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 https://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 20 March 2027.¶
Copyright (c) 2026 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
(https://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 Revised BSD License text as described in
Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without
warranty as described in the Revised BSD License.¶
This document will be used as a basis for point scoring at upcoming
RSerPool bakeoffs. Its purpose is similar to that described in
[11]. 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.¶
These points will be scored for each peer implementation that
you successfully communicate with.¶
2 Successful ASAP Registration Request of a PE in a pool using
Round-Robin policy and handling of ASAP Registration Response.¶
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).¶
2 Successful re-registration of a PE in a pool using Round-Robin policy.¶
2 Successful ASAP Deregistration Request of the PE from its pool and
handling of ASAP Deregistration Response.¶
2 Successful handling of ASAP Endpoint Keep-Alive without Home bit set,
i.e., answering with ASAP Endpoint Keep-Alive Ack.¶
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.¶
5 Successful connection to and registration at an ENRP server announcing
itself via multicast ASAP Announces.¶
1 Successful registration into pool using Least-Used policy.¶
1 Successful registration into pool using Weighted Round-Robin policy.¶
1 Successful registration into pool using Random policy.¶
1 Successful registration into pool using Weighted Random policy.¶
These points will be scored for EACH peer implementation that you
successfully communicate with.¶
2 Successful handling of an ASAP Registration Request into a pool using
Round-Robin policy (ENRP server answers with successful ASAP
Registration Response).¶
2 Rejecting registration of a PE requesting Round-Robin policy into a
pool using Least-Used policy.¶
5 Rejecting registration of a PE with all addresses not being
part of the ASAP association.¶
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.¶
5 Successful handling of ASAP Endpoint Unreachable messages. The ENRP
server must remove the given PE after MAX-BAD-PE-REPORTS=3
unreachability reports.¶
2 Sending regular ASAP Endpoint Keep-Alives to its PEs.¶
2 Removing a PE not answering an ASAP Endpoint Keep-Alive.¶
2 Sending ENRP Presences in the interval given by PEER-HEARTBEAT-CYCLE.¶
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.¶
2 Handling ENRP Peer List Request and replying with own peer list in
ENRP Peer List Response.¶
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.¶
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 handlespace copy.¶
2 Handling ENRP Handle Table Request and replying with its own
handlespace in an ENRP Handle Table Response (without M-bit).¶
10 Handling ENRP Handle Table Request and replying with its own
handlespace in an ENRP Handle Table Response with M-bit set, remembering
the point to continue from, responding with the next block of
handlespace entries upon following ENRP Handle Table Request, etc. until
transfer of handlespace data is complete.¶
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).¶
These points will be scored for EACH peer implementation that you
successfully communicate with.¶
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 its own ENRP Presence.¶
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 its own ENRP Presence.¶
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 PEs, integration
of new PEs into the local handlespace copy and reporting correct
checksum in its own ENRP Presence.¶
These points will be scored for EACH peer implementation that you
successfully communicate with. The setup contains your ENRP server plus a
set of peers running another implementation.¶
5 Successfully detecting the failure of a remote peer and initiating a
takeover procedure.¶
5 Acknowledging another peer's takeover and aborting its own takeover
procedure.¶
10 Correctly handling a remote peer's Takeover Server message, including
ownership change for the remote peer's PEs.¶
10 Successfully taking over a dead peer, including ownership change and
informing the PEs taken over.¶
The RSerPool reference implementation RSPLIB can be found at
[16]. It supports the functionalities
defined in [2], [3],
[4], [5], and
[6] as well as the options
[8],
[10], and
[9]. The MIB module is defined
in [7]. An introduction to this implementation is
provided in [13].¶
A large-scale and realistic Internet testbed platform with support for the
multi-homing feature of the underlying SCTP protocol is NorNet. A
description of NorNet is provided in [15]
and [14]. Further information can be found on
the project website [17].¶
Tuexen, M., Xie, Q., Stewart, R., Shore, M., Ong, L., Loughney, J., and M. Stillman, "Requirements for Reliable Server Pooling", RFC 3237, DOI 10.17487/RFC3237, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3237>.
[2]
Lei, P., Ong, L., Tuexen, M., and T. Dreibholz, "An Overview of Reliable Server Pooling Protocols", RFC 5351, DOI 10.17487/RFC5351, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5351>.
[3]
Stewart, R., Xie, Q., Stillman, M., and M. Tuexen, "Aggregate Server Access Protocol (ASAP)", RFC 5352, DOI 10.17487/RFC5352, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5352>.
[4]
Xie, Q., Stewart, R., Stillman, M., Tuexen, M., and A. Silverton, "Endpoint Handlespace Redundancy Protocol (ENRP)", RFC 5353, DOI 10.17487/RFC5353, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5353>.
[5]
Stewart, R., Xie, Q., Stillman, M., and M. Tuexen, "Aggregate Server Access Protocol (ASAP) and Endpoint Handlespace Redundancy Protocol (ENRP) Parameters", RFC 5354, DOI 10.17487/RFC5354, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5354>.
Dreibholz, T. and X. Zhou, "Definition of a Delay Measurement Infrastructure and Delay-Sensitive Least-Used Policy for Reliable Server Pooling", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-dreibholz-rserpool-delay-37, , <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-dreibholz-rserpool-delay-37>.
Stillman, M., Ed., Gopal, R., Guttman, E., Sengodan, S., and M. Holdrege, "Threats Introduced by Reliable Server Pooling (RSerPool) and Requirements for Security in Response to Threats", RFC 5355, DOI 10.17487/RFC5355, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5355>.