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

Versions: (draft-stewart-rddp-sctp) 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 RFC 5043

Remote Direct Data Placement                                  C. Bestler
Working Group                                                 R. Stewart
Internet-Draft                                                    Editor
Intended status: Informational                        September 13, 2006
Expires: March 17, 2007


Stream Control Transmission Protocol (SCTP) Direct Data Placement (DDP)
                               Adaptation
                      draft-ietf-rddp-sctp-07.txt

Status of this Memo

   By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any
   applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware
   have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes
   aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79.

   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 March 17, 2007.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2006).












Bestler & Stewart        Expires March 17, 2007                 [Page 1]

Internet-Draft             SCTP DDP Adaptation            September 2006


Abstract

   This document specifies an Adaptation Layer to provide a Lower Layer
   Protocol (LLP) service for Direct Data Placement (DDP) using the
   Stream Control Transmission Protocol (SCTP).


Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3
   2.  Definitions  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
   3.  Conventions  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6
   4.  Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
     4.1.  Motivation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
     4.2.  Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
   5.  Data Formats . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8
     5.1.  Adaptation Layer Indicator . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8
     5.2.  Payload Data Chunks  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8
       5.2.1.  DDP Source Sequence Number (DDP-SSN) . . . . . . . . .  9
       5.2.2.  DDP Segment Chunk  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
       5.2.3.  DDP Stream Session Control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
   6.  DDP Stream Sessions  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
     6.1.  Sequencing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
     6.2.  Legal Sequence: Active/Passive Session Accepted  . . . . . 11
     6.3.  Legal Sequence: Active/Passive Session Rejected  . . . . . 12
     6.4.  Legal Sequence: Active/Passive Session Non-ULP Rejected  . 12
     6.5.  ULP Specific Sequencing  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
     6.6.  Other Sequencing Rules . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
   7.  SCTP Endpoints . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
     7.1.  Adaptation Layer Indication Restriction  . . . . . . . . . 14
     7.2.  Multihoming Implications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
   8.  Number of Streams  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
   9.  Fragmentation  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
   10. Sequenced Unordered Operation  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
   11. Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
     11.1. Association Initialization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
     11.2. Chunk Bundling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
     11.3. Association Termination  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
   12. IANA considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
   13. Security Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
   14. Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
   15. Acknowledgments  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
   16. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
     16.1. Normative references . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
     16.2. Informative references . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
   Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
   Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . . . . 27




Bestler & Stewart        Expires March 17, 2007                 [Page 2]

Internet-Draft             SCTP DDP Adaptation            September 2006


1.  Introduction

   This document describes a method to adapt Direct Data Placement
   [I-D.ietf-rddp-ddp] to Stream Control Transmission Protocol (SCTP)
   [RFC2960].

   Some implementations may include this adaptation layer within their
   SCTP implementations to obtain maximum performance but the behavior
   of SCTP will be unaffected.  An SCTP Layer used solely by this
   adaptation layer is able to take certain optimizations based on the
   limited subset of SCTP capabilities used.  In order to allow
   optimization for these implementations we specify the use of the new
   adaptation layer indication as defined in [I-D.ietf-tsvwg-addip-sctp]






































Bestler & Stewart        Expires March 17, 2007                 [Page 3]

Internet-Draft             SCTP DDP Adaptation            September 2006


2.  Definitions

   DDP -  See Direct Data Placement Protocol.

   DDP Endpoint -  The logical sender/receiver of DDP Segments.  An SCTP
      Stream pair is not assumed to have a DDP Endpoint.  DDP Segments
      may only be sent once a DDP Endpoint has been assigned to an SCTP
      Stream pair by a local interface.

   DDP Source Stream Sequence (DDP-SSN) -  A stream specific sequence
      number assigned by the Adaptation Layer for each SCTP Data Chunk
      sent.  This is the order that chunks were submitted to SCTP, no
      matter what order they are actually sent or received in.

   DDP Segment -  The smallest unit of data transfer for the DDP
      protocol.  It includes a DDP Header and ULP Payload (if present).
      A DDP Segment should be sized to fit within the Lower Layer
      Protocol MULPDU.

   DDP Segment Chunk -  An SCTP Payload Data Chunk that encapsulates the
      DDP-SSN and a DDP Segment.

   DDP Stream -  a sequence of DDP Segments whose ordering is defined by
      the LLP.  For SCTP, a DDP Stream maps directly to a bi-directional
      pair of SCTP streams with the same Stream IDs.  Note that DDP has
      no ordering guarantees between DDP Streams.

   DDP Stream Session -  A single pairing of DDP Endpoints over a DDP
      Stream that lasts from a Initiation message through the
      Termination message(s).

   DDP Stream Session Control Message -  DDP Stream Session Control
      messages are used to control the association of the DDP Endpoint
      with the DDP Stream.

   Direct Data Placement Protocol (DDP) -  A wire protocol that supports
      Direct Data Placement by associating explicit memory buffer
      placement information with the LLP payload units.

   Lower Layer Protocol (LLP) -  In the context of DDP, the protocol
      layer beneath RDMA that provides a reliable transport service.
      The SCTP DDP adaption is one of the initially defined LLPs for
      DDP.

   Protection Domain -  A common local interface convention to control
      which Steering Tags (STags) are valid with which DDP Endpoints.
      Under this convention both the Steering Tag and DDP Endpoint are
      created within the context of a Protection Domain, and the



Bestler & Stewart        Expires March 17, 2007                 [Page 4]

Internet-Draft             SCTP DDP Adaptation            September 2006


      Steering Tag may only be enabled for DDP Endpoints created under
      the same Protection Domain.

   RDMA -  Remote Direct Memory Access.

   RNIC -  RDMA Network Interface Card.

   SCTP association -  A protocol relationship between two SCTP
      endpoints.  An SCTP association supports multiple SCTP streams.

   SCTP Data Chunk -  An SCTP Chunk used to convey Payload Data.  There
      can be multiple Chunks within each SCTP packet.  Other Chunks are
      used to control the SCTP Association.

   SCTP endpoint -  The logical sender/receiver of SCTP packets.  On a
      multi-homed host, an SCTP endpoint is represented to its peers as
      a combination of an SCTP port number and a set of eligible
      destination transport addresses to which SCTP packets can be sent.

   SCTP Stream -  A uni-directional logical channel established from one
      to another associated SCTP endpoint.  There can be multiple SCTP
      Streams within each SCTP association.  An SCTP Stream is used to
      form one direction of a DDP stream.

   Transmission Sequence Number (TSN) -  A 32-bit sequence number used
      internally by SCTP.  One TSN is attached to each chunk containing
      user data to permit the receiving SCTP endpoint to acknowledge its
      receipt and detect duplicate deliveries.

   Upper Layer Protocol (ULP) -  In the context of RDMA protocol
      specifications, this is the layer using RDMA services.  Typically
      this is an application or middleware.  A primary goal of RDMA
      protocols is to enable direct transfer of payload to/from ULP
      buffers.

















Bestler & Stewart        Expires March 17, 2007                 [Page 5]

Internet-Draft             SCTP DDP Adaptation            September 2006


3.  Conventions

   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
   "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
   document are to be interpreted as described in RFC2119 [RFC2119].














































Bestler & Stewart        Expires March 17, 2007                 [Page 6]

Internet-Draft             SCTP DDP Adaptation            September 2006


4.  Introduction

4.1.  Motivation

   This document specifies an Adaptation Layer which fulfills the
   requirements of a Lower Layer Protocol (LLP) for DDP using a specific
   subset of SCTP capabilities.

   The defined protocol is intended to be implementable over existing
   SCTP stacks, while clearly defining what portions of SCTP are
   required to enable an implementation to be optimized specifically to
   support DDP.

4.2.  Overview

   The Adaptation Layer uses a pair of like-numbered SCTP Streams within
   an SCTP Association to provide a reliable DDP Stream between two DDP
   Endpoints.  Except as specifically noted, each DDP Segment submitted
   by the DDP Layer is encoded as a single unordered SCTP Data Chunk.
   In addition to the DDP Segment the Data Chunk also contains a
   sequence number (DDP-SSN) that reflects the order that DDP submitted
   the segments in for that stream.

   A DDP Stream Session is defined by DDP Stream Session Control Chunks
   that manage the state of the DDP Stream Session.  These Chunks
   dynamically bind DDP Endpoints to the DDP Stream Session, and DDP
   Segment Chunks are used to reliably deliver DDP Segments with the
   session.























Bestler & Stewart        Expires March 17, 2007                 [Page 7]

Internet-Draft             SCTP DDP Adaptation            September 2006


5.  Data Formats

5.1.  Adaptation Layer Indicator

   The DDP/SCTP Adaptation Layer uses all streams within an SCTP
   association.  An SCTP Association that has had the DDP Adaptation
   Indication negotiated will carry only SCTP Data Chunks as defined in
   this document.

   It is presumed that the handling of incoming data chunks for DDP
   enabled associations is sufficiently different than for routine SCTP
   associations that it is undesirable to require support for mixing DDP
   and non-DDP streams in a single association.  More than a single
   association is required if an application desires to utilize both DDP
   and non-DDP traffic with the same remote host.

   We define a adaptation indication which MUST appear in the INIT or
   INIT-ACK with the following format as defined in [ADDIP-Draft]
   [I-D.ietf-tsvwg-addip-sctp]

   0                   1                   2                   3
   0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |        Type =0xC006           |    Length = Variable          |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                    Adaptation Indication                      |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

   Adaptation Indication:

   The following values are suggested for DDP in this document, but
   the final value will be assigned by IANA:

         DDP                        - 0x00000001


5.2.  Payload Data Chunks

   The DDP SCTP adaptation uses two types of SCTP Payload Data Chunks,
   differentiated by the Payload Protocol Identifier:

      DDP Segment Chunks are used to reliably deliver DDP Segments sent
      between DDP Endpoints.

      DDP Stream Session Control Messages are used to establish and
      teardown DDP Stream Sessions, specifically by controlling the
      binding of DDP endpoints with SCTP streams.




Bestler & Stewart        Expires March 17, 2007                 [Page 8]

Internet-Draft             SCTP DDP Adaptation            September 2006


   Payload Protocol Identifier:

   The following value are defined for DDP in this document,
   but the final values will be assigned by IANA:

         DDP Segment Chunk          - 16
         DDP Stream Session Control - 17


5.2.1.  DDP Source Sequence Number (DDP-SSN)

   All SCTP Payload Data Chunks used by this Adaptation layer include a
   DDP Source Sequence Number (DDP-SSN).  The DDP-SSN tracks the
   sequence the messages were submitted to the SCTP layer for the SCTP
   stream in use.  The DDP-SSN MUST have the same value that the SCTP
   Stream Sequence Number (SSN) would have been assigned had ordered
   SCTP Payload Data Chunks been used rather than unordered.

   The rationale for specifying the DDP-SSN is as follows:

   o  The SCTP Stream Sequence Number (SSN) is not suitable for this
      purpose, because all messages defined by this document use
      unordered Payload Data Chunks to ensure prompt delivery from the
      receiving SCTP layer.

   o  The SCTP Transmission Sequence Number (TSN) is not suitable for
      determine the original order of Data Chunks within a stream.  The
      sending SCTP layer is allowed to optimize the transmission
      sequence of unordered Data Chunks to encourage Chunk Bundling, or
      other purposes.

5.2.2.  DDP Segment Chunk

   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
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |          DDP-SSN              |         DDP Segment           |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+                               |
   |                                                               |
   |                         ...                                   |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

   DDP Segments are as defined in [I-D.ietf-rddp-ddp].  The DDP Segment
   Chunk serves the same purpose as the [I-D.ietf-rddp-mpa] Upper Layer
   PDU (MULPDU) in that it carries DDP Segments over a reliable protocol
   with added sequencing information.





Bestler & Stewart        Expires March 17, 2007                 [Page 9]

Internet-Draft             SCTP DDP Adaptation            September 2006


5.2.3.  DDP Stream Session Control


   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
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |          DDP-SSN              |    Function Code              |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |            Private Data (Dependent on Function Code)          |
   |                         ...                                   |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

   The following function code values are defined for DDP in
   this document:


         DDP Stream Session Initiate         - 0x001
         DDP Stream Session Accept           - 0x002
         DDP Stream Session Reject           - 0x003
         DDP Stream Session Terminate        - 0x004


   ULP supplied Private Data MUST be included for DDP Stream Session
   Initiate, DDP Stream Session Accept and DDP Stream Session Reject
   messages.  However, the ULP supplied Private DATA MAY be of zero
   length.

   Private Data length MUST NOT exceed 512 bytes in any message.

   Private Data MUST NOT be included in the DDP Stream Session Terminate
   message.

   Received DDP Stream Session Control messages SHOULD be reported to
   the ULP.  If reported, any supplied Private Data MUST be available
   for the ULP to examine.

   The DDP/SCTP adaptation layer MAY limit the number of Session
   Initiate requests that it has submitted to the ULP.  When a DDP
   Stream Session Initiate cannot be forwarded to the ULP due to such a
   limit the adaptation layer MUST respond with a DDP Stream Session
   Terminate message.










Bestler & Stewart        Expires March 17, 2007                [Page 10]

Internet-Draft             SCTP DDP Adaptation            September 2006


6.  DDP Stream Sessions

   A DDP Endpoint is the logical sender/receiver of DDP Segments.  A DDP
   Stream connects two DDP Endpoints using a matched pair of SCTP
   Streams having the same SCTP Stream Identifiers.

   A DDP Stream Session defines the sequence of Data Chunks exchanged
   between two DDP Endpoints over a DDP Stream that has a distinct
   beginning and end as defined in the following section.  Data Chunks
   from one DDP Stream Session are never carried over to the next
   session.  Each Data Chunk unambiguously belongs to exactly one
   session.  The DDP-SSNs assigned to the Data Chunks for a session MUST
   NOT have any gaps.

   The local interface MAY dynamically associate a DDP Endpoint with the
   DDP Stream based upon the initial exchanges of a DDP Session, and
   dynamically terminate that association at the session's end.
   Alternately a specialized local interface could simply statically map
   DDP Endpoints to DDP Streams.

   Conventionally local interfaces for RDMA have deferred the selection
   of the DDP Endpoint until after the ULP decides to accept an RDMA
   connection request.  But that is a local interface choice and not a
   wire protocol requirement.

   A DDP Stream is associated with at most one Protection Domain during
   a single DDP Stream Session.  On the passive side the association is
   typically deferred until the DDP Stream Session Accept message.

6.1.  Sequencing

   The DDP-SSN is reset to zero at the beginning of each DDP Stream
   Session.

   The normative sequence for considering Payload Data Chunks within a
   given session is based upon each Data Chunk's DDP-SSN.  When
   considered in this normative sequence, all sessions MUST conform to
   one the patterns defined in this section.

   If the adaptation layer receives a Payload Data Chunk that conforms
   to none of the enumerated legal patterns the DDP Stream Session MUST
   be terminated.

6.2.  Legal Sequence: Active/Passive Session Accepted

   In this DDP Stream Session sequence one DDP Endpoint assumes the
   active role in requesting a DDP Stream Session, which the other side
   accepts.



Bestler & Stewart        Expires March 17, 2007                [Page 11]

Internet-Draft             SCTP DDP Adaptation            September 2006


      Active Side sends a DDP Stream Session Initiate message.

      Passive Side sends a DDP Stream Session Accept message.

      Each side may then send zero or more DDP Segments with increasing
      DDP-SSNs, subject to any flow control imposed by other protocol
      layers.

      The final User Data Chunk for each side MAY be a DDP Stream
      Terminate.  At least one side MUST send a DDP Stream Terminate.
      Note that this would follow any RDMAP Terminate message, which to
      the Adaptation layer is simply another DDP Segment.

6.3.  Legal Sequence: Active/Passive Session Rejected

   DDP Stream Sessions allow each party to send a single non-payload
   message before the other end commits specific resources to the
   session.  This allow each end to determine which resources are to be
   used, and how they are to be configured, or even if the session
   should be granted.

   These decision MAY be influenced by the need to assign a specific
   Protection Domain, to determine how many RDMA Read Credits are
   required, or to determine now many receive operations the ULP should
   enable.

   Because of these, or other, factors the Passive side MAY choose to
   reject a DDP Stream Session Request.  This results in the following
   legal sequence:

      Active Side sends a DDP Stream Session Initiate message.

      Passive Side sends a DDP Stream Session Reject message.

   An DDP Stream Session Reject message MUST NOT be sent unless the
   rejection is at the direction of the ULP.

6.4.  Legal Sequence: Active/Passive Session Non-ULP Rejected

   Acceptance or rejection of DDP Stream Session Initiate messages
   SHOULD be under the control of the ULP.  This MAY require passing an
   event to the ULP.  There MUST be a finite limit on the number of such
   requests that are pending a ULP decision.  When more session requests
   are received the passive side MUST respond to the Initiate message
   with a DDP Stream Terminate Message.






Bestler & Stewart        Expires March 17, 2007                [Page 12]

Internet-Draft             SCTP DDP Adaptation            September 2006


6.5.  ULP Specific Sequencing

   An implementation MAY choose to support additional ULP specific
   sequences, but MUST NOT do so unless requested to do so by the ULP.

   A defined ULP MUST be able to operate using only the defined
   mandatory session sequences.  Any additional sequences must be used
   only for optional optimizations.

6.6.  Other Sequencing Rules

   A DDP Stream Session Control message MUST NOT be sent if it may be
   received before a prior DDP Stream Session Control message within the
   same DDP Stream Session.

   An active side of a DDP Stream Session MUST NOT send a DDP Segment
   that might be received before the DDP Stream Session Initiate
   message.

   This MAY be determined by SCTP acking of the Data Chunk used to carry
   the DDP Stream Session Initiate message, or by receipt of a
   responsive DDP Stream Session Control message.

   A DDP Stream Identifier MUST NOT be re-used for another DDP Stream
   Session while any Data Chunk from a prior session might be
   outstanding.

























Bestler & Stewart        Expires March 17, 2007                [Page 13]

Internet-Draft             SCTP DDP Adaptation            September 2006


7.  SCTP Endpoints

7.1.  Adaptation Layer Indication Restriction

   The local interface MUST allow the ULP to specify an SCTP endpoint to
   use a specific Adaptation Indication.  It MAY require the ULP to do
   so.

   Once an endpoint decides on its acceptable Adaptation Indication(s),
   it SHOULD terminate all requests to establish an association with any
   different Adaptation Indication.

   An SCTP implementation MAY choose to accept association requests for
   a given SCTP endpoint only until one association for the endpoint has
   been established.  At that point it MAY choose to restrict all
   further associations for the same endpoint to use the same Adaptation
   Indication.

7.2.  Multihoming Implications

   SCTP allows an SCTP endpoint to be associated with multiple IP
   addresses, potentially representing different interface devices.
   Distribution of the logic for a single DDP stream across multiple
   input devices can be very undesirable, resulting in complex cache
   coherency challenges.  Therefore the local interface MAY restrict
   DDP-enabled SCTP endpoints to a single IP address, or to a set of IP
   addresses that are all assigned to the same input device ("RNIC").

   The default binding of a DDP enabled SCTP endpoint SHOULD NOT cover
   more than a single IP address unless doing so results in no
   additional bus traffic or duplication of memory registration
   resources.  This will frequently result in a different default than
   for SCTP endpoints that are not DDP enabled.

   Applications MAY choose to avoid using out-of-band methods for
   communicating the set of IP addresses used by an SCTP endpoint when
   there is potential confusion as to the intended scope of the SCTP
   endpoint.  For example, assuming the SCTP endpoint consists of all IP
   Addresses advertised by DNS may work for a general purpose SCTP
   endpoint but not a DDP enabled one.

   Even when multi-homing is supported, ULPs are cautioned that they
   SHOULD NOT use ULP control of the source address in attempt to load-
   balance a stream across multiple paths.  A receiving DDP/SCTP
   implementation that chooses to support multi-homing SHOULD optimize
   its design on the assumption that multi-homing will be used for
   network fault tolerance, and not to load-balance between paths.  This
   is consistent with recommended SCTP practices.



Bestler & Stewart        Expires March 17, 2007                [Page 14]

Internet-Draft             SCTP DDP Adaptation            September 2006


8.  Number of Streams

   DDP Streams are bidirectional.  They are always composed by pairing
   the inbound and outbound SCTP streams with the same SCTP Stream
   Identifier.

   The adaptation layer should request the maximum number of SCTP stream
   it will wish to use over the lifetime of the association.  SCTP
   streams must still be bound to DDP Endpoints, and a DDP enabled SCTP
   association does not support ordered Data Chunks.  Therefore the mere
   existence of an SCTP stream is unlikely to require significant
   supporting resources.

   This mapping uses an SCTP association to carry one or more DDP
   Steams.  Each DDP Stream will be mapped to a pair of SCTP streams
   with the same SCTP stream number.  The adaptation MUST initialize all
   of its SCTP associations with the same number of inbound and outbound
   streams.

































Bestler & Stewart        Expires March 17, 2007                [Page 15]

Internet-Draft             SCTP DDP Adaptation            September 2006


9.  Fragmentation

   A DDP/SCTP Receiver already deals with fragmentation at both the IP
   and DDP Layers.  Therefore use of SCTP layer segmenting will be
   avoided for most cases.

   As a Lower Layer Protocol (LLP) for DDP, the SCTP adaptation layer
   MUST inform the DDP layer of the maximum DDP Segment size that will
   be supported.  This should be the largest value that can be supported
   without use of IP or SCTP fragmentation, or 516 bytes, whichever is
   larger.

   A minimum of 516 bytes is required to allow a DDP Stream Session
   Control Message with 512 bytes of Private Data.

   SCTP data chunk fragmentation MUST NOT be used unless the alternative
   is IP fragmentation.

   The SCTP adaptation layer SHOULD set the maximum DDP Segment size
   below the theoretical maximum in order to allow bundling of Control
   Chunks in the same SCTP packet.

   The SCTP adaptation layer MUST reject DDP Segments that are larger
   than the maximum size specified.



























Bestler & Stewart        Expires March 17, 2007                [Page 16]

Internet-Draft             SCTP DDP Adaptation            September 2006


10.  Sequenced Unordered Operation

   The Adaptation layer MUST use the Unordered option on all Data Chunks
   (U Flag set to one).  The SCTP Layer is expected to deliver unordered
   Data Chunks without delay.

   Because DDP employs unordered SCTP delivery, the receiver MUST NOT
   rely upon the SCTP Transmission Sequence Number (TSN) to imply
   ordering of DDP Segments.  The fact that the SCTP Data Chunk for a
   DDP Segment is prior the cumulative ack point does not guarantee that
   all prior DDP segments have been placed.  The SCTP sender is not
   obligated to transmit unordered Data Chunks in the order presented.

   The DDP-SSN can be used without special logic to determine the
   submission sequence when the maximum number of in-flight messages is
   less than 32768.  This also applies if the sending SCTP accepts no
   more than 32767 Data Chunks for a single stream without assigning
   TSNs.

   If SCTP does accept more than 32768 Data chunks for a single stream
   without assigning TSNs, the sending DDP must simply refrain from
   sending more than 32767 Data Chunks for a single stream without
   acknowledgment.  Note that it MUST NOT rely upon ULP flow control for
   this purpose.  Typical ULP flow control will deal exclusively with
   untagged messages, not with DDP segments.

   The receiver MAY perform a validity check on received DDP-SSNs to
   ensure that any gap could be accounted for by unreceived Data Chunks.
   Implementations SHOULD NOT allocate resources on the assumption that
   DDP-SSNs are valid without first performing such a validity check.
   An invalid DDP-SSN MAY result in termination of the DDP Stream.




















Bestler & Stewart        Expires March 17, 2007                [Page 17]

Internet-Draft             SCTP DDP Adaptation            September 2006


11.  Procedures

11.1.  Association Initialization

   At the startup of an association, a DDP/SCTP Adaptation Layer MUST
   include an adaptation layer indication in its INIT or INIT-ACK (as
   defined in Section 5.1.  After the exchange of the initial first two
   SCTP chunks (INIT and INIT-ACK), an endpoint MUST verify and inspect
   the adaptation indication and compare it to the following table to
   determine proper action.

          Indication |           Action
            type     |

   ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
                     | This indicates that the peer DOES NOT
         NONE        | support ANY DDP or RDMA adaptation and thus
                     | RDMA and DDP procedures MUST NOT be
                     | performed upon this association.
   ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
                     | This indicates that the peer DOES support
         DDP         | the DDP/SCTP Adaptation Layer defined here.
   ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
                     | This indicates that the peer DOES NOT
       ANY-OTHER     | support the DDP adaptation and thus
       Indication    | DDP procedures MUST NOT be performed
                     | upon this association.

   ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

   An implementation MAY require that all associations for a given SCTP
   endpoint be placed in the same mode.

   The local interface MAY allow the ULP to accept only requests to
   establish an association in a specified mode.

11.2.  Chunk Bundling

   SCTP allows multiple Data Chunks to be bundled in a single SCTP
   packet.  Data chunks containing DDP Segments with untagged messages
   SHOULD NOT be delayed to facilitate bundling.  Data chunks containing
   DDP Segments with tagged messages will generally be full sized, and
   hence not subject to bundling.  However partial size tagged messages
   MAY be delayed, as that they are frequently followed by a short
   untagged message.






Bestler & Stewart        Expires March 17, 2007                [Page 18]

Internet-Draft             SCTP DDP Adaptation            September 2006


11.3.  Association Termination

   Termination of an SCTP Association due to errors should be handled at
   the SCTP layer.  The RDMAP defined RDMAP Terminate Message SHOULD NOT
   be sent on each DDP Stream when a determination has been made to
   terminate an SCTP association.  Sending that message on each SCTP
   stream could severely delay the termination of the association.

   The local interface SHOULD notify all consumers of DDP streams when
   the underlying SCTP stream has been terminated.

   Other RDMAP defined Terminate Messages MUST be generated as specified
   when a DDP Stream is terminated.  Note that with the SCTP mapping,
   termination of a DDP Stream does not mandate termination of the
   Association.




































Bestler & Stewart        Expires March 17, 2007                [Page 19]

Internet-Draft             SCTP DDP Adaptation            September 2006


12.  IANA considerations

   This document defines a new SCTP Adaptation Layer Indication
   codepoint.  [I-D.ietf-tsvwg-addip-sctp] will create the registry from
   which this codepoint is to be assigned.  Any unallocated codepoint
   may be assigned.  The value of one is suggested.

   This document also defines two new SCTP Payload Protocol Identifier
   (PPIDs).  RFC2960 [RFC2960] creates the registry from which these
   identifiers are to be assigned.  The Payload Protocol Identifiers
   allocated need to be unique, but have no other requirements.  The
   following values are suggested:

         DDP Segment Chunk           - 16
         DDP Stream Session Control  - 17




































Bestler & Stewart        Expires March 17, 2007                [Page 20]

Internet-Draft             SCTP DDP Adaptation            September 2006


13.  Security Considerations

   Any direct placement of memory could pose a significant security risk
   if adequate local controls are not provided.  These threats are
   addressed in the appropriate DDP [I-D.ietf-rddp-ddp], RDMA
   [I-D.ietf-rddp-rdmap] or Security [I-D.ietf-rddp-security] drafts.
   This document does not add any additional security risks over those
   found in RFC2960 [RFC2960].

   The IPsec requirements for RDDP are based on the version of IPsec
   specified in RFC 2401 [RFC2401] and related RFCs, as profiled by RFC
   3723 [RFC3723], despite the existence of a newer version of IPsec
   specified in RFC 4301 [RFC4301] and related RFCs.  One of the
   important early applications of the RDDP protocols is their use with
   iSCSI iSER [I-D.ietf-ips-iser]; RDDP's IPsec requirements follow
   those of IPsec in order to facilitate that usage by allowing a common
   profile of IPsec to be used with iSCSI and the RDDP protocols.  In
   the future, RFC 3723 may be updated to the newer version of IPsec,
   the IPsec security requirements of any such update should apply
   uniformly to iSCSI and the RDDP protocols.































Bestler & Stewart        Expires March 17, 2007                [Page 21]

Internet-Draft             SCTP DDP Adaptation            September 2006


14.  Contributors

   Many thanks to our contributors who have spent many hours reading and
   reviewing keeping us straight: Sukanta Ganguly an independent
   consultant, Vivek Kashyap of IBM, Jim Pinkerton of Microsoft, and
   Hemal Shah of Broadcom.  Thanks for all your hard work.













































Bestler & Stewart        Expires March 17, 2007                [Page 22]

Internet-Draft             SCTP DDP Adaptation            September 2006


15.  Acknowledgments

   The authors would like to thank the following people that have
   provided comments and input: Stephen Bailey, David Black, Douglas
   Otis, Allyn Romanow and Jim Williams.














































Bestler & Stewart        Expires March 17, 2007                [Page 23]

Internet-Draft             SCTP DDP Adaptation            September 2006


16.  References

16.1.  Normative references

   [RFC2119]  Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
              Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.

   [RFC2960]  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.

   [RFC3723]  Aboba, B., Tseng, J., Walker, J., Rangan, V., and F.
              Travostino, "Securing Block Storage Protocols over IP",
              RFC 3723, April 2004.

   [I-D.ietf-rddp-ddp]
              Shah, H., "Direct Data Placement over Reliable
              Transports", draft-ietf-rddp-ddp-06 (work in progress),
              June 2006.

   [I-D.ietf-rddp-rdmap]
              Recio, R., "A Remote Direct Memory Access Protocol
              Specification", draft-ietf-rddp-rdmap-07 (work in
              progress), September 2006.

   [I-D.ietf-rddp-security]
              Pinkerton, J., "DDP/RDMAP Security",
              draft-ietf-rddp-security-10 (work in progress), June 2006.

   [I-D.ietf-tsvwg-addip-sctp]
              Stewart, R., "Stream Control Transmission Protocol (SCTP)
              Dynamic Address  Reconfiguration",
              draft-ietf-tsvwg-addip-sctp-15 (work in progress),
              June 2006.

16.2.  Informative references

   [I-D.ietf-rddp-mpa]
              Culley, P., "Marker PDU Aligned Framing for TCP
              Specification", draft-ietf-rddp-mpa-06 (work in progress),
              September 2006.

   [RFC2401]  Kent, S. and R. Atkinson, "Security Architecture for the
              Internet Protocol", RFC 2401, November 1998.

   [RFC4301]  Kent, S. and K. Seo, "Security Architecture for the
              Internet Protocol", RFC 4301, December 2005.



Bestler & Stewart        Expires March 17, 2007                [Page 24]

Internet-Draft             SCTP DDP Adaptation            September 2006


   [I-D.ietf-ips-iser]
              Ko, M., "iSCSI Extensions for RDMA Specification",
              draft-ietf-ips-iser-05 (work in progress), October 2005.
















































Bestler & Stewart        Expires March 17, 2007                [Page 25]

Internet-Draft             SCTP DDP Adaptation            September 2006


Authors' Addresses

   Caitlin Bestler
   Editor
   Broadcom Corporation
   16215 Alton Parkway
   P.O. Box 57013
   Irvine, CA  92619-7013
   USA

   Phone: 949-926-6383
   Email: caitlinb@broadcom.com


   Randall R. Stewart
   Editor
   Cisco Systems, Inc.
   Forest Drive
   Columbia, SC  29036
   USA

   Phone: +1-815-342-5222
   Email: rrs@cisco.com




























Bestler & Stewart        Expires March 17, 2007                [Page 26]

Internet-Draft             SCTP DDP Adaptation            September 2006


Full Copyright Statement

   Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2006).

   This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions
   contained in BCP 78, and except as set forth therein, the authors
   retain all their rights.

   This document and the information contained herein are provided on an
   "AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS
   OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET
   ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM 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.


Intellectual Property

   The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
   Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to
   pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in
   this document or the extent to which any license under such rights
   might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has
   made any independent effort to identify any such rights.  Information
   on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be
   found in BCP 78 and BCP 79.

   Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any
   assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an
   attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of
   such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this
   specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at
   http://www.ietf.org/ipr.

   The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any
   copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary
   rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement
   this standard.  Please address the information to the IETF at
   ietf-ipr@ietf.org.


Acknowledgment

   Funding for the RFC Editor function is provided by the IETF
   Administrative Support Activity (IASA).





Bestler & Stewart        Expires March 17, 2007                [Page 27]


Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.107, available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/