Skip to main content

Shared Memory Communications over RDMA
draft-fox-tcpm-shared-memory-rdma-00

The information below is for an old version of the document.
Document Type
This is an older version of an Internet-Draft that was ultimately published as RFC 7609.
Authors Mike Fox , Constantinos (Gus) Kassimis , Jerry Stevens
Last updated 2012-07-09
RFC stream (None)
Formats
IETF conflict review conflict-review-fox-tcpm-shared-memory-rdma, conflict-review-fox-tcpm-shared-memory-rdma, conflict-review-fox-tcpm-shared-memory-rdma, conflict-review-fox-tcpm-shared-memory-rdma, conflict-review-fox-tcpm-shared-memory-rdma, conflict-review-fox-tcpm-shared-memory-rdma
Stream Stream state (No stream defined)
Consensus boilerplate Unknown
RFC Editor Note (None)
IESG IESG state I-D Exists
Telechat date (None)
Responsible AD (None)
Send notices to (None)
draft-fox-tcpm-shared-memory-rdma-00
TCPM working group                                               M. Fox
Internet Draft                                              C. Kassimis
Intended Status: Informational                               J. Stevens
Expires: 12/31/2012                                                 IBM
                                                           July 9, 2012

                  Shared Memory Communications over RDMA
                draft-fox-tcpm-shared-memory-rdma-00.txt

Status of this Memo

   This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
   provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.

   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
   Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups.  Note that
   other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-
   Drafts.

   Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
   and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
   time.  It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
   material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."

   The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
   http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt

   The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
   http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html

   This Internet-Draft will expire on December 31, 2012.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2012 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.

Fox, et. Al.          Expires December 31, 2012                [Page 1]
Internet-Draft  Shared Memory Communications over RDMA        July 2012

Abstract

   This document describes the Shared Memory Communications over RDMA
   (SMC-R) protocol.  This protocol provides RDMA communications to TCP
   endpoints in a manner that is transparent to socket applications.  It
   further provides for dynamic discovery of partner RDMA capabilities
   and dynamic setup of RDMA connections, transparent high availability
   and load balancing when redundant RDMA network paths are available,
   and it maintains many of the traditional TCP/IP qualities of service
   such as filtering that enterprise users demand, as well as TCP socket
   semantics such as urgent data.

Table of Contents

   1. Introduction...................................................4
      1.1. Protocol overview.........................................5
      1.2. Definition of common terms................................7
   2. Link Architecture..............................................9
      2.1. Remote Memory Buffers (RMBs).............................10
      2.2. SMC-R Link groups........................................15
         2.2.1. Link types..........................................16
         2.2.2. Maximum number of links in link group...............19
         2.2.3. Forming and managing link groups....................20
         2.2.4. SMC-R link identifiers..............................21
      2.3. SMC-R resilience and load balancing......................22
   3. SMC-R Rendezvous architecture.................................23
      3.1. TCP options..............................................24
      3.2. Connection Layer Control (CLC) messages..................24
      3.3. LLC messages.............................................25
      3.4. Rendezvous flows.........................................26
         3.4.1. First contact.......................................26
            3.4.1.1. TCP Options pre-negotiation....................26
            3.4.1.2. Client Proposal................................27
            3.4.1.3. Server acceptance..............................28
            3.4.1.4. Client confirmation............................30
            3.4.1.5. Link (QP) confirmation.........................30
            3.4.1.6. Second SMC-R link setup........................33
               3.4.1.6.1. Client processing of "Add Link" LLC message
               from server..........................................33
               3.4.1.6.2. Server processing of "Add Link" reply LLC
               message from the client..............................34
               3.4.1.6.3. Exchange of Rkeys on second SMC-R link....36
               3.4.1.6.4. Aborting SMC-R and falling back to IP.....36
         3.4.2. Subsequent contact..................................36

Fox, et. al.             Expires Dec 31, 2012                  [Page 2]
Internet-Draft  Shared Memory Communications over RDMA        July 2012

            3.4.2.1. SMC-R proposal.................................37
            3.4.2.2. SMC-R acceptance...............................38
            3.4.2.3. SMC-R confirmation.............................39
            3.4.2.4. TCP data flow race with SMC Confirm CLC message39
         3.4.3. First contact variation: creating a parallel link group
         ...........................................................40
         3.4.4. Normal SMC-R link termination.......................41
         3.4.5. Link group management flows.........................42
            3.4.5.1. Adding and deleting links in an SMC-R link group42
               3.4.5.1.1. Server initiated Add Link processing......42
               3.4.5.1.2. Client initiated Add Link processing......43
               3.4.5.1.3. Server initiated Delete Link Processing...43
               3.4.5.1.4. Client initiated Delete Link request......45
            3.4.5.2. Managing multiple Rkeys over multiple SMC-R links
            in a link group.........................................47
               3.4.5.2.1. Adding a new RMB to an SMC-R link group...48
               3.4.5.2.2. Deleting an RMB from an SMC-R link group..51
               3.4.5.2.3. Adding a new SMC-R link to a link group with
               multiple RMBs........................................52
            3.4.5.3. Serialization of LLC exchanges, and collisions.53
               3.4.5.3.1. Collisions with ADD LINK / CONFIRM LINK
               exchange.............................................55
               3.4.5.3.2. Collisions during DELETE LINK exchange....56
               3.4.5.3.3. Collisions during CONFIRM_RKEY exchange...56
   4. SMC-R memory sharing architecture.............................58
      4.1. RMB element allocation considerations....................58
      4.2. Format of an RMBE control area...........................58
      4.3. Use of RMBEs.............................................62
         4.3.1. Initializing and accessing RMBEs....................62
         4.3.2. RMB element reuse and conflict resolution...........64
      4.4. SMC-R protocol considerations............................64
         4.4.1. SMC-R protocol optimized window size updates........64
         4.4.2. Small data sends....................................66
         4.4.3. TCP Keepalive processing............................66
      4.5. RMB data flows...........................................69
         4.5.1. Scenario 1: Send flow, window size unconstrained....69
         4.5.2. Scenario 2: Send/Receive flow, window unconstrained.71
         4.5.3. Scenario 3: Send Flow, window constrained...........73
         4.5.4. Scenario 4: Large send, flow control, full window size
         writes.....................................................75
         4.5.5. Scenario 5: Send flow, urgent data, window size
         unconstrained..............................................77
         4.5.6. Scenario 6: Send flow, urgent data, window size closed80
      4.6. Connection termination...................................82
         4.6.1. Normal SMC-R connection termination flows...........82
            4.6.1.1. Abnormal SMC-R connection termination flows....87
            4.6.1.2. Other SMC-R connection termination conditions..89

Fox, et. al.             Expires Dec 31, 2012                  [Page 3]
Internet-Draft  Shared Memory Communications over RDMA        July 2012

   5. Security considerations.......................................90
      5.1. VLAN considerations......................................90
      5.2. Firewall considerations..................................90
      5.3. IP Filters...............................................91
      5.4. Intrusion Detection Services.............................91
      5.5. IP Security (IPSec)......................................91
      5.6. TLS/SSL..................................................91
   6. IANA considerations...........................................91
   7. References....................................................92
      7.1. Normative References.....................................92
      7.2. Informative References...................................92
   8. Acknowledgments...............................................92
   9. Conventions used in this document.............................92
   Appendix A. Formats..............................................93
      A.1. TCP option...............................................93
      A.2. CLC messages.............................................93
         A.2.1. Peer ID format......................................93
         A.2.2. SMC Proposal CLC message format.....................95
         A.2.3. SMC Accept CLC message format.......................97
         A.2.4. SMC Confirm CLC message format.....................100
         A.2.5. SMC Decline CLC message format.....................102
      A.3. LLC messages............................................103
         A.3.1. CONFIRM LINK LLC message format....................104
         A.3.2. ADD LINK LLC message format........................106
         A.3.3. ADD LINK CONTINUATION LLC message format...........109
         A.3.4. DELETE LINK LLC message format.....................112
         A.3.5. CONFIRM RKEY LLC message format....................114
         A.3.6. TEST LINK LLC message format.......................117
   Appendix B. Socket API considerations...........................119
   Appendix C. Rendezvous Error scenarios..........................122
      C.1. SMC Decline during CLC negotiation......................122
      C.2. SMC Decline during LLC negotiation......................122
      C.3. The SMC Decline window..................................124
      C.4. Out of synch conditions during SMC-R negotiation........124
      C.5. Timeouts during CLC negotiation.........................125
      C.6. Protocol errors during CLC negotiation..................125
      C.7. Timeouts during LLC negotiation.........................126
         C.7.1. Recovery actions for LLC timeouts and failures.....127
      C.8. Failure to add second SMC-R link to a link group........132

1. Introduction

   This document is a specification of the Shared Memory Communications
   over RDMA (SMC-R) protocol. SMC-R is a protocol for Remote Direct
   Memory Access (RDMA) communication between TCP socket endpoints. SMC-
   R runs over networks that support RDMA over Converged Ethernet
   (RoCE).  It is designed to permit existing TCP applications to

Fox, et. al.             Expires Dec 31, 2012                  [Page 4]
Internet-Draft  Shared Memory Communications over RDMA        July 2012

   benefit from RDMA without requiring modifications to the applications
   or predefinition of RDMA partners.

   SMC-R provides dynamic discovery of the RDMA capabilities of TCP
   peers and automatic setup of RDMA connections that those peers can
   use.  SMC-R also provides transparent high availability and load
   balancing capabilities that are demanded by enterprise installations
   but are missing from current RDMA protocols.  If redundant RoCE
   capable hardware such as RDMA NICs (RNICs)and RoCE capable switches
   is present, SMC-R can load balance over that redundant hardware and
   can also non-disruptively move TCP traffic from failed paths to
   surviving paths, all seamlessly to the application and the sockets
   layer. Because SMC-R preserves socket semantics and the TCP three-way
   handshake, many TCP qualities of service such as filtering, load
   balancing, and SSL encryption are preserved, as are TCP features such
   as urgent data.

   Because of the dynamic discovery and setup of SMC-R connectivity
   between peers, no RDMA connection manager is required.

   It is recommended that the SMC-R services be implemented in kernel
   space, which enables optimizations such as resource sharing between
   connections across multiple processes and also permits applications
   using SMC-R to spawn multiple processes (e.g. fork) without losing
   SMC-R functionality. A user space implementation is compatible with
   this architecture, but it may not support spawned processes (i.e.
   fork) which limits sharing and resource optimization to TCP
   connections that originate from the same process.  This might be an
   appropriate design choice if the use case is a system that hosts a
   large single process application that creates many TCP connections to
   a peer host, or in implementations where a kernel space
   implementation is not possible or introduces excessive overhead for
   kernel space to user space context switches.

1.1. Protocol overview

   SMC-R defines the concept of the SMC-R Link, which is a logical
   point-to-point link between TCP/IP stack peers over a RoCE fabric.
   An SMC-R link is bound to a specific hardware path, meaning a
   specific RNIC on each peer. SMC-R links are created and maintained by
   an SMC-R layer, which may reside in kernel or user space depending
   upon operating system and implementation requirements. The SMC-R
   layer resides below the sockets layer and directs data traffic for
   TCP connections between connected peers over the RoCE fabric using
   RDMA rather than over a TCP connection. The TCP/IP stack with its
   fragmentation, packetization, etc requirements is bypassed and the
   application data is moved between peers using RDMA.

Fox, et. al.             Expires Dec 31, 2012                  [Page 5]
Internet-Draft  Shared Memory Communications over RDMA        July 2012

   An SMC-R link manages Remote Memory Buffers (RMBs), which are areas
   of memory that are available for SMC-R peers to write into using RDMA
   writes.  Multiple TCP connections between peers may be multiplexed
   over a single SMC-R link, in which case the SMC-R layer manages the
   partitioning of the RMBs between the TCP connections.  This
   multiplexing reduces the RDMA resources such as queue pairs and RMBs
   that are required to support multiple connections between stack
   peers, and also reduces the processing and delays related to setting
   up queue pairs, pinning memory, and other RDMA setup tasks when new
   TCP connections are created.   In a kernel space SMC-R implementation
   in which the RMBs reside in kernel storage, this sharing and
   optimization works across multiple processes executing on the same
   host.  In a user space SMC-R implementation in which the RMBs reside
   in user space, this sharing and optimization is limited to multiple
   TCP connections created by a single process, as separate RMBs and QPs
   will be required for each process.

   Multiple SMC-R links between the same two TCP/IP stack peers are also
   supported.  If there is redundant hardware, for example two RNICs on
   each peer, separate SMC-R links are created between the peers to
   exploit that redundant hardware. The redundant links are available
   for load balancing as well as seamless failover. A set of SMC-R links
   that provides redundant connectivity is called a link group.

   SMC-R also introduces a rendezvous protocol that is used to
   dynamically discover the RDMA capabilities of TCP connection partners
   and exploit that capability if present.  TCP connections are set up
   using the normal TCP 3-way handshake, with the addition of a new TCP
   option that indicates SMC-R capability.  If both partners indicate
   SMC-R capability then at the completion of the 3-way TCP handshake
   the SMC-R layers in each peer take control of the TCP connection and
   use it to exchange additional connection level control (CLC) messages
   to negotiate SMC-R parameters such as queue pair (QP) information,
   addressability over the RoCE fabric, RMB buffer sizes, keys for
   accessing RMBs over RDMA, etc.  If at any time during this
   negotiation a failure or decline occurs, the TCP connection falls
   back to using the IP fabric.

   If the SMC-R negotiation succeeds and either a new SMC-R link is set
   up or an existing SMC-R link is chosen for the TCP connection, then
   the SMC-R layers open the sockets to the applications and the
   applications use the sockets as normal.  The SMC-R layer intercepts
   the socket reads and writes and moves the TCP connection data over
   the SMC-R link, "out of band" to the TCP connection which remains
   open and idle, except for termination flows and possible keepalive
   flows.  Regular TCP sequence numbering methods are used for the TCP

Fox, et. al.             Expires Dec 31, 2012                  [Page 6]
Internet-Draft  Shared Memory Communications over RDMA        July 2012

   flows that do occur; data flowing over RDMA does not use or affect
   TCP sequence numbers.

   This architecture does not support fallback of active SMC-R
   connections to IP. Once connection data has completed the switch to
   RDMA, a TCP connection cannot be switched back to IP and will reset
   if RDMA becomes unusable.

   The SMC-R protocol defines the format of the Remote Memory Buffers
   that are used to receive TCP connection data written over RDMA, as
   well as the semantics for managing and writing to these buffers.

   Finally, SMC-R defines link level control (LLC) messages that are
   exchanged over the RoCE fabric between peer SMC-R layers to manage
   the SMC-R links and link groups.  These include messages to test and
   confirm connectivity over an SMC-R link, add and delete SMC-R links
   to or from the link group, and exchange RMB addressability
   information.

1.2. Definition of common terms

   This section provides definitions of terms that have a specific
   meaning to the SMC-R protocol and are used throughout this document.

   SMC-R link

      An SMC-R Link is a logical point to point connection over the
      RoCE fabric via specific physical adapters (MAC/GID).  The Link
      is formed during the first contact sequence of the TCP/IP 3 way
      handshake sequence that occurs over the IP fabric.  During this
      handshake an RDMA RC-QP connection is formed between the two peer
      SMC hosts and is defined as the SMC Link. The SMC Link can then
      support multiple TCP connections between the two peers.  An SMC
      link is associated with a single VLAN.

   SMC-R link group

      An SMC-R Link Group is a group of SMC-R Links typically each over
      unique RoCE adapters between the same two SMC-R peers.  Each link
      in the link group has equal characteristics such as the same VLAN
      ID, access to the same RMB(s) and the same TCP server / client

   SMC-R peer

      The SMC-R Peer stack is the peer software stack within the peer
      Operating System with respect the Shared Memory Communications
      (messaging) protocol.

Fox, et. al.             Expires Dec 31, 2012                  [Page 7]
Internet-Draft  Shared Memory Communications over RDMA        July 2012

   SMC-R Rendezvous

      The SMC-R Rendezvous is the SMC-R peer discovery and handshake
      sequence that occurs transparently over the IP (Ethernet) fabric
      during and immediately after the TCP connection 3 way handshake
      by exchanging the SMC capabilities and credentials using
      experimental TCP option and CLC messages.

   TCP Client

      The TCP socket-based peer that initiates a TCP connection

   TCP Server

      The TCP socket-based peer that accepts a TCP connection

   CLC messages

      The SMC-R protocol defines a set of Connection Layer Control
      Messages that flow over the TCP connection that are used to
      manage SMC link rendezvous at TCP connection setup time. These
      messages are analogous to SSL setup messages

   LLC Commands

      The SMC-R protocol defines a set of RoCE Link Layer Control
      Commands that flow over the RoCE fabric that are used to manage
      SMC Links, SMC Link Groups and SMC Link Group RMB expansion and
      contraction.

   RMB

      A Remote (RDMA) Memory Buffer is a fixed or pinned buffer
      allocated in each of the peer hosts for a TCP (via SMC-R)
      connection. The RMB is registered to the RNIC and allows remote
      access by the remote stack using RDMA semantics. Each host is
      passed the peer's RMB specific access information (RKey and RMB
      Element offset) during the SMC-R rendezvous process. The hosts
      stores socket application user data (socket send) and SMC control
      information directly into the peer's RMB using RDMA over RoCE.

   RMBE

      The Remote Memory Buffer Element is an area of an RMB that is
      allocated to a specific TCP connection.  The RMBE contains both
      control and user data. The RMBE represents the TCP receive buffer
      whereby the remote peer writes into the RMBE and the local peer

Fox, et. al.             Expires Dec 31, 2012                  [Page 8]
Internet-Draft  Shared Memory Communications over RDMA        July 2012

      reads from the local RMBE. The alert token resolves to a specific
      RMBE.

   Alert Token

      The SMC-R alert token is a a four byte value that uniquely
      identifies the TCP connection over an SMC-R connection.  The
      alert token is passed as immediate data on RDMA write operations
      to allow the SMC peer to quickly identify the target TCP
      connection that now has new work. The format of the token is
      defined by the owning SMC-R end point and is considered opaque to
      the remote peer.

   RNIC

      The RDMA capable Network Interface Card (RNIC) is an Ethernet NIC
      that supports RDMA semantics and verbs using RoCE.

   First Contact

      Describes an SMC-R negotiation to set up the first link in a link
      group

   Subsequent Contact

      Describes an SMC-R negotiation between peers who are using an
      already existing SMC-R link group

2. Link Architecture

   An SMC-R link is based on reliably connected queue pairs (QPs) that
   form a "logical point to point link" between the two SMC-R peers over
   a RoCE fabric. An SMC-R link extends from SMC-R to SMC-R stack, where
   typically each peer stack would reside on separate hosts.

Fox, et. al.             Expires Dec 31, 2012                  [Page 9]
Internet-Draft  Shared Memory Communications over RDMA        July 2012

                           ,,.--..,_
    +----+             _-``         `-,           +-----+
    |QP 8|            -   RoCE         ',         |QP 64|
    |    |          /     VLAN M         .        |     |
    +----+--------+/                     \+-------+-----+
     | RNIC 1     |    SMC-R Link         | RNIC 2     |
     |            |<--------------------->|            |
     +------------+ ,                    /+------------+
             MAC A (GID A)             MAC B (GID B)
                      .                .`
                       `',          ,-`
                          ``''--''``

                       Figure 1   SMC-R Link Overview

   Figure 1 illustrates an overview of the basic concepts of SMC-R peer
   to peer connectivity which is called the SMC-R Link. The SMC-R Link
   forms a logical point to point connection between two SMC-R peers via
   RoCE.  The SMC Link is defined and identified by the following
   attributes:

   SMC-R Link = RC QPs (source VMAC GID QP + target VMAC GID QP + VLAN
   ID)

   The SMC-R Link is associated with a single and specific VLAN ID. VLAN
   exploitation is required for SMC-R as it is a key isolation attribute
   of this architecture.  The RoCE fabric is the same physical fabric
   used for standard TCP/IP over Ethernet communications, with Converged
   Enhanced Ethernet (CEE_enabled) switches.

   An SMC-R Link is designed to support multiple TCP connections between
   the same two peers.  An SMC Link is intended to be long lived while
   the underlying TCP connections can dynamically come and go.  The
   associated RMBs can also be dynamically added and removed from the
   link as needed. The first TCP connection between the peers
   establishes the SMC-R link. Subsequent TCP connections then use the
   previously established link. When the last TCP connection terminates
   the link can then be terminated, typically after an implementation
   defined idle time-out period has elapsed.  The TCP server is
   responsible for initiating and terminating the SMC Link.

2.1. Remote Memory Buffers (RMBs)

   Figure 2 shows the hosts X and Y and their associated RMBs within
   each host. With the SMC-R link and the associated RMB keys (Rkeys)

Fox, et. al.             Expires Dec 31, 2012                 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft  Shared Memory Communications over RDMA        July 2012

   each SMC stack can remotely access its peer's RMBs using RDMA. The
   RKeys are exchanged during the rendezvous processing when the link is
   established.   Note that the SMC-R Link ends at the QP providing
   access to the RMB (via the Link + RKey).

   It is also important to note that this version of SMC-R exploits zero
   based virtual addressing, which is an optional Infiniband feature.
   This allows RMBs to be addressed via RKey and offset without
   requiring virtual addresses to be exchanged during rendezvous
   processing.  Future extensions that use Infiniband virtual addresses
   are possible if required.  These extensions would primarily alter the
   rendezvous flows to add virtual address information, and the basic
   concepts of this architecture would be unchanged.

         Host X                                     Host Y
    +-------------------+        ,.--.,_       +-------------------+
    |                   |     .'`       '.     |                   |
    | Protection        |   ,'            `,   |    Protection     |
    | Domain X          |  /                \  |    Domain Y       |
    |            +------+ /                  \ +------+            |
    |       QP 8 |RNIC 1| |   SMC-R Link     | |RNIC 2| QP 64      |
    |        |   |      |<-------------------->|      |   |        |
    |        |   |      ||                    ||      |   |        |
    |        |   +------+|    VLAN A          |+------+   |        |
    |        |          ||                    ||          |        |
    |        |          | |   RoCE           | |          |        |
    |        |Rkey (X)  | \                  / |  Rkey (Y)|        |
    |        |          |  \                /  |          |        |
    |        V          |   `.            ,'   |          V        |
    | +--------+        |     '._       ,'     |        +--------+ |
    | |        |        |        `''-'``       |        |        | |
    | | RMB    |        |                      |        | RMB    | |
    | |        |        |                      |        |        | |
    | +--------+        |                      |        +--------+ |
    +-------------------+                      +-------------------+
                        Figure 2   SMC link and RMBs

   An SMC-R link can support multiple RMBs which are independently
   managed by each peer. The number of and the size of RMBs are managed
   by the peers based on host unique memory management requirements. The
   QP has a single protection domain, but each RMB has a unique RKey.
   All RKeys must be exchanged with the peer.

Fox, et. al.             Expires Dec 31, 2012                 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft  Shared Memory Communications over RDMA        July 2012

   Each peer manages the RMBs in its local memory for its remote SMC-R
   peer by sharing access to the RMBs via RKeys with its peers.  The
   remote peer writes into the RMBs via RDMA and the local peer (RMB
   owner) then reads from the RMBs.

   When two peers decide to use SMC-R for a given TCP connection, they
   each allocate a local RMB Element for the TCP connection and
   communicate the location of this local RMB Element during rendezvous
   processing. To that end, RMB elements are created in pairs, with one
   RMB element allocated locally on each peer of the SMC-R link.

               ---  +----------------------------+
               /\   |                            |
                |   |   Control Area             |
                |   +----------------------------+
                |   |                            |
      RMB Element 1 |                            |
                |   |   Receive Buffer           |
                |   |                            |
                |   |                            |
               \/   |                            |
               ---  +----------------------------+
               /\   |                            |
                |   |   Control Area             |
                |   +----------------------------+
                |   |                            |
      RMB Element 2 |                            |
                |   |   Receive Buffer           |
                |   |                            |
                |   |                            |
               \/   |                            |
               ---  +----------------------------+
                    |           .                |
                    |           .                |
                    |           .                |
                    |           .                |
                    |    (up to 255 elements)    |
                    +----------------------------+
                            Figure 3   RMB Format

   Figure 3 illustrates the basic format of an RMB. The RMB is a
   contiguous block of pinned memory that can support up to 255 TCP
   connections to exactly one remote SMC-R peer. Each RMB is therefore
   associated with the SMC-R links for the two peers and a specific RoCE

Fox, et. al.             Expires Dec 31, 2012                 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft  Shared Memory Communications over RDMA        July 2012

   Protection Domain. Other than the 2 peers identified by the SMC-R
   link no other SMC-R peers can have RDMA access to an RMB; this
   requires a unique Protection Domain for every SMC-R Link. This is
   critical to ensure integrity of SMC-R communications.

   RMBs are allocated with multiple entries for efficiency; multiple TCP
   connections across an SMC link can share the same memory for RDMA
   purposes, reducing the overhead of having to register additional
   memory with the RNIC for every new TCP connection. The number of
   entries in an RMB and the size of each RMB Element is entirely
   governed by the owning peer subject to the SMC-R architecture rules.
   Each peer can decide the level of resource sharing that is desirable
   across TCP connections based on local constraints such as available
   system memory, etc. Each RMB supports multiple RMB Elements, one per
   TCP connection; however, all RMB elements within a given RMB must
   have the same size. An RMB Element is identified to the remote SMC-R
   peer via an RMB Element Token which consists of the following:

   o  RMB Rkey: RNIC provided memory token that identifies the start of
      the RMB for RDMA operations; as indicated earlier, SMC-R uses zero
      based virtual addressing when registering RMB memory regions and
      therefore eliminates the need for having an additional virtual
      address to represent the start of an RMB.

   o  RMB Index: Identifies the RMB element index in the RMB. Used to
      locate a specific RMB element within an RMB. Valid value range is
      1-255.

   o  RMB element length: The length of the RMB element's control area
      plus the length of receive buffer.  This length is equal for all
      RMB elements in a given RMB.  This length can be variable across
      different RMBs.

   Multiple RMBs can be associated to an SMC-R link and each peer in an
   SMC-R link manages allocation of its RMBs. RMB allocation can be
   asymmetric.  For example, server X can allocate 2 RMBs to an SMC-R
   link while server Y allocates 5.  This provides maximum
   implementation flexibility to allow hosts optimize RMB management for
   their own local requirements.

   One use case for multiple RMBs is multiple receive buffer sizes.
   Since every element in an RMB must be the same size, multiple RMBs
   with different element sizes can be allocated if varying receive
   buffer sizes are required.

   Also since the maximum number of TCP connections whose receive
   buffers can be allocated to an RMB is 255, multiple RMBs may be

Fox, et. al.             Expires Dec 31, 2012                 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft  Shared Memory Communications over RDMA        July 2012

   required to provide capacity for large numbers of TCP connections
   between two peers.

   As shown in Figure 3, each RMB element contains a control area and a
   receive buffer.  The control area contains flags for maintaining the
   state of the TCP data (for example, urgent indicator) and most
   importantly, two cursors which are illustrated in Figure 4:

   o  The peer producer cursor:  This is a wrapping offset into this RMB
      element's receive buffer that points to the next byte of data to
      be written by the peer.  This cursor is maintained by the peer
      using RDMA writes into the control area, and tells the local stack
      how far it can consume data in the RMBE write buffer.

   o  The peer consumer cursor:  This is a wrapping offset into the
      peer's RMB element's receive buffer that points to the next byte
      of data to be consumed by the peer in its own RMBE. This stack
      cannot write into the peer's  RMBE beyond this point without
      causing data loss.

   Each TCP connection peer maintains its cursors for a TCP connection's
   RMBE in its peer RMBE.  In other words, the stack who writes into a
   peer's RMBE maintains its producer cursor in the control area of the
   peer's RMBE.  The stack who reads from its RMBE maintains its
   consumer cursor in the control area of its peer's RMBE.  In this
   manner the reads and writes between peers are kept coordinated.

   For example, referring to Figure 4, peer B writes the hashed data
   into the receive buffer of peer A's RMBE.  After that write
   completes, peer B uses an RDMA write to update its producer cursor in
   peer A's RMBE control area to indicate to peer A how much data is
   available to be consumed.  Once that write is complete, peer B "wakes
   up" peer A by writing a write complete indicator with notification.

   Similarly, when peer A consumes data written by peer B, it uses an
   RDMA write to update its consumer cursor in peer B's RMBE control
   area to let peer B know how much data it has consumed, so peer B
   knows how much space is available for further writes.  If peer B were
   to write enough data to peer A that it would wrap the RMBE receive
   buffer and exceed the consumer cursor, data loss would result.

Fox, et. al.             Expires Dec 31, 2012                 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft  Shared Memory Communications over RDMA        July 2012

             Peer A's RMBE                       Peer B's RMBE
     +--------------------------+          +--------------------------+
     |                          |          |                          |
      /----Peer producer cursor |    +-----+-Peer consumer cursor     |
    /|                          |    |     |                          |
   | +--------------------------+    |     +--------------------------+
   | |                          |    |     |                          |
   | |                          |    |     |                          |
   | |            +------------------+     |                          |
   | |            |             |          |                          |
   | |            \/            |          |                          |
   | |             +------------|          |                          |
   | |-------------+/////////// |          |                          |
   | |//RMA data written by /// |          |                          |
   | |/// peer B that is ////// |          |                          |
   | |/available to be consumed/|          |                          |
   | |///////////////////////// |          |                          |
   | |///////// +---------------|          |                          |
   | |----------+/\             |          |                          |
   | |            |             |          |                          |
    \|            |             |          |                          |
     \           /              |          |                          |
     |\---------/               |          |                          |
     |                          |          |                          |
     |                          |          |                          |
     +--------------------------+          +--------------------------+
                           Figure 4  RMBE cursors

   RMBEs contain additional flags and indicators in their control areas.
   In all cases, these flags and indicators are updated by the peer
   using RDMA writes.  Like the consumer cursor, an indicator may
   provide status about the peer RMBE rather than the RMBE in which the
   indicator resides.  More details on these additional flags and
   indicators are described in 4.2. Format of an RMBE control area.

2.2. SMC-R Link groups

   SMC-R links are be logically grouped together to form an SMC-R Link
   Group. The purpose of the Link Group is for supporting multiple links
   between the same two peers to provide for:

Fox, et. al.             Expires Dec 31, 2012                 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft  Shared Memory Communications over RDMA        July 2012

   o  Resilience: Provides transparent and dynamic switching of the link
      used by existing TCP connections during link failures, typically
      hardware related. TCP traffic using the failing link can be
      switched to an active link within the link group avoiding
      disruptions to application workloads.

   o  Link utilization: Provides an active/active link usage model
      allowing TCP traffic to be balanced across the links, which
      increases bandwidth and avoids hardware imbalances and
      bottlenecks.  Note that both adapter and switch utilization can
      become potential resource constraint issues

   SMC-R Link Group support is required. Resilience is not optional.

   Multiple links that are formed between the same two peers fall into
   two distinct categories:

     1. Equal Links: Links providing equal access to the same RMB(s) at
        both endpoints whereby all TCP connections associated with the
        links must have the same VLAN ID and have the same TCP server
        and TCP client roles or relationship.

     2. Unequal Links: Links providing access to unique, unrelated and
        isolated RMB(s) (i.e. for unique VLANs or unique and isolated
        application workloads, etc.) or have unique TCP server or client
        roles.

   Links that are logically grouped together forming an SMC Link Group
   must be equal links.

2.2.1. Link types

   Equal links within a link group also have another "Link Type"
   attribute based on the link's associated underlying physical path.
   The following SMC-R link types are defined:

     1. Single Link: the only active link within a link group

     2. Parallel Link: not allowed - SMC Links having the same physical
        RNIC at both hosts

     3. Asymmetric Link: links that have unique RNIC adapters at one
        host but share a single adapter at the peer host

     4. Symmetric Link:  links that have unique RNIC adapters at both
        hosts

Fox, et. al.             Expires Dec 31, 2012                 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft  Shared Memory Communications over RDMA        July 2012

   These link types are further explained in the following figures and
   descriptions.

   Figure 2 above shows the single link case. The single link
   illustrated in Figure 2 also establishes the SMC-R Link Group. Link
   groups are supposed to have multiple links, but when only one RNIC is
   available at both hosts then only a single link can be created. This
   is expected to be a transient case.

   Figure 5 shows the symmetric link case. Both hosts have unique and
   redundant RNIC adapters. This configuration meets the objectives for
   providing full RoCE redundancy required to provide the level of
   resilience required for high availability for SMC-R. While this
   configuration is not required, it is a strongly recommended "best
   practice" for the exploitation of SMC-R.  Single and asymmetric links
   must be supported but are intended to provide for short term
   transient conditions, for example during a temporary outage or
   recycle of a RNIC.

         Host X                                     Host Y
    +-------------------+                      +-------------------+
    |                   |                      |                   |
    | Protection        |                      |    Protection     |
    | Domain X          |                      |    Domain Y       |
    |            +------+                      +------+            |
    |       QP 8 |RNIC 1|     SMC-R Link 1     |RNIC 2| QP 64      |
    | RKey X |   |      |<-------------------->|      |   |        |
    |        |   |      |                      |      |   | RKey Y |
    |       \/   +------+                      +------+  \/        |
    |+--------+         |                      |        +--------+ |
    ||        |         |                      |        |        | |
    || RMB    |         |                      |        | RMB    | |
    ||        |         |                      |        |        | |
    |+--------+         |                      |        +--------+ |
    |       /\   +------+                      +------+  /\        |
    | RKey Z |   |      |     SMC-R Link 2     |      |   | Rkey W |
    |        |   |RNIC 3|<-------------------->|RNIC 4|   |        |
    |       QP 9 |      |                      |      | QP 65      |
    |            +------+                      +------+            |
    +-------------------+                      +-------------------+
                       Figure 5  Symmetric SMC-R links

Fox, et. al.             Expires Dec 31, 2012                 [Page 17]
Internet-Draft  Shared Memory Communications over RDMA        July 2012

         Host X                                     Host Y
    +-------------------+                      +-------------------+
    |                   |                      |                   |
    | Protection        |                      |    Protection     |
    | Domain X          |                      |    Domain Y       |
    |            +------+                      +------+            |
    |       QP 8 |RNIC 1|     SMC-R Link 1     |RNIC 2| QP 64      |
    | RKey X |   |      |<-------------------->|      |   |        |
    |        |   |      |                   .->|      |   | RKey Y |
    |       \/   +------+                 .`   +------+  \/        |
    |+--------+         |               .`     |        +--------+ |
    ||        |         |             .`       |        |        | |
    || RMB    |         |           .`         |        | RMB    | |
    ||        |         |         .`SMC-R      |        |        | |
    |+--------+         |       .` Link 2      |        +--------+ |
    |       /\   +------+     .`               +------+            |
    | RKey Z |   |      |   .`                 |      |down or     |
    |        |   |RNIC 3|<-`                   |RNIC 4|unavailable |
    |       QP 9 |      |                      |      |            |
    |            +------+                      +------+            |
    +-------------------+                      +-------------------+
                      Figure 6  Asymmetric SMC-R links

   In the example provided by Figure 6, host X has two RNICs but Host Y
   only has one RNIC. This configuration allows for the creation of an
   asymmetric link. While an asymmetric link will provide some
   resilience (i.e. when RNIC 1 fails) ideally each host should provide
   two redundant RNICs.  This should be a transient case, and when RNIC
   4 becomes available, this configuration must transition to a
   symmetric link configuration.

Fox, et. al.             Expires Dec 31, 2012                 [Page 18]
Internet-Draft  Shared Memory Communications over RDMA        July 2012

         Host X                                     Host Y
    +-------------------+                      +-------------------+
    |                   |                      |                   |
    | Protection        |                      |    Protection     |
    | Domain X          |                      |    Domain Y       |
    |            +------+  SMC-R link 1        +------+            |
    |       QP 8 |RNIC 1|<-------------------->|RNIC 2| QP 64      |
    | RKey X |   |      |                      |      |   |        |
    |        |   |      |<-------------------->|      |   | RKey Y |
    |       \/   +------+  SMC-R link 2        +------+  \/        |
    |+--------+   QP 9  |                      | QP 65  +--------+ |
    ||        |    |    |                      |  |     |        | |
    || RMB    |<-- +    |                      |  +---->| RMB    | |
    ||        |         |                      |        |        | |
    |+--------+         |                      |        +--------+ |
    |            +------+                      +------+            |
    |     down or|      |                      |      |down or     |
    |  unavailale|RNIC 3|                      |RNIC 4|unavailable |
    |            |      |                      |      |            |
    |            +------+                      +------+            |
    +-------------------+                      +-------------------+
               Figure 7  SMC-R parallel links (not supported)

   Figure 7 shows parallel links, which are two links in the link group
   that use the same hardware.  This configuration is not permitted.
   Because SMC-R multiplexes multiple TCP connections over an SMC-R link
   and both links are using the exact same hardware, there is no
   additional redundancy or capacity benefit obtained from this
   configuration.  However this configuration does add unnecessary
   overhead of additional queue pairs, generation of additional Rkeys,
   etc.

2.2.2. Maximum number of links in link group

   The SMC-R protocol defines a maximum of 8 symmetric SMC-R links
   within a single SMC-R link group.  This allows for support for up to
   8 unique physical paths between peer hosts.  However, in terms of
   meeting the basic requirements for redundancy support for at least 2
   symmetric links must be implemented.    Supporting greater than 2
   links also simplifies implementation for practical matters relating
   to dynamically adding and removing links, for example starting a
   third SMC-R link prior to taking down one of the two existing links.
   Recall that all links within a link group must have equal access to
   all associated RMBs.

Fox, et. al.             Expires Dec 31, 2012                 [Page 19]
Internet-Draft  Shared Memory Communications over RDMA        July 2012

   The SMC-R protocol allows an implementation to implement an
   implementation specific and appropriate value for maximum symmetric
   links. The implementation value must not exceed the architecture
   limit of 8 and the implementation must not be lower than 2, because
   the SMC-R protocol requires redundancy.  This does not mean that two
   RNICs are physically required to enable SMC-R connectivity, but at
   least two RNICs for redundancy are strongly recommended.

   The SMC-R stacks exchange their implementation maximum link values
   during the link group establishment using the defined maximum link
   value in the CONFIRM LINK LLC command.  Once the initial exchange
   completes the value is set for the life of the link group. The
   maximum link value can be provided by both the server and client. The
   server must supply a value, whereas the client maximum link value is
   optional. When the client does not supply a value, it indicates that
   the client accepts the server supplied maximum value. If the client
   provides a value it can not exceed the server maximum value. If the
   client passes a lower value then this lower value then becomes the
   final negotiated maximum number of symmetric links for this link
   group.  Again, the minimum value is 2.

   During run time the client must never request that the server add a
   symmetric link to a link group that would exceed the negotiated
   maximum link value. Likewise the server must never attempt to add a
   symmetric link to a link group that would exceed the negotiated
   maximum value.

   In terms of counting the active link count within a link group, the
   initial link (or the only / last) link is always counted as 1. Then
   as additional links are added they are either symmetric or asymmetric
   links.

   With regards to enforcing the maximum link rules, asymmetric links
   are an exception having a unique set of rules:

   o  Asymmetric links are always limited to one asymmetric link allowed
      per link group

   o  Asymmetric links must not be counted in the maximum symmetric link
      count calculation.  When tracking the current count or enforcing
      the negotiated maximum number of links, an asymmetric link is not
      to be counted

2.2.3. Forming and managing link groups

   SMC-R link groups are self-defining.  The first SMC-R link in a link
   group is created using TCP option flows on the TCP three-way

Fox, et. al.             Expires Dec 31, 2012                 [Page 20]
Internet-Draft  Shared Memory Communications over RDMA        July 2012

   handshake followed by CLC message flows over the TCP connection.
   Subsequent SMC-R links in the link group are created by sending LLC
   messages over an SMC-R link that already exists in the link group.
   Once an SMC-R link group is created, no additional SMC-R links in
   that group are created using TCP and CLC negotiation. Because
   subsequent SMC-R links are created exclusively by sending LLC
   messages over an existing SMC-R link in a link group, the membership
   of SMC-R links to a link group is self-defining.

   This architecture does not define a specific identifier for an SMC-R
   link group.  This identification may be useful for network management
   and may be assigned in a platform specific manner, or in an extension
   to this architecture.

   In each SMC-R link group, one peer is the server for all TCP
   connections and the other peer is the client.  If there are
   additional TCP connections between the peers that use SMC-R and have
   the client and server roles reversed, another SMC-R link group is set
   up between them with the opposite client-server relationship.

   This is required because there are specific responsibilities divided
   between the client and server in the management of an SMC-R link
   group.

   In this architecture, the following decision of whether or not to use
   an existing SMC-R link group or create a new SMC-R link group for a
   TCP connection is made exclusively by the server

   Management of the links in an SMC-R link group is also a server
   responsibility.  The server is responsible for adding and deleting
   links in a link group.  The client may request that the server take
   certain actions but the final responsibility is the server's.

2.2.4. SMC-R link identifiers

   This architecture defines multiple identifiers to identify SMC-R
   links and peers.

   o  Link number:  This is a one-byte value that identifies an SMC-R
      link within a link group.  Both the server and the client use this
      number to distinguish an SMC-R link from other links within the
      same link group. It is only unique within a link group.

Fox, et. al.             Expires Dec 31, 2012                 [Page 21]
Internet-Draft  Shared Memory Communications over RDMA        July 2012

   o  Link User ID: This is an architecturally opaque four byte value
      that a peer uses to uniquely define an SMC-R link within its own
      space.  This means that a link user ID is unique within one stack
      only.  Each peer defines its own link user ID for a link.  The
      peers exchange this information once during link setup and it is
      never used architecturally again.  The purpose of this identifier
      is for network management, display, and debugging purposes.  For
      example an operator on a client could provide the operator on the
      server with the server's link user ID if he requires the server's
      operator to check on the operation of a link that the client is
      having trouble with.

   o  Peer ID: The SMC-R peer ID uniquely identifies a specific instance
      of a specific stack.  It is required because in sysplex and load
      balancing environments, an IP address does not uniquely identify a
      stack.  An RNIC's MAC/GID also doesn't uniquely or reliably
      identify a stack because RNICs can go up and down and even be
      redeployed to other stacks in a multiple partitioned or
      virtualized environment.  The peer ID is not only unique per stack
      but is also unique per instance of a stack, meaning that if a
      stack is restarted, its peer ID changes.

2.3. SMC-R resilience and load balancing

   The SMC-R multi-link architecture provides resilience for network
   high availability via failover capability to an alternate RoCE
   adapter.

   The SMC-R multilink architecture does not define primary, secondary
   or alternate roles to the links. Instead there are multiple active
   links representing multiple redundant RoCE paths over the same VLAN.

   If a hardware failure occurs or a QP failure associated with an
   individual link, then the TCP connections that were associated with
   the failing link are be dynamically and transparently switched to use
   another available link.  The server or the client can detect a
   failure and immediately move their TCP connections and then notify
   their peer via the DELETE LINK LLC command.  The server must perform
   the actual link deletion.

   The movement of TCP connections to another link can be accomplished
   without notifying or coordinating with the peer. The TCP connection

Fox, et. al.             Expires Dec 31, 2012                 [Page 22]
Internet-Draft  Shared Memory Communications over RDMA        July 2012

   movement is also transparent to and non disruptive to the TCP socket
   application workloads.  After a failure, the surviving links and all
   associated hardware must handle the link group's workload.

   As each SMC-R stack begins to move active TCP connections to another
   link all current RDMA write operations must be allowed to complete
   and then may be retried over the new link if the previously completed
   RDMA write operation did not successfully complete.

   When a new link becomes available and is re-added to the link group
   then each stack is free to rebalance its current TCP connections as
   needed or only assign new TCP connections to the newly added link.
   Both the server and client are free to manage TCP connections across
   the link group as needed.  TCP connection movement does not have to
   stimulated by a link failure.

   The SMC-R architecture also defines orderly vs. disorderly failover.
   The type is communicated in the LLC Delete Link command and is simply
   a means to indicate that the link has terminated (disorderly) or link
   termination is imminent (orderly).  The orderly link deletion could
   be initiated via operator command or programmatically to bring down
   an idle link.  For example an operator command could initiate orderly
   shut down of an adapter for service.  Implementation of the two types
   is based on implementation requirements and is beyond the scope of
   the SMC-R architecture.

3. SMC-R Rendezvous architecture

   Rendezvous is the process that SMC-R capable peers use to dynamically
   discover each others' capabilities, negotiate SMC-R connections, set
   up SMC-R links and link groups, and manage those link groups.  A key
   aspect of SMC-R rendezvous is that it occurs dynamically and
   automatically, without requiring SMC link configuration to be defined
   by an administrator.

   SMC-R Rendezvous starts with the TCP/IP three-way handshake during
   which connection peers use TCP options to announce their SMC-R
   capabilities.  If both endpoints are SMC-R capable, then Connection
   Layer Control (CLC) messages are exchanged between the peers' SMC-R
   layers over the newly established TCP connection to negotiate SMC-R
   parameters.  CLC messages are analogous to the messages exchanged by
   SSL.

   If a new SMC-R link is being set up, Link Layer Control (LLC)
   messages are used to confirm RDMA connectivity.  LLC messages are

Fox, et. al.             Expires Dec 31, 2012                 [Page 23]
Internet-Draft  Shared Memory Communications over RDMA        July 2012

   also used by the SMC-R layers at each peer to manage the links and
   link groups.

   Once an SMC-R link is set up or agreed to by the peers, the TCP
   sockets are passed to the peer applications which use them as normal.
   The SMC-R layer, which resides under the sockets layer, transmits the
   socket data between peers over RDMA using the SMC-R protocol,
   bypassing the TCP/IP stack.

3.1. TCP options

   During the TCP/IP three-way handshake, the client and server indicate
   their support for SMC-R by including experimental TCP option 253 on
   the three-way handshake flows, in accordance with draft-ietf-tcpm-
   experimental-options-01.txt.  The magic number value used is the
   string 'SMCR' in EBCDIC (IBM-1047) encoding(0xE2D4C3D9).

   After completion of the 3-way TCP handshake each peer queries its
   peer's options.  If both peers set the TCP option on the three-way
   handshake, inline SMC-R negotiation occurs using CLC messages.  If
   neither peer or only one peer set the TCP option, SMC-R cannot be
   used for the TCP connection, and the TCP connection completes setup
   using the IP fabric.

3.2. Connection Layer Control (CLC) messages

   CLC messages are sent as data payload over the newly opened TCP
   connection between SMC-R layers at the peers.  They are analogous to
   the messages used to exchange parameters for SSL.

   Use of CLC messages is detailed in the following sections.  The
   following list provides a summary of the defined CLC messages and
   their purposes:

   o  SMC PROPOSAL: Sent from the client to propose that this TCP
      connection is eligible to be moved to SMC-R. The client identifies
      itself to the server and passes the SMC-R elements for a suggested
      RoCE path via the MAC and GID.

   o  SMC ACCEPT: Sent from the server to accept the client's TCP
      connection SMC proposal.  The server responds to the client's
      proposal by identifying itself to the client and passing the
      elements of a RoCE path that the client can use to to perform RDMA
      writes to the server. This consists of SMC-R ink elements such as
      RoCE MAC, GID, RMB information etc.

Fox, et. al.             Expires Dec 31, 2012                 [Page 24]
Internet-Draft  Shared Memory Communications over RDMA        July 2012

   o  SMC CONFIRM: Sent from the client to confirm the server's
      acceptance of SMC connection. The client responds to the server's
      acceptance by passing the elements of a RoCE path that the server
      can use to to perform RDMA writes to the client. This consists of
      SMC-R ink elements such as RoCE MAC, GID, RMB information etc.

   o  SMC DECLINE: Sent from either the server or the client to reject
      the SMC connection, indicating the reason the peer must decline
      the SMC proposal and allowing the TCP connection to revert back to
      IP connectivity.

3.3. LLC messages

   Link Layer Control (LLC) messages are sent between peer SMC-R layers
   over an SMC-R link to manage the link or the link group.  LLC
   messages are sent using RoCE message passing and are 44 bytes long.
   The 44 bytes size is based on what can fit into a RoCE Work Queue
   Element (WQE) without requiring additional buffers.

   LLC messages generally follow a request-reply semantic.  Each message
   has a request flavor and a reply flavor, and each request must be
   confirmed with a reply, except where otherwise noted.  Use of LLC
   messages is detailed in the following sections.  The following list
   provides a summary of the defined LLC messages and their purposes:

   o  ADD LINK: Add a new link to a link group. Sent from the server to
      the client to initiate addition of a new link to the link group,
      or from the client to the server to request that the server
      initiate addition of a new link.

   o  ADD LINK CONTINUATION: This is a continuation of ADD link that
      allows the ADD link to span multiple commands, in cases in which
      all the link information cannot be contained in a single ADD link
      message

   o  CONFIRM LINK: Used to confirm that RoCE connectivity over a newly
      created SMC-R link is working correctly.  Initiated by the server,
      and both this message and its reply must flow over the SMC-R link
      being confirmed.

   o  DELETE LINK: When initiated by the server, deletes a specific link
      from the link group or deletes the entire link group. When
      initiated by the client, requests that the server delete a
      specific link or the entire link group.

   o  CONFIRM RKEY: Informs the peer on the SMC-R link of the addition
      or deletion of one or more RMBs in the link group

Fox, et. al.             Expires Dec 31, 2012                 [Page 25]
Internet-Draft  Shared Memory Communications over RDMA        July 2012

   o  TEST LINK: Verifies that an already-active SMC-R link is active
      and healthy

   CONFIRM LINK and TEST LINK are sensitive to which link they flow on
   and must flow on the link being confirmed or tested.  The other flows
   may flow over any active link in the link group.  When there are
   multiple links in a link group, a response to an LLC message must
   flow over the same link that the original message flowed over, with
   the following exceptions:

   o  ADD LINK request from a server in response to an ADD LINK from a
      client

   o  DELETE LINK request from a server in response to a DELETE LINK
      from a client

3.4. Rendezvous flows

   Rendezvous information for SMC-R is be exchanged as TCP options on
   the TCP 3-way handshake flows to indicate capability, followed by in-
   line TCP negotiation messages to actually do the SMC-R setup. Formats
   of all rendezvous options and messages discussed in this section are
   detailed in Appendix A.

3.4.1. First contact

   First contact between RoCE peers occurs when a new SMC-R link group
   is being set up.  This could be because no SMC-R links already exist
   between the peers, or the server decides to create a new SMC-R link
   group in parallel with an existing one.

3.4.1.1. TCP Options pre-negotiation

   The client and server indicate their SMC-R capability to each other
   using TCP option 253 on the TCP 3-way handshake flows.

   A client who wishes to do SMC-R will include TCP option 253 using a
   magic number equal to the EBCDIC (codepage IBM-1047) encoding of
   "SMCR" on its SYN flow.  The client stack can only include this
   option if the following conditions are met:

   o  The server's IP address is in the same IP subnet (or prefix if
      IPv6) as the client's IP address

   o  The IP route used to send the SYN packet is a direct route

Fox, et. al.             Expires Dec 31, 2012                 [Page 26]
Internet-Draft  Shared Memory Communications over RDMA        July 2012

   o  The client has an RNIC on the VLAN that the SYN packet will be
      sent over

   These conditions are required because SMC-R is not routable, meaning
   it is only supported on connections that begin and end on the same
   VLAN.

   A server that supports SMC-R will include TCP option 253 with the
   magic number value of EBCDIC "SMCR" on its SYN-ACK flow.  Because the
   server is listening for connections and does not know where client
   connections will come from, the server unconditionally includes this
   TCP option if it supports SMC-R.   This may be required for servers
   such as Linux where proprietary extensions to the TCP stack are not
   practical.  For proprietary servers which can add code to examine and
   react to packets during the three-way handshake, the server should
   only include the SMC-R TCP option on SYN-ACK if the client included
   it on its SYN packet, and is in the same IP subnet as the server.

   A client who supports SMC-R and meets the three conditions outlined
   above may optionally include the TCP option for SMC-R on its ACK
   flow, regardless of whether or not the server included it on its SYN-
   ACK flow.  Some stacks may have to include it if the SMC-R layer
   cannot modify the options on the socket until the 3-way handshake
   completes.  Proprietary servers should not include this option on the
   ACK flow, since including it on the SYN flow was sufficient to
   indicate the client's capabilities.

   Once the initial three-way TCP handshake is completed, each peer
   examines the socket options.  Proprietary stacks may do this by
   examining what was actually provided on the SYN and SYN-ACK packets,
   and open stacks may do this by performing a getsockopt() operation to
   determine the options set by the peer. If neither peer, or only one
   peer, specified the TCP option for SMC-R, then SMC-R cannot be used
   on this connection and it proceeds using normal IP flows and
   processing.

   If both peers specified the TCP option for SMC-R, then the TCP
   connection is not started yet and the peers proceed to SMC-R
   negotiation using inline data flows, similar to the SSL negotiation
   model.  The socket is not yet turned over to the applications;
   instead the respective SMC layers exchange CLC messages over the
   newly formed TCP connection.

3.4.1.2. Client Proposal

   If SMC-R is supported by both peers, the client sends an SMC Proposal
   CLC message to the server. On this flow from client to server it is

Fox, et. al.             Expires Dec 31, 2012                 [Page 27]
Internet-Draft  Shared Memory Communications over RDMA        July 2012

   not immediately apparent if this is a new or existing SMC-R link
   because in clustered environments a single IP address may represent
   multiple hosts. This type of cluster virtual IP address can be owned
   by a network based or host based layer 4 load balancer that
   distributes incoming TCP connections across a cluster of
   servers/hosts. Other clustered environments may also support the
   movement of a virtual IP address dynamically from one host in the
   cluster to another for high availability purposes.  In summary, the
   client can not pre-determine that a connection is targeting the same
   host simply by matching the destination IP address for outgoing TCP
   connections. Therefore it cannot pre-determine the SMC-R link that
   will be used for a new TCP connection.   This information will be
   dynamically learned and the appropriate actions will be taken as the
   SMC-R negotiation handshake unfolds.

   On the SMC-R proposal message, the initiator (client) proposes use of
   SMC-R by including its peer ID and GID and MAC addresses.  At this
   point in the flow, the client makes no local commitments of resources
   for SMC-R.

   When the server receives the SMC Proposal CLC message, it uses the
   peer ID provided by the client plus the VLAN that the  SYN packet
   came in on, to determine if it already has a usable SMC-R link with
   this SMC-R peer.  If there is one or more existing SMC-R links with
   this SMC-R peer, the server then decides which SMC link it will use
   for this TCP connection.

   See subsequent sections for the cases of reusing an existing SMC-R
   link or creating a parallel SMC link group between SMC-R peers.  If
   this is a first contact between SMC-R peers and the server agrees to
   use SMC-R, the server begins setup of a new SMC-R link by allocating
   local QP and RMB resources (setting its QP state to INIT) and
   providing its full SMC-R information in an SMC Accept CLC message to
   the client over the TCP connection, along with a flag set indicating
   that this is a first contact flow.   If the server cannot or does not
   want to do SMC-R with the client it sends an SMC Decline CLC message
   to the client and the connection data may begin flowing using normal
   TCP/IP flows.

3.4.1.3. Server acceptance

   When the client receives the SMC Accept from the server, it uses the
   combination of the first contact flag, its GID/MAC and the GID/MAC
   returned by the server plus the VLAN number that the connection is
   setting up over and the QP number provided by the server to determine
   if this is a new or existing SMC-R link.

Fox, et. al.             Expires Dec 31, 2012                 [Page 28]
Internet-Draft  Shared Memory Communications over RDMA        July 2012

   If it is an existing SMC-R link, and the client agrees to use that
   link for the TCP connection, see 3.4.2. Subsequent contact below.  If
   it is a new SMC-R link between peers that already have an SMC link,
   then the server is starting a new SMC link group.

Fox, et. al.             Expires Dec 31, 2012                 [Page 29]
Internet-Draft  Shared Memory Communications over RDMA        July 2012

   Assuming this is either a first contact between peers or the server
   is starting a new SMC link group, the client now allocates local QP
   and RMB resources for the SMC-R link (setting the QP state to RTR or
   "ready to receive"), associates them with the server QP as learned on
   the SMC Accept CLC message,  and sends an SMC Confirm CLC message to
   the server over the TCP connection with its SMC-R link information
   included.  The client also starts a timer to wait for the server to
   confirm the reliable connected QP as described below.

3.4.1.4. Client confirmation

   Upon receipt of the client's SMC Confirm CLC message, the server
   associates its QP for this SMC-R link with the client's QP as learned
   on the SMC Confirm CLC message and sets its QP state to RTS (ready to
   send).   Now the client and the server have reliable connected QPs.

3.4.1.5. Link (QP) confirmation

   Since setting up the SMC-R link and its QPs did not require any
   network flows on the RoCE fabric, the client and server must now
   confirm connectivity over the RoCE fabric.  To accomplish this, the
   server will send a "Confirm Link" Link Layer Control (LLC) message to
   the client over the RoCE fabric.  The "Confirm Link" LLC message will
   provide the server's MAC, GID, and QP information for the connection,
   allow each partner to communicate the maximum number of links it can
   tolerate in this link group (the "link limit"), and will additionally
   provide two link IDs:

   o  a one-byte server-assigned Link number that is used by both peers
      to identify the link within the link group and is only unique
      within a link group.

   o  a four byte link user id.  This opaque value is assigned by the
      server for the server's local use and is provided to the client
      for management purposes, for example to use in network management
      displays and products.

   When the server sends this message, it will set a timer for receiving
   confirmation from the client.

   When the client receives the server's confirmation "Confirm Link" LLC
   message it will cancel the confirmation timer it set when it sent the
   SMC Confirm message.   It will also advance its QP state to RTS and

Fox, et. al.             Expires Dec 31, 2012                 [Page 30]
Internet-Draft  Shared Memory Communications over RDMA        July 2012

   respond over the  RoCE fabric with a "Confirm Link" response LLC
   message, providing its MAC, GID, QP number, link limit, confirming
   the one byte link number sent by the server, and providing its own
   four byte link user id to the server.

Fox, et. al.             Expires Dec 31, 2012                 [Page 31]
Internet-Draft  Shared Memory Communications over RDMA        July 2012

      Host X -- Server                           Host Y -- Client
   +-------------------+                      +-------------------+
   | PeerID = PS1      |                      |    PeerID = PC1   |
   |            +------+                      +------+            |
   |       QP 8 |RNIC 1|                      |RNIC 2| QP 64      |
   | RKey X |   |MAC MA|                      |MAC MB|   |        |
   |        |   |GID GA|                      |GID GB|   | RKey Y |
   |       \/   +------+                      +------+  \/        |
   |+--------+         |                      |        +--------+ |
   || RMB    |         |                      |        | RMB    | |
   |+--------+         |                      |        +--------+ |
   |            +------+                      +------+            |
   |            |RNIC 3|                      |RNIC 4|            |
   |            |MAC MC|                      |MAC MD|            |
   |            |GID GC|                      |GID GD|            |
   |            +------+                      +------+            |
   +-------------------+                      +-------------------+

                     SYN TCP options(253,"SMCR")
        <---------------------------------------------------------

                     SYN-ACK TCP options(253, "SMCR")
        --------------------------------------------------------->

                     ACK [TCP options(254, "SMCR")]
        <--------------------------------------------------------

                    SMC Proposal(PC1,MB,GB)
        <--------------------------------------------------------

      SMC Accept(PS1,first contact,MA,GA,QP8,Rkey=X,RMB element index)
        --------------------------------------------------------->

          SMC Confirm(PC1,MB,GB,QP64,Rkey=Y, RMB element index)
        <--------------------------------------------------------

     Confirm Link (MA,GA,QP8, link lim, server's link userid, linknum)
        .........................................................>

     Confirm Link Rsp(MB,GB,QP64, link lim, client link userid, linknum)
        <........................................................

                             Legend:
                      ------------   TCP/IP and CLC flows
                      ............   RoCE (LLC) flows

                  Figure 8  First contact rendezvous flows

Fox, et. al.             Expires Dec 31, 2012                 [Page 32]
Internet-Draft  Shared Memory Communications over RDMA        July 2012

   Technically, the data for the TCP connection could now flow over the
   RoCE path. However if this is first contact, there is no alternate
   for this recently established RoCE path.  Since in the current
   architecture there is no failover from RoCE to IP, this means that a
   failure of this path would disrupt the TCP connection, meaning that
   the level of redundancy and failover is less than that provided by
   IP.  If the network has alternate RoCE paths available, they would
   not be usable at this point, which is an unacceptable condition

3.4.1.6. Second SMC-R link setup

   Because of the unacceptable situation described above, TCP data will
   not be allowed to flow on the newly established SMC-R link until a
   second path has been set up, or at least attempted.

   If the server has a second RNIC available on the same VLAN, it
   attempts to set up the second SMC-R link over that second RNIC.  If
   it only has one RNIC available on the VLAN, it will attempt to set up
   the second SMC-R link over that one RNIC.  In the latter case, the
   server is attempting to set up an asymmetric link, in case the client
   does have a second RNIC on the VLAN.

   In either case the server allocates a new QP over the RNIC it is
   attempting to use for the second link, assigns a link number to the
   new link and also creates an Rkey for the RMB over this second QP
   (note that this means that the first and second QP each has its own
   Rkey to represent the same RMB).   The server provides this
   information, as well as the MAC and GID of the RNIC it is attempting
   set up the second link over in an "Add Link" LLC message which it
   sends to the client over the SMC-R link that is already set up.

3.4.1.6.1. Client processing of "Add Link" LLC message from server

   When the client receives the server's "Add Link" LLC message, it
   examines the GID and MAC provided by the server to determine if the
   server is attempting to use the same server-side RNIC as the existing
   SMC-R link, or a different one.

   If the server is attempting to use the same server-side RNIC as the
   existing SMC-R link, then the client verifies that it has a second
   RNIC on the same VLAN.  If it does not, the client rejects the "Add
   Link" request from the server, because the resulting link would be a
   parallel link which is not supported within a link group.  If the
   client does have a second RNIC on the same VLAN, it accepts the
   request and an asymmetric link will be set up.

Fox, et. al.             Expires Dec 31, 2012                 [Page 33]
Internet-Draft  Shared Memory Communications over RDMA        July 2012

   If the server is using a different server-side RNIC from the existing
   SMC-R link then the client will accept the request and a second SMC-R
   link will set up in this SMC-R link group.  If the client has a
   second RNIC on the same VLAN, that second RNIC will be used for the
   second SMC-R link, creating symmetric links.  If the client does not
   have a second RNIC on the same VLAN, it will use the same RNIC as was
   used for the initial SMC-R link, resulting in the setup of an
   asymmetric link in the SMC-R link group.

   In either case, when the client accepts the server's "Add Link"
   request, it allocates a new QP on the chosen RNIC and creates an Rkey
   over that new QP for the client-side RMB for the SMC link group, then
   sends an "Add Link" reply LLC message to the server providing that
   information as well as echoing the Link number that was set by the
   server.

   If the client rejects the server's "Add Link" request, it sends an
   "Add Link" reply LLC message to the server with the reason code for
   the rejection.

3.4.1.6.2. Server processing of "Add Link" reply LLC message from the
   client

   If the client sends a negative response to the server or no reply is
   received, the server frees the RoCE resources it had allocated for
   the new link.  Having a single link in an SMC-R link group is
   undesirable and the server's recovery is detailed in C.8. Failure to
   add second SMC-R link to a link group.

   If the client sends a positive reply to the server with
   MAC/GID/QP/Rkey information, the server associates its QP for the new
   SMC-R link to the QP that the client provided.   Now the new SMC-R
   link is in the same situation that the first was in after the client
   sent its ACK packet - there is a reliable connected QP over the new
   RoCE path, but there have been no RoCE flows to confirm that it's
   actually usable.   So at this point the client and server will
   exchange "Confirm Link" LLC messages just like they did on the first
   SMC-R link.

Fox, et. al.             Expires Dec 31, 2012                 [Page 34]
Internet-Draft  Shared Memory Communications over RDMA        July 2012

       Host X -- Server                           Host Y -- Client
    +-------------------+                      +-------------------+
    | PeerID = PS1      |                      |    PeerID = PC1   |
    |            +------+                      +------+            |
    |       QP 8 |RNIC 1|                      |RNIC 2| QP 64      |
    | RKey X |   |MAC MA|                      |MAC MB|   |        |
    |        |   |GID GA|                      |GID GB|   | RKey Y |
    |       \/   +------+                      +------+  \/        |
    |+--------+         |                      |        +--------+ |
    ||        |         |                      |        |        | |
    || RMB    |         |                      |        | RMB    | |
    ||        |         |                      |        |        | |
    |+--------+         |                      |        +--------+ |
    |       /\   +------+                      +------+  /\        |
    |        |   |RNIC 3|                      |RNIC 4|  |         |
    | RKey Z |   |MAC MC|                      |MAC MD|  | Rkey W  |
    |       QP 9 |GID GC|                      |GID GD| QP 65      |
    |            +------+                      +------+            |
    +-------------------+                      +-------------------+

                    First SMC-R link setup
            <-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.->
                    as shown in figure 8

           ADD link request (QP9,MC,GC,Rkey=Z, link number=2)
            ............................................>

           ADD link response (QP65,MD,GD,Rkey=W, link number=2)
            <............................................

           Confirm Link(MC,GC,QP9,link number=2, link userid)
            .............................................>

           Confirm Link response(MD,GD,QP65,link number=2, link userid)
            <.............................................

                              Legend:
                       ------------   TCP/IP and CLC flows
                       ............   RoCE (LLC) flows

                 Figure 9  First contact, second link setup

Fox, et. al.             Expires Dec 31, 2012                 [Page 35]
Internet-Draft  Shared Memory Communications over RDMA        July 2012

3.4.1.6.3. Exchange of Rkeys on second SMC-R link

   Note that in the scenario described here, first contact, there is
   only one RMB Rkey to exchange on the second SMC-R link and it is
   exchanged in the Add Link request and reply.  In scenarios other than
   first contact, for example, adding a new SMC-R link to a longstanding
   link group with multiple RMBs, additional flows will be required to
   exchange additional RMB Rkeys. See 3.4.5.2.3. Adding a new SMC-R link
   to a link group with multiple RMBs for more details on these flows

3.4.1.6.4. Aborting SMC-R and falling back to IP

   If both partners don't provide the SMC-R TCP option during the 3 way
   TCP handshake, the connection falls back to normal TCP/IP.   During
   the SMC-R negotiation that occurs after the 3 way TCP handshake,
   either partner may break off SMC-R by sending an SMC Decline CLC
   message. The SMC Decline CLC message may be sent in place of any
   expected message, and may also be sent during the Confirm Link LLC
   exchange if there is a failure before any application data has flowed
   over the RoCE fabric. For more detail on exactly when an SMC Decline
   can flow during link group setup, see C.1. SMC Decline during CLC
   negotiation and C.2. SMC Decline during LLC negotiation

   If this fallback to IP happens while setting up a new SMC-R link
   group, the RoCE resources allocated for this SMC-R link group
   relationship are torn down and it will be retried as a new SMC-R link
   group next time a connection starts between these peers with SMC-R
   proposed.  Note that if this happens because one side doesn't support
   SMC-R, there will be very little to tear down as the TCP option will
   have failed to flow either on the initial SYN or the SYN-ACK, before
   either side had reserved any local RoCE resources.

3.4.2. Subsequent contact

   "Subsequent contact" means setting up a new TCP connection between
   two peers that already have an SMC-R link group between them, and
   reusing the existing SMC-R link group.  In this case it is not
   necessary to allocate new QPs.  However it is possible that a new RMB
   has been allocated for this TCP connection, if the previous TCP
   connection used the last element available in the previously used
   RMB, or for any other implementation-dependent reason.  For this
   reason, and for convenience and error checking, the same TCP option
   253 followed by inline negotiation method described for initial
   contact will be used for subsequent contact, but the processing
   differs in some ways.  That processing is described below.

Fox, et. al.             Expires Dec 31, 2012                 [Page 36]
Internet-Draft  Shared Memory Communications over RDMA        July 2012

3.4.2.1. SMC-R proposal

   When the client begins the inline negotiation with the server, it
   does not know if this is a first contact or a subsequent contact.
   The client cannot know this information until it sees the server's
   peer ID to determine whether or not it already has an SMC-R link with
   this peer that it can use.  There are several reasons why it is not
   sufficient to use the partner IP address, subnet, VLAN or other IP
   information to make this determination.  The most obvious reason is
   distributed systems:  if the server IP address is actually a virtual
   IP address representing a distributed cluster, the actual host
   serving this TCP connection may not be the same as the host that
   served the last TCP connection to this same IP address.

   After the TCP three way handshake, assuming both partners indicate
   SMC-R capability,  the client builds and sends the SMC Proposal CLC
   message to the server in exactly the same manner as it does in the
   first contact case, and in fact at this point doesn't know if it's
   first contact or subsequent contact.  As in the first contact case,
   the client sends its Peer ID value, suggested RNIC GID/MAC, and RoCE
   subnet number.

   Upon receiving the client's proposal, the server looks up the peer ID
   provided to determine if it already has a usable SMC-R link group
   with this peer.  If it does already have a usable SMC-R link group,
   the server then needs to decide if it will use the existing SMC-R
   link group, or create a new link group.    For the new link group
   case, see 3.4.3. First contact variation: creating a parallel link
   group, below.

   For this discussion assume the server decides to use the existing
   SMC-R link group for the TCP connection, which is expected to be the
   most common case. The server is responsible for making this decision.
   Then the server needs to communicate that information to the client,
   but it is not necessary to allocate, associate, and confirm QPs for
   the chosen SMC-R link.  All that remains to be done is to set up RMB
   space for this TCP connection.

   If one of the RMBs already in use for this SMC-R link group has an
   available element that uses the appropriate buffer size, the server
   merely chooses one for this TCP connection and then sends an SMC
   Confirm CLC message, providing the full RoCE information for the
   chosen SMC-R link to the client, using the same format as the SMC
   Confirm CLC message described in the initial contact section above.

   The server may choose to use the SMC-R link that matches the
   suggested MAC/GID provided by the client on the SMC Proposal for its

Fox, et. al.             Expires Dec 31, 2012                 [Page 37]
Internet-Draft  Shared Memory Communications over RDMA        July 2012

   RDMA writes but is not obligated to.  The final decision on which
   specific SMC-R link to assign a TCP connection to is an independent
   server and client decision.

   It may be necessary for the server to allocate a new RMB for this
   connection.   The reasons for this are implementation dependent and
   could include: no available space in existing RMB or RMBs, or desire
   to allocate a new RMB that uses a different buffer size from the ones
   already created, or any other implementation dependent reason. In
   this case the server will allocate the new RMB and then perform the
   flows described in 3.4.5.2.1. Adding a new RMB to an SMC-R link
   group. Once that processing is complete, the server then provides the
   full RoCE information, including the new Rkey,  for this connection
   on an SMC Confirm CLC message to the client.

3.4.2.2. SMC-R acceptance

   Upon receiving the SMC Accept CLC message from the server, the client
   examines the RoCE information provided by the server to determine if
   this is a first contact for a new SMC link group, or subsequent
   contact for an existing SMC-R link group.  It is subsequent contact
   if the server side peer ID, GID, MAC and QP number provided on the
   packet match a known SMC-R link, and the "first contact" flag is not
   set.  If this is not the case, for example the GID and MAC match but
   the QP is new, then the server is creating a new, parallel SMC-R link
   group and this is treated as a first contact.

   A different RMB rkey does not indicate a first contact as the server
   may have allocated a new RMB, or be using several RMBs for this SMC-R
   link. The client needs the server's RMB information only for its RDMA
   writes to the server, and since there is no requirement for symmetric
   RMBs, this information is simply control information for the RDMA
   writes on this SMC-R link.

   The client must validate that the RMB element being provided by the
   server is not in use by another TCP connection on this SMC-R link
   group. This validation must validate the new <rkey, index> across all
   known <rkey, index> on this link group.  See 4.3.2. RMB element reuse
   and conflict resolution for the case in which the server tries to use
   an RMB element that is already in use on this link group.

   Once the client has determined that this TCP connection is a
   subsequent contact over an existing SMC link, it performs a similar
   RMB allocation process as the server did: it either allocates an
   element from an RMB already associated with this SMC-R link, or it
   allocates a new RMB and associates it with this SMC-R link and then
   chooses an element out of it.

Fox, et. al.             Expires Dec 31, 2012                 [Page 38]
Internet-Draft  Shared Memory Communications over RDMA        July 2012

   If the client allocates a new RMB for this TCP connection, it
   performs the processing described in 3.4.5.2.1. Adding a new RMB to
   an SMC-R link group.  Once that processing is complete, the client
   provides its full RoCE information for this TCP connection on an SMC
   Confirm CLC message.

   Because an SMC-R link with a verified connected QP already exists and
   is being reused, there is no need for verification or alternate QP
   selection flows or timers.

3.4.2.3. SMC-R confirmation

   When the server receives the client's SMC Confirm CLC message on a
   subsequent contact, it verifies the following:

   o  the RMB element provided by the client is not already in use by
      another TCP connection on this SMC-R link group (see section
      4.3.2. RMB element reuse and conflict resolution for the case in
      which it is).

   o  The MAC/GID/QP info provided by the client matches an active link
      within the link group. The client is free to select any valid /
      active link. The client is not required to select the same link as
      the server.

   If this validation passes, the server stores the client's RMB
   information for this connection and the RoCE setup of the TCP
   connection is complete.

3.4.2.4. TCP data flow race with SMC Confirm CLC message

   On a subsequent contact TCP/IP connection, a peer may send data as
   soon as it has received the peer RMB information for the connection.
   There are no additional RoCE confirmation flows, since the QPs on the
   SMC link are already reliably connected and verified.

   In the majority of cases the first data will flow from the client to
   the server.  The client must send the SMC Confirm CLC message before
   sending any TCP data over the chosen SMC-R link, however the client
   need not wait for confirmation of this message, and in fact there
   will be no such confirmation.  Since the server is required to have
   the RMB fully set up and ready to receive data from the client before
   sending SMC Accept CLC message, the client can begin sending data
   over the SMC-R link immediately upon completing the send of the SMC
   Confirm CLC message.

Fox, et. al.             Expires Dec 31, 2012                 [Page 39]
Internet-Draft  Shared Memory Communications over RDMA        July 2012

   It is possible that data from the client will arrive into the server
   side RMB before the SMC Confirm CLC message from the client has been
   processed.  In this case the server must handle this race condition,
   and not provide the arrived TCP data to the socket application until
   the SMC Confirm CLC message has been received and fully processed,
   opening the socket.

   If the server has initial data to send to the client which is not a
   response to the client (this case should be rare), it can send the
   data immediately upon receiving and processing the SMC Confirm CLC
   message from the client.  The client must have opened the TCP socket
   to the client application upon sending of SMC Confirm CLC message so
   the client will be ready to process data from the server.

3.4.3. First contact variation: creating a parallel link group

   Recall that parallel SMC-R links within an SMC-R link group are not
   supported. These are multiple SMC-R links within a link group that
   use the same network path. However, multiple SMC-R link groups
   between the same peers are supported. This means that if multiple
   SMC-R links over the same RoCE path are desired, it is necessary to
   use multiple SMC-R link groups.  While not a recommended practice,
   this could be done for platform specific reasons, like QP separation
   of different workloads.   Only the server can drive the creation of
   multiple SMC-R link groups between peers.

   At a high level, when the server decides to create an additional SMC-
   R link group with a client it already has an SMC-R link group with,
   the flows are basically the same as the normal "first contact" case
   described above.   The following provides more detail and
   clarification of processing in this case.

   When the server receives the SMC Proposal CLC message from the client
   and using the GID/MAC info determines that it already has an SMC-R
   link group with this client, the server can either reuse the existing
   SMC-R link group (detailed in 3.4.2. Subsequent contact above) or it
   can create a new SMC-R link group in addition to the existing one.

   If the server decides to create a new SMC-R link group, it does the
   same processing it would have done for first contact: allocate QP and
   RMB resources as well as alternate QP resources, and communicate the
   QP and RMB information to the client on the SMC Accept CLC message
   with the "first contact" flag set.

   When the client receives the server's SMC Accept CLC message with the
   new QP information and the "first contact" flag, it knows the server
   is creating a new SMC-R link group even though it already has an SMC-

Fox, et. al.             Expires Dec 31, 2012                 [Page 40]
Internet-Draft  Shared Memory Communications over RDMA        July 2012

   R link group with the server.  In this case the client will also
   allocate a new QP for this new SMC link and allocate an RMB for this
   link and generate an Rkey for it.

   Note that multiple SMC-R link groups between the same peers must
   access different RMB resources, so new RMBs will be required.  Using
   the same RMBs that are in use in another SMC-R link group is not
   permitted.

   The client then associates its new QP with the server's new QP and
   sends its SMC Confirm CLC message back to the server providing the
   new QP/RMB information and sets its confirmation timer for the new
   SMC-R link.

   When the server receives the client's SMC Confirm CLC message it
   associates its QP with the client's QP as learned on the SMC Confirm
   CLC message and sends a confirmation LLC message.   The rest of the
   flow, with the confirmation QP and setup of additional SMC-R links,
   unfolds just like the first contact case.

3.4.4. Normal SMC-R link termination

   The normal sockets API trigger points are used by the SMC-R layer to
   initiate SMC-R connection termination flows. The main design point
   for SMC-R normal connection flows is to use the SMC-R protocol to
   first shutdown the SMC-R connection and free up any SMC-R RDMA
   resources and then allow the normal TCP connection termination
   protocol (i.e. FIN processing) to drive cleanup of the TCP connection
   that exists on the IP fabric.  This design point is very important in
   ensuring that RDMA resources such as the RMBEs are only freed and
   reused when both SMC-R end points are completely done with their RDMA
   Write operations to the partner's RMBE.

   When the last TCP connection over an SMC-R link group terminates, the
   link group can be terminated.  Similar to creation of SMC-R links and
   link groups, the primary responsibility for determining that normal
   termination is needed and initiating it lies with the server.
   Implementations may opt to set timers to keep SMC-R link groups up
   for a specified time after the last TCP connection ends, to avoid
   churn in cases when TCP connections come and go regularly.

   The link or link group may also be terminated as a result of an
   operator initiated command.  This command can be entered at either
   the client or the server.  If entered at the client, the client
   requests that the server perform link or link group termination, and
   the responsibility for doing so ultimately lies with the server.

Fox, et. al.             Expires Dec 31, 2012                 [Page 41]
Internet-Draft  Shared Memory Communications over RDMA        July 2012

   When the server determines that the SMC-R link group is to be
   terminated, it sends a DELETE LINK LLC message to the client, with a
   flag set indicating that all links in the link group are to be
   terminated.  After receiving confirmation from the adapter that the
   DELETE LINK LLC message has been sent, the server can clean up its
   end of the link group (QPs, RMBs, etc).  Upon receipt of the DELETE
   LINK message from the server, the client must immediately comply and
   clean up its end of the link group.  Any TCP connections that the
   client believes to be active on the link group must be immediately
   terminated.

   The client can request that the server delete the link group as well.
   The client does this by sending a DELETE LINK message to the server
   indicating that cleanup of all links is requested.  The server must
   comply by sending a DELETE LINK to the client and processing as
   described above. If there are TCP connections active on the link
   group when the server receives this request, they are immediately
   terminated by sending a RST flow over the IP fabric.

3.4.5. Link group management flows

3.4.5.1. Adding and deleting links in an SMC-R link group

   The server has the lead role in managing the composition of the link
   group.  Links are added to link group by the server.  The client may
   notify the server of new conditions that may result in the server
   adding a new link, but the server is ultimately responsible.  In
   general links are deleted from the link group by the server, however
   in certain error cases the client may inform the server that a link
   must be deleted and treat it as deleted without waiting for action
   from the server.   These flows are detailed in the following sections

3.4.5.1.1. Server initiated Add Link processing

   As described in previous sections, the server initiates an Add Link
   exchange to create redundancy in a newly created link group.  Once a
   link group is established the server may also initiate Add Link for
   other reasons, including:

   o  Availability of additional resources on the server host to support
      an additional SMC-R link.  This may include the provisioning of an
      additional RNIC, more storage becoming available to support
      additional QP resources, operator command, or any other
      implementation dependent reason.  Note that, to be available for
      an existing link group, a new RNIC must be attached to the same
      RoCE VLAN that the link group is using.

Fox, et. al.             Expires Dec 31, 2012                 [Page 42]
Internet-Draft  Shared Memory Communications over RDMA        July 2012

   o  Receipt of notification from the client that additional resources
      on the client are available to support an additional SMC-R link.
      See 3.4.5.1.2. Client initiated Add Link processing.

   Server initiated Add Link processing in an established SMC-R link
   group is the same as the Add Link processing described in 3.4.1.6.
   Second SMC-R link setup with the following changes:

   o  If an asymmetric SMC-R link already exists in the link group a
      second asymmetric link will not be created.  Only one asymmetric
      link is permitted in a link group.

   o  TCP data flow on already existing link(s) in the link group is not
      halted or otherwise affected during the process of setting up the
      additional link.

   In no case will the server initiate Add Link processing if the link
   group already has the maximum number of links negotiated by the
   partners.

3.4.5.1.2. Client initiated Add Link processing

   If an additional RNIC becomes available for an existing SMC-R link
   group on the client's side, the client notifies the server by sending
   an Add Link request LLC message to the server. Unlike an Add Link
   request sent by the server to the client, this Add Link request
   merely informs the server that the client has a new RNIC.  If the
   link group lacks redundancy, or has redundancy only on an asymmetric
   link with a single RNIC on the client side, the server must initiate
   an Add Link exchange in response to this message, to create or
   improve the link group's redundancy.

   If the link group already has symmetric link redundancy but has fewer
   than the negotiated maximum number of links, the server may respond
   by initiating an Add Link exchange to create a new link using the
   client's new resource but is not required to.

   If the link group already has the negotiated maximum number of links,
   the server must ignore the client's Add Link request LLC message.

   Because the server is not required to respond to the client's Add
   Link LLC message in all cases, the client must not wait for a
   response or throw an error if one does not come.

3.4.5.1.3. Server initiated Delete Link Processing

   Reasons that a server may delete a link include:

Fox, et. al.             Expires Dec 31, 2012                 [Page 43]
Internet-Draft  Shared Memory Communications over RDMA        July 2012

   o  The link has not been used for TCP connections for an
      implementation defined time interval, and deleting the link will
      not cause the link group to lack redundancy

   o  An error in resources supporting the link.  These may include but
      are not limited to: RNIC errors, QP errors, software errors

   o  The RNIC supporting this SMC-R link is being taken down, either
      because of an error case or because of an operator or software
      command.

   If a link being deleted is supporting TCP connections, and there are
   one or more surviving links in the link group, the TCP connections
   are moved to the surviving links.  For more information on this
   processing see 2.3. SMC-R resilience and load balancing.

   The server deletes a link from the link group by sending a Delete
   Link request LLC message to the client over any of the usable links
   in the link group. Because the Delete Link LLC message specifies
   which link is to be deleted, it may flow over any link in the link
   group.  The server must not clean up its RoCE resources for the link
   until the client responds.

   The client responds to the server's Delete Link request LLC message
   by sending the server a Delete Link response LLC message.  The client
   must respond positively; it cannot decline to delete the link.  Once
   the server has received the client's Delete Link response, both sides
   may clean up their resources for the link.

   Positive write completion or other indication from the RNIC on the
   client's side is sufficient to indicate to the client that the server
   has received the Delete Link response.

Fox, et. al.             Expires Dec 31, 2012                 [Page 44]
Internet-Draft  Shared Memory Communications over RDMA        July 2012

        Host X                                     Host Y
   +-------------------+                      +-------------------+
   |            +------+                      +------+            |
   |       QP 8 |RNIC 1|     SMC-R Link 1     |RNIC 2| QP 9       |
   | RKey X |   |Failed|<--X----X----X----X-->|      |            |
   |        |   |      |                      |      |            |
   |       \/   +------+                      +------+            |
   |+--------+         |                      |                   |
   || deleted|         |                      |                   |
   || RMB    |         |                      |                   |
   ||        |         |                      |                   |
   |+--------+         |                      |                   |
   |       /\   +------+                      +------+            |
   | RKey Z |   |      |     SMC-R Link 2     |      |            |
   |        |   |RNIC 3|<-------------------->|RNIC 4|            |
   |       QP 64|      |                      |      | QP 65      |
   |            +------+                      +------+            |
   +-------------------+                      +-------------------+

         DELETE LINK(Request, link number = 1,
               ................................................>
                      reason code = RNIC failure)

         DELETE LINK(Response, link number = 1)
              <................................................

          (note, architecturally this exchange can flow over either
                 SMC-R link but most likely flows over link 2 since
                 the RNIC for link 1 has failed)

                 Figure 10 Server initiated Delete Link flow

3.4.5.1.4. Client initiated Delete Link request

   The client may request that the server delete a link for the same
   reasons that the server may delete a link, except for inactivity
   timeout.

   Because the client depends on the server to delete links, there are
   two types of delete requests from client to server:

Fox, et. al.             Expires Dec 31, 2012                 [Page 45]
Internet-Draft  Shared Memory Communications over RDMA        July 2012

   o  Orderly: the client is requesting that the server delete the link
      when able.  This would result from an operator command to bring
      down the RNIC or some other nonfatal reason.  In this case the
      server is required to delete the link, but may not do it right
      away.

   o  Disorderly: the server must delete the link right away, because
      the client has experienced a fatal error with the link.

   In either case the server responds by initiating a Delete Link
   exchange with the client as described in the previous section.  The
   difference between the two is whether the server must do so
   immediately or can delay for an opportunity to gracefully delete the
   link.

Fox, et. al.             Expires Dec 31, 2012                 [Page 46]
Internet-Draft  Shared Memory Communications over RDMA        July 2012

        Host X                                     Host Y
   +-------------------+                      +-------------------+
   |            +------+                      +------+            |
   |       QP 8 |RNIC 1|     SMC-R Link 1     |RNIC 2| QP 9       |
   | RKey X |   |      |<---X--X--X--X--X--X->|Failed|            |
   |        |   |      |                      |      |            |
   |       \/   +------+                      +------+            |
   |+--------+         |                      |                   |
   || deleted|         |                      |                   |
   || RMB    |         |                      |                   |
   ||        |         |                      |                   |
   |+--------+         |                      |                   |
   |       /\   +------+                      +------+            |
   | RKey Z |   |      |     SMC-R Link 2     |      |            |
   |        |   |RNIC 3|<-------------------->|RNIC 4|            |
   |       QP 64|      |                      |      | QP 65      |
   |            +------+                      +------+            |
   +-------------------+                      +-------------------+

         DELETE LINK(Request, link number = 1, disorderly,
              <...............................................
                     reason code = RNIC failure)

         DELETE LINK(Request, link number = 1,
               ................................................>
                      reason code = RNIC failure)

         DELETE LINK(Response, link number = 1)
              <................................................

          (note, architecturally this exchange can flow over either
                 SMC-R link but most likely flows over link 2 since
                 the RNIC for link 1 has failed)

                   Figure 11 Client-initiated Delete Link

3.4.5.2. Managing multiple Rkeys over multiple SMC-R links in a link
             group

   After the initial contact sequence completes and the number of TCP
   connections increases it is possible that the SMC peers could add
   additional RMBs to the Link Group. Recall that each peer
   independently manages its RMBs. Also recall that an RMB's Rkey is
   specific to a QP, which means that when there are multiple SMC-R
   links in a link group, each RMB accessed with the link group requires
   a separate Rkey for each SMC-R link in the group.

Fox, et. al.             Expires Dec 31, 2012                 [Page 47]
Internet-Draft  Shared Memory Communications over RDMA        July 2012

   Each RMB that is added to a link must be added to all links within
   the Link Group. The set of RMBs created for the Link is called the
   "RKey Set". The RKeys must be exchanged with the peer. As RMBs are
   added and deleted, the RKey Set must remain in sync.

3.4.5.2.1. Adding a new RMB to an SMC-R link group

   A new RMB can be added to an SMC-R link group on either the client or
   the server side.  When an additional RMB is added to an existing SMC-
   R link group, that RMB must be associated with the QPs for each link
   in the link group. Therefore when an RMB is added to an SMC-R link
   group, its RMB Rkey for each SMC-R link's QP must be communicated to
   the peer.

   The keys for a new RMB added to an existing SMC-R link group are
   communicated using "Confirm Rkey" LLC messages, as shown in Figure
   12.  The RKey set is specified as pairs: an SMC link number, paired
   with the new RMB's RKey over that SMC Link.  To preserve failover
   capability, any TCP connection that uses a newly added RMB cannot go
   active until all Rkeys for the RMB have been communicated for all the
   links in the link group.

Fox, et. al.             Expires Dec 31, 2012                 [Page 48]
Internet-Draft  Shared Memory Communications over RDMA        July 2012

         Host X                                     Host Y
    +-------------------+                      +-------------------+
    |            +------+                      +------+            |
    |       QP 8 |RNIC 1|     SMC-R Link 1     |RNIC 2| QP 9       |
    | RKey X |   |      |<-------------------->|      |            |
    |        |   |      |                      |      |            |
    |       \/   +------+                      +------+            |
    |+--------+         |                      |                   |
    || new    |         |                      |                   |
    || RMB    |         |                      |                   |
    ||        |         |                      |                   |
    |+--------+         |                      |                   |
    |       /\   +------+                      +------+            |
    | RKey Z |   |      |     SMC-R Link 2     |      |            |
    |        |   |RNIC 3|<-------------------->|RNIC 4|            |
    |       QP 64|      |                      |      | QP 65      |
    |            +------+                      +------+            |
    +-------------------+                      +-------------------+

          CONFIRM RKEY(Request, Add,
                ................................................>
                       Rkey set((Link 1,Rkey X),(Link2,Rkey Z)))

          CONFIRM RKEY(Response, Add,
               <................................................
                       Rkey set((Link 1,Rkey X),(Link2,Rkey Z)))

           (note, this exchange can flow over either SMC-R link)

                  Figure 12 Add RMB to existing link group

   Implementations may choose to proactively add RMBs to link groups in
   anticipation of need.  For example, an implementation may add a new
   RMB when all of its existing RMB are over a certain threshold
   percentage used.

   A new RMB may also be added to an existing link group on an as needed
   basis.  For example, when a new TCP connection is added to the link
   group but there are no available RMB elements.  In this case the CLC
   exchange is paused while the peer that requires the new RMB adds it.
   An example of this is illustrated in figure 13.

Fox, et. al.             Expires Dec 31, 2012                 [Page 49]
Internet-Draft  Shared Memory Communications over RDMA        July 2012

       Host X -- Server                           Host Y -- Client
    +-------------------+                      +-------------------+
    | PeerID = PS1      |                      |    PeerID = PC1   |
    |            +------+                      +------+            |
    |       QP 8 |RNIC 1|    SMC-R link 1      |RNIC 2| QP 64      |
    | RKey X |   |MAC MA|<-------------------->|MAC MB|   |        |
    |        |   |GID GA|                      |GID GB|   | RKey Y2|
    |       \/   +------+                      +------+  \/        |
    |+--------+         |                      |        +--------+ |
    ||        |         |                      |        | New    | |
    || RMB    |         |                      |        | RMB    | |
    |+--------+         |                      |        +--------+ |
    |       /\   +------+                      +------+  /\        |
    |        |   |RNIC 3|    SMC-R link 2      |RNIC 4|   | Rkey W2|
    |        |   |MAC MC|<-------------------->|MAC MD|   |        |
    |       QP 9 |GID GC|                      |GID GD| QP65       |
    |            +------+                      +------+            |
    +-------------------+                      +-------------------+

            SYN / SYN-ACK / ACT TCP 3-way handshake with TCP option
         <--------------------------------------------------------->

                     SMC Proposal(PC1,MB,GB)
         <--------------------------------------------------------

        SMC Accept(PS1,not 1st contact,MA,GA,QP8,Rkey=X,RMB elem index)
         --------------------------------------------------------->

           Confirm Rkey(Request, Add,
         <........................................................
                        Rkey set((Link1, Rkey Y2),{Link2, Rkey W2)))

           Confirm Rkey(Response, Add,
          ........................................................>
                        Rkey set((Link1, Rkey Y2),{Link2, Rkey W2)))

           SMC Confirm(PC1,MB,GB,QP64,Rkey=Y2, RMB element index)
         <--------------------------------------------------------

                          Legend:
                   ------------   TCP/IP and CLC flows
                   ............   RoCE (LLC) flows

            Figure 13 Client adds RMB during TCP connection setup

Fox, et. al.             Expires Dec 31, 2012                 [Page 50]
Internet-Draft  Shared Memory Communications over RDMA        July 2012

3.4.5.2.2. Deleting an RMB from an SMC-R link group

   Either peer can delete one of its RMBs as long as it is not being
   used for any TCP connections.  Ideally an SMC-R host would use a
   timer to avoid freeing an RMB immediately after the last TCP
   connection stops using it, to keep the RMB available for later TCP
   connections and avoid thrashing with addition and deletion of RMBs.
   Once an SMC-R peer decides to delete an RMB, it sends a CONFIRM
   RKEY(Delete) LLC message to its peer.  It can then free the RMB once
   it receives a response from the peer.  Multiple RMBs can be deleted
   in a CONFIRM RKEY(delete) exchange.

        Host X                                     Host Y
   +-------------------+                      +-------------------+
   |            +------+                      +------+            |
   |       QP 8 |RNIC 1|     SMC-R Link 1     |RNIC 2| QP 9       |
   | RKey X |   |      |<-------------------->|      |            |
   |        |   |      |                      |      |            |
   |       \/   +------+                      +------+            |
   |+--------+         |                      |                   |
   || deleted|         |                      |                   |
   || RMB    |         |                      |                   |
   ||        |         |                      |                   |
   |+--------+         |                      |                   |
   |       /\   +------+                      +------+            |
   | RKey Z |   |      |     SMC-R Link 2     |      |            |
   |        |   |RNIC 3|<-------------------->|RNIC 4|            |
   |       QP 9 |      |                      |      |            |
   |            +------+                      +------+            |
   +-------------------+                      +-------------------+

         CONFIRM RKEY(Request, Delete,
               ................................................>
                      Rkey set((Link 1,Rkey X),(Link2,Rkey Z)))

         CONFIRM RKEY(Response, Delete,
              <................................................
                      Rkey set((Link 1,Rkey X),(Link2,Rkey Z)))

          (note, this exchange can flow over either SMC-R link)

                 Figure 14 Delete RMB from SMC-R link group

Fox, et. al.             Expires Dec 31, 2012                 [Page 51]
Internet-Draft  Shared Memory Communications over RDMA        July 2012

3.4.5.2.3. Adding a new SMC-R link to a link group with multiple RMBs

   When a new SMC-R link is added to an existing link group, there could
   be multiple RMBs on each side already associated with the link group.
   There could also be a different number of RMBs on one side as on the
   other, because each peer manages its RMBs independently.   Each of
   these RMBs will require a new Rkey to be used on the new SMC-R link,
   and then those new Rkeys must be communicated to the peer.  This
   requires two-way communication as the server will have to communicate
   its Rkeys to the client and vice versa.

   Rkeys are communicated between peers in pairs.  Each Rkey pair
   consists of:

   o  The Rkey for the RMB, as is already known on an existing SMC-R
      link in the link group

   o  The Rkey for the same RMB, to be used on the new SMC-R link.

   These pairs are required to ensure that each peer knows which Rkeys
   across QPs are equivalent.

   The "Add Link" request and response LLC messages have room to contain
   one Rkey pair.  If there is only one RMB on each side associated with
   the SMC-R link group, it is communicated as part of the "Add Link"
   exchange.  If more Rkeys are required to be communicated, "Add Link
   continuation" LLC messages are used to communicate them, as shown in
   Figure 15.   The "Add Link Continuation" LLC messages are sent on the
   same SMC-R link that the "Add Link" LLC messages were sent over, and
   in both the "Add Link" and the "Add Link Continuation"  LLC messages,
   the first Rkey in each Rkey pair will be the Rkey for the RMB as
   known on the SMC-R link that the  LLC message is being sent over.

Fox, et. al.             Expires Dec 31, 2012                 [Page 52]
Internet-Draft  Shared Memory Communications over RDMA        July 2012

      Host X -- Server                           Host Y -- Client
   +-------------------+                      +-------------------+
   | PeerID = PS1      |                      |    PeerID = PC1   |
   |            +------+                      +------+            |
   |       QP 8 |RNIC 1|                      |RNIC 2| QP 64      |
   |Rkey Set|   |MAC MA|                      |MAC MB|   |Rkey set|
   |X,Y,Z   |   |GID GA|                      |GID GB|   |Q,R,S,T |
   |       \/   +------+                      +------+  \/        |
   |+--------+         |                      |        +--------+ |
   || 3 RMBs |         |                      |        | 4 RMBs | |
   |+--------+         |                      |        +--------+ |
   |       /\   +------+                      +------+  /\        |
   |Rkey set|   |RNIC 3|                      |RNIC 4|  | Rkey set|
   |U,V,W   |   |MAC MC|                      |MAC MD|  | L,M,N,P |
   |       QP 9 |GID GC|                      |GID GD| QP 65      |
   |            +------+                      +------+            |
   +-------------------+                      +-------------------+

          ADD link request (QP9,MC,GC,Rkey Pair=(X,U), link number=2)
           ............................................>

          ADD link response (QP65,MD,GD,Rkey Pair=(Q,L), link number=2)
           <............................................

          ADD link continuation req(linknum=2, Rkey Pairs=((Y,V),(Z,W)))
            ............................................>

    ADD link continuation rsp(linknum=2, Rkey Pairs=((R,M),(S,N),(T,P)))
            <.............................................

          Confirm Link Req/Rsp exchange on link 2
           <.............................................>

                             Legend:
                      ------------   TCP/IP and CLC flows
                      ............   RoCE (LLC) flows
     Figure 15 Exchanging Rkeys when a new link is added to a link group

3.4.5.3. Serialization of LLC exchanges, and collisions

   LLC flows can be divided into two main groups for serializaion
   considerations.

   The first group is LLC messages that are independent and can flow at
   any time.  These are one-time, unsolicited messages that either do

Fox, et. al.             Expires Dec 31, 2012                 [Page 53]
Internet-Draft  Shared Memory Communications over RDMA        July 2012

   not have a required response, or that have a simple response that
   does not interfere with the operations of another group of messages.
   These messages are:

   o  TEST LINK from either the client or the server:  This message
      requires a TEST LINK response to be returned, but does not affect
      the configuration of the link group or the Rkeys.

   o  ADD LINK from the client to the server:  This message is provided
      as an "FYI" to the server to let it know that the client has an
      additional RNIC available.  The server is not required to act upon
      or respond to this message.

   o  DELETE_LINK from the client to the server: This message informs
      the server that the client has either experienced an error or
      problem that requires a link or link group to be terminated, or
      that an operator has commanded that a link or link group be
      terminated.  The server does not respond directly to the message,
      rather it initiates a DELETE LINK exchange as a result of
      receiving it.

   o  DELETE LINK from the server to the client with the "delete entire
      link group" flag set:  This message informs the client that the
      entire link group is being deleted.

   The second group is LLC messages that are part of an exchange of LLC
   messages that affects link group configuration that must complete
   before another exchange of LLC messages that affects links group
   configuration can be processed.   When a peer knows that one of these
   exchanges is in progress, it must not start another exchange.  These
   exchanges are:

   o  ADD LINK / ADD LINK response / ADD LINK CONTINUATION / ADD LINK
      CONTINUATION response / CONFIRM LINK / CONFIRM LINK RESPONSE:
      This exchange, by adding a new link, changes the configuration of
      the link group.

   o  DELETE LINK / DELETE LINK response initiated by the server: This
      exchange, by deleting a link, changes the configuration of the
      link group.

Fox, et. al.             Expires Dec 31, 2012                 [Page 54]
Internet-Draft  Shared Memory Communications over RDMA        July 2012

   o  CONFIRM RKEY / CONFIRM RKEY response: This exchange changes the
      RMB configuration of the link group. . RKeys can not change while
      links are being added or deleted (while ADD or DELETE LINK is in
      progress). However, CONFIRM RKEY is unique in that both the client
      and server can independently manage (add or remove) their own
      RMBs.  This allows each peer to concurrently change their RKeys
      and therefore concurrently send CONFIRM RKEY requests. The
      concurrent CONFIRM RKEY requests can be independently processed
      and does not represent a collision

   Because the server is in control of the configuration of the link
   group, many timing windows and collisions are avoided but there are
   still some that must be handled.

3.4.5.3.1. Collisions with ADD LINK / CONFIRM LINK exchange

   Colliding LLC message: TEST LINK

      Action to resolve: Send immediate TEST LINK reply

   Colliding LLC Message: ADD LINK from client to server

      Action to resolve: Server ignores the ADD LINK message.   When
      client receives server's ADD LINK, client will consider that
      message to be in response to its ADD LINK message and the flow
      works. Since both client and server know not to start this
      exchange if an ADD LINK operation is already underway, this can
      only occur if the client sends this message before receiving the
      server's ADD LINK and this message crosses with the server's ADD
      LINK message, therefore the server's ADD LINK arrives at the
      client immediately after the client sent this message.

   Colliding LLC Message: DELETE LINK from client to server, specific
   link specified

      Action to resolve: Server queues the DELETE link message and
      processes after the ADD LINK exchange completes. If it is an
      orderly link termination, it can wait until after this exchange
      continues.  If it is disorderly and the link affected is the one
      that the current exchange is using, the server will discover the
      outage when a message in this exchange fails.

   Colliding LLC Message: DELETE LINK from client to server, entire link
   group to be deleted

      Action to resolve: Immediately clean up the link group

Fox, et. al.             Expires Dec 31, 2012                 [Page 55]
Internet-Draft  Shared Memory Communications over RDMA        July 2012

   Colliding LLC message: CONFIRM RKEY from the client

      Action to resolve: Send negative CONFIRM_RKEY response to the
      client.  Once the current exchange finishes, client will have to
      recompute its Rkey set to include the new link, and start a new
      CONFIRM RKEY exchange.

3.4.5.3.2. Collisions during DELETE LINK exchange

   Colliding LLC Message: TEST LINK from either peer

      Action to resolve: Send immediate TEST LINK response

   Colliding LLC message: ADD LNK from client to server

      Action to resolve: Server queues the ADD LINK and processes it
      after the current exchange completes

   Colliding LLC message: DELETE LINK from client to server (specific
   link)

      Action to resolve: Server queues the DELETE link message and
      processes after the current exchange completes. If it is an
      orderly link termination, it can wait until after this exchange
      continues.  If it is disorderly and the link affected is the one
      that the current exchange is using, the server will discover the
      outage when a message in this exchange fails

   Colliding LLC message: DELETE LINK from either client or server,
   deleting the entire link group

      Action to resolve: immediately clean up the link group

   Colliding LLC message: CONFIRM_RKEY from client to server

      Action to resolve: Send negative CONFIRM_RKEY response to the
      client.  Once the current exchange finishes, client will have to
      recompute its Rkey set to include the new link, and start a new
      CONFIRM RKEY exchange

3.4.5.3.3. Collisions during CONFIRM_RKEY exchange

   Colliding LLC Message: TEST LINK

      Action to resolve: Send immediate TEST LINK reply

Fox, et. al.             Expires Dec 31, 2012                 [Page 56]
Internet-Draft  Shared Memory Communications over RDMA        July 2012

   Colliding LLC message: ADD LINK from client to server

      Action to resolve: Queue the ADD LINK and process it after the
      current exchange completes

   Colliding LLC message: ADD LINK from server to client (CONFIRM RKEY
   exchange was initiated by the client and it crossed with the server
   initiating an ADD LINK exchange)

      Action to resolve: Process the ADD LINK. Client will receive a
      negative CONFIRM RKEY from the server and will have to redo this
      CONFIRM RKEY exchange after the ADD LINK exchange completes.

   Colliding LLC message: DELETE LINK from client to server, specific
   link to be deleted (CONFIRM RKEY exchange was initiated by the server
   and it crossed with the client's DELETE LINK request

      Action to resolve: Server queues the DELETE link message and
      processes after the ADD LINK exchange completes. If it is an
      orderly link termination, it can wait until after this exchange
      continues.  If it is disorderly and the link affected is the one
      that the current exchange is using, the server will discover the
      outage when a message in this exchange fails.

   Colliding LLC message: DELETE LINK from server to client, specific
   link deleted (CONFIRM RKEY exchange was initiated by the client and
   it crossed with the server's DELETE LINK)

      Action to resolve: Process the DELETE LINK. Client will receive a
      negative CONFIRM RKEY from the server and will have to redo this
      CONFIRM RKEY exchange after the ADD LINK exchange completes.

   Colliding LLC message: DELETE LINK from either client or server,
   entire link group deleted

      Action to resolve: immediately clean up the link group

   Colliding LLC message: CONFIRM LINK from the peer that did not start
   the current CONFIRM LINK exchange

      Action to resolve: Queue the request and process it after the
      current exchange completes.

Fox, et. al.             Expires Dec 31, 2012                 [Page 57]
Internet-Draft  Shared Memory Communications over RDMA        July 2012

4. SMC-R memory sharing architecture

4.1. RMB element allocation considerations

   Each TCP connection using SMC-R must be allocated a RMBE by each SMC-
   R peer. This allocation is performed by each end point independently
   to allow each end point to select an RMBE that best matches the
   characteristics on its TCP socket end point. The RMBE associated with
   a TCP socket endpoint must have a Receive buffer that is at least as
   large as the TCP receive buffer size in effect for that connection.
   The receive buffer size can be determined by what is specified
   explicitly by the application using setsockopt() or implicitly via
   the system configured default value. This will allow sufficient data
   to be RDMA written by the peer SMC-R host to fill an entire receive
   buffer size worth of data on a given data flow. Given that each RMB
   must have fixed length RMBEs this implies that an SMC-R end point may
   need to maintain multiple RMBs of various sizes for SMC-R connections
   on a given SMC link and can then select an RMBE that most closely
   fits a connection.

4.2. Format of an RMBE control area

   An illustration of the RMBE control area is shown in Figure 16 below:

Fox, et. al.             Expires Dec 31, 2012                 [Page 58]
Internet-Draft  Shared Memory Communications over RDMA        July 2012

   0                   1                   2                   3
    0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
   0  +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |            Beginning eye catcher (0xD9D4C2C5)                 |
   4  +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |Peer Conn State|             Reserved for Future Use           |
   8  +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |            Reserved for Future Use                            |
   12 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |            Reserved for Future Use                            |
   16 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |            Peer producer cursor                               |
   20 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |            Peer producer cursor indicators                    |
   24 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |            Peer consumer cursor                               |
   28 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |            Peer consumer cursor indicators                    |
   32 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |            Reserved for future use                            |
   36 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |            Reserved for future use                            |
   40 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |            Reserved for future use                            |
   44 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |            Reserved for future use                            |
   48 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |            Reserved for future use                            |
   52 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |            Reserved for future use                            |
   56 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |            Reserved for future use                            |
   60 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |            Trailing eye catcher (0xD9D4C2C6)                  |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
                     Figure 16 RMBE Control Area Format

   o  Beginning eye catcher (bytes 0-3): A 4 byte identifier of the
      beginning of the RMBE control area. Has the fixed value of
      0xD9D4C2C5 which is the text string "RMBE" in EBCDIC (IBM-1047)
      encoding. This eye catcher serves as a diagnostics aid for
      detecting accidental overlays on the RMB.  Set by RMBE owner
      during initialization. Checked by RMBE owner every time the
      element is referenced.

   o  Peer Conn State (byte 4): A 1 byte field that contains flags that
      describe the state of the peer SMC-R connection.

Fox, et. al.             Expires Dec 31, 2012                 [Page 59]
Internet-Draft  Shared Memory Communications over RDMA        July 2012

       o  Bit 0 (1xxx xxxx) Sending done indicator: Set by peer when it
          is done writing new data into this RMBE's data area. Note that
          the peer may still make future updates to Peer Consumer
          related fields in this RMBE. This bit is updated via a unique
          RDMA Write immediate operation (with notification) after all
          updates to this RMBE have been made (e.g. Peer Producer
          cursor).

       o  Bit 1 (x1xx xxxx) Peer Closed Connection indicator: Set by
          peer when it is completely done with this connection and will
          no longer be making any updates to this RMBE. This bit is
          updated via a unique RDMA Write immediate operation (with
          notification) after all updates to this RMBE have been made
          (e.g. Peer Producer/Consumer cursors).

       o  Bit 2 (xx1x xxxx) Peer Abnormal Close indicator: Set by peer
          when the connection is abnormally terminated (for example, the
          TCP connection was Reset). When set it indicates that the peer
          is completely done with this connection and will no longer be
          making any updates to this RMBE. It also indicates that the
          RMBE owner must flush any remaining data on this connection
          and surface an error return code to any outstanding socket
          APIs on this connection (same processing as receiving an RST
          segment on a TCP connection). This bit is updated via a unique
          RDMA Write immediate operation (with notification) after all
          updates to this RMBE have been made (e.g. Peer
          Producer/Consumer cursors)

       o Bits 3-7: Reserved for future use

   o  Peer producer cursor (bytes 16-19): Unsigned, 4 byte integer that
      is a wrapping offset into this RMBE data area. Points to the next
      byte of data to be written. Can advance up to the Peer Consumer
      Cursor in the partner's RMBE. When urgent data present indicator
      is on then points one byte beyond the last byte of urgent data.

   o  Peer producer cursor indicators (bytes 20-23): 4 byte field
      containing state information related to the Peer producer cursor.

       o Producer Flags (Byte 20): 1 byte of flags related to the peer's
          current data stream sending state.

            . Bit 0 (1xxx xxxx) Writer blocked indicator: Peer is
               blocked for writing, requires explicit notification when
               receive buffer space is available.

Fox, et. al.             Expires Dec 31, 2012                 [Page 60]
Internet-Draft  Shared Memory Communications over RDMA        July 2012

            . Bit 1 (x1xx xxxx) Urgent data pending: Peer has urgent
               data pending for this connection

            . Bit 2 (xx1x xxxx) Urgent data present: Indicates that
               urgent data present in the RMBE data area, the producer
               cursor points to one byte beyond the last byte urgent
               data.

            . Bit 3 (xxx1 xxxx) Consumer cursor update requested:
               Indicates that a consumer cursor update is requested
               bypassing any window size optimization algorithms.

            . Bits 4-7: Reserved for future use

       o Producer window wrap sequence number (bytes 22-23): 2 byte
          unsigned integer. It is wrapping counter incremented by the
          producer whenever the data written into this RMBE receiver
          buffer causes a wrap (i.e. the producer cursor wraps). This is
          used by the receiver to determine when new data is available
          even though the cursors appear unchanged such as when a full
          window size write is completed (Peer Producer cursor of this
          RMBE = Local Peer Consumer Cursor) or in scenarios where the
          Peer Producer Cursor in this RMBE < Local Peer Consumer
          Cursor).

   o  Peer consumer cursor (bytes 24-27): Unsigned 4 byte integer that
      is a wrapping offset into the peer's RMBE data area.  Points to
      the offset of the next byte of data to be consumed by the peer in
      its own RMBE. The RMBE owner cannot write beyond this cursor into
      the peer's RMBE without causing data loss.

   o  Peer consumer cursor indicators (bytes 28-31): 4 bytes of
      information indicating the state of the receiver data stream by
      the peer consumer.

       o Consumer window wrap sequence number (Bytes 28-29): 2 byte
          unsigned integer that mirrors the value of the Producer window
          wrap sequence number when the last read from this RMBE
          occurred. Used as an indicator on how far along the consumer
          is in reading data (i.e. processed last wrap point or not).
          The producer side can use this indicator to detect whether
          more data can be written to the partner in full window write
          scenarios (where the Peer Producer Cursor in the partner RMBE
          =  Peer Consumer Cursor on the remote RMBE).  In this scenario
          if the consumer sequence number equals the local producer
          sequence number the producer knows that more data can be
          written.

Fox, et. al.             Expires Dec 31, 2012                 [Page 61]
Internet-Draft  Shared Memory Communications over RDMA        July 2012

       o Bytes 30-31: Reserved for future use.

   o  Trailing eye catcher (bytes 60-63): A 4 byte identifier of the
      ending of the RMBE control area. Has the fixed value of 0xD9D4C2C6
      which is the text string "RMBF" in EBCDIC (IBM-1047) encoding.
      This eye catcher serves as a diagnostics aid for detecting
      accidental overlays on the RMB.  Set by RMBE owner during
      initialization. Checked by RMBE owner every time the element is
      referenced.

4.3. Use of RMBEs

4.3.1. Initializing and accessing RMBEs

   The RMBE control area is initialized by the RMB owner prior to
   assigning it to a specific TCP connection and communicating its RMB
   index to the SMC-R partner. After an RMBE index is communicated to
   the SMC-R partner the RMBE can only be referenced in "read only mode"
   by the owner and all updates to it are performed by the remote SMC-R
   partner via RDMA write operations.

   Initialization of an RMBE must include the following:

   o  Zeroing out the entire RMBE, including the Control Area and the
      Receive Buffer area. Zeroing out the Receive buffer area helps
      minimize data integrity issues (e.g. data from a previous
      connection somehow being presented to the current connection).

   o  Setting the beginning and trailing RMBE eye catchers. These eye
      catchers play an important role in helping detect accidental
      overlays of the RMBE Control or Receive buffer areas.  The RMB
      owner must always validate these eye catchers before each new
      reference to the RMBE. If the eye catchers are found to be
      corrupted the local host must reset the TCP connection associated
      with this RMBE and log the appropriate diagnostic information.

   Rules for local reads and RDMA writes to the RMBE control area:

Fox, et. al.             Expires Dec 31, 2012                 [Page 62]
Internet-Draft  Shared Memory Communications over RDMA        July 2012

   o  Atomic RDMA writes and local reads of related RMBE Control area
      fields: Certain fields in the RMBE must be updated and read in an
      atomic fashion. For example, the Peer Producer Cursor and the Peer
      Producer Cursor Indicator fields must be written in the same RDMA
      write operation as they have a direct relationship to each other.
      They must also be read atomically on the local host to ensure a
      consistent view of these fields. This can be done via any
      operating system specific instruction that allows the atomic
      fetching of this double word field. Other fields that need to be
      fetched atomically include the Peer Consumer Cursor and Peer
      Consumer Cursor Indicator fields.

   o  Any changes to the Peer Connection State flags must be performed
      using a unique RDMA write operation following any other RDMA write
      operations that update other sections of the RMBE Control area
      (e.g. Producer and Consumer cursors). This will ensure that RMBE
      owner can have a consistent read view of the Peer Connection State
      flags in relation to other fields in the control area.

   o  Reserved areas within the RMBE control area: Writers must ensure
      that reserved areas (bits, bytes, etc.) contain zeroes on any RDMA
      Writes. The RMBE owner must not validate that any reserved fields
      (bits, bytes, words, etc.) contain zeroes.  This will facilitate
      future additions to the RMBE control area without requiring
      tightly coupled coordination between remote SMC-R peers. The
      general strategy for adding new fields into the RMBE control area
      is to introduce a new capabilities flags field in the RMBE that
      would indicate the presence of new fields in the RMBE control
      area.  The RDMA writer would turn on the capability flag
      associated with a new field on the 1st RDMA Write to the control
      area.  The RMBE owner (i.e. reader) could then interrogate the
      capability flag (if it has support for the new feature) prior to
      referencing the new RMBE field.  This allows for loosely coupled
      introduction of new RMBE features/fields in the future.

Fox, et. al.             Expires Dec 31, 2012                 [Page 63]
Internet-Draft  Shared Memory Communications over RDMA        July 2012

4.3.2. RMB element reuse and conflict resolution
   RMB elements can be reused once their associated TCP and SMC-R
   connections are terminated. Under normal and abnormal SMC-R
   connection termination processing both SMC-R peers must explicitly
   acknowledge that they are done using an RMBE before that element can
   be freed and reassigned to another SMC-R connection instance.  For
   more details on SMC-R connection termination refer to section 4.6.
   However, there are some error scenarios where this 2 way explicit
   acknowledgement may not be completed. In these scenarios (mentioned
   explicitly elsewhere in this document) an RMBE owner may chose to re-
   assign this RMBE to a new SMC-R connection instance on this SMC link
   group. When this occurs the partner SMC-R peer must detect this
   condition during SMC-R rendezvous processing when presented with an
   RMBE that it believes is already in use for a different SMC-R
   connection.  In this case, the SMC-R peer must abort the existing
   SMC-R connection associated with this RMBE.  The abort processing
   Resets the TCP connection (if it is still active) but it must not
   attempt to perform any RDMA writes to this RMBE and must also ignore
   any data sitting in the local RMBE associated with the existing
   connection.  It then proceeds to free up the local RMBE and notify
   the local application that the connection is being abnormally reset.

   The remote SMC-R peer then proceeds to normal processing for this new
   SMC-R connection with one key additional requirement. It must use an
   RDMA Write operation to clear the contents of the peer's RMBE control
   area (everything other than the eye catchers).  The reason for this
   is to ensure that there is no latent control data in the RMBE from
   the previous instance of the SMC-R connection that was using it.
   There is a small window between the time when an SMC-R host re-
   allocates an RMBE that has not gone through the complete SMC-R
   connection termination process and the time that the remote hosts
   notices that this RMBE is being reclaimed for a new connection - this
   re-initialization processing for the control area by the peer closes
   this window.

4.4. SMC-R protocol considerations

   The following sections describe considerations for the SMC-R protocol
   as compared to the TCP protocol.

4.4.1. SMC-R protocol optimized window size updates

   An SMC-R receiver host uses the Peer Consumer Cursor fields in the
   sender's RMBE to convey the progress that the receiving application
   has made in consuming the sent data.  The difference between the Peer
   Producer Cursor and the associated Peer Consumer Cursor indicates the

Fox, et. al.             Expires Dec 31, 2012                 [Page 64]
Internet-Draft  Shared Memory Communications over RDMA        July 2012

   window size available for the sender to write into. This is somewhat
   similar to TCP window update processing and therefore has some
   similar considerations, such as silly window syndrome avoidance,
   whereby the TCP protocol has an optimization that minimizes the
   overhead of very small, unproductive window size updates associated
   with sub-optimal socket applications consuming very small amount of
   data on every receive() invocation.  For SMC-R, the receiver only
   updates the Peer Consumer Cursor via a unique RDMA write operation
   under the following conditions:

   o  The current window size (from a sender's perspective) is less than
      half of the Receive Buffer space and the Peer Consumer Cursor
      update will result in a minimum increase in the window size of 10%
      of the Receive buffer space.  Some examples:

         a. Receive Buffer size: 64K, Current window size (from a
            sender's perspective): 50K. No need to update the Peer
            Consumer Cursor. Plenty of space is available for the
            sender.

         b. Receive Buffer size: 64K, Current window size (from a
            sender's perspective): 30K, Current window size from a
            receiver's perspective: 31K. No need to update the Peer
            Consumer Cursor; even though the sender's window size < 1/2
            of the 64K, the window update would only increase that by 1K
            which is < 1/10th of the 64K buffer size.

         c. Receive Buffer size: 64K, Current window size (from a
            sender's perspective): 30K, Current window size from a
            receiver's perspective: 64K. The receiver updates update the
            Peer Consumer Cursor (sender's window size < 1/2 of the 64K,
            the window update would increase that by > 6.4K).

   o  The receiver must always update the Peer Consumer Cursor (if it
      doesn't match its local Consumer Cursor) if it performs an RDMA
      write to the partner's RMBE control area for another flow (i.e.
      send flow in the opposite direction). This allows the window size
      update to be delivered with no additional overhead. This is
      somewhat similar to TCP DelayAck processing and quite effective
      for request/response data patterns.

Fox, et. al.             Expires Dec 31, 2012                 [Page 65]
Internet-Draft  Shared Memory Communications over RDMA        July 2012

   o  The optimized window size updates are overridden when the sender
      turns on the Consumer Cursor Update Requested flag in the producer
      flags field. When this indicator is on the consumer must send a
      Consumer Cursor update immediately when data is consumed by the
      local application or if the cursor has not been updated for a
      while (i.e. local copy consumer cursor does not match the consumer
      cursor in the partner's RMBE). This allows the sender to perform
      optional diagnostics for detecting a stalled receiver application
      (data has been sent but not consumed). It is recommended that the
      Consumer Cursor Update Requested flag only get enabled for
      diagnostic procedures as it may result in non-optimal data path
      performance.

4.4.2. Small data sends

   The SMC-R protocol makes no special provisions for handling small
   data segments sent across a stream socket. Data is always sent if
   sufficient window space is available. There are no special provisions
   for coalescing small data segments, similar to the TCP Nagle
   algorithm.

   An implementation of SMC-R may optimize its sending processing by
   coalescing outbound data for a given SMC-R connection so that it can
   reduce the number of RDMA write operations it performed in a similar
   fashion to Nagle's algorithm. However, any such coalescing would
   require a timer on the sending host that would ensure that data was
   eventually sent. And the sending host would have to opt out of this
   processing if Nagle's algorithm had been disabled (programmatically
   or via system config).

4.4.3. TCP Keepalive processing

   TCP keepalive processing allows applications to direct the local
   TCP/IP host to periodically "test" the viability of an idle TCP
   connection.  Since SMC-R connections have both a TCP representation
   along with an SMC-R representation there are unique keepalive
   processing considerations:

Fox, et. al.             Expires Dec 31, 2012                 [Page 66]
Internet-Draft  Shared Memory Communications over RDMA        July 2012

   o  SMC-R layer keepalive processing: If keepalive is enabled for an
      SMC-R connection the local host maintains a keepalive timer that
      reflects how long an SMC-R connection has been idle. The local
      host also maintains a timestamp of last activity for each SMC link
      (for any SMC-R connection on that link).  When it is determined
      that an SMC-R connection has been idle longer than the keepalive
      interval the host checks whether the SMC-R link has been idle for
      a duration longer than the keepalive timeout.  If both conditions
      are met, the local host then performs a Test Link LLC command to
      test the viability of the SMC link over the RoCE fabric (RC-QPs).
      If a Test Link LLC command response is received within a
      reasonable amount of time then the link is considered viable and
      all connections using this link are considered viable as well.  If
      however a response is not received in a reasonable amount of time
      or there's a failure in sending the Test Link LLC command then
      this is considered a failure in the SMC link and failover
      processing to an alternate SMC link must be triggered. If no
      alternate SMC link exists in the SMC link group then all the SMC-R
      connections on this link are abnormally terminated by resetting
      the TCP connections represented by these SMC-R connections.  Given
      that multiple SMC-R connections can share the same SMC link,
      implementing an SMC link level probe using the Test Link LLC
      command will help reduce the amount of unproductive keepalive
      traffic for SMC-R connections; as long as some SMC-R connections
      on a given SMC link are active (i.e. have had I/O activity within
      the keepalive interval) then there is no need to perform
      additional link viability testing.

   o  TCP layer keepalives processing:  Traditional TCP "keepalive"
      packets are not as relevant for SMC-R connections given that the
      TCP path is not used for these connections once the SMC-R
      rendezvous processing is completed.  All SMC-R connections by
      default have associated TCP connections that are idle.  Are TCP
      keepalive probes still needed for these connections?  There are
      two main scenarios to consider:

     1. TCP keepalives that are used determine whether the peer TCP
        endpoint is still active. This is not needed for SMC-R
        connections as the SMC-R level keepalives mentioned above will
        determine whether the remote endpoint connections are still
        active.

Fox, et. al.             Expires Dec 31, 2012                 [Page 67]
Internet-Draft  Shared Memory Communications over RDMA        July 2012

     2. TCP keepalives that are used to ensure that TCP connections
        traversing an intermediate proxy maintain an active state. For
        example, statefull firewalls typically maintain state
        representing every valid TCP connection that traverses the
        firewall.  These types of firewalls are known to expire idle
        connections by removing their state in the firewall to conserve
        memory. TCP keepalives are often used in this scenario to
        prevent firewalls from timing out otherwise idle connections.
        When using SMC-R, both end points must reside in the same layer
        2 network (i.e. the same subnet).  As a result, firewalls can
        not be injected in the path between two SMC-R endpoints.
        However, other intermediate proxies, such as TCP/IP layer load
        balancers may be injected in the path of two SMC-R endpoints.
        These types of load balancers also maintain connection state so
        that they can forward TCP connection traffic to the appropriate
        cluster end point.  When using SMC-R these TCP connections will
        appear to be completely idle making them susceptible to
        potential timeouts at the LB proxy.  As a result, for this
        scenario, TCP keepalives may still be relevant.

   The following are the TCP level keepalive processing requirements for
   SMC-R enabled hosts:

   o  SMC-R hosts should allow TCP keepalives to flow on the TCP path of
      SMC-R connections based on existing TCP keepalive configuration
      and programming options. However, it is strongly recommended that
      platforms that provide the ability to specify very granular
      keepalive timers (for example, single digit second timers) should
      consider providing a configuration option that limits the minimum
      keepalive timer that will be used for TCP layer keepalives on SMC-
      R connections.  This is important to minimize the amount of TCP
      keepalive packets transmitted in the network for SMC-R
      connections.

   o  SMC-R hosts must always respond to inbound TCP layer keepalives
      (by sending ACKs for these packets) even if the connection is
      using SMC-R. Typically, once a TCP connection has completed the
      SMC-R rendezvous processing and using SMC-R for data flows, no new
      inbound TCP segments are expected on that TCP connection other
      than TCP termination segments (FIN, RST, etc).  TCP keepalives are
      the one exception that must be supported.  And since TCP keepalive
      probes do not carry any application layer data this has no adverse
      impact on the application's inbound data stream.

Fox, et. al.             Expires Dec 31, 2012                 [Page 68]
Internet-Draft  Shared Memory Communications over RDMA        July 2012

4.5. RMB data flows

   The following sections describe the RDMA wire flows for the SMC-R
   protocol after a TCP connection has switched into SMC-R mode (i.e.
   SMC-R rendezvous processing is complete and a pair of RMB elements
   has been assigned and communicated by the partner SMC-R hosts).  The
   ladder diagrams below include the following:

   o  RMBE control areas fields (cursors) in each pair of RMBEs. Only a
      subset of the fields are depicted, specifically only the fields
      that reflect the stream of data written by Host A and read by Host
      B.

   o  Time line 0-x that shows the wire flows in a time relative fashion

   o  Note the RMBE control fields are only shown in a time interval if
      their value changed (otherwise assume the value is unchanged from
      previously depicted value)

   o  The local copy of the producer and consumer cursors that is
      maintained by each host is not depicted in these figures.

   o  Each SMC-R host must also keep a copy of the last processed local
      and remote RMBE control area so that it is aware of pending
      changes that have not yet been reflected in the partner's RMBE
      control area and also to allow detection of changes in the local
      RMBE control area (by the peer).  These copies are not reflected
      in the ladder diagrams below to simplify these figures.

4.5.1. Scenario 1: Send flow, window size unconstrained

            SMC Host A                              SMC HostB
           RMBE A Fields                          RMBE B Fields
       (Consumer Cursors)                      (Producer Cursors)
   Cursor   Wrap Seq# Time               Time Cursor   Wrap Seq#  Flags
   0        0         0                  0    0        0          0
   0        0         1 ---------------> 1    0        0          0
                        RDMA-WR Data
                          (0:999)
   0        0         2 ---------------> 2    1000     0          0
                        RDMA WR Control
                           data (I)

         Figure 17 Scenario 1: Send flow, window size unconstrained

   Scenario assumptions:

Fox, et. al.             Expires Dec 31, 2012                 [Page 69]
Internet-Draft  Shared Memory Communications over RDMA        July 2012

   o  Kernel implementation

   o  New SMC-R connection, no data has been sent on the connection

   o  Host A: Application issues send for 1,000 bytes to Host B

   o  Host B: RMBE receive buffer size is 10,000, application has issued
      a recv for 10,000 bytes

   Flow description:

     1. Application issues send() for 1,000 bytes, SMC-R layer copies
        data into a kernel send buffer. It then schedules an RDMA write
        operation to move the data into the peer's RMBE receive buffer,
        at relative position 0-999. Note that no immediate data or alert
        (i.e. interrupt) is provided to host B for this RDMA operation.

     2. Host A issues another RDMA write operation with immediate data
        (the RMBE alert token) to update the Peer Producer Cursor to
        byte 1000. This RDMA write operation will deliver an interrupt
        to Host B. At this point, the SMC-R layer can return control
        back to the application. Host B, once notified of the completion
        of the previous RDMA operation, locates the RMBE associated with
        the RMBE alert token and proceeds to perform normal receive side
        processing, waking up the suspended application read thread,
        copying the data into the application's receive buffer, etc. It
        will use the Peer Producer Cursor as an indicator of how much
        data is available to be delivered to the local application.
        After this processing is complete, the SMC-R layer will also
        update its local Consumer Cursor to match the Peer Producer
        Cursor (i.e. indicating that all data has been consumed). Note
        that an update of the Peer Consumer Cursor for the partner's
        RMBE is not needed at this time as the window size if
        unconstrained (> 1/2 of the receive buffer size). The window
        size is calculated using by taking the difference between the
        Producer and the Consumer cursors in the RMBEs (10,000-
        1,000=9,000).

Fox, et. al.             Expires Dec 31, 2012                 [Page 70]
Internet-Draft  Shared Memory Communications over RDMA        July 2012

4.5.2. Scenario 2: Send/Receive flow, window unconstrained

            SMC Host A                              SMC HostB
           RMBE A Fields                          RMBE B Fields
       (Consumer Cursors)                      (Producer Cursors)
   Cursor   Wrap Seq# Time               Time Cursor   Wrap Seq#  Flags
   0        0         0                  0    0        0          0
   0        0         1 ---------------> 1    0        0          0
                        RDMA-WR Data
                          (0:999)
   0        0         2 ---------------> 2    1000     0          0
                        RDMA WR Control
                           data (I)
   0        0         3 <--------------  3    1000     0          0
                        RDMA-WR Data
                          (0:499)
   1000     0         4 <--------------  4    1000     0          0

       Figure 18 Scenario 2: Send/Recv flow, window size unconstrained

   Scenario assumptions:

   o  New SMC-R connection, no data has been sent on the connection

   o  Host A: Application issues send for 1,000 bytes to Host B

   o  Host B: RMBE receive buffer size is 10,000, application has
      already issued a recv for 10,000 bytes. Once the receive is
      completed, the application sends a 500 byte response to Host A.

   Flow description:

     1. Application issues send() for 1,000 bytes, SMC-R layer copies
        data into a kernel send buffer. It then schedules an RDMA write
        operation to move the data into the peer's RMBE receive buffer,
        at relative position 0-999. Note that no immediate data or alert
        (i.e. interrupt) is provided to host B for this RDMA operation.

     2. Host A issues another RDMA write operation with immediate data
        (the RMBE alert token) to update the Peer Producer Cursor to
        byte 1000. This RDMA write operation will deliver an interrupt
        to Host B. At this point, the SMC-R layer can return control
        back to the application.

Fox, et. al.             Expires Dec 31, 2012                 [Page 71]
Internet-Draft  Shared Memory Communications over RDMA        July 2012

     3. Host B, once notified of the completion of the previous RDMA
        operation, locates the RMBE associated with the RMBE alert token
        and proceeds to perform normal receive side processing, waking
        up the suspended application read thread, copying the data into
        the application's receive buffer, etc. After this processing is
        complete, the SMC-R layer will also update its local Consumer
        Cursor to match the Peer Producer Cursor (i.e. indicating that
        all data has been consumed). Note that an update of the Peer
        Consumer Cursor for the partner's RMBE is not needed at this
        time as the window size if unconstrained (> 1/2 of the receive
        buffer size). The application then performs a send() for 500
        bytes to Host A.  The SMC-R layer will copy the data into a
        kernel buffer and then schedule an RDMA Write into the partner's
        RMBE receive buffer. Note that this RDMA write operation
        includes no immediate data or notification to Host A.

     4. Host B schedules another RDMA write to update the partner's RMBE
        Control area with the latest Peer Producer Cursor (set to 500
        and not shown in the diagram above) and to also update the Peer
        Consumer Cursor to 1000. It also updates the local Current
        Consumer Cursor and Last Sent Consumer Cursor to 1000. This RDMA
        Write includes immediate data/notification since we are updating
        the Peer Producer Cursor which requires attention by the peer
        host.

Fox, et. al.             Expires Dec 31, 2012                 [Page 72]
Internet-Draft  Shared Memory Communications over RDMA        July 2012

4.5.3. Scenario 3: Send Flow, window constrained

            SMC Host A                              SMC HostB
           RMBE A Fields                          RMBE B Fields
       (Consumer Cursors)                      (Producer Cursors)
   Cursor   Wrap Seq# Time               Time Cursor   Wrap Seq#  Flags
   0        0         0                  0    0        0          0
   0        0         1 ---------------> 1    0        0          0
                        RDMA-WR Data
                          (0:2999)
   0        0         2 ---------------> 2    3000     0          0
                        RDMA-WR Control
                           data (I)
   0        0         3                  3    3000     0          0
   0        0         4 ---------------> 4    3000     0          0
                        RDMA-WR Data
                          (3000:6999)
   0        0         5 ---------------> 5    7000     0          0
                        RDMA-WR Control
                           data (I)
   7000     0         6 <--------------- 6    7000     0          0
                        RDMA-WR Control
                           data

          Figure 19 Scenario 3: Send Flow, window size constrained

   Scenario assumptions:

   o  New SMC-R connection, no data has been sent on this connection

   o  Host A: Application issues send for 3,000 bytes to Host B and then
      another send for 4,000

   o  Host B: RMBE receive buffer size is 10,000. Application has
      already issued a recv for 10,000 bytes

   Flow description:

     1. Application issues send() for 3,000 bytes, SMC-R layer copies
        data into a kernel send buffer. It then schedules an RDMA write
        operation to move the data into the peer's RMBE receive buffer,
        at relative position 0-2,999. Note that no immediate data or
        alert (i.e. interrupt) is provided to host B for this RDMA
        operation.

Fox, et. al.             Expires Dec 31, 2012                 [Page 73]
Internet-Draft  Shared Memory Communications over RDMA        July 2012

     2. Host A issues another RDMA write operation with immediate data
        (the RMBE alert token) to update the Peer Producer Cursor to
        byte 3000. This RDMA write operation will deliver an interrupt
        to Host B. At this point, the SMC-R layer can return control
        back to the application.

     3. Host B, once notified of the completion of the previous RDMA
        operation, locates the RMBE associated with the RMBE alert token
        and proceeds to perform normal receive side processing, waking
        up the suspended application read thread, copying the data into
        the application's receive buffer, etc. After this processing is
        complete, the SMC-R layer will also update its local Consumer
        Cursor to match the Peer Producer Cursor (i.e. indicating that
        all data has been consumed).  It will not however update the
        partner's RMBE with this information as the window size is not
        constrained (10000-3000=7000 of available space). The
        application on Host B also issues a new recv() for 10,000.

     4. On Host A, application issues a send() for 4,000 bytes. The SMC-
        R layer copies the data into a kernel buffer and schedules an
        async RDMA write into the peer's RMBE receive buffer at relative
        position 3000-6999. Note that no alert is provided to host B for
        this flow.

     5. Host A issues another RDMA write operation with immediate data
        (the RMBE alert token) to update the Peer Producer Cursor to
        byte 7000. This RDMA write operation will deliver an interrupt
        to Host B. At this point, the SMC-R layer can return control
        back to the application.

     6. Host B, once notified of the completion of the previous RDMA
        operation, locates the RMBE associated with the RMBE alert token
        and proceeds to perform normal receive side processing, waking
        up the suspended application read thread, copying the data into
        the application's receive buffer, etc. After this processing is
        complete, the SMC-R layer will also update its local Consumer
        Cursor to match the Peer Producer Cursor (i.e. indicating that
        all data has been consumed).  It will then determine whether the
        Peer Consumer Cursor in RMBE A needs to be updated. The
        available window size is now 3,000 (10,000 - (Producer Cursor -
        Last Sent Consumer Cursor)) which < 1/2 receive buffer size
        (10,000/2=5,000) and the advance of the window size is > 10% of
        the windows size (1,000).  Therefore an RDMA write operation is
        issued to update the Peer Consumer Cursor on RMBE A.  Note that
        no immediate data is needed on this RDMA Write operation as Host
        A is not blocked on this connection. Host A will notice the
        updated cursor the next time it references RMBE A.

Fox, et. al.             Expires Dec 31, 2012                 [Page 74]
Internet-Draft  Shared Memory Communications over RDMA        July 2012

4.5.4. Scenario 4: Large send, flow control, full window size writes

            SMC Host A                              SMC HostB
           RMBE A Fields                          RMBE B Fields
       (Consumer Cursors)                      (Producer Cursors)
   Cursor   Wrap Seq# Time               Time Cursor   Wrap Seq#  Flags
   1000     1         0                  0    1000     1          0
   1000     1         1 ---------------> 1    1000     1          0
                        RDMA-WR Data
                          (1000:9999)
   1000     1         2 ---------------> 2    1000     1          0
                        RDMA-WR Data
                          (0:999)
   1000     1         3 ---------------> 3    1000     2          Wrt
                        RDMA-WR Control                           Blk
                           data (I)
   1000     2         4 <--------------- 4    1000     2          Wrt
                        RDMA-WR Control                           Blk
                          data (I)
   1000     2         5 ---------------> 5    1000     2          Wrt
                        RDMA-WR Data                              Blk
                          (1000:9999)
   1000     2         6 ---------------> 6    1000     2          Wrt
                        RDMA-WR Data                              Blk
                         (0:999)
   1000     2         7 ---------------> 7    1000     3          Wrt
                        RDMA-WR Control                           Blk
                          data (I)
   1000     3         8 <--------------- 8    1000     3          Wrt
                        RDMA-WR Control                           Blk
                          data (I)
      Figure 20 Scenario 4: Large send, flow control, full window size
                                   writes

   Scenario assumptions:

   o  Kernel implementation

   o  Existing SMC-R connection, Host B's receive window size is fully
      open(Peer Consumer Cursor = Peer Producer Cursor).

   o  Host A: Application issues send for 20,000 bytes to Host B

   o  Host B: RMB receive buffer size is 10,000, application has issued
      a recv for 10,000 bytes

   Flow description:

Fox, et. al.             Expires Dec 31, 2012                 [Page 75]
Internet-Draft  Shared Memory Communications over RDMA        July 2012

     1. Application issues send() for 20,000 bytes, SMC-R layer copies
        data into a kernel send buffer (assumes send buffer space of
        20,000 is available for this connection). It then schedules an
        RDMA write operation to move the data into the peer's RMBE
        receive buffer, at relative position 1000-9999. Note that no
        immediate data or alert (i.e. interrupt) is provided to host B
        for this RDMA operation.

     2. Host A then schedules an RDMA write operation to fill the
        remaining 1000 bytes of available data into the peer's RMBE
        receive buffer, at relative position 0-999. Note that no
        immediate data or alert (i.e. interrupt) is provided to host B
        for this RDMA operation. Also note that an implementation of
        SMC-R may optimize this processing by combining step 1 and 2
        into a single RDMA Write operation (with 2 different data
        sources).

     3. Host A issues another RDMA write operation with immediate data
        (the RMBE alert token) to update the Peer Producer Cursor to
        byte 1000. Since the entire receive buffer space is filled, the
        Peer Producer Writer Blocked flag (WrtBlk indicator above) is
        set and the Peer Producer Window Wrap Sequence Number (Producer
        WrapSeq# above) is incremented. This RDMA write operation will
        deliver an interrupt to Host B. At this point, the SMC-R layer
        can return control back to the application.

     4. Host B, once notified of the completion of the previous RDMA
        operation, locates the RMBE associated with the RMBE alert token
        and proceeds to perform normal receive side processing, waking
        up the suspended application read thread, copying the data into
        the application's receive buffer, etc. In this scenario, Host B
        notices that the Peer Producer Cursor has not been advanced
        (same value as Peer Consumer Cursor), however, it notices that
        the Producer Window Wrap Size Sequence number is different from
        its local value (1) indicating that a full window of new data is
        available. All the data in the receive buffer can be processed,
        the first segment (1000-9999) followed by the second segment (0-
        999). Because the Producer Writer Blocked indicator was set,
        Host B schedules another RDMA write to update the partner's RMBE
        Control area with the latest control information: Peer Producer
        Cursor (1000), Peer Consumer Window Wrap Size Sequence Number
        (2: the current Producer Window Wrap Sequence Number is used).
        This RDMA Write includes immediate data/notification.

Fox, et. al.             Expires Dec 31, 2012                 [Page 76]
Internet-Draft  Shared Memory Communications over RDMA        July 2012

     5. Host A, upon interrupt notification locates the RMBE associated
        with the alert token, and upon examining the control area
        notices that Host B has consumed all of the data (based on the
        Consumer Cursor and the Consumer Window Wrap Size Sequence
        number) and initiates the next RDMA write to fill the receive
        buffer at offset 1000-9999.

     6. Host A then moves the remaining 1000 bytes into the beginning of
        the receive buffer (0-999) by scheduling an RDMA write
        operation.

     7. Host A then schedules an RDMA write operation with immediate
        data to set the Producer Writer Blocked indicator and to
        increment the Producer Window Wrap Size Sequence Number (3).

     8. Host B, upon notification completes the same processing as step
        4 above, including updates to the peer's RMBE control area to
        indicate that all data has been consumed.

4.5.5. Scenario 5: Send flow, urgent data, window size unconstrained

            SMC Host A                              SMC HostB
           RMBE A Fields                          RMBE B Fields
       (Consumer Cursors)                      (Producer Cursors)
   Cursor   Wrap Seq# Time               Time Cursor   Wrap Seq#  Flag
   1000     1         0                  0    1000     1          0
   1000     1         1 ---------------> 1    1000     1          0
                        RDMA-WR Data
                          (1000:1499)
   1000     1         2 ---------------> 2    1500     1          UrgP
                        RDMA-WR Control                           UrgA
                          data (I)
   1500     1         3 <--------------- 3    1500     1          UrgP
                        RDMA-WR Control                           UrgA
                          data (I)
   1500     1         4 ---------------> 4    1500     1          UrgP
                        RDMA-WR Data                              UrgA
                          (1500:2499)
   1500     1         5 ---------------> 5    2500     1          0
                        RDMA-WR Control
                         data (I)

       Figure 21 Scenario 5: send Flow, urgent data, window size open

   Scenario assumptions:

   o  Kernel implementation

Fox, et. al.             Expires Dec 31, 2012                 [Page 77]
Internet-Draft  Shared Memory Communications over RDMA        July 2012

   o  Existing SMC-R connection, window size open, all data has been
      consumed by receiver.

   o  Host A:  Application issues send for 500 bytes with urgent data
      indicator (OOB)  to Host B, then sends 1000 of normal data

   o  Host B: RMBE Receive buffer size is 10,000, application has issued
      a recv for 10,000 bytes and is also monitoring the socket for
      urgent data

   Flow description:

     1. Application issues send() for 500 bytes of urgent data. SMC-R
        layer copies data into a kernel send buffer. It then schedules
        an RDMA write operation to move the data into the peer's RMBE
        receive buffer, at relative position 1000-1499. Note that no
        immediate data or alert (i.e. interrupt) is provided to host B
        for this RDMA operation.

     2. Host A issues another RDMA write operation with immediate data
        (the RMBE alert token) to update the Peer Producer Cursor to
        byte 1500 and to turn on the Producer Urgent Data Pending (UrgP)
        and Urgent Data Present (UrgA) flags. This RDMA write operation
        will deliver an interrupt to Host B. At this point, the SMC-R
        layer can return control back to the application.

     3. Host B, once notified of the completion of the previous RDMA
        operation, locates the RMBE associated with the RMBE alert
        token, notices that the Urgent Data Pending flag is on and
        proceeds with Out of Band socket API notification.  For example,
        satisfying any outstanding select() or poll() requests on the
        socket by indicating that urgent data is pending (i.e. by
        setting the exception bit on). The Urgent Data Present indicator
        allows Host B to also determine the position of the urgent data
        (Peer Producer cursor points one byte beyond the last byte of
        urgent data). Host B can then perform normal receive side
        processing (including specific urgent data processing), copying
        the data into the application's receive buffer, etc. Host B then
        schedules a RDMA write to update the partner's RMBE Control area
        with the latest Peer Consumer Cursor (1500). This RDMA Write
        includes immediate data/notification. Note this RDMA write flow
        must occur regardless of the current local window size that is
        available. The partner host (Host A) cannot initiate any
        additional RDMA writes until acknowledgement that the urgent
        data has been processed (or at least processed/remembered at the
        SMC-R layer).

Fox, et. al.             Expires Dec 31, 2012                 [Page 78]
Internet-Draft  Shared Memory Communications over RDMA        July 2012

     4. Upon notification, Host A wakes up, sees that peer consumed all
        data up to and including the last byte of Urgent data and now
        resumes sending any pending data.  In this case, the application
        had previously issued a send for 1000 bytes of normal data which
        would have been copied in the send buffer and control would have
        been returned to the application. Host A now initiates a RDMA
        write to move that data to the Peer's receive buffer at position
        1500-2499.

     5. Host A then issues a RDMA write with immediate data to update
        the control area in the peer's RMBE with the updated Producer
        Cursor value (2500) and turning off the Urgent Data Pending and
        Urgent Data Present flags. Host B wakes up, processes the new
        data (resumes application, copies data into the application
        receive buffer) and then proceeds to update the Local current
        consumer cursor (2500). Given that the window size is
        unconstrained there is no need for Consumer Cursor update in the
        peer's RMBE.

Fox, et. al.             Expires Dec 31, 2012                 [Page 79]
Internet-Draft  Shared Memory Communications over RDMA        July 2012

4.5.6. Scenario 6: Send flow, urgent data, window size closed

            SMC Host A                              SMC HostB
           RMBE A Fields                          RMBE B Fields
       (Consumer Cursors)                      (Producer Cursors)
   Cursor   Wrap Seq# Time               Time Cursor   Wrap Seq#  Flag
   1000     1         0                  0    1000     2          Wrt
                                                                  Blk

   1000     1         1 ---------------> 1    1000     2          Wrt
                        RDMA-WR control                           Blk
                          data (I)                                UrgP

   1000     2         2 <--------------- 2    1000     2          Wrt
                        RDMA-WR Control                           Blk
                          data (I)                                UrgP

   1000     2         3 ---------------> 3    1000     2          Wrt
                        RDMA-WR data  l                           Blk
                          (1000:1499)                             UrgP

   1000     2         4 ---------------> 4    1500     2          UrgP
                        RDMA-WR control                           UrgA
                          data (I)
   1500     2         5 <--------------- 5    1500     2          UrgP
                        RDMA-WR Control                           UrgA
                         data (I)
   1500     2         6 ---------------> 6    1500     2          UrgP
                        RDMA-WR data  l                           UrgA
                          (1500:2499)
   1000     2         7 ---------------> 7    2500     2          0
                        RDMA-WR control
                          data (I)

      Figure 22 Scenario 6: Send flow, urgent data, window size closed

   Scenario assumptions:

   o  Kernel implementation

   o  Existing SMC-R connection, window size closed, writer is blocked.

   o  Host A: Application issues send for 500 bytes with urgent data
      indicator (OOB) to Host B, then sends 1000 of normal data.

Fox, et. al.             Expires Dec 31, 2012                 [Page 80]
Internet-Draft  Shared Memory Communications over RDMA        July 2012

   o  Host B: RMBE Receive buffer size is 10,000, application has no
      outstanding recv() (for normal data) and is monitoring the socket
      for urgent data.

   Flow description:

     1. Application issues send() for 500 bytes of urgent data. SMC-R
        layer copies data into a kernel send buffer (if available).
        Since the writer is blocked (window size closed) it cannot send
        the data immediately. It then schedules an RDMA write operation
        with immediate data to turn on the Urgent Data Pending
        (UrgP)indicator (the Writer Blocked indicator remains on as
        well). This serves as a signal to Host B that urgent data is
        pending in the stream. Control is also returned to the
        application at this point.

     2. Host B, once notified of the completion of the previous RDMA
        operation, locates the RMBE associated with the RMBE alert
        token, notices that the Urgent Data Pending flag is on and
        proceeds with Out of Band socket API notification.  For example,
        satisfying any outstanding select() or poll() requests on the
        socket by indicating that urgent data is pending (i.e. by
        setting the exception bit on). At this point it is expected that
        the application will enter urgent data mode processing,
        expeditiously processing all normal data (by issuing recv API
        calls) so that it can get to the urgent data byte. Whether the
        application has this urgent mode processing or not, at some
        point the application will consume some or all of the pending
        data in the receive buffer.  When this occurs, Host B will also
        schedule an RDMA write with immediate data to update the Peer
        Consumer Cursor and the Peer Consumer Window Wrap Sequence
        Number.  In the example above, a full window worth of data was
        consumed.

     3. Host A, once awaken will notice that the window size is now open
        on this connection (based on the Peer Consumer Cursor and the
        Consumer Window Wrap Sequence Number which now matches the
        Producer Window Wrap Sequence Number) and resume sending of the
        urgent data segment by scheduling an RDMA write into relative
        position 1000-1499.

     4. Host A the issues an RDMA write with immediate data to advance
        the Peer Producer Cursor (1500) and to also turn on the Urgent
        Data Present (UrgA) indicator (and turn off the Writer Blocked
        indicator). This signals to Host B that the urgent data is now
        in the local receive buffer and that the Peer Producer Cursor
        points to the last byte of urgent data.

Fox, et. al.             Expires Dec 31, 2012                 [Page 81]
Internet-Draft  Shared Memory Communications over RDMA        July 2012

     5. Host B wakes up, processes the urgent data and once the urgent
        data is consumed schedules an RDMA write with immediate data to
        update the Peer Consumer Cursor (1500)

     6. Host A wakes up, sees that Host B has consumed the sequence
        number associated with the urgent data and then initiates the
        next RDMA write operation to move the 1000 bytes associated with
        the next send() of normal data into the peer's receive buffer at
        position (1500-2499). Note that send() API would have likely
        completed earlier in the process by copying the 1000 bytes into
        a send buffer and returning back to the application even though
        we could not send any new data until the urgent data was
        processed and acknowledged by Host B.

     7. Host A schedules an RDMA Write operation to advance the Peer
        Producer Cursor to 2500 and to reset the Urgent Data Pending and
        Present flags. Host B wakes up and processes the inbound data.

4.6. Connection termination

   Just as SMC-R connections are established using a combination of TCP
   connection establishment flows and SMC-R protocol flows, the
   termination of SMC-R connections also uses a similar combination of
   SMC-R protocol termination flows and normal TCP protocol connection
   termination flows. The following sections describe the SMC-R protocol
   normal and abnormal connection termination flows.

4.6.1. Normal SMC-R connection termination flows

   Normal SMC-R connection flows are triggered via the normal stream
   socket API semantics, namely by the application issuing a close() or
   shutdown() API. Most applications, after consuming all incoming data
   and after sending any outbound data will then issue a close() API to
   indicate that they are done both sending and receiving data. Some
   applications, typically a small percentage, make use of the
   shutdown() API that allows then to indicate that the application is
   done sending data, receiving data or both sending and receiving data.
   The main use of this API is scenarios where a TCP application wants
   to alert its partner end point that it is done sending data, yet is
   still receiving data on its socket (shutdown for Write). Issuing
   shutdown for both sending and receiving data is really no different
   than issuing a close() and can therefore be treated in a similar
   fashion. Shutdown for read is typically not a very useful operation
   and in normal circumstances does not trigger any network flows to
   notify the partner TCP end point of this operation.

Fox, et. al.             Expires Dec 31, 2012                 [Page 82]
Internet-Draft  Shared Memory Communications over RDMA        July 2012

   These same trigger points will be used by the SMC-R layer to initiate
   SMC-R connections termination flows. The main design point for SMC-R
   normal connection flows is to use the SMC-R protocol to first
   shutdown the SMC-R connection and free up any SMC-R RDMA resources
   and then allow the normal TCP connection termination protocol (i.e.
   FIN processing) to drive cleanup of the TCP connection.  This design
   point is very important in ensuring that RDMA resources such as the
   RMBEs are only freed and reused when both SMC-R end points are
   completely done with their RDMA Write operations to the partner's
   RMBE.

                                      1
                            +-----------------+
            |-------------->|     CLOSED      |<-------------|
        3D  |               |                 |              |  4D
            |               +-----------------+              |
            |                       |                        |
            |                     2 |                        |
            |                       V                        |
    +----------------+     +-----------------+     +----------------+
    |AppFinCloseWait |     |     ACTIVE      |     |PeerFinCloseWait|
    |                |     |                 |     |                |
    +----------------+     +-----------------+     +----------------+
            |                   |         |                   |
            |     Active Close  | 3A | 4A |  Passive Close    |
            |                   V    |    V                   |
            |       +--------------+ | +-------------+        |
            |--<----|PeerCloseWait1| | |AppCloseWait1|--->----|
        3C  |       |              | | |             |        |  4C
            |       +--------------+ | +-------------+        |
            |             |          |         |              |
            |             | 3B       |     4B  |              |
            |             V          |         V              |
            |       +--------------+ | +-------------+        |
            |--<----|PeerCloseWait2| | |AppCloseWait2|--->----|
                    |              | | |             |
                    +--------------+ | +-------------+
                                     |
                                     |
                      Figure 23 SMC-R connection states

   Figure 23 describes the states that an SMC-R connection typically
   goes through. Note that there are variations to these states that can
   occur when an SMC-R connection is abnormally terminated, similar in a

Fox, et. al.             Expires Dec 31, 2012                 [Page 83]
Internet-Draft  Shared Memory Communications over RDMA        July 2012

   way to when a TCP connection is reset. The following are the high
   level state transitions for an SMC-R connection:

     1. An SMC-R connection begins in the Closed state. This state is
        meant to reflect an RMBE that is not currently in use (was
        previously in use but no longer is or one that was never
        allocated)

     2. An SMC-R connection progresses to the Active state once the SMC-
        R rendezvous processing has successfully completed, RMB element
        indices have been exchanged and SMC-R links have been activated.
        In this state, TCP connection is fully established, rendezvous
        processing has been completed and SMC-R peers can begin exchange
        of data via RDMA.

     3. Active close processing (on SMC-R peer that is initiating the
        connection termination)

      A. When an application on one of the SMC-R connection peers issues
      a close() or shutdown(write or both) the SMC-R layer on that host
      will initiate SMC-R connection termination processing. First if
      close() or shutdown(both) is issued it will check to see that
      there's no data in the local RMB element that has not been read
      by the application.  If unread data is detected, the SMC-R
      connection must be abnormally reset - for more detail on this
      refer to "SMC-R connection reset".  If no unread data is pending,
      it then checks to see whether any outstanding data is waiting to
      be written to the peer or if any outstanding RDMA writes for this
      SMC-R connection have not yet completed.  If either of these two
      scenarios are true, an indicator that this connection is in a
      pending close state is saved in internal data structures
      representing this SMC-R connection and control is returned to the
      application. If all data to be written to the partner has
      completed this peer will perform an RDMA Write with Immediate
      Data to turn on either the PeerConnectionClosed indicator (close
      or shutdown for both was issued) or the PeerDoneWriting indicator
      in the RMBE control area. This will provide stimulus to the
      partner SMC-R peer that the connection is terminating. At this
      point the local side of the SMC-R connection transitions in the
      PeerCloseWait1 state and control can be returned to the
      application.  If this process could not be completed
      synchronously (close pending condition mentioned above) it is
      completed when all RDMA writes for data and control cursors have
      been completed.

      B. At some point the SMC-R peer application (passive close) will
      consume all incoming data, realize that that partner is done

Fox, et. al.             Expires Dec 31, 2012                 [Page 84]
Internet-Draft  Shared Memory Communications over RDMA        July 2012

      sending data on this connection and proceed to initiate its own
      close of the connection once it has completed sending all data
      from its end.  The partner application can initiate this
      connection termination processing via a close() or shutdown()
      APIs. If the application does so by issuing a shutdown() for
      write, then the partner SMC-R layer will perform an RDMA Write
      with immediate data to turn on the PeerDoneWriting indicator in
      the RMBE control area of the SMC-R peer (active close side).
      When the "active close" SMC-R peer wakes up as a result of the
      previous RDMA write, it will notice that the PeerDoneWriting
      indicator is now on and transition to the PeerCloseWait2 state.
      This state indicates that the peer is done sending data and may
      still be reading data.  The "active close" peer will also at this
      point need to ensure that any outstanding recv() calls for this
      socket are woken up and remember that that no more data is
      forthcoming on this connection (in case the local connection was
      shutdown() for write only)

      C. This flow is a common transition from 3a or 3b above. When the
      SMC-R peer (passive close) consumes all data, updates all
      necessary cursors in the peer's RMB and the application closes
      its socket (close or shutdown for both) it will turn on the
      PeerConnectionClosed indicator in the RMBE control area (of the
      active close side) via an RDMA write with immediate data. At this
      point the connection can transition back to Closed state if the
      local application has already closed (or issued shutdown for
      both) the socket. Once in the Closed state, the RMBE can now be
      safely be reused for a new SMC-R connection. When the
      PeerConnectionClosed indicator is turned on, the SMC-R  peer is
      indicating that it is done updating the partner's RMBE.

      D. Conditional State: If the local application has not yet issued
      a close() or shutdown(both) yet, we need to wait until the
      application does so (ApplFinWaitState). Once it does, the local
      host will issue an RDMA Write to turn on the PeerConnectionClosed
      indicator in the partner RMBE and then transition to the Closed
      state.

     4. Passive close processing (on SMC-R peer that receives an
        indication that the partner is closing the connection)

      A. Upon notification of an inbound RDMA write completion the SMC-R
      layer will detect that the PeerConnectionClosed indicator or
      PeerDoneWriting indicator is on. If any outstanding recv() calls
      are pending they are completed with an indicator that the partner
      has closed the connection (zero length data presented to
      application). If any pending data to be written and

Fox, et. al.             Expires Dec 31, 2012                 [Page 85]
Internet-Draft  Shared Memory Communications over RDMA        July 2012

      PeerConnectionClosed is on then an SMC-R connection reset must be
      performed. The connection then enters the ApplCloseWait1 state on
      the passive close side waiting for the local application to
      initiate its own close processing

      B. If the local application issues a shutdown() for writing then
      the SMC-R layer will issue an RDMA write with immediate data to
      turn on the PeerDoneWriting indicator in the partner's RMBE
      control area and transition the local side of the SMC-R
      connection to the ApplCloseWait2 state.

      C. When the application issues a close() or shutdown() for both,
      the local SMC-R peer will turn on the PeerConnectionClosed
      indicator on the peer RMBE with RDMA write with immediate data
      and transition to the Closed state if the local
      PeerConnectionClosed indicator is on. If the local
      PeerConnectionClosed indicator is not on we transition into the
      PeerFinalCloseWait state.

      D. The local SMC-R connection stays in this state until the peer
      turns on the PeerConnectionClosed indicator in our RMBE. When the
      indicator is turned on we transition to the Closed state and are
      then free to reuse this RMBE.

   Note that each SMC-R needs to provide some logic that will prevent
   being stranded in termination state indefinitely. For example, if an
   Active Close SMC-R host is in a PeerCloseWait (1 or 2) state awaiting
   the remote SMC-R peer to update its connection termination status it
   needs to provide a timer that will prevent it from waiting in that
   state indefinitely should the remote SMC-R peer not respond to this
   termination request. This could occur in error scenarios; for
   example, if the remote SMC-R peer suffered a failure prior to being
   able to respond to the termination request or the remote application
   is not responding to this connection termination request by closing
   its own socket.  This latter scenario is similar to the TCP FINWAIT2
   state that has been known to sometimes cause issues when remote
   TCP/IP hosts lose track of established connections and neglect to
   close them.  Even though the TCP standards do not mandate a time out
   from the TCP FINWAIT2 state, most TCP/IP implementations implement a
   timeout for this state.  A similar timeout will be required for SMC-R
   connections.  When this timeout occurs, the local SMC-R host performs
   TCP reset processing for this connection.  However, no additional
   RDMA writes to the partner RMBE can occur at this point (we have
   already indicated that we are done updating the peer's RMBE). After
   the TCP connection is Reset the RMBE can be returned to the free pool
   for reallocation.  See section 3.2.5 for more details.

Fox, et. al.             Expires Dec 31, 2012                 [Page 86]
Internet-Draft  Shared Memory Communications over RDMA        July 2012

   Also note that it is possible to have two SMC-R end points initiate
   an Active close concurrently.  In that scenario the flows above still
   apply, however, both end points follow the active close path (path
   3).

4.6.1.1. Abnormal SMC-R connection termination flows

   Abnormal SMC-R connection termination can occur for a variety of
   reasons, including:

   o  The TCP connection associated with an SMC-R connection is reset.
      In the TCP protocol either end point can send a RST segment to
      abort an existing TCP connection when error conditions are
      detected for the connection or the application overtly requests
      that the connection be reset.

   o  Normal SMC-R connection termination processing has unexpectedly
      stalled for a given connection. When the stall is detected
      (connection termination timeout condition) an abnormal SMC-R
      connection termination flow is initiated.

   In these scenarios it is very important that resources associated
   with the affected SMC-R connections are properly cleaned up to ensure
   that there are no orphaned resources and that resources can reliably
   be reused for new SMC-R connections. Given that SMC-R relies heavily
   on the RDMA Write processing, special care needs to be taken to
   ensure that an RMBE is no longer being used by a SMC-R peer before
   logically reassigning that RMBE to a new SMC-R connection.

   When an SMC-R host initiates a TCP connection reset it also initiates
   an SMC-R abnormal connection flow at the same time. The SMC-R peers
   explicitly signal their intent to abnormally terminate an SMC-R
   connection and await explicit acknowledgement that the peer has
   received this notification and has also completed abnormal connection
   termination on its end. Note that TCP connection reset processing can
   occur in parallel to these flows.

Fox, et. al.             Expires Dec 31, 2012                 [Page 87]
Internet-Draft  Shared Memory Communications over RDMA        July 2012

                     +-----------------+
     |-------------->|     CLOSED      |<-------------|
     |               |                 |              |
     |               +-----------------+              |
     |                                                |
     |                                                |
     |                                                |
     |             +-----------------+                |
     |             |     Any State   |                |
     |1B           | (before setting |              2B|
     |             |  PeerConnClosed |                |
     |             |  Indicator in   |                |
     |             |  Peer's RMBE)   |                |
     |             +-----------------+                |
     |         1A        |         |      2A          |
     |     Active Abort  |         |  Passive Abort   |
     |                   V         V                  |
     |       +--------------+   +--------------+      |
     |-------|PeerAbortWait |   | Process Abort|------|
             |              |   |              |
             +--------------+   +--------------+

        Figure 24 SMC-R abnormal connection termination state diagram

   Figure 24 above shows the SMC-R abnormal connection termination state
   diagram:

     1. Active abort designates the SMC-R peer that is initiating the
        TCP RST processing. At the time that the TCP RST is sent the
        active abort side must also

      A. Set the PeerConnAbort indicator in the partner's RMBE via RDMA
      with immediate data and then transition to the PeerAbortWait
      state.  During this state it will monitor this SMC-R connection
      waiting for the peer set its corresponding PeerConnAbort
      indicator in the local RMBE but will ignore any other activity in
      this connection (i.e. new incoming data). It will also surface an
      appropriate error to any socket API calls issued against this
      socket (e.g. ECONNABORTED, ECONNRESET, etc.)

      B. Once the peer turns on the PeerConnAbort indicator in the local
      RMBE, the local host can transition this SMC-R connection to the
      Closed state and reuse this RMBE.  Note that the SMC-R peer that
      goes into the Active abort state must provide some protection

Fox, et. al.             Expires Dec 31, 2012                 [Page 88]
Internet-Draft  Shared Memory Communications over RDMA        July 2012

      against staying in that state indefinitely should the remote SMC-
      R peer not respond by setting its own PeerConnAbort indicator in
      the local host's RMBE.  While this should be a rare scenario it
      could occur if the remote SMC-R peer (passive abort) suffered a
      failure right after the local SMC-R host (active abort) set the
      PeerConnAbort indicator. To protect against these types of
      failures, a timer can be set after entering the PeerAbortWait
      state and when if that timer pops before the peer has set the
      local PeerConnAbort indicator (active abort side) then this RMBE
      can be returned to the free pool for possible re-allocation.  See
      section See section 3.2.5 for more details.

     2. Passive abort designates the SMC-R peer that is the recipient of
        an SMC-R abort from the peer designated by the PeerConnAbort
        indicator being set by the peer in the local RMBE. Upon
        receiving this request, the local peer must

      A. Indicate to the socket application that this connection has
      been aborted using the appropriate error codes, purge all in-
      flight data for this connection that is waiting to be read or
      waiting to be sent.

      B. Perform an RDMA write with immediate data to set the
      PeerConnAbort indicator in the peer's RMBE and once that is
      completed transition this RMBE to the Closed state.

   If an SMC-R host receives a TCP RST for a given SMC-R connection it
   also initiates SMC-R abnormal connection termination processing if it
   has not already been notified (via the PeerConnAbort indicator) that
   the partner in severing the connection. It is possible to have two
   SMC-R endpoints concurrently be in an Active abort role for a given
   connection.  In that scenario the flows above still apply but both
   end points take the active abort path (path 1).

4.6.1.2. Other SMC-R connection termination conditions
   The following are additional conditions that have implications of
   SMC-R connection termination:

   o  A SMC-R host being gracefully shut down. If an SMC-R host supports
      a graceful shutdown operation it should attempt to terminate all
      SMC-R connections as part of shutdown processing.  This could be
      accomplished via LLC Delete Link requests on all active SMC Links.

Fox, et. al.             Expires Dec 31, 2012                 [Page 89]
Internet-Draft  Shared Memory Communications over RDMA        July 2012

   o  Abnormal termination of an SMC-R host.  In this example, there may
      be no opportunity for the host to perform any SMC-R cleanup
      processing.  In this scenario it is up to the remote peer to
      detect a RoCE communications failure with the failing host.  This
      could trigger an SMC link switch but that would also surface RoCE
      errors causing the remote host to eventually terminate all
      existing SMC-R connections to this peer.

   o  Loss of RoCE connectivity between two SMC-R peers.  If two peers
      are no longer reachable across any links in their SMC Link group
      then both peers perform a TCP reset for the connections, surface
      an error to the local applications and free up all QP resources
      associated with the link group.

5. Security considerations

5.1. VLAN considerations

   The concepts and access control of virtual LANs (VLANs) must be
   extended to also cover the RoCE network traffic flowing across the
   ethernet.

   The RoCE VLAN configuration and accesses must mirror the IP VLAN
   configuration and accesses over the CEE fabrick. This means that
   hosts, routers and switches that have access to specific VLANs on the
   IP fabric must also have the same VLAN access across the RoCE
   fabric.  In other words, the SMC-R connectivity will follow the same
   virtual network access permissions as normal TCP/IP traffic.

5.2. Firewall considerations

   As mentioned above, the RoCE fabric inherits the same VLAN
   topology/access as the IP fabric. RoCE is a layer 2 protocol that
   requires both end points to reside in the same layer 2 network (i.e.
   VLAN).  RoCE traffic can not traverse multiple VLANs as there is no
   support for routing RoCE traffic beyond a single VLAN. As a result,
   SMC-R communications will also be confined to stacks that are members
   of the same VLAN.  IP based firewalls are typically inserted between
   VLANs (or physical lans) and rely on normal IP routing to insert
   themselves in the data path. Since RoCE (and by extension SMC-R) is
   not routable beyond the local VLAN, there is no ability to insert a
   firewall in the network path of two SMC-R peers.

Fox, et. al.             Expires Dec 31, 2012                 [Page 90]
Internet-Draft  Shared Memory Communications over RDMA        July 2012

5.3. IP Filters

   Because SMC-R maintains the TCP three-way handshake for connection
   setup before switching to RoCE out of band, existing IP filters that
   control connection setup flows remain effective in an SMC-R
   environment.  IP filters that operate on traffic flowing in an active
   TCP connection are not supported, because the connection data does
   not flow over IP.

5.4. Intrusion Detection Services

   Similar to IP filters, intrusion detection services that operate on
   TCP connection setups are compatible with SMC-R with no changes
   required.  However once the TCP connection has switched to RoCE out
   of band, packets are not available for examination.

5.5. IP Security (IPSec)

   IP Security is not compatible with SMC-R because there are no IP
   packets to operate on.  TCP connections that require IP security must
   opt out of SMC-R.

5.6. TLS/SSL

   TLS/SSL is preserved in an SMC-R environment.  The TLS/SSL layer
   resides above the SMC-R layer and outgoing connection data is
   encrypted before being passed down to the SMC-R layer for RMDA write.
   Similarly, incoming connection data goes through the SMC-R layer
   encrypted and is decrypted by the TLS/SSL layer as it is today.

   The TLS/SSL handshake messages flow over the TCP connection after the
   connection has switched to SMC-R, so are exchanged using RDMA writes
   by the SMC-R layer, transparently to the TLS/SSL layer.

6. IANA considerations

   The scarcity of TCP option codes available for assignment is
   understood and this architecture uses experimental TCP options
   following the conventions of draft-ietf-tcpm-experimental-options-
   01.txt.

   If this protocol achieves wide acceptance a discrete option code may
   be requested by subsequent versions of this protocol.

Fox, et. al.             Expires Dec 31, 2012                 [Page 91]
Internet-Draft  Shared Memory Communications over RDMA        July 2012

7. References

7.1. Normative References

   [ROCE] RDMA over Converged Ethernet specification, URL,
             http://members.infinibandta.org/kwspub/spec/Annex_RoCE_fina
             l.pdf

   [IBTA] Infiniband Architecture specification, URL,
             http://www.infinibandta.org/specs

   [RFC793] University of Southern California Information Services
             Institute, "Transmission Control Protocol", RFC 793,
             September 1981.

   [RFC4727] Fenner B., "Experimental Values in IPv4, IPv6, ICMPv4,
             ICMPv6, UDP, and TCP Headers", RFC 4727, November 2006.

7.2. Informative References

    [Tou2012] Touch, J., "Shared use of Experimental TCP Options", draft
             URL, http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-tcpm-
             experimental-options-01

8. Acknowledgments

   This document was prepared using 2-Word-v2.0.template.dot.

9. Conventions used in this document

   In the flow diagrams, dashed lines (----) are used to indicate flows
   over the TCP/IP fabric and dotted lines (....) are used to indicate
   flows over the RoCE fabric.

Fox, et. al.             Expires Dec 31, 2012                 [Page 92]
Internet-Draft  Shared Memory Communications over RDMA        July 2012

Appendix A.                 Formats

A.1. TCP option

   The SMC-R TCP option is formatted in accordance with draft-ietf-tcpm-
   experimental-options-01.txt.  The magic number is IBM-1047 (EBCDIC)
   encoding for 'SMCR'

     0                   1                   2                   3
     0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
    |   Kind = 253  | Length = 6    |   x'E2'       |   x'D4'       |
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
    |    x'C3'      |    x'D9'      |
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
                      Figure 25 SMC-R TCP option format

A.2. CLC messages

   The following rules apply to all CLC messages:

   General rules on formats:

   o  Reserved fields must be set to zero and not validated

   o  Each message has an eyecatcher at the start and another eyecatcher
      at the end.  These must both be validated by the receiver.

   o  SMC version indicator:  The only SMC-R version defined in this
      architecture is version 1.  In the future, if peers have a
      mismatch of versions, the lowest common version number is used.

A.2.1. Peer ID format

   All CLC messages contain a peer ID that uniquely identifies an
   instance of a stack.  This peer ID is required to be universally
   unique across stacks and instances (including restarts) of stacks.

Fox, et. al.             Expires Dec 31, 2012                 [Page 93]
Internet-Draft  Shared Memory Communications over RDMA        July 2012

    0                   1                   2                   3
    0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |          Instance ID          |  RoCE MAC (first two bytes)   |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                RoCE MAC (last four bytes)                     |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
                          Figure 26 Peer ID format

   Instance ID

      A two-byte instance count that ensures that if the same RNIC MAC
      is later used in the peer ID for a different stack, for example
      if an RNIC is redeployed to another stack, the values are unique.
      It also ensures that if a stack is restarted, the instance ID
      changes.  Value is implementation defined, with one suggestion
      being two bytes of the system clock.

   RoCE MAC

      The RoCE MAC address for one of the stack's RNICs.  Note that in
      a virtualized environment this will be the virtual MAC of one of
      the stack's RNICs.

Fox, et. al.             Expires Dec 31, 2012                 [Page 94]
Internet-Draft  Shared Memory Communications over RDMA        July 2012

A.2.2. SMC Proposal CLC message format

    0                   1                   2                   3
    0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |   x'E2'       |   x'D4'       |     x'C3'     |     x'D9'     |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |  Type = 1     |    Length = 48                |Version| Rsrvd |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                                                               |
   +-                       Client's Peer ID                      -+
   |                                                               |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                                                               |
   +-                                                             -+
   |                                                               |
   +-                Client's preferred GID                       -+
   |                                                               |
   +-                                                             -+
   |                                                               |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |  Client's preferred RoCE                                      |
   +- MAC address                  +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                               |                               |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+                              -+
   |                         Reserved                              |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |   x'E2'       |   x'D4'       |     x'C3'     |     x'D9'     |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
                  Figure 27 SMC Proposal CLC message format

   The fields present in the SMC Proposal CLC message are:

   Eyecatchers

      Like all CLC messages, the SMC Proposal has beginning and ending
      eyecatchers to aid with verification and parsing.  The hex digits
      spell 'SMCR' in IBM-1047 (EBCDIC)

   Type

      CLC message type 1 indicates SMC Proposal

   Length

      The SMC Proposal CLC message is 48 bytes long

Fox, et. al.             Expires Dec 31, 2012                 [Page 95]
Internet-Draft  Shared Memory Communications over RDMA        July 2012

   Version

      Version of the SMC-R protocol.  Version 1 is the only currently
      defined value

   Client's Peer ID

      As described in A.2.1. above

   Client's preferred RoCE GID

      This is the IPv6 address of the client's preferred RNIC on the
      RoCE fabric

   Client's preferred RoCE MAC address

      The MAC address of the client's preferred RNIC on the RoCE
      fabric. It is required as some operating systems do not have
      neighbor discovery or ARP support for RoCE RNICs.

Fox, et. al.             Expires Dec 31, 2012                 [Page 96]
Internet-Draft  Shared Memory Communications over RDMA        July 2012

A.2.3. SMC Accept CLC message format

    0                   1                   2                   3
    0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |   x'E2'       |   x'D4'       |     x'C3'     |     x'D9'     |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |  Type = 2     |    Length = 60                |Version|F|Rsvd |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                                                               |
   +-                       Server's Peer ID                      -+
   |                                                               |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                                                               |
   +-                                                             -+
   |                                                               |
   +-                Server's RoCE GID                            -+
   |                                                               |
   +-                                                             -+
   |                                                               |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |  Server's RoCE                                                |
   +- MAC address                  +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                               |     Server QP (bytes 1-2)     |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+---+
   |Srvr QP byte 3 |         Server RMB Rkey (bytes 1-3)           |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |Srvr RMB byte 4|Server RMB indx| Srvr RMB alert tkn (bytes 1-2)|
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   | Srvr RMB alert tkn (bytes 3-4)|Bsize  | Rsrvd |               |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+              -+
   |                       Reserved                                |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |   x'E2'       |   x'D4'       |     x'C3'     |     x'D9'     |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
                   Figure 28 SMC Accept CLC message format

   The fields present on the SMC Accept CLC message are:

   Eyecatchers

      Like all CLC messages, the SMC Accept has beginning and ending
      eyecatchers to aid with verification and parsing.  The hex digits
      spell 'SMCR' in IBM-1047 (EBCDIC)

   Type

Fox, et. al.             Expires Dec 31, 2012                 [Page 97]
Internet-Draft  Shared Memory Communications over RDMA        July 2012

      CLC message type 2 indicates SMC Accept

   Length

      The SMC Accept CLC message is 60 bytes long

   Version

      Version of the SMC-R protocol.  Version 1 is the only currently
      defined value.

   F-bit

      First Contact flag: A 1-bit flag that indicates that the server
      believes this TCP connection is the first SMC-R contact for this
      link group

   Server's Peer ID

      As described in A.2.1. above

   Server's RoCE GID

      This is the IPv6 address of the RNIC that the server chose for
      this SMC Link

   Server's RoCE MAC address

      The MAC address of the server's RNIC for the SMC link. It is
      required as some operating systems do not have neighbor discovery
      or ARP support for RoCE RNICs.

   Server's QP number

      The number for the reliably connected queue pair that the server
      created for this SMC link

   Server's RMB Rkey

      The RDMA Rkey for the RMB that the server created or chose for
      this TCP connection

   Server's RMB element index

      This indexes which element within the server's RMB will represent
      this TCP connection

Fox, et. al.             Expires Dec 31, 2012                 [Page 98]
Internet-Draft  Shared Memory Communications over RDMA        July 2012

   Server's RMB element alert token

      A platform defined, architecturally opaque token that identifies
      this TCP connection.  Added by the client as immediate data on
      RDMA writes from the client to the server to inform the server
      that there is data for this connection to retrieve from the RMB
      element

   Bsize:

      Server's RMB element buffer size in four bits compressed
      notation: x=4 bits. Actual buffer size value is (2^(x+4)) * 1K.
      Smallest possible value is 16K. Largest size supported by this
      architecture is 512K.

Fox, et. al.             Expires Dec 31, 2012                 [Page 99]
Internet-Draft  Shared Memory Communications over RDMA        July 2012

A.2.4. SMC Confirm CLC message format

    0                   1                   2                   3
    0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |   x'E2'       |   x'D4'       |     x'C3'     |     x'D9'     |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |  Type = 3     |    Length = 60                |Version| Rsrvd |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                                                               |
   +-                       Client's Peer ID                      -+
   |                                                               |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                                                               |
   +-                                                             -+
   |                                                               |
   +-                Client's RoCE GID                            -+
   |                                                               |
   +-                                                             -+
   |                                                               |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |  Client's RoCE                                                |
   +- MAC address                  +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                               |     Client QP (bytes 1-2)     |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+---+
   |Clnt QP byte 3 |         Client RMB Rkey (bytes 1-3)           |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |Clnt RMB byte 4|Client RMB indx| Clnt RMB alert tkn (bytes 1-2)|
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   | Clnt RMB alert tkn (bytes 3-4)|Bsize  | Rsrvd |               |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+              -+
   |                       Reserved                                |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |   x'E2'       |   x'D4'       |     x'C3'     |     x'D9'     |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
                  Figure 29 SMC Confirm CLC message format

   The SMC Confirm CLC message is nearly identical to the SMC Accept
   except that it contains client information and lacks a first contact
   flag.

   The fields present on the SMC Confirm CLC message are:

   Eyecatchers

Fox, et. al.             Expires Dec 31, 2012                [Page 100]
Internet-Draft  Shared Memory Communications over RDMA        July 2012

      Like all CLC messages, the SMC Confirm has beginning and ending
      eyecatchers to aid with verification and parsing.  The hex digits
      spell 'SMCR' in IBM-1047 (EBCDIC)

   Type

      CLC message type 3 indicates SMC Confirm

   Length

      The SMC Confirm CLC message is 60 bytes long

   Version

      Version of the SMC-R protocol.  Version 1 is the only currently
      defined value.

   Client's Peer ID

      As described in A.2.1. above

   Clients's RoCE GID

      This is the IPv6 address of the RNIC that the client chose for
      this SMC Link

   Client's RoCE MAC address

      The MAC address of the client's RNIC for the SMC link. It is
      required as some operating systems do not have neighbor discovery
      or ARP support for RoCE RNICs.

   Client's QP number

      The number for the reliably connected queue pair that the client
      created for this SMC link

   Client's RMB Rkey

      The RDMA Rkey for the RMB that the client created or chose for
      this TCP connection

   Client's RMB element index

      This indexes which element within the client's RMB will represent
      this TCP connection

Fox, et. al.             Expires Dec 31, 2012                [Page 101]
Internet-Draft  Shared Memory Communications over RDMA        July 2012

   Client's RMB element alert token

      A platform defined, architecturally opaque token that identifies
      this TCP connection.  Added by the server as immediate data on
      RDMA writes from the server to the client to inform the client
      that there is data for this connection to retrieve from the RMB
      element

   Bsize:

      Client's RMB element buffer size in four bits compressed
      notation: x=4 bits. Actual buffer size value is (2^(x+4)) * 1K.
      Smallest possible value is 16K. Largest size supported by this
      architecture is 512K.

A.2.5. SMC Decline CLC message format

    0                   1                   2                   3
    0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |   x'E2'       |   x'D4'       |     x'C3'     |     x'D9'     |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |  Type = 4     |    Length = 28                |Version| Rsrvd |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                                                               |
   +-                       Sender's Peer ID                      -+
   |                                                               |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |    Reason code                |                               |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+      Reserved                -+
   |                                                               |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |   x'E2'       |   x'D4'       |     x'C3'     |     x'D9'     |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
                  Figure 30 SMC Decline CLC message format

   The fields present on the SMC Decline CLC message are:

   Eyecatchers

      Like all CLC messages, the SMC Decline has beginning and ending
      eyecatchers to aid with verification and parsing.  The hex digits
      spell 'SMCR' in IBM-1047 (EBCDIC)

   Type

      CLC message type 4 indicates SMC Decline

Fox, et. al.             Expires Dec 31, 2012                [Page 102]
Internet-Draft  Shared Memory Communications over RDMA        July 2012

   Length

      The SMC Decline CLC message is 28 bytes long

   Version

      Version of the SMC-R protocol.  Version 1 is the only currently
      defined value.

   Sender's Peer ID

      As described in A.2.1. above

   Reason Code

      A two byte reason code set by the sender.

      Values tbd (get with Dave to reconcile reason codes)

A.3. LLC messages

   LLC messages are sent over an existing SMC-R link using RoCE message
   passing and are always 44 bytes long so that they fit into the space
   available in a single WQE.  If all 44 bytes are not needed, they are
   padded out with zeroes.  LLC messages are in a request/response
   format.  The message type is the same for request and response, and a
   flag indicates whether a message is flowing as a request or a
   response.

Fox, et. al.             Expires Dec 31, 2012                [Page 103]
Internet-Draft  Shared Memory Communications over RDMA        July 2012

A.3.1. CONFIRM LINK LLC message format

    0                   1                   2                   3
    0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |  type = 1     |  length = 44  |Version| Rsrvd |R|  Reserved   |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |  Sender's RoCE                                                |
   +-   MAC address                +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                               |                               |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+                               +
   |                                                               |
   +-                                                             -+
   |                 Sender's RoCE GID                             |
   +-                                                             -+
   |                                                               |
   +-                              +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                               |Sender's QP number, bytes 1-2  |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |Sender QP byte3| Link number   |Sender's link userid, bytes 1-2|
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |Sender's link userid bytes, 3-4| Max links     |  Reserved     |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                                                               |
   +-                         Reserved                            -+
   |                                                               |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
                  Figure 31 CONFIRM LINK LLC message format

   The CONFIRM LINK LLC message is required to be exchanged between the
   server and client over a newly created SMC-R link to complete the
   setup of an SMC link.  Its purpose is to confirm that the RoCE path
   is actually usable.

   On first contact this flows after the server receives the SMC Confirm
   CLC message from the client over the IP connection. For additional
   links added to an SMC link group, it flows after the ADD LINK and ADD
   LINK CONTINUATION exchange.  This flow provides confirmation that the
   queue pair is in fact usable. Each peer echoes its RoCE information
   back to the other.

   Type

      Type 1 indicates CONFIRM LINK

   Length

Fox, et. al.             Expires Dec 31, 2012                [Page 104]
Internet-Draft  Shared Memory Communications over RDMA        July 2012

      All LLC messages are 44 bytes long

   Version

      Version of the SMC-R protocol.  Version 1 is the only currently
      defined value.

   R

      Reply flag. When set indicates this is a CONFIRM LINK REPLY

   Sender's RoCE MAC address

      The MAC address of the sender's RNIC for the SMC link. It is
      required as some operating systems do not have neighbor discovery
      or ARP support for RoCE RNICs.

   Sender's RoCE GID

      This is the IPv6 address of the RNIC that the sender is using for
      this SMC-R Link

   Sender's QP number

      The number for the reliably connected queue pair that the sender
      created for this SMC-R link

   Link number

      An identifier assigned by the server that uniquely identifies the
      link within the link group.  This identifier is ONLY unique
      within a link group.  Provided by the server and echoed back by
      the client

   Link User ID

      An opaque, implementation defined identifier assigned by the
      sender and provided to the receiver solely for purposes of
      display, diagnosis, network management, etc.  The link user ID
      should be unique across the sender's entire stack, including all
      link other link groups.

   Max Links

      The maximum number of links the sender can support in a link
      group.  The maximum for this link group is the the smaller of the
      values provided by the two peers.

Fox, et. al.             Expires Dec 31, 2012                [Page 105]
Internet-Draft  Shared Memory Communications over RDMA        July 2012

A.3.2. ADD LINK LLC message format

    0                   1                   2                   3
    0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |  type = 2     |  length = 44  |Version|RsnCode|R|Z| Reserved  |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |  Sender's RoCE                                                |
   +-   MAC address                +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                               |                               |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+                               +
   |                                                               |
   +-                                                             -+
   |                 Sender's RoCE GID                             |
   +-                                                             -+
   |                                                               |
   +-                              +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                               |Sender's QP number, bytes 1-2  |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |Sender QP byte3| Link number   |     Number of Rkeys           |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |           RMB1's Rkey as known on this link                   |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |           RMB1's Equivalent Rkey on the new link              |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                           Reserved                            |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
                    Figure 32 ADD LINK LLC message format

   The ADD LINK LLC message is sent over an existing link in the link
   group when a peer wishes to add an SMC-R link to an existing SMC-R
   link group.  It sent by the server to add a new SMC-R link to the
   group, or by the client to request that the server add a new link,
   for example when a new RNIC becomes active.  When sent from the
   client to the server, it represents a request that the server
   initiate an ADD LINK exchange.

   This message is sent immediately after the initial SMC link in the
   group completes, as described in 3.4.1. First contact. It can also be
   sent over an existing SMC-R link group at any time as new RNICs are
   added and become available.  Therefore there can be as few as 1 new
   RMB RKEYs to communicate, or several.  If there are more RMB RKEYs to
   communicate than can fit into this message, any additional keys
   required will be communicated using ADD LINK CONTINUATION messages.

   The contents of the ADD LINK LLC message are:

Fox, et. al.             Expires Dec 31, 2012                [Page 106]
Internet-Draft  Shared Memory Communications over RDMA        July 2012

   Type

      Type 2 indicates ADD LINK

   Length

      All LLC messages are 44 bytes long

   Version

      Version of the SMC-R protocol.  Version 1 is the only currently
      defined value.

   RsnCode

      If the Z (rejection) flag is set, this field provides the reason
      code.  Values can be:

      X'1' - no alternate path available: set when the server provides
      the same MAC/GID as an existing SMC-R link in the group, and the
      client does not have any additional RNICs available (i.e., server
      is attempting to set up an asymmetric link but none is available)

   R

      Reply flag. When set indicates this is an ADD LINK REPLY

   Z

      Rejection flag.  When set on reply indicates that the server's
      ADD LINK was rejected by the client.  When this flag is set, the
      reason code will also be set.

   Sender's RoCE MAC address

      The MAC address of the sender's RNIC for the new SMC-R link. It
      is required as some operating systems do not have neighbor
      discovery or ARP support for RoCE RNICs.

   Sender's RoCE GID

      The IPv6 address of the RNIC that the sender is using for the new
      SMC-R Link

   Sender's QP number

Fox, et. al.             Expires Dec 31, 2012                [Page 107]
Internet-Draft  Shared Memory Communications over RDMA        July 2012

      The number for the reliably connected queue pair that the sender
      created for the new SMC-R link

   Link number

      An identifier for the new SMC-R link.  This is assigned by the
      server and uniquely identifies the link within the link group.
      This identifier is ONLY unique within a link group.  Provided by
      the server and echoed back by the client

   Number of Rkeys

      Specifies how many RMB rkeys need to be communicated for this new
      SMC-R link.  This is the number of RMBs that the sender has
      associated to this SMC-R link group. If this value is 1, there
      will be no requirement for ADD LINK CONTINUATION  messages to
      follow this one.  If it is greater than 1, one or more ADD LINK
      CONTINUATION will be required.

      The RMB Rkeys are communicated in pairs: an RMB rkey that is
      already known to the peer over the existing SMC-R link that this
      message is being sent over, and its equivalent RMB rkey over the
      new SMC-R link being set up.

   RMB1's Rkey as known on this link

      The Rkey of an existing RMB for the link group, as used on the
      link that this ADD LINK message is being sent over.

   RMB1's Equivalent Rkey on the new link

      The Rkey that will be used on the new SMC-R link to access the
      same RMB whose Rkey was provided in the "as known" field

Fox, et. al.             Expires Dec 31, 2012                [Page 108]
Internet-Draft  Shared Memory Communications over RDMA        July 2012

A.3.3. ADD LINK CONTINUATION LLC message format

    0                   1                   2                   3
    0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |  type = 3     |  length = 44  |Version| Rsrvd |R|  Reserved   |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |   Linknum     | NumRkeys      |         Reserved              |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                          Reserved                             |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |           RMB1's Rkey as known on this link                   |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |           RMB1's Equivalent Rkey on the new link              |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |       RMB2's Rkey as known on this link (if necessary)        |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |    RMB2's Equivalent Rkey on the new link (if necessary)      |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |       RMB3's Rkey as known on this link (if ncessary)         |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |    RMB3's Equivalent Rkey on the new link (if necessary)      |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |       RMB4's Rkey as known on this link (if necessary)        |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |    RMB4's Equivalent Rkey on the new link (if necessary)      |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     Figure 33 ADD LINK CONTINUATION LLC message format

   When a new SMC-R link is added to an SMC-R link group, it is
   necessary to communicate the new link's Rkeys for the RMBs that the
   SMC-r link group can access.  One Rkey is provided on the ADD LINK
   LLC message and response, and this message provides additional rkeys
   if needed.

   The server kicks off this exchange by sending the first ADD LINK
   CONTINUATION LLC message, and the server controls the exchange as
   described below.

   Recall that the server and the client communicate the number of RMBs
   each has on the initial ADD LINK LLC messages.

   o  If the client and server each only had one RMB, then no ADD LINK
      CONTINUATION exchange is required.

Fox, et. al.             Expires Dec 31, 2012                [Page 109]
Internet-Draft  Shared Memory Communications over RDMA        July 2012

   o  If the client and the server require the same number of ADD LINK
      CONTINUATION messages to communicate their rkeys, the server
      starts the exchange by sending the client the first ADD LINK
      CONTINUATION request to the client with its Rkeys, then the client
      responds with an ADD LINK CONTINUATION response with its Rkeys,
      and so on until the exchange is completed.

   o  If the server had only one RMB to communicate (and therefore
      wouldn't normally need to send ADD LINK CONTINUATION) but the
      client has more to communicate,  the server starts the exchange by
      sending an ADD LINK CONTINUATION message with the "number of rkeys
      to be communicated" field equal to zero. The client responds by
      sending an ADD LINK CONTINUATION response with up to four Rkeys
      included.  If the client requires more than one of these response
      messages, the server continues the exchange by continuing to send
      empty ADD LINK CONTINUATION requests to solicit responses with
      Rkeys from the client, until all the client's Rkeys have been
      communicated.

   o  If the server requires more ADD LINK CONTINUATION messages than
      the client, then after the client has communicated all its Rkeys,
      the server continues to send ADD LINK CONTINUATION request
      messages to the client. The client continues to respond, using
      empty (number of Rkeys to be communicated = 0) ADD LINK
      CONTINUATION response messages.

   o  If the client requires more ADD LINK CONTINUATION messages than
      the server, then after communicating all its Rkeys the server will
      continue to send empty ADD LINK CONTINUATION messages to the
      client to solicit replies with the client's Rkeys, until all have
      been communicated.

   The contents of this message are:

   Type

      Type 3 indicates ADD LINK CONTINUATION

   Length

      All LLC messages are 44 bytes long

   Version

      Version of the SMC-R protocol.  Version 1 is the only currently
      defined value.

Fox, et. al.             Expires Dec 31, 2012                [Page 110]
Internet-Draft  Shared Memory Communications over RDMA        July 2012

   R

      Reply flag. When set indicates this is an ADD LINK CONTINUATION
      REPLY

   LinkNum

      The link number of the new link within the SMC link group that
      Rkeys are being communicated for

   NumRkeys

      Number of Rkeys remaining to be communicated (including the ones
      in this message). If the value is less than or equal to 4, this
      is the last message. If it is greater than 4, another
      continuation message will be required, and its value will be the
      value in this message minus 4, and so on until all Rkeys are
      communicated.

   Up to 4 Rkey pairs

      These consist of an Rkey for an RMB that is known on the SMC-R
      link that this message was sent over, paired with the same RMB's
      Rkey over the new SMC link

Fox, et. al.             Expires Dec 31, 2012                [Page 111]
Internet-Draft  Shared Memory Communications over RDMA        July 2012

A.3.4. DELETE LINK LLC message format

    0                   1                   2                   3
    0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |  type = 4     |  length = 44  |Version| Rsrvd |R|A|O| Rsrvd   |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |   Linknum     |         Reason code (bytes 1-3)               |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |RsnCode byte 4 |                                               |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+                                              -+
   |                                                               |
   +-                                                             -+
   |                                                               |
   +-                                                             -+
   |                                                               |
   +-                          Reserved                           -+
   |                                                               |
   +-                                                             -+
   |                                                               |
   +-                                                             -+
   |                                                               |
   +-                                                             -+
   |                                                               |
   +-                                                             -+
   |                                                               |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     Figure 34 DELETE LINK LLC message format

   When the client or server detects that a QP or SMC-R link goes down
   or needs to come down, it sends this message over one of the other
   links in the link group.

   When the DELETE Link is sent from the client it only serves as a
   notification, and the client expects the server to send a DELETE LINK
   Request in response.  To avoid races, only the server will initiate
   the actual DELETE LINK Request and Response sequence that results
   from notification from the client.

   The server can also initiate the DELETE Link without notification
   from the client if it detects an error or if orderly link termination
   was initiated.

   The client may also request termination of the entire link group and
   the server may terminate the entire link group using this message.

   The contents of this message are:

Fox, et. al.             Expires Dec 31, 2012                [Page 112]
Internet-Draft  Shared Memory Communications over RDMA        July 2012

   Type

      Type 4 indicates DELETE LINK

   Length

      All LLC messages are 44 bytes long

   Version

      Version of the SMC-R protocol.  Version 1 is the only currently
      defined value.

   R

      Reply flag. When set indicates this is an ADD LINK CONTINUATION
      REPLY

   A

      All flag.  When set indicates that all links in the link group
      are to be terminated.  This terminates the link group.

   O

      Orderly flag. Indicates orderly termination.  Orderly termination
      is generally caused by an operator command rather than an error
      on the link.  When the client requests orderly termination, the
      server may wait to complete other work before terminating.

   LinkNum

      The link number of the link to be terminated

   RsnCode

      The termination reason code.  Currently defined reason codes are:

      Request Reason Codes:

      o X'00010000' = lost path

      o X'00020000' = operator initiated termination

      o X'00030000' = stack (program) initiated termination (link
      inactivity)

Fox, et. al.             Expires Dec 31, 2012                [Page 113]
Internet-Draft  Shared Memory Communications over RDMA        July 2012

      o X'00040000' = LLC protocol violation

      o Others TBD

      Response Reason Codes:

      o X'00100000' = Unknown Link ID (no link)

      o X'00200000' = Unknown Link Group (no links)

      o Others TBD

A.3.5. CONFIRM RKEY LLC message format

    0                   1                   2                   3
    0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |  type = 6     |  length = 44  |Version| Rsrvd |R|D|Z| Rsrvd   |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |   NumLinks    |  New RMB Rkey for this link (bytes 1-3)       |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |ThisLink byte 4|   Link number / Rkey pair #1                  |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ (if needed)   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                               |  Link number / Rkey pair #2   |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ (if needed)   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                                               |               |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+              -+
   |       Link number / Rkey pair #3 (if needed)                  |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |       Link number / Rkey pair #4 (if needed)                  |
   +-              +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |               |    Link number / Rkey pair #5 (if needed)     |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+               +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                               |  Link number / Rkey pair #6   |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ (if needed)   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                                               |               |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+              -+
   |       Link number / Rkey pair #7 (if needed                   |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     Figure 35 CONFIRM RKEY LLC message format

   The CONFIRM_RKEY flow can be sent at any time from either the client
   or the server, to inform the peer that an RMB has been created or
   deleted.  The creator of a new RMB must inform its peer of the new
   RMB's RKEY for all SMC-R links in the SMC-R link group.  The deleter
   of an RMB must inform its peer of the deleted RMB's RKEY for all SMC-
   R links.

Fox, et. al.             Expires Dec 31, 2012                [Page 114]
Internet-Draft  Shared Memory Communications over RDMA        July 2012

   For RMB creation, the creator sends this message over the SMC link
   that the first TCP connection that uses the new RMB is using.  This
   message contains the new RMB rkey for the SMC link that the message
   is sent over, then it lists the sender's SMC links in the link group
   paired with the new RKEY for the new RMB for that link.   This
   message can communicate the new RKEYs for 8 QPs: the QP this message
   is sent over, and 7 others.  Since the maximum number of links
   permitted in a link group in this version of the architecture is 8,
   one CONFIRM RKEY message is always sufficient.

   For link deletion, the creator sends the same format of message with
   a delete flag set, to inform the peer that the RMB's Rkeys on all
   links in the group are deleted.

   In both cases, the peer responds by simply echoing the message with
   the response flag set. If the response is a negative response, the
   sender must recalculate the Rkey set and start a new CONFIRM_RKEY
   exchange from the beginning.

   The contents of this message are:

   Type

      Type 6 indicates CONFIRM RKEY

   Length

      All LLC messages are 44 bytes long

   Version

      Version of the SMC-R protocol.  Version 1 is the only currently
      defined value.

   R

      Reply flag. When set indicates this is a CONFIRM RKEY REPLY

   D

      Delete flag.  When set indicates that the indicated RMB is being
      deleted

   Z

Fox, et. al.             Expires Dec 31, 2012                [Page 115]
Internet-Draft  Shared Memory Communications over RDMA        July 2012

      Negative response flag.  Set when an attempt to send CONFIRM RKEY
      collides with a configuration change in the link group. When set
      on a reply, indicates that the sender must recalculate the Rkey
      and and redo this exchange after the current configuration change
      is completed.

   NumLinks

      The number link/Rkey pairs, including those provided in this
      message, to be communicated.

      Note: in this version of the architecture, 8 is the maximum
      number of links supported in a link group.

   Link number/Rkey pairs

    0                   1                   2                   3
    0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   | Link number   | RMB's Rkey for the specified link (bytes 1-3) |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |New Rkey byte 4|
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     Figure 36 Format of link number/Rkey pairs

   Link number

      The link number for a link in the link group

   RMB's Rkey for the specified link

      The Rkey used to reach the RMB over the link whose number was
      specified in the link number field.

Fox, et. al.             Expires Dec 31, 2012                [Page 116]
Internet-Draft  Shared Memory Communications over RDMA        July 2012

A.3.6. TEST LINK LLC message format

    0                   1                   2                   3
    0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |  type = 7     |  length = 44  |Version| Rsrvd |R|  Reserved   |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                                                               |
   +-                                                             -+
   |                                                               |
   +-                         User Data                           -+
   |                                                               |
   +-                                                             -+
   |                                                               |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                                                               |
   +-                                                             -+
   |                                                               |
   +-                                                             -+
   |                          Reserved                             |
   +-                                                             -+
   |                                                               |
   +-                                                             -+
   |                                                               |
   +-                                                             -+
   |                                                               |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
                   Figure 37 TEST LINK LLC message format

   The TEST_LINK request can be sent from either peer to the other on an
   existing SMC-R link at any time to test that the SMC-R link is active
   and healthy at the stack level.  A stack which receives a TEST_LINK
   LLC message immediately sends back a TEST_LINK reply, echoing back
   the user data.  Also refer to 4.4.3. TCP Keepalive processing.

   The contents of this message are:

   Type

      Type 7 indicates TEST LINK

   Length

      All LLC messages are 44 bytes long

   Version

Fox, et. al.             Expires Dec 31, 2012                [Page 117]
Internet-Draft  Shared Memory Communications over RDMA        July 2012

      Version of the SMC-R protocol.  Version 1 is the only currently
      defined value.

   R

      Reply flag. When set indicates this is a CONFIRM RKEY REPLY

   User Data

      The receiver of this message echoes the sender's data back in a
      TEST_LINK response LLC message

Fox, et. al.             Expires Dec 31, 2012                [Page 118]
Internet-Draft  Shared Memory Communications over RDMA        July 2012

Appendix B.                 Socket API considerations

   A key design goal for SMC-R is to require no application changes for
   exploitation. It is confined to socket applications using stream
   (i.e. TCP protocol) sockets over IPv4 or IPv6. By virtue of the fact
   that the switch to the SMC-R protocol occurs after a TCP connection
   is established no changes are required in socket address family or in
   the IP addresses and ports that the socket application are using.
   Existing socket APIs that allow the application to retrieve local and
   remote socket address structures for an established TCP connection
   (for example, getsockname() and getpeername()) will continue to
   function as they have before.  Existing DNS setup and APIs for
   resolving hostnames to IP addresses and vice versa also continue to
   function without any changes. In general all of the usual socket APIs
   that are used for TCP communicates (send APIs, recv APIs, etc.) will
   continue to function as they do today even if SMC-R is used as the
   underlying protocol.

   Each SMC-R enabled implementation does however need to pay special
   attention to any socket APIs that have a reliance on the underlying
   TCP and IP protocols and ensure that their behavior in an SMC-R
   environment is reasonable and minimizes impact to the application.
   While the basic socket API set is fairly similar across different
   Operating Systems, when it comes to advanced socket API options there
   is more variability.  Each implementation needs to perform a detailed
   analysis of its API options and SMC-R impact and implications. As
   part of that step a discussion or review with other implementations
   supporting SMC-R would be useful to ensure a consistent
   implementation.

   setsockopt()/ getsockopt() considerations

   These APIs allow socket applications to manipulate socket, transport
   (TCP/UDP) and IP level options associated with a given socket.
   Typically, a platform restricts the number of IP options available to
   stream (TCP) socket applications given their connection oriented
   nature. The general guideline here is to continue processing these
   APIs in a manner that allows for application compatibility.  Some
   options will be relevant to the SMC-R protocol and will require
   special processing under the covers.  For example, the ability to
   manipulate TCP send and receive buffer sizes is still valid for SMC-
   R.  However, other options may have no meaning for SMC-R.  For
   example, if an application enabled the TCP_NODELAY option to disable
   Nagle's algorithm it should have no real effect in SMC-R
   communications as there is no notion of Nagle's algorithm with this
   new protocol.  But the implementation must accept the TCP_NODELAY
   option as it does today and save it so that it can be later extracted

Fox, et. al.             Expires Dec 31, 2012                [Page 119]
Internet-Draft  Shared Memory Communications over RDMA        July 2012

   via getsockopt() processing. Note that any TCP or IP level options
   will still have an effect on any TCP/IP packets flowing for an SMC-R
   connection (i.e. as part of TCP/IP connection establishment and
   TCP/IP connection termination packet flows).

   Under the covers manipulation of the TCP options will also include
   the SMC layer setting and reading the SMC-R experimental option
   before and after completion of the 3 way TCP handshake.

Fox, et. al.             Expires Dec 31, 2012                [Page 120]
Internet-Draft  Shared Memory Communications over RDMA        July 2012

Fox, et. al.             Expires Dec 31, 2012                [Page 121]
Internet-Draft  Shared Memory Communications over RDMA        July 2012

Appendix C.                 Rendezvous Error scenarios

   Error scenarios in setting up and managing SMC-R links are discussed
   in this section.

C.1. SMC Decline during CLC negotiation

   A peer to the SMC-R CLC negotiation can send SMC Decline in lieu of
   any expected CLC message to decline SMC and force the TCP connection
   back to IP fabric.  There can be several reasons for an SMC Decline
   during the CMC negotiation including: RNIC went down, SMC-R forbidden
   by local policy, lack of resources to perform SMC-R.  In all cases
   when an SMC Decline is sent in lieu of an expected CLC message, no
   confirmation is required and the TCP connection immediately falls
   back to using the IP fabric.

   To prevent ambiguity between CLC messages and application data, an
   SMC Decline cannot "chase" another CLC message. SMC Decline can only
   be sent in lieu of an expected CLC message.  For example, if the
   client sends SMC Proposal then its RNIC goes down, it must wait for
   the SMC Accept for the server and then it can reply to that with an
   SMC Decline.

   This "no chase" rule means that if this TCP connection is not a first
   contact between RoCE peers, a server cannot send SMC Decline after
   sending SMC Accept - it can only either break the TCP connection.
   Similarly, once the client sends SMC Confirm on a TCP connection that
   isn't first contact, it is committed to SMC-R for this TCP connection
   and cannot fall back to IP.

C.2. SMC Decline during LLC negotiation

   For a TCP connection that represents first contact between RoCE
   pairs, it is possible for SMC to fail back to IP during the LLC
   negotiation. This is possible until the first contact SMC link is
   confirmed.  For example, see Figure 38.  After a first contact SMC
   link is confirmed, fallback to IP is no longer possible.  The rule
   that this translates to is: a first contact peer can send SMC Decline
   at any time during LLC negotiation until it has successfully sent its
   CONFIRM LINK (request or response) flow.  After that point, it cannot
   fall back to IP.

Fox, et. al.             Expires Dec 31, 2012                [Page 122]
Internet-Draft  Shared Memory Communications over RDMA        July 2012

       Host X -- Server                           Host Y -- Client
    +-------------------+                      +-------------------+
    | PeerID = PS1      |                      |    PeerID = PC1   |
    |            +------+                      +------+            |
    |       QP 8 |RNIC 1|    SMC-R link 1      |RNIC 2| QP 64      |
    | RKey X |   |MAC MA|<-------------------->|MAC MB|   |        |
    |        |   |GID GA|   attempted setup    |GID GB|   | RKey Y2|
    |       \/   +------+                      +------+  \/        |
    |+--------+         |                      |        +--------+ |
    || RMB    |         |                      |        | RMB    | |
    |+--------+         |                      |        +--------+ |
    |       /\   +------+                      +------+  /\        |
    |        |   |RNIC 3|                      |RNIC 4|   | Rkey W2|
    |        |   |MAC MC|                      |MAC MD|   |        |
    |       QP 9 |GID GC|                      |GID GD| QP65       |
    |            +------+                      +------+            |
    +-------------------+                      +-------------------+

            SYN / SYN-ACK / ACT TCP 3-way handshake with TCP option
         <--------------------------------------------------------->

            SMC Proposal / SMC Accept / SMC Confirm exchange
         <-------------------------------------------------------->

           CONFIRM LINK(request, link 1)
         .........................................................>

                           CONFIRM LINK(response, link 1)
                              X...................................
                                :
                                : ROCE write faliure
                                :.................................>

           SMC Decline(PC1, reason code)
          <--------------------------------------------------------

              Connection data flows over IP fabric
          <------------------------------------------------------->

                          Legend:
                   ------------   TCP/IP and CLC flows
                   ............   RoCE (LLC) flows

                Figure 38 SMC Decline during LLC negotiation

Fox, et. al.             Expires Dec 31, 2012                [Page 123]
Internet-Draft  Shared Memory Communications over RDMA        July 2012

C.3. The SMC Decline window

   Because SMC-R does not support fall-back to IP for a TCP connection
   that is already using RDMA, there are specific rules on when SMC
   Decline, which signals a fall-back to IP because of an error or
   problem with the RoCE fabric, can be sent during TCP connection
   setup.  There is a point of no return after which a connection cannot
   fall back to IP, and RoCE errors that occur after this point require
   the connection to be broken with a RST flow in the IP fabric.

   For first contact, that point of no return is after the Add Link LLC
   message has been successfully sent for the second SMC-R link.
   Specifically, the server cannot fall back to IP after receiving
   either a positive write completion indication for the Add Link
   request, or after receiving the Add Link response from the client,
   whichever comes first.  The client cannot fall back to IP after
   either sending a negative Add Link response, receiving a positive
   write complete on a positive Add Link response, or receiving a
   Confirm Link for the second SMC-R link from the server, whichever
   comes first.

   For subsequent contact, that point of no return is after the last
   send of the CLC negotiation completes.  This, in combination with the
   rule that error "chasers" are not allowed during CLC negotiation,
   means that the server cannot send SMC Decline after sending an SMC
   Accept, and the client cannot send an SMC Decline after sending an
   SMC Confirm.

C.4. Out of synch conditions during SMC-R negotiation

   The SMC Accept CLC message contains a "first contact" flag that
   indicates to the client whether or not the server believes it is
   setting up a new link group, or using an existing link group.  This
   flag is used to detect an out of synch condition between the client
   and the server.  The scenario detected is as follows: There is a
   single existing SMC-R link between the peers.  After the client sends
   the SMC Proposal CLC message, the existing SMC-R link between the
   client and the server fails.  The client cannot chase the SMC
   Proposal CLC message with an SMC Decline CLC message in this case
   because the client does not yet know that the server would have
   wanted to choose the SMC-R link that just crashed.  The QP that
   failed recovers before the server returns its SMC Accept CLC message.
   This means that there is a QP but no SMC link.  Since the server had
   not yet learned of the SMC link failure when it sent the SMC Accept
   CLC message, it attempts to re-use the SMC link that just failed.
   This means the server would not set the "first contact" flag,
   indicating to the client that the server thinks it is reusing an SMC-

Fox, et. al.             Expires Dec 31, 2012                [Page 124]
Internet-Draft  Shared Memory Communications over RDMA        July 2012

   R link. However the client does not have an SMC-R link that matches
   the server's specification.  Because the "first contact" flag is off,
   the client realizes it is out of synch with the server and sends SMC
   Decline to cause the connection to fall back to IP.

C.5. Timeouts during CLC negotiation

   Because the SMC-R negotiation flows as TCP data, there are built-in
   timeouts and retransmits at the TCP layer for individual messages.
   Implementations also must to protect the overall TCP/CLC handshake
   with a timer or timers to prevent connections from hanging
   indefinitely due to SMC-R processing.  This can be done with
   individual timers for individual CLC messages or an overall timer for
   the entire exchange,  which may include the TCP handshake and the CLC
   handshake under one timer or separate timers.  This decision is
   implementation dependent.

   If the TCP and/or CLC handshakes time out, the TCP connection must be
   terminated as it would be in a legacy IP environment when connection
   setup doesn't complete in a timely manner.  Because the CLC flows are
   TCP messages, if they cannot be sent and received in a timely
   fashion, the TCP connection is not healthy and would not work if
   fallback to IP were attempted.

C.6. Protocol errors during CLC negotiation

   Protocol errors occur during CLC negotiation when a message is
   received that is not expected.  For example, a peer that is expecting
   a CLC message but instead receives application data has experienced a
   protocol error, and also indicates a likely software error as the two
   sides are out of synch.  When application data is expected, this data
   is not parsed to ensure it's not a CLC message.

   When a peer is expecting a CLC negotiation message, any parsing error
   in that message must be treated as application data.  The CLC
   negotiation messages are designed with beginning and ending
   eyecatchers to help verify that they are actually the expected
   message.  If other parsing errors in an expected CLC message occur,
   such as incorrect length fields or incorrectly formatted fields, the
   message must be treated as application data.

   All protocol errors must result in termination of the TCP connection.
   No fallback to IP is allowed in the case of a protocol error because
   if the protocols are out of synch, mismatched, or corrupted, then
   data and security integrity cannot be ensured.

Fox, et. al.             Expires Dec 31, 2012                [Page 125]
Internet-Draft  Shared Memory Communications over RDMA        July 2012

C.7. Timeouts during LLC negotiation

   Whenever a peer sends an LLC message to which a reply is expected, it
   sets a timer after the send posts to wait for the reply. An expected
   response may be a reply flavor of the LLC message (for example
   CONFIRM LINK REPLY) or a new LLC message (for example an ADD LINK
   CONTINUATION expected from the server by the client if there are more
   Rkeys to communicate).

   On LLC flows that are part of a first contact setup of a link group,
   the value of the timer is implementation dependent but should be long
   enough to allow the other peer have a write complete timeout and 2-3
   retransmits of an SMC Decline on the TCP fabric.     For LLC flows
   that are maintaining the link group and not part of first contact
   setup of a link group, the timers may be shorter.  Upon receipt of an
   expected reply the timer is cancelled.  If a timer pops without a
   reply having been received, the sender must initiate a recovery
   action

   During first contact processing, failure of an LLC verification timer
   is a should-not-occur which indicates a problem with one of the
   endpoints.  The reason for this is that if there is a "routine"
   failure in the RoCE fabric that causes an LLC verification send to
   fail, the sender will get a write completion failure and will then
   send SMC Decline to the partner.  The only time an LLC verification
   timer will expire on a first contact is when the sender thinks the
   send succeeded but it actually didn't. Because of the reliable
   connected nature of QP connections on the RoCE fabric, this is
   indicates a problem with one of the peers, not with the RoCE fabric.

   After the reliable connected QP for the first SMC-R link in a link
   group is set up on initial contact, the client sets a timer to wait
   for a RoCE verification message from the server that the QP is
   actually connected and usable.  If the server experiences a failure
   sending its QP confirmation message, it will send SMC Decline, which
   should arrive at the client before the client's verification timer
   expires.  If the client's timer expires without receiving either an
   SMC Decline or a RoCE message confirmation from the server, there is
   a problem either with the server or with the TCP fabric.   In either
   case the client must break the TCP connection and clean up the SMC-R
   link.

   There are two scenarios in which the client's response to the QP
   verification message fails to reach the server.  The main difference
   is whether or not the client has successfully completed the send of
   the CONFIRM LINK response.

Fox, et. al.             Expires Dec 31, 2012                [Page 126]
Internet-Draft  Shared Memory Communications over RDMA        July 2012

   In the normal case of a problem with the RoCE path, the client will
   learn of the failure by getting a write completion failure, before
   the server's timer expires. In this case, the client sends an SMC
   Decline CLC message to the server and the TCP connection falls back
   to IP.

   If the client's send of the Confirmation message receives a positive
   return code but for some reason still does not reach the server, or
   the client's SMC Decline CLC message fails to reach the server after
   the client fails to send its RoCE confirmation message, then the
   server's timer will time out and the server must break the TCP
   connection by sending RST.   This is expected to be a very rare case,
   because if the client cannot send its CONFIRM LINK RSP LLC message,
   the client should get a negative return code and initiate fallback to
   IP.  A client receiving a positive return code on a send that fails
   to reach the server should be extremely rare.

C.7.1. Recovery actions for LLC timeouts and failures

   The following table describes recovery actions for LLC timeouts.  A
   write completion failure or other indication of failure to send on
   the send of the LLC command is treated the same as a timeout.

   LLC Message: CONFIRM LINK from server (first contact)

      Timer waits for: CONFIRM LINK reply from client

      Recovery action: Break the TCP connection by sending RST and
      clean up the link.  The server should have received an  SMC
      Decline from the client by now if the client had an LLC send
      failure.

   LLC Message: CONFIRM LINK from server (not first contact)

      Timer Waits for: CONFIRM LINK reply from client

      Recovery action:  Clean up the new link and set a timer to retry.

   LLC Message: CONFIRM LINK REPLY from client (first contact)

      Timer waits for: ADD LINK from server

      Recovery action: Clean up the SMC-R link and break the TCP
      connection by sending RST over the IP fabric.  There is a problem
      with the server.  If the server had a send failure, it should
      have have sent SMC Decline by now.

Fox, et. al.             Expires Dec 31, 2012                [Page 127]
Internet-Draft  Shared Memory Communications over RDMA        July 2012

   LLC Message: ADD LINK from server (first contact)

      Timer waits for: ADD LINK reply from client

      Recovery action: Break the TCP connection with RST and clean up
      RoCE resources.  The connection is past the point where the
      server can fall back to IP, and if the client had a send problem
      it should have sent SMC Decline by now.

   LLC Message: ADD LINK from server (not first contact)

      Timer waits for: ADD LINK reply from client

      Recovery action: Clean up resources (QP, RMB keys, etc) for the
      new link and treat the link that the ADD LINK was sent over as if
      it had failed.

   LLC Message:  ADD LINK REPLY from client (and there are more Rkeys to
   be communicated)

      Timer waits for: ADD LINK CONTINUATION from server

      Recovery action: Treat the same as ADD LINK timer failure

   LLC Message: ADD LINK REPLY or ADD LINK CONTINUATION reply from the
   client (and there are no more Rkeys to be communicated)

      Timer waits for: CONFIRM LINK from the server, over the new link

      Recovery action: Clean up any resource allocated for the new link
      and set a timer to send ADD LINK to the server if there is still
      an unused RNIC on the client side. The new link has failed to set
      up, but the link that the ADD LINK exchange occurred over is
      unaffected.

   LLC Message: ADD LINK CONTINUATION from server

      Timer waits for: ADD LINK CONTINUATION REPLY from client

      Recovery action: Treat the same as ADD LINK timer failure

   LLC Message: ADD LINK CONTINUATION reply from client (first contact,
   and RMB count fields indicate that the server owes more ADD LINK
   CONTINUATION messages)

      Timer waits for: ADD LINK CONTINUATION from the server

Fox, et. al.             Expires Dec 31, 2012                [Page 128]
Internet-Draft  Shared Memory Communications over RDMA        July 2012

      Recovery action: Clean up the SMC link and break the TCP
      connection by sending RST. There is a problem with the server.
      If the server had a send failure, it should have have sent SMC
      Decline by now.

   LLC Message: ADD LINK CONTINUATION reply from client (not first
   contact and RMB count fields indicate that the server owes more ADD
   LINK CONTINUATION messages)

      Timer waits for: ADD LINK CONTINUATION from server

      Recovery action: Treat as is if client detected link failure on
      the link the ADD LINK exchange is using.   Send DELETE LINK to
      the server over another active link if one exists, otherwise
      clean up the link group.

   LLC Message: DELETE LINK from client

      Timer waits for: DELETE LINK request from server

      Recovery action: If the scope of the request is to delete a
      single link, the surviving link, over which the client sent the
      DELETE LINK is no longer usable either.  If this is the last link
      in the link group, end TCP connections over the link group by
      sending RST packets.   If there are other surviving links in the
      link group, resend over a surviving link.  Also send a DELETE
      LINK over a surviving link for the link that the client attempted
      to send the initial DELETE LINK message over.  If the scope of
      the request is to delete the entire link group, try resending on
      other links in the link group until success is achieved.  If all
      sends fail, tear down the link group and any TCP connections that
      exist on it.

   LLC Message: DELETE LINK from server (scope: entire link group)

      Timer waits for: Confirmation from the adapter that the message
      was delivered.

      Recovery action: Tear down the link group and any TCP connections
      that exist over it.

   LLC Message: DELETE LINK from server (scope: single link)

      Timer waits for: DELETE LINK reply from the client

      Recovery action: The over which the client sent the DELETE LINK
      is no longer usable either.  If this is the last link in the link

Fox, et. al.             Expires Dec 31, 2012                [Page 129]
Internet-Draft  Shared Memory Communications over RDMA        July 2012

      group, end TCP connections over the link group by sending RST
      packets.   If there are other surviving links in the link group,
      resend over a surviving link.  Also send a DELETE LINK over a
      surviving link for the link that the server attempted to send the
      initial DELETE LINK message over.  If the scope of the request is
      to delete the entire link group, try resending on other links in
      the link group until success is achieved.  If all sends fail,
      tear down the link group and any TCP connections that exist on
      it.

   LLC Message: CONFIRM RKEY from the client

      Timer waits for: CONFIRM RKEY REPLY from the server

      Recovery action: Perform normal client procedures for detection
      of failed link.  The link over which the message was sent has
      failed.

   LLC Message: CONFIRM RKEY from the server

      Timer waits for : CONFIRM RKEY REPLY from the client

      Recovery action: Perform normal server procedures for detection
      of failed link.  The link over which the message was sent has
      failed.

   LLC Message: TEST LINK from the client

      Timer waits for: TEST LINK REPLY from the server

      Recovery action: Perform normal client procedures for detection
      of failed link.  The link over which the message was sent has
      failed.

   LLC Message: TEST LINK from the server

      Timer waits for : TEST LINK REPLY from the client

      Recovery action: Perform normal server procedures for detection
      of failed link.  The link over which the message was sent has
      failed.

   The following table describes recovery actions for invalid LLC
   messages. These could be misformatted or contain out of synch data.

   LLC Message received: CONFIRM LINK from server

Fox, et. al.             Expires Dec 31, 2012                [Page 130]
Internet-Draft  Shared Memory Communications over RDMA        July 2012

      What could be bad: Incorrect link information

      Recovery action: Protocol error.  The link must be brought down
      by sending a DELETE LINK for the link over another link in the
      link group if one exists.  If this is first contact, fall back to
      IP by sending SMC Decline to server.

   LLC Message received: ADD LINK reply from client

      What could be bad: Client side link information that would result
      in a parallel link being set up

      Recovery action: Parallel links are not permitted.  Delete the
      link by sending DELETE LINK to the client over another link in
      the link group.

   LLC Message received: ADD LINK CONTINUATION from the server or ADD
   LINK CONTINUATION REPLY from the client

      What could be bad: Number of RMBs provided doesn't match count
      given on initial ADD LINK or ADD LINK reply message

      Recovery action: Protocol error. Treat as if detected link outage

   LLC Message received: DELETE LINK from client

      What could be bad: Link indicated doesn't exist

      Recovery action: assume timing window and ignore message.

   LLC Message received: CONFIRM RKEY form either client or server

      What could be bad: No Rkey provided for one or more of the links
      in the link group

      Recovery action: Treat as if detected failure of the link(s) for
      which no RKEY was provided

   LLC message received: TEST LINK reply

      What could be bad: User data doesn't match what was sent in the
      TEST LINK request

      Recovery action: Treat as if detected that the link has gone
      down.  This is a protocol error

Fox, et. al.             Expires Dec 31, 2012                [Page 131]
Internet-Draft  Shared Memory Communications over RDMA        July 2012

   LLC message received: any unambiguously incorrect or out of synch LLC
   message

      What it indicates: Link is out of sync

      Recovery action: Treat as if detected that the link has gone
      down.

C.8. Failure to add second SMC-R link to a link group

   When there is any failure in setting up the second SMC-R link in an
   SMC-R link group, including confirmation timer expiration, the SMC-R
   link group is allowed to continue, without available failover.
   However this situation is extremely undesirable and the server must
   endeavor to correct it as soon as it can.

   The server peer in the SMC-R link group must set a timer to drive it
   to retry setup of a failed additional SMC-R link.  The server will
   immediately retry the SMC-R link setup when the first of the
   following events occurs:

   o  The retry timer expires

   o  A new RNIC becomes available to the server, on the same VLAN as
      the SMC-R link group

   o  An "Add Link" LLC request message is received from the client,
      which indicates availability of a new RNIC on the client side.

Fox, et. al.             Expires Dec 31, 2012                [Page 132]
Internet-Draft  Shared Memory Communications over RDMA        July 2012

Authors' Addresses

   Mike Fox
   IBM
   3039 Cornwallis Rd.
   Research Triangle Park, NC 27709

   Email: mjfox@us.ibm.com

   Constantinos (Gus) Kassimis
   IBM
   3039 Cornwallis Rd.
   Research Triangle Park, NC 27709

   Email: kassimis@us.ibm.com

   Jerry Stevens
   IBM
   3039 Cornwallis Rd.
   Research Triangle Park, NC 27709

   Email: sjerry@us.ibm.com

Fox, et. al.             Expires Dec 31, 2012                [Page 133]