ForCES Working Group Internet Draft D. Putzolu Document: draft-putzolu-forces-evaluation-00.txt Intel Expires: April 2004 October 2003 ForCES Protocol Evaluation Draft Status of this Memo This document is an Internet-Draft and is in full conformance with all provisions of Section 10 of RFC2026 [1]. Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet- Drafts. Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html. Abstract This document provides an evaluation of the applicability of three proposed approaches for a ForCES protocol: FACT[2], GRMP[3], and Netlink2[4]. A summary of each of the proposed protocols against the ForCES requirements[5] and the ForCES framework[6] is provided. Compliancy of each of the protocols against each requirement is detailed. A conclusion summarizes how each of the protocols fares in the evaluation. Conventions used in this document 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 RFC-2119 [7]. Putzolu Expires - April 2004 [Page 1]
ForCES Protocol Evaluation Draft October 2003 Table of Contents 1. Introduction...................................................2 2. Protocol Proposals.............................................3 2.1 FACT.......................................................4 2.2 GRMP.......................................................4 2.3 Netlink2...................................................4 3. Architectural Requirements Compliance Evaluation...............4 3.1 FACT.......................................................4 3.2 GRMP.......................................................4 3.3 Netlink2...................................................4 4. Model Requirements Compliance Evaluation.......................4 4.1 FACT.......................................................4 4.2 GRMP.......................................................5 4.3 Netlink2...................................................5 5. Protocol Requirements Compliance Evaluation....................5 5.1 Protocol Requirement: Configuration of Modeled Elements....5 5.2 Protocol Requirement: Support for Secure Communication.....5 5.3 Protocol Requirement: Scalability..........................6 5.4 Protocol Requirement: Multihop.............................6 5.5 Protocol Requirement: Message Priority.....................6 5.6 Protocol Requirement: Reliability..........................7 5.7 Protocol Requirement: Interconnect Independence............7 5.8 Protocol Requirement: CE Redundancy or CE Failover.........7 5.9 Protocol Requirement: Packet Redirection/Mirroring.........8 5.10 Protocol Requirement: Topology Exchange...................8 5.11 Protocol Requirement: Dynamic Association.................8 5.12 Protocol Requirement: Command Bundling....................9 5.13 Protocol Requirement: Asynchronous Event Notification.....9 5.14 Protocol Requirement: Query Statistics....................9 5.15 Protocol Requirement: Protection Against Denial of Service Attacks.......................................................10 5.16 Protocol Requirement Summary Table.......................10 Security Considerations..........................................11 References.......................................................11 Acknowledgments..................................................12 Author's Addresses...............................................12 1. Introduction This document provides an evaluation of the applicability of FACT, GRMP, and Netlink2 as the ForCES protocol. This evaluation provides overviews of the protocols and general statements of applicability based upon the ForCES framework and requirements documents. The format and structure as well as some of the introductory content of this document is based on and taken from a similar document being produced in the MIDCOM working group[8]. Putzolu Expires - April 2004 [Page 2]
ForCES Protocol Evaluation Draft October 2003 The process for protocol evaluation found in this document consists of individuals providing sections evaluating a specific protocol. These sections are incorporated by the editor of the document, and are subject to feedback and changes based on the consensus of the ForCES working group. Some protocols that might be considered as potentially applicable as the ForCES protocol are not evaluated in this document since there where no champions to submit evaluations for them. Section 2 of this document contains a list of the proposed protocols along with background information about the protocols. Section 3 of this document contains an item level evaluation of the proposed protocols against the architectural requirements found in section 5 of the ForCES requirements. The purpose of this section is to determine how well each of the proposed protocols maps to the ForCES architecture. Section 4 of this document contains an item level evaluation of the proposed protocols against the model requirements found in ForCES requirements. The purpose of this section is to determine how well each of the proposed protocols can be used with FEs that meet the ForCES model requirements. Section 5 of this document contains an item level evaluation of the proposed protocols against the protocol requirements found in the ForCES requirements. The purpose of this section is to determine how well each of the proposed protocols satisfies each of the protocol requirements. Section 6 summarizes the evaluation, and includes a table with a breakdown for each of the protocols versus the requirements. The following categories of compliance are used: Fully met, partially met through the use of extensions, partially met through other changes to the protocol, or not met. This summary is not a conclusive statement of the suitability of the protocols, but rather to provide information to be considered as input into the overall protocol decision process. 2. Protocol Proposals The following protocols have been submitted to the ForCES WG for consideration: o FACT o GRMP o Netlink2 The following sections provide overviews of each of the protocols as well as relevant background information about each protocol. Putzolu Expires - April 2004 [Page 3]
ForCES Protocol Evaluation Draft October 2003 2.1 FACT <Text for this section> 2.2 GRMP <Text for this section> 2.3 Netlink2 <Text for this section> 3. Architectural Requirements Compliance Evaluation This section contains a review of each protocol proposalÆs level of compliance to the ForCES architecture requirements. Many of the architectural requirements will be instantiated in some fashion in the protocol selected. Given that the architectural requirements are not direct protocol requirements, the review below will consist of prose rather than specific levels of compliance as is used in the protocol section below. 3.1 FACT <Text for this section> 3.2 GRMP <Text for this section> 3.3 Netlink2 <Text for this section> 4. Model Requirements Compliance Evaluation This section contains a review of each protocolÆs level of compliance to the ForCES model requirements. The ForCES model will indirectly relate to the protocol in that the protocol will be used to carry information that the model represents. Given that the model requirements are only indirectly related to the protocol selection, the review below will consist of prose rather than specific levels of compliance as is used in the protocol section below. 4.1 FACT Putzolu Expires - April 2004 [Page 4]
ForCES Protocol Evaluation Draft October 2003 <Text for this section> 4.2 GRMP <Text for this section> 4.3 Netlink2 <Text for this section> 5. Protocol Requirements Compliance Evaluation This section contains a review of each protocolÆs level of compliance to the ForCES protocol requirements. Given that the protocol requirements are directly related to the protocol proposals, a very concrete method is used in reviewing compliance - the following key identifies the level of compliance for each of the following protocols to each protocol requirement in the ForCES requirements RFC: T = Total compliance. Meets the requirement fully. P+ = Partial compliance. Fundamentally meets the requirement through the use of extensions (e.g. packages, additional parameters, etc.) P = Partial compliance. Meets some aspect of the requirement, however, the necessary changes require more than an extension and/or are inconsistent with the design intent of the protocol. N = Not compliant. Does not meet the requirement. 5.1 Protocol Requirement: Configuration of Modeled Elements 5.1.1 FACT <Text for this section> 5.1.2 GRMP <Text for this section> 5.1.3 Netlink2 <Text for this section> 5.2 Protocol Requirement: Support for Secure Communication <Text for this section> Putzolu Expires - April 2004 [Page 5]
ForCES Protocol Evaluation Draft October 2003 5.2.1 FACT <Text for this section> 5.2.2 GRMP <Text for this section> 5.2.3 Netlink2 <Text for this section> 5.3 Protocol Requirement: Scalability <Text for this section> 5.3.1 FACT <Text for this section> 5.3.2 GRMP <Text for this section> 5.3.3 Netlink2 <Text for this section> 5.4 Protocol Requirement: Multihop <Text for this section> 5.4.1 FACT <Text for this section> 5.4.2 GRMP <Text for this section> 5.4.3 Netlink2 <Text for this section> 5.5 Protocol Requirement: Message Priority <Text for this section> Putzolu Expires - April 2004 [Page 6]
ForCES Protocol Evaluation Draft October 2003 5.5.1 FACT <Text for this section> 5.5.2 GRMP <Text for this section> 5.5.3 Netlink2 <Text for this section> 5.6 Protocol Requirement: Reliability <Text for this section> 5.6.1 FACT <Text for this section> 5.6.2 GRMP <Text for this section> 5.6.3 Netlink2 <Text for this section> 5.7 Protocol Requirement: Interconnect Independence <Text for this section> 5.7.1 FACT <Text for this section> 5.7.2 GRMP <Text for this section> 5.7.3 Netlink2 <Text for this section> 5.8 Protocol Requirement: CE Redundancy or CE Failover <Text for this section> Putzolu Expires - April 2004 [Page 7]
ForCES Protocol Evaluation Draft October 2003 5.8.1 FACT <Text for this section> 5.8.2 GRMP <Text for this section> 5.8.3 Netlink2 <Text for this section> 5.9 Protocol Requirement: Packet Redirection/Mirroring <Text for this section> 5.9.1 FACT <Text for this section> 5.9.2 GRMP <Text for this section> 5.9.3 Netlink2 <Text for this section> 5.10 Protocol Requirement: Topology Exchange <Text for this section> 5.10.1 FACT <Text for this section> 5.10.2 GRMP <Text for this section> 5.10.3 Netlink2 <Text for this section> 5.11 Protocol Requirement: Dynamic Association <Text for this section> Putzolu Expires - April 2004 [Page 8]
ForCES Protocol Evaluation Draft October 2003 5.11.1 FACT <Text for this section> 5.11.2 GRMP <Text for this section> 5.11.3 Netlink2 <Text for this section> 5.12 Protocol Requirement: Command Bundling <Text for this section> 5.12.1FACT <Text for this section> 5.12.2 GRMP <Text for this section> 5.12.3 Netlink2 <Text for this section> 5.13 Protocol Requirement: Asynchronous Event Notification <Text for this section> 5.13.1 FACT <Text for this section> 5.13.2 GRMP <Text for this section> 5.13.3 Netlink2 <Text for this section> 5.14 Protocol Requirement: Query Statistics <Text for this section> Putzolu Expires - April 2004 [Page 9]
ForCES Protocol Evaluation Draft October 2003 5.14.1 FACT <Text for this section> 5.14.2 GRMP <Text for this section> 5.14.3 Netlink2 <Text for this section> 5.15 Protocol Requirement: Protection Against Denial of Service Attacks <Text for this section> 5.15.1 FACT <Text for this section> 5.15.2 GRMP <Text for this section> 5.15.3 Netlink2 <Text for this section> 5.16 Protocol Requirement Summary Table This section is a summary of the compliance levels claimed for each protocol above and is included as a convenience. Putzolu Expires - April 2004 [Page 10]
ForCES Protocol Evaluation Draft October 2003 Protocol Requirement FACT GRMP Netlink2 ==================================================================== 1. Configuration of Modeled Elements ? ? ? 2. Support for Secure Communication ? ? ? 3. Scalability ? ? ? 4. Multihop ? ? ? 5. Message Priority ? ? ? 6. Reliability ? ? ? 7. Interconnect Independence ? ? ? 8. CE Redundancy or CE Failover ? ? ? 9. Packet Redirection/Mirroring ? ? ? 10. Topology Exchange ? ? ? 11. Dynamic Association ? ? ? 12. Command Bundling ? ? ? 13. Asynchronous Event Notification ? ? ? 14. Query Statistics ? ? ? 15. Protection Against Denial of Service Attacks ? ? ? Security Considerations This document is a comparison between three protocols in order to help in the selection of the best approach to use as the ForCES protocol. Security considerations are addressed in each of the protocol proposals and MUST be included as part of the fitness evaluation for each proposal. References 1 Bradner, S., "The Internet Standards Process -- Revision 3", BCP 9, RFC 2026, October 1996. 2 Audu, A. et al., "ForwArding and Control ElemenT protocol (FACT)", work in progress, September 2003, <draft-gopal-forces-fact-05.txt> 3 Wang, W. et al., "General Router Management Protocol (GRMP) Version 1ö, September 2003, <draft-wang-forces-grmp-00.txt> 4 Salim, J. H. et al., "Netlink2 as ForCES Protocol", work in progress, June 2003, <draft-jhsrha-forces-netlink2-01.txt> 5 Khosravi, H. et al., "Requirements for Separation of IP Control and Forwarding", work in progress, July 2003, <draft-ietf-forces-requirements-10.txt> Putzolu Expires - April 2004 [Page 11]
ForCES Protocol Evaluation Draft October 2003 6 Yang, L. et al., "Forwarding and Control Element Separation (ForCES) Framework", work in progress, August 2003, <draft-ietf-forces-framework-08.txt> 7 Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997 8 Barnes, M., "Middlebox Communications (MIDCOM) Protocol Evaluation", work in progress, Nov 2002, <draft-ietf-midcom-protocol-eval-06.txt> Acknowledgments Author's Addresses David Putzolu Intel Mailstop JF3-206-H10 2111 NE 25th Avenue Phone: 503-264-4510 Email: david.putzolu@intel.com Putzolu Expires - April 2004 [Page 12]