Re: An opes services usage question

Alex, I am assuming, but just to make sure, that the "opes metadata 
exchange" protocol will include solving what I have been calling the 
flow participant discovery problem (finding out who to exchange data 
with is a big part of the problem). Is this correct?
Regards  John

Alex Rousskov wrote:

>John,
>
>	I agree that if your problem space consists of routable
>proxies with strong client affinity, then that is what you should
>address first (while keeping more general load balancing demands in
>mind, iff possible).
>
>	My understanding is that we will start discussing OPES
>rechartering very soon. Adding "OPES metadata exchange" protocol into
>the discussion mix would be nice. Ideally, for the discussion to be
>effective, there has to be a draft with a good outline of what the
>problem space and possible solution directions are. Active
>participation of interested parties in the WG would be key as well.
>
>Thank you,
>
>Alex.
>
>
>On Mon, 12 Apr 2004, John G. Waclawsky wrote:
>
>  
>
>>To get back to the discussion. It seems that many of the assumptions
>>in the background of our discussions about load balancers are based
>>on web load balancers that provide virtual addresses and hide the
>>server cluster from the user. But, I have been thinking a little
>>differently in considering usage of an opes framework in the mobile
>>wireless market segment. This segment may be unique in that load
>>balancers do not rebalance for every client connection. Instead they
>>typically rebalance on a "per client" basis. This is done because
>>the devices that are being balanced have client information
>>associated with their traffic such as $, access rights, browser form
>>factors, XML style sheets...etc. Affinity to a particular server is
>>strongly maintained for each client. Once affinity is in place the
>>load balancer could operate, for example, by just replacing the
>>destination MAC address as the traffic arrives based on the source
>>IP address (you could view the load balancer as just a "bump on the
>>wire").  I believe this additional information should help clarify
>>what I am thinking, a bit. I guess I am looking for the simplest
>>solution for this environment and I keep thinking the most elegant
>>solution would be lower layer one.... just some of my thoughts...
>>
>>It seems that of the two limitations you suggest, the best way to
>>proceed (IMO) would be to assume proxies with exposed/routable
>>adresses.  I am thinking this assumption is the best one because it
>>probably provides a faster solution, would be more flexible, and
>>satisfies small deployment needs that do not have load balancers but
>>still need the metadata returned to a specific server. I think we
>>are also in agreement that with either limitation we still need
>>something to support the metadata information exchange. I was also
>>wondering if anyone else has any suggestions or additional
>>information to consider?
>>
>>Regards  John
>>    
>>
>
>
>  
>