft RSerPool Bakeoff Scoring April 2006 Authors' Addresses Thomas Dreibholz University of Duisburg-Essen, Institute for Experimental Mathematics Ellernstrasse 29 45326 Essen, Nordrhein-Westfalen Germany Phone: +49-201-1837637 Fax: +49-201-1837673 Email: dreibh@exp-math.uni-essen.de URI: http://www.exp-math.uni-essen.de/~dreibh/ Michael Tuexen University of Applied Sciences Muenster Stegerwaldstrasse 39 48565 Steinfurt, Nordrhein-Westfalen Germany Email: tuexen@fh-muenster.de Dreibholz & Tuexen Expires October 6, 2006 [Page 8] Internet-Draft RSerPool Bakeoff Scoring April 2006 Intellectual Property Statement 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. Disclaimer of Validity 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 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. Copyright Statement Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2006). 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. Acknowledgment Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the Internet Society. Dreibholz & Tuexen Expires October 6, 2006 [Page 9]