RFC 1275 INFORMATIONAL DIRECTORY · X.500 · ARCHITECTURE

Replication Requirements to provide an Internet Directory using X.500

Replication requirements for a distributed Internet directory based on X.500.

On rfc-editor.org ↗
PUBLISHED
November 1991
AUTHORS
S.E. Hardcastle-Kille
STREAM
IETF
PILOT NON-LEAF ENTRIES
100 000
PILOT LEAF ENTRIES
Several million
DOI
10.17487/RFC1275

RFC text

Contents
Original text · RFC Editor View on rfc-editor.org ↗
Network Working Group                            S.E. Hardcastle-Kille
Requests for Comments 1275                   University College London
                                                         November 1991








Replication Requirements to provide an Internet Directory using X.500










Status of this Memo
    This memo provides information for the Internet community.  It
    does not specify an Internet standard.  Distribution of this memo
    is unlimited.
Abstract

    This RFCconsiders certain deficiencies of the 1988 X.500
    standard, which need to be addressed before an effective open
    Internet Directory can be established using these protocols and
    services [CCI88].  The only areas considered are primary
    problems, to which solutions must be found before a pilot can be
    deployed.  This RFCconcerns itself with deficiencies which can
    only be addressed by use of additional protocol or procedures for
    distributed operation.

1  Distributed Operation Extensions

The Internet Directory will operate DSAs over TCP/IP using RFC 1006
[RC87], and DSAs over the an ISO Network Service.  Distributed
operation procedures should not require full connectivity.


2  Knowledge Replication

Knowledge information is critical to resolution of names, and
performing searches.  Knowledge information high up the tree needs to
be widely available.  Consider resolving a name below ``Country=US''.
To do this, a DSA needs to have full knowledge at this point.  Many
DSAs need to be able to do this, in order to give reasonable response
and availability.  It would be an unacceptable bottleneck to force
such resolution to a single or small number of DSAs.  To replicate
this knowledge widely, a systematic approach to replication is needed.


3  Data Replication

Searches are often made at the root and country level, and this is a
vital service (e.g., an approximate match of an organisation name).
Data needs to be collected in such a way that this sort of searching
is reasonably efficient.  The usual X.500 approach of subordinate
references militates against this.  At a node in the DIT, subordinate
references to the entries below are held.  These entries will be in
many DSAs, each of which needs to be accessed in order to perform the
single level search.  It is suggested that replication of data is
necessary to achieve this.

The major requirement for this replication is high up the DIT, where
information must be replicated between different implementations.  At
lower levels of the DIT, it is reasonable for DSAs to be of the same
implementation and to use implementation specific techniques in order
to achieve performance and availability.


4  Alternate DSAs

When a DSA Referral is returned, only the master DSA is indicated.
This will lead to a single point of failure.  It seems important to
allow for additional references to slave copies, in order to get


Hardcastle-Kille                                                Page 1

better availability.  This needs to be solved in conjunction with the
problem described in the previous section.


5  Guidelines for use of Replication

To be effective, the replication specification needs to provide
guidelines for deployment in the pilot, in order to meet the desired
service criteria.


6  Some scaling targets

Most techniques for replication have scaling limits.  It is important
that mechanisms used do not stress the limits of the mechanism.  The
order of magnitude envisioned in the pilot is 100 000 non-leaf entries
and several million leaf entries.


References

[CCI88] The Directory --- overview of concepts, models and services,
        December 1988. CCITT X.500 Series Recommendations.

[RC87]  Marshall T. Rose and Dwight E. Cass. ISO Transport Services
        on top of the TCP. Request for Comments 1006, Northrop
        Corporation Technology Center, May 1987.


7  Security Considerations

Security considerations are not discussed in this memo.


8  Author's Address

    Steve Hardcastle-Kille
    Department of Computer Science
    University College London
    Gower Street
    WC1E 6BT
    England



Hardcastle-Kille                                                Page 2

    Phone:  +44-71-380-7294

    EMail:  S.Kille@CS.UCL.AC.UK










































Hardcastle-Kille                                                Page 3

ISO Plain Language

On this page
PROBLEMThe RFC identifies gaps in the 1988 X.500 standard that need solutions before a pilot Internet Directory can be deployed.
MECHANISMIt calls for replicating directory knowledge and data, referring users to alternate directory agents, and providing deployment guidance.
REQUIREMENTS IDENTIFIEDThe memo sets scale targets for a pilot and does not specify an Internet standard.

§1Distributed Directory Operation

The RFC considers deficiencies in the 1988 X.500 standard that it says must be addressed before an effective open Internet Directory can be established. It focuses on additional protocols or procedures needed for distributed operation.

The directory would run Directory Service Agents (DSAs) over TCP/IP using RFC 1006 and over an ISO Network Service. Distributed procedures should not require full connectivity.

The memo focuses on what X.500 would need to support a directory spread across many servers. It says that the system should not depend on every server being directly connected.

§2Replicating Directory Knowledge

Knowledge information helps DSAs resolve names and perform searches. Knowledge high in the directory tree needs to be widely available. For example, a DSA resolving a name below Country=US needs complete knowledge at that point in the tree.

If only one or a few DSAs held this information, they could become bottlenecks. The RFC therefore calls for a systematic way to replicate knowledge across many DSAs.

Many directory servers need the information that tells them where names are held. Otherwise, a small number of servers could become bottlenecks.

§3Replicating Data for Search

Searches at the root and country levels, including approximate matches for organization names, are important. Under the usual X.500 approach described here, subordinate references point to entries held by other DSAs, so one search may need to contact many servers.

The RFC says data replication is needed to make these searches reasonably efficient. It emphasizes replication high in the Directory Information Tree between different implementations; DSAs at lower levels may use implementation-specific techniques.

Some searches need to check information held by many servers. Keeping copies of important data high in the directory tree can make those searches more efficient.

§4Alternate Servers and Scale

A DSA referral identifies only the master DSA, which the RFC says creates a single point of failure. The memo calls for allowing referrals to slave copies as well, to improve availability, and for guidelines that help a pilot use replication effectively.

The order of magnitude envisioned for the pilot is 100,000 non-leaf entries and several million leaf entries. The RFC says replication techniques have scaling limits and should not be pushed beyond them.

A referral should be able to point to copies as well as the master server. The memo also sets the approximate directory size expected for a pilot.

§5References