Subject: RE: POOLREQ proposal for failover

From: Steve Gonczi <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 3 Jan 2000 19:37:13 -0500

Cheers,

I have re-read your proposal.
I do not seem to be very good at communicating these days...
 
I still believe that maintaining an ownership flag, independent of the lease
status is a better way to go.  You have proposed to scan the partner
server's
available leases, and attempt to grab some of those that were recently used
by
clients that the current server is configured to support.

If you maintain 'steady' ownership, this naturally occurs. (The leases that
you 
gave out before, went to clients that you are configured to support.
And, they are still yours...;-)

Why do you consider this complicated to implement? 

Your analysis of client not being able to get a lease from server 'A'
because 'A' is out of leases, and being out of luck with server 'B' because
'B' is not configured to support this client was excellent. 
This problem needs to be addressed.

I believe the cheapest way to address it is either

a) Alter the load balancing draft, so that is prescribes a bias instead of a
mandate.
(Allow a server to respond even if the hash value sys no, after so many
seconds 
elapsed...perhaps based on the secs field)

b) When the above described condition occurs, make one address transfer
request.
I.e.: The backup server can not give a lease to a client it is supposed to
serve,
and the primary has a suitable address available. When this specific
condition
occurs, the backup server could attempt to obtain the address in question
via
a BNDUPD.

sG