Subject: Re: I've been wondering if

From: John Loughney <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2001 15:26:31 +0200

Hi Randy & Manoj,

> Here is why you want SCTP and why we specify this as the
> transport of RserPool.  SCTP allows the transport association
> to span both IP addresses. So if one of the ISP's fail, the
> SCTP association does not but automatically retransmits the
> request (or whatever) to the alternate address.
>
> The fault tolerance issue is really two fold, one layer is
> server redundancy... i.e. what happens when an individual
> PE dies. The other is link redundancy, i.e. what happens when
> I accidently kill one of the enet wires connecting my server?
>
> The link layer SCTP handles
> The PE layer ASAP handles..
>
> The two together form a very powerful mechanism that solves
> the problem...

This sounds like a requirement!!

Should we add something like this, to the requirements doc?

 RserPool requires the use of a transport protocol which provides
 transport layer reliability.

br,
John

---

From: Manoj Dhooria <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2001 12:48:46 +0530

John: The requirement suggested by Randy (or what I understand from it) is
that of "transport layer reliability of ENRP Server". Means I can put a
single specific ENRP server on two ISP simultaneously to ensure that PUs &
PEs will be able to talk to it even when one of these ISPs goes down. Note
that even this *requirement* does not say "pl choose a transport that
provides ISP failover". It only says RSerPool protocols should make sure
this is possible. That RSerPool specification cleverly piggybacks on a
transport that automatically provides this failover is a design decision
(*not a requirement*).

This, however, addresses only half the problem from application software's
perspective; I am still left with inventing my own proprietary means for
rest of the stuff. May be this is outside the scope of RSerPool! May be
there are other application programmers on the list who wish to express an
opinion on this "other half" proprietary story!

-----Original Message-----
From: Remote Server Spooling
[mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of John Loughney
Sent: Thursday, February 01, 2001 6:57 PM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: I've been wondering if

Hi Randy & Manoj,

br,
John

---

From: Manoj Dhooria <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2001 13:01:15 +0530

John:
Correction - *may be* there is no need to invent proprietary stuff for
"other half" of an application's requirements too (though it is still
outside the scope of RserPool) - at least if you live in TCP world (my
case). I have received 2 communications that indicate that popular
techniques exist for this, though I have not examined or experimented with
these suggestions yet.

-----Original Message-----
From: Remote Server Spooling
[mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of Manoj Dhooria
Sent: Friday, February 02, 2001 12:49 PM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: I've been wondering if

-----Original Message-----

Hi Randy & Manoj,

br,
John