Internet Engineering Task Force J. Hadi Salim
Internet-Draft Mojatatu Networks
Updates: 7121 (if approved) June 3, 2014
Intended status: Standards Track
Expires: December 5, 2014
ForCES Protocol Extensions
draft-ietf-forces-protoextension-02
Abstract
Experience in implementing and deploying ForCES architecture has
demonstrated need for a few small extensions both to ease
programmability and to improve wire efficiency of some transactions.
This document describes extensions to the ForCES Protocol
Specification[RFC 5810] semantics to achieve that end goal.
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 December 5, 2014.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2014 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
Hadi Salim Expires December 5, 2014 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft ForCES Protocol Extensions June 2014
described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents
1. Terminology and Conventions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.1. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.2. Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3. Problem Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.1. Table Ranges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.2. Error codes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4. Protocol Update Proposal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4.1. Table Ranges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4.2. Error Codes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4.2.1. New Codes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4.2.2. Vendor Codes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4.2.3. Extended Result TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
4.2.3.1. Extended Result Backward compatibility . . . . . . 9
4.3. Large Table Dumping . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
5. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
8.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
8.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Appendix A. Appendix A - New FEPO version . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
Hadi Salim Expires December 5, 2014 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft ForCES Protocol Extensions June 2014
1. Terminology and Conventions
1.1. 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].
1.2. Definitions
This document reiterates the terminology defined by the ForCES
architecture in various documents for the sake of clarity.
FE Model - The FE model is designed to model the logical
processing functions of an FE. The FE model proposed in this
document includes three components; the LFB modeling of individual
Logical Functional Block (LFB model), the logical interconnection
between LFBs (LFB topology), and the FE-level attributes,
including FE capabilities. The FE model provides the basis to
define the information elements exchanged between the CE and the
FE in the ForCES protocol [RFC5810].
LFB (Logical Functional Block) Class (or type) - A template that
represents a fine-grained, logically separable aspect of FE
processing. Most LFBs relate to packet processing in the data
path. LFB classes are the basic building blocks of the FE model.
LFB Instance - As a packet flows through an FE along a data path,
it flows through one or multiple LFB instances, where each LFB is
an instance of a specific LFB class. Multiple instances of the
same LFB class can be present in an FE's data path. Note that we
often refer to LFBs without distinguishing between an LFB class
and LFB instance when we believe the implied reference is obvious
for the given context.
LFB Model - The LFB model describes the content and structures in
an LFB, plus the associated data definition. XML is used to
provide a formal definition of the necessary structures for the
modeling. Four types of information are defined in the LFB model.
The core part of the LFB model is the LFB class definitions; the
other three types of information define constructs associated with
and used by the class definition. These are reusable data types,
supported frame (packet) formats, and metadata.
LFB Metadata - Metadata is used to communicate per-packet state
from one LFB to another, but is not sent across the network. The
FE model defines how such metadata is identified, produced, and
consumed by the LFBs, but not how the per-packet state is
Hadi Salim Expires December 5, 2014 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft ForCES Protocol Extensions June 2014
implemented within actual hardware. Metadata is sent between the
FE and the CE on redirect packets.
ForCES Component - A ForCES Component is a well-defined, uniquely
identifiable and addressable ForCES model building block. A
component has a 32-bit ID, name, type, and an optional synopsis
description. These are often referred to simply as components.
LFB Component - An LFB component is a ForCES component that
defines the Operational parameters of the LFBs that must be
visible to the CEs.
ForCES Protocol - Protocol that runs in the Fp reference points in
the ForCES Framework [RFC3746].
ForCES Protocol Layer (ForCES PL) - A layer in the ForCES protocol
architecture that defines the ForCES protocol messages, the
protocol state transfer scheme, and the ForCES protocol
architecture itself as defined in the ForCES Protocol
Specification [RFC5810].
ForCES Protocol Transport Mapping Layer (ForCES TML) - A layer in
ForCES protocol architecture that uses the capabilities of
existing transport protocols to specifically address protocol
message transportation issues, such as how the protocol messages
are mapped to different transport media (like TCP, IP, ATM,
Ethernet, etc.), and how to achieve and implement reliability,
ordering, etc. the ForCES SCTP TML [RFC5811] describes a TML that
is mandated for ForCES.
2. Introduction
Experience in implementing and deploying ForCES architecture has
demonstrated need for a few small extensions both to ease
programmability and to improve wire efficiency of some transactions.
This document describes a few extensions to the ForCES Protocol
Specification [RFC5810] semantics to achieve that end goal.
This document describes and justifies the need for 2 small extensions
which are backward compatible. The document also clarifies details
of how dumping of a large table residing on an FE is achieved. To
summarize:
1. A table range operation to allow a controller or control
application to request an arbitrary range of table rows is
introduced.
Hadi Salim Expires December 5, 2014 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft ForCES Protocol Extensions June 2014
2. Additional error codes returned to the controller (or control
application) by an FE are introduced. Additionally a new
extension to carry details on error codes is introduced.
3. While already supported FE response to a GET request of a large
table which does not fit in a single PL message is not described
in [RFC5810]. This document clarifies the details.
3. Problem Overview
In this section we present sample use cases to illustrate each
challenge being addressed.
3.1. Table Ranges
Consider, for the sake of illustration, an FE table with 1 million
reasonably sized table rows which are sparsely populated. Assume,
again for the sake of illustration, that there are 2000 table rows
sparsely populated between the row indices 23-10023.
Implementation experience has shown that existing approaches for
retrieving or deleting a sizeable number of table rows is at the
programmatically level (from an application point of view)
unfriendly, tedious, and abusive of both compute and bandwidth
resources.
By Definition, ForCES GET and DEL requests sent from a controller (or
control app) are prepended with a path to a component and sent to the
FE. In the case of indexed tables, the component path can either
point to a table or a table row index.
As an example, a control application attempting to retrieve the first
2000 table rows appearing between row indices 23 and 10023 can
achieve its goal in one of:
o Dump the whole table and filter for the needed 2000 table rows.
o Send upto 10000 ForCES PL requests with monotonically incrementing
indices and stop when the needed 2000 entries are retrieved.
o If the application had knowledge of which table rows existed (not
unreasonable given the controller is supposed to be aware of state
within an NE), then the application could take advantage of ForCES
batching to send fewer large messages (each with different path
entries for a total of two thousand).
As argued, while the above options exist - all are tedious.
Hadi Salim Expires December 5, 2014 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft ForCES Protocol Extensions June 2014
3.2. Error codes
[RFC5810] has defined a generic set of error codes that are to be
returned to the CE from an FE. Deployment experience has shown that
it would be useful to have more fine grained error codes. As an
example, the error code E_NOT_SUPPORTED could be mapped to many FE
error source possibilities that need to be then interpreted by the
caller based on some understanding of the nature of the sent request.
This makes debugging more time consuming.
4. Protocol Update Proposal
This section describes proposals to update the protocol for issues
discussed in Section 3
4.1. Table Ranges
We propose to add a Table-range TLV (type ID 0x117) that will be
associated with the PATH-DATA TLV in the same manner the KEYINFO-TLV
is.
+---------------------+---------------------+
| Type (0x117) | Length |
+---------------------+---------------------+
| Start Index |
+-------------------------------------------+
| End Index |
+-------------------------------------------+
Figure 1: ForCES table range request Layout
Figure 1 shows how this new TLV is constructed.
OPER = GET
PATH-DATA:
flags = F_SELTABRANGE, IDCount = 2, IDs = {1,6}
TABLERANGE-TLV content = {11,23}
Figure 2: ForCES table range request
Figure 2 illustrates a GET request for a range of rows 11 to 23 of a
table with component path of "1/6".
Path flag of F_SELTABRANGE (0x2 i.e bit 1, where bit 0 is F_SELKEY as
defined in RFC 5810) MUST be set to indicate the presence of the
Hadi Salim Expires December 5, 2014 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft ForCES Protocol Extensions June 2014
TABLERANGE-TLV. The pathflag bit F_SELTABRANGE can only be used in a
GET or DEL and is mutually exclusive with F_SELKEY. The FE MUST
enforce the path flag constraints and ensure that the selected path
belongs to a defined indexed table component. Any violation of these
constraints MUST be rejected with an error code of E_INVALID_TFLAGS
with a description of what the problem is when using extended error
reporting (refer to Section 4.2).
The TABLERANGE-TLV contents constitute:
o A 32 bit start index. An index of 0 implies the beggining of the
table row.
o A 32 bit end index. A value of 0xFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF implies the
last entry.
The response for a table range query will either be:
o The requested table data returned (when at least one referenced
row is available); in such a case, a response with a path pointing
to the table and whose data content contain the row(s) will be
sent to the CE. The data content MUST be encapsulated in
sparsedata TLV. The sparse data TLV content will have the "I" (in
ILV) for each table row indicating the table indices.
o An EXTENDEDRESULT-TLV (refer to Section 4.2.3) when:
* Response is to a range delete request. The Result will either
be:
+ A success if any of the requested-for rows is deleted
+ A proper error code if none of the requested for rows can be
deleted
* data is absent where the result code of E_EMPTY with an
optional content string describing the nature of the error
(refer to Section 4.2).
* When both a path key and path table range are reflected on the
the pathflags, an error code of E_INVALID_TFLAGS with an
optional content string describing the nature of the error
(refer to Section 4.2).
* other standard ForCES errors (such as ACL constraints trying to
retrieve contents of an unreadable table), accessing unknown
components etc.
Hadi Salim Expires December 5, 2014 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft ForCES Protocol Extensions June 2014
4.2. Error Codes
We propose several things:
1. A new set of error codes.
2. Allocating some reserved codes for vendor use.
3. A new TLV, EXTENDEDRESULT-TLV (0x118) that will carry a code
(which will be a superset of what is currently specified in
[RFC5810]) but also an optional cause content. This is
illustrated in Figure 3.
4.2.1. New Codes
EXTENDEDRESULT-TLV Result Value is 32 bits and is a superset of RFC
5810 Result TLV Result Value. The new version code space is 32 bits
as opposed to the RFC 5810 code size of 8 bits. The first 8 bit
values are common to both old
+------------+-------------------------+----------------------------+
| Code | Mnemonic | Details |
+------------+-------------------------+----------------------------+
| 0x18 | E_TIMED_OUT | A time out occured while |
| | | processing the message |
| 0x19 | E_INVALID_TFLAGS | Invalid table flags |
| 0x1A | E_INVALID_OP | Requested operation is |
| | | invalid |
| 0x1B | E_CONGEST_NT | Node Congestion |
| | | notification |
| 0x1C | E_COMPONENT_NOT_A_TABLE | Component not a table |
| 0x1D | E_PERM | Operation not permitted |
| 0x1E | E_BUSY | System is Busy |
| 0x1F | E_EMPTY | Table is empty |
| 0x20 | E_UNKNOWN | A generic catch all error |
| | | code. Carries a string to |
| | | further extrapolate what |
| | | the error implies. |
+------------+-------------------------+----------------------------+
Table 1: New codes
4.2.2. Vendor Codes
Codes 0x100-0x200 are reserved for use as vendor codes. Since these
are freely available it is expected that the FE and CE side will both
understand/interpret the semantics of any used codes.
Hadi Salim Expires December 5, 2014 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft ForCES Protocol Extensions June 2014
4.2.3. Extended Result TLV
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 = EXTENDEDRESULT-TLV | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Result Value |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Optional Cause content |
. .
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 3: EXTENDEDRESULT-TLV
o Like all other ForCES TLVs, the EXTENDEDRESULT-TLV is expected to
be 32 bit aligned.
o The EXTENDEDRESULT-TLV Result Value derives and extends from the
same current namespace that is used by RESULT-TLV Result Value as
specified in RFC 5810, section 7.1.7. The main difference is that
we now have 32 bit result value (as opposed to the old 8 bit).
o The optional result content is defined to further disambiguate the
result value. It is expected Utf-8 string values to be used.
However, vendor specific error codes may choose to specify
different contents. Additionally, future codes may specify cause
contents to be of types other than string..
o It is recommended that the maximum size of the cause string should
not exceed 32 bytes. We do not propose the cause string be
standardized.
4.2.3.1. Extended Result Backward compatibility
To support backward compatibility, we add a new component ID 16
(named EResultAdmin), a capability Component ID 32 (named
EResultCapab), and updated the version to 1.2 for the FEPO LFB
Appendix A.
An FE will advertise its capability to support extended TLVs via the
EResultCapab table. When an FE is capable of responding with both
extended results and older result TLVs, it will have two table rows
one for each supported value. By default an FE capable of supporting
both modes will assume the lowest common denominator i.e EResultAdmin
will be EResultNotSupported; and will issue responses using RESULT-
Hadi Salim Expires December 5, 2014 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft ForCES Protocol Extensions June 2014
TLVs.
A master CE can turn on support for extended results by setting the
value to 2 in which case the FE MUST switch over to sending only
EXTENDEDRESULT-TLVs. Likewise a master CE can turn off extended
result responses by writting a 1 to the EResultAdmin. An FE that
does not support one mode or other MUST reject setting of
EResultAdmin to a value it does not support by responding with an
error code of E_NOT_SUPPORTED.
4.3. Large Table Dumping
Imagine a GET request to a path that is a table i.e a table dump.
Such a request is sent to the FE with a specific correlator, say X.
Imagine this table to have a large number of entries at the FE. For
the sake of illustration, lets say millions of rows. This requires
that the FE delivers the response over multiple messages, all using
the same correlator X.
The protocol document [RFC5810] does not adequately describe how a
GET response to such a large message is delivered. The text in this
section clarifies. We limit the discussion to a table object only.
Implementation experience of dumping large tables indicates we can
use the transaction flags to indicate that a GET response is the
beginning, middle or end of a multi-part message. In other words we
mirror the effect of an atomic transaction sent by a CE to an FE.
Hadi Salim Expires December 5, 2014 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft ForCES Protocol Extensions June 2014
CE PL FE PL
| |
| (0) Query, Path-to-a-large-table, OP=GET |
|----------------------------------------------------->|
| correlattor = X |
| |
| (1) Query-Response, SOT,AT, OP=GET-RESPONSE, DATA |
|<-----------------------------------------------------|
| correlattor = X |
| DATA TLV (SPARSE/FULL) |
| |
| (2) Query-Response, MOT,AT, OP=GET-RESPONSE, DATA |
|<-----------------------------------------------------|
| correlattor = X |
| DATA TLV (SPARSE/FULL) |
| |
| (3) Query-Response, MOT,AT, OP=GET-RESPONSE, DATA |
|<-----------------------------------------------------|
| correlattor = X |
| DATA TLV (SPARSE/FULL) |
. .
. .
. .
. .
| |
| (N) Query-Response, MOT,AT, OP=GET-RESPONSE, DATA |
|<-----------------------------------------------------|
| correlattor = X |
| DATA TLV (SPARSE/FULL) |
| |
| (N) Query-Response, EOT,AT, OP=GET-RESPONSE |
|<-----------------------------------------------------|
| correlattor = X |
| RESULT TLV (SUCCESS) |
| |
Figure 4: EXTENDEDRESULT-TLV
The last message which carries the EOT flag to go the CE MUST not
carry any data. This allows us to mirror ForCES 2PC messaging
[RFC5810] where the last message is an empty commit message. GET
response will carry a result code TLV in such a case.
5. Acknowledgements
The author would like to thank Evangelos Haleplidis and Joel Halpern
Hadi Salim Expires December 5, 2014 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft ForCES Protocol Extensions June 2014
for discussions that made this document better.
6. IANA Considerations
This document registers two new top Level TLVs and two new path flags
and updates an IANA registered FE Protocol object Logical Functional
Block (LFB).
XXX: when this document is undergoing IANA review we should update
https://www.iana.org/assignments/forces/forces.xml section on FEPO to
have the new version reflected.
The following new TLVs are defined:
o TABLERANGE-TLV (type ID 0x117)
o EXTENDEDRESULT-TLV (type ID 0x118)
The following new path flags are defined:
o F_SELTABRANGE (value 0x2 i.e bit 1)
The Defined Result Values are changed:
o codes 0x21-0xFE are reserved.
o codes 0x18-0x20 are defined by this document.
o codes 0x100-0x200 are reserved for vendor use.
7. Security Considerations
The security considerations that have been described in the ForCES
protocol [RFC5810] apply to this document as well.
8. References
8.1. Normative References
[RFC3746] Yang, L., Dantu, R., Anderson, T., and R. Gopal,
"Forwarding and Control Element Separation (ForCES)
Framework", RFC 3746, April 2004.
[RFC5810] Doria, A., Hadi Salim, J., Haas, R., Khosravi, H., Wang,
W., Dong, L., Gopal, R., and J. Halpern, "Forwarding and
Hadi Salim Expires December 5, 2014 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft ForCES Protocol Extensions June 2014
Control Element Separation (ForCES) Protocol
Specification", RFC 5810, March 2010.
[RFC5811] Hadi Salim, J. and K. Ogawa, "SCTP-Based Transport Mapping
Layer (TML) for the Forwarding and Control Element
Separation (ForCES) Protocol", RFC 5811, March 2010.
[RFC5812] Halpern, J. and J. Hadi Salim, "Forwarding and Control
Element Separation (ForCES) Forwarding Element Model",
RFC 5812, March 2010.
[RFC7121] Ogawa, K., Wang, W., Haleplidis, E., and J. Hadi Salim,
"High Availability within a Forwarding and Control Element
Separation (ForCES) Network Element", RFC 7121,
February 2014.
8.2. Informative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
Appendix A. Appendix A - New FEPO version
<LFBLibrary xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:forces:lfbmodel:1.0"
xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance"
xsi:noNamespaceSchemaLocation="lfb-schema.xsd" provides="FEPO">
<!-- XXX -->
<dataTypeDefs>
<dataTypeDef>
<name>CEHBPolicyValues</name>
<synopsis>
The possible values of CE heartbeat policy
</synopsis>
<atomic>
<baseType>uchar</baseType>
<specialValues>
<specialValue value="0">
<name>CEHBPolicy0</name>
<synopsis>
The CE will send heartbeats to the FE
every CEHDI timeout if no other messages
have been sent since.
</synopsis>
</specialValue>
<specialValue value="1">
<name>CEHBPolicy1</name>
Hadi Salim Expires December 5, 2014 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft ForCES Protocol Extensions June 2014
<synopsis>
The CE will not send heartbeats to the FE
</synopsis>
</specialValue>
</specialValues>
</atomic>
</dataTypeDef>
<dataTypeDef>
<name>FEHBPolicyValues</name>
<synopsis>
The possible values of FE heartbeat policy
</synopsis>
<atomic>
<baseType>uchar</baseType>
<specialValues>
<specialValue value="0">
<name>FEHBPolicy0</name>
<synopsis>
The FE will not generate any heartbeats
to the CE
</synopsis>
</specialValue>
<specialValue value="1">
<name>FEHBPolicy1</name>
<synopsis>
The FE generates heartbeats to the CE every FEHI
if no other messages have been sent to the CE.
</synopsis>
</specialValue>
</specialValues>
</atomic>
</dataTypeDef>
<dataTypeDef>
<name>FERestartPolicyValues</name>
<synopsis>
The possible values of FE restart policy
</synopsis>
<atomic>
<baseType>uchar</baseType>
<specialValues>
<specialValue value="0">
<name>FERestartPolicy0</name>
<synopsis>
The FE restart restats its state from scratch
</synopsis>
</specialValue>
</specialValues>
</atomic>
Hadi Salim Expires December 5, 2014 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft ForCES Protocol Extensions June 2014
</dataTypeDef>
<dataTypeDef>
<name>HAModeValues</name>
<synopsis>
The possible values of HA modes
</synopsis>
<atomic>
<baseType>uchar</baseType>
<specialValues>
<specialValue value="0">
<name>NoHA</name>
<synopsis>
The FE is not running in HA mode
</synopsis>
</specialValue>
<specialValue value="1">
<name>ColdStandby</name>
<synopsis>
The FE is running in HA mode cold Standby
</synopsis>
</specialValue>
<specialValue value="2">
<name>HotStandby</name>
<synopsis>
The FE is running in HA mode hot Standby
</synopsis>
</specialValue>
</specialValues>
</atomic>
</dataTypeDef>
<dataTypeDef>
<name>CEFailoverPolicyValues</name>
<synopsis>
The possible values of CE failover policy
</synopsis>
<atomic>
<baseType>uchar</baseType>
<specialValues>
<specialValue value="0">
<name>CEFailoverPolicy0</name>
<synopsis>
The FE should stop functioning immediate and
transition to the FE OperDisable state
</synopsis>
</specialValue>
<specialValue value="1">
<name>CEFailoverPolicy1</name>
<synopsis>
Hadi Salim Expires December 5, 2014 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft ForCES Protocol Extensions June 2014
The FE should continue forwarding even
without an associated CE for CEFTI. The
FE goes to FE OperDisable when the CEFTI
expires and no association. Requires
graceful restart support.
</synopsis>
</specialValue>
</specialValues>
</atomic>
</dataTypeDef>
<dataTypeDef>
<name>FEHACapab</name>
<synopsis>
The supported HA features
</synopsis>
<atomic>
<baseType>uchar</baseType>
<specialValues>
<specialValue value="0">
<name>GracefullRestart</name>
<synopsis>
The FE supports Graceful Restart
</synopsis>
</specialValue>
<specialValue value="1">
<name>HA</name>
<synopsis>
The FE supports HA
</synopsis>
</specialValue>
</specialValues>
</atomic>
</dataTypeDef>
<dataTypeDef>
<name>CEStatusType</name>
<synopsis>Status values. Status for each CE</synopsis>
<atomic>
<baseType>uchar</baseType>
<specialValues>
<specialValue value="0">
<name>Disconnected</name>
<synopsis>No connection attempt with the CE yet
</synopsis>
</specialValue>
<specialValue value="1">
<name>Connected</name>
<synopsis>The FE connection with the CE at the TML
has been completed
Hadi Salim Expires December 5, 2014 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft ForCES Protocol Extensions June 2014
</synopsis>
</specialValue>
<specialValue value="2">
<name>Associated</name>
<synopsis>The FE has associated with the CE
</synopsis>
</specialValue>
<specialValue value="3">
<name>IsMaster</name>
<synopsis>The CE is the master (and associated)
</synopsis>
</specialValue>
<specialValue value="4">
<name>LostConnection</name>
<synopsis>The FE was associated with the CE but
lost the connection
</synopsis>
</specialValue>
<specialValue value="5">
<name>Unreachable</name>
<synopsis>The CE is deemed as unreachable by the FE
</synopsis>
</specialValue>
</specialValues>
</atomic>
</dataTypeDef>
<dataTypeDef>
<name>StatisticsType</name>
<synopsis>Statistics Definition</synopsis>
<struct>
<component componentID="1">
<name>RecvPackets</name>
<synopsis>Packets Received</synopsis>
<typeRef>uint64</typeRef>
</component>
<component componentID="2">
<name>RecvErrPackets</name>
<synopsis>Packets Received from CE with errors
</synopsis>
<typeRef>uint64</typeRef>
</component>
<component componentID="3">
<name>RecvBytes</name>
<synopsis>Bytes Received from CE</synopsis>
<typeRef>uint64</typeRef>
</component>
<component componentID="4">
<name>RecvErrBytes</name>
Hadi Salim Expires December 5, 2014 [Page 17]
Internet-Draft ForCES Protocol Extensions June 2014
<synopsis>Bytes Received from CE in Error</synopsis>
<typeRef>uint64</typeRef>
</component>
<component componentID="5">
<name>TxmitPackets</name>
<synopsis>Packets Transmitted to CE</synopsis>
<typeRef>uint64</typeRef>
</component>
<component componentID="6">
<name>TxmitErrPackets</name>
<synopsis>
Packets Transmitted to CE that incurred
errors
</synopsis>
<typeRef>uint64</typeRef>
</component>
<component componentID="7">
<name>TxmitBytes</name>
<synopsis>Bytes Transmitted to CE</synopsis>
<typeRef>uint64</typeRef>
</component>
<component componentID="8">
<name>TxmitErrBytes</name>
<synopsis>Bytes Transmitted to CE incurring errors
</synopsis>
<typeRef>uint64</typeRef>
</component>
</struct>
</dataTypeDef>
<dataTypeDef>
<name>AllCEType</name>
<synopsis>Table Type for AllCE component</synopsis>
<struct>
<component componentID="1">
<name>CEID</name>
<synopsis>ID of the CE</synopsis>
<typeRef>uint32</typeRef>
</component>
<component componentID="2">
<name>Statistics</name>
<synopsis>Statistics per CE</synopsis>
<typeRef>StatisticsType</typeRef>
</component>
<component componentID="3">
<name>CEStatus</name>
<synopsis>Status of the CE</synopsis>
<typeRef>CEStatusType</typeRef>
</component>
Hadi Salim Expires December 5, 2014 [Page 18]
Internet-Draft ForCES Protocol Extensions June 2014
</struct>
</dataTypeDef>
<dataTypeDef>
<name>ExtendedResultType</name>
<synopsis>
Possible extended result support
</synopsis>
<atomic>
<baseType>uchar</baseType>
<rangeRestriction>
<allowedRange min="1" max="2"/>
</rangeRestriction>
<specialValues>
<specialValue value="1">
<name>EResultNotSupported</name>
<synopsis>
Extended Results are not supported
</synopsis>
</specialValue>
<specialValue value="2">
<name>EResultSupported</name>
<synopsis>
Extended Results are supported
</synopsis>
</specialValue>
</specialValues>
</atomic>
</dataTypeDef>
</dataTypeDefs>
<LFBClassDefs>
<LFBClassDef LFBClassID="2">
<name>FEPO</name>
<synopsis>
The FE Protocol Object, with EXtended Result control
</synopsis>
<version>1.2</version>
<components>
<component componentID="1" access="read-only">
<name>CurrentRunningVersion</name>
<synopsis>Currently running ForCES version</synopsis>
<typeRef>uchar</typeRef>
</component>
<component componentID="2" access="read-only">
<name>FEID</name>
<synopsis>Unicast FEID</synopsis>
<typeRef>uint32</typeRef>
</component>
<component componentID="3" access="read-write">
Hadi Salim Expires December 5, 2014 [Page 19]
Internet-Draft ForCES Protocol Extensions June 2014
<name>MulticastFEIDs</name>
<synopsis>
the table of all multicast IDs
</synopsis>
<array type="variable-size">
<typeRef>uint32</typeRef>
</array>
</component>
<component componentID="4" access="read-write">
<name>CEHBPolicy</name>
<synopsis>
The CE Heartbeat Policy
</synopsis>
<typeRef>CEHBPolicyValues</typeRef>
</component>
<component componentID="5" access="read-write">
<name>CEHDI</name>
<synopsis>
The CE Heartbeat Dead Interval in millisecs
</synopsis>
<typeRef>uint32</typeRef>
</component>
<component componentID="6" access="read-write">
<name>FEHBPolicy</name>
<synopsis>
The FE Heartbeat Policy
</synopsis>
<typeRef>FEHBPolicyValues</typeRef>
</component>
<component componentID="7" access="read-write">
<name>FEHI</name>
<synopsis>
The FE Heartbeat Interval in millisecs
</synopsis>
<typeRef>uint32</typeRef>
</component>
<component componentID="8" access="read-write">
<name>CEID</name>
<synopsis>
The Primary CE this FE is associated with
</synopsis>
<typeRef>uint32</typeRef>
</component>
<component componentID="9" access="read-write">
<name>BackupCEs</name>
<synopsis>
The table of all backup CEs other than the
primary
Hadi Salim Expires December 5, 2014 [Page 20]
Internet-Draft ForCES Protocol Extensions June 2014
</synopsis>
<array type="variable-size">
<typeRef>uint32</typeRef>
</array>
</component>
<component componentID="10" access="read-write">
<name>CEFailoverPolicy</name>
<synopsis>
The CE Failover Policy
</synopsis>
<typeRef>CEFailoverPolicyValues</typeRef>
</component>
<component componentID="11" access="read-write">
<name>CEFTI</name>
<synopsis>
The CE Failover Timeout Interval in millisecs
</synopsis>
<typeRef>uint32</typeRef>
</component>
<component componentID="12" access="read-write">
<name>FERestartPolicy</name>
<synopsis>
The FE Restart Policy
</synopsis>
<typeRef>FERestartPolicyValues</typeRef>
</component>
<component componentID="13" access="read-write">
<name>LastCEID</name>
<synopsis>
The Primary CE this FE was last associated
with
</synopsis>
<typeRef>uint32</typeRef>
</component>
<component componentID="14" access="read-write">
<name>HAMode</name>
<synopsis>
The HA mode used
</synopsis>
<typeRef>HAModeValues</typeRef>
</component>
<component componentID="15" access="read-only">
<name>AllCEs</name>
<synopsis>The table of all CEs</synopsis>
<array type="variable-size">
<typeRef>AllCEType</typeRef>
</array>
</component>
Hadi Salim Expires December 5, 2014 [Page 21]
Internet-Draft ForCES Protocol Extensions June 2014
<component componentID="16" access="read-write">
<name>EResultAdmin</name>
<synopsis>
Turn Extended results off or on.
default to off
</synopsis>
<typeRef>ExtendedResultType</typeRef>
<defaultValue>1</defaultValue>
</component>
</components>
<capabilities>
<capability componentID="30">
<name>SupportableVersions</name>
<synopsis>
the table of ForCES versions that FE supports
</synopsis>
<array type="variable-size">
<typeRef>uchar</typeRef>
</array>
</capability>
<capability componentID="31">
<name>HACapabilities</name>
<synopsis>
the table of HA capabilities the FE supports
</synopsis>
<array type="variable-size">
<typeRef>FEHACapab</typeRef>
</array>
</capability>
<capability componentID="32">
<name>EResultCapab</name>
<synopsis>
the table of supported result capabilities
</synopsis>
<array type="variable-size">
<typeRef>ExtendedResultType</typeRef>
</array>
</capability>
</capabilities>
<events baseID="61">
<event eventID="1">
<name>PrimaryCEDown</name>
<synopsis>
The primary CE has changed
</synopsis>
<eventTarget>
<eventField>LastCEID</eventField>
</eventTarget>
Hadi Salim Expires December 5, 2014 [Page 22]
Internet-Draft ForCES Protocol Extensions June 2014
<eventChanged/>
<eventReports>
<eventReport>
<eventField>LastCEID</eventField>
</eventReport>
</eventReports>
</event>
<event eventID="2">
<name>PrimaryCEChanged</name>
<synopsis>A New primary CE has been selected
</synopsis>
<eventTarget>
<eventField>CEID</eventField>
</eventTarget>
<eventChanged/>
<eventReports>
<eventReport>
<eventField>CEID</eventField>
</eventReport>
</eventReports>
</event>
</events>
</LFBClassDef>
</LFBClassDefs>
</LFBLibrary>
Author's Address
Jamal Hadi Salim
Mojatatu Networks
Suite 400, 303 Moodie Dr.
Ottawa, Ontario K2H 9R4
Canada
Email: hadi@mojatatu.com
Hadi Salim Expires December 5, 2014 [Page 23]
