Network File System Version 4 C. Lever, Ed.
Internet-Draft Oracle
Intended status: Standards Track D. Noveck
Expires: April 28, 2017 HPE
October 25, 2016
RPC-over-RDMA Version Two Protocol
draft-cel-nfsv4-rpcrdma-version-two-02
Abstract
This document specifies an improved protocol for conveying Remote
Procedure Call (RPC) messages on physical transports capable of
Remote Direct Memory Access (RDMA), based on RPC-over-RDMA Version
One.
Requirements Language
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119].
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). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
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."
This Internet-Draft will expire on April 28, 2017.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2016 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
Lever & Noveck Expires April 28, 2017 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft RDMA Transport for RPC V2 October 2016
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.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. Inline Threshold . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.1. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.2. Motivation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.3. Default Values . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3. Remote Invalidation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.1. Backward-Direction Remote Invalidation . . . . . . . . . 6
4. Protocol Extensibility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4.1. Optional Features . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4.2. Message Direction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4.3. Documentation Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
5. XDR Protocol Definition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
5.1. Code Component License . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
5.2. RPC-Over-RDMA Version Two XDR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
6. Protocol Version Negotiation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
6.1. Responder Does Support RPC-over-RDMA Version Two . . . . 16
6.2. Responder Does Not Support RPC-over-RDMA Version Two . . 16
6.3. Requester Does Not Support RPC-over-RDMA Version Two . . 16
7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
8. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Appendix A. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
1. Introduction
Remote Direct Memory Access (RDMA) [RFC5040] [RFC5041] [IB] is a
technique for moving data efficiently between end nodes. By
directing data into destination buffers as it is sent on a network
and placing it via direct memory access by hardware, the
complementary benefits of faster transfers and reduced host overhead
are obtained.
A protocol already exists that enables ONC RPC [RFC5531] messages to
be conveyed on RDMA transports. That protocol is RPC-over-RDMA
Version One, specified in [I-D.ietf-nfsv4-rfc5666bis]. RPC-over-RDMA
Lever & Noveck Expires April 28, 2017 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft RDMA Transport for RPC V2 October 2016
Version One is deployed and in use, though there are some
shortcomings to this protocol, such as:
o The use of small Receive buffers force the use of RDMA Read and
Write transfers for small payloads, and limit the size of
backchannel messages.
o Lack of support for potential optimizations, such as remote
invalidation, that require changes to on-the-wire behavior.
To address these issues in a way that is compatible with existing
RPC-over-RDMA Version One deployments, a new version of RPC-over-RDMA
is presented in this document. RPC-over-RDMA Version Two contains
only incremental changes over RPC-over-RDMA Version One to facilitate
adoption of Version Two by existing Version One implementations.
The major new feature in RPC-over-RDMA Version Two is extensibility
of the RPC-over-RDMA header. Extensibility enables narrow changes to
RPC-over-RDMA Version Two so that new optional capabilities can be
introduced without a protocol version change and while maintaining
interoperability with existing implementations. New capabilities can
be proposed and developed independently of each other, and
implementaters can choose among them. It should be straightforward
to create and document experimental features and then bring them
through the standards process.
In addition to extensibility, the default inline threshold value is
larger in RPC-over-RDMA Version Two. This change is driven by the
increase in average size of RPC messages containing common NFS
operations. With NFSv4.1 [RFC5661] and later, compound operations
convey more data per RPC message. The default 1KB inline threshold
in RPC-over-RDMA Version One prevents attaining the best possible
performance.
Other new features include support for Remote Invalidation.
2. Inline Threshold
2.1. Terminology
The term "inline threshold" is defined in Section 4 of
[I-D.ietf-nfsv4-rfc5666bis]. An "inline threshold" value is the
largest message size (in octets) that can be conveyed in one
direction on an RDMA connection using only RDMA Send and Receive.
Each connection has two inline threshold values: one for messages
flowing from requester-to-responder (referred to as the "call inline
threshold"), and one for messages flowing from responder-to-requester
(referred to as the "reply inline threshold"). Inline threshold
Lever & Noveck Expires April 28, 2017 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft RDMA Transport for RPC V2 October 2016
values are not advertised to peers via the base RPC-over-RDMA Version
Two protocol.
A connection's inline threshold determines when RDMA Read or Write
operations are required because the RPC message to be sent cannot be
conveyed via RDMA Send and Receive. When an RPC message does not
contain DDP-eligible data items, a requester prepares a Long Call or
Reply to convey the whole RPC message using RDMA Read or Write
operations.
2.2. Motivation
RDMA Read and Write operations require that each data payload resides
in a region of memory that is registered with the RNIC. When an RPC
is complete, that region is invalidated, fencing it from the
responder.
Both registration and invalidation have a latency cost which is
insignificant compared to data handling costs. When a data payload
is small, however, the cost of registering and invalidating the
memory where the payload resides becomes a relatively significant
part of total RPC latency. Therefore the most efficient operation of
RPC-over-RDMA occurs when RDMA Read and Write operations are used for
large payloads, and avoided for small payloads.
When RPC-over-RDMA Version One was conceived, the typical size of RPC
messages that did not involve a significant data payload was under
500 bytes. A 1024-byte inline threshold adequately minimized the
frequency of inefficient Long Calls and Replies.
Starting with NFSv4.1 [RFC5661], NFS COMPOUND RPC messages are larger
and more complex than before. With a 1024-byte inline threshold,
RDMA Read or Write operations are needed for frequent operations that
do not bear a data payload, such as GETATTR and LOOKUP, reducing the
efficiency of the transport.
To reduce the need to use Long Calls and Replies, RPC-over-RDMA
Version Two increases the default inline threshold size. This also
increases the maximum size of backward direction RPC messages.
2.3. Default Values
RPC-over-RDMA Version Two receiver implementations MUST support an
inline threshold of 4096 bytes, but MAY support larger inline
threshold values. A mechanism for discovering a peer's preferred
inline threshold value (not defined in this document) may be used to
optimize RDMA Send operations further. In the absense of such a
Lever & Noveck Expires April 28, 2017 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft RDMA Transport for RPC V2 October 2016
mechanism, senders MUST assume a receiver's inline threshold is 4096
bytes.
The new default inline threshold size is no larger than the size of a
hardware page on typical platforms. This conserves the resources
needed to Send and Receive base level RPC-over-RDMA Version Two
messages, enabling RPC-over-RDMA Version Two to be used on a broad
variety of hardware.
3. Remote Invalidation
An STag that is registered using the FRWR mechanism (in a privileged
execution context), or is registered via a Memory Window (in user
space), may be invalidated remotely [RFC5040]. These mechanisms are
available only when a requester's RNIC supports MEM_MGT_EXTENSIONS.
For the purposes of this discussion, there are two classes of STags.
Dynamically-registered STags are used in a single RPC, then
invalidated. Persistently-registered STags live longer than one RPC.
They may persist for the life of an RPC-over-RDMA connection, or
longer.
An RPC-over-RDMA requester may provide more than one STag in one
transport header. It may provide a combination of dynamically- and
persistently-registered STags in one RPC message, or any combination
of these in a series of RPCs on the same connection. Only
dynamically-registered STags using Memory Windows or FRWR (ie.
registered via MEM_MGT_EXTENSIONS) may be invalidated remotely.
There is no transport-level mechanism by which a responder can
determine how a requester-provided STag was registered, nor whether
it is eligible to be invalidated remotely. A requester that mixes
persistently- and dynamically-registered STags in one RPC, or mixes
them across RPCs on the same connection, must therefore indicate
which handles may be invalidated via a mechanism provided in the
Upper Layer Protocol. RPC-over-RDMA Version Two provides such a
mechanism.
The RDMA Send With Invalidate operation is used to invalidate an STag
on a remote system. It is available only when a responder's RNIC
supports MEM_MGT_EXTENSIONS, and must be utilized only when a
requester's RNIC supports MEM_MGT_EXTENSIONS (can receive and
recognize an IETH).
Lever & Noveck Expires April 28, 2017 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft RDMA Transport for RPC V2 October 2016
3.1. Backward-Direction Remote Invalidation
Existing RPC-over-RDMA protocol specifications
[I-D.ietf-nfsv4-rfc5666bis] [I-D.ietf-nfsv4-rpcrdma-bidirection] do
not forbid direct data placement in the backward-direction, even
though there is currently no Upper Layer Protocol that may use it.
When chunks are present in a backward-direction RPC request, Remote
Invalidation allows the responder to trigger invalidation of a
requester's STags as part of sending a reply, the same as in the
forward direction.
However, in the backward direction, the server acts as the requester,
and the client is the responder. The server's RNIC, therefore, must
support receiving an IETH, and the server must have registered the
STags with an appropriate registration mechanism.
4. Protocol Extensibility
The core RPC-over-RDMA Version Two header format is specified in
Section 5 as a complete and stand-alone piece of XDR. Any change to
this XDR description requires a protocol version number change.
4.1. Optional Features
RPC-over-RDMA Version Two introduces the ability to extend the core
protocol via optional features. Extensibility enables minor protocol
issues to be addressed and incremental enhancements to be made
without the need to change the protocol version. The key capability
is that both sides can detect whether a feature is supported by their
peer or not. With this ability, OPTIONAL features can be introduced
over time to an otherwise stable protocol.
The rdma_opttype field carries a 32-bit unsigned integer. The value
in this field denotes an optional operation that MAY be supported by
the receiver. The values of this field and their meaning are defined
in other Standards Track documents.
The rdma_optinfo field carries opaque data. The content of this
field is data meaningful to the optional operation denoted by the
value in rdma_opttype. The content of this field is not defined in
the base RPC-over-RDMA Version Two protocol, but is defined in other
Standards Track documents
When an implementation does not recognize or support the value
contained in the rdma_opttype field, it MUST send an RPC-over-RDMA
message with the rdma_xid field set to the same value as the
Lever & Noveck Expires April 28, 2017 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft RDMA Transport for RPC V2 October 2016
erroneous message, the rdma_proc field set to RDMA2_ERROR, and the
rdma_err field set to RDMA2_ERR_INVAL_OPTION.
4.2. Message Direction
Backward direction operation depends on the ability of the receiver
to distinguish between incoming forward and backward direction calls
and replies. This needs to be done because both the XID field and
the flow control value (RPC-over-RDMA credits) in the RPC-over-RDMA
header are interpreted in the context of each message's direction.
A receiver typically distinguishes message direction by examining the
mtype field in the RPC header of each incoming payload message.
However, RDMA2_OPTIONAL type messages may not carry an RPC message
payload.
To enable RDMA2_OPTIONAL type messages that do not carry an RPC
message payload to be interpreted unambiguously, the rdma2_optional
structure contains a field that identifies the message direction. A
similar field has been added to the rpcrdma2_chunk_lists and
rpcrdma2_error structures to simplify parsing the RPC-over-RDMA
header at the receiver.
4.3. Documentation Requirements
RPC-over-RDMA Version Two may be extended by defining a new
rdma_opttype value, and then by providing an XDR description of the
rdma_optinfo content that corresponds with the new rdma_opttype
value. As a result, a new header type is effectively created.
A Standards Track document introduces each set of such protocol
elements. Together these elements are considered an OPTIONAL
feature. Each implementation is either aware of all the protocol
elements introduced by that feature, or is aware of none of them.
Documents describing extensions to RPC-over-RDMA Version Two should
contain:
o An explanation of the purpose and use of each new protocol element
added
o An XDR description of the protocol elements, and a script to
extract it
o A mechanism for reporting errors when the error is outside the
available choices already available in the base protocol or in
other extensions
Lever & Noveck Expires April 28, 2017 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft RDMA Transport for RPC V2 October 2016
o An indication of whether a Payload stream must be present, and a
description of its contents
o A description of interactions with existing extensions
The last bullet includes requirements that another OPTIONAL feature
needs to be present for new protocol elements to work, or that a
particular level of support be provided for some particular facility
for the new extension to work.
Implementers combine the XDR descriptions of the new features they
intend to use with the XDR description of the base protocol in this
document. This may be necessary to create a valid XDR input file
because extensions are free to use XDR types defined in the base
protocol, and later extensions may use types defined by earlier
extensions.
The XDR description for the RPC-over-RDMA Version Two protocol
combined with that for any selected extensions should provide an
adequate human-readable description of the extended protocol.
5. XDR Protocol Definition
This section contains a description of the core features of the RPC-
over-RDMA Version Two protocol, expressed in the XDR language
[RFC4506].
This description is provided in a way that makes it simple to extract
into ready-to-compile form. The reader can apply the following shell
script to this document to produce a machine-readable XDR description
of the RPC-over-RDMA Version One protocol without any OPTIONAL
extensions.
<CODE BEGINS>
#!/bin/sh
grep '^ *///' | sed 's?^ /// ??' | sed 's?^ *///$??'
<CODE ENDS>
That is, if the above script is stored in a file called "extract.sh"
and this document is in a file called "spec.txt" then the reader can
do the following to extract an XDR description file:
Lever & Noveck Expires April 28, 2017 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft RDMA Transport for RPC V2 October 2016
<CODE BEGINS>
sh extract.sh < spec.txt > rpcrdma_corev2.x
<CODE ENDS>
Optional extensions to RPC-over-RDMA Version Two, published as
Standards Track documents, will have similar means of providing XDR
that describes those extensions. Once XDR for all desired extensions
is also extracted, it can be appended to the XDR description file
extracted from this document to produce a consolidated XDR
description file reflecting all extensions selected for an RPC-over-
RDMA implementation.
5.1. Code Component License
Code components extracted from this document must include the
following license text. When the extracted XDR code is combined with
other complementary XDR code which itself has an identical license,
only a single copy of the license text need be preserved.
Lever & Noveck Expires April 28, 2017 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft RDMA Transport for RPC V2 October 2016
<CODE BEGINS>
/// /*
/// * Copyright (c) 2010, 2016 IETF Trust and the persons
/// * identified as authors of the code. All rights reserved.
/// *
/// * The authors of the code are:
/// * B. Callaghan, T. Talpey, C. Lever, and D. Noveck.
/// *
/// * Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with
/// * or without modification, are permitted provided that the
/// * following conditions are met:
/// *
/// * - Redistributions of source code must retain the above
/// * copyright notice, this list of conditions and the
/// * following disclaimer.
/// *
/// * - Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above
/// * copyright notice, this list of conditions and the
/// * following disclaimer in the documentation and/or other
/// * materials provided with the distribution.
/// *
/// * - Neither the name of Internet Society, IETF or IETF
/// * Trust, nor the names of specific contributors, may be
/// * used to endorse or promote products derived from this
/// * software without specific prior written permission.
/// *
/// * THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED BY THE COPYRIGHT HOLDERS
/// * AND CONTRIBUTORS "AS IS" AND ANY EXPRESS OR IMPLIED
/// * WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE
/// * IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS
/// * FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE ARE DISCLAIMED. IN NO
/// * EVENT SHALL THE COPYRIGHT OWNER OR CONTRIBUTORS BE
/// * LIABLE FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL,
/// * EXEMPLARY, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES (INCLUDING, BUT
/// * NOT LIMITED TO, PROCUREMENT OF SUBSTITUTE GOODS OR
/// * SERVICES; LOSS OF USE, DATA, OR PROFITS; OR BUSINESS
/// * INTERRUPTION) HOWEVER CAUSED AND ON ANY THEORY OF
/// * LIABILITY, WHETHER IN CONTRACT, STRICT LIABILITY,
/// * OR TORT (INCLUDING NEGLIGENCE OR OTHERWISE) ARISING
/// * IN ANY WAY OUT OF THE USE OF THIS SOFTWARE, EVEN IF
/// * ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE.
/// */
<CODE ENDS>
Lever & Noveck Expires April 28, 2017 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft RDMA Transport for RPC V2 October 2016
5.2. RPC-Over-RDMA Version Two XDR
The XDR defined in this section is used to encode the Transport
Header Stream in each RPC-over-RDMA Version Two message. The terms
"Transport Header Stream" and "RPC Payload Stream" are defined in
Section 4 of [I-D.ietf-nfsv4-rfc5666bis].
<CODE BEGINS>
/// /* From RFC 5531, Section 9 */
/// enum msg_type {
/// CALL = 0,
/// REPLY = 1
/// };
///
/// struct rpcrdma2_segment {
/// uint32 rdma_handle;
/// uint32 rdma_length;
/// uint64 rdma_offset;
/// };
///
/// struct rpcrdma2_read_segment {
/// uint32 rdma_position;
/// struct rpcrdma2_segment rdma_target;
/// };
///
/// struct rpcrdma2_read_list {
/// struct rpcrdma2_read_segment rdma_entry;
/// struct rpcrdma2_read_list *rdma_next;
/// };
///
/// struct rpcrdma2_write_chunk {
/// struct rpcrdma2_segment rdma_target<>;
/// };
///
/// struct rpcrdma2_write_list {
/// struct rpcrdma2_write_chunk rdma_entry;
/// struct rpcrdma2_write_list *rdma_next;
/// };
///
/// struct rpcrdma2_chunk_lists {
/// enum msg_type rdma_direction;
/// uint32 rdma_inv_handle;
/// struct rpcrdma2_read_list *rdma_reads;
/// struct rpcrdma2_write_list *rdma_writes;
/// struct rpcrdma2_write_chunk *rdma_reply;
/// };
Lever & Noveck Expires April 28, 2017 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft RDMA Transport for RPC V2 October 2016
///
/// enum rpcrdma2_errcode {
/// RDMA2_ERR_VERS = 1,
/// RDMA2_ERR_BAD_XDR = 2,
/// RDMA2_ERR_CANT_REPLY = 3,
/// RDMA2_ERR_INVAL_PROC = 4,
/// RDMA2_ERR_INVAL_OPTION = 5
/// };
///
/// struct rpcrdma2_err_vers {
/// uint32 rdma_vers_low;
/// uint32 rdma_vers_high;
/// };
///
/// struct rpcrdma2_err_reply {
/// bool rdma_processed;
/// uint32 rdma_segment_index;
/// uint32 rdma_length_needed;
/// };
///
/// union rpcrdma2_error switch (rpcrdma2_errcode rdma_err) {
/// case RDMA2_ERR_VERS:
/// rpcrdma2_err_vers rdma_vrange;
/// case RDMA2_ERR_BAD_XDR:
/// void;
/// case RDMA2_ERR_CANT_REPLY:
/// rpcrdma2_err_reply rdma_reply;
/// case RDMA2_ERR_INVAL_PROC:
/// void;
/// case RDMA2_ERR_INVAL_OPTION:
/// void;
/// };
///
/// struct rpcrdma2_optional {
/// enum msg_type rdma_optdir;
/// uint32 rdma_opttype;
/// opaque rdma_optinfo<>;
/// };
///
/// enum rpcrdma2_proc {
/// RDMA2_MSG = 0,
/// RDMA2_NOMSG = 1,
/// RDMA2_ERROR = 4,
/// RDMA2_OPTIONAL = 5
/// };
///
/// union rpcrdma2_body switch (rpcrdma2_proc rdma_proc) {
/// case RDMA2_MSG:
Lever & Noveck Expires April 28, 2017 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft RDMA Transport for RPC V2 October 2016
/// rpcrdma2_chunk_lists rdma_chunks;
/// case RDMA2_NOMSG:
/// rpcrdma2_chunk_lists rdma_chunks;
/// case RDMA2_ERROR:
/// rpcrdma2_error rdma_error;
/// case RDMA2_OPTIONAL:
/// rpcrdma2_optional rdma_optional;
/// };
///
/// struct rpcrdma2_xprt_hdr {
/// uint32 rdma_xid;
/// uint32 rdma_vers;
/// uint32 rdma_credit;
/// rpcrdma2_body rdma_body;
/// };
<CODE ENDS>
5.2.1. Presence Of Payload
o When the rdma_proc field has the value RDMA2_MSG, an RPC Payload
Stream MUST follow the Transport Header Stream in the Send buffer.
o When the rdma_proc field has the value RDMA2_ERROR, an RPC Payload
Stream MUST NOT follow the Transport Header Stream.
o When the rdma_proc field has the value RDMA2_OPTIONAL, all, part
of, or no RPC Payload Stream MAY follow the Transport header
Stream in the Send buffer.
5.2.2. Message Direction
Implementations of RPC-over-RDMA Version Two are REQUIRED to support
backwards direction operation as described in
[I-D.ietf-nfsv4-rpcrdma-bidirection].
o When the rdma_proc field has the value RDMA2_MSG or RDMA2_NOMSG,
the value of the rdma_direction field MUST be the same as the
value of the associated RPC message's msg_type field.
o When the rdma_proc field has the value RDMA2_ERROR, the direction
of the message is always Responder-to-Requester (REPLY).
o When the rdma_proc field has the value RDMA2_OPTIONAL and a whole
or partial RPC message payload is present, the value of the
rdma_optdir field MUST be the same as the value of the associated
RPC message's msg_type field.
Lever & Noveck Expires April 28, 2017 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft RDMA Transport for RPC V2 October 2016
o When the rdma_proc field has the value RDMA2_OPTIONAL and no RPC
message payload is present, a Requester MUST set the value of the
rdma_optdir field to CALL, and a Responder MUST set the value of
the rdma_optdir field to REPLY. The Requester chooses a value for
the rdma_xid field from the XID space that matches the message's
direction. Requesters and Responders set the rdma_credit field in
a similar fashion: a value is set that is appropriate for the
direction of the message.
5.2.3. Remote Invalidation
Among the set of handles in the RPC Call's transport header, the
requester selects one handle that may be invalidated remotedly. The
requester sets the rdma_inv_handle field to that value. If none of
the rdma_handle values in the Call may be invalidated by the
responder, the requester MUST set the rdma_inv_handle field to the
value zero. The requester MUST NOT set the value of the
rdma_inv_handle field to any other value.
The responder copies the value of the rdma_inv_handle field set by
the requester to the rdma_inv_handle field in the matching reply. If
the rdma_inv_handle field contains zero, the responder MUST NOT use
RDMA Send With Invalidate to transmit the matching RPC reply.
Otherwise, the responder SHOULD use RDMA Send With Invalidate to
transmit the reply, specifying the value in the rdma_inv_handle field
as the handle to be invalidated remotely. The responder MUST NOT
specify any other handle for this operation.
5.2.4. Transport Errors
Error handling works the same way in RPC-over-RDMA Version Two as it
does in RPC-over-RDMA Version One, with the addition of several new
error codes. Version One error handling is described in Section 5 of
[I-D.ietf-nfsv4-rfc5666bis].
In all cases below, the sender copies the values of the rdma_xid and
rdma_vers fields from the incoming transport header that generated
the error to transport header of the error response. The rdma_proc
field is set to RDMA2_ERROR.
RDMA2_ERR_VERS
This is the equivalent of ERR_VERS in RPC-over-RDMA Version One.
The error code value, semantics, and utilization are the same.
RDMA2_ERR_INVAL_PROC
This is a new error code in RPC-over-RDMA Version Two. If a
receiver recognizes the value in the rdma_vers field, but it does
Lever & Noveck Expires April 28, 2017 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft RDMA Transport for RPC V2 October 2016
not recognize the value in the rdma_proc field, it MUST send
RDMA2_ERR_INVAL_PROC.
RDMA2_ERR_BAD_XDR
This is the equivalent of ERR_CHUNK in RPC-over-RDMA Version One,
with a few extra restrictions; the error code value is the same.
If a receiver recognizes the value in the rdma_proc field but the
incoming RPC-over-RDMA transport header cannot be parsed, it MUST
send RDMA2_ERR_BAD_XDR before Upper Layer Protocol processing
starts.
RDMA2_ERR_CANT_REPLY
This is a new error code in RPC-over-RDMA Version Two. If a
message is otherwise correct but the requester has not provided
enough Write or Reply chunk resources to transmit the reply, the
responder MUST send RDMA2_ERR_CANT_REPLY. The responder MUST set
the rdma_processed field to TRUE if the responder discovered the
shortage after the Upper Layer Protocol has finished processing
the request; otherwise the field MUST be set to FALSE. The
responder MUST set the rdma_segment_index field to point to the
first segment in the transport header that is too short, or to
zero to indicate that it was not possible to determine which
segment was too small. Indexing starts at one (1), which
represents the first segment in the first Write chunk (in either
the Write list or Reply chunk). The responder MUST set the
rdma_length_needed to the number of bytes needed in that segment
in order to convey the reply. Upon receipt of this error code, a
responder may choose to terminate the operation (for instance, if
the responder set both fields above to zero), or it may send the
request again using the same XID and larger reply resources.
RDMA2_ERR_INVAL_OPTION
This is a new error code in RPC-over-RDMA Version Two. A receiver
MUST send RDMA2_ERR_INVAL_OPTION when an RDMA2_OPTIONAL message is
received and the receiver does not recognize the value in the
rdma_opttype field.
6. Protocol Version Negotiation
When an RPC-over-RDMA Version Two requester establishes a connection
to a responder, the first order of business is to determine the
responder's highest supported protocol version.
As with RPC-over-RDMA Version One, a requester MUST assume the
ability to exchange only a single RPC-over-RDMA message at a time
until it receives a non-error RPC-over-RDMA message from the
responder that reports the responder's actual credit limit.
Lever & Noveck Expires April 28, 2017 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft RDMA Transport for RPC V2 October 2016
First, the requester sends a single valid RPC-over-RDMA message with
the value two (2) in the rdma_vers field. Because the responder
might support only RPC-over-RDMA Version One, this initial message
can be no larger than the Version One default inline threshold of
1024 bytes.
6.1. Responder Does Support RPC-over-RDMA Version Two
If the responder does support RPC-over-RDMA Version Two, it sends an
RPC-over-RDMA message back to the requester with the same XID
containing a valid non-error response. Subsequently, both peers use
the default inline threshold value for RPC-over-RDMA Version Two
connections (4096 bytes).
6.2. Responder Does Not Support RPC-over-RDMA Version Two
If the responder does not support RPC-over-RDMA Version Two,
[I-D.ietf-nfsv4-rfc5666bis] REQUIRES that it send an RPC-over-RDMA
message to the requester with the same XID, with RDMA2_ERROR in the
rdma_proc field, and with the error code RDMA2_ERR_VERS. This
message also reports a range of protocol versions that the responder
supports. To continue operation, the requester selects a protocol
version in the range of responder-supported versions for subsequent
messages on this connection.
If the connection is lost immediately after the RDMA2_ERROR reply is
received, a requester can avoid a possible version negotiation loop
when re-establishing another connection by assuming that particular
responder does not support RPC-over-RDMA Version Two. A requester
can assume the same situation (no responder support for RPC-over-RDMA
Version Two) if the initial negotiation message is lost or dropped.
Once the negotiation exchange is complete, both peers use the default
inline threshold value for the protocol version that will be used for
the remainder of the connection lifetime. To permit inline threshold
values to change during negotiation of protocol version, RPC-over-
RDMA Version Two implementations MUST allow inline threshold values
to change without triggering a connection loss.
6.3. Requester Does Not Support RPC-over-RDMA Version Two
[I-D.ietf-nfsv4-rfc5666bis] REQUIRES that a responder MUST send
Replies with the same RPC-over-RDMA protocol version that the
requester uses to send its Calls.
Lever & Noveck Expires April 28, 2017 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft RDMA Transport for RPC V2 October 2016
7. Security Considerations
The security considerations for RPC-over-RDMA Version Two are the
same as those for RPC-over-RDMA Version One.
8. IANA Considerations
There are no IANA considerations at this time.
9. References
9.1. Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[RFC4506] Eisler, M., Ed., "XDR: External Data Representation
Standard", STD 67, RFC 4506, DOI 10.17487/RFC4506, May
2006, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4506>.
[RFC5531] Thurlow, R., "RPC: Remote Procedure Call Protocol
Specification Version 2", RFC 5531, DOI 10.17487/RFC5531,
May 2009, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5531>.
9.2. Informative References
[I-D.ietf-nfsv4-rfc5666bis]
Lever, C., Simpson, W., and T. Talpey, "Remote Direct
Memory Access Transport for Remote Procedure Call, Version
One", draft-ietf-nfsv4-rfc5666bis-07 (work in progress),
May 2016.
[I-D.ietf-nfsv4-rpcrdma-bidirection]
Lever, C., "Bi-directional Remote Procedure Call On RPC-
over-RDMA Transports", draft-ietf-nfsv4-rpcrdma-
bidirection-05 (work in progress), June 2016.
[IB] InfiniBand Trade Association, "InfiniBand Architecture
Specifications", <http://www.infinibandta.org>.
[RFC5040] Recio, R., Metzler, B., Culley, P., Hilland, J., and D.
Garcia, "A Remote Direct Memory Access Protocol
Specification", RFC 5040, DOI 10.17487/RFC5040, October
2007, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5040>.
Lever & Noveck Expires April 28, 2017 [Page 17]
Internet-Draft RDMA Transport for RPC V2 October 2016
[RFC5041] Shah, H., Pinkerton, J., Recio, R., and P. Culley, "Direct
Data Placement over Reliable Transports", RFC 5041,
DOI 10.17487/RFC5041, October 2007,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5041>.
[RFC5661] Shepler, S., Ed., Eisler, M., Ed., and D. Noveck, Ed.,
"Network File System (NFS) Version 4 Minor Version 1
Protocol", RFC 5661, DOI 10.17487/RFC5661, January 2010,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5661>.
[RFC5662] Shepler, S., Ed., Eisler, M., Ed., and D. Noveck, Ed.,
"Network File System (NFS) Version 4 Minor Version 1
External Data Representation Standard (XDR) Description",
RFC 5662, DOI 10.17487/RFC5662, January 2010,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5662>.
[RFC5666] Talpey, T. and B. Callaghan, "Remote Direct Memory Access
Transport for Remote Procedure Call", RFC 5666,
DOI 10.17487/RFC5666, January 2010,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5666>.
Appendix A. Acknowledgments
The authors gratefully acknowledge the work of Brent Callaghan and
Tom Talpey on the original RPC-over-RDMA Version One specification
[RFC5666]. The authors also wish to thank Bill Baker, Greg Marsden,
and Matt Benjamin for their support of this work.
The extract.sh shell script and formatting conventions were first
described by the authors of the NFSv4.1 XDR specification [RFC5662].
Special thanks go to nfsv4 Working Group Chair Spencer Shepler and
nfsv4 Working Group Secretary Thomas Haynes for their support.
Authors' Addresses
Charles Lever (editor)
Oracle Corporation
1015 Granger Avenue
Ann Arbor, MI 48104
USA
Phone: +1 734 274 2396
Email: chuck.lever@oracle.com
Lever & Noveck Expires April 28, 2017 [Page 18]
Internet-Draft RDMA Transport for RPC V2 October 2016
David Noveck
Hewlett Packard Enterprise
165 Dascomb Road
Andover, MA 01810
USA
Phone: +1 978 474 2011
Email: davenoveck@gmail.com
Lever & Noveck Expires April 28, 2017 [Page 19]