Chronological Thread 

< Chronological >      < Thread >

---

Hi Tibo,

see my comments below.

Best regards
Michael

Michael Tuexen Tel.: +49 89 722 47210
Siemens AG Fax: +49 89 722 48212
ICN CP SE C 7 e-mail:
Michael.Tuexen AT siemens.com

> -----Original Message-----
> From: thibault Renier
> [mailto:toubix AT kom.auc.dk]
> Sent: Thursday, January 23, 2003 1:23 PM
> To: Tuexen Michael;
> rsplib-discussion AT sctp.de
> Subject: Re: [RSPlib-Discusssion] heartbeat mechanism implementation
>
>
> Hi Michael,
>
> the ASAP draft refers to the 'endpoint keep alive message'
> which is just, in
> my opinion, another way to name a heartbeat mechanism :
>
That is correct.
> 2.2.7 ENDPOINT_KEEP_ALIVE message
> This message is sent to a PE by the ENRP server has a
> "health" check.
> If the transport level Heart Beat mechanism is
> insufficient (usually
> this means that time outs are set for too long or
> heartbeats are not
> frequent enough), this adds heartbeat messages with the goal of
> determining health status in a more timely fashion.
>
>
> Let summarize like this:
> 1_ there is a HB mechanism implemented at the SCTP layer,
> between the PU and
> the PE
This is true for SCTP based channels. But if the service
is UDP based, you do not have this. This is just transport
layer supervision, whatever the transport layer does.
> 2_ another 'HB mechanism' exists between the PE and the NS,
> implemented in
> RSerPool
> Am I right ??
The PE<->NS communication MUST use SCTP. Therefore you have
SCTP Heartbeats. The Heartbeat Timer is per SCTP default 30 sec.
but can be configured by the SCTP ULP, ASAP for example.
The ENDPOINT_KEEP_ALIVE message is send by the ENRP server.
You can change the timeout in rsplib/nameserver.c. It is up to
you to configure it. Keep in mind, using the ENDPOINT_KEEP_ALIVE
messages can make sure that the primary path never becomes idle,
all other paths will be supervised by the SCTP mechanism.
>
> so,
> have you only implemented the SCTP HB mechanism,
No, both are implemented.
> how are(is) these(this) mechanism(s) implemented,
Using timers.
> what is the frequency for message sending,
Depends on the timers which can be changed.
> do you have an idea of the overhead introduced by these mechanisms,
You need the bandwidth of the messages and the CPU time at the ENRP
server if you have a lot of PEs.
> what's your opinion concerning their efficiency ?
>
Everything depends on the application. Ymus must have the requirements
of the application and see how you can fullfill them with the timers here.
Problably I would prefer adopting the SCTP Heartbeat Timer to fullfill
my application requirements instead of using the ASAP mechanism.
> Best regards
> Tibo
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Tuexen Michael"
> <michael.tuexen AT siemens.com>
> To: "'thibault Renier'"
> <toubix AT kom.auc.dk>;
>
> <rsplib-discussion AT sctp.de>
> Sent: Wednesday, January 22, 2003 5:36 PM
> Subject: RE: [RSPlib-Discusssion] heartbeat mechanism implementation
>
>
> > Hi Tibo,
> >
> > what HB mechnism are you talking about? We use SCTP as the transport
> > layer protocol. It has Heartbeats. The Heartbeat timer is a
> > parameter of the SCTP implementation.
> >
> > There is no notion of Heartbeat Message in ASAP or ENRP.
> >
> > Best regards
> > Michael
> >
> > Michael Tuexen Tel.: +49 89 722 47210
> > Siemens AG Fax: +49 89 722 48212
> > ICN CP SE C 7 e-mail:
> > Michael.Tuexen AT siemens.com
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: thibault Renier
> > [mailto:toubix AT kom.auc.dk]
> > Sent: Wednesday, January 22, 2003 5:20 PM
> > To:
> > rsplib-discussion AT sctp.de
> > Subject: [RSPlib-Discusssion] heartbeat mechanism implementation
> >
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > I am wondering how you implemented the heartbeat mechanism in your
> RSerPool version. Here are some points I have in mind :
> > - on which principles (push, pull) have you based the
> implementation of
> this feature,
> > - is there a heartbeat mechanism only between the PUs and the PEs,
> > - is this implemented only at the SCTP layer,
> > - what is the frequency of the messages sent and what is
> the overhead
> introduced,
> > - what do you think about the efficiency of the heartbeat
> mechanism(s)
> implemented, could an implementation of an heartbeat
> mechanism at the SIP
> layer (running on top of RSerPool) be a solution to potential
> problems when
> implemented at the RSerPool (SCTP) layer ?
> >
> > Thank you.
> >
> > Regards
> > Tibo
> > _______________________________________________
> > rsplib-discussion mailing list
> > rsplib-discussion AT sctp.de
> > http://www.sctp.de/mailman/listinfo/rsplib-discussion
>

---

• [RSPlib-Discusssion] heartbeat mechanism implementation, thibault Renier, 01/22/2003
  • <Possible follow-up(s)>
  • RE: [RSPlib-Discusssion] heartbeat mechanism implementation, Tuexen Michael, 01/22/2003
    • Re: [RSPlib-Discusssion] heartbeat mechanism implementation, thibault Renier, 01/23/2003
  • RE: [RSPlib-Discusssion] heartbeat mechanism implementation, Tuexen Michael, 01/23/2003
    • RE: [RSPlib-Discusssion] heartbeat mechanism implementation, Thomas Dreibholz, 01/24/2003
      • Re: [RSPlib-Discusssion] heartbeat mechanism implementation, Michael Tüxen, 01/24/2003

---

Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.19+.