Hi Yaron,
thanks for clarifying the situation.
The overall disclosure process still somewhat escaped us and we were
unclear as to when such statements need to be published.
If we made a mistake, I hereby apologize; we know better now.
We mainly wanted to clear our names of any malicious inte
The IESG has approved the following document:
- 'Heuristics for Detecting ESP-NULL packets '
as an Informational RFC
This document is the product of the IP Security Maintenance and Extensions
Working Group.
The IESG contact persons are Pasi Eronen and Tim Polk.
A URL of this Internet-Dra
I am *NOT* an expert on fault tolerance, but I have studied it a
little (long ago, if not so far away), and I worked on Network
Alchemy's fault tolerant implementation of an IPsec gateway (a decade
ago, and a little farther away). So, some suggestions on the
terminology for the HA&LS draft.
Term
On Tue, March 23, 2010 9:46 am, Rodney Van Meter wrote:
> I am *NOT* an expert on fault tolerance, but I have studied it a
> little (long ago, if not so far away), and I worked on Network
> Alchemy's fault tolerant implementation of an IPsec gateway (a decade
> ago, and a little farther away). So,
I think this is a really nice taxonomy and think it might be useful
to integrate it nearly as-is into the HA document.
Go for it. I can't promise more help (I'm in workload-shedding rather
than workload-accreting mode right now), but if it's useful, it was
worth an hour of my time to writ
And thank you for taking the time, Rod.
The linktionary has a pretty good definition, though I don't know if it counts
as "textbook". Same for Wikipedia
http://www.linktionary.com/f/fault_tolerance.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fault-tolerant_system
Anyway, we need to limit the scope of this
On Mar 24, 2010, at 6:20 AM, Yoav Nir wrote:
- For the cluster with just one member doing IKE and IPsec, I
propose "hot-standby cluster"
- For the cluster with several members doing IKE and IPsec, I
propose to keep "load-sharing cluster"
Is this fine with everyone?
I'm good with that,
On Tue, March 23, 2010 1:20 pm, Yoav Nir wrote:
> - For the cluster with just one member doing IKE and IPsec, I propose
> "hot-standby cluster"
> - For the cluster with several members doing IKE and IPsec, I propose to
> keep "load-sharing cluster"
I think "failover" is in broader use than "hot st
On Mar 24, 2010, at 6:31 AM, Melinda Shore wrote:
On Tue, March 23, 2010 1:20 pm, Yoav Nir wrote:
- For the cluster with just one member doing IKE and IPsec, I propose
"hot-standby cluster"
- For the cluster with several members doing IKE and IPsec, I
propose to
keep "load-sharing cluster"
On Mar 23, 2010, at 2:31 PM, Melinda Shore wrote:
> On Tue, March 23, 2010 1:20 pm, Yoav Nir wrote:
>> - For the cluster with just one member doing IKE and IPsec, I propose
>> "hot-standby cluster"
>> - For the cluster with several members doing IKE and IPsec, I propose to
>> keep "load-sharing cl
Hi,
"hot standby" implies a box sitting ("hot") twiddling its thumbs doing
little but waiting for another box to fail ("standby"). It's the VRRP
model.
There is a HA model which supports dynamic load balancing as well as
active session failover. Nodes in such a cluster are not "standby". T
On Mar 23, 2010, at 6:05 PM, Dan Harkins wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> "hot standby" implies a box sitting ("hot") twiddling its thumbs doing
> little but waiting for another box to fail ("standby"). It's the VRRP
> model.
And that's exactly what I want to describe. Well, not twiddling its thumbs. The
12 matches
Mail list logo
