INTERNET-DRAFT EXPIRES: SEPTEMBER 1997 INTERNET-DRAFT
Expire in six months
DLSw Multicast Protocols 4
David Bryant
3Com Corp Paul Brittain
Data Connection Ltd.
Revised 1/97
APPN Implementer's Workshop
Closed Pages Document
DLSw v2.0 Enhancements
<draft-rfced-info-bryant-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-abstracts.txt'' listing contained in the Internet-
Drafts Shadow Directories on ftp.is.co.za (Africa),
ftp.nordu.net (Europe), munnari.oz.au (Pacific Rim),
ds.internic.net (US East Coast), or ftp.isi.edu (US West Coast).
This memo is the proposed CP document for the DLSw V2.0 enhancements,
incorporating all comments received on the AP document. Please post any
objections to the granting of CP state or minor editorial corrections to
this document on the DLSw mail exploder by 3 February 1997.
If no objections are received, this document will be updated in the week of
3 February 1997 to accept all the revisions and the change this section to
state that CP status has been granted. The final CP document will then be
posted to the DLSw mail exploder and placed on the AIW FTP site.
After CP state has been granted, a copy of this document will be
republished as an informational RFC. The changes to the CP document
required for publications as an RFC are as follows:
- change header/footers to RFC formats
- change this section to 'standard' informational RFC text
- remove use of illegal text formatting (underline, superscript etc. -
though a copy of
the Word document will be maintained to produce a PostScript version of
the RFC)
- convert to NROFF format.
[I will be contacting the RFC editors in the meantime to check that there
is nothing else that they will need us to change - Ed.]
The distribution of this memo is unlimited.
Abstract
This document specifies
- a set of extensions to RFC 1795 designed to improve the scalability of
DLSw
- clarifications to RFC 1795 in the light of the implementation experience
to-date.
It is assumed that the reader is familiar with DLSw and RFC 1795. No
effort has been made to explain these existing protocols or associated
terminology.
This document was developed in the DLSw Related Interest Group (RIG) of the
APPN Implementers Workshop (AIW). If you would like to participate in
future DLSw discussions, please subscribe to the DLSw RIG mailing lists by
sending a mail to majordomo@raleigh.ibm.com specifying 'subscribe aiw-dlsw'
as the body of the message.
1. INTRODUCTION 3
2. HALT REASON CODES 3
3. SCOPE OF SCALABILITY ENHANCEMENTS 4
4. OVERVIEW OF SCALABILITY ENHANCEMENTS 5
5. MULTICAST GROUPS AND ADDRESSING 6
5.1 USING MULTICAST GROUPS 6
5.2 DLSW MULTICAST ADDRESSES 7
6. DLSW MESSAGE TRANSPORTS 7
6.1 TCP/IP CONNECTIONS ON DEMAND 7
6.1.1 TCP CONNECTIONS ON DEMAND RACE CONDITIONS 7
6.2 SINGLE SESSION TCP/IP CONNECTIONS 7
6.2.1 EXPEDITED SINGLE SESSION TCP/IP CONNECTIONS 8
6.2.1.1 TCP PORT NUMBERS 8
6.2.1.2 TCP CONNECTION SETUP 8
6.2.1.3 SINGLE SESSION SETUP RACE CONDITIONS 8
6.2.1.4 TCP CONNECTIONS WITH NON-MULTICAST CAPABLE DLSW PEERS 9
6.3 UDP DATAGRAMS 9
6.3.1 VENDOR SPECIFIC FUNCTIONS OVER UDP 9
6.3.2 UNICAST UDP DATAGRAMS 9
6.3.3 MULTICAST UDP DATAGRAMS 10
6.4 UNICAST UDP DATAGRAMS IN LIEU OF IP MULTICAST 10
6.5 TCP TRANSPORT 10
7. MIGRATION SUPPORT 10
7.1 CAPABILITIES EXCHANGE 11
7.2 CONNECTING TO NON-MULTICAST CAPABLE NODES 11
7.3 COMMUNICATING WITH MULTICAST CAPABLE NODES 11
8. SNA SUPPORT 12
8.1 ADDRESS RESOLUTION 12
8.2 EXPLORER FRAMES 12
8.3 CIRCUIT SETUP 12
8.4 EXAMPLE SNA SSP MESSAGE SEQUENCE 12
8.5 UDP RELIABILITY 14
8.5.1 RETRIES 14
9. NETBIOS 14
9.1 ADDRESS RESOLUTION 15
9.2 EXPLORER FRAMES 15
9.3 CIRCUIT SETUP 15
9.4 EXAMPLE NETBIOS SSP MESSAGE SEQUENCE 15
9.5 MULTICAST RELIABILITY AND RETRIES 17
10. SEQUENCING 17
11. FRAME FORMATS 17
11.1 MULTICAST CAPABILITIES CONTROL VECTOR 17
11.1.1 DLSW CAPABILITIES NEGATIVE RESPONSE 18
11.2 UDP PACKETS 19
11.3 VENDOR SPECIFIC UDP PACKETS 19
12. COMPLIANCE STATEMENT 20
13. SECURITY CONSIDERATIONS 20
14. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 20
15. AUTHORS' ADDRESSES 21
16. APPENDIX - CLARIFICATIONS TO RFC 1795 22
1.Introduction
This document defines v2.0 of Data Lnk Switching (DLSw) in the form of a
set of enhancements to RFC 1795. These enhancements are designed to be
fully backward compatible with existing RFC 1795 implementations. As a
compatible set of enhancements to RFC 1795, this document does not replace
or supersede RFC 1795.
The bulk of these enhancements address scalability issues in DLSw v1.0.
Reason codes have also been added to the HALT_DL and HALT_DL_NOACK SSP
messages in order to improve the diagnostic information available.
Finally, the appendix to this document lists a number of clarifications to
RFC 1795 where the implementation experience to-date has shown that the
original RFC was ambiguous or unclear. These clarifications should be read
alongside RFC 1795 to obtain a full specification of the base v1.0 DLSw
standard.
2.HALT Reason codes
RFC 1795 provides no mechanism for a DLSw to communicate to its peer the
reason for dropping a circuit. DLSw v2.0 adds reason code fields to the
HALT_DL and HALT_DL_NOACK SSP messages to carry this information.
The reason code is carried as 6 bytes of data after the existing SSP
header. The format of these bytes is as shown below.
Byte Description
0-1 Generic HALT reason code in byte normal format
2-5 Vendor-specific detailed reason code
The generic HALT reason code takes one of the following decimal values
(which are chosen to match the disconnect reason codes specified in the
DLSw MIB).
1 - Unknown error
2 - Received DISC from end-station
3 - Detected DLC error with end-station
4 - Circuit-level protocol error (e.g., pacing)
5 - Operator-initiated (mgt station or local console)
The vendor-specific detailed reason code may take any value.
All V2.0 DLSws must include this information on all HALT_DL and
HALT_DL_NOACK messages sent to v2.0 DLSw peers. For backwards
compatibility with RFC 1795, DLSw V2.0 implementations must also accept a
HALT_DL or HALT_DL_NOACK message received from a DLSw peer that does not
carry this information (i.e. RFC 1795 format for these SSP messages).
3.Scope of Scalability Enhancements
The DLSw Scalability group of the AIW identified a number of scalability
issues associated with existing DLSw protocols as defined in RFC 1795:
z Administration
RFC 1795 implies the need to define the transport address of all DLSw
peers at each DLSw. In highly meshed situations (such as those often
found in NetBIOS networks), the resultant administrative burden is
undesirable.
z Address Resolution
RFC 1795 defines point to point TCP (or other reliable transport
protocol) connections between DLSw peers. When attempting to discover
the location of an unknown resource, a DLSw sends an address resolution
packet to each DLSw peer over these connections. In highly meshed
configurations, this can result in a very large number of packets in the
transport network. Although each packet is sent individually to each
DLSw peer, they are each identical in nature. Thus the transport
network is burdened with excessive numbers of identical packets. Since
the transport network is most commonly a wide area network, where
bandwidth is considered a precious resource, this packet duplication is
undesirable.
z Broadcast Packets
In addition to the address resolution packets described above, RFC 1795
also propagates NetBIOS broadcast packets into the transport network.
The UI frames of NetBIOS are sent as LAN broadcast packets. RFC 1795
propagates these packets over the point to point transport connections
to each DLSw peer. In the same manner as above, this creates a large
number of identical packets in the transport network, and hence is
undesirable. Since NetBIOS UI frames can be sent by applications, it is
difficult to predict or control the rate and quantity of such traffic.
This compounds the undesirability of the existing RFC 1795 propagation
method for these packets.
z TCP (transport connection) Overhead
As defined in RFC 1795, each DLSw maintains a transport connection to
its DLSw peers. Each transport connection guarantees in order packet
delivery. This is accomplished using acknowledgment and sequencing
algorithms which require both CPU and memory at the DLSw endpoints in
direct proportion to the number transport connections. The DLSw
Scalability group has identified two scenarios where the number of
transport connections can become significant resulting in excessive
overhead and corresponding equipment costs (memory and CPU). The first
scenario is found in highly meshed DLSw configurations where the number
of transport connections approximates n2 (where n is the number of DLSw
peers). This is typically found in DLSw networks supporting NetBIOS.
The second scenario is found in networks where many remote locations
communicate to few central sites. In this case, the central sites must
support n transport connections (where n is the number of remote
sites). In both scenarios the resultant transport connection overhead
is considered undesirable depending upon the value of n.
z LLC2 overhead
RFC 1795 specifies that each DLSw provides local termination for the
LLC2 (SDLC or other SNA reliable data link protocol) sessions
traversing the SSP. Because these reliable data links provide
guaranteed in order packet delivery, the memory and CPU overhead of
maintaining these connections can also become significant. This is
particularly undesirable in the second scenario described above, because
the number of reliable connections maintained at the central site is the
aggregate of the connections maintained at each remote site.
It is not the intent of this document to address all the undesirable
scalability issues associated with RFC 1795. This paper identifies
protocol enhancements to RFC 1795 using the inherent multicast capabilities
of the underlying transport network to improve the scalability of RFC 1795.
It is believed that the enhancements defined, herein, address many of the
issues identified above, such as administration, address resolution,
broadcast packets, and, to a lesser extent, transport overhead. This
paper does not address LLC2 overhead. Subsequent efforts by the AIW
and/or DLSw Scalability group may address the unresolved scalability
issues.
While it is the intent of this paper to accommodate all transport protocols
as best as is possible, it is recognized that the multicast capabilities of
many protocols is not yet well defined, understood, or implemented. Since
TCP is the most prevalent DLSw transport protocol in use today, the DLSw
Scalability group has chosen to focus its definition around IP based
multicast services. This document only addresses the implementation detail
of IP based multicast services.
This proposal does not consider the impacts of IPv6 as this was considered
too far from widespread use at the time of writing.
4.Overview of Scalability Enhancements
This paper describes the use of multicast services within the transport
network to improve the scalability of DLSw based networking. There are
only a few main components of this proposal:
z Single session TCP connections
RFC 1795 defines a negotiation protocol for DLSw peers to choose either
two unidirectional or one bi-directional TCP connection. DLSws
implementing the enhancements described in this document must support
and use(whenever required and possible)a single bi-directional TCP
connection between DLSw peers. That is to say that the single tunnel
negotiation support of RFC 1795 is a prerequisite function to this set
of enhancements. Use of two unidirectional TCP connections is only
allowed (and required)for migration purposes when communicating with
DLSw peers that do not implement these enhancements.
This document also specifies a faster method for bringing up a single
TCP connection between two DLSw peers than the negotiation used in RFC
1795. This faster method, detailed in section 6.2.1, must be used where
both peers are known to support DLSw v2.0.
z TCP connections on demand
Two DLSw peers using these enhancements will only establish a TCP
connection when necessary. SSP connections to DLSw peers which do not
implement these enhancements are assumed to be established by the means
defined in RFC 1795. DLSws implementing v2.0 utilize UDP based
transport services to send address resolution packets (CANUREACH_ex,
NETBIOS_NQ_ex, etc.). If a positive response is received, then a TCP
connection is only established to the associated DLSw peer if one does
not already exist. Correspondingly, TCP connections are brought down
when there are no circuits to a DLSw peer for an implementation defined
period of time.
z Address resolution through UDP
The main thrust of this paper is to utilize non-reliable transport and
the inherent efficiencies of multicast protocols whenever possible and
applicable to reduce network overhead. Accordingly, the address
resolution protocols of SNA and NetBIOS are sent over the non-reliable
transport of IP, namely UDP. In addition, IP multicast/unicast services
are used whenever address resolution packets must be sent to multiple
destinations. This avoids the need to maintain TCP SSP connections
between two DLSw peers when no circuits are active. CANUREACH_ex and
ICANREACH_ex packets can be sent to all the appropriate DLSw peers
without the need for pre-configured peers or pre-established TCP/IP
connections. In addition, most multicast services (including TCP's
MOSPF, DVMRP, MIP, etc.) replicate and propagate messages only as
necessary to deliver to all multicast members. This avoids duplication
and excessive bandwidth consumption in the transport network.
To further optimize the use of WAN resources, address resolution
responses are sent in a directed fashion (i.e., unicast) via UDP
transport whenever possible. This avoids the need to setup or maintain
TCP connections when they are not required. It also avoids the
bandwidth costs associated with broadcasting.
Note: It is also permitted to send some address resolution traffic over
existing TCP connections. The conditions under which this is permitted
are detailed in section 7.
z NetBIOS broadcasts over UDP
In the same manner as above, NetBIOS broadcast packets are sent via UDP
(unicast and multicast) whenever possible and appropriate. This avoids
the need to establish TCP connections between DLSw peers when there are
no circuits required. In addition, bandwidth in the transport network
is conserved by utilizing the efficiencies inherent to multicast service
implementation. Details covering identification of these packets and
proper propagation methods are described in section 10.
5.Multicast Groups and Addressing
IP multicast services provides an unreliable datagram oriented delivery
service to multiple parties. Communication is accomplished by sending
and/or listening to specific 'multicast' addresses. When a given node
sends a packet to a specific address (defined to be within the multicast
address range), the IP network (unreliably) delivers the packet to every
node listening on that address.
Thus, DLSws can make use of this service by simply sending and receiving
(i.e., listening for) packets on the appropriate multicast addresses. With
careful planning and implementation, networks can be effectively
partitioned and network overhead controlled by sending and listening on
different addresses groups. It is not the intent of this paper to define
or describe the techniques by which this can be accomplished. It is
expected that the networking industry (vendors and end users alike) will
determine the most appropriate ways to make use of the functions provided
by use of DLSw multicast transport services.
5.1 Using Multicast Groups
The multicast addressing as described above can be effectively used to
limit the amount of broadcast/multicast traffic in the network. It is not
the intent of this document to describe how individual DLSw/SSP
implementations would assign or choose group addresses. The specifics of
how this is done and exposed to the end user is an issue for the specific
implementor. In order to provide for multivendor interoperability and
simplicity of configuration, however, this paper defines a single IP
multicast address, 224.0.10.000, to be used as a default DLSw multicast
address. If a given implementation chooses to provide a default multicast
address, it is recommended this address be used. In addition, this address
should be used for both transmitting and receiving of multicast SSP
messages. Implementation of a default multicast address is not, however,
required.
5.2 DLSw Multicast Addresses
For the purpose of long term interoperability, the AIW has secured a block
of IP multicast addresses to be used with DLSw. These addresses are listed
below:
Address Range Purpose
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------
224.0.10.000 Default multicast address
224.0.10.001-191 User defined DLSw multicast groups
224.0.10.192-255 Reserved for future use by the DLSw RIG in DLSw
enhancements
6.DLSw Message Transports
With the introduction of DLSw Multicast Protocols, SSP messages are now
sent over two distinct transport mechanisms: TCP/IP connections and UDP
services. Furthermore, the UDP datagrams can be sent to two different
kinds of IP addresses: unique IP addresses (generally associated with a
specific DLSw), and multicast IP addresses (generally associated with a
group of DLSw peers).
6.1 TCP/IP Connections on Demand
As is the case in RFC 1795, TCP/IP connections are established between DLSw
peers. Unlike RFC 1795, however, TCP/IP connections are only established
to carry reliable circuit data (i.e., LLC2 based circuits). Accordingly, a
TCP/IP connection is only established to a given DLSw peer when the first
circuit to that DLSw is required (i.e., the origin DLSw must send a
CANUREACH_CS to a target DLSw peer and there is no existing TCP connection
between the two). In addition, the TCP/IP connection is brought down an
implementation defined amount of time after the last active (not pending)
circuit has terminated. In this way, the overhead associated with
maintaining TCP connections is minimized.
With the advent of TCP connections on demand, the activation and
deactivation of TCP connections becomes a normal occurrence as opposed to
the exception event it constitutes in RFC 1795. For this reason, it is
recommended that implementations carefully consider the value of SNMP traps
for this condition.
6.1.1 TCP Connections on Demand Race Conditions
Non-circuit based SSP packets (e.g.,CANUREACH_ex, etc.) may still be
sent/received over TCP connections after all circuits have been terminated.
Taking this into account implementations should still gracefully terminate
these TCP connections once the connection is no longer supporting circuits.
This may require an implementation to retransmit request frames over UDP
when no response to a TCP based unicast request is received and the TCP
connection is brought down. This is not required in the case of multicast
requests as these are received over the multicast transport mechanism.
6.2 Single Session TCP/IP Connections
RFC 1795 defines the use of two unidirectional TCP/IP sessions between any
pair of DLSw peers using read port number 2065 and write port number 2067.
Additionally, RFC 1795 allows for implementations to optionally use only
one bi-directional TCP/IP session. Using one TCP/IP session between DLSw
peers is believed to significantly improve the performance and scalability
of DLSw protocols. Performance is improved because TCP/IP acknowledgments
are much more likely to be piggy-backed on real data when TCP/IP sessions
are used bi-directionally. Scalability is improved because fewer TCP
control blocks, state machines, and associated message buffers are
required. For these reasons, the DLSw enhancements defined in this paper
REQUIRE the use of single session TCP/IP sessions.
Accordingly, DLSws implementing these enhancements must carry the TCP
Connections Control Vector in their Capabilities Exchange. In addition,
the TCP Connections Control Vector must indicate support for 1 connection.
6.2.1 Expedited Single Session TCP/IP Connections
In RFC 1795, single session TCP/IP connections are accomplished by first
establishing two uni-directional TCP connections, exchanging capabilities,
and then bringing down one of the connections. In order to avoid the
unnecessary flows and time delays associated with this process, a new
single session bi-directional TCP/IP connection establishment algorithm is
defined.
6.2.1.1TCP Port Numbers
DLSws implementing these enhancements will use a TCP destination port of
2067 (as opposed to RFC 1795 which uses 2065) for single session TCP
connections. The source port will be a random port number using the
established TCP norms which exclude the possibility of either 2065 or 2067.
6.2.1.2TCP Connection Setup
DLSw peers implementing these enhancements will establish a single session
TCP connection whenever the associated peer is known to support this
capability. To do this, the initiating DLSw simply sends a TCP setup
request to destination port 2067. The receiving DLSw responds accordingly
and the TCP three way handshake ensues. Once this handshake has completed,
each DLSw is notified and the DLSw capabilities exchange ensues. As in RFC
1795, no flows may take place until the capabilities exchange completes.
6.2.1.3Single Session Setup Race Conditions
The new expedited single session setup procedure described above opens up
the possibility of a race condition that occurs when two DLSw peers attempt
to setup single session TCP connections to each other at the same time. To
avoid the establishment of two TCP connections, the following rules are
applied when establishing expedited single session TCP connections:
1.If an inbound TCP connect indication is received on port 2067 while an
outbound TCP connect request (on port 2067) to the same DLSw (IP address)
is in process or outstanding, the DLSw with the higher IP address will
close or reject the connection from the DLSw with the lower IP address.
2.To further expedite the process, the DLSw with the lower IP address may
choose (implementation option) to close its connection request to the DLSw
with the higher address when this condition is detected.
3.If the DLSw with the lower IP address has already sent its capabilities
exchange request on its connection to the DLSw with the higher IP address,
it must resend its capabilities exchange request over the remaining TCP
connection from its DLSw peer (with the higher IP address).
4.The DLSw with the higher IP address must ignore any capabilities
exchange request received over the TCP connection to be terminated (the one
from the DLSw with the lower IP address).
6.2.1.4TCP Connections with Non-Multicast Capable DLSw peers
During periods of migration, it is possible that TCP connections between
multicast capable and non-multicast capable DLSw peers will occur. It is
also possible that multicast capable DLSws may attempt to establish TCP
connections with partners of unknown capabilities (e.g., statically defined
peers). To handle these conditions the following additional rules apply to
expedited single session TCP connection setup:
1.1.If the capability of a DLSw peer is not known, an implementation may
choose to send the initial TCP connect request to either port 2067
(expedited single session setup) or port 2065 (standard RFC 1795 TCP
setup).
2.2.If a multicast capable DLSw receives an inbound TCP connect request on
port 2065 while processing an outbound request on 2067 to the same DLSw,
the sending DLSw will terminate its 2067 request and respond as defined in
RFC 1795 with an outbound 2065 request (standard RFC 1795 TCP setup).
3.If a multicast capable DLSw receives an indication that the DLSw peer is
not multicast capable (the port 2067 setup request times out or a port not
recognized rejection is received), it will send another connection request
using port 2065 and the standard RFC 1795 session setup protocol.
6.3 UDP Datagrams
As mentioned above, UDP datagrams can be sent two different ways: unicast
(e.g., sent to a single unique IP address) or multicast (i.e., sent to an
IP multicast address). Throughout this document, the term UDP datagram
will be used to refer to SSP messages sent over UDP, while unicast and
multicast SSP messages will refer to the specific type/method of UDP packet
transport. In either case, standard UDP services are used to transport
these packets. In order to properly parse the inbound UDP packets and
deliver them to the SSP state machines, all DLSw UDP packets will use the
destination port of 2067.
In addition, the checksum function of UDP remains optional for DLSw SSP
messages. It is believed that the inherent CRC capabilities of all data
link transports will adequately protect SSP packets during transmission.
And the incremental exposure to intermediate nodal data corruption is
negligible. For further information on UDP packet formats see the "Frame
Formats" section.
6.3.1 Vendor Specific Functions over UDP
In order to accommodate vendor specific capabilities over UDP transport, a
new SSP packet format has been defined. This new packet format is required
because message traffic of this type is not necessarily preceded by a
capabilities exchange. Accordingly, DLSw's wishing to invoke a vendor
specific function may send out this new SSP packet format over UDP.
Because this packet can be sent over TCP connections and non-multicast
capable nodes may not be able to recognize it, implementations may only
send this packet over TCP to DLSw peers known to understand this packet
format (i.e., multicast capable). To avoid this situation in the future,
DLSws implementing these enhancements must ignore SSP packets with an
unrecognized DLSw version number in the range of x'31' to x'3F'. Further
information and the precise format for this new packet type is described
below in the "Frame Formats" section.
6.3.2 Unicast UDP Datagrams
Generically speaking, a unicast UDP datagram is utilized whenever an SSP
message (not requiring reliable transport) must be sent to a unique set
(not all) of DLSw peers. This avoids the overhead of having to establish
and maintain TCP connections when they are not required for reliable data
transport.
A typical example of when unicast UDP might be used would be an
ICANREACH_ex response from a peer DLSw (with which no TCP connection
currently exists). In this case, the sending DLSw knows the IP address of
the intended receiver and can simply send the response via unicast UDP.
In addition, there are a number of NetBIOS cases where unicast UDP is used
to handle UI frames directed to a specific DLSw (e.g., NetBIOS
STATUS_RESPONSE). Further detail is provided in the NetBIOS section of
this document.
6.3.3 Multicast UDP Datagrams
In a broad sense, multicast UDP datagrams are used whenever a given SSP
message must be sent to multiple DLSw peers. In the case of SNA, this is
primarily the CANUREACH_ex packets. In the case of NetBIOS, multicast
datagrams are used to send broadcast UI frames such as NetBIOS user
datagrams and broadcast datagrams.
Note, however, it is sometimes possible to avoid broadcasting certain
NetBIOS frames that would otherwise be broadcast in the LAN environment.
This is typically accomplished using name caching techniques not described
in this paper. In cases of this type when a single destination DLSw can
be determined, unicast transport can be used to send the 'broadcast'
NetBIOS frame to a single destination. A more detailed listing of NetBIOS
SSP packets and transport methods can be found in the NetBIOS section of
this document.
6.4 Unicast UDP Datagrams in Lieu of IP Multicast
Because the use of IP multicast services is actually a function of IP
itself and not DLSw proper, it is possible for implementations to simply
make use of the UDP transport mechanisms described in this paper without
making direct use of the IP multicast function. While this is not
considered to be as efficient as using multicast transport mechanisms, this
practice is not explicitly prohibited.
Implementations which choose to make use of UDP transport in this manner
must first know the IP address of all the potential target DLSw peers and
send individual unicast packets to each. How this information is obtained
and/or maintained is outside the scope of this paper.
As a matter of compliance, implementers need not send SSP packets outbound
over UDP as there are some conditions where this may not be necessary or
desirable. It is, however, required that implementers provide an option to
receive SSP packets over UDP.
6.5 TCP Transport
Despite the addition of UDP based packet transport, TCP remains the
fundamental form of communications between DLSw peers. In particular, TCP
is still used to carry all LLC2 based circuit data.
Throughout this document wherever UDP unicast (not multicast) is discussed,
the reader should be aware that TCP may be used instead. Moreover, it is
strongly recommended that TCP be used in preference to UDP whenever a TCP
connection to the destination already exists. Implementations, however,
should be prepared to receive SSP packets from either transport (TCP or
UDP).
7.Migration Support
It is anticipated that some networks will experience a transition stage
where both RFC 1795 (referred to as 'non-multicast' DLSws) and 'multicast
capable' DLSws will exist in the network at the same time. It will be
important for these two DLSw node types to interoperate and thus the
following accommodations for non-multicast DLSws are required:
7.1 Capabilities Exchange
In order to guarantee both backward and forward capability, DLSws which
implement these multicast enhancements will carry a "Multicast
Capabilities" Control Vector in their capabilities exchange (see RFC 1795
for an explanation of capabilities exchange protocols). Presence of the
Multicast Capabilities control vector indicates support for the protocols
defined in this document on a per DLSw peer basis. Conversely, lack of the
Multicast Capabilities control vector indicates no support for these
extensions on a per DLSw peer basis.
Additionally, nodes implementing these enhancement will carry a modified
DLSw Version control vector (x'82') indicating support for version 2
release 0.
Lastly, presence of these control vectors mandates a TCP Connections
Control Vector indicating support for 1 TCP connection in the same
Capabilities exchange.
If a multicast capable DLSw receives a Capabilities Exchange CV that
includes the Multicast Capabilites CV but does not meet the above criteria,
it must reject the capabilities exchange by sending a negative response as
described in section 11.1.1.
7.2 Connecting to Non-Multicast Capable Nodes
It is assumed that TCP connections to DLSw peers which do not support
multicast services are established by some means outside the scope of this
paper (i.e., non-multicast partner addresses are configured by the
customer). TCP connections must be established and maintained to down
level nodes in the exact same manner as RFC 1795 requires, establishes, and
maintains them. And because non-multicast DLSw peers will not indicate
support for multicast services in their capabilities exchange, a multicast
capable DLSw will know all its non-multicast peers.
7.3 Communicating with Multicast Capable Nodes
Because non-multicast nodes will not receive SSP frames via UDP (unicast or
multicast) transmission, SSP messages to these DLSw peers must be sent over
TCP connections. Therefore, nodes which implement the multicast protocol
enhancements must keep track of which DLSw peers do not support multicast
extensions (as indicated in the capabilities exchange). When a given
packet is sent out via multicast services, it must also be sent over
multicast UDP(to reach other multicast capable DLSw peers) and over the TCP
connection to each non-multicast node. And although the multicast service
requires periodic retransmissions (for reliability reasons), this is not
the case with TCP connections to non-multicast nodes. Therefore, multicast
capable DLSws should not resend SSP packets over TCP transport connection
but rather, rely upon TCP to recover any lost packets. Furthermore,
communications with non-multicast nodes should be in exact compliance with
RFC 1795 protocols.
When sending a unicast UDP message, it is important to know that the
destination DLSw supports multicast services. This knowledge can be
obtained from previous TCP connections/capabilities exchanges or inferred
from a previously received UDP message, but how this information is
obtained is outside the scope of this paper. In the latter case, if the
DLSw is non-multicast, then there would be a TCP connection to it and it
would be known to be non-multicast. If it is multicast capable and a TCP
connection is in existence, then its level is known (via the prior
capabilities exchange). If its capabilities are not known and there is not
an existing TCP connection, then it can be implied to be multicast capable
by virtue of a cached entry but no active TCP connection (e.g., TCP peer on
demand support). This inference, however, could be erroneous in cases
where the TCP connection (to a non-multicast DLSw) has failed for some
reason. But normal UDP based unicast verification mechanisms will detect no
active path to the destination and circuit setup will proceed correctly
(i.e., succeed or fail in accordance with true connectivity).
8.SNA Support
Note: This paper does not attempt to address the unique issues presented by
SNA/HPR and its non-ERP data links
In SNA protocols the generalized packet sequence of interest is a test
frame exchange followed by an XID exchange. In all cases, DLSw uses the
CANUREACH_ex and ICANREACH_ex SSP packets to complete address resolution
and circuit establishment. The following table describes how these packets
are transported via UDP between two multicast capable DLSw peers.
Transport
Message Event Action Mechanism Retry
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
TEST SEND CANUREACH_ex Multicast/UnicastYes
TEST RESPONSE SEND ICANREACH_ex Unicast No
The following paragraphs provide more detail on how UDP transport and
multicast protocol enhancements are used to establish SNA data links.
8.1 Address Resolution
When a DLSw receives an incoming test frame from an attached data link, the
assumption is that this is an exploratory frame in preparation for an XID
exchange and link activation. The DLSw must determine a correlation
between the destination LSAP (mac and sap pairing) and some other DLSw in
the transport network. This paper generically refers to this process as
"address resolution".
8.2 Explorer frames
Address resolution messages may be sent over a TCP connection to a
multicast capable DLSw peer if such a connection already exists in order
that they take advantage of the guaranteed delivery of TCP. This is
particularly recommended for ICANREACH_ex frames.
8.3 Circuit Setup
Circuit setup is accomplished in the same manner as described in RFC 1795.
More specifically, CANUREACH_cs, ICANREACH_cs, REACH_ACK, XIDFRAME, etc.
are all sent over the TCP connection to the appropriate DLSw. This, of
course, assumes the existence of a TCP connection between the DLSw peers.
If the sending DLSw (sending a CANUREACH_cs ) detects no active TCP
connection to the DLSw peer, then a TCP connection setup is initiated and
the packet sent. All other circuit setup (and takedown) related sequences
are now passed over the TCP connection.
8.4 Example SNA SSP Message Sequence
The following diagram provides an example sequence of flows associated with
an SNA LLC circuit setup. All flows and states described below
correspond precisely with those defined in RFC 1795. The only exception is
the addition of a TCP connection setup and DLSw capabilities exchange that
occurs when the origin DLSw must send a CANUREACH_CS and no TCP connection
yet exists to the target DLSw peer.
====== ___ ======
| | --------- __/ \__ --------- | |
| | __| _|_ |__ / IP \ __| _|_ |__ | |
====== | | | < Network > | | | ======
/______\ --------- \__ __/ --------- /______\
Origin Origin DLSw \___/ Target DLSw Target
Station partner partner Station
disconnected disconnected
TEST_cmd DLC_RESOLVE_C CANUREACH_ex TEST_cmd
-----------> -----------> -----------> ---------->
TEST_rsp DLC_RESOLVE_R ICANREACH_ex TEST_rsp
<--------- <----------- <----------- <----------
null XID DLC_XID
-----------> ----------->
circuit_start
TCP Connection Setup
<------------->
Capabilities Exch.
<------------->
CANUREACH_cs DLC_START_DL
-----------> ----------->
resolve_pending
ICANREACH_cs DLC_DL_STARTED
<----------- <-------------
circuit_established circuit_pending
REACH_ACK
-----------> circuit_established
XIDFRAME DLC_XID null XID
-----------> ---------> -------->
XID DLC_XID XIDFRAME DLC_XID XID
<-------- <----------- <----------- <----------- <--------
XIDs DLC_XIDs XIDFRAMEs DLC_XIDs XIDs
<----------> <----------> <------------> <------------> <--------->
SABME DLC_CONTACTED CONTACT DLC_CONTACT SABME
-----------> -----------> -----------> -----------> -------->
connect_pending contact_pending
UA DLC_CONTACT CONTACTED DLC_CONTACTED UA
<--------- <----------- <----------- <----------- <--------
connected connected
IFRAMEs DLC_INFOs IFRAMEs DLC_INFOs IFRAMEs
<----------> <-----------> <------------> <------------> <-------->
8.5 UDP Reliability
It is important to note, that UDP (unicast and multicast)transport services
do not provide a reliable means of delivery. Existing RFC 1795 protocols
guarantee the delivery (or failure notification) of CANUREACH_ex and
ICANREACH_ex messages. UDP will not provide the same level of reliability.
It is, therefore, possible that these messages may be lost in the network
and (CANUREACH_ex) retries will be necessary.
8.5.1 Retries
Test Frames are generally initiated by end stations every few seconds.
Many existing RFC 1795 DLSw implementations take advantage of the reliable
SSP TCP connections and filter out end station Test frame retries when a
CANUREACH_ex is outstanding. Given the unreliable nature of UDP transport
for these messages, however, this filtering technique may not be advisable.
Neither RFC 1795 nor this paper address this issue specifically. It is
simply noted that the UDP transport mechanism is unreliable and
implementations should take this into account when determining a scheme for
Test frame filtering and explorer retries. Accordingly, the "Retry"
section in the table above only serves as an indicator of situations where
retries may be desirable and/or necessary, but does not imply any
requirement to implement retries. Also note, that retry logic only applies
to non-response type packets. It is not appropriate to retry response type
SSP packets (i.e., ICANREACH_ex) as there is no way of knowing if the
original response was ever received (and whether retry is necessary). So in
the case of SNA, CANUREACH_ex messages may need retry logic and
ICANREACH_ex messages do not.
9.NetBIOS
With the introduction of DLSw Multicast transport, all multicast NetBIOS UI
frames are carried outside the TCP connections between DLSw peers (i.e.,
via UDP datagrams). The following table defines the various NetBIOS UI
frames and how they are transported via UDP between multicast capable DLSw
peers:
Transport
Message Event Action Mechanism Retry
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
---
ADD_GROUP_NAME_QUERY SEND DATAFRAME Multicast Yes
ADD_NAME_QUERY SEND NETBIOS_ANQ Multicast Yes
ADD_NAME_RESPONSE SEND NETBIOS_ANR Unicast1 No
NAME_IN_CONFLICT SEND DATAFRAME Multicast No
STATUS_QUERY SEND DATAFRAME Unicast/Multicast2 Yes
STATUS_RESPONSE SEND DATAFRAME Multicast5 No
TERMINATE_TRACE (x'07') SEND DATAFRAME Multicast No
TERMINATE_TRACE (X'13') SEND DATAFRAME Multicast No
DATAGRAM SEND DATAFRAME3 Unicast/Multicast2 No
DATAGRAM_BROADCAST SEND DATAFRAME Multicast No
NAME_QUERY SEND NETBIOS_NQ_ex Unicast/Multicast2 Yes
NAME_RECOGNIZED SEND NETBIOS_NR_ex Unicast4 No
Note 1:
Upon receipt of an ADD_NAME_RESPONSE frame, a NETBIOS_ANR SSP message is
returned via unicast UDP to the originator of the NETBIOS_ANQ message.
Note 2:
These frames may be sent either Unicast or Multicast UDP. If the
implementation has sufficient cached information to resolve the NetBIOS
datagram destination to a single DLSw peer, then the SSP message can and
should be sent via unicast. If the cache does not contain such information
then the resultant SSP message must be sent via multicast UDP.
Note 3:
Note that this frame is sent as either a DATAFRAME or DGRMFRAME according
to the rules as specified in RFC 1795.
Note 4:
Upon receipt of a NAME_RECOGNIZED frame, a NETBIOS_NR_ex SSP message is
returned via unicast UDP to the originator of the NETBIOS_NQ_ex frame.
Notice that although the NAME_RECOGNIZED frame is sent as an All Routes
Explorer (source routing LANs only) frame, the resultant NETBIOS_NR_ex is
sent as a unicast UDP directed response to the DLSw originating the
NETBIOS_NQ_ex. This is because there is no value in sending NETBIOS_NR_ex
as a multicast packet in the transport network. The use of ARE
transmission in the LAN environment is to accomplish some form of load
sharing in the source routed LAN environment. Since no analogous
capability exists in the (TCP) transport network, it is not necessary to
emulate this function there. It is important to note, however, that when
converting a received NETBIOS_NR_ex to a NAME_RECOGNIZED frame, the DLSw
sends the NAME_RECOGNIZED frame onto the LAN as an ARE (source routing LANs
only) frame. This preserves the source route load sharing in the LAN
environments on either side of the DLSw transport network.
Note 5:
Although RFC 1795 does not attempt to optimize STATUS_RESPONSE processing,
it is possible to send a STATUS_RESPONSE as a unicast UDP response. To do
this, DLSws receiving an incoming SSP DATAFRAME containing a STATUS_QUERY
must remember the originating DLSw's address and STATUS_QUERY correlator.
Then upon receipt of the corresponding STATUS_RESPONSE, the DLSw responds
via unicast UDP to the originating DLSw(using the remembered originating
DLSw address). Note, however, that in order to determine whether a frame
is a STATUS_QUERY, all multicast capable DLSw implementations will need to
parse the contents of frames that would normally be sent as DATAFRAME SSP
messages.
All other multicast frames are sent into the transport network using the
appropriate multicast group address.
9.1 Address Resolution
Typical NetBIOS circuit setup using multicast services is essentially the
same as specified in RFC 1795. The only significant difference is that
NETBIOS_NQ_ex messages are sent via UDP to the appropriate
unicast/multicast IP address and the NETBIOS_NR_ex is sent via unicast UDP
to the DLSw originating the NETBIOS_NQ_ex.
9.2 Explorer Frames
Address resolution messages may be sent over a TCP connection to a
multicast capable partner if such a connection already exists in order that
they take advantage of the guaranteed delivery of TCP. This is
particularly recommended for NETBIOS_NR_ex frames.
9.3 Circuit Setup
Following successful address resolution, a NetBIOS end station typically
sends a SABME frame to initiate a formal LLC2 connection. Receipt of this
message results in normal circuit setup as described in RFC 1795 (and the
SNA case described above). That is to say that the CANUREACH_cs messages
etc. are sent on a TCP connection to the appropriate DLSw peer. If no such
TCP connection exists, one is brought up.
9.4 Example NetBIOS SSP Message Sequence
The following diagram provides an example sequence of flows associated with
a NetBIOS circuit setup. All flows and states described below correspond
precisely with those defined in RFC 1795. The only exception is the
addition of a TCP connection setup and DLSw capabilities exchange that
occurs when the origin DLSw must send a CANUREACH_cs and no TCP connection
yet exists to the target DLSw peer.
====== ___ ======
| | --------- __/ \__ --------- | |
| | __| _|_ |__ / IP \ __| _|_ |__ | |
====== | | | < Network > | | | ======
/______\ --------- \__ __/ --------- /______\
Origin Origin DLSw \___/ Target DLSw Target
Station partner partner Station
disconnected disconnected
NAME_QUERY DLC_DGRM NETBIOS_NQ_ex DLC_DGRM NAME_QUERY
-----------> -----------> -----------> -----------> --------->
NAME_RECOG DLC_DGRM NETBIOS_NR_ex DLC_DGRM NAME_RECOG
<----------- <------------ <----------- <----------- <---------
SABME DLC_CONTACTED
-----------> ----------->
circuit_start
TCP Connection Setup
<------------->
Capabilities Exch.
<------------->
CANUREACH_cs DLC_START_DL
-----------> ----------->
resolve_pending
ICANREACH_cs DLC_DL_STARTED
<----------- <-----------
circuit_established circuit_pending
REACH_ACK
-----------> circuit_established
CONTACT DLC_CONTACT SABME
-----------> -----------> --------->
connect_pending contact_pending
UA DLC_CONTACT CONTACTED DLC_CONTACTED UA
<--------- <----------- <----------- <----------- <---------
connected connected
IFRAMEs DLC_INFOs IFRAMEs DLC_INFOs IFRAMEs
<------------> <------------> <------------> <------------> <-------->
9.5 Multicast Reliability and Retries
In the case of NetBIOS, many more packets are being sent via UDP than in
the SNA case. Therefore, the exposure to the unreliability of these
services is greater than that of SNA. For address resolution frames, such
as NAME_QUERY, etc., successful message delivery is an issue. In
addition, the retry interval for these types of frames is considerably
shorter than SNA with the defaults being: retry interval = 0.5 seconds and
retry count = 6. Once again, neither RFC 1795 or this paper attempt to
address the issue of LAN frame filtering optimizations. This issue is
outside the scope of this paper. But it is important for implementers to
recognize the inherent unreliable nature of UDP transport services for
frames of this type and to implement retry schemes that are appropriate to
successful operation. Again, it is only appropriate to consider retry of
non-response type packets. Specific NetBIOS messages where successful
message delivery is considered important (and retries possibly necessary)
are indicated in the table above with an "Yes" in the "Retry" column.
10. Sequencing
It is important to note that UDP transport services do not provide
guaranteed packet sequencing like TCP does for RFC 1795. In a steady state
network, in order packet delivery can be generally assumed. But in the
presence of network outages and topology changes, packets may take
alternate routes to the destination and arrive out of sequence with respect
to their original transmission order. For SNA address resolution this
should not be a problem given that there is no inherent significance to the
order of packets being transmitted via UDP.
In the case of NetBIOS, in order delivery is not guaranteed in the normal
case (e.g., LANs). This is because LAN broadcasting mechanisms suffer the
same problems of packet sequencing as do WAN multicast mechanisms. But
one might argue the greater likelihood of topology related changes in the
WAN environment and thus a greater level of concern. The vast majority of
NetBIOS UI frames (being handled via UDP and Multicast) have correlator
values and do not rely upon packet sequencing.
The only NetBIOS frames of special note would be: DATAGRAM,
DATAGRAM_BROADCAST, and STATUS_RESPONSE. In the case of DATAGRAM and
DATAGRAM_BROADCAST it is generally assumed that datagrams do not provide
any guarantee of in order packet delivery. Thus applications utilizing
this NetBIOS service are assumed to have no dependency on in order packet
delivery. STATUS_RESPONSE can actually be sent as a sequence of
STATUS_RESPONSE messages. In cases where this occurs, the STATUS_RESPONSE
will be exposed to potential out of sequence delivery.
11. Frame Formats
11.1 Multicast Capabilities Control Vector
This control vector is carried in the Capabilities Exchange Request. When
present, it must be accompanied by a TCP Connections Control Vector
indicating support for 1 TCP/IP connection and a DLSw version CV indicating
support for version 2 release 0. Like all control vectors in this SSP
message, it is an LT structure. LT structures consist of a 1 byte length
field followed by a 1 byte type field. The length field includes itself
as well as the type and data fields.
Byte Bit Description
0 0-7 Length, in binary, of the Multicast Capabilities control
vector (inclusive of this byte, always 3)
1 0-7 Type: x'8C'
2 0-7 Multicast Version Number:
A binary numerical representation of the level of multicast
services provided. The protocols as identified in this
document constitute version one. Accordingly, x'01' is
encoded in this field. Any subsequent version must provide
the services of all previous versions.
The intended use of this CV for Multicast support is to detect when the
multicast CUR_ex flows will suffice between partners. If this CV is
present in a CAPEX from a partner, that partner is also multicast capable
and therefore does not need to receive CANUREACH_ex messages over the TCP
link that exists between them (and there must be one or else the CAPEX
would not have flowed) because it will receive the multicast copies.
A DLSw includes this control vector on a peer-wise basis. That is to say,
that a DLSw implementation may support multicast services but choose not to
indicate this in its capabilities exchange to all partners. Therefore, a
DLSw may include this capabilities CV with some DLSw peers and not with
others. Not including this vector can be used to force TCP connections
with other multicast capable nodes and degrade to normal RFC 1795
operations. This capability is allowed to provide greater network design
flexibility.
When sending this capabilities exchange control vector, the following rules
apply:
Required Allowed @
ID @ Startup Length Repeatable* Runtime Order Content
==== ========= ====== ========== ======= ===== ===============
0x8C Y 0x03 N N 5+ Multicast
Capabilities
*Note: "Repeatable" means a Control Vector is repeatable within a single
message.
11.1.1 DLSw Capabilities Negative Response
DLSws that implement these enhancements must provide support for both
multicast version 1 and single TCP connections. This means that the
capabilities exchange request must contain a DLSw Version ID control vector
(x'82') indicating support for version 2 release 0, a Multicast
Capabilities control vector, and the TCP Connections control vector
indicating support for 1 TCP connection within a given capabilities
exchange. If a multicast capable DLSw receives a capabilities exchange with
a Multicast Capabilities, but either a missing or inappropriate TCP
Connections CV (i.e., connections not equal to one)or DLSw Version control
vector, then the inbound capabilities exchange should be rejected with a
DLSw capabilities exchange negative response (see RFC 1795) using the
following new reason code:
x'000D'Inconsistent DLSw Version, Multicast Capabilities, and TCP
Connections CV
received on the inbound Capabilities exchange
11.2 UDP Packets
SSP frame formats are defined in RFC 1795. Multicast protocol enhancements
do not change these formats in any way. The multicast protocol
enhancements, however, do introduce the notion of SSP packet transport via
UDP. In this case, standard UDP services and headers are used to transport
SSP packets.
The following section describes the proper UDP header for DLSw SSP packets.
Byte Description
0-1 Source Port address
In DLSw multicast protocols, this particular field is not
relevant. It may be set to any value.
2-3 Destination Port address
Always set to 2067
4-5 Length
6-7 Checksum
The standard UDP checksum value. Use of the UDP checksum
function is optional.
11.3 Vendor Specific UDP Packets
In order to accommodate the addition of vendor specific functions over UDP
transport, a new SSP packet header has been defined. As described above, it
is possible to receive these packets over both UDP and TCP (when a TCP
connection already exists).
It is important to note that the first 4 bytes of this packet match the
format of existing RFC 1795 SSP packets. This is done so that
implementations in the future can expect that the DLSw "Version Number" is
found in byte one and that the following bytes describe the packet header
and message length.
Furthermore, to assist DLSws in detecting 'out-of-sync' conditions whereby
packet or parsing errors lead to improper length interpretations in the TCP
datastream, valid DLSw version numbers will be restricted to the range of
x'31' through x'3F' inclusive.
DLSw multicast Vendor Specific frame format differs from existing RFC 1795
packets in the following ways:
1) The "Version Number" field is set to x'32' (ASCII '2') and now
represents a packet type more than a DLSw version number. More precisely,
it is permitted and expected that DLSw may send packets of both types
(x'31' and x'32').
2) The message length field is followed by a new 3 byte field that contains
the specific vendor's IEEE Organizationally Unique Identifier (OUI).
3) All fields following the new OUI field are arbitrary and defined by
implementers.
The following section defines this new packet format:
Byte Description
0 DLSw packet type, Always set to x'32'
1 Header Length
Always 7 or higher
2-3 Message Length
Number of bytes within the data field following the header.
4-6 Vendor specific OUI
The IEEE Organizationally Unique Identifier (OUI) associated
with the vendor specific function in question.
7-n Defined by the OUI owner
12. Compliance Statement
All DLSw v2.0 implementations must support
- Halt reason codes
- the Multicast Capabilities control vector in the DLSw capabilities
exchanges messages.
The presence of the Multicast Capabilities control vector in a capabilities
exchange message implies that the DLSw that issued the message supports all
the scalability enhancements defined in this document. These are:
- use of multicast IP (if it is available in the underlying network)
- use of 2067 as the destination port for UDP and TCP connections
- single tunnel bring-up of TCP connections to DLSw peers
- peer-on-demand
- quiet ignore of all unrecognized vendor-specific UDP/TCP packets.
13. Security Considerations
This document addresses only scalability problems in RFC 1795. No attempt
is made to define any additional security mechanisms. Note that, as in RFC
1795, a given implementation may still choose to refuse TCP connections
from DLSw peers that have not been configured by the user. The mechanism
by which the user configures this behavior is not specified in this
document.
14. Acknowledgements
This specification was developed in the DLSw Related Interest Group (RIG)
of the APPN Implementers Workshop. This RIG is chaired by Louise Herndon-
Wells (lhwells@cup.portal.com) and edited by Paul Brittain
(pjb@datcon.co.uk).
Much of the work on the scalability enhancements for v2.0 was developed by
Dave Bryant (3COM).
Other significant contributors to this document include:
Frank Bordonaro (Cisco)
Jon Houghton (IBM)
Steve Klein (IBM)
Ravi Periasamy (Cisco)
Mike Redden (Proteon)
Doug Wolff (3COM)
Many thanks also to all those who participated in the DLSw RIG sessions and
mail exploder discussions.
If you would like to participate in future DLSw discussions, please
subscribe to the DLSw RIG mailing lists by sending a mail to
majordomo@raleigh.ibm.com specifying 'subscribe aiw-dlsw' as the body of
the message.
If you would like further information on the activities of the AIW, please
refer to the AIW web site at http://www.raleigh.ibm.com/app/aiwhome.htm.
15. Authors' Addresses
The editor of this document is:
Paul Brittain
Data Connection Ltd
Windsor House
Pepper Street
Chester
CH1 1DF
UK
tel: +44 1244 313440
email: pjb@datcon.co.uk
Much of the work on this document was created by:
David Bryant
3Com Corporation
5400 Bayfront Plaza MS 2418
Santa Clara, CA 95052
tel: (408) 764-5272
email: David_Bryant@3mail.3com.com
16.
16. Appendix - Clarifications to RFC 1795
This appendix attempts to clarify the areas of RFC 1795 that have proven to
be ambiguous or hard to understand in the implementation experience to-
date. These clarifications should be read in conjunction with RFC 1795 as
this document does not reproduce the complete text of that RFC.
The clarifications are ordered by the section number in RFC 1795 to which
they apply. Where one point applies to more than one place in RFC 1795, it
is listed below by the first relevant section.
If any implementers encounter further difficulties in understanding RFC
1795 or these clarifications, they are encouraged to query the DLSw mail
exploder (see section 1.1) for assistance.
3. Send Port
It is not permitted for a DLSw implementation to check that the send port
used by a partner is 2067. All implementations must accept connections
from partners that do not use this port.
3 TCP Tunnel bringup
The paragraph below the figure should read as follows:
Each Data Link Switch will maintain a list of DLSw capable routers
and their status (active/inactive). Before Data Link Switching can
occur between two routers, they must establish two TCP connections
between them. These connections are treated as half duplex data
pipes. A Data Link Switch will listen for incoming connections on its
Read Port (2065), and initiate outgoing connections on its Write Port
(2067). Each Switch is responsible for initiating one of the two TCP
connections. After the TCP connections are established, SSP messages
are exchanged to establish the capabilities of the two Data Link
Switches. Once the exchange is complete, the DLSw will employ SSP
control messages to establish end-to-end circuits over the transport
connection. Within the transport connection, DLSw SSP messages are
exchanged. The message formats and types for these SSP messages are
documented in the following sections.
3.2 RII bit in SSP header MAC addresses
The RII bit in MAC addresses received from the LAN must be set to zero
before forwarding in the source or destination address field in a SSP
message header. This requirement aims to avoid ambiguity of circuit IDs.
It is also recommended that all implementations ignore this bit in received
SSP message headers.
3.3 Transport IDs
All implementations must allow for the DLSw peer varying the Transport ID
up to and including when the ICR_cs message flows, and at all times reflect
the most recent TID received from the partner in any SSP messages sent.
The TID cannot vary once the ICR_cs message has flowed.
3.4 LF bits
LF-bits should be propagated from LAN to SSP to LAN (and back) as per a
bridge (i.e. they can only be revised downwards at each step if required).
3.5 KEEPALIVE messages
The SSP KEEPALIVE message (x1D) uses the short ("infoframe") version of the
SSP header. All DLSw implementation must support receipt and quiet ignore
of this message, but there is not requirement to send it. There is no
response to a KEEPALIVE message.
3.5 MAC header for Netbios SSP frames
The MAC header is included in forwarded SSP Netbios frames in the format
described below:
- addresses are always in non-canonical format
- src/dest addresses are as per the LLC frame
- AC/FC bits may be reset and must be ignored
- SSAP, DSAP and command fields are included
- RII bit in src address is copied from the LLC frame
- the RIF length is not extended to include padding
- all RIFs are padded to 18 bytes so that the data is
in a consistent place.
3.5,7 Unrecognized control vectors
All implementations should quietly ignore unrecognized control vectors in
any SSP messages. In particular, unrecognized SSP frames or unrecognized
fields in a CAPEX message should be quietly ignored without dropping the
TCP connection.
5.4 Use of CUR-cs/CUR-ex
The SSAP and DSAP numbers in CUR_ex messages should reflect those actually
used in the TEST (or equivalent) frame that caused the CUR_ex message to
flow. This would mean that the SAP numbers in a 'typical' CUR_ex frame for
SNA traffic switched from a LAN will be a source SAP of x04 and a
destination SAP of x00.
The CUR_cs frame should only be sent when the DSAP is known. Specifically,
CUR_ex should be used when a NULL XID is received that is targeted at DSAP
zero, and CUR_cs when a XID specifying the (non-zero) DSAP is received.
Note that this does not mean that an implementation can assume that the
DSAP on a CUR_ex will always be zero. The ICR_ex must always reflect the
SSAP and DSAP values sent on the CUR_ex. This is still true even if an
implementation always sends a TEST with DSAP = x00 on its local LAN(s) in
response to a CUR_ex to any SAP.
An example of a situation where the CUR_ex may flow with a non-zero DSAP is
when there is an APPN stack local to the DLSw node. The APPN stack may
then issue a connection request specifying the DSAP as a non-zero value.
This would then be passed on the CUR_ex message.
7.6.1 Vendor IDs
The Vendor ID field in a CAPEX may be zero. However, a zero Vendor Context
ID is not permitted, which implies that an implementation that uses a zero
ID cannot send any vendor-specific CVs (other than those specified by other
vendors that do have a non-zero ID)
7.6.3 Initial Pacing Window
The initial pacing window may be 1. There is no requirement on an
implementation to use any minimum value for the initial pacing window.
7.6.7 TCP Tunnel bringup
The third paragraph should read:
If TCP Connections CV values agree and the number of connections is
one, then the DLSw with the higher IP address must tear down the TCP
connections on its local port 2065. This connection is torn down
after a CAPEX response has been both sent and received. After this
point, the remaining TCP connection is used to exchange data in both
directions.
7.7 CAPEX negative responses
If a DLSw does not support any of the options specified on a CAPEX received
from a partner, or if it thinks the CAPEX is malformed, it must send a
CAPEX negative response to the partner. The receiver of a CAPEX negative
response is then responsible for dropping the connection. It is not
permitted to drop the link instead of sending a CAPEX negative response.
8.2 Flow Control ACKs
The first flow-control ack (FCACK) does not have to be returned on the
REACH_ACK even if the ICR_cs carried the FCIND bit. However it should be
returned on the first SSP frame flowing for that circuit after the
REACH_ACK.
INTERNET-DRAFT EXPIRES: SEPTEMBER 1997 INTERNET-DRAFT