[Docs] [txt|pdf] [Tracker] [WG] [Email] [Diff1] [Diff2] [Nits]

Versions: (draft-bestler-rddp-applicability) 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 RFC 5045

Remote Direct Data Placement                                  C. Bestler
Working group                                                   L. Coene
Internet-Draft                                          October 13, 2003
Expires: April 12, 2004


     Applicability of Remote Direct Memory Access Protocol (RDMA) and
                       Direct Data Placement (DDP)
                   draft-ietf-rddp-applicability-01.txt

Status of this Memo

    This document is an Internet-Draft and is in full conformance with
    all provisions of Section 10 of RFC2026.

    Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
    Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups.  Note that
    other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-
    Drafts.

    Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
    and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
    time.  It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
    material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."

    The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at http://
    www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt.

    The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
    http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.

    This Internet-Draft will expire on April 12, 2004.

Copyright Notice

    Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2003).  All Rights Reserved.

Abstract

    This document describes the applicability of Remote Direct Memory
    Access Protocol (RDMAP)  and the Direct Data Placement Protocol
    (DDP).  It contrasts the different transport options over IP that DDP
    can use, compares use of DDP with direct use of the supporting
    transports, and compares DDP over IP transports with non-IP
    transports that support RDMA functionality.







Bestler & Coene          Expires April 12, 2004                 [Page 1]

Internet-Draft           RDMA/DDP Applicability             October 2003


Table of Contents

    1.    Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3
    2.    Definitions  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
    3.    Direct Placement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6
    3.1   Fewer Required ULP Interactions  . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6
    3.2   Direct Placement using only the LLP  . . . . . . . . . . . .  6
    4.    Tagged Messages  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8
    4.1   Order Independent Reception  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8
    4.2   Reduced ULP Notifications  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8
    4.3   Simplified ULP Exchanges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
    4.4   Order Independent Sending  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
    4.5   Tagged Buffers as ULP Credits  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
    5.    RDMA Read  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
    6.    LLP Comparisons  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
    6.1   Multistreaming Implications  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
    6.2   Out of Order Reception Implications  . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
    6.3   Header and Marker Overhead . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
    6.4   Middlebox Support  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
    6.5   Processing Overhead  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
    6.6   Data Integrity Implications  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
    6.6.1 MPA/TCP Specifics  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
    6.6.2 SCTP Specifics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
    6.7   Non-IP Transports  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
    6.7.1 No RDMA Layer Ack  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
    6.8   Other IP Transports  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
    6.9   LLP Independent Session Establishment  . . . . . . . . . . . 17
    6.9.1 RDMA-only Session Establishment  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
    6.9.2 RDMA-Conditional Session Establishment . . . . . . . . . . . 18
    7.    Local Interface Implications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
    8.    Security considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
    8.1   Connection/Association Setup . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
    8.2   Tagged Buffer Exposure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
    8.3   Impact of Encrypted Transports . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
          References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
          Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
          Full Copyright Statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24














Bestler & Coene          Expires April 12, 2004                 [Page 2]

Internet-Draft           RDMA/DDP Applicability             October 2003


1. Introduction

    Remote Direct Memory Access Protocol (RDMAP) and Direct Data
    Placement (DDP) work together to provide application independent
    efficient placemenet of application payload directly into buffers
    specified by the Upper Layer Protocol (ULP).

    The DDP protocol is responsible for direct placement of received
    payload into ULP specified buffers.  The RDMAP protocol provides
    completion notifications to the ULP and support for Data Sink
    initiated fetch of advertised buffers (RDMA Reads).

    DDP and RDMAP are both application independent protocols which allow
    the ULP to perform remote direct data placement.  DDP can use
    multiple standard IP transports including SCTP and TCP.

    By clarifying the situations where the functionality of these
    protocols are applicable, this document can guide implementers,
    application and protocol designers in selecting which protocols to
    use.

    The applicability of RDMAP/DDP is driven by their unique
    capabilities:

    o  The existence of an application independent protocol allows common
       solutions to be implemented in hardware and/or the kernel.  This
       document will discuss when common data placement procedures are of
       the greatest benefit to applications as contrasted with
       application specific solutions built on top of direct use of the
       underlying transport.

    o  DDP supports both untagged and tagged buffers.  Tagged buffers
       allow the Data Sink ULP to be indifferent to what order (or in
       what packets) the Data Source sent the data, or what order they
       are received in.  This document will discuss when Data Source
       flexibility is of benefit to applications.

    o  RDMAP consolidates ULP notifications, thereby minimizing the
       number of required ULP interactions.

    o  RDMAP defines RDMA Reads, which allow remote access to advertised
       buffers.  This document will review the advantages of using RDMA
       Reads as contrasted to alternate solutions.

    Some non-IP transports, such as InfiniBand, directly integrate RDMA
    features.  This document will review the applicability of providing
    RDMA services over ubiquitous IP transports as opposed to the use of
    customized transport protocols.  Due to the fact that DDP is defined



Bestler & Coene          Expires April 12, 2004                 [Page 3]

Internet-Draft           RDMA/DDP Applicability             October 2003


    cleanly as a layer over existing IP transports, DDP has simpler
    ordering rules than some prior RDMA protocols.  This may have some
    implications for application designers.

    The full capabilities of DDP and RDMAP can only be fully realized by
    applications that are designed to exploit them.  The co-existence of
    RDMAP/DDP aware local interfaces with traditional socket interfaces
    will also be explored.

    Finally, DDP support is defined for at least two IP transports: SCTP
    and TCP.  The rationale for supporting both transports is reviewed,
    as well as when each would be the appropriate selection.







































Bestler & Coene          Expires April 12, 2004                 [Page 4]

Internet-Draft           RDMA/DDP Applicability             October 2003


2. Definitions

    Advertisement - the act of informing a Remote Peer that a local RDMA
       Buffer is available to it.  A Node makes available an RDMA Buffer
       for incoming RDMA Read or RDMA Write access by informing its RDMA/
       DDP peer of the Tagged Buffer identifiers (STag, base address, and
       buffer length).  This advertisement of Tagged Buffer information
       is not defined by RDMA/DDP and is left to the ULP.  A typical
       method would be for the Local Peer to embed the Tagged Buffer's
       Steering Tag, base address, and length in a Send Message destined
       for the Remote Peer.

    Data Sink - The peer receiving a data payload.  Note that the Data
       Sink can be required to both send and receive RDMA/DDP Messages to
       transfer a data payload.

    Data Source - The peer sending a data payload.  Note that the Data
       Source can be required to both send and receive RDMA/DDP Messages
       to transfer a data payload.

    Lower Layer Protocol (LLP) The transport protocol that provides
       services to DDP.  This is an IP transport with any required
       adaptation layer.  Adaptation layers are defined for SCTP and TCP.

    Steering Tag (STag) An identifier of a Tagged Buffer on a Node, valid
       as defined within a protocol specification.

    Tagged Message A DDP message that is directed to a ULP specified
       buffer based upon imbedded addressing information.  In the
       immediate sense, the destination buffer is specified by the
       message sender.

    Untagged Message A DDP message that is directed to a ULP specified
       buffer based upon a Message Sequence Number being matched with a
       receiver supplied buffer.  The destination buffer is specified by
       the message receiver.

    Upper Layer Protocol (ULP) The direct user of RDMAP/DDP services.
       This may be an application, or a middleware layer such as Sockets
       Direct Protocol (SDP) or Remote Procedure Calls (RPC).











Bestler & Coene          Expires April 12, 2004                 [Page 5]

Internet-Draft           RDMA/DDP Applicability             October 2003


3. Direct Placement

    Direct Data Placement optimizes the placement of ULP payload into the
    correct destination buffers, typically eliminating intermediate
    copying.  Placement is enabled without regard to order of arrival,
    order of transmission or requiring per-placement interaction with the
    ULP.

    RDMAP minimizes the required ULP interactions .  This capability is
    most valuable for applications that require multiple transport layer
    packets for each required ULP interaction.

3.1 Fewer Required ULP Interactions

    While reducing the number of required ULP interactions is in itself
    desirable, it is critical for high speed connections.  The burst
    packet rate for a high speed interface could easily exceed the host
    systems ability to switch ULP contexts.

    Content access applications are primary examples of applications with
    both high bandwidth and high content to required ULP interaction
    ratios.  These applications include file access protocols (NAS),
    storage access (SAN), database access and other application specific
    forms of content access such as HTTP, XML and email.

3.2 Direct Placement using only the LLP

    Direct data placement can be achieved without RDMA.  Pre-posting of
    receive buffers could allow a non-RDMA network stack to place data
    directly to user buffers.

    The degree to which DDP optimizes depends on which transport is being
    compared with, and on the nature of the local interface.  Without
    RDMAP/DDP pre-posting buffers requires the receiving side to
    accurately predict the required buffers and their sizes.  This is not
    feasible for all ULPs.  By contrast, DDP only requires the ULP to
    predict the sequence and size of incoming untagged messages.

    An application that could predict incoming messages and required
    nothing more than direct placement into buffers might be able to do
    so with a properly designed local interface to SCTP or TCP.  Doing so
    for  TCP requires making predictions at a byte level rather than a
    message level.

    The main benefit of DDP for such an application would be that pre-
    posting of receive buffers is a mandated local interface capability,
    and that predictions can be made on a per-message basis (not per
    byte).



Bestler & Coene          Expires April 12, 2004                 [Page 6]

Internet-Draft           RDMA/DDP Applicability             October 2003


    The LLP can also be used directly if ULP specific knowledge is built
    into the protocol stack to allow "parse and place" handling of
    received packets.  Such a solution either requires interaction with
    the ULP, or that the protocol stack have knowledge of ULP specific
    syntax rules.

    DDP achieves the benefits of directly placing incoming payload
    without requiring tight coupling between the ULP and the protocol
    stack.  However, "parse and place" capabilities can certainly provide
    equivalent services to a limited number of ULPs.









































Bestler & Coene          Expires April 12, 2004                 [Page 7]

Internet-Draft           RDMA/DDP Applicability             October 2003


4. Tagged Messages

    This section covers the major benefits from the use of Tagged
    Messages.

    A more critical advantage of DDP is the ability of the Data Source to
    use tagged buffers.  Tagging messages allows the Data Source to
    choose the ordering and packetization of its payload deliveries.
    With direct data placement based solely upon pre-posted receives, the
    packetization and delivery of payload must be agreed by the ULP peers
    in advance.  Even if there is an encoding of what is being
    transferred, as is common with middleware solutions, this information
    is not understood at the application independent layers.  The
    directions on where to place the incoming data cannot be accessed
    without switching to the ULP first.  DDP provides a standardized
    'packing list' which can be interpreted without requiring ULP
    interaction.  Indeed, it is designed to be implementable in hardware.

4.1 Order Independent Reception

    Tagged messages are directed to a buffer based on an included
    Steering Tag.  Additionally, no notice is provided to the ULP for
    each individual Tagged Message's arrival.  Together these allow
    tagged messages received out-of-order to be processed without
    intermediate buffering or additional notifications to the ULP.

4.2 Reduced ULP Notifications

    RDMAP further reduces required ULP interactions consolidating
    completion notifications of tagged messages with the completion
    notification of a trailing untagged message.  For most ULPs this
    radically reduces the number of ULP required interactions even
    further.

    While RDMAP consolidation of notices is beneficial to most
    applications.  It may be detrimental to some applications that
    benefit from streamed delivery to enable ULP processing of received
    data as promptly as possible.  A ULP that uses RDMAP cannot begin
    processing any portion of an exchange until it receives notification
    that the entire exchange has been placed.  An "exchange" here is a
    set of zero or more tagged messages and a single terminating untagged
    message.  An application that would prefer to begin work on the
    received payload, no matter what order it arrived in, as soon as
    possible might prefer to work directly with the LLP.  RDMAP is
    optimized for applications that are more concerned when the entire
    exchange is complete.

    An application that benefits from being able to begin processing of



Bestler & Coene          Expires April 12, 2004                 [Page 8]

Internet-Draft           RDMA/DDP Applicability             October 2003


    each received packet as quickly as possible may find RDMAP interferes
    with that goal.

    Such an application might be able to retain most of the benefits of
    RDMAP by using the DDP layer directly.  However, in addition to
    taking on the responsibilities of the RDMAP layer, the application
    would likely have more difficulty finding support for a DDP-only API.
    Many hardware implementations may choose to tightly couple RDMAP and
    DDP, and might not provide an API directly to DDP services.

    These features minimize the required interactions with the ULP.  This
    can be extremely beneficial for applications that use multiple
    transport layer packets to accomplish what is a single ULP
    interaction.

4.3 Simplified ULP Exchanges

    The notification rules for Tagged Messages allows ULPs to create
    multi-message "exchanges" consisting of zero or more tagged messages
    that represent a single step in the ULP interaction.  The receiving
    ULP is notified that the untagged message has arrived, and implicitly
    of any associated tagged messages.

    A ULP where all exchanges would naturally be only the untagged
    message would derive virtually no benefit from the use of RDMAP/DDP
    as opposed to SCTP.  But while tagged buffers are the justification
    for RDMAP/DDP, untagged buffers are still necessary.  Without
    untagged buffers the only method to exchange buffer advertisements
    would involve out-of-band communications and/or sharing of compile
    time constants.  Most RDMA-aware ULPs use untagged buffers for
    requests and responses.  Buffer advertisements are typically done
    within these untagged messages.

    Limiting use of untagged buffers to requests and responses by moving
    all bulk data using tagged transfers can greatly simplify the amount
    of prediction that the Data Sink must perform in pre-posting receive
    buffers.  For example, a typical RDMA enabled interaction would
    consist of the following:

       Client sends transaction request to server's as an untagged
       message.

       This message includes buffer advertisements for the buffers where
       the results are to be placed.

       The Server sends  multiple tagged messages to the advertised
       buffers.




Bestler & Coene          Expires April 12, 2004                 [Page 9]

Internet-Draft           RDMA/DDP Applicability             October 2003


       The Server sends transaction reply as an untagged message to the
       client.

       Client receives single notification, indicating completion of the
       interaction.

    With this type of exchange the pacing and required size of untagged
    buffers is highly predictable.  The variability of response sizes is
    absorbed by tagged transfers.

4.4 Order Independent Sending

    Use of tagged messages is especially applicable when the Data Sink
    does not know the actual size, structure or location of the content
    it is requesting (or updating).

    For example, suppose the Data Sink ULP needs to fetch four related
    pieces of data into a four separate buffers.  With SCTP the Data Sink
    ULP could receive four messages into four separate buffers, only
    having to predict the maximum size of each.  However it would have to
    dictate the order in which the Data Source supplied the separate
    pieces.  If the Data Source found it advantageous to fetch them in a
    different order it would have to use intermediate buffering to re-
    order the pieces into the expected order even though the application
    only required that all four be delivered and did not truly have an
    ordering requirement.

    Techniques such as RAID striping and mirroring represent this same
    problem, but one step further.  What appears to be a single resource
    to the Data Sink is actually stored in separate locations by the Data
    Source.  Non RDMA protocols would either require the Data Source to
    fetch the material in the desired order or force the Data Source to
    use its own holding buffers to assemble an image of the destination
    buffer.

    While sometimes referred to as a "buffer-to-buffer" solution, RDMA
    more fundamentally enables remote buffer access.  The ULP is free to
    work with larger remote buffers than it has locally.  This reduces
    buffering requirements and the number of times the data must be
    copied in an end-to-end transfer.

    There are numerous reasons why the Data Sink would not know the true
    order or location of the requested data.  It could be different for
    each client, different records selected and/or different sort orders,
    RAID striping, file fragmentation, volume fragmentation, volume
    mirroring and server-side dynamic compositing of content (such as
    server side includes for HTTP).




Bestler & Coene          Expires April 12, 2004                [Page 10]

Internet-Draft           RDMA/DDP Applicability             October 2003


    In all of these cases the Data Source is free to assemble the desired
    data in the Data Sinks buffer in whatever order the component data
    becomes available to it.  It is not constrained on ordering.  It does
    not have to assemble an image in its own memory before creating it in
    the Data Sink's buffers.

    Note that while DDP enables use of tagged messages for bulk transfer,
    there are some application scenarios where untagged messages would
    still be used for bulk transfer.  For example, under the Direct
    Access File Server (DAFS) protocol the file server does not expose
    its own memory to its clients.  A client wishing to write may
    advertise a buffer which the server will issue RDMA Reads upon.
    However, when performing a small write it may be preferable to
    include the data in the untagged message rather than incurring an
    additional round trip with the RDMA Read and its response.

4.5 Tagged Buffers as ULP Credits

    The handling of end-to-end buffer credits differs considerably with
    DDP than when the ULP directly uses either TCP or SCTP.

    With both TCP and SCTP buffer credits are based upon the receiver
    granting transmit permission based on the total number of bytes.
    These credits reflect system buffering resources and/or simple flow
    control.  They do not represent ULP resources.

    DDP defines no standard flow control, but presumes the existince of a
    ULP mechanism.  The presumed mechanism is that the Data Sink ULP has
    issued credits to the Data Source allowing the Data Source to send a
    specific number of untagged messages.

    The ULP peers must ensure that the sender is aware of the maximum
    size that can be sent to any specific target buffer.  One method of
    doing so is  to use a standard size for all untagged buffers within a
    given connection.  For example, DAFS specifies an initial size
    requirement for session establishment, during which the  untagged
    buffer size for the remainder of the session is negotiated.

    Tagged buffers are ULP resources advertised directly from ULP to ULP.
    A DDP put to a known tagged buffer is constrained only by transport
    level flow control, not by available system buffering.

    Either tagged or untagged buffers allows bypassing of system buffer
    resources.  Use of tagged buffers additionally allows the Data Source
    to choose what order to exercise the credits in.

    To the extent allowed by the ULP, tagged buffers are also divisible
    resources.  The Data Sink can advertise a single 100 KB buffer, and



Bestler & Coene          Expires April 12, 2004                [Page 11]

Internet-Draft           RDMA/DDP Applicability             October 2003


    then receive notifications from its peer that it had written 50 KB,
    20 KB and 30 KB to that buffer in three successive transactions.

    ULP-management of tagged buffer resources, independent of transport
    and DDP layer credits, is an additional benefit of RDMA protocols.
    Large bulk transfers cannot be blocked by limited general purpose
    buffering capacity.  Applications can flow control  based upon higher
    level abstractions, such as number of outstanding requests,
    independent of the amount of data that must be transferred.

    However, use of system buffering, as offered by direct use of the
    underlying transports, can be preferable under certain circumstances.

    One example would be when the number of target ULP buffers is
    sufficiently large, and the rate at which any writes arrive is
    sufficiently low, that pinning all the target ULP buffers in memory
    would be undesirable.  The maximum transfer rate, and hence the
    maximum amount of system buffering required,  may be more stable and
    predictable than the total ULP buffer exposure.

    Another would be the Data Sink wishes to receive a stream of data at
    a predictable rate, but does not know in advance what the size of
    each data packet will be.  This is common from streaming media that
    has been encoded with a variable bit rate.  With DDP the Data Sink
    would either have to use untagged buffers large enough for the
    largest packet, or advertise a circular buffer.  If for security or
    other reasons the Data Sink did not want the size of its buffer to be
    publicly known, using the underlying SCTP transport directly may be
    preferable because of their byte-oriented credits.






















Bestler & Coene          Expires April 12, 2004                [Page 12]

Internet-Draft           RDMA/DDP Applicability             October 2003


5. RDMA Read

    RDMA Reads are a further service provided by RDMAP.  RDMA Reads allow
    the Data Sink to fetch exactly the portion of the peer ULP buffer
    required on a "just in time" basis.  This can be done without
    requiring per-fetch support from the Data Source ULP.

    Storage servers may wish to limit the maximum write buffer allocated
    to any single session.  The storage server may be a very minimal
    layer between the client and the disk storage media, or the server
    may merely wish to limit the total resources that would be required
    if all clients could push the entire payload they wished written at
    their own convenience.

    In either case, there is little benefit in transferring data from the
    Data Source far in advance of when it will be written to the
    persistent storage media.  RDMA Reads allow the Storage Server to
    fetch the payload on a "just in time" basis.  In this fashion a
    relatively small number of block sized buffers can be used to execute
    a single transaction that specified writing a large file, or a
    Storage Server with numerous clients can fetch buffers from the
    individual clients in the order that is most convenient to the
    server.

    This same capability can be used when the desired portion of the
    advertised buffer is not known in advance.  For example the
    advertised buffer could contain performance statistics.  The data
    sink could request the portions of the data it required, without
    requiring an interaction with the Data Source ULP.

    This is applicable for many applications that publish semi-volatile
    data that does not require transactional validity checking (i.e.,
    authorized users have read access to the entire set of data).  It is
    less applicable when there are ULP consistency checks that must be
    performed upon the data.  Such applications would be better served by
    having the client send a request, and having the server use RDMA
    Writes to publish the requested data.  Neither RDMAP or DDP provide
    mechanisms for bundling multiple disjoint updates into an atomic
    operation.  Therefore use of an advertised buffer as a data resource
    is subject to the same caveats as any randomly updated data resource,
    such as flat files, that do not enforce their own cosnsistency.










Bestler & Coene          Expires April 12, 2004                [Page 13]

Internet-Draft           RDMA/DDP Applicability             October 2003


6. LLP Comparisons

    Normally the choice of underlying IP transport is irrelevant to the
    ULP.  RDMAP and DDP provides the same services over either.  There
    may be performance impacts of the choice, however.  It is the
    responsibility of the ULP to determine which IP transport is best
    suited to its needs.

    SCTP provides for preservation of message boundaries.  Each DDP
    segment will be delivered within a single SCTP packet.  The
    equivalent services are only available with TCP through the use of
    the MPA adaptation layer.

6.1 Multistreaming Implications

    SCTP also provides multi-streaming.  When the same pair of hosts have
    need for multiple DDP streams this can be a major advantage.  A
    single SCTP association carries multiple DDP streams, consolidating
    connection setup, congestion control and acknowledgements.

    Completions are controlled by the DDP Source Sequence Number (DDP-
    SSN) on a per stream basis.  Therefore combining multiple DDP Streams
    into a single SCTP association cannot result in a dropped packet
    carrying data for one stream delaying completions on others.

6.2 Out of Order Reception Implications

    The use of unordered Data Chunks with SCTP guarantees that the DDP
    layer will be able to perform placements when IP datagrams are
    received out of order.

    Placement of out-of-order DDP Segments carried over MPA/TCP is not
    guaranteed, but certainly allowed.  The ability of the MPA receiver
    to process out-of-order DDP Segments may be impaired when TCP
    alignment is lost.  Using SCTP, each DDP Segment is encoded in a
    single Data Chunk and never spread over multiple IP datagrams.

6.3 Header and Marker Overhead

    MPA and TCP headers together are smaller than the headers used by
    SCTP and its adaptation layer.  However, this advantage can be
    considerably reduced by the insertion of MPA markers.  In any event
    the different in ULP payload per IP Datagram is not likely to be a
    signifigant factor.

6.4 Middlebox Support

    Even with the MPA adaptation layer, DDP traffic carried over MPA/TCP



Bestler & Coene          Expires April 12, 2004                [Page 14]

Internet-Draft           RDMA/DDP Applicability             October 2003


    will appear to all network middleboxes as a normal TCP connection.
    In many environmenets there may be a requirement to use only TCP
    connections to satisfy existing network elements and/or to facilitate
    monitoring and control of connections.  While SCTP is certainly just
    as monitorable and controllable as TCP, there is no guarantee that
    the network management infrastructure has the required support for
    both.

6.5 Processing Overhead

    A DDP stream delivered via MPA/TCP will require more processing
    effort than one delivered over SCTP.  However this extra work may be
    justified for many deployments where full SCTP support is unavailable
    in the intermediate network.

6.6 Data Integrity Implications

    Both the SCTP and MPA/TCP adaptation provide end-to-end CRC32c
    protection against data corruption, or its equivalent.

    A ULP that requires a greater degree of protection may add it own.
    However, DDP and RDMAP headers will only be guaranteed to have the
    equivalent of end-to-end CRC32c protection.  A ULP that requires data
    integrity checking more thorough than an end-to-end CRC32c should
    first invalidate all STags that reference a buffer before applying
    their own integrity check.

6.6.1 MPA/TCP Specifics

    It is mandatory for MPA/TCP implementations to implement CRC32c, but
    it is NOT mandatory to use the CRC32c during an RDMA connection.  The
    activating or deactivating of the CRC in MPA/TCP is an administrative
    configuration operation at the local and remote end.  The
    administration of the CRC(ON/OFF) is invisible to the ULP.

    Applications SHOULD trust that this administrative option will only
    be used when the end-to-end protection is at least as effective as a
    transport layer CRC32c.  Applications SHOULD NOT apply additional
    protection as a guard against this administrative option being turned
    on inadvertently.

    Administrators MUST NOT enable CRC32c suppression unless the end-to-
    end protection is truly equivalent.

    If the CRC is active/used for one direction/end , then the use of the
    CRC is mandatory in both directions/ends.

    If both ends have been configured NOT to use the CRC, then this is



Bestler & Coene          Expires April 12, 2004                [Page 15]

Internet-Draft           RDMA/DDP Applicability             October 2003


    allowed as long as an equivalent protection(comparable or better
    than/to CRC) from undetected errors on the connection is provided.

6.6.2 SCTP Specifics

    SCTP provides CRC32c protection automatically.  The adaptation to
    SCTP provides for no option to suppress SCTP CRC32c protection.

6.7 Non-IP Transports

    DDP is defined to operate over ubiquitous IP transports such as SCTP
    and TCP.  This enabled a new DDP-enabled node to be added anywhere to
    an IP network.  No DDP-specific support from middle-boxes is
    required.

    There are non-IP transport fabric offering RDMA capabilities.
    Because these capabilities are integrated with the transport protocol
    they have some technical advantages when compared to RDMA over IP.
    For example fencing of RDMA operations can be based upon transport
    level acks.  Because DDP is cleanly layered over an IP transport, any
    explicit RDMA layer ack must be separate from the transport layer
    ack.

    There may be deployments where the benefits of RDMA/transport
    integration outweigh the benefits of being on an IP network.

6.7.1 No RDMA Layer Ack

    DDP does not provide for its own acknowledgements.  The only form of
    ack provided at the RDMAP layer is an RDMA Read Response.  DDP and
    RDMAP rely almost entirely upon other layers for flow control and
    pacing.  The LLP is relied upon to guarantee delivery and avoid
    network congestion,  and ULP level acking is relied upon for ULP
    pacing and to avoid ULP buffer overruns.

    Previous RDMA protocols, such as InfiniBand, have been able to use
    their integration with the transport layer to provide stronger
    ordering guarantees.  It is important that application designers that
    require such guarantees to provide them through ULP interaction.

    Specifically:

       There is no ability for a local interface to "fence" outbound
       messages to guarantee that prior tagged messages have been placed
       prior to sending a tagged message.  The only guarantees available
       from the other side would be an RDMA Read Response (coming from
       the RDMAP layer) or a response from the ULP layer.  Remember that
       the normal ordering rules only guarantee when the Data Sink ULP



Bestler & Coene          Expires April 12, 2004                [Page 16]

Internet-Draft           RDMA/DDP Applicability             October 2003


       will be notified of untagged messages, it does not control when
       data is placed into receive buffers.

       Re-use of tagged buffers must be done with extreme care.  The fact
       that an untagged message indicates that all prior tagged messages
       have been placed does not guarantee that no later tagged message
       have.  The best strategy is to only change the state of any given
       advertised buffers with with untagged messages.

       As covered elsewhere in this document, flow control of untagged
       messages MUST be provided by the ULP itself.


6.8 Other IP Transports

    Both TCP and SCTP provide DDP with reliable transport with TCP
    friendly rate control.  As currently DDP is defined to work over
    reliable transports and implicitly relies upon some form of rate
    control.

    DDP is fully compatible with a non-reliable protocol.  Out-of-order
    placement is obviously not dependent on whether the other DDP
    Segments ever actually arrive.

    However, RDMAP requires the LLP to provide reliable service.  An
    alternate completion handling protocol would be required if DDP were
    to be deployed over an unreliable IP transport.

    As noted in the prior section on tagged buffers as ULP credits,
    neither RDMAP or DDP provide any flow control for tagged messages.
    If no transport layer flow control is provided, an RDMAP/DDP
    application would be only limited by the link layer rate, almost
    inevitably resulting in severe network congestion.

    RDMAP encourages applications to be ignorant of the underlying
    transport PMTU.  The ULP is only notified when all messages ending in
    a single untagged message have completed.  The ULP is not aware of
    the granularity or ordering of the underlying message.  This approach
    assumes that the ULP is only interested in the complete set of
    messages, and has no use for a subset of them.

6.9 LLP Independent Session Establishment

    For an RDMAP/DDP application, the transport services provided by a
    pair of SCTP Streams and by a TCP connection both provide the same
    service (reliable delivery of DDP Segments between two connected
    RDMAP/DDP endpoints).




Bestler & Coene          Expires April 12, 2004                [Page 17]

Internet-Draft           RDMA/DDP Applicability             October 2003


6.9.1 RDMA-only Session Establishment

    It is also possible to allow for transport neutral establishment of
    RDMAP/DDP sessions between endpoints.  Combined, these two features
    would allow most applications to be unconcerned as to which LLP was
    actually in use.

    Specifically, the procedures for DDP Stream Session establishment
    discussed in section 3 of the SCTP mapping, and section 13.3 of the
    MPA/TCP mapping, both allow for the exchange of ULP specific data
    ("Private Data") before enabling the exchange of DDP Segments.  This
    delays can allow for proper selection and/or configuration of the
    endpoints based upon the exchanged data.  For example, each DDP
    Stream Session associated with a single client session might be
    assigned to the same DDP Protection Domain.

    To be transport neutral, the applications should exchange Private
    Data as part of session establishment messages to determine how the
    RDMA endpoints are to be configured.  One side must be the Initiator,
    and the other the Responder.

    With SCTP, a pair of SCTP streams can be used for sequential
    sessions.  With MPA/TCP each connection can be used for at most one
    session.  However, the same source/destination pair of ports can be
    re-used sequentially subject to normal TCP rules.

6.9.2 RDMA-Conditional Session Establishment

    It is sometimes desirable for the active side of a session to connect
    with the passive side before knowing whether the passive side
    supports RDMA.

    This style of session establishment can be supported with either TCP
    or SCTP, but not as transparently as for RDMA-only sessions.  Pre-
    existing non-RDMA servers are also far more likely to be using TCP
    than SCTP.

    With TCP.  a normal TCP connection is established.  It is then used
    by the ULP to determine whether or not to convert to MPA mode and use
    RDMA.  This will typically be integral with other session
    establishment negotiations.

    With SCTP, the establishment of an association tests whether RDMA is
    supported.  If not supported, the application simply requests the
    association without the RDMA adaptation indication.

    In key difference is that with SCTP the determination as to whether
    the peer can support RDMA is made before the transport layer



Bestler & Coene          Expires April 12, 2004                [Page 18]

Internet-Draft           RDMA/DDP Applicability             October 2003


    association/connection is established while with TCP the established
    connection itself is used to determine whether RDMA is supported.

















































Bestler & Coene          Expires April 12, 2004                [Page 19]

Internet-Draft           RDMA/DDP Applicability             October 2003


7. Local Interface Implications

    Full utilization of DDP and RDMAP capabilities requires a local
    interface that explicitly requests these services.  Protocols such as
    Sockets Direct Protocol (SDP) can allow applications to keep their
    traditional byte-stream or message-stream interface and still enjoy
    many of the benefits of the optimized wire level  protocols.












































Bestler & Coene          Expires April 12, 2004                [Page 20]

Internet-Draft           RDMA/DDP Applicability             October 2003


8. Security considerations

8.1 Connection/Association Setup

    Both the SCTP and TCP adaptations allow for existing procedures to be
    followed for the establishment of the SCTP association or TCP
    connection.  Use of DDP does not impair the use of any security
    measures to filter, validate and/or log the remote end of an
    association/connection.

8.2 Tagged Buffer Exposure

    DDP only exposes ULP memory to the extent explicitly allowed by ULP
    actions.  These include posting of receive operations and enabling of
    Steering Tags.

    Neither RDMAP or DDP place requirements on how ULP's advertise
    buffers.  A ULP may use a single Steering Tag for multiple buffer
    advertisements.  However, the ULP should be aware that enforcement on
    STag usage is likely limited to the overall range that is enabled.
    If the remote peer writes into the 'wrong' advertised buffer, neither
    the DDP or RDMAP layer will be aware of this.  Nor is there any
    report to the ULP on how the remote peer specifically used tagged
    buffers.

    Unless the ULP peers have an adequate basis for mutual trust, the
    receiving ULP might be well advised to use a distinct STag for each
    interaction, and to invalidate it after each use or to require its
    peer to use the RDMAP option to invalidate the STag with its
    responding untagged message.

8.3 Impact of Encrypted Transports

    While DDP is cleanly layered over the LLP, its maximum benefit may be
    limited when the LLP Stream is secured with a streaming cypher, such
    as Transport Layer Security (TLS).  If the LLP must decrypt in order,
    it cannot provide out-of-order DDP Segments to the DDP layer for
    placement purposes.  IPsec tunnel mode encrypts entire IP Datagrams.
    IPsec transport mode encrypts TCP Segments or SCTP packets.  In
    neither case should IPsec preclude providing out-of-order DDP
    Segments to the DDP layer for placement.

    Note that end-to-end use of IPsec cryptographic integrity protection
    may allow suppression of MPA CRC generation and checking under
    certain circumstances.  This is one example where the LLP may be
    judged to have "or equivalent" protection to an end-to-end CRC32c.





Bestler & Coene          Expires April 12, 2004                [Page 21]

Internet-Draft           RDMA/DDP Applicability             October 2003


References

    [1]  Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement
         Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.

    [2]  Dierks, T., Allen, C., Treese, W., Karlton, P., Freier, A. and
         P. Kocher, "The TLS Protocol Version 1.0", RFC 2246, January
         1999.

    [3]  Kent, S. and R. Atkinson, "IP Encapsulating Security Payload
         (ESP)", RFC 2406, November 1998.

    [4]  Stewart, R., Xie, Q., Morneault, K., Sharp, C., Schwarzbauer,
         H., Taylor, T., Rytina, I., Kalla, M., Zhang, L. and V. Paxson,
         "Stream Control Transmission Protocol", RFC 2960, October 2000.

    [5]  Coene, L., "Stream Control Transmission Protocol Applicability
         Statement", RFC 3257, April 2002.

    [6]  Recio, R., "An RDMA Protocol Specification", draft-ietf-rddp-
         rdmap-00 (work in progress), February 2003.

    [7]  Shah, H., "Direct Data Placement over Reliable Transports",
         draft-ietf-rddp-ddp-00 (work in progress), February 2003.

    [8]  Stewart, R., "Stream Control Transmission Protocol (SCTP) Remote
         Direct Memory Access (RDMA) Direct Data Placement (DDP)
         Adaptationn", draft-ietf-rddp-sctp-00 (work in progress),
         September 2003.

    [9]  Culley, P., "Marker PDU Aligned Framing for TCP Specification",
         draft-ietf-rddp-mpa-00 (work in progress), October 2003.


Authors' Addresses

    Caitlin Bestler
    1241 W. North Shore
    # 2G
    Chicago, IL  60626
    USA

    Phone: +1-773-743-1594
    EMail: cait@asomi.com







Bestler & Coene          Expires April 12, 2004                [Page 22]

Internet-Draft           RDMA/DDP Applicability             October 2003


    Lode Coene
    Atealaan 26
    Herentals,   2200
    Belgium

    Phone: +32-14-252081
    EMail: lode.coene@siemens.com












































Bestler & Coene          Expires April 12, 2004                [Page 23]

Internet-Draft           RDMA/DDP Applicability             October 2003


Full Copyright Statement

    Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2003).  All Rights Reserved.

    This document and translations of it may be copied and furnished to
    others, and derivative works that comment on or otherwise explain it
    or assist in its implementation may be prepared, copied, published
    and distributed, in whole or in part, without restriction of any
    kind, provided that the above copyright notice and this paragraph are
    included on all such copies and derivative works.  However, this
    document itself may not be modified in any way, such as by removing
    the copyright notice or references to the Internet Society or other
    Internet organizations, except as needed for the purpose of
    developing Internet standards in which case the procedures for
    copyrights defined in the Internet Standards process must be
    followed, or as required to translate it into languages other than
    English.

    The limited permissions granted above are perpetual and will not be
    revoked by the Internet Society or its successors or assigns.

    This document and the information contained herein is provided on an
    "AS IS" basis and THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING
    TASK FORCE DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING
    BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INFORMATION
    HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF
    MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.

Acknowledgement

    Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the
    Internet Society.



















Bestler & Coene          Expires April 12, 2004                [Page 24]


Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.108, available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/