GENWiki

Premier IT Outsourcing and Support Services within the UK

User Tools

Site Tools


rfc:rfc5811

Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) J. Hadi Salim Request for Comments: 5811 Mojatatu Networks Category: Standards Track K. Ogawa ISSN: 2070-1721 NTT Corporation

                                                            March 2010
          SCTP-Based Transport Mapping Layer (TML) for the
    Forwarding and Control Element Separation (ForCES) Protocol

Abstract

 This document defines the SCTP-based TML (Transport Mapping Layer)
 for the ForCES (Forwarding and Control Element Separation) protocol.
 It explains the rationale for choosing the SCTP (Stream Control
 Transmission Protocol) and also describes how this TML addresses all
 the requirements required by and the ForCES protocol.

Status of This Memo

 This is an Internet Standards Track document.
 This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force
 (IETF).  It represents the consensus of the IETF community.  It has
 received public review and has been approved for publication by the
 Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG).  Further information on
 Internet Standards is available in Section 2 of RFC 5741.
 Information about the current status of this document, any errata,
 and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at
 http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5811.

Copyright Notice

 Copyright (c) 2010 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
 document authors.  All rights reserved.
 This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
 Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
 (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
 publication of this document.  Please review these documents
 carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
 to this document.  Code Components extracted from this document must
 include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
 the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
 described in the Simplified BSD License.

Hadi Salim & Ogawa Standards Track [Page 1] RFC 5811 ForCES SCTP TML March 2010

 This document may contain material from IETF Documents or IETF
 Contributions published or made publicly available before November
 10, 2008.  The person(s) controlling the copyright in some of this
 material may not have granted the IETF Trust the right to allow
 modifications of such material outside the IETF Standards Process.
 Without obtaining an adequate license from the person(s) controlling
 the copyright in such materials, this document may not be modified
 outside the IETF Standards Process, and derivative works of it may
 not be created outside the IETF Standards Process, except to format
 it for publication as an RFC or to translate it into languages other
 than English.

Table of Contents

 1. Introduction ....................................................3
 2. Definitions .....................................................3
 3. Protocol Framework Overview .....................................4
    3.1. The PL .....................................................5
    3.2. The TML ....................................................5
         3.2.1. TML and PL Interfaces ...............................5
         3.2.2. TML Parameterization ................................6
 4. SCTP TML Overview ...............................................7
    4.1. Rationale for Using SCTP for TML ...........................7
    4.2. Meeting TML Requirements ...................................8
         4.2.1. SCTP TML Channels ...................................9
         4.2.2. Satisfying TML Requirements ........................14
 5. SCTP TML Channel Work ..........................................16
 6. IANA Considerations ............................................16
 7. Security Considerations ........................................17
    7.1. IPsec Usage ...............................................17
         7.1.1. SAD and SPD Setup ..................................18
 8. Acknowledgements ...............................................18
 9. References .....................................................19
    9.1. Normative References ......................................19
    9.2. Informative References ....................................20
 Appendix A.  Suggested SCTP TML Channel Work Implementation .......21
   A.1.  SCTP TML Channel Initialization ...........................21
   A.2.  Channel Work Scheduling ...................................21
     A.2.1.  FE Channel Work Scheduling ............................21
     A.2.2.  CE Channel Work Scheduling ............................22
   A.3.  SCTP TML Channel Termination ..............................23
   A.4.  SCTP TML NE-Level Channel Scheduling ......................23
 Appendix B.  Suggested Service Interface ..........................24
   B.1.  TML Bootstrapping .........................................24
   B.2.  TML Shutdown ..............................................26
   B.3.  TML Sending and Receiving .................................27

Hadi Salim & Ogawa Standards Track [Page 2] RFC 5811 ForCES SCTP TML March 2010

1. Introduction

 The ForCES (Forwarding and Control Element Separation) working group
 in the IETF defines the architecture and protocol for separation of
 control elements (CEs) and forwarding elements (FEs) in network
 elements (NEs) such as routers.  [RFC3654] and [RFC3746],
 respectively, define architectural and protocol requirements for the
 communication between CEs and FEs.  The ForCES protocol layer
 specification [RFC5810] describes the protocol semantics and
 workings.  The ForCES protocol layer operates on top of an inter-
 connect hiding layer known as the TML.  The relationship is
 illustrated in Figure 1.
 This document defines the SCTP-based TML for the ForCES protocol
 layer.  It also addresses all the requirements for the TML including
 security, reliability, and etc., as defined in [RFC5810].

2. Definitions

 The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
 "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
 document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119].
 The following definitions are taken from [RFC3654] and [RFC3746]:
 LFB:              Logical Functional Block.  A template that
                   represents a fine-grained, logically separate
                   aspect of FE processing.
 ForCES Protocol:  The protocol used at the Fp reference point in the
                   ForCES Framework in [RFC3746].
 ForCES PL:        ForCES Protocol Layer.  A layer in the ForCES
                   architecture that embodies the ForCES protocol and
                   the state transfer mechanisms as defined in
                   [RFC5810].
 ForCES TML:       ForCES Protocol Transport Mapping Layer.  A layer
                   in the ForCES protocol architecture that
                   specifically addresses the protocol message
                   transportation issues, such as how the protocol
                   messages are mapped to different transport media
                   (like SCTP, IP, TCP, UDP, ATM, Ethernet, etc.), and
                   how to achieve and implement reliability, security,
                   etc.

Hadi Salim & Ogawa Standards Track [Page 3] RFC 5811 ForCES SCTP TML March 2010

3. Protocol Framework Overview

 The reader is referred to the Framework document [RFC3746], and in
 particular Sections 3 and 4, for an architectural overview and
 explanation of where and how the ForCES protocol fits in.
 There is some content overlap between the ForCES protocol
 specification [RFC5810] and this section (Section 3) in order to
 provide basic context to the reader of this document.
 The ForCES protocol layering constitutes two pieces, the PL and TML.
 This is depicted in Figure 1.
             +----------------------------------------------+
             |                    CE PL                     |
             +----------------------------------------------+
             |                    CE TML                    |
             +----------------------------------------------+
                                    ^
                                    |
                         ForCES PL  |messages
                                    |
                                    v
             +-----------------------------------------------+
             |                   FE TML                      |
             +-----------------------------------------------+
             |                   FE PL                       |
             +-----------------------------------------------+
             Figure 1: Message Exchange between CE and FE
                    to Establish an NE Association
 The PL is in charge of the ForCES protocol.  Its semantics and
 message layout are defined in [RFC5810].  The TML is necessary to
 connect two ForCES endpoints as shown in Figure 1.
 Both the PL and TML are standardized by the IETF.  While only one PL
 is defined, different TMLs are expected to be standardized.  The TML
 at each of the nodes (CE and FE) is expected to be of the same
 definition in order to inter-operate.
 When transmitting from a ForCES endpoint, the PL delivers its
 messages to the TML.  The TML then delivers the PL message to the
 destination TML(s).
 On reception of a message, the TML delivers the message to its
 destination PL (as described in the ForCES header).

Hadi Salim & Ogawa Standards Track [Page 4] RFC 5811 ForCES SCTP TML March 2010

3.1. The PL

 The PL is common to all implementations of ForCES and is standardized
 by the IETF [RFC5810].  The PL is responsible for associating an FE
 or CE to an NE.  It is also responsible for tearing down such
 associations.
 An FE may use the PL to asynchronously send packets to the CE.  The
 FE may redirect various control protocol packets (e.g., OSPF, etc.)
 to the CE via the PL (from outside the NE).  Additionally, the FE
 delivers various events that the CE has subscribed to via the PL
 [RFC5812].
 The CE and FE may interact synchronously via the PL.  The CE issues
 status requests to the FE and receives responses via the PL.  The CE
 also configures the components of the associated FE's LFBs using the
 PL [RFC5812].

3.2. The TML

 The TML is responsible for the transport of the PL messages.
 [RFC5810], Section 5 defines the requirements that need to be met by
 a TML specification.  The SCTP TML specified in this document meets
 all the requirements specified in [RFC5810], Section 5.
 Section 4.2.2 of this document describes how the TML requirements are
 met.

3.2.1. TML and PL Interfaces

 There are two interfaces to the PL and TML.  The specification of
 these interfaces is out of scope for this document, but the
 interfaces are introduced to show how they fit into the architecture
 and summarize the function provided at the interfaces.  The first
 interface is between the PL and TML and the other is the CE Manager
 (CEM)/FE Manager (FEM) [RFC3746] interface to both the PL and TML.
 Both interfaces are shown in Figure 2.

Hadi Salim & Ogawa Standards Track [Page 5] RFC 5811 ForCES SCTP TML March 2010

                    +----------------------------+
                    |  +----------------------+  |
                    |  |                      |  |
   +---------+      |  |          PL          |  |
   |         |      |  +----------------------+  |
   |FEM/CEM  |<---->|             ^              |
   |         |      |             |              |
   +---------+      |             |TML API       |
                    |             |              |
                    |             V              |
                    |  +----------------------+  |
                    |  |                      |  |
                    |  |          TML         |  |
                    |  |                      |  |
                    |  +----------------------+  |
                    +----------------------------+
                    Figure 2: The TML-PL Interface
 The CEM/FEM [RFC3746] interface is responsible for bootstrapping and
 parameterization of the TML.  In its most basic form, the CEM/FEM
 interface takes the form of a simple static config file that is read
 on startup in the pre-association phase.
 Appendix B discusses the service interfaces in more detail.

3.2.2. TML Parameterization

 It is expected that it should be possible to use a configuration
 reference point, such as the FEM or the CEM, to configure the TML.
 Some of the configured parameters may include:
 o  PL ID
 o  Connection Type and associated data.  For example, if a TML uses
    IP/SCTP, then parameters such as SCTP ports and IP addresses need
    to be configured.
 o  Number of transport connections
 o  Connection Capability, such as bandwidth, etc.
 o  Allowed/Supported Connection Quality of Service (QoS) Policy (or
    Congestion Control Policy)

Hadi Salim & Ogawa Standards Track [Page 6] RFC 5811 ForCES SCTP TML March 2010

4. SCTP TML Overview

 SCTP [RFC4960] is an end-to-end transport protocol that is equivalent
 to TCP, UDP, or DCCP in many aspects.  With a few exceptions, SCTP
 can do most of what UDP, TCP, or DCCP can achieve.  SCTP as can also
 do most of what a combination of the other transport protocols can
 achieve (e.g., TCP and DCCP or TCP and UDP).
 Like TCP, it provides ordered, reliable, connection-oriented, flow-
 controlled, congestion-controlled data exchange.  Unlike TCP, it does
 not provide byte streaming and instead provides message boundaries.
 Like UDP, it can provide unreliable, unordered data exchange.  Unlike
 UDP, it does not provide multicast support
 Like DCCP, it can provide unreliable, ordered, congestion controlled,
 connection-oriented data exchange.
 SCTP also provides other services that none of the three transport
 protocols mentioned above provide that we found attractive.  These
 include:
 o  Multi-homing
 o  Runtime IP address binding
 o  A range of reliability shades with congestion control
 o  Built-in heartbeats
 o  Multi-streaming
 o  Message boundaries with reliability
 o  Improved SYN DOS protection
 o  Simpler transport events
 o  Simplified replicasting

4.1. Rationale for Using SCTP for TML

 SCTP has all the features required to provide a robust TML.  As a
 transport that is all-encompassing, it negates the need for having
 multiple transport protocols in order to satisfy the TML requirements
 ([RFC5810], Section 5).  As a result, it allows for simpler coding
 and therefore reduces a lot of the interoperability concerns.

Hadi Salim & Ogawa Standards Track [Page 7] RFC 5811 ForCES SCTP TML March 2010

 SCTP is also very mature and widely used, making it a good choice for
 ubiquitous deployment.

4.2. Meeting TML Requirements

                PL
                +----------------------+
                |                      |
                +-----------+----------+
                            |   TML API
                 TML        |
                +-----------+----------+
                |           |          |
                |    +------+------+   |
                |    |  TML core   |   |
                |    +-+----+----+-+   |
                |      |    |    |     |
                |    SCTP socket API   |
                |      |    |    |     |
                |      |    |    |     |
                |    +-+----+----+-+   |
                |    |    SCTP     |   |
                |    +------+------+   |
                |           |          |
                |           |          |
                |    +------+------+   |
                |    |      IP     |   |
                |    +-------------+   |
                +----------------------+
           Figure 3: The TML-SCTP Interface
 Figure 3 details the interfacing between the PL and SCTP TML and the
 internals of the SCTP TML.  The core of the TML interacts on its
 northbound interface to the PL (utilizing the TML API).  On the
 southbound interface, the TML core interfaces to the SCTP layer
 utilizing the standard socket interface [TSVWG-SCTPSOCKET].  There
 are three SCTP socket connections opened between any two PL endpoints
 (whether FE or CE).

Hadi Salim & Ogawa Standards Track [Page 8] RFC 5811 ForCES SCTP TML March 2010

4.2.1. SCTP TML Channels

                +--------------------+
                |                    |
                |     TML   core     |
                |                    |
                +-+-------+--------+-+
                  |       |        |
                  |   Med prio,    |
                  |  Semi-reliable |
                  |    channel     |
                  |       |      Low prio,
                  |       |      Unreliable
                  |       |      channel
                  |       |        |
                  ^       ^        ^
                  |       |        |
                  Y       Y        Y
        High prio,|       |        |
         reliable |       |        |
          channel |       |        |
                  Y       Y        Y
               +-+--------+--------+-+
               |                     |
               |        SCTP         |
               |                     |
               +---------------------+
            Figure 4: The TML-SCTP Channels
 Figure 4 details further the interfacing between the TML core and
 SCTP layers.  There are three channels used to group and prioritize
 the work for different types of ForCES traffic.  Each channel
 constitutes an SCTP socket interface that has different properties.
 It should be noted that all SCTP channels are congestion aware (and
 for that reason that detail is left out of the description of the
 three channels).  SCTP ports 6704, 6705, and 6706 are used for the
 higher-, medium-, and lower-priority channels, respectively.  SCTP
 Payload Protocol ID (PPID) values of 21, 22, and 23 are used for the
 higher-, medium-, and lower-priority channels, respectively.

4.2.1.1. Justifying Choice of Three Sockets

 SCTP allows up to 64 K streams to be sent over a single socket
 interface.  The authors initially envisioned using a single socket
 for all three channels (mapping a channel to an SCTP stream).  This
 simplifies programming of the TML as well as conserves use of SCTP
 ports.

Hadi Salim & Ogawa Standards Track [Page 9] RFC 5811 ForCES SCTP TML March 2010

 Further analysis revealed head-of-line blocking issues with this
 initial approach.  Lower-priority packets not needing reliable
 delivery could block higher-priority packets (needing reliable
 delivery) under congestion situations for an indeterminate period of
 time (depending on how many outstanding lower-priority packets are
 pending).  For this reason, we elected to go with mapping each of the
 three channels to a different SCTP socket (instead of a different
 stream within a single socket).

4.2.1.2. Higher-Priority, Reliable Channel

 The higher-priority (HP) channel uses a standard SCTP reliable socket
 on port 6704.  SCTP PPID 21 is used for all messages on the HP
 channel.  The HP channel is used for CE-solicited messages and their
 responses:
 1.  ForCES configuration messages flowing from CE to FE and responses
     from the FE to CE.
 2.  ForCES query messages flowing from CE to FE and responses from
     the FE to the CE.
 PL priorities 4-7 MUST be used for all PL messages using this
 channel.  The following PL messages MUST use the HP channel for
 transport:
 o  AssociationSetup (default priority: 7)
 o  AssociationSetupResponse (default priority: 7)
 o  AssociationTeardown (default priority: 7)
 o  Config (default priority: 4)
 o  ConfigResponse (default priority: 4)
 o  Query (default priority: 4)
 o  QueryResponse (default priority: 4)
 If PL priorities outside of the specified range priority (4-7), PPID,
 or PL message types other than the above are received on the HP
 channel, then the PL message MUST be dropped.
 Although an implementation may choose different values from the
 defined range (4-7), it is RECOMMENDED that default priorities be
 used.  A response to a ForCES message MUST contain the same priority

Hadi Salim & Ogawa Standards Track [Page 10] RFC 5811 ForCES SCTP TML March 2010

 as the request.  For example, a config sent by the CE with priority 5
 MUST have a config-response from the FE with priority 5.

4.2.1.3. Medium-Priority, Semi-Reliable Channel

 The medium-priority (MP) channel uses SCTP-PR on port 6705.  SCTP
 PPID 22 MUST be used for all messages on the MP channel.  Time limits
 on how long a message is valid are set on each outgoing message.
 This channel is used for events from the FE to the CE that are
 obsoleted over time.  Events that are accumulative in nature and are
 recoverable by the CE (by issuing a query to the FE) can tolerate
 lost events and therefore should use this channel.  For example, a
 generated event that carries the value of a counter that is
 monotonically incrementing is fit to use this channel.
 PL priority 3 MUST be used for PL messages on this channel.  The
 following PL messages MUST use the MP channel for transport:
 o  Event Notification (default priority: 3)
 If PL priorities outside of the specified priority, PPID, or PL
 message type other than the above are received on the MP channel,
 then the PL message MUST be dropped.

4.2.1.4. Lower-Priority, Unreliable Channel

 The lower-priority (LP) channel uses SCTP port 6706.  SCTP PPID 23 is
 used for all messages on the LP channel.  The LP channel also MUST
 use SCTP-PR with lower timeout values than the MP channel.  The
 reason an unreliable channel is used for redirect messages is to
 allow the control protocol at both the CE and its peer-endpoint to
 take charge of how the end-to-end semantics of the said control
 protocol's operations.  For example:
 1.  Some control protocols are reliable in nature, therefore making
     this channel reliable introduces an extra layer of reliability
     that could be harmful.  So any end-to-end retransmits will happen
     remotely.
 2.  Some control protocols may desire having obsolescence of messages
     over retransmissions; making this channel reliable contradicts
     that desire.
 Given ForCES PL heartbeats are traffic sensitive, sending them over
 the LP channel also makes sense.  If the other end is not processing
 other channels, it will eventually get heartbeats; and if it is busy
 processing other channels, heartbeats will be obsoleted locally over
 time (and it does not matter if they did not make it).

Hadi Salim & Ogawa Standards Track [Page 11] RFC 5811 ForCES SCTP TML March 2010

 PL priorities 1-2 MUST be used for PL messages on this channel.  PL
 messages that MUST use the MP channel for transport are:
 o  PacketRedirect (default priority: 2)
 o  Heartbeat (default priority: 1)
 If PL priorities outside of the specified priority range, PPID, or PL
 message types other than the above are received on the LP channel,
 then the PL message MUST be dropped.

4.2.1.5. Scheduling of the Three Channels

 In processing the sending and receiving of the PL messages, the TML
 core uses strict priority work-conserving scheduling, as shown in
 Figure 5.
 This means that the HP messages are always processed first until
 there are no more left.  The LP channel is processed only if channels
 that are a higher priority than itself have no messages left to
 process.  This means that under a congestion situation, a higher-
 priority channel with sufficient messages that occupy the available
 bandwidth would starve lower-priority channel(s).
 The design intent of the SCTP TML is to tie processing
 prioritization, as described in Section 4.2.1.1, and transport
 congestion control to provide implicit node congestion control.  This
 is further detailed in Appendix A.2.
 It should be emphasized that the work scheduling prioritization
 scheme prescribed in this document is receiver-based processing.
 Fully arrived packets on any of the channels are a source of work
 whose output may result in transmitted packets.  However, we have no
 control on the order in which the SCTP/OS/network chooses to send
 transmitted packets across and make them available to the receiver.
 This is a limitation that we try to ameliorate by our choice of
 channel properties, ForCES message grouping, and the tying of CE and
 FE work scheduling.  While that helps us ameliorate some of these
 issues, it does not fully resolve all.
 From a ForCES perspective, we can tolerate some reordering.  For
 example, if an FE transmits a config response (HP) followed by 10000
 OSPF redirect packets (LP) and the CE gets 5 OSPF redirects (LP)
 first before the config response (HP), that is tolerable.  What
 matters is the CE gets to processing the HP message soon (instead of
 sitting in long periods of time processing OSPF packets that would
 have happened if we use a single socket with three streams).  This is

Hadi Salim & Ogawa Standards Track [Page 12] RFC 5811 ForCES SCTP TML March 2010

 particularly important in order to deal with node overload well, as
 discussed in Section 4.2.2.6.
        SCTP channel            +----------+
        Work available          |   DONE   +---<--<--+
            |                   +---+------+         |
            Y                                        ^
            |         +-->--+         +-->---+       |
    +-->-->-+         |     |         |      |       |
    |       |         |     |         |      |       ^
    |       ^         ^     v         ^      v       |
    ^      / \        |     |         |      |       |
    |     /   \       |     ^         |      ^       ^
    |    / Is  \      |    / \        |     / \      |
    |   / there \     |   /Is \       |    /Is \     |
    ^  / HP work \    ^  /there\      ^   /there\    ^
    |  \    ?    /    | /MP work\     |  /LP work\   |
    |   \       /     | \    ?  /     |  \   ?   /   |
    |    \     /      |  \     /      |   \     /    ^
    |     \   /       ^   \   /       ^    \   /     |
    |      \ /        |    \ /        |     \ /      |
    ^       Y-->-->-->+     Y-->-->-->+      Y->->->-+
    |       |    NO         |    NO          |  NO
    |       |               |                |
    |       Y               Y                Y
    |       | YES           | YES            | YES
    ^       |               |                |
    |       Y               Y                Y
    |  +----+------+    +---|-------+   +----|------+
    |  |- process  |    |- process  |   |- process  |
    |  |  HP work  |    |  MP work  |   | LP work   |
    |  +------+----+    +-----+-----+   +-----+-----+
    |         |               |               |
    ^         Y               Y               Y
    |         |               |               |
    |         Y               Y               Y
    +--<--<---+--<--<----<----+-----<---<-----+
          Figure 5: SCTP TML Strict Priority Scheduling

4.2.1.6. SCTP TML Parameterization

 The following is a list of parameters needed for booting the TML.  It
 is expected these parameters will be extracted via the FEM/CEM
 interface for each PL ID.
 1.  The IP address(es) or a resolvable DNS/hostname(s) of the CE/FE.

Hadi Salim & Ogawa Standards Track [Page 13] RFC 5811 ForCES SCTP TML March 2010

 2.  Whether or not to use IPsec.  If IPsec is used, how to
     parameterize the different required ciphers, keys, etc., as
     described in Section 7.1
 3.  The HP SCTP port, as discussed in Section 4.2.1.2.  The default
     HP port value is 6704 (Section 6).
 4.  The MP SCTP port, as discussed in Section 4.2.1.3.  The default
     MP port value is 6705 (Section 6).
 5.  The LP SCTP port, as discussed in Section 4.2.1.4.  The default
     LP port value is 6706 (Section 6).

4.2.2. Satisfying TML Requirements

 [RFC5810], Section 5 lists requirements that a TML needs to meet.
 This section describes how the SCTP TML satisfies those requirements.

4.2.2.1. Satisfying Reliability Requirement

 As mentioned earlier, a shade of reliability ranges is possible in
 SCTP.  Therefore, this requirement is met.

4.2.2.2. Satisfying Congestion Control Requirement

 Congestion control is built into SCTP.  Therefore, this requirement
 is met.

4.2.2.3. Satisfying Timeliness and Prioritization Requirement

 By using three sockets in conjunction with the partial-reliability
 feature [RFC3758], both timeliness and prioritization requirements
 are addressed.

4.2.2.4. Satisfying Addressing Requirement

 There are no extra headers required for SCTP to fulfill this
 requirement.  SCTP can be told to replicast packets to multiple
 destinations.  The TML implementation will need to translate PL
 addresses to a variety of unicast IP addresses in order to emulate
 multicast and broadcast PL addresses.

4.2.2.5. Satisfying High-Availability Requirement

 Transport link resiliency is one of SCTP's strongest points.  Failure
 detection and recovery is built in, as mentioned earlier.

Hadi Salim & Ogawa Standards Track [Page 14] RFC 5811 ForCES SCTP TML March 2010

 o  The SCTP multi-homing feature is used to provide path diversity.
    Should one of the peer IP addresses become unreachable, the others
    are used without needing lower-layer convergence (routing, for
    example) or even the TML becoming aware.
 o  SCTP heartbeats and data transmission thresholds are used on a
    per-peer IP address to detect reachability faults.  The faults
    could be a result of an unreachable address or peer, which may be
    caused by a variety of reasons, like interface, network, or
    endpoint failures.  The cause of the fault is noted.
 o  With the ADDIP feature, one can migrate IP addresses to other
    nodes at runtime.  This is not unlike the Virtual Router
    Redundancy Protocol (VRRP) [RFC5798] use.  This feature is used in
    addition to multi-homing in a planned migration of activity from
    one FE/CE to another.  In such a case, part of the provisioning
    recipe at the CE for replacing an FE involves migrating activity
    of one FE to another.

4.2.2.6. Satisfying Node Overload Prevention Requirement

 The architecture of this TML defines three separate channels, one per
 socket, to be used within any FE-CE setup.  The work scheduling
 design for processing the TML channels (Section 4.2.1.5) is a strict
 priority.  A fundamental desire of the strict prioritization is to
 ensure that more important processing work always gets node resources
 over less important work.
 When a ForCES node CPU is overwhelmed because the incoming packet
 rate is higher than it can keep up with, the channel queues grow and
 transport congestion subsequently follows.  By virtue of using SCTP,
 the congestion is propagated back to the source of the incoming
 packets and eventually alleviated.
 The HP channel work gets prioritized at the expense of the MP, which
 gets prioritized over LP channels.  The preferential scheduling only
 kicks in when there is node overload regardless of whether there is
 transport congestion.  As a result of the preferential work
 treatment, the ForCES node achieves a robust steady processing
 capacity.  Refer to Appendix A.2 for details on scheduling.
 For an example of how the overload prevention works, consider a
 scenario where an overwhelming amount of redirected packets (from
 outside the NE) coming into the NE may overload the FE while it has
 outstanding config work from the CE.  In such a case, the FE, while
 it is busy processing config requests from the CE, essentially
 ignores processing the redirect packets on the LP channel.  If enough
 redirect packets accumulate, they are dropped either because the LP

Hadi Salim & Ogawa Standards Track [Page 15] RFC 5811 ForCES SCTP TML March 2010

 channel threshold is exceeded or because they are obsoleted.  If on
 the other hand, the FE has successfully processed the higher-priority
 channels and their related work, then it can proceed and process the
 LP channel.  So as demonstrated in this case, the TML ties transport
 congestion and node overload implicitly together.

4.2.2.7. Satisfying Encapsulation Requirement

 The SCTP TML sets SCTP PPIDs to identify channels used as described
 in Section 4.2.1.1.

5. SCTP TML Channel Work

 There are two levels of TML channel work within an NE when a ForCES
 node (CE or FE) is connected to multiple other ForCES nodes:
 1.  NE-level I/O work where a ForCES node (CE or FE) needs to choose
     which of the peer nodes to process.
 2.  Node-level I/O work where a ForCES node, handles the three SCTP
     TML channels separately for each single ForCES endpoint.
 NE-level scheduling definition is left up to the implementation and
 is considered out of scope for this document.  Appendix A.4 briefly
 discusses some constraints about which an implementer needs to worry.
 This document provides suggestions on SCTP channel work
 implementation in Appendix A.
 The FE SHOULD do channel connections to the CE in the order of
 incrementing priorities, i.e., LP socket first, followed by MP, and
 ending with HP socket connection.  The CE, however, MUST NOT assume
 that there is ordering of socket connections from any FE.

6. IANA Considerations

 Following the policies outlined in "Guidelines for Writing an IANA
 Considerations Section in RFCs" [RFC5226], the following namespaces
 are defined in ForCES SCTP TML.
 o  SCTP port 6704 for the HP channel, 6705 for the MP channel, and
    6706 for the LP channel.
 o  SCTP Payload Protocol ID (PPID) 21 for the HP channel (ForCES-HP),
    22 for the MP channel (ForCES-MP), and 23 for the LP channel
    (ForCES-LP).

Hadi Salim & Ogawa Standards Track [Page 16] RFC 5811 ForCES SCTP TML March 2010

7. Security Considerations

 The SCTP TML provides the following security services to the PL:
 o  A mechanism to authenticate ForCES CEs and FEs at the transport
    level in order to prevent the participation of unauthorized CEs
    and unauthorized FEs in the control and data path processing of a
    ForCES NE.
 o  A mechanism to ensure message authentication of PL data and
    headers transferred from the CE to FE (and vice versa) in order to
    prevent the injection of incorrect data into PL messages.
 o  A mechanism to ensure the confidentiality of PL data and headers
    transferred from the CE to FE (and vice versa), in order to
    prevent disclosure of PL information transported via the TML.
 Security choices provided by the TML are made by the operator and
 take effect during the pre-association phase of the ForCES protocol.
 An operator may choose to use all, some or none of the security
 services provided by the TML in a CE-FE connection.
 When operating under a secured environment, or for other operational
 concerns (in some cases performance issues) the operator may turn off
 all the security functions between CE and FE.
 IP Security Protocol (IPsec) [RFC4301] is used to provide needed
 security mechanisms.
 IPsec is an IP-level security scheme transparent to the higher-layer
 applications and therefore can provide security for any transport
 layer protocol.  This gives IPsec the advantage that it can be used
 to secure everything between the CE and FE without expecting the TML
 implementation to be aware of the details.
 The IPsec architecture is designed to provide message integrity and
 message confidentiality outlined in the TML security requirements
 [RFC5810].  Mutual authentication and key exchange protocol are
 provided by Internet Key Exchange (IKE) [RFC2409].

7.1. IPsec Usage

 A ForCES FE or CE MUST support the following:
 o  Internet Key Exchange (IKE)[RFC2409] with certificates for
    endpoint authentication.
 o  Transport Mode Encapsulating Security Payload (ESP) [RFC4303].

Hadi Salim & Ogawa Standards Track [Page 17] RFC 5811 ForCES SCTP TML March 2010

 o  HMAC-SHA1-96 [RFC2404] for message integrity protection
 o  AES-CBC with 128-bit keys [RFC3602] for message confidentiality.
 o  Replay protection [RFC4301].
 A compliant implementation SHOULD provide operational means for
 configuring the CE and FE to negotiate other cipher suites and even
 use manual keying.

7.1.1. SAD and SPD Setup

 To minimize the operational configuration, it is RECOMMENDED that
 only the IANA-issued SCTP protocol number (132) be used as a selector
 in the Security Policy Database (SPD) for ForCES.  In such a case,
 only a single SPD and SAD entry is needed.
 Setup MAY alternatively extend the above policy so that it uses the
 three SCTP TML port numbers as SPD selectors.  But as noted above,
 this choice will require an increased number of SPD entries.
 In scenarios where multiple IP addresses are used within a single
 association, and there is desire to configure different policies on a
 per-IP address, then following [RFC3554] is RECOMMENDED.

8. Acknowledgements

 The authors would like to thank Joel Halpern, Michael Tuxen, Randy
 Stewart, Evangelos Haleplidis, Chuanhuang Li, Lars Eggert, Avshalom
 Houri, Adrian Farrel, Juergen Quittek, Magnus Westerlund, and Pasi
 Eronen for engaging us in discussions that have made this document
 better.
 Ross Callon was an excellent manager who persevered in providing us
 guidance and Joel Halpern was an excellent document shepherd without
 whom this document would have taken longer to publish.

Hadi Salim & Ogawa Standards Track [Page 18] RFC 5811 ForCES SCTP TML March 2010

9. References

9.1. Normative References

 [RFC2119]  Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
            Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
 [RFC2404]  Madson, C. and R. Glenn, "The Use of HMAC-SHA-1-96 within
            ESP and AH", RFC 2404, November 1998.
 [RFC2409]  Harkins, D. and D. Carrel, "The Internet Key Exchange
            (IKE)", RFC 2409, November 1998.
 [RFC3554]  Bellovin, S., Ioannidis, J., Keromytis, A., and R.
            Stewart, "On the Use of Stream Control Transmission
            Protocol (SCTP) with IPsec", RFC 3554, July 2003.
 [RFC3602]  Frankel, S., Glenn, R., and S. Kelly, "The AES-CBC Cipher
            Algorithm and Its Use with IPsec", RFC 3602,
            September 2003.
 [RFC3758]  Stewart, R., Ramalho, M., Xie, Q., Tuexen, M., and P.
            Conrad, "Stream Control Transmission Protocol (SCTP)
            Partial Reliability Extension", RFC 3758, May 2004.
 [RFC4301]  Kent, S. and K. Seo, "Security Architecture for the
            Internet Protocol", RFC 4301, December 2005.
 [RFC4303]  Kent, S., "IP Encapsulating Security Payload (ESP)",
            RFC 4303, December 2005.
 [RFC4960]  Stewart, R., "Stream Control Transmission Protocol",
            RFC 4960, September 2007.
 [RFC5226]  Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an
            IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 5226,
            May 2008.
 [RFC5810]  Doria, A., Ed., Hadi Salim, J., Ed., HAAS, R., Ed.,
            Khosravi, H., Ed., Wang, W., Ed., Dong, L., Gopal, R., and
            J. Halpern, "Forwarding and Control Element Separation
            (ForCES) Protocol Specification", RFC 5810, March 2010.

Hadi Salim & Ogawa Standards Track [Page 19] RFC 5811 ForCES SCTP TML March 2010

9.2. Informative References

 [RFC3654]  Khosravi, H. and T. Anderson, "Requirements for Separation
            of IP Control and Forwarding", RFC 3654, November 2003.
 [RFC3746]  Yang, L., Dantu, R., Anderson, T., and R. Gopal,
            "Forwarding and Control Element Separation (ForCES)
            Framework", RFC 3746, April 2004.
 [RFC5812]  Halpern, J. and J. Hadi Salim, "Forwarding and Control
            Element Separation (ForCES) Forwarding Element Model",
            RFC 5812, March 2010.
 [RFC5798]  Nadas, S., Ed., "Virtual Router Redundancy Protocol (VRRP)
            Version 3 for IPv4 and IPv6", RFC 5798, March 2010.
 [TSVWG-SCTPSOCKET]
            Stewart, R., Poon, K., Tuexen, M., Yasevich, V., and P.
            Lei, "Sockets API Extensions for Stream Control
            Transmission Protocol (SCTP)", Work in Progress,
            March 2010.

Hadi Salim & Ogawa Standards Track [Page 20] RFC 5811 ForCES SCTP TML March 2010

Appendix A. Suggested SCTP TML Channel Work Implementation

 As mentioned in Section 5, there are two levels of TML channel work
 within an NE when a ForCES node (CE or FE) is connected to multiple
 other ForCES nodes:
 1.  NE-level I/O work where a ForCES node (CE or FE) needs to choose
     which of the peer nodes to process.
 2.  Node-level I/O work where a ForCES node, handles the three SCTP
     TML channels separately for each single ForCES endpoint.
 NE-level scheduling definition is left up to the implementation and
 is considered out of scope for this document.  Appendix A.4 briefly
 discusses some constraints about which an implementer needs to worry.
 This document, and in particular Appendix A.1, Appendix A.2, and
 Appendix A.3 discuss details of node-level I/O work.

A.1. SCTP TML Channel Initialization

 As discussed in Section 5, it is recommended that the FE SHOULD do
 socket connections to the CE in the order of incrementing priorities,
 i.e., LP socket first, followed by MP, and ending with HP socket
 connection.  The CE, however, MUST NOT assume that there is ordering
 of socket connections from any FE.  Appendix B.1 has more details on
 the expected initialization of SCTP channel work.

A.2. Channel Work Scheduling

 This section provides high-level details of the scheduling view of
 the SCTP TML core (Section 4.2.1).  A practical scheduler
 implementation takes care of many little details (such as timers,
 work quanta, etc.) not described in this document.  It is left to the
 implementer to take care of those details.
 The CE(s) and FE(s) are coupled together in the principles of the
 scheduling scheme described here to tie together node overload with
 transport congestion.  The design intent is to provide the highest
 possible robust work throughput for the NE under any network or
 processing congestion.

A.2.1. FE Channel Work Scheduling

 The FE scheduling, in priority order, needs to I/O process:
 1.  The HP channel I/O in the following priority order:

Hadi Salim & Ogawa Standards Track [Page 21] RFC 5811 ForCES SCTP TML March 2010

     1.  Transmitting back to the CE any outstanding result of
         executed work via the HP channel transmit path.
     2.  Taking new incoming work from the CE that creates ForCES work
         to be executed by the FE.
 2.  ForCES events that result in transmission of unsolicited ForCES
     packets to the CE via the MP channel.
 3.  Incoming Redirect work in the form of control packets that come
     from the CE via LP channel.  After redirect processing, these
     packets get sent out on external (to the NE) interface.
 4.  Incoming Redirect work in the form of control packets that come
     from other NEs via external (to the NE) interfaces.  After some
     processing, such packets are sent to the CE.
 It is worth emphasizing, at this point again, that the SCTP TML
 processes the channel work in strict priority.  For example, as long
 as there are messages to send to the CE on the HP channel, they will
 be processed first until there are no more left before processing the
 next priority work (which is to read new messages on the HP channel
 incoming from the CE).

A.2.2. CE Channel Work Scheduling

 The CE scheduling, in priority order, needs to deal with:
 1.  The HP channel I/O in the following priority order:
     1.  Process incoming responses to requests of work it made to the
         FE(s).
     2.  Transmit any outstanding HP work it needs the FE(s) to
         complete.
 2.  Incoming ForCES events from the FE(s) via the MP channel.
 3.  Outgoing Redirect work in the form of control packets that get
     sent from the CE via LP channel destined to external (to the NE)
     interface on FE(s).
 4.  Incoming Redirect work in the form of control packets that come
     from other NEs via external interfaces (to the NE) on the FE(s).
 It is worth repeating, for emphasis, that the SCTP TML processes the
 channel work in strict priority.  For example, if there are messages
 incoming from an FE on the HP channel, they will be processed first

Hadi Salim & Ogawa Standards Track [Page 22] RFC 5811 ForCES SCTP TML March 2010

 until there are no more left before processing the next priority
 work, which is to transmit any outstanding HP channel messages going
 to the FE.

A.3. SCTP TML Channel Termination

 Appendix B.2 describes a controlled disassociation of the FE from the
 NE.
 It is also possible for connectivity to be lost between the FE and CE
 on one or more sockets.  In cases where SCTP multi-homing features
 are used for path availability, the disconnection of a socket will
 only occur if all paths are unreachable; otherwise, SCTP will ensure
 reachability.  In the situation of a total connectivity loss of even
 one SCTP socket, it is recommended that the FE and CE SHOULD assume a
 state equivalent to ForCES Association Teardown being issued and
 follow the sequence described in Appendix B.2.
 A CE could also disconnect sockets to an FE to indicate an "emergency
 teardown".  The "emergency teardown" may be necessary in cases when a
 CE needs to disconnect an FE but knows that an FE is busy processing
 a lot of outstanding commands (some of which the FE hasn't gotten
 around to processing, yet).  By virtue of the CE closing the
 connections, the FE will immediately be asynchronously notified and
 will not have to process any outstanding commands from the CE.

A.4. SCTP TML NE-Level Channel Scheduling

 In handling NE-level I/O work, an implementation needs to worry about
 being both fair and robust across peer ForCES nodes.
 Fairness is desired so that each peer node makes progress across the
 NE.  For the sake of illustration, consider two FEs connected to a
 CE; whereas one FE has a few HP messages that need to be processed by
 the CE, another may have infinite HP messages.  The scheduling scheme
 may decide to use a quota scheduling system to ensure that the second
 FE does not hog the CE cycles.
 Robustness is desired so that the NE does not succumb to a Denial-of-
 Service (DoS) attack from hostile entities and always achieves a
 maximum stable workload processing level.  For the sake of
 illustration, consider again two FEs connected to a CE.  Consider FE1
 as having a large number of HP and MP messages and FE2 having a large
 number of MP and LP messages.  The scheduling scheme needs to ensure
 that while FE1 always gets its messages processed, at some point we
 allow FE2 messages to be processed.  A promotion and preemption-based
 scheduling could be used by the CE to resolve this issue.

Hadi Salim & Ogawa Standards Track [Page 23] RFC 5811 ForCES SCTP TML March 2010

Appendix B. Suggested Service Interface

 This section outlines a high-level service interface between FEM/CEM
 and TML, the PL and TML, and between local and remote TMLs.  The
 intent of this interface discussion is to provide general guidelines.
 The implementer is expected to care of details and even follow a
 different approach if needed.
 The theory of operation for the PL-TML service is as follows:
 1.  The PL starts up and bootstraps the TML.  The end result of a
     successful TML bootstrap is that the CE TML and the FE TML
     connect to each other at the transport level.
 2.  Transmission and reception of the PL messages commences after a
     successful TML bootstrap.  The PL uses send and receive PL-TML
     interfaces to communicate to its peers.  The TML is agnostic to
     the nature of the messages being sent or received.  The first
     message exchanges that happen are to establish ForCES
     association.  Subsequent messages may be either unsolicited
     events from the FE PL, control message redirects to/from the CE
     to/from FE, or configuration from the CE to the FE, and their
     responses flowing from the FE to the CE.
 3.  The PL does a shutdown of the TML after terminating ForCES
     association.

B.1. TML Bootstrapping

 Figure 6 illustrates a flow for the TML bootstrapped by the PL.
 When the PL starts up (possibly after some internal initialization),
 it boots up the TML.  The TML first interacts with the FEM/CEM and
 acquires the necessary TML parameterization (Section 4.2.1.6).  Next,
 the TML uses the information it retrieved from the FEM/CEM interface
 to initialize itself.
 The TML on the FE proceeds to connect the three channels to the CE.
 The socket interface is used for each of the channels.  The TML
 continues to re-try the connections to the CE until all three
 channels are connected.  It is advisable that the number of
 connection retry attempts and the time between each retry is also
 configurable via the FEM.  On failure to connect one or more
 channels, and after the configured number of retry thresholds is
 exceeded, the TML will return an appropriate failure indicator to the
 PL.  On success (as shown in Figure 6), a success indication is
 presented to the PL.

Hadi Salim & Ogawa Standards Track [Page 24] RFC 5811 ForCES SCTP TML March 2010

 FE PL      FE TML           FEM  CEM        CE TML              CE PL
   |            |             |    |            |                    |
   |            |             |    |            |      Bootup        |
   |            |             |    |            |<-------------------|
   |  Bootup    |             |    |            |                    |
   |----------->|             |    |get CEM info|                    |
   |            |get FEM info |    |<-----------|                    |
   |            |------------>|    ~            ~                    |
   |            ~             ~    |----------->|                    |
   |            |<------------|                 |                    |
   |            |                               |-initialize TML     |
   |            |                               |-create the 3 chans.|
   |            |                               | to listen to FEs   |
   |            |                               |                    |
   |            |-initialize TML                |Bootup success      |
   |            |-create the 3 chans. locally   |------------------->|
   |            |-connect 3 chans. remotely     |                    |
   |            |------------------------------>|                    |
   |            ~                               ~ - FE TML connected ~
   |            ~                               ~ - FE TML info init ~
   |            | channels connected            |                    |
   |            |<------------------------------|                    |
   | Bootup     |                               |                    |
   | succeeded  |                               |                    |
   |<-----------|                               |                    |
   |            |                               |                    |
                   Figure 6: SCTP TML Bootstrapping
 On the CE, things are slightly different.  After initializing from
 the CEM, the TML on the CE side proceeds to initialize the three
 channels to listen to remote connections from the FEs.  The success
 or failure indication is passed on to the CE PL (in the same manner
 as was done in the FE).
 Post bootup, the CE TML waits for connections from the FEs.  Upon a
 successful connection by an FE, the CE TML level keeps track of the
 transport-level details of the FE.  Note, at this stage only
 transport-level connection has been established; ForCES-level
 association follows using send/receive PL-TML interfaces (refer to
 Appendix B.3 and Figure 8).

Hadi Salim & Ogawa Standards Track [Page 25] RFC 5811 ForCES SCTP TML March 2010

B.2. TML Shutdown

 Figure 7 shows an example of an FE shutting down the TML.  It is
 assumed at this point that the ForCES Association Teardown has been
 issued by the CE.  It should also be noted that different
 implementations may have different procedures for cleaning up state,
 etc.
 When the FE PL issues a shutdown to its TML for a specific PL ID, the
 TML releases all the channel connections to the CE.  This is achieved
 by closing the sockets used to communicate to the CE.  This results
 in the stack sending a SCTP shutdown, which is received on the CE.
 FE PL      FE TML                      CE TML              CE PL
   |            |                         |                    |
   |  Shutdown  |                         |                    |
   |----------->|                         |                    |
   |            |-disconnect 3 chans.     |                    |
   |            |-SCTP level shutdown     |                    |
   |            |------------------------>|                    |
   |            |                         |                    |
   |            |                         |TML detects shutdown|
   |            |                         |-FE TML info cleanup|
   |            |                         |-optionally tell PL |
   |            |                         |------------------->|
   |            |                         |                    |
   |            |- clean up any state of  |                    |
   |            |-channels disconnected   |                    |
   |            |<------------------------|                    |
   |            |-SCTP shutdown ACK       |                    |
   |            |                         |                    |
   | Shutdown   |                         |                    |
   | succeeded  |                         |                    |
   |<-----------|                         |                    |
   |            |                         |                    |
                      Figure 7: FE Shutting Down
 On the CE side, a TML disconnection would result in possible cleanup
 of the FE state.  Optionally, depending on the implementation, there
 may be need to inform the PL about the TML disconnection.  The CE-
 stack-level SCTP sends an acknowledgement to the FE TML in response
 to the earlier SCTP shutdown.

Hadi Salim & Ogawa Standards Track [Page 26] RFC 5811 ForCES SCTP TML March 2010

B.3. TML Sending and Receiving

 The TML should be agnostic to the content of the PL messages, or
 their operations.  The PL should provide enough information to the
 TML for it to assign an appropriate priority and loss behavior to the
 message.  Figure 8 shows an example of a message exchange originated
 at the FE and sent to the CE (such as a ForCES association message),
 which illustrates all the necessary service interfaces for sending
 and receiving.
 When the FE PL sends a message to the TML, the TML is expected to
 pick one of HP/MP/LP channels and send out the ForCES message.
 FE PL       FE TML           CE TML                CE PL
    |            |              |                      |
    |PL send     |              |                      |
    |----------->|              |                      |
    |            |              |                      |
    |            |              |                      |
    |            |-pick channel |                      |
    |            |-TML  Send    |                      |
    |            |------------->|                      |
    |            |              |                      |
    |            |              |-TML Receive on chan. |
    |            |              |- mux to PL/PL recv   |
    |            |              |--------------------->|
    |            |              |                      ~
    |            |              |                      ~ PL Process
    |            |              |                      ~
    |            |              |  PL send             |
    |            |              |<---------------------|
    |            |              |-pick chan to send on |
    |            |              |-TML send             |
    |            |<-------------|                      |
    |            |-TML Receive  |                      |
    |            |-mux to PL    |                      |
    | PL Recv    |              |                      |
    |<---------- |              |                      |
    |            |              |                      |
                     Figure 8: Send and Recv Flow
 When the CE TML receives the ForCES message on the channel on which
 it was sent, it demultiplexes the message to the CE PL.

Hadi Salim & Ogawa Standards Track [Page 27] RFC 5811 ForCES SCTP TML March 2010

 The CE PL, after some processing (in this example, dealing with the
 FE's association), sends the TML the response.  As in the case of FE
 PL, the CE TML picks the channel to send on before sending.
 The processing of the ForCES message upon arrival at the FE TML and
 delivery to the FE PL is similar to the CE side equivalent as shown
 above in Appendix B.3.

Authors' Addresses

 Jamal Hadi Salim
 Mojatatu Networks
 Ottawa, Ontario
 Canada
 EMail: hadi@mojatatu.com
 Kentaro Ogawa
 NTT Corporation
 3-9-11 Midori-cho
 Musashino-shi, Tokyo  180-8585
 Japan
 EMail: ogawa.kentaro@lab.ntt.co.jp

Hadi Salim & Ogawa Standards Track [Page 28]

/data/webs/external/dokuwiki/data/pages/rfc/rfc5811.txt · Last modified: 2010/03/15 23:10 by 127.0.0.1

Donate Powered by PHP Valid HTML5 Valid CSS Driven by DokuWiki