Skip to main content

Toshiba's Router Architecture Extensions for ATM : Overview
draft-rfced-info-katsube-00

The information below is for an old version of the document that is already published as an RFC.
Document Type
This is an older version of an Internet-Draft that was ultimately published as RFC 2098.
Authors Yasuhiro Katsube , Hiroshi Esaki , Ken-ichi Nagami
Last updated 2013-03-02 (Latest revision 1996-11-11)
RFC stream Legacy
Intended RFC status (None)
Formats
Stream Legacy state (None)
Consensus boilerplate Unknown
RFC Editor Note (None)
IESG IESG state Became RFC 2098 (Informational)
Telechat date (None)
Responsible AD (None)
Send notices to (None)
draft-rfced-info-katsube-00
Internet-Draft          Expires: April 1997               Internet-Draft

Category: Informational                                 Yasuhiro Katsube
                                                         Ken-ichi Nagami
                                                           Hiroshi Esaki
                                                    (Toshiba R&D Center)

         Router Architecture Extensions for ATM : Overview 
                 <draft-rfced-info-katsube-00.txt>                

Status of this Memo 

   This document is an Internet-Draft.  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". 

   To learn the current status of any Internet-Draft, please check the
   "1id-abstract.txt" listing contained in the Internet-Drafts Shadow
   Directories on ftp.is.co.za (Africa), nic.nordu.net (Europe), 
   munnari.oz.au (Pacific Rim), ds.internic.net (US East Coast), or
   ftp.isi.edu (US West Coast).
        

Abstract 

   This memo describes a new internetworking architecture which makes 
   better use of the property of ATM.  IP datagrams are transferred 
   along hop-by-hop path via routers, but datagram assembly/disassembly
   and IP header processing are not necessarily carried out at 
   individual routers in the proposed architecture.  A concept of "Cell
   Switch Router (CSR)" is introduced as a new internetworking 
   equipment, which has ATM cell switching capabilities in addition to
   conventional IP datagram forwarding.  Proposed architecture can 
   provide applications with high-throughput and low-latency ATM pipes
   while retaining current router-based internetworking concept.  It 
   also provides applications with specific QoS/bandwidth by 
   cooperating with internetworking level resource reservation protocols
   such as RSVP.

Katsube, et al.            Expires April 1997                   [Page  1]


Internet Draft        Router Extension for ATM                Oct. 1996

1.  Introduction 

   The Internet is growing both in its size and its traffic volume. 
   In addition, recent applications often require guaranteed bandwidth 
   and QoS rather than best effort.  Such changes make the current 
   hop-by-hop datagram forwarding paradigm inadequate, then accelerate 
   investigations on new internetworking architectures. 

   Roughly two distinct approaches can be seen as possible solutions; 
   the use of ATM to convey IP datagrams, and the revision of IP to 
   support flow concept and resource reservation.  Integration or 
   interworking of these approaches will be necessary to provide end 
   hosts with high throughput and QoS guaranteed internetworking 
   services over any datalink platforms as well as ATM. 

   New internetworking architecture proposed in this draft is based on 
   "Cell Switch Router (CSR)" which has the following properties.

    - It makes the best use of ATM's property while retaining current
      router-based internetworking and routing architecture. 

    - It takes into account interoperability with future IP that 
      supports flow concept and resource reservations. 

   Section 2 of this draft explains background and motivations of our
   proposal.  Section 3 describes an overview of the proposed 
   internetworking architecture and its several remarkable features.  
   Section 4 discusses control architectures for CSR, which will need to
   be further investigated. 

2.  Background and Motivation

   It is considered that the current hop-by-hop best effort datagram 
   forwarding paradigm will not be adequate to support future large 
   scale Internet which accommodates huge amount of traffic with certain
   QoS requirements.  Two major schools of investigations can be seen in
   IETF whose main purpose is to improve ability of the Internet with 
   regard to its throughput and QoS.  One is to utilize ATM technology
   as much as possible, and the other is to introduce the concept of 
   resource reservation and flow into IP. 

1) Utilization of ATM 

   Although basic properties of ATM; necessity of connection setup, 
   necessity of traffic contract, etc.; is not necessarily suited to 
   conventional IP datagram transmission, its excellent throughput and 
   delay characteristics let us to investigate the realization of IP
   datagram transmission over ATM.  

Katsube, et al.            Expires April 1997                   [Page  2]


Internet Draft        Router Extension for ATM                Oct. 1996

   A typical internetworking architecture is the "Classical IP Model"
   [RFC1577].  This model allows direct ATM connectivities only between
   nodes that share the same IP address prefix.  IP datagrams should 
   traverse routers whenever they go beyond IP subnet boundaries even
   though their source and destination are accommodated in the same ATM
   cloud.  Although an ATMARP is introduced which is not based on legacy
   datalink broadcast but on centralized ATMARP servers, this model does
   not require drastic changes to the legacy internetworking 
   architectures with regard to the IP datagram forwarding process.  
   This model still has problems of limited throughput and large 
   latency, compared with the ability of ATM, due to IP header 
   processing at every router.  It will become more critical when 
   multimedia applications that require much larger bandwidth and lower
   latency become dominant in the near future.

   Another internetworking architecture is "NHRP (Next Hop Resolution 
   Protocol) Model"[NHRP09].  This model aims at resolving throughput and
   latency problems in the Classical IP Model and making the best use of
   ATM.  ATM connections can be directly established from an ingress 
   point to an egress point of an ATM cloud even when they do not share
   the same IP address prefix.  In order to enable it, the Next Hop 
   Server[KAT95] is introduced which can find an egress point of the ATM
   cloud nearest to the given destination and resolves its ATM address.
   A sort of query/response protocols between the server(s) and clients
   and possibly server and server are specified.  After the ATM address
   of a desired egress point is resolved, the client establishes a 
   direct ATM connection to that point through ATM signaling 
   procedures[ATM3.1].  Once a direct ATM connection has been set up
   through this procedure, IP datagrams do not have to experience 
   hop-by-hop IP processing but can be transmitted over the direct ATM
   connection.  Therefore, high throughput and low latency 
   communications become possible even if they go beyond IP subnet 
   boundaries.  It should be noted that the provision of such direct ATM
   connections does not mean disappearance of legacy routers which 
   interconnect distinct ATM-based IP subnets.  For example, hop-by-hop
   IP datagram forwarding function would still be required in the 
   following cases: 

   - When you want to transmit IP datagrams before direct ATM connection
     from an ingress point to an egress point of the ATM cloud is 
     established

   - When you neither require a certain QoS nor transmit large amount of
     IP datagrams for some communication

   - When the direct ATM connection is not allowed by security or policy
     reasons 

Katsube, et al.            Expires April 1997                   [Page  3]


Internet Draft        Router Extension for ATM                Oct. 1996

2) IP level resource reservation and flow support 

   Apart from investigation on specific datalink technology such as ATM,
   resource reservation technologies for desired IP level flows have 
   been studied and are still under discussion.  Their typical examples
   are RSVP[RSVP13] and STII[RFC1819].

   RSVP itself is not a connection oriented technology since datagrams
   can be transmitted regardless of the result of the resource 
   reservation process.  After a resource reservation process from a 
   receiver (or receivers) to a sender (or senders) is successfully
   completed, RSVP-capable routers along the path of the flow reserve 
   their resources for datagram forwarding according to the requested 
   flow spec. 

   STII is regarded as a connection oriented IP which requires 
   connection setup process from a sender to a receiver (or receivers)
   before transmitting datagrams.  STII-capable routers along the path
   of the requested connection reserve their resources for datagram 
   forwarding according to the flow spec.  

   Neither RSVP nor STII restrict underlying datalink networks since
   their primary purpose is to let routers provide each IP flow with 
   desired forwarding quality (by controlling their datagram scheduling
   rules).  Since various datalink networks will coexist as well as ATM
   in the future, these IP level resource reservation technologies would
   be necessary in order to provide end-to-end IP flow with desired 
   bandwidth and QoS. 

   Taking this background into consideration, we should be aware of 
   several issues which motivate our proposal. 

   - As of the time of writing, the ATM specific internetworking 
     architecture proposed does not take into account interoperability
     with IP level resource reservation or connection setup protocols.
     In particular, operating RSVP in the NHRP-based ATM cloud seems to
     require much effort since RSVP is a soft-state receiver-oriented
     protocol with multicast capability as a default, while ATM with 
     NHRP is a hard-state sender-oriented protocol which does not 
     support multicast yet. 

   - Although RSVP or STII-based routers will provide each IP flow with
     a desired bandwidth and QoS, they have some native throughput
     limitations due to the processor-based IP forwarding mechanism 
     compared with the hardware switching mechanism of ATM.  

   The main objective of our proposal is to resolve the above issues.  

Katsube, et al.            Expires April 1997                   [Page  4]


Internet Draft        Router Extension for ATM                Oct. 1996

   The proposed internetworking architecture makes the best use of the
   property of ATM by extending legacy routers to handle future IP 
   features such as flow support and resource reservation with the help
   of ATM's cell switching capabilities.
        

3.  Internetworking Architecture Based On the Cell Switch Router (CSR)

3.1  Overview 

   The Cell Switch Router (CSR) is a key network element of the proposed
   internetworking architecture.  The CSR provides cell switching 
   functionality in addition to conventional IP datagram forwarding.  
   Communications with high throughput and low latency, that are native
   properties of ATM, become possible by using this cell switching
   functionality even when the communications pass through IP subnetwork
   boundaries.  In an ATM internet composed of CSRs, VPI/VCI-based cell
   switching which bypasses datagram assembly/disassembly and IP header
   processing is possible at every CSR for communications which lend
   themselves to such (e.g., communications which require certain amount
   of bandwidth and QoS), while conventional hop-by-hop datagram 
   forwarding based on the IP header is also possible at every CSR for
   other conventional communications. 

   By using such cell-level switching capabilities, the CSR is able to 
   concatenate incoming and outgoing ATM VCs, although the concatenation
   in this case is controlled outside the ATM cloud (ATM's control/
   management-plane) unlike conventional ATM switch nodes.  That is, the
   CSR is attached to ATM networks via an ATM-UNI instead of NNI.  By 
   carrying out such VPI/VCI concatenations at multiple CSRs 
   consecutively, ATM level connectivity composed of multiple ATM VCs,
   each of which connects adjacent CSRs (or CSR and hosts/routers), can
   be provided.  We call such an ATM pipe "ATM Bypass-pipe" to 
   differentiate it from "ATM VCC (VC connection)" provided by a single
   ATM datalink cloud through ATM signaling. 

   Example network configurations based on CSRs are shown in figure 1.  
   An ATM datalink network may be a large cloud which accommodates 
   multiple IP subnets X, Y and Z.  Or several distinct ATM datalinks 
   may accommodate single IP subnet X, Y and Z respectively.
   The latter configuration would be straightforward in discussing the
   CSR, but the CSR is also applicable to the former configuration as
   well.  In addition, the CSR would be applicable as a router which 
   interconnects multiple NHRP-based ATM clouds.  

   Two different kinds of ATM VCs are defined between adjacent CSRs or 
   between CSR and ATM-attached hosts/routers. 

Katsube, et al.            Expires April 1997                   [Page  5]


Internet Draft        Router Extension for ATM                Oct. 1996

1) Default-VC

   It is a general purpose VC used by any communications which select 
   conventional hop-by-hop IP routed paths.  All incoming cells received
   from this VC are assembled to IP datagrams and handled based on their
   IP headers.  VCs set up in the Classical IP Model are classified into
   this category. 

2) Dedicated-VC

   It is used by specific communications (IP flows) which are specified
   by, for example, any combination of the destination IP address/port,
   the source IP address/port or IPv6 flow label.  It can be 
   concatenated with other Dedicated-VCs which accommodate the same IP
   flow as it, and can constitute an ATM Bypass-pipe for those IP flows.

   Ingress/egress nodes of the Bypass-pipe can be either CSRs or ATM-
   attached routers/hosts both of which speak a Bypass-pipe control
   protocol.  (we call that "Bypass-capable nodes")  On the other hand,
   intermediate nodes of the Bypass-pipe should be CSRs since they need
   to have cell switching capabilities as well as to speak the Bypass-
   pipe control protocol. 

   The route for a Bypass-pipe follows IP routing information in each 
   CSR.  In figure 1, IP datagrams from a source host or router X.1 to
   a destination host or router Z.1 are transferred over the route X.1 
   -> CSR1 -> CSR2 -> Z.1 regardless of whether the communication is 
   on a hop-by-hop basis or Bypass-pipe basis.  Routes for individual 
   Dedicated-VCs which constitutes the Bypass-pipe X.1 --> Z.1 (X.1 -> 
   CSR1, CSR1 -> CSR2, CSR2 -> Z.1) would be determined based on ATM
   routing protocols such as PNNI[PNNI1.0], and would be independent of
   IP level routing.
  

   An example of IP datagram transmission mechanism is as follows.

   o The host/router X.1 checks an identifier of each IP datagram, 
     which may be the "destination IP address (prefix)", 
     "source/destination IP address (prefix) pair", "destination IP 
     address and port", "source IP address and Flow label (in IPv6)", 
     and so on.  Based on either of those identifiers, it determines
     over which VC the datagram should be transmitted. 

   o The CSR1/2 checks the VPI/VCI value of each incoming cell.  When 
     the mapping from the incoming interface/VPI/VCI to outgoing 
     interface/VPI/VCI is found in an ATM routing table, it is directly
     forwarded to the specified interface through an ATM switch module.
     When the mapping in not found in the ATM routing table (or the 

Katsube, et al.            Expires April 1997                   [Page  6]


Internet Draft        Router Extension for ATM                Oct. 1996

     table shows an IP module as an output interface), the cell is 
     assembled to an IP datagram and then forwarded to an appropriate 
     outgoing interface/VPI/VCI based on an identifier of the datagram.

        IP subnet X           IP subnet Y          IP subnet Z 
  <---------------------> <-----------------> <--------------------->

  +-------+ Default  +-------+ Default   +-------+ Default  +-------+ 
  |       |     -VC  | CSR 1 |     -VC   | CSR 2 |     -VC  |       |
  | Host +=============+   +===============+   +=============+ Host |
  |  X.1 +-------------+++++---------------+++++-------------+  Z.1 |
  |      +-------------+++++---------------+++++-------------+      |
  |      +-------------+++++---------------+++++-------------+      |
  |       |Dedicated |       | Dedicated |       |Dedicated |       |
  +-------+     -VCs +-------+      -VCs +-------+     -VCs +-------+
         <--------------------------------------------------->
                             Bypass-pipe
                   

         Figure 1  Internetworking Architecture based on CSR 

3.2  Features 

   The main feature of the CSR-based internetworking architecture is the
   same as that of the NHRP-based architecture in the sense that they
   both provide direct ATM level connectivity beyond IP subnet 
   boundaries.  There are, however, several notable differences in the
   CSR-based architecture compared with the NHRP-based one as follows.

 1) Relationship between IP routing and ATM routing 

   In the NHRP model, an egress point of the ATM network is first 
   determined in the next hop resolution phase based on IP level routing
   information.  Then the actual route for an ATM-VC to the obtained 
   egress point is determined in the ATM connection setup phase based on
   ATM level routing information.  Both kinds of routing information 
   would be calculated according to factors such as network topology and
   available bandwidth for the large ATM cloud.  The ATM routing will be
   based on PNNI phase1[PNNI1.0] while the IP routing will be based on 
   OSPF, BGP, IS-IS, etc.  We need to manage two different routing 
   protocols over the large ATM cloud until Integtrated-PNNI[IPNNI96] 
   which takes both ATM level metric and IP level metric into account 

Katsube, et al.            Expires April 1997                   [Page  7]


Internet Draft        Router Extension for ATM                Oct. 1996

   will be phased in in the future.

   In the CSR model, IP level routing determines an egress point of the
   ATM cloud as well as determines inter-subnet level path to the point
   that shows which CSRs it should pass through.  ATM level routing 
   determines an intra-subnet level path for ATM-VCs (both Dedicated-VC
   and Default-VC) only between adjacent nodes (CSRs or ATM-attached 
   hosts/routers).  Since the roles of routing are hierarchically 
   subdevided into inter-subnet level (router level) and intra-subnet
   level (ATM SW level), ATM routing does not have to operate all over
   the ATM cloud but only in individual IP subnets independent from each
   other.  This will decrease the amount of information for ATM routing
   protocol handling.  But an end-to-end ATM path may not be optimal
   compared with the NHRP model since the path should go through routers
   at subnet boundaries in the CSR model. 

 2) Dynamic routing and redundancy support 

   A CSR-based network can dynamically change routes for Bypass-pipes
   when related IP level routing information changes.  Bypass-pipes
   related to the routing changes do not have to be torn down nor
   established from scratch since intermediate CSRs related to IP
   routing changes can follow them and change routes for related 
   Bypass-pipes by themselves. 

   The same things apply when some error or outage happens in any ATM 
   nodes/links/routers on the route of a Bypass-pipe.  CSRs that have 
   noticed such errors or outages would change routes for related 
   Bypass-pipes by themselves. 

 3) Interoperability with IP level resource reservation protocols in
    multicast environments 

   As current NHRP specification assumes application of NHRP to unicast
   environments only, multicast IP flows should still be carried based
   on a hop-by-hop manner with multicast routers.  In addition, 
   realization of IP level resource reservation protocols such as RSVP
   over NHRP environments requires further investigation.

   The CSR-based internetworking architecture which keeps subnet-by-
   subnet internetworking with regard to any control protocol sequence
   can provide multicast Bypass-pipes without requiring any 
   modifications in IP multicast over ATM[IPMC96] or multicast routing
   techniques.  In addition, since the CSR can handle RSVP messages
   which are transmitted in a hop-by-hop manner, it can provide Bypass-
   pipes which satisfy QoS requirements by the cooperation of the RSVP
   and the Bypass-pipe control protocol. 

Katsube, et al.            Expires April 1997                   [Page  8]


Internet Draft        Router Extension for ATM                Oct. 1996

4.  Control Architecture for CSR 

   Several issues with regard to a control architecture for the CSR are
   discussed in this section. 

4.1  Network Reference Model 

   In order to help understanding discussions in this section, the
   following network reference model is assumed.  Source hosts S1, S2,
   and destination hosts D1, D2 are attached to Ethernets, while S3 and 
   D3 are attached to the ATM.  Routers R1 and R5 are attached to 
   Ethernets only, while R2, R3 and R4 are attached to the ATM.  The ATM
   datalink for subnet #3 and subnet #4 can either be physically 
   separated datalinks or be the same datalink.  In other words, R3 can
   be either one-port or multi-port router. 

      Ether    Ether        ATM          ATM        Ether    Ether
        |        |        +-----+      +-----+        |        |
        |        |        |     |      |     |        |        |
    S1--|   S2---|   S3---|     |      |     |---D3   |---D2   |--D1 
        |        |        |     |      |     |        |        |
        |---R1---|---R2---|     |--R3--|     |---R4---|---R5---|
        |        |        |     |      |     |        |        |
        |        |        +-----+      +-----+        |        |        
     subnet   subnet      subnet       subnet      subnet   subnet
       #1       #2          #3           #4          #5       #6 

                   Figure 2  Network Reference Model 

   Bypass-pipes can be configured [S3 or R2]-->R3-->[D3 or R4].  That 
   means that S3, D3, R2, R3 and R4 need to speak Bypass-pipe control 
   protocol, and means that R3 needs to be the CSR.  We use term 
   "Bypass-capable nodes" for hosts/routers which can speak Bypass-pipe 
   control protocol but are not necessarily CSRs.

   As shown in this reference model, Bypass-pipe can be configured from
   host to host (S3-->R3-->D3), router to host (R2-->R3-->D3), host to
   router (S3-->R3-->R4), and router to router (R2-->R3-->R4). 

4.2  Possible Use of Bypass-pipe

Katsube, et al.            Expires April 1997                   [Page  9]


Internet Draft        Router Extension for ATM                Oct. 1996

   Possible use (or purposes) of Bypass-pipe provided by CSRs, in other
   words, possible triggers that initiate Bypass-pipe setup procedure,
   is discussed in this subsection.

   Following two purposes for Bypass-pipe setup are assumed at present;

a) Provision of low latency path 

   This indicates cases in which end hosts or routers initiate a 
   Bypass-pipe setup procedure when they will transmit large amount of
   datagrams toward a specific destination.  For instance,

   - End hosts or routers initiate Bypass-pipe setup procedures based
     on the measurement of IP datagrams transmitted toward a certain 
     destination.  

   - End hosts or routers initiate Bypass-pipe setup procedures when
     it detects datagrams with certain higher layer protocols such as
     ftp, nntp, http, etc.  

   Other triggers may be possible depending on the policy in each 
   network.  In any case, the purpose of Bypass-pipe setup in each of
   these cases is to reduce IP processing burden at intermediate routers
   as well as to provide a communication path with low latency for burst
   data transfer, rather than to provide end host applications with 
   specific bandwidth/QoS.

   There would be no rule for determining bandwidth for such kinds of
   Bypass-pipes since no explicit information about bandwidth/QoS
   requirement by end hosts is available without IP-level resource
   reservation protocols such as RSVP.  Using UBR VCs as components of
   the Bypass-pipe would be the easiest choice although there is no
   guarantees for cell loss quality, while using other services such as
   CBR/VBR/ABR with an adequate parameter tuning would be possible. 

b) Provision of specific bandwidth/QoS requested by hosts 

   This indicates cases in which routers or end hosts initiate a 
   Bypass-pipe setup procedure by triggers related to IP-level 
   bandwidth/QoS request from end hosts.  The "resource management
   entity" in the host or router, which has received bandwidth/QoS
   requests from applications or adjacent nodes may choose to 
   accommodate the requested IP flow to an existing VC or choose to 
   allocate a new Dedicated-VC for the requested IP flow.  Selecting 
   the latter choice at each router can correspond to the trigger for 
   constituting a Bypass-pipe.  When both an incoming VC and an outgoing
   VC (or VCs) are dedicated to the same IP flow(s), those VCs can be

Katsube, et al.            Expires April 1997                   [Page 10]
Internet Draft        Router Extension for ATM                Oct. 1996

   concatenated at the CSR (ATM cut-through) to constitute a Bypass-
   pipe.  Bandwidth for the Bypass-pipe (namely, individual VCs 
   constituting the Bypass-pipe) in this case would be determined based
   on the bandwidth/QoS requirements by the end host which is conveyed
   by, e.g., RSVP messages.  The ATM service classes; e.g., CBR/VBR/ABR;
   that would be selected depends on the IP-level service classes 
   requested by the end hosts. 

   Bypass-pipe provision for the purpose of b) will surely be beneficial
   in the near future when related IP-level resource reservation 
   protocol will become available as well as when definitions of 
   individual service classes and flow specs offered to applications 
   become clear.  On the other hand, Bypass-pipe setup for the purpose
   of a) may be beneficial right now since it does not require 
   availability of IP-level resource reservation protocols.  In that
   sense, a) can be regarded as a kind of short-term use while b) is a
   long-term use. 

4.3  Variations of Bypass-pipe Control Architecture

   A number of variations regarding Bypass-pipe control architecture 
   are introduced.  Items which are related to architectural variations
   are; 

    o Ways of providing Dedicated-VCs 

    o Channels for Bypass-pipe control message transfer

    o Bypass-pipe control procedures

  Each of these items are discussed below. 

4.3.1  Ways of Providing Dedicated-VCs 

   There are roughly three alternatives regarding the way of providing 
   Dedicated-VCs in individual IP subnets as components of a Bypass-
   pipe. 

a) On-demand SVC setup 

   Dedicated-VCs are set up in individual IP subnets each time you want
   to set up a Bypass-pipe through the ATM signaling procedure.  

b) Picking up one from a bunch of (semi-)PVCs 

   Several VCs are set up beforehand between CSR and CSR, or CSR and

Katsube, et al.            Expires April 1997                   [Page 11]
Internet Draft        Router Extension for ATM                Oct. 1996

   other ATM-attached nodes (hosts/router) in each IP subnet.  
   Unused VC is picked up as a Dedicated-VC from these PVCs in each IP 
   subnet when a Bypass-pipe is set up.  

c) Picking up one VCI in PVP/SVP

   PVPs or SVPs are set up between CSR and CSR, or CSR and other ATM-
   attached nodes (hosts/routers) in each IP subnet.  PVPs would be set 
   up as a router/host initialization procedure, while SVPs, on the
   other hand, would be set up through ATM signaling when the first VC
   (either Default- or Dedicated-) setup request is initiated by either 
   of some peer nodes.  Then, Unused VCI value is picked up as a 
   Dedicated-VC in the PVP/SVP in each IP subnet when a Bypass-pipe is 
   set up.  The SVP can be released through ATM signaling when no VCI 
   value is in active state.  

   The best choice will be a) with regard to efficient network resource 
   usage.  However, you may go through three steps, ATMARP (for unicast
   [RFC1577] or multicast[IPMC96] in each IP subnet), SVC setup (in each 
   IP subnet) and exchange of Bypass-pipe control message in this case.
   Whether a) is practical choice or not will depend on whether you can
   allow larger Bypass-pipe setup time due to three-step procedure 
   mentioned above, or whether you can send datagrams over Default-VCs
   in a hop-by-hop manner while waiting for the Bypass-pipe set up. 

   In the case of b) or c), the issue of Bypass-pipe setup time will be 
   improved since SVC setup step can be skipped.  In b), each node (CSR 
   or ATM-attached host/router) should specify some traffic descriptors
   even for unused VCs, and the ATM datalink should reserve its desired
   resource (such as VCI value and bandwidth) for them.  In addition, 
   the ATM datalink may have to carry out UPC functions for those unused
   VCs.  Such burden would be reduced when you use UBR-PVCs and set 
   peak cell rate for each of them equal to link rate, but bandwidth/QoS
   for the Bypass-pipe is not provided in this case.  In c), on the 
   other hand, traffic descriptors which should be specified by each 
   node for the ATM datalink is not each VC's but VP's only.  Resource
   reservations for individual VCs will be carried out not as a 
   functionality of the ATM datalink but of each CSR or ATM-attached 
   host/router if necessary.  A functionality which need to be provided
   by the ATM datalink is control of VPs' bandwidth only such as UPC and
   dynamic bandwidth negotiation if it would be widely available. 

4.3.2  Channels for Bypass-pipe Control Message Transfer

   There are several alternatives regarding the channels for managing 
   (setting up, releasing, and possibly changing the route of) a 
   Bypass-pipe.  This subsection explains these alternatives and 

Katsube, et al.            Expires April 1997                   [Page 12]
Internet Draft        Router Extension for ATM                Oct. 1996

   discusses their properties. 

   Three alternatives are discussed, Inband control message, Outband 
   control message, and use of ATM signaling. 

i) Inband Control Message 

   When setting up a Bypass-pipe, control messages are transmitted over
   a Dedicated-VC which will eventually be used as a component of the
   Bypass-pipe.  These messages are handled at each CSR, and similar
   messages are transmitted to the next-hop node over a Dedicated-VC
   along the selected route (based on IP routing table).  Unlike 
   outband message protocol described in ii), each message does not have
   to indicate a Dedicated-VC which will be used since the message 
   itself is carried over "that" VC. 

   The inband control message can be either "datagram dedicated for 
   Bypass-pipe control" or "actual IP datagram" sent by user 
   application.  Actual IP datagrams can be transmitted over Bypass-pipe
   after it has been set up in the former case.  In the latter case, on 
   the other hand, the first (or several) IP datagram(s) received from 
   an unused Dedicated-VC are analyzed at IP level and transmitted 
   toward adequate next hop over an unused Dedicated-VC.  Then incoming
   Dedicated-VC and outgoing Dedicated-VC are concatenated to construct
   a Bypass-pipe.  

   In inband control, Bypass-pipe control messages transmitted after a 
   Bypass-pipe has been set up cannot be identified at intermediate CSRs
   since those messages are forwarded at cell level there.  As a 
   possible solution for this issue, intermediate CSRs can identify 
   Bypass-pipe control messages by marking cell headers, e.g., PTI bit 
   which indicates F5 OAM cell.  With regard to Bypass-pipe release, 
   explicit release message may not be necessary if individual CSRs
   administer the amount of traffic over each Dedicated-VC and deletes
   concatenation information for an inactive Bypass-pipe with their own
   decision.

ii) Outband Control Message 

   When a Bypass-pipe is set up or released, control messages are
   transmitted over VCs which are different from Dedicated-VCs used as 
   components of the Bypass-pipe.  Unlike inband message protocol 
   described in i), each message has to indicate which Dedicated-VCs 
   the message would like to control.  Therefore, an identifier that
   uniquely discriminates a VC, which is not a VPI/VCI that is not 
   identical at both endpoints of the VC, need to be defined and be 
   given at VC initiation phase.  However, an issue of control message

Katsube, et al.            Expires April 1997                   [Page 13]
Internet Draft        Router Extension for ATM                Oct. 1996

   transmission after a Bypass-pipe has been set up in inband case does
   not exist. 

   Four alternatives are possible regarding how to convey Bypass-pipe 
   control messages hop-by-hop over ATM datalink networks.

   1) Defines VC for Bypass-pipe control messages only. 

   2) Uses Default-VC and discriminates Bypass-pipe control messages 
      from user datagrams by an LLC/SANP value in RFC1483 encapsulation.

   3) Uses Default-VC and discriminates Bypass-pipe control messages 
      from user datagrams by a protocol field value in IP header.

   4) Uses Default-VC and discriminates Bypass-pipe control messages
      from user datagrams by a port ID in the UDP frame. 

   When we take into account interoperability with Bypass-incapable 
   routers, 1) will not be a good choice.  Whether we select 2) or 3) 4)
   depends on whether we should consider multiprotocol rather than IP 
   only.  

   In the case of IP multicast, point-to-multipoint VCs in individual
   subnets are concatenated at CSRs consecutively in order to constitute
   end-to-end multicast tree.  Above four alternatives may require the
   same number of point-to-multipoint Defalut-VCs as the number of 
   requested point-to-multipoint Dedicated-VCs in multicast case.  The 
   fifth alternative which can reduce the necessary number of VCs to 
   convey control messages in a multicast environment is; 

   5) Defines point-to-multipoint VC whose leaves are members of 
      multicast group 224.0.0.1.  All nodes which are members of at 
      least one of active multicast group would become leaves of this
      point-to-multipoint VC.  

   Each upstream node may become a root of the point-to-multipoint VC,
   or a sort of multicast server to which each upstream node transmits
   cells over a point-to-point VC may become a root of that.  In any 
   case, Bypass-pipe control messages for every multicast group are 
   transmitted to all nodes which are members of either of the group. 
   When a downstream node has received control messages which are not
   related to a multicast group it belongs, it should discard them
   by referring to a destination group address on their IP header.  
   Donwstream node would still need to use point-to-point VC to send 
   control messages toward upstream.  

iii)  Use of ATM Signaling Message 

Katsube, et al.            Expires April 1997                   [Page 14]
Internet Draft        Router Extension for ATM                Oct. 1996

   Supposing that ATM signaling messages can convey IP addresses (and 
   possibly port IDs) of source and destination, it may be possible that
   ATM signaling messages be used as Bypass-pipe control messages also. 
   In that case, an ATM connection setup message indicates a setup of a 
   Dedicated-VC to an ATM address of a desirable next-hop IP node, and 
   also indicates a setup of a Bypass-pipe to an IP address (and 
   possibly port ID) of a target destination node.  Information elements
   for the Dedicated-VC setup (ATM address of a next-hop node, 
   bandwidth, QoS, etc.) are handled at ATM nodes, while information 
   elements for the Bypass-pipe setup (source and destination IP 
   addresses, possibly their port IDs, or flow label for IPv6, etc.) are
   transparently transferred to the next-hop IP node.  The next-hop IP 
   node accepts Dedicated-VC setup and handles such IP level information
   elements.  

   ATM signaling messages can be transferred from receiver to sender as
   well as sender to receiver when you set zero Forward Cell Rate and 
   non-zero Backward Cell Rate as an ATM traffic descriptor information 
   element in unicast case, or when Leaf Initiated Join capabilities 
   will become available in multicast case.  

   Issues in this method are, 

    - Information elements which specify IP level (and port level) 
      information need to be defined, e.g., B-HLI or B-UUI, as an ATM 
      signaling specification. 

    - It would be difficult to support soft-state Bypass-pipe control
      which transmits control messages periodically since ATM signaling
      is a hard-state protocol.  

4.3.3  Bypass-pipe Control Procedures

This subsection discusses several items with regard to actual
procedures for Bypass-pipe control.

a) Distributed trigger vs. Centralized (restricted) trigger 

   The first item to be discussed is whether the functionality of 
   detecting a trigger of Dedicated-VC/Bypass-pipe control is 
   distributed to all the nodes (including CSRs and hosts/edge devices)
   or restricted to specific nodes.

   In the case of the distributed trigger, every node is regarded as 
   having a capability of detecting a trigger of Bypass-pipe setup or 
   termination.  For example, every node detects datagrams for ftp, and
   sets up (or fetches) a Dedicated-VC individually to construct a 

Katsube, et al.            Expires April 1997                   [Page 15]
Internet Draft        Router Extension for ATM                Oct. 1996

   Bypass-pipe.  After setting up or fetching the Dedicated-VCs, 
   messages which informs (or requests) the transmission of the IP flow
   over the Dedicated-VC are exchanged between adjacent nodes.  That 
   enables peer nodes to share the same knowledge about the mapping
   relationship between the IP flow and the Dedicated-VC.  There is no
   end-to-end message transmission in the Bypass-pipe control procedure
   itself, but transmission between adjacent nodes only. 

   In the case of the centralized (or restricted) trigger, capability 
   of detecting a trigger of Bypass-pipe setup or termination is 
   restricted to nodes which are located at "the boundary of the CSR-
   cloud".  The boundary of the CSR-cloud signifies, for individual IP 
   flows, the node which is the first-hop or the last-hop CSR-capable 
   node.  For example, a node which detects datagrams for ftp can 
   initiate Bypass-pipe setup procedure only when its previous hop is 
   non-ATM or CSR-incapable.  In this case, Bypass-pipe control messages
   are originated at the boundary of the CSR-cloud, and forwarded 
   hop-by-hop toward another side of the boundary, which is similar to
   ATM signaling messages.  The semantics of the messages may be the 
   request of end-to-end Bypass-pipe setup as well as notification or 
   request of mapping relationship between the IP flow and the 
   Dedicated-VC. 

b) Upstream-initiated control vs. Downstream-initiated control

   The second item to be discussed is whether the setup of a Dedicated-
   VC and the control procedure for constructing a Bypass-pipe are 
   initiated by upstream side or downstream side. 

   In the case of the upstream-initiated control, the upstream node 
   takes the initiative when setting up a Dedicated-VC for a specific IP
   flow and creating the mapping relationship between the IP flow and 
   the Dedicated-VC.  For example, a CSR which detects datagrams for 
   ftp sets up (or fetches) a Dedicated-VC toward its downstream 
   neighbor and notifies its downstream neighbor that it will transmit
   a specific IP flow over the Dedicated-VC.  This means that the 
   downstream node is requested to receive datagrams from the
   Dedicated-VC.  

   In the case of the downstream-initiated control, the downstream node
   takes the initiative when setting up a Dedicated-VC for a specific
   IP flow and creating the mapping relationship between the IP flow 
   and the Dedicated-VC.  For example, a CSR which detects datagrams for
   ftp sets up (or fetches) a Dedicated-VC toward its upstream neighbor
   and requests its upstream neighbor to transmit a specific IP flow
   over the Dedicated-VC.  This means that the upstream node is 
   requested to transmit the IP flow over the Dedicated-VC. 

Katsube, et al.            Expires April 1997                   [Page 16]
Internet Draft        Router Extension for ATM                Oct. 1996

c) Hard-state management vs. Soft-state management

   The third item to be discussed is whether the control (setup, 
   maintain, and release) of the Bypass-pipe is based on hard-state or
   soft-state. 

   In hard-state management, individual nodes transmit Bypass-pipe 
   control messages only when they want to notify or request any 
   change in their neighbors' state.  They should wait for an 
   acknowledgement of the message before they change their internal 
   state.  For example, after setting up a Bypass-pipe, it is maintained
   until either of a peer nodes transmits a message to release the
   Bypass-pipe. 

   In soft-state management, individual nodes periodically transmit
   Bypass-pipe control messages in order to maintain their neighbors'
   state.  They do not have to wait for an acknowledgement of the 
   message before they changes its internal state.  For example, even
   after setting up a Bypass-pipe, either of a peer nodes is required 
   to periodically transmit refresh messages to its neighbor in order
   to maintain the Bypass-pipe.

5.  Security Considerations 

   Security issues are not discussed in this memo. 

6.  Summary

   Basic concept of Cell Switch Router (CSR) are clarified and control 
   architecture for CSR is discussed.  A number of methods to control 
   Bypass-pipe will be possible each of which has its own advantages 
   and disadvantages.  Further investigation and discussion will be 
   necessary to design control protocol which may depend on the 
   requirements by users. 

7.  References 

   [IPMC96] G. Armitage, "Support for Multicast over UNI 3.0/3.1 based
   ATM Networks", IETF Internet Draft (work in progress), draft-ietf-
   ipatm-ipmc-12.txt, Feb. 1996. 

   [ATM3.1] The ATM-Forum, "ATM User-Network Interface Specification,
   v.3.1", Sept. 1994. 

   [RSVP13] R. Braden, et al., "Resource ReSerVation Protocol (RSVP), 

Katsube, et al.            Expires April 1997                   [Page 17]
Internet Draft        Router Extension for ATM                Oct. 1996

   Version 1 Functional Specification", IETF Internet Draft (work in 
   progress), draft-ietf-rsvp-spec-13.ps/txt, Aug. 1996. 

   [IPNNI96] R. Callon, et al., "Issues and Approaches for Integrated 
   PNNI", The ATM Forum Contribution No. 96-0355, April 1996. 

   [NHRP09]  J. Luciani, et al., "NBMA Next Hop Resolution Protocol
   (NHRP)", IETF Internet Draft (work in progress), draft-ietf-rolc-
   nhrp-09.txt, July 1996. 

   [PNNI1.0] The ATM-Forum, "P-NNI Specification Version 1.0", March
   1996. 

   [RFC1483] J. Heinanen, "Multiprotocol Encapsulation over ATM
   Adaptation Layer 5", IETF RFC 1483, July 1993. 

   [RFC1577] M. Laubach, "Classical IP and ARP over ATM", IETF RFC 1577,
   Oct. 1993. 

   [RFC1819] L. Delgrossi and L. Berger, "Internet STream Protocol 
   Version 2(STII) Protocol Specification Version ST2+", IETF RFC 1819,
   Aug. 1995. 

8.  Authors' Address

   Yasuhiro Katsube
   R&D Center, Toshiba 
   1 Komukai Toshiba-cho, Saiwai-ku, Kawasaki 210
   Japan 
   Phone : +81-44-549-2238
   Email : katsube@isl.rdc.toshiba.co.jp

   Ken-ichi Nagami
   R&D Center, Toshiba 
   1 Komukai Toshiba-cho, Saiwai-ku, Kawasaki 210
   Japan 
   Phone : +81-44-549-2238
   Email : nagami@isl.rdc.toshiba.co.jp

   Hiroshi Esaki
   R&D Center, Toshiba 
   1 Komukai Toshiba-cho, Saiwai-ku, Kawasaki 210
   Japan 
   Phone : +81-44-549-2238
   Email : hiroshi@isl.rdc.toshiba.co.jp

Katsube, et al.            Expires April 1997                   [Page 18]