Network Working Group Muneyoshi Suzuki
INTERNET DRAFT NTT
Expires March 18, 1997 September 18, 1996
ST2+ over ATM
Protocol Specification - UNI 3.1 Version
<draft-suzuki-st2-over-atm-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), nic.nordu.net (Europe),
munnari.oz.au (Pacific Rim), ds.internic.net (US East Coast), or
ftp.isi.edu (US West Coast).
Abstract
This document specifies an ATM-based protocol for communication
between ST2+ agents. The ST2+ over ATM protocol supports the matching
of one hop in an ST2+ tree-structure stream with one ATM connection.
In this document, ATM is a subnet technology for the ST2+ stream.
The ST2+ over ATM protocol is designed to achieve resource-
reservation communications across ATM and non-ATM networks, to extend
the UNI 3.1/4.0 signaling functions, and to reduce the UNI 4.0 LIJ
signaling limitations.
The specifications of the ST2+ over ATM protocol consist of a
revision of RFC 1819 ST2+ and specifications of protocol interaction
between ST2+ and ATM on the user plane, management plane, and control
plane which correspond to the three planes of the B-ISDN protocol
reference model.
Suzuki Expires March, 1997 [Page 1]
INTERNET DRAFT draft-suzuki-st2-over-atm-00.txt September, 1996
1. Introduction
1.1 Purpose of Document
The purpose of this document is to specify an ATM-based protocol for
communication between ST2+ agents.
The ST2+ over ATM protocol is designed to support the matching of one
hop in an ST2+ tree-structure stream with one ATM connection; it is
not designed to support an entire ST2+ tree-structure stream with a
point-to-multipoint ATM connection only.
Therefore, in this document, ATM is only a subnet technology for the
ST2+ stream. This specification is designed to enable resource-
reservation communications across ATM and non-ATM networks.
1.2 Features of ST2+ over ATM Protocol
o Enables resource-reservation communications across ATM and non-ATM
networks.
ATM native API supports resource-reservation communications only
within an ATM network; it cannot support interworking with non-ATM
networks. This is because
- ATM native API cannot connect terminals without an ATM interface.
- ATM native API does not support IP addressing and SAP (port)
addressing systems.
o Extends UNI 3.1/4.0 signaling functions.
ST2+ SCMP supports MTU-size negotiation at all hops in an ST2+
tree-structure stream. UNI 3.1/4.0 supports only max CPCS-SDU
(i.e., MTU) negotiation with the called party of a point-to-point
call or with the first leaf of a point-to-multipoint call.
o Reduces UNI 4.0 LIJ signaling limitations.
The ST2+ over ATM protocol supports UNI 4.0 LIJ Call Identifier
notification from the root to the leaf by using an ST2+ SCMP
extension. LIJ Call Identifier discovery at the leaf is one of the
major unsolved problems of UNI 4.0, and the ST2+ over ATM protocol
provides a solution.
Note: The UNI 3.1 version of the ST2+ over ATM protocol does not
support the above feature. It will be supported by the UNI 3.1/4.0
Suzuki Expires March, 1997 [Page 2]
INTERNET DRAFT draft-suzuki-st2-over-atm-00.txt September, 1996
version.
1.3 Goals and Non-goals of ST2+ over ATM Protocol
The ST2+ over ATM protocol is designed to achieve the following
goals.
o Specify protocol interaction between ST2+ [4] and ATM on the ATM
Forum Private UNI 3.1/4.0 (Sb point) [5].
Note: The UNI 3.1 version of the ST2+ over ATM protocol does not
support UNI 4.0. It will be supported by the UNI 3.1/4.0 version.
o Support ST2+ stream across ATM and non-ATM networks.
o Define one VC on the UNI corresponding to one ST2+ stream; this VC
is not shared with other ST2+ streams.
o Support both SVC and PVC.
o Not require any ATM specification changes.
o Coexist with RFC 1483 [14] IPv4 encapsulation.
o Coexist with RFC 1577 [15] ATMarp.
o Coexist with RFC 1755 [16] ATM signaling for IPv4.
o Coexist with NHRP [17].
o Incorporate the I.371 [13] ITU-T new traffic control recommendation
for ATM WAN connectivity.
Because ST2+ is independent of both routing and IP address resolution
protocols, the ST2+ over ATM protocol does not specify the following
protocols.
o IP-ATM address resolution protocol
o Routing protocol
Because the ST2+ over ATM protocol is specified for the UNI, it is
independent of:
o NNI protocol
o Router/switch architecture
Suzuki Expires March, 1997 [Page 3]
INTERNET DRAFT draft-suzuki-st2-over-atm-00.txt September, 1996
2. Protocol Architecture
The ST2+ over ATM protocol specifies the interaction between ST2+ and
ATM on the user, management, and control planes, which correspond to
the three planes in ITU-T Recommendation I.321 B-ISDN Protocol
Reference Model [10].
2.1 User Plane Architecture
The user plane specifies the rules for encapsulating the ST2+ Data
PDU into the AAL5 [12] or AAL1 [11] PDU. An user plane protocol stack
is shown in Fig. 2.1.
+---------------------------------+
| RFC 1819 ST2+ |
| (ST2+ Data) |
+---------------------------------+ Point of ST2+ over ATM
|/////////////////////////////////| <--- protocol specification of
+----------------+----------------+ user plane
| | |
| | |
| I.363.1 | I.363.5 |
| | |
| AAL1 | AAL5 |
| | |
| | |
+----------------+----------------+
| I.361 ATM |
+---------------------------------+
| PHY |
+----------------+----------------+
| UNI
+--------||-------
Fig. 2.1: User plane protocol stack.
The 12 byte ST header in the ST2+ Data PDU is not mapped to the AAL
PDU, because in the ST2+ over ATM architecture, one VC on a UNI
corresponds to one ST2+ data stream. Therefore, once a VC for an
ST2+ data stream is established, none of the ST header information is
needed in the ATM network.
If the ST2+ agent forwards the ST2+ Data PDU from an ATM to a non-ATM
network, the ST header must be reconstructed. In this case, all of
the ST header information, except for the Pri field, is obtained from
the ST header in the SCMP that established the stream. However
obtaining the Pri field value from the ST header in the SCMP is
Suzuki Expires March, 1997 [Page 4]
INTERNET DRAFT draft-suzuki-st2-over-atm-00.txt September, 1996
impossible, because the Pir field value in the ST header is assigned
to each ST2+ Data PDU.
Therefore, the ST2+ over ATM protocol specifies an optional function
that forwards the value of the Pri field in the ST header if AAL5 is
used for the ST2+ Data PDU encapsulation. This function uses the
AAL5 CPCS_UU (CPCS User-to-User) indication field. If this function
is used, the ST header is fully reconstructed. If the optional
function is not used in AAL5, or AAL1 is used to encapsulate the ST2+
Data PDU, the value of the Pri field in the ST header is lost.
An example of interworking from an ATM network to an IEEE 802.X LAN
is shown in Fig. 2.2.
ST2+ ST2+ ST2+
Origin ATM Cloud Intermediate Agent Target
+---------+ +---------+
| AP |--------------------------------------------->| AP |
+---------+ +-------------------+ +---------+
|ST2+ Data|------------------>| RFC 1819 ST2+ Data|----->|ST2+ Data|
+---------+ +---------+---------+ +---------+
|I.363 AAL|------------------>|I.363 AAL| SNAP |----->| SNAP |
+---------+ +---------+ +---------+---------+ +---------+
|I.361 ATM|--->|I.361 ATM|--->|I.361 ATM| LLC |----->| LLC |
+---------+ +---------+ +---------+---------+ +---------+
| PHY |--->| PHY |--->| PHY |IEEE802.X|----->|IEEE802.X|
+---------+ +---------+ +---------+---------+ +---------+
Fig. 2.2: Example of interworking from
an ATM network to an IEEE 802.X LAN.
The ATM cell supports priority indication using the CLP field;
indication is also supported by the ST2+ Data PDU by using the Pri
field. It may be feasible to map these fields to each other. The
ST2+ over ATM protocol specifies an optional function that maps the
Pri field in the ST header to the CLP field in the ATM cell.
However, implementors should note that current ATM standardization
tends not to support tagging, and also that this optional function
assumes the value of the Pri field can be obtained in the ATM
network.
2.2 Management Plane Architecture
The management plane specifies, or refers to a document that
specifies, the Controlled-Load Services [6] FlowSpec or the
Guaranteed Services [7] FlowSpec mapping rules for UNI 3.1 traffic
management. A management plane protocol stack is shown in Fig. 2.3.
Suzuki Expires March, 1997 [Page 5]
INTERNET DRAFT draft-suzuki-st2-over-atm-00.txt September, 1996
+---------------------------------+
|Controlled-Load Service FlowSpec |
| Guaranteed Service FlowSpec |
+---------------------------------+ Point of ST2+ over ATM
|/////////////////////////////////| <--- protocol specification of
+---------------------------------+ management plane
| |
| UNI 3.1/4.0 |
| |
| |
| Traffic Management |
| |
| |
| CBR/VBR/UBR |
| |
+---------------------------------+
Note: The UNI 3.1 version of the ST2+ over ATM protocol does not
support UNI 4.0. It will be supported by the UNI 3.1/4.0 version.
Fig. 2.3: Management plane protocol stack.
The usage of the INT-SERV FlowSpec in the ST2+ environment is defined
in another document [8]. Basically, FlowSpec parameter negotiation,
except for the MTU, is not supported. The ST2+ intermediate agent and
the target decide whether to accept or refuse the FlowSpec
parameters, except for the MTU. Therefore, each of the FlowSpec
parameter values other than MTU is the same at each target in the
stream.
The ST2+ over ATM protocol supports FlowSpec changes by using the
CHANGE message (RFC 1819, Section 4.6.5) if the I-bit in the CHANGE
message is set to one and if the CHANGE message affects all targets
in the stream. This is because the current ATM standard does not
support QoS changes. The ST2+ over ATM protocol supports FlowSpec
changes by releasing old ATM connections and establishing new ones.
The ST2+ over ATM protocol does not support stream preemption (RFC
1819, Section 6.3). This is because the INT-SERV FlowSpec does not
support the concept of precedence.
It does not support the ST2+ FlowSpec (RFC 1819, Section 9.2). ST2+
FlowSpec specifies useful services, but requires a data link layer to
support heterogeneous QoS to receivers. The current ATM standard
does not support heterogeneous QoS to receivers.
Suzuki Expires March, 1997 [Page 6]
INTERNET DRAFT draft-suzuki-st2-over-atm-00.txt September, 1996
2.3 Control Plane Architecture
The control plane specifies the relationship between ST2+ SCMP and
PVC management for ST2+ data and the protocol interaction between
ST2+ SCMP and Q.2931 UNI signaling [5, 9]. A control plane protocol
stack is shown in Fig. 2.4.
+---------------------------------+
| RFC 1819 ST2+ |
| (ST2+ SCMP) |
+---------------------------------+ Point of ST2+ over ATM
|/////////////////////////////////| <--- protocol specification of
+----------------+----------------+ control plane
| IEEE 802 |Q.2931 Signaling|
| SNAP +----------------+
+----------------+ Q.2130 SSCF |
| ISO 8802-2 +----------------+
| LLC Type1 | Q.2110 SSCOP |
+----------------+----------------+
| I.363.5 AAL5 |
+---------------------------------+
| I.361 ATM |
+---------------------------------+
| PHY |
+----------------+----------------+
| UNI
+--------||-------
Fig. 2.4: Control plane protocol stack.
The ST2+ SCMP PDU is mapped to the AAL5 PDU based on the RFC 1483 LLC
encapsulation format. The ST2+ over ATM protocol does not cover a VC
(SVC/PVC) that transfers ST2+ SCMP. VCs for IPv4 transfer may be used
for ST2+ SCMP transfer, and implementations may provide particular
VCs for ST2+ SCMP transfer. Selection of these VCs depends on the
implementation.
Implementors should note that when ST2+ data and SCMP belong to a
stream, the routing directions on the ST2+ layer must be the same.
Implementors should also note that ST2+ and IPv4 directions for
routing to the same IP destination address are not always the same.
The ST2+ over ATM protocol supports both SVC and PVC for ST2+ Data
PDU transfer. If SVC is used, the ST2+ and ATM layers establish a
connection sequentially by using respectively ST2+ SCMP and Q.2931.
An example of ST2+ SCMP and Q.2931 message flows for establishing and
releasing of ST2+ data connections is shown in Fig. 2.5, where (S)
means an ST2+ entity and (Q) means a Q.2931 entity.
Suzuki Expires March, 1997 [Page 7]
INTERNET DRAFT draft-suzuki-st2-over-atm-00.txt September, 1996
ATM SW ATM SW
+------------+ UNI +----+ NNI +----+ UNI +------------+
____|Intermediate|--||--| \/ |______| \/ |--||--|Intermediate|____
| (Upstream) | | /\ | | /\ | |(Downstream)|
+------------+ +----+ +----+ +------------+
SCMP
------->(S)<------------------------------------------>(S)<-------
\ Q.2931 Q.2931 /
CONNECT | (Q)<--------->(Q)<-------->(Q)<--------->(Q) |
-------->| |
ACK <----|--------------------CONNECT------------------>| CONNECT
|<---------------------ACK---------------------|-------->
| |<--- ACK
| | ACCEPT
| |<--------
|<-------------------ACCEPT--------------------|---> ACK
|----------------------ACK-------------------->|
| |
|->|----SETUP--->| | | |
| |<-CALL PROC--|----------->|----SETUP--->|->|
| | | |<----CONN----|<-|
ACCEPT | |<----CONN----|<-----------|--CONN ACK-->|->|
<--------|<-|--CONN ACK-->| | | |
ACK ---->| |
| |
-------\ |--------------------------------------------\ |-------\
>| ST2+ Data >| >
-------/ |--------------------------------------------/ |-------/
| |
DISCONN | |
-------->| |
ACK <----|-------------------DISCONNECT---------------->|
|<---------------------ACK---------------------|
| |
|->|---RELEASE-->| | | |
|<-|<--REL COMP--|----------->|---RELEASE-->|->| DISCONN
| | | |<--REL COMP--|<-|-------->
| |<--- ACK
Fig. 2.5: Example of ST2+ SCMP and Q.2931 message flows.
UNI 3.1/4.0 specifies PVC, point-to-point SVC, and point-to-
multipoint SVC as VC styles. However, in actual ATM network
environments, especially public ATM WANs, only PVC and bi-directional
point-to-point SVC may be supported. To support the diverse VC
styles, the ST2+ over ATM protocol supports the following VC styles
for ST2+ Data PDU transfer.
Suzuki Expires March, 1997 [Page 8]
INTERNET DRAFT draft-suzuki-st2-over-atm-00.txt September, 1996
o PVC
o Reuse of reverse channel of bi-directional point-to-point SVC that
is used by existing stream.
o Point-to-point SVC initiated from upstream side.
o Point-to-multipoint SVC initiated from upstream side.
o Point-to-point SVC initiated from downstream side.
o Point-to-multipoint SVC initiated from downstream side (LIJ).
Note: The UNI 3.1 version of the ST2+ over ATM protocol does not
support LIJ. LIJ will be supported by the UNI 3.1/4.0 version.
The second style is needed in environments supporting bi-directional
point-to-point SVC only. The selection of PVC and SVC styles in the
ST2+ agent is based on preconfigured implementation-dependent rules.
SVC supports both upstream and downstream call initiation styles.
Implementors should note that this is independent of the sender-
oriented and receiver-oriented ST2+ stream-building process (RFC
1819, Section 4.1.1). This is because the ST2+ over ATM protocol
specifies the process for establishing ST2+ data hops on the UNI, and
because the ST2+ stream building process belongs to another layer.
The SVC initiation side should be determined based on the operational
and billing policies between ST2+ agents; this is basically
independent of the sender-oriented and receiver-oriented ST2+
stream-building process.
An example of ST2+ SCMP interworking is shown in Fig. 2.6.
Suzuki Expires March, 1997 [Page 9]
INTERNET DRAFT draft-suzuki-st2-over-atm-00.txt September, 1996
_____
/ \
(Origin )
\ /
A ~~|~~ A
| = | UNI Signaling
| | |
| +-+-+ V
| | X | ATM SW
| +-+-+ A
SCMP | | | NNI Signaling
| +-+-+ V
| | X | ATM SW
| +-+-+ A
| | |
| = | UNI Signaling
V | V
+-----+------+ Non-ATM Link
|Intermediate|--------------------+
| Agent |<-----------------+ |
+------------+ SCMP | |
A | A | |
| = | UNI Signaling | |
| | | | |
| +-+-+ V V_|__
| | X | ATM SW / \
| +-+-+ A (Target )
SCMP | | | NNI Signaling \ /
| +-+-+ V ~~~~~
| | X | ATM SW
| +-+-+ A
| | |
| = | UNI Signaling
V __|__ V
/ \
(Target )
\ /
~~~~~
Fig. 2.6: Example of ST2+ SCMP interworking.
Suzuki Expires March, 1997 [Page 10]
INTERNET DRAFT draft-suzuki-st2-over-atm-00.txt September, 1996
3. Revision of RFC 1819 ST2+
To specify the ST2+ over ATM protocol, the functions in RFC 1819 ST2+
must be extended to support ATM. However, it is difficult for the
current ATM standard to support part of the specifications in RFC
1819 ST2+. This section specifies the extended, restricted, and
unsupported functions in RFC 1819 ST2+. Errata for RFC 1819 appears
in Appendix A.
3.1 Extended Functions of RFC 1819 ST2+
3.1.1 ST FlowSpec for Controlled-Load Service
The ST2+ over ATM protocol supports the ST FlowSpec for the
Controlled-Load Service specified in [8].
3.1.2 ST FlowSpec for Guaranteed Service
The ST2+ over ATM protocol supports the ST FlowSpec for the
Guaranteed Service. This FlowSpec will be specified in a future
document.
3.1.3 VC-type common SCMP element
The ST2+ over ATM protocol specifies an additional common SCMP
element that designates the VC type used to support the diverse VC
styles. The CONNECT and CHANGE messages that pass across UNIs must
contain a VC-type common SCMP element. This element is valid between
neighboring ST2+ agents, but must not propagate beyond the previous-
hop or next-hop ST2+ agent.
The format of the VC-type common SCMP element is shown in Fig. 3.1.
Suzuki Expires March, 1997 [Page 11]
INTERNET DRAFT draft-suzuki-st2-over-atm-00.txt September, 1996
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| PCode = 8 | PBytes = 20 | VCType |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| PVCIdentifer |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| 0(unused) | UniqueID |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| OriginIPAddress |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| LIJCallIdentifer |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Fig. 3.1: Format of VC-type common SCMP element.
The PCode field identifies the common SCMP elements. The PCode value
for the VC type is 8.
The PBytes field for the VC type is always 20.
The VCType field identifies the VC type. The correspondence between
the value in this field and the meaning is as follows:
0: ST2+ data stream uses a PVC.
1: ST2+ data stream uses the reverse channel of the bi-directional
point-to-point SVC used by the existing stream.
2: ST2+ data stream is established by a point-to-point SVC
initiated from the upstream side.
3: ST2+ data stream is established by a point-to-multipoint SVC
initiated from the upstream side.
4: ST2+ data stream is established by a point-to-point SVC
initiated from the downstream side.
5: ST2+ data stream is established by a point-to-multipoint SVC
initiated from the downstream side.
Note: The UNI 3.1 version of the ST2+ over ATM protocol does not
support VCType 5. It will be supported by the UNI 3.1/4.0 version.
The PVCIdentifer field identifies the PVC identifier uniquely
assigned between neighboring ST2+ agents. This field is valid only
when the VCType field is zero.
Suzuki Expires March, 1997 [Page 12]
INTERNET DRAFT draft-suzuki-st2-over-atm-00.txt September, 1996
The UniqueID and OriginIPAddress field identifies the reverse channel
of the bi-directional point-to-point SVC that is used by this SID.
This field is valid only when the VCType field is 1.
The LIJCallIdentifer field identifies the LIJ Call Identifier for
point-to-multipoint SVC. This field is valid only when the VCType
field is 5.
3.1.4 Reason Code
The extension of the Reason Code (RFC 1819, Section 10.5.3) to the
ST2+ over ATM protocol is shown below.
57 CantChange Partial changes not supported.
58 NoRecover Stream recovery not supported.
3.2 Restricted Functions of RFC 1819 ST2+
3.2.1 Pri field in ST2+ Data PDU
The ST2+ over ATM protocol supports an optional function for
forwarding the Pri field (RFC 1819, Section 10.1) in the ST+ Data PDU
header by using the AAL5 CPCS_UU indication field. If this function
is used, the ST header is fully reconstructed. If this function is
not used, or if AAL1 is used for encapsulating the ST2+ Data PDU, the
value of the Pri field in the ST2+ Data PDU header is lost.
3.2.2 FlowSpec changes
In the following cases, the ST2+ over ATM protocol supports stream
FlowSpec changes by using the CHANGE message.
o The I-bit is set to 1 and the G-bit is set to 1.
o The I-bit is set to 1, the G-bit is set to zero, and the TargetList
matches all downstream targets.
In the following cases, the CHANGE fails and a REFUSE message, with
the E and N-bits set to 1 and the ReasonCode set to CantChange, is
propagated upstream.
o The I-bit is set to zero.
o The I-bit is set to 1, the G-bit is set to zero, and the TargetList
does not match all downstream targets.
Suzuki Expires March, 1997 [Page 13]
INTERNET DRAFT draft-suzuki-st2-over-atm-00.txt September, 1996
3.3 Unsupported Functions of RFC 1819 ST2+
3.3.1 ST2+ FlowSpec
The ST2+ over ATM protocol does not support the ST2+ FlowSpec (RFC
1819, Section 9.2). The ST2+ FlowSpec specifies useful services, but
requires the data link layer to support heterogeneous QoS to
receivers. The current ATM standard does not support heterogeneous
QoS to receivers.
3.3.2 Stream preemption
The ST2+ over ATM protocol does not support stream preemption (RFC
1819, Section 6.3). This is because the INT-SERV FlowSpec does not
support the concept of precedence.
3.3.3 HELLO message
Implementations may not support the HELLO message (RFC 1819, Section
10.4.7) and thus ST2+ agent failure detection using the HELLO message
(RFC 1819, Section 6.1.2). This is because ATM has an adequate
failure detection mechanism, and the HELLO message is not sufficient
for detecting link failure in the ST2+ over ATM protocol, because the
ST2+ data and the ST2+ SCMP are forwarded through another VC.
3.3.4 Stream recovery
Implementors must select the NoRecover option of the CONNECT message
(RFC 1819, Section 4.4.1) with the S-bit set to 1. This is because
the descriptions of the stream recovery process in RFC 1819 (Sections
5.3.2, 6.2, and 6.2.1) are unclear and incomplete. It is thus
possible that if a link failure occurs and several ST2+ agents detect
it simultaneously, the recovery process may encounter problems.
The ST2+ over ATM protocol does not support stream recovery. If
recovery is needed, the application should support it. A CONNECT
message in which the NoRecover option is not selected will fail; a
REFUSE message in which the N-bit is set to 1 and the ReaseonCode is
set to NoRecover is then propagated upstream.
3.3.5 IP encapsulation of ST
The ST2+ over ATM protocol does not support IP encapsulation of ST
(RFC 1819, Section 8.7), because there is no need to implement IP
encapsulation in this protocol.
Suzuki Expires March, 1997 [Page 14]
INTERNET DRAFT draft-suzuki-st2-over-atm-00.txt September, 1996
3.3.6 IP Multicasting
The ST2+ over ATM protocol does not support IP multicasting (RFC
1819, Section 8.8), because this protocol does not support IP
encapsulation of ST.
4. Protocol Specification of the User Plane
This section specifies the AAL5 [12] and AAL1 [11] PDU
encapusulations for the ST2+ Data PDU. On the ST2+ over ATM user
plane, AAL5 support is mandatory and AAL1 support is optional.
4.1 Service Primitives Provided by User Plane
4.1.1 Overview of interactions
The ST2+ data layer entity on the user plane of the ST2+ over ATM
protocol provides the following services to the upper layer.
o st2p_unitdata.req
o st2p_unitdata.ind
4.1.1.1 St2p_unitdata.req
The st2p_unitdata.req primitive sends a request for an ST2+ Data PDU
transfer to the ST2+ data layer entity. The semantics of the
primitive are as follows:
st2p_unitdata.req (
pri,
sid,
data
)
The pri parameter specifies priority of ST2+ Data PDU. The sid
parameter specifies SID of ST2+ Data PDU. The data parameter
specifies ST2+ data to be transferred.
4.1.1.2 St2p_unitdata.ind
The st2p_unitdata.ind primitive indicates an ST2+ Data PDU delivery
from the ST2+ data layer entity. The semantics of the primitive are
as follows:
Suzuki Expires March, 1997 [Page 15]
INTERNET DRAFT draft-suzuki-st2-over-atm-00.txt September, 1996
st2p_unitdata.ind (
pri [optional],
sid,
data,
status [optional]
)
The pri parameter indicates priority of ST2+ Data PDU, if optional
function that forwards the Pri field in the ST+ Data PDU header using
the AAL5 CPCS_UU indication field is used. The sid parameter
indicates SID of ST2+ Data PDU. The data parameter indicates
delivered ST2+ data. The status is an optional parameter that
indicates whether the delivered ST2+ data is corrupt or not.
4.2 Service Primitives Provided by AAL5
4.2.1 Requirements for AAL5
The requirements for the AAL5 layer on the ST2+ over ATM user plane
are as follows:
o The SSCS must be null.
o Implementations must use message-mode service.
Note: Selection of the corrupted SDU delivery option on the
receiver side depends on the implementation, so the receiver may or
may not be able to select this option.
4.2.2 Overview of Interactions
The AAL5 layer entity on the ST2+ over ATM user plane provides the
following services to the ST2+ data layer.
o AAL5_UNITDATA.req
o AAL5_UNITDATA.ind
4.2.2.1 AAL5_UNITDATA.req
The AAL5_UNITDATA.req primitive sends a request for an AAL5 data
(AAL5 CPCS_SDU) transfer from the ST2+ data layer entity to the AAL5
layer entity. The semantics of the primitive are as follows:
Suzuki Expires March, 1997 [Page 16]
INTERNET DRAFT draft-suzuki-st2-over-atm-00.txt September, 1996
AAL5_UNITDATA.req (
DATA,
CPCS_LP,
CPCS_UU
)
The DATA parameter specifies the AAL5 data to be transferred. The
CPCS_LP parameter specifies the value of the CLP field in the ATM
cell. The CPCS_UU parameter specifies the user-to-user data to be
transferred.
4.2.2.2 AAL5_UNITDATA.ind
The AAL5_UNITDATA.ind indicates an AAL5 data (AAL5 CPCS_SDU) delivery
from the AAL5 layer entity to the ST2+ data layer entity. The
semantics of the primitive are as follows:
AAL5_UNITDATA.ind (
DATA,
CPCS_LP,
CPCS_UU,
STATUS [optional]
)
The DATA parameter indicates the delivered AAL5 data. The CPCS_LP
parameter indicates the value of the CLP field in the ATM cell. The
CPCS_UU parameter indicates the delivered user-to-user data. The
STATUS parameter indicates whether the delivered AAL5 data is corrupt
or not. The STATUS parameter is an optional parameter, and valid
only when the corrupted SDU delivery option is selected.
4.3 AAL5 Encapsulation for ST2+ Data PDU
4.3.1 Mapping from st2_unitdata.req to AAL5_UNITDATA.req
The data in st2_unitdata.req is directly assigned to the DATA
parameter in AAL5_UNITDATA.req. That is, as shown in Fig. 4.1, the
ST2+ data in the ST2+ Data PDU is mapped to the payload of AAL5
CPCS_PDU.
Suzuki Expires March, 1997 [Page 17]
INTERNET DRAFT draft-suzuki-st2-over-atm-00.txt September, 1996
+-------+---------------------------+
| ST | ST2+ data | ST2+
| header| | Data PDU
+-------+---------------------------+
: :
: :
+-------------------------------+--------+
| CPCS_PDU |PAD|CPCS_PDU| AAL5
| payload | |trailer | CPCS_PDU
+-------------------------------+--------+
Fig. 4.1: Mapping of ST2+ data to AAL5 CPCS_PDU payload.
The value of CPCS_LP in AAL5_UNITDATA.req depends on the
implementation: one (low priority) or zero (high priority) may be
assigned permanently, or they may be assigned depending on the value
of pri in st2_unitdata.req.
If the Pri field in the ST2+ Data PDU forward option is supported,
the value determined by the coding rule in Fig. 4.2 is assigned to
the CPCS_UU in AAL5_UNITDATA.req. The first four unused bits are set
to zero.
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|unused |1| Pri |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Fig. 4.2: Coding rule for CPCS_UU indication field.
If the Pri field in the ST2+ Data PDU forward option is not
supported, the value of the CPCS_UU indication field in
AAL5_UNITDATA.req is set to zero.
4.3.2 Mapping from AAL5_UNITDATA.ind to st2p_unitdata.ind
The DATA parameter in AL5_UNITDATA.ind is directly assigned to the
data in st2_unitdata.ind. That is, the payload in AAL5 CPCS_PDU is
mapped to the ST2+ data in the ST2+ Data PDU.
If the value of the CPCS_UU indication field in AAL5_UNITDATA.ind
comes from the coding rule in Fig. 4.2, the value of the Pri field in
CPCS_UU indication field is assigned to pri in st2p_unitdata.ind.
Otherwise, an implementation-dependent value is assigned to pri.
Suzuki Expires March, 1997 [Page 18]
INTERNET DRAFT draft-suzuki-st2-over-atm-00.txt September, 1996
If the value of STATUS in AAL5_UNITDATA.ind is valid, it is assigned
to the status in st2p_unitdata.ind.
4.3.3 Value of MTU
Because the ST header in the ST2+ Data PDU is not mapped to AAL5
CPCS_PDU, the value of MTU is
MTU = (Maximum CPCS_SDU size) + 12.
If this value is bigger than 65,535, however, MTU is set to 65,535
bytes.
4.4 Service Primitives Provided by AAL1
4.4.1 Requirements for AAL1
The requirements for the AAL1 layer on the ST2+ over ATM user plane
are as follows:
o The CS must support the synchronous circuit transport function
described in ITU-T Recommendation I.231. The others CS functions
need not be supported.
o Structured data transfer and forward error correction need not be
supported.
o The CBR rate is N * 64 Kbit/s, where N is between 1 and 65,535.
Note: It is recommended to support 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 12,
15, 18, 20, 24, 30, 36, 40, 45, 60, 72, 90, 120, 180, and 360 as
values of N.
4.4.2 Overview of interactions
The AAL1 layer entity on the ST2+ over ATM user plane provides the
following services to the ST2+ data layer.
o AAL1_UNITDATA.req
o AAL1_UNITDATA.ind
4.4.2.1 AAL1_UNITDATA.req
The AAL1_UNITDATA.req primitive sends a request for an AAL1 data
transfer from the ST2+ data layer entity to the AAL1 layer entity.
The semantics of the primitive are as follows:
Suzuki Expires March, 1997 [Page 19]
INTERNET DRAFT draft-suzuki-st2-over-atm-00.txt September, 1996
AAL1_UNITDATA.req (
DATA,
CLP
)
The DATA parameter specifies the AAL1 data to be transferred. The
CLP parameter specifies the value of the CLP field in the ATM cell.
4.4.2.2 AAL1_UNITDATA.ind
The AAL1_UNITDATA.ind indicates an AAL1 Data delivery from the AAL1
layer entity to the ST2+ data layer entity. The semantics of the
primitive are as follows:
AAL1_UNITDATA.ind (
DATA,
CLP,
STATUS [optional]
)
The DATA parameter indicates the delivered AAL1 data. The CLP
parameter indicates the value of the CLP field in the ATM cell. The
STATUS parameter is an optional parameter that indicates whether the
delivered AAL1 data is corrupt or not.
4.5 AAL1 Encapsulation for ST2+ Data PDU
4.5.1 Mapping from st2_unitdata.req to AAL1_UNITDATA.req
The data in st2_unitdata.req is regarded as a sequential-byte stream;
every 47 bytes of the data are assigned to the DATA parameter in
AAL1_UNITDATA.req. That is, as shown in Fig. 4.3, every 47 bytes of
the ST2+ data in the ST2+ Data PDU are continuously mapped to the
payload of AAL1 SAR_PDU.
Therefore, st2_unitdata.req corresponds to one or more than one
AAL1_UNITDATA.req, and one AAL1_UNITDATA.req may correspond to more
than one st2p_unitdata.req.
Suzuki Expires March, 1997 [Page 20]
INTERNET DRAFT draft-suzuki-st2-over-atm-00.txt September, 1996
-------+ +-------+---------------------------+
| | ST | ST2+ data | ST2+
|..| header| | ...... Data PDU
-------+ +-------+---------------------------+
///\\\\\\ /////////\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
// \\\\\\ ///////// \\\\\\\\\\\\\ \\\\\\\\
/ \\\\\\ ///////// \\\\\\\\\\\\\ \\\\\\\\
\\\\\\ ///////// \\\\\\\\\\\\\
\\\\\\///////// \\\\\\\\\\\\\
+-------+-----------+ +-------+-----------+
|SAR_PDU| SAR_PDU | |SAR_PDU| SAR_PDU | AAL1
|header | payload |..|header | payload |...... SAR_PDU
+-------+-----------+ +-------+-----------+
Fig. 4.3: Mapping of ST2+ data to AAL1 SAR_PDU payload.
The value of the CLP in AAL1_UNITDATA.req depends on the
implementation: one (low priority) or zero (high priority) may be
assigned permanently, or they may be assigned depending on the value
of pri in st2_unitdata.req.
4.5.2 Mapping from AAL1_UNITDATA.ind to st2p_unitdata.ind
The DATA parameter in AAL1_UNITDATA.ind is regarded as a sequential-
byte stream. A certain number of bytes, where the number is equal to
or less than the negotiated downstream MTU value, are assigned to the
data in st2p_unitdata.ind. That is, as shown in Fig. 4.3, some bytes
of the payload in AAL1 SAR_PDU are mapped to the ST2+ data in the
ST2+ Data PDU.
Therefore, st2_unitdata.ind corresponds to one or more than one
AAL1_UNITDATA.ind, and one AAL1_UNITDATA.ind may correspond to more
than one st2p_unitdata.ind.
An implementation-dependent value is assigned to pri in
st2p_unitdata.ind.
If the value of STATUS in AAL1_UNITDATA.ind is valid, it is assigned
to the status in st2p_unitdata.ind.
4.5.3 Value of MTU
Because AAL1 is not intended to directly support packet
communications and thus has no MTU, the value of MTU is
implementation-dependent and equal to or less than 65,535 bytes. The
value of MTU may be determined by the rate of the VC, by the buffer
length, or by the packet-processing rule.
Suzuki Expires March, 1997 [Page 21]
INTERNET DRAFT draft-suzuki-st2-over-atm-00.txt September, 1996
5. Protocol Specification of the Management Plane
TBD
This section will be prepared based on the discussions of the ISSLL
working group.
Suzuki Expires March, 1997 [Page 22]
INTERNET DRAFT draft-suzuki-st2-over-atm-00.txt September, 1996
6. Protocol Specification of the Control Plane
This section specifies the relationship between ST2+ SCMP and PVC
management for ST2+ data, and the protocol interaction between ST2+
SCMP and Q.2931 UNI signaling [5, 9].
6.1 AAL5 Encapsulation for ST2+ SCMP PDU
This subsection describes AAL5 PDU encapsulation for the ST2+ SCMP
PDU. AAL5 encapsulation based on RFC 1483 and on the RFC 1483
extension are specified. Selection of which one to use depends on
the implementation.
The ST2+ over ATM protocol does not cover a VC (SVC/PVC) that
transfers ST2+ SCMP. VCs for IPv4 transfer may be used for ST2+ SCMP
transfer, and implementations may provide particular VCs for ST2+
SCMP transfer. Selection of these VCs depends on the implementation.
6.1.1 RFC 1483 base encapsulation
The RFC 1483 base encapsulation is shown in Fig. 6.1: the ST2+ SCMP
PDU with the RFC 1483 LLC encapsulation for routed protocol format is
mapped to the payload in AAL5 CPCS_PDU. Implementors should note
that this is not same as AAL5 encapsulation for the ST2+ Data PDU
(the ST header is not omitted and the LLC is required).
+------+----------------+
| ST | ST2+ SCMP | ST2+
|header| | SCMP PDU
+------+----------------+
: :
+---+---+---+-----------------------+
|LLC|OUI|PID| Information | IEEE 802 SNAP
| | | | | ISO 8802-2 LLC
+---+---+---+-----------------------+
: :
+---------------------------------------+--------+
| CPCS_PDU |PAD|CPCS_PDU| AAL5
| payload | |trailer | CPCS_PDU
+---------------------------------------+--------+
Fig. 6.1: Mapping of ST2+ SCMP PDU to AAL5 CPCS_PDU payload.
The value of the LLC is 0xAA-AA-03, the value of the OUI is 0x00-00-
00, and the value of the PID is 0x08-00. The classification of the
IPv4 and the ST2+ SCMP is determined by the IP version number, which
is located in the first four bits of the IPv4 or ST headers.
Suzuki Expires March, 1997 [Page 23]
INTERNET DRAFT draft-suzuki-st2-over-atm-00.txt September, 1996
6.1.2 RFC 1483 extension base encapsulation
The RFC 1483 extension base encapsulation is the same as for RFC 1483
base encapsulation, except that the value of the OUI is 0x00-00-5E
(IANA) and the value of the PID is 0xXX-XX (TBD).
The RFC 1483 base encapsulation for the SCMP is ideal, but requires
modifying the IPv4 processing in the driver software of the WS or PC.
Therefore, the RFC 1483 base encapsulation may be difficult to
implement. This encapsulation is designed to solve this problem.
The following subsections will be added in the next draft.
6.2 Service Primitives Provided by Control Plane
6.3 Service Primitives Provided by ST2+ SCMP
6.4 Service Primitives Provided by Q.2931
6.5 CONNECT Processing
6.6 CHANGE Processing
6.7 DISCONNECT Processing
6.8 REFUSE Processing
6.9 Q.2931 Information Element Coding
6.10 State Transit of ST2+ SCMP Entity
7. Security Considerations
Security considerations are not discussed in this document.
Suzuki Expires March, 1997 [Page 24]
INTERNET DRAFT draft-suzuki-st2-over-atm-00.txt September, 1996
References
[1] M. Borden, E. Crawley, B. Davie, and S. Batsell, "Integration
of Real-time Services in an IP-ATM Network Architecture", RFC
1821, August 1995.
[2] S. Jackowski, "Native ATM Support for ST2+", RFC 1946, May
1996.
[3] S. Damaskos and A. Gavras, "Connection Oriented Protocols over
ATM: A case study", Proc. SPIE, Vol. 2188, pp.226-278, February
1994.
[4] L. Delgrossi and L. Berger, Ed., "Internet Stream Protocol
Version 2 (ST2) Protocol Specification - Version ST2+", RFC 1819,
August 1995.
[5] The ATM Forum, "ATM User-Network Interface Specification
Version 3.1", September 1994.
[6] J. Wroclawski, "Specification of the Controlled-Load Network
Element Service", Internet Draft, August 1996, <draft-ietf-
intserv-ctrl-load-svc-02.txt>.
[7] S. Shenker, C. Partridge, and R. Guerin, "Specification of
Guaranteed Quality of Service", Internet Draft, August 1996,
<draft-ietf-intserv-guaranteed-svc-06.txt>.
[8] M. Suzuki, "ST FlowSpec for the Controlled-Load Service",
Internet Draft, May 1996, <draft-suzuki-stfs-ctrl-load-svc-
00.txt>.
[9] ITU-T, "Broadband Integrated Services Digital Network (B-
ISDN)-Digital Subscriber Signaling System No. 2 (DSS 2)-User-
Network Interface (UNI) Layer 3 Specification for Basic
Call/Connection Control", ITU-T Recommendation Q.2931, September
1995.
[10] ITU-T, "B-ISDN Protocol Reference Model and its Application",
CCITT Recommendation I.321, April 1991.
[11] ITU-T, "B-ISDN ATM Adaptation Layer (AAL) specification,
types 1 and 2", Draft new ITU-T Recommendation I.363.1, September
1995.
[12] ITU-T, "B-ISDN ATM Adaptation Layer (AAL) type 5
specification", Draft new ITU-T Recommendation I.363.5, September
1995.
Suzuki Expires March, 1997 [Page 25]
INTERNET DRAFT draft-suzuki-st2-over-atm-00.txt September, 1996
[13] ITU-T, "Traffic Control and Congestion Control in B-ISDN",
ITU-T Recommendation I.371, July 1995.
[14] J. Heinanen, "Multiprotocol Encapsulation over ATM
Adaptation Layer 5", RFC 1483, July 1993.
[15] M. Laubach, "Classical IP and ARP over ATM", RFC 1577,
January 1994.
[16] M. Perez, F. Liaw, A. Mankin, E. Hoffman, D. Grossman, and A.
Malis, "ATM Signaling Support for IP over ATM", RFC 1755, February
1995.
[17] J. Luciani, D. Katz, D. Piscitello, and B. Cole, "NBMA Next
Hop Resolution Protocol (NHRP)", Internet Draft, July 1996,
<draft-ietf-rolc-nhrp-09.txt>.
Acknowledgments
TBD
Author's Address
Muneyoshi Suzuki
NTT Multimedia Networks Laboratories
3-9-11, Midori-cho
Musashino-shi, Tokyo 180, Japan
Phone: +81-422-59-2119
Fax: +81-422-59-3203
EMail: suzuki@nal.ntt.jp
Suzuki Expires March, 1997 [Page 26]
INTERNET DRAFT draft-suzuki-st2-over-atm-00.txt September, 1996
Appendix A. RFC 1819 ST2+ Errata
A.1 4.3 SCMP Reliability
The following sentence in the second paragraph:
< For some SCMP messages (CONNECT, CHANGE, JOIN, and STATUS) the
should be changed to
> For some SCMP messages (CONNECT, CHANGE, and JOIN) the
A.2 4.4.4 User Data
The following:
< option can be included with ACCEPT, CHANGE, CONNECT, DISCONNECT, and
< REFUSE messages. The format of the UserData parameter is shown in
should be changed to
> option can be included with ACCEPT, CHANGE, CONNECT, DISCONNECT, NOTIFY,
> and REFUSE messages. The format of the UserData parameter is shown in
A.3 5.5.1 Mismatched FlowSpecs
The following sentence:
< notifies the processing ST agent which should respond with ReasonCode
< (FlowSpecMismatch).
should be changed to
> notifies the processing ST agent which should respond with a REFUSE
> message with ReasonCode (FlowSpecMismatch).
Suzuki Expires March, 1997 [Page 27]
INTERNET DRAFT draft-suzuki-st2-over-atm-00.txt September, 1996
A.4 10.2 Control PDUs
The following:
<o Reference is a transaction number. Each sender of a request control
< message assigns a Reference number to the message that is unique
< with respect to the stream.
should be changed to
>o Reference is a transaction number. Each sender of a request control
> message assigns a Reference number to the message that is unique
> with respect to the stream for messages generated by each agent.
A.5 10.3.4 Origin
The following:
< +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
< | PCode = 5 | PBytes | NextPcol |OriginSAPBytes |
< +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
should be changed to
> +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
> | PCode = 4 | PBytes | NextPcol |OriginSAPBytes |
> +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
A.6 10.5.3 ReasonCode
The following:
< 32 PCodeUnknown Control PDU has a parameter with an invalid
< PCode.
should be removed because a common SCMP element with an unknown PCode
is equivalent to the UserData (RFC 1819, Section 10.3.8).
Suzuki Expires March, 1997 [Page 28]