[Docs] [txt|pdf] [Tracker] [Email] [Nits]

Versions: 00

Network Working Group                                      R. Chaparadza
Internet-Draft                                                  R. Petre
Intended status: Standards Track                        Fraunhofer Fokus
Expires: January 20, 2012                                    H. Mahkonen
                                                                Ericsson
                                                                  L. Xin
                                                                    BUPT
                                                            M. Behringer
                                                           Cisco Systems
                                                           July 19, 2011


                IP based Generic Control Protocol (IGCP)
                  draft-chaparadza-intarea-igcp-00.txt

Abstract

   This document presents a proposal for a multi-purpose Generic Control
   Protocol (IGCP) for IP based networks.  There is a growing need for a
   generic control protocol framework that can be further customized to
   specific usage contexts in which certain types of control information
   exchange messages and behavior among some functional entities hosted
   by different nodes or devices is desired.  For example, the growing
   area of self-management, self-organization and autonomic networking
   introduces functional entities into the node/device and network
   architectures that need to exchange control information in order to
   implement self-adaptive behavior by dynamically configuring and
   optimizing the network.  In this Draft we capture a number of control
   message exchange types of contexts (semantics) that can be
   selectively applied in the exchange of control information, which can
   form the basis of a generic control protocol, while at the same time
   defining the part in the message format that can be further
   customized according to the needs of specific functional entities
   designed to use the generic control protocol for exchanging control
   information.  In this Draft, we present our proposal for such a
   generic control protocol, whose message format is divided into two
   parts: a Common Part and a Generic Data Part.  The Common Part
   defines a set of a variety of selectable control semantics (e.g.
   simple one-way control information flow, indications of whether an
   acknowledgement is needed or not, solicitations for information or
   push/pull behaviors, negotiations for parameter value settings, etc).
   The Generic Data Part can be further customized and structured
   according to some specific use case of conveying control information
   carried by the Data Part that need to be parsed and used by some
   entities designed to interpret the Data Part according to their own
   specific customization and structuring of the Data Part.  We also
   give an example domain of application of the IGCP, namely the domain
   of autonomic adaptive control of network behaviours, of which we



Chaparadza, et al.      Expires January 20, 2012                [Page 1]


Internet-Draft  IP based Generic Control Protocol (IGCP)       July 2011


   illustrate further by providing an example Use Case that customizes
   the Data Part of the IGCP for use by special functional entities
   residing in different nodes in exchanging information using the IGCP
   messages.

Status of this Memo

   This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
   provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.

   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
   Task Force (IETF).  Note that other groups may also distribute
   working documents as Internet-Drafts.  The list of current Internet-
   Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.

   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."

   This Internet-Draft will expire on January 20, 2012.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2011 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors.  All rights reserved.

   This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
   Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
   (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
   publication of this document.  Please review these documents
   carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
   to this document.  Code Components extracted from this document must
   include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
   the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
   described in the Simplified BSD License.















Chaparadza, et al.      Expires January 20, 2012                [Page 2]


Internet-Draft  IP based Generic Control Protocol (IGCP)       July 2011


Table of Contents

   1.  Requirements notation  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
   2.  Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
   3.  Problem Statement  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6
   4.  The Proposed Solution (IGCP: IP-based Generic Control
       Protocol) and its application (Usage Scenarios)  . . . . . . .  9
     4.1.  Generating an IGCP message/packet  . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
   5.  Conventions used in this document  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
   6.  Message type and format for IGCP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
     6.1.  IGCP Information Exchange Messages . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
     6.2.  IGCP Negotiation Messages  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
   7.  Considerations of Usage in IPv4 Networks . . . . . . . . . . . 17
   8.  Security Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
   9.  IANA Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
   10. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
   11. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
     11.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
     11.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
   Appendix A.  Example domain of application of IGCP: The
                growing concept of Self-Management and Adaptive
                Control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
     A.1.  The growing concept of Self-Management and Adaptive
           Control  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
     A.2.  The need for a multi-purpose Generic Control Protocol
           in IP based networks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
     A.3.  Example Customization of the Data Part of IGCP and Use
           Case Scenario of the IGCP Information Exchange Messages  . 30
   Appendix B.  Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
   Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39





















Chaparadza, et al.      Expires January 20, 2012                [Page 3]


Internet-Draft  IP based Generic Control Protocol (IGCP)       July 2011


1.  Requirements notation

   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].














































Chaparadza, et al.      Expires January 20, 2012                [Page 4]


Internet-Draft  IP based Generic Control Protocol (IGCP)       July 2011


2.  Introduction

   The Draft proposes a Generic Control Protocol Framework that is
   customizable for different types of usage contexts (use cases) in
   which certain types of control information exchange messages and
   control behavioral semantics among the involved Functional Entities
   hosted by different nodes/devices are required.  Being "Generic"
   means having the following properties:

   1.  Having a Common Part i.e. a Header in the Message Format that
       defines a set of a variety of control semantics (e.g. simple one-
       way control information flow, indications of whether an
       acknowledgement is needed or not, solicitations for information
       or push/pull behaviors, negotiations for parameter value
       settings, etc).  The control semantics are meant to be diverse
       and selectable by functional entities exchanging control
       messages.

   2.  Having a Generic Data Part as payload part of the Message Format
       that can be customized and further structured according to the
       identified requirements for control communication between two or
       more types of Functional Entities that need to parse and
       interpret the Data Part in their own way customized for them by
       design.



























Chaparadza, et al.      Expires January 20, 2012                [Page 5]


Internet-Draft  IP based Generic Control Protocol (IGCP)       July 2011


3.  Problem Statement

   The trend in designing protocols for control information exchange
   between two or more functional entities residing in different nodes/
   devices in the network has often resulted in control protocols that
   are specific only to the needs of the functional entities involved.
   Multiple control protocols exist today and yet share very similar
   control semantics and in most cases they are difficult to extend or
   apply for other requirements for control semantics introduced by the
   evolving networking paradigms.  Different types of a variety of
   control semantics are often used to design a control protocol, such
   as (1) simple one-way control information flow with or without
   requiring acknowledgement of receipt of information by the receiver;
   (2) solicitations for information or push/pull behaviors by the
   functional entities involved; (3) negotiations by the entities
   involved in the process of performing parameter value settings, etc).
   Some functional entities in network nodes/devices need to exchange
   control information in order to implement adaptive network behavior
   and dynamic network configuration and optimization that is co-
   ordinated by the functional entities collaboratively.  Such
   functional entities can be an application, protocol or some other
   type of an entity that communicates with other peer entities hosted
   by other nodes/devices.

   In the emerging networking paradigms, the growing area of self-
   management, self-organization and autonomic networking introduces
   functional entities into the node/device and overall network
   architectures that need to exchange control information in order to
   implement adaptive network behavior and dynamic network configuration
   and optimization that is co-ordinated by the functional entities
   collaboratively.  Such functional entities can be, for example,
   distributed management components playing the role of "micro-manager
   elements" embedded in two or more nodes/devices, which co-operatively
   work together to realize distributed management and adaptive control
   of resources such as protocols, stacks and mechanisms.  This because
   some degree of intelligence can be introduced or enhanced within a
   network element e.g. a router by introducing embedded "micro-manager
   elements" that monitor events reported by local entities such as
   protocols (for example by accessing a management MIB(s)) and react by
   adaptively provisioning resources or regulating the behaviour of the
   managed protocols in order to fulfill some objective (e.g. reducing
   the amount of control traffic transmitted by the network element).
   This means the "micro-manager elements" configure, apply policies,
   monitor and dynamically adapt the behaviour of the Managed Entities
   (MEs) such as protocols, stacks and mechanisms.  The "micro-manager
   elements" can be developed to operate at a level of abstraction that
   is above protocol stacks and mechanisms of a device, since such a
   level of abstraction does not necessarily require changes to existing



Chaparadza, et al.      Expires January 20, 2012                [Page 6]


Internet-Draft  IP based Generic Control Protocol (IGCP)       July 2011


   protocols.  Such micro-manager elements can be perceived as
   "Decision-making-Elements" controlling (regulating) or managing (in
   general sense) some aspects of a node/device and protocols since the
   control-plane is viewed as a kind of horizontal extension of the
   management plane within the network itself, outside of the notion of
   the vertical management plane that involves management systems.  The
   "micro-manager elements" may require the ability to perform the
   following operations: (a) Negotiating the way their assigned Managed
   Entities (MEs) e.g.  Protocols, Stacks and mechanisms of the node/
   device, should be configured or dynamically re-configured.  The need
   to negotiate configuration settings e.g. parameter value settings
   applies to the case where there is no need to involve a centralized
   coordinating entity (e.g.  Network Management System), and so the
   peer "manager elements" in nodes/devices need to self-organize
   certain aspects of the network e.g. the way some protocols must
   behave according to some policies. (b) Soliciting for Capabilities of
   the peer manager element or multiple peers based on the features
   supported by their associated MEs(i.e. capabilities of the managed
   protocols, stacks and mechanisms--managed resources). (c) Self-
   Advertising Capabilities of functional entities such as a node/device
   as a whole to peer "manager elements" hosted by devices on the link,
   or to selected peers by policy. (d) Exchanging Trust related
   information/data. (e) Exposing "Views" to peer "manager elements",
   such as detected incidents, misbehaviors, etc, which can be used by
   the peers for adaptive (re)-configuration of their associated MEs.
   (f) Requesting for "Views" from peer "manager elements".

   A Generic Control Protocol Framework that is extensible, and defines
   a set of a variety of control semantics that can be selectively used
   by functional entities intending to communicate or exchange control
   information, if defined for IP networks, would serve as a "multi-
   purpose" Generic Control Protocol in IP based networks and would
   cost-effectively ease the development of adaptive behaviours of
   diverse types of functional entities.  An example of a control
   protocol that exists today that enables nodes/devices in IP networks
   to communicate to each other some control information and is
   extensible is ICMPv6.  A number of proposals have emerged recently,
   regarding information sharing between nodes/devices.  For example in
   [RFC4620] two messages are defined: Node Information Query and Node
   Information Reply, but they are designed to be used only for
   discovering information about names and addresses.  ICMPv6 messages
   are subdivided into two classes: Error messages and Information
   messages.  ICMPv6 (like a number of IPv6 protocols) offers some room
   for Extensibility depending on the need for exchanging Control
   Related Information and/or Use Case Context in which some Extension
   is required to the base ICMPv6 protocol.  Therefore, ICMPv6 offers a
   base for developing a Generic "multi-purpose" Control Protocol as an
   Extension to ICMPv6.  But, de-coupling the generic control protocol



Chaparadza, et al.      Expires January 20, 2012                [Page 7]


Internet-Draft  IP based Generic Control Protocol (IGCP)       July 2011


   from being an explicit extension to ICMPv6, means the generic multi-
   purpose control protocol could be developed as a standalone protocol
   that can be used in both IPv4 and IPv6.

   Proposal in brief (more details are provided in the next sections):
   An IP based Generic Control Protocol(IGCP) Framework that is
   customizable to specific usage contexts in which certain types of
   control information exchange messages and control behavioral
   semantics among some Functional Entities hosted by different nodes is
   desired.  Being "Generic" means having the following properties: 1.
   Having a Common Part i.e. a Header in the Message Format that defines
   a set of a variety of control semantics (e.g. simple one-way control
   information flow, indications of whether an acknowledgement is needed
   or not, solicitations for information or push/pull behaviors,
   negotiations for parameter value settings, etc).  The control
   semantics are meant to be diverse and selectable by functional
   entities exchanging control messages. 2.  Having a Generic Data Part
   as payload part of the Message Format that can be customized and
   further structured according to the identified requirements for
   control communication between two or more types of Functional
   Entities that need to parse and interpret the Data Part in their own
   way customized for them by design.  The Data field must be left to be
   customized and defined according to the specific needs of specific
   types of functional entities that need to exchange control
   information.

   Later, at the end of the Draft, we also give an example domain of
   application of the IGCP, namely the domain of autonomic adaptive
   control of network behaviours, of which we illustrate further by
   providing an example Use Case that customizes the Data Part of the
   IGCP for use by special functional entities residing in different
   nodes in exchanging information using the IGCP messages.



















Chaparadza, et al.      Expires January 20, 2012                [Page 8]


Internet-Draft  IP based Generic Control Protocol (IGCP)       July 2011


4.  The Proposed Solution (IGCP: IP-based Generic Control Protocol) and
    its application (Usage Scenarios)

   For all the requirements for control information exchange listed in
   the problem statement, we propose to introduce some generic IGCP
   messages that can be used by different types of functional entities
   requiring communicating with each other across nodes/devices.  The
   IGCP header consists of the first part that can be used for different
   purposes as allowed by the fields defined later in this draft, and a
   Data part.  The Data part can be further structured according to the
   identified requirements of different types of functional entities
   that need to exchange control information.  We propose that the Data
   field be left to be customized and defined according to the specific
   needs of specific types of functional entities that need to exchange
   control information.  An example of how the Data field can be
   customized for a particular Use Case Scenario of the IGCP is
   presented later.

4.1.  Generating an IGCP message/packet

   Entities generating an IGCP packet (e.g.  DEs) should reason about:

   1.  When to generate the IGCP packet.

   2.  The IP addressing for the IGCP packet: Unicast, Multicast or
   Anycast.

   3.  The required forwarding behaviour for the IGCP packet.  In IPv6,
   this may involve selectively combining Hop-By-Hop Options Header;
   Routing Header (this may require a new Routing-Type to be added to
   existing ones to support this behaviour), and/or Destination Options
   Header whenever applicable now and in the future evolution of IPv6.

   4.  In IPv6 networks, Neighbor Discovery (ND) protocol events may be
   used as triggers to the generation of an IGCP packet e.g. an entity
   that could leverage Neighbor Discovery related events may listen for
   such events and generate an IGCP message to some other peer entities
   in other nodes/devices in order to send information or update peers.













Chaparadza, et al.      Expires January 20, 2012                [Page 9]


Internet-Draft  IP based Generic Control Protocol (IGCP)       July 2011


5.  Conventions used in this document

   In the future revision.
















































Chaparadza, et al.      Expires January 20, 2012               [Page 10]


Internet-Draft  IP based Generic Control Protocol (IGCP)       July 2011


6.  Message type and format for IGCP

   We propose three types of generic IGCP messages for addressing the
   requirements outlined earlier in the problem statement, namely:
   ({Information Request}, {Information Offer} and {Information
   ReceiptACK}) and two messages for addressing the need for
   "negotiations" discussed earlier in the problem statement
   ({Negotiation Offer}, {Negotiation Reply}).

   The messages are of a somewhat a similar category to informational
   messages defined by ICMPv6.

6.1.  IGCP Information Exchange Messages

   In [RFC4620] two messages are defined: Node Information Query and
   Node Information Reply, but they are designed to be used only for
   discovering information about names and addresses.  We propose three
   new types of IGCP messages for facilitating the exchange of generic
   control information: {Information Request}, {Information Offer} and
   {Information ReceiptACK} messages, that share the same general format
   presented below Figure 1.

       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      |     Code      |          Checksum             |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |            Sender_Id          |         Receiver_Id           |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |   Group_Id    |          InfoType             |     Flags     |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |                                                               |
      /                             Data                              /
      |                                                               |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

         Figure 1: Information Request/Offer/ReceiptACK Messages.

   Type
      IGCP message type.

   Code
      For Information Request it can be used to further distinguish
      between different categories of information: capabilities of a
      functional entity e.g. a node/device , views regarding incidents
      and policies, etc.
      For Information Offer:




Chaparadza, et al.      Expires January 20, 2012               [Page 11]


Internet-Draft  IP based Generic Control Protocol (IGCP)       July 2011


      *  0 - Indicates that a confirmation is needed (the receiver
         should send an Information ReceiptACK message in response to
         this Information Offer message).  It means that the Information
         Offer message is not a response to an Information Request, but
         that the push model is being used instead.

      *  1 - Indicates a successful reply to an Information Request
         message.

      *  2 - Indicates that no confirmation is needed (no Information
         ReceiptACK message should be sent in response).

      *  3 - Indicates that the receiver of an Information Request
         message refuses to provide the requested information (maybe
         because of prohibiting local policies)

      *  4 - Indicates that the InfoType field is unknown to the
         responder or the Data field could not be decoded accordingly to
         the InfoType field.

      For Information ReceiptACK:

      *  1 - Indicates that the information was successfully received
         and processed.

      *  3 - Indicates that the InfoType field presented in the
         Information Offer is unknown to the responder or the Data field
         could not be decoded accordingly to the InfoType field.

   Checksum
      IGCP checksum.

   Sender_Id
      A 16-bit field used to identify the sender functional entity.  The
      identifier must be unique among all the functional entities inside
      a node since there can be multiple types of a functional entity
      inside a node/device that use the IGCP, each type of which
      requires its own customized use of the Data Part of the IGCP.

   Receiver_Id
      This field is similar to the Sender_Id, but it is used for
      identifying the receiver inside the node/device.

   Group_Id
      There can be a case when an IGCP message is of interest to more
      than one functional entity inside a node.  For that purpose we
      envision that different groups of interest can be set up, and
      different functional entities inside the node can be part of a



Chaparadza, et al.      Expires January 20, 2012               [Page 12]


Internet-Draft  IP based Generic Control Protocol (IGCP)       July 2011


      specific group.  This field should be used for identifying the
      group of functional entities for which the message is addressed.
      IDs and Group-ID need to be discovered, say in a similar fashion
      to the way Neighbor Discovery (ND) in IPv6 works.

   InfoType
      A 16-bit field that indicates the type of information requested in
      an Information Request or supplied in an Information Offer.  Its
      value in a reply should be always copied from the corresponding
      received message (for an Information Offer with code different
      from 0 it should be copied from the corresponding Information
      Request message and for Information ReceiptACK it should be copied
      from the Information Offer message).  The Information types need
      to be further researched.

   Flags
      There are specific flags for each InfoType defined for Information
      Requests or Offers.  When no flags are defined for a given
      InfoType, this field must be zero on transmission and ignored on
      reception, and must not be copied from a Request to a Reply.  An
      example of how the flags can be used is presented later on.

   Data
      We propose to keep the data field as "generic" as possible.  The
      Data field must be left to be customized and defined according to
      the specific needs of specific types of functional entities that
      need to exchange control information (e.g. different types of
      functional entities called Decision Elements (DEs) in the case of
      a GANA based network described in [Chaparadza-FIA-Prague2009]).
      An example of how the Data field can be used is presented later in
      this draft.

   The messages described above provide just the basic fields that can
   be used by any functional entity intending to exchange control
   information.  The Data part of the message can be customized to have
   different fields and structure according to the specific needs of the
   functional entities involved in the information exchange process.
   The structure of the Data field is determined by the value of the
   InfoType field.

   The Information Request message is used for requesting different
   types of information such as capabilities of functional entities
   (including protocols and mechanisms), "Views" (e.g. regarding
   incidents in the network or link state) etc.  The Information Offer
   message is primarily meant to be sent in response to an Information
   Request message, but there are cases when the push model needs to be
   used and then the targeted functional entity could send directly an
   Information Offer message.  The sender of an Information Offer



Chaparadza, et al.      Expires January 20, 2012               [Page 13]


Internet-Draft  IP based Generic Control Protocol (IGCP)       July 2011


   message can choose to request an acknowledgment or not by using the
   Code field inside the message.  If an acknowledgment is required then
   the receiver of the Information Offer message must construct and send
   an Information ReceiptACK message.

6.2.  IGCP Negotiation Messages

   The {Negotiation Offer} and {Negotiation Reply} messages have the
   same structure presented as in Figure 2.

       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      |     Code      |          Checksum             |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |            Sender_Id          |         Receiver_Id           |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |                             SeqNum                            |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |   Group_Id    |           NegType             |     Flags     |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |           SessionId           |           Reserved            |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |                                                               |
      /                             Data                              /
      |                                                               |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

                Figure 2: Negotiation Offer/Reply Messages.

   Type
      IGCP message type.

   Code
      Not used set to 0.

   Sender_Id
      A 16-bit field used to identify the sender functional entity.  The
      identifier must be unique among all the functional entities inside
      a node since there can be multiple types of a functional entity
      inside a node/device that use the IGCP, each type of which
      requires its own customized use of the Data Part of the IGCP.

   Receiver_Id
      This field is similar to the Sender_Id, but it is used for
      identifying the receiver inside the destination node/device.





Chaparadza, et al.      Expires January 20, 2012               [Page 14]


Internet-Draft  IP based Generic Control Protocol (IGCP)       July 2011


   SeqNum
      The 32-bit sequence number of the negotiation message inside a
      negotiation session.  This field is important for mapping a
      Negotiation Reply message to the corresponding Negotiation Offer
      Message.  Its value must be set by the sender in a Negotiation
      Offer message and should be copied by the receiver into the
      Negotiation Reply message.

   Group_Id
      There can be a case when an IGCP message is of interest to more
      than one functional entity inside a node.  For that purpose we
      envision that different groups of interest can be set up, and
      different functional entities inside the node can be part of a
      specific group.  This field should be used for identifying the
      group of functional entities for which the message is addressed.

   NegType
      Negotiation Type is a 16-bit field that indicates the negotiation
      protocol used for the current negotiation session.  Its value is
      set in the Negotiation Offer message by the initiator of a
      negotiation session and must remain unchanged during the whole
      session.

   Flags
      There are specific flags for each NegType defined for Negotiation
      Offer or Negotiation Reply.  When no flags are defined for a given
      NegType, this field must be zero on transmission and ignored on
      reception, and must not be copied from a Request to a Reply.

   SessionId
      An 16-bit field used to identify the messages that correspond to a
      negotiation session.  Its value must be set up by the initiator of
      the negotiation session and this value must remain unchanged
      during the whole session.

   Reserved
      16 bits of reserved space

   Data
      Negotiation data.

   The Negotiation Offer and Negotiation Reply messages (Figure 2)
   presented in the previous section are meant to be generic messages
   for facilitating the negotiation process between two or more
   functional entities.  They provide the basic fields that may be
   required during the negotiation.  The Data field should be used for
   carrying the additional information necessary in a specific case of
   negotiation.  The negotiation process could be done in more than one



Chaparadza, et al.      Expires January 20, 2012               [Page 15]


Internet-Draft  IP based Generic Control Protocol (IGCP)       July 2011


   step, as illustrated in Figure 3.

                     Functional                 Functional
                      Entity 1                   Entity 2
                          |                          |
                          |    Negotiation Offer 1   |
                          |------------------------->|
                          |    Negotiation Reply 1   |
                          |<-------------------------|
                          |                          |
                          |                          |
                          |    Negotiation Offer 2   |
                          |------------------------->|
                          |    Negotiation Reply 2   |
                          |<-------------------------|
                          |                          |

                      Figure 3: Negotiation Process.

   The negotiation process can be based on a simple mechanism like in
   the case of HTTP content negotiation [RFC 2616], [RFC 2295] or more
   sophisticated negotiation algorithms may be developed when necessary.





























Chaparadza, et al.      Expires January 20, 2012               [Page 16]


Internet-Draft  IP based Generic Control Protocol (IGCP)       July 2011


7.  Considerations of Usage in IPv4 Networks

   Fragmentation support discussion in future revision.
















































Chaparadza, et al.      Expires January 20, 2012               [Page 17]


Internet-Draft  IP based Generic Control Protocol (IGCP)       July 2011


8.  Security Considerations

   In the future revision.
















































Chaparadza, et al.      Expires January 20, 2012               [Page 18]


Internet-Draft  IP based Generic Control Protocol (IGCP)       July 2011


9.  IANA Considerations

   In the future revision.
















































Chaparadza, et al.      Expires January 20, 2012               [Page 19]


Internet-Draft  IP based Generic Control Protocol (IGCP)       July 2011


10.  Acknowledgements

   A number of people have contributed to the text and ideas.  The list
   of these people include Shiduan Cheng (BUPT), Yuhong Li (BUPT), Tony
   Jokikyyny (Ericsson), Jan Melen (Ericsson).

   In addition to people who have themselves contributed many ideas have
   come from the EU project consortium [EFIPSANS].  Our apologies to
   anyone whose name is missing.










































Chaparadza, et al.      Expires January 20, 2012               [Page 20]


Internet-Draft  IP based Generic Control Protocol (IGCP)       July 2011


11.  References

11.1.  Normative References

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

   [RFC4443]  Conta, A., Deering, S., and M. Gupta, "Internet Control
              Message Protocol (ICMPv6) for the Internet Protocol
              Version 6 (IPv6) Specification", RFC 4443, March 2006.

   [RFC4620]  Crawford, M. and B. Haberman, "IPv6 Node Information
              Queries", RFC 4620, August 2006.

   [RFC4861]  Narten, T., Nordmark, E., Simpson, W., and H. Soliman,
              "Neighbor Discovery for IP version 6 (IPv6)", RFC 4861,
              September 2007.

11.2.  Informative References

   [Ballani-Francis-ACM-SIGCOMM-vol37]
              Ballani, H. and P. Francis, "CONMan: A Step Towards
              Network Manageability",  ACM SIGCOMM Computer
              Communications Review, Volume 37(4), pages 205-216, 2007.

   [Chaparadza-FIA-Prague2009]
              Chaparadza, R., Papavassiliou, S., Kastrinogiannis, T.,
              Vigoureux, M., Dotaro, E., Davy, A., Quinn, K., Wodczak,
              M., Toth, A., Liakopoulos, A., and M. Wilson, "Creating a
              viable Evolution Path towards Self-Managing Future
              Internet via a Standardizable Reference Model for
              Autonomic Network Engineering",  FIA Prague 2009
              Conference, Published in the Future Internet Book, 2009.

   [Chaparadza-IEC-v60-Dec2007]
              Chaparadza, R., "Evolution of the current IPv6 towards
              IPv6++ (IPv6 with Autonomic Flavours)", Published by The
              International Engineering                      Consortium
              (IEC) in the Review of Communications, Volume 60,
              Dec 2007.

   [Chaparadza-IEC-v61-Dec2008]
              Chaparadza, R., "Requirements for a Generic Autonomic
              Architecture (GANA), suitable for Standardizable Autonomic
              Behaviour Specifications of Decision-Making-Elements
              (DMEs) for Diverse Networking Enviroments", Published
              by The International Engineering
              Consortium (IEC) in the Review of Communications,



Chaparadza, et al.      Expires January 20, 2012               [Page 21]


Internet-Draft  IP based Generic Control Protocol (IGCP)       July 2011


              Volume 61, Dec 2008.

   [EFIPSANS]
              EFIPSANS, "EC funded- FP7-EFIPSANS Project",
              <http://efipsans.org/>.

   [Greeberg-ACM-SIGCOMM-vol35]
              Greenberg, A., "A clean slate 4D approach to network
              control and management",  ACM SIGCOMM Computer
              Communications Review, Volume 35(5), pages 41-54, 2005.

   [Retvari-MACE2009]
              Retvari, G., Nemeth, F., Chaparadza, R., and R. Szabo,
              "OSPF for Implementing Self-adaptive Routing in Autonomic
              Networks: a Case Study", in proceedings of the 4th IEEE
              International Workshop on Modeling
              Autonomic Communication Environments (MACE2009),  Venice,
               Italy, Oct 2009.

































Chaparadza, et al.      Expires January 20, 2012               [Page 22]


Internet-Draft  IP based Generic Control Protocol (IGCP)       July 2011


Appendix A.  Example domain of application of IGCP: The growing concept
             of Self-Management and Adaptive Control

A.1.  The growing concept of Self-Management and Adaptive Control

   Self-Management and Adaptive Control is a new growing concept for
   networks in which so-called Autonomic Manager Entities (i.e.
   Decision-making-Elements) are introduced into the node/device
   architectures and the overall network architecture (refer to Figure 4
   and Figure 5).  The manager entities are required for "autonomically"
   configuring and controlling i.e. regulating and dynamically adapting
   the behaviour of network protocols and mechanisms by setting and re-
   setting parameters(variables) i.e. invoking management operations (in
   general) exposed by the "management interfaces" of the individual
   protocols and mechanisms based on some dynamic views analyzed by the
   manager entities.  Such views can be goals and policies governing the
   way the protocols, stacks and mechanisms should be configured and
   adaptively adjusted, or incidents observed and processed by the
   manager entities.  Autonomic management and control as the paradigm
   may be called aims at automating management operations/functions
   while at the same time ensuring self-adaptation of individual systems
   and the network through interacting control-loop structures designed
   to operate at various levels of abstraction of functionality.  The
   notion of "control" is associated with a combination of "observing,
   supervision/regulating/adapting behaviour of managed entities i.e.
   something a controller from control-theory does.

   The manager entities need to be able to communicate with each other
   some control types of messages depending on their co-operative goal
   as discussed later in this draft.  We shall refer to the Autonomic
   Manager Entities as Decision-Making-Elements.  Recently, an example
   of an evolvable, standardizable architectural Reference Model for
   Autonomic Networking and Self-Management within node and network
   architectures, dubbed the Generic Autonomic Network Architecture
   (GANA), has emerged [EFIPSANS] [Chaparadza-IEC-v60-Dec2007].  The
   concept of Autonomicity - realized through control-loop structures
   operating within network nodes/devices and the network as a whole, is
   an enabler for advanced and enriched self-manageability of network
   devices and networks.  A central concept of GANA is that of an
   autonomic Decision-Making-Element ("DME" or simply "DE" in short-for
   Decision Element).  A Decision Element (DE) implements the logic that
   drives a control-loop over the "management interfaces" of its
   assigned Managed Entities (MEs) e.g. protocols, stacks and
   mechanisms.  An advanced Decision-making-Element (DE) may exhibit
   cognitive behaviour.  Therefore, in GANA, self-* functionalities such
   as self-configuration, self-healing, self-optimization, etc, are
   functionalities implemented by a Decision Element(s).  The "generic
   nature" of GANA lies in the definition of the interfaces and their



Chaparadza, et al.      Expires January 20, 2012               [Page 23]


Internet-Draft  IP based Generic Control Protocol (IGCP)       July 2011


   fundamental operations that need to be supported by a Decision
   Element, the interconnection and relations among the DEs within node
   and network architectures, as well as the assignment of the types of
   Managed Entities (MEs) that are managed by their associated DEs,
   including the fundamental operations that must be supported on the
   management-interfaces of the individual MEs.  In
   [Chaparadza-IEC-v60-Dec2007] different types of "instantiation" of
   GANA for autonomic network management and adaptive control of
   protocols for different types of network environments are
   illustrated.

   The Generic Autonomic Network Architecture (GANA)
   [Chaparadza-IEC-v61-Dec2008] introduces "autonomic manager
   components/elements" known as Decision-Making-Elements (DMEs or in
   short - DEs) meant to operate at four different abstraction levels of
   functionality.  These "autonomic manager components" are designed
   following the principles of "hierarchical", "peering", and "sibling"
   relationships among each other within a node or network.  Moreover,
   these components are capable of performing autonomic control of their
   associated Managed-Entities (MEs), as well as co-operating with each
   other in driving the self-managing features of the Network(s).

   In GANA, four basic hierarchical levels of abstractions for which
   DEs, MEs, Control-Loops and their associated dynamic adaptive
   behaviours can be designed (refer to Figure 4 and Figure 5).  The
   levels of abstractions are as follows:

   o Level-1: protocol-level (the lowest level) by which self-management
   is associated with a network protocol itself (whether monolithic or
   modular).  This applies to those kinds of protocols that need to
   intrinsically embed control-loops similar to the type of control-
   loops embedded in TCP or OSPF.  There is growing opinion, however,
   that future protocols need to be simpler (i.e. with no decision logic
   embedded) than todays protocols which have become too hard to manage
   due undesired emergent behaviour during operation and interaction
   with other protocols.  This means, there is a need to rather
   implement decision logic at a level higher (i.e. outside the
   individual protocols)[Refer to sources such as CONMan
   [Ballani-Francis-ACM-SIGCOMM-vol37], 4D [Greeberg-ACM-SIGCOMM-vol35],
   etc.]

   o Level-2: the abstracted function-level (directly above the
   protocol(s)-level) that abstract some protocols and mechanisms
   associated with a particular function e.g. routing, forwarding,
   mobility management, etc-whereby we can reason about autonomic
   routing (see example instantiation of GANA for realizing autonomic
   routing in [Retvari-MACE2009]), autonomic forwarding, autonomic
   fault-management, autonomic configuration management;



Chaparadza, et al.      Expires January 20, 2012               [Page 24]


Internet-Draft  IP based Generic Control Protocol (IGCP)       July 2011


   o Level-3: the level of the node/device's overall functionality and
   behaviour i.e. a node or system as a whole is also considered as
   level of self-management functionality;

   o Level-4: the level of the network's overall functionality and
   behaviour (the highest level).  The figure below (Figure 4)
   illustrates that at node/system level of self-management (autonomic)
   properties, the lower level Decision-Making-Elements operating at the
   level of abstracted networking functions become the Managed-Entities
   of the main Decision-Making-Element (DME) of the system (node).  This
   means the node's main DME has access to the "views" exposed by the
   lower level DMEs and uses its overall knowledge to influence
   (enforce) the lower level DMEs to take certain desired decisions,
   which may in turn further influence or enforce desired behaviours on
   their associated Managed-Entities, down to the lowest level of
   individual protocol behaviour.  A "Sibling" relationship simply means
   that the entities are created or managed by the same upper level
   Decision-Making-Element (DME/DE).

































Chaparadza, et al.      Expires January 20, 2012               [Page 25]


Internet-Draft  IP based Generic Control Protocol (IGCP)       July 2011


     Node X                                                      Node Y
    +--------------------+   +-----------------------------------------+
    |                    |   |                                         |
    |Objectives, Policies|   |Objectives, Policies                     |
    | from a higher level|   | from a higher level                     |
    | (Network-Level-DE) |   | (Network-Level-DE)                      |
    |       | | |        |   |       | | |                             |
    |       | | |        |   |       | | |                             |
    |+----- V V V ------+|   |+----- V V V ------+                     |
    ||  Main Decision   |Peers|  Main Decision   |                     |
    ||  Element of the  |<--->|  Element of the  |<-----------+        |
    ||  Node (Node-DE)  ||   ||  Node (Node-DE)  |            |        |
    |+------------------+|   |+------------------+            |        |
    |         |          |   |         |                      V        |
    |+------------------+|   |+------------------+   +----------------+|
    || Decision Element ||   || Decision Element |   |Decision Element||
    || of an abstracted |Peers| of an abstracted |   |of an abstracted||
    || Network Function |<--->| Network Function |<->|Network Function||
    ||  e.g. Routing-   ||   ||  e.g. Routing-   | | |   e.g. QoS-    ||
    ||  Management-DE   ||   ||  Management-DE   | | | Management-DE  ||
    |+------------------+|   |+------------------+ | +----------------+|
    |         |          |   |         |           +__                 |
    |+------------------+|   |+------------------+  \                  |
    || Decision Element ||   || Decision Element |  Example Interaction|
    ||  intrinsic to a  |Peers|  intrinsic to a  |  between Sibling    |
    || Routing Protocol |<--->| Routing Protocol |  Decision Elements  |
    ||    e.g. OSPF     ||   ||    e.g. OSPF     |                     |
    |+------------------+|   |+------------------+                     |
    +--------------------+   +-----------------------------------------+

       Figure 4: Hierarchical, Peering,                     Sibling
                 Relations and Interfaces of DEs in GANA.

   This means that the entities having a sibling relation can still form
   other types of peer relationship within the autonomic node or with
   other entities hosted by other nodes in the network, according to the
   protocol and communication needs defined for their needs to
   communicate with other DEs.

   The GANA Level-4 i.e. the "network-level" represents the last level
   of autonomicity i.e. the highest level of self-manageability
   (determined by some associated control-loops for autonomicity).
   There may exist a logically centralized network-level Decision-
   Making-Element(s) or the kind of DEs proposed in the 4D network
   architecture [Greeberg-ACM-SIGCOMM-vol35] belonging to an isolated
   "overlay decision cloud" outside the nodes/devices (refer to
   Figure 5), which is considered to know (through some means) the
   objectives, goals or policies to be enforced by the whole network.



Chaparadza, et al.      Expires January 20, 2012               [Page 26]


Internet-Draft  IP based Generic Control Protocol (IGCP)       July 2011


   The objectives, goals or policies may actually require that the main
   (top-level) DMEs of the nodes of the network that are covered by the
   logically centralized network-level DME(s) in the "overlay decision
   cloud", export "views" such as events and state information to the
   logically centralized DME(s).  This may happen in order for the
   logically centralized DME to influence or enforce the DMEs of the
   nodes to take certain desired decisions following specific network
   policies that may in turn have an effect of inductive decision
   changes on the lower level DMEs of individual nodes/devices i.e. down
   to protocol level decisions.  A distributed network-level control-
   loop may be implemented following the above set-up, while another
   case of implementing a distributed control-loop would involve the
   main Decision-Making Elements of nodes/devices working co-
   operatively to self-organize and manage the network without the need
   or intervention of a "specially instrumented" logically centralized
   higher level network-level DME(s) in an isolated "overlay decision
   cloud".  Such a logically centralized network-level DME(s) would be
   meant to manage the whole network and should be hosted in a special
   machine(s) whose resources are only dedicated to network state data
   analysis, data mining and management operations that must work in
   harmony with autonomous self-management at node-level down to the
   protocol-level.  The second case implies that the nodes/devices need
   to be designed in such a way as to have the possibility for the
   nodes/devices themselves to self-organize and perform "intrinsic"
   management and control-which can only be achieved to a certain extent
   due to resource limitations of the nodes/devices and the problem of
   longer convergence time with some distributed decision-making
   algorithms.  All DEs from an stack with a "vertical view" and a
   "horizontal view" of interfaces and interworking with each to form
   the Decision-Plane of the network.  The vertical view would replace
   in the long term, the traditional Management Plane.

   In the GANA Reference Model:

   o Lower level DEs expose "views" up the Decision Plane, allowing the
   upper (slower) control loops to control the lower level (faster)
   control-loops (lower level DEs).

   o Changes computed in the upper DEs implementing slower Control-
   Loops are propagated down the DE hierarchy to the Functions-Level
   DE(s) implementing the faster control-loops that then arbitrate and
   enforce the changes to the lowest level Managed Entities (protocols
   and mechanisms).

   In [Retvari-MACE2009] an instantiation case for autonomic management
   and control of IPv6 routing protocols and mechanisms is illustrated.

   The GANA Reference Model can be viewed as a holistic architectural



Chaparadza, et al.      Expires January 20, 2012               [Page 27]


Internet-Draft  IP based Generic Control Protocol (IGCP)       July 2011


   Reference Model for autonomic network engineering and self-
   management.  It is holistic in the sense of the four basic levels of
   abstraction of functionality at which "inter-working nested control-
   loops for self-management" can be introduced.  Moreover, it is meant
   to also address what may simply be called "intrinsic management
   control and within a node/device and collaboratively among network
   devices" as well as depicting "boundaries and constraints" for this
   type of intrinsic management and control.  This means that the issues
   that require centralization of some of the autonomic decision-making
   processes of the network should be captured and defined by such the
   GANA Reference Model.  In addition, appropriate interfaces of the
   kind of Network- level Decision Elements (DEs) that take care of the
   sophisticated centralized decision-making-processes must be defined
   by GANA.  Network-Level DEs must allow for some "network-intrinsic
   management and decision-making-processes" to take place harmoniously
   at a lower level within the network nodes/devices themselves.  In
   GANA, Network-level DEs, which implement the "slower control-loops",
   need to interact with the lower level (Function-Level DEs) that
   implement "faster control-loops" within the nodes/devices.  We refer
   the reader to [Chaparadza-FIA-Prague2009] for more information on the
   subject.

   DEs operating at a certain level within GANA hierarchy of DEs may
   need to exchange control information, as described in the next
   section.

A.2.  The need for a multi-purpose Generic Control Protocol in IP based
      networks

   In IP-based node and network architectures that introduce such
   manager entities that need to exchange different types of control
   messages for the purposes outlined below, there is a need to
   introduce a generic control protocol in order to address the
   requirements outlined below.  The protocol (IGCP) should capture the
   parts that must be generic in the types of messages while identifying
   the items that must be mandatory in those types of messages.  IGCP
   can be used by any entities of a node that require to exchange
   control messages, not just Manager Entities (i.e.  DEs) presented by
   the GANA Reference Model.

   In the case of Manager Entities such as the GANA DEs, residing in two
   or more nodes/devices, the entities may require the ability to
   perform the following operations:

   (a) Negotiating the way their assigned Managed Entities (MEs) e.g.
   Protocols, Stacks and mechanisms of the node/device, should be
   configured or dynamically re-configured.  The need to negotiate
   configuration settings e.g. parameter value settings applies to the



Chaparadza, et al.      Expires January 20, 2012               [Page 28]


Internet-Draft  IP based Generic Control Protocol (IGCP)       July 2011


   case where there is no need to involve a centralized coordinating
   entity (e.g.  Network Management System), and so the peer "manager
   elements" (i.e.  DEs) in nodes/devices need to self-organize certain
   aspects of the network e.g. the way some protocols must behave
   according to some policies.

   (b) Soliciting for Capabilities of the peer manager element (DE) or
   multiple peers based on the features supported by their associated
   MEs(i.e. capabilities of the managed protocols, stacks and
   mechanisms--managed resources).

   (c) Self-Advertising Capabilities of functional entities such as a
   node/device as a whole to peer "manager elements" (DEs) hosted by
   devices on the link, or to selected peers by policy.

   (d) Exchanging Trust related information/data.  This could be done by
   the Node_DE (autonomically manages and controls the behaviour of the
   whole node) or also at lower level DEs within the node/device.

   (e) Exposing "Views" to peer DEs, such as detected incidents, mis-
   behaviours, etc, which can be used by the peers for managing the
   (re)-configuration of their associated MEs.

   (f) Requesting for "Views" from peer DEs.



























Chaparadza, et al.      Expires January 20, 2012               [Page 29]


Internet-Draft  IP based Generic Control Protocol (IGCP)       July 2011


                                   __          ___
                                   --          ---
                            ------/  \--------/   \------
                      -----/                             \----
                +----/        +-------------------------+     \--
            +---+             | Other Network-Level-DEs |        \-
         +--+              +--|                         |          \
       +-+                 |  +-------------------------+           +-
       |                   |      Network-Level-     |               -+
      +                 +--|    QoS-Management-DE    |<------+      |-
       +-               |  +-------------------------+       |       -+
         +--            |      Network-Level-     |<---------+    --/
            \---  +---->|   Routing-Management-DE |           ---/
                \-|---  +-------------------------+      ----/
                  |   \------    -------     -----------/
                  |          \--/       \---/
                  |
       Node X     |                                             Node Y
      +---------- V ------------+           +-------------------------+
      | +---------------------+ |           | +---------------------+ |
      | | Decision Element of | |           | | Decision Element of | |
      | |  the Node (Node-DE) |<------------->|  the Node (Node-DE) | |
      | +---------------------+ |           | +---------------------+ |
      |            |            |           |            |            |
      | +---------------------+ |           | +---------------------+ |
      | | Decision Element of | |           | | Decision Element of | |
      | |    an abstracted    | |           | |    an abstracted    | |
      | |  Network Function   |<------------->|  Network Function   | |
      | |    e.g. Routing-    | |           | |    e.g. Routing-    | |
      | |    Management-DE    | |           | |    Management-DE    | |
      | +---------------------+ |           | +---------------------+ |
      |            |            |           |            |            |
      | +---------------------+ |           | +---------------------+ |
      | | Routing Protocol(s) | |           | | Routing Protocol(s) | |
      | |    and Mechanisms   | |           | |    and Mechanisms   | |
      | |      of a node      |<------------->|      of a node      | |
      | |      e.g. OSPF      | |           | |      e.g. OSPF      | |
      | +---------------------+ |           | +---------------------+ |
      +-------------------------+           +-------------------------+

                  Figure 5: DEs communicating using IGCP.

A.3.  Example Customization of the Data Part of IGCP and Use Case
      Scenario of the IGCP Information Exchange Messages

   IGCP is meant to be used by any functional entities intending to
   exchange control messages for any of the requirements outlined
   earlier in the problem statement.  Here we focus on one example of a



Chaparadza, et al.      Expires January 20, 2012               [Page 30]


Internet-Draft  IP based Generic Control Protocol (IGCP)       July 2011


   usage case of IGCP.  In the following paragraphs, we give a concrete
   example of how the Information Offer message can be used for
   exchanging control information by two GANA DEs residing in different
   nodes/devices.  Here, we focus on the
   FUNCTION_LEVEL_ROUTING_MANAGEMENT_DEs (FUNC_LEVEL_RM_DEs) that,
   according to the GANA Model, are sitting on top of their Managed
   Entities (MEs) i.e. the routing protocols and mechanisms of a node/
   device and use specially customized messages to communicate with each
   other across nodes/devices.  In [Retvari-MACE2009] where an
   instantiation case for autonomic management and control of IPv6
   routing protocols and mechanisms is illustrated, it is argued that
   decision logic designed to operate outside and at a level of
   abstraction above protocols enables such instrumented decision logic
   to configure and dynamically adapt the behaviour of protocols based
   on information about the network and its goals that is not known or
   available to the individual protocols managed by such decision logic.
   Therefore, Function-Level-Routing-Management-DE (FUNC_LEVEL_RM_DE)
   inside a node is responsible for autonomic management and control of
   the routing protocols and mechanisms of a node by orchestrating the
   routing protocols, configuring them and applying policies, as well as
   listening for context changes and incidents and adapting the protocol
   behaviours.  In order to efficiently, autonomically manage and
   control the Managed Entity (ME) e.g. the OSPF protocol based on
   context changes and incidents, by setting and resetting some
   parameters such as those defined by the Management Information Base
   (MIB) for the target protocol e.g.  Timers and link-weights in OSPF,
   FUNC_LEVEL_RM_DEs in different nodes/devices in the network need to
   exchange control information.  They need to encapsulate the control
   information into the Data field of the previously described messages.
   For this example case of control information exchange according to
   the requirements presented earlier, three messages from the point of
   view of the customizable Data Part of an IGCP message, are introduced
   and their structure and fields are described below.

   Therefore, we illustrate how the Data field can be specially tailored
   i.e. customized for exchanging link state information that
   complements link state information exchange intrinsically built into
   OSPF.  The FUNC_LEVEL_RM_DE of a router is responsible for
   autonomically managing and controlling the behaviour of all the
   routing protocols and mechanisms of the device e.g.  OSPF (refer to
   [Retvari-MACE2009], [Chaparadza-FIA-Prague2009] for more detailed
   information on the description of the FUNC_LEVEL_RM_DEs).  The
   adaptive control is realized in a distributed manner as the
   FUNC_LEVEL_RM_DEs residing on different routers exchange information
   in order to take the most appropriate decisions for the overall
   network, such as how to adjust OSPF's timers to control the
   convergence or use FRR (Fast-Re-Route) to protect destroyed paths.
   Three kinds of messages that customize the Data Part of the IGCP are



Chaparadza, et al.      Expires January 20, 2012               [Page 31]


Internet-Draft  IP based Generic Control Protocol (IGCP)       July 2011


   introduced for facilitating the information exchange between
   FUNC_LEVEL_RM_DEs and their structure is presented below.

   The reason why the DEs need to exchange the same types of messages
   that are exchanged by OSPF is that DEs must detect the state of the
   network in advance.  The FUNC_LEVEL_RM_DE is a kind of controller of
   OSPF, so it must discover the change of the network before OSPF and
   decide how to adjust OSPF's running status.  Using the same types of
   messages is for the consistency with OSPF.  The FUNC_LEVEL_RM_DEs
   should discover the failure of the link/node before OSPF finds it and
   decide what to do with the failure.  For example, when a link in the
   network is disconected, the DEs will discover the failure first
   because of much higher hello sending frequency.  If the DE does
   nothing with the failure, OSPF will discover and handle the failure
   in more than 30 seconds, and that is not acceptable if the broken
   link has a high importance.  Rather, the DE will adjust the timer so
   that OSPF will become more sensitive and discover the failure soon,
   so the failure will be recovered in an acceptable time.  At the same
   time, DEs should acquire and keep the same cognitive knowledge
   concerning the network as the OSPF so that they will be able to spot
   a failure and make a protective remediation decision.  From the above
   we can conclude that DEs need to run a similar protocol as OSPF to
   detect the state of the network by exchanging the same types of
   messages that are exchanged by OSPF.  The difference is that DEs send
   hello messages with a much higher frequency to be much more sensitive
   than OSPF.

   The reason why the FUNC_LEVEL_RM_DEs do not use BFD (Bi-directional
   Forwarding Detection) as a usable option is that DEs run a link state
   detecting protocol similar to OSPF not only for detecting the links'
   state and discovering failures, but also for keeping the same
   cognitive knowledge concerning the network as the OSPF.  DEs
   (FUNC_LEVEL_RM_DEs) build a link state database, the database is
   considered to be the same as OSPF's link state database.  DEs use the
   link state database to calculate the importance of each link, and
   figure out the damage degree of the network after failures have
   occurred.  Additionally, using an independent hello mechanism would
   be more general and facilitate the deployment of DEs, so DEs do not
   use options such as BFD to detect the link state.

   FUNC_LEVEL_RM_DEs are NOT meant to replace OSPF but they configure
   OSPF and dynamically re-configure OSPF in trying to adapt the
   protocol behaviour according to events and incidents detected in the
   network's operation.  The FUNC_LEVEL_RM_DE uses two methods to
   configure OSPF, one is adjusting OSPF's timers while the other is
   using FRR (Fast-Re-Route) to replace broken paths with backup routes.
   When OSPF converges, the DEs will calculate backup route for the
   important links.  If the links are broken, the DE will activate the



Chaparadza, et al.      Expires January 20, 2012               [Page 32]


Internet-Draft  IP based Generic Control Protocol (IGCP)       July 2011


   backup route and use it to replace the broken route to guarantee
   communications(connectivity).  When the network converges again, the
   DE will cancel the backup route and calculate the backup routes for
   important links again.

   Neighbouring FUNC_LEVEL_RM_DEs discover each other and establish
   bidirectional communications by sending and receiving continuous
   Hello messages.  After establishing the communication, they
   synchronize the link state database with each other by sending Link
   State Exchange message, so that the FUNC_LEVEL_RM_DEs in the network
   will have the same link state database.  If a link state changes,
   such as a link failure, the FUNC_LEVEL_RM_DE that detects the change
   will send a Link State Advertisement message to all its neighboring
   FUNC_LEVEL_RM_DEs.  Receiving the message, the neighboring
   FUNC_LEVEL_RM_DE will update its local link state database and relay
   the message to all of its neighboring DE, so that the change of the
   link state will be known by all the FUNC_LEVEL_RM_DEs in the network.

   The Hello message (Figure 6) is used for establishing and maintaining
   connections to the neighbouring FUNC_LEVEL_RM_DEs.  Hello messages
   are sent by each FUNC_LEVEL_RM_DE every Hello_Interval seconds from
   all router interfaces in order to establish a bidirectional
   communication with all its FUNC_LEVEL_RM_DEs neighbours.  When two
   FUNC_LEVEL_RM_DEs have established a bidirectional communication,
   they begin to synchronize their topology databases.

   The synchronization is performed by using Link State Exchange
   messages (Figure 7).  This process takes place in two steps.  First,
   the two FUNC_LEVEL_RM_DEs involved must negotiate which DE is the
   Master and which one is the Slave.  This is done easily by selecting
   the FUNC_LEVEL_RM_DE that has the largest value in the
   Sender_Router_Id field as the master.  Once the roles of the DEs have
   been determined, the asymmetric exchange of information begins.  The
   master DE then sends its database in a sequence of Link State
   Exchange messages.  The messages are sent one at a time and each
   message is acknowledged by the slave DE (by setting the bit A to one
   and keeping the same sequence number).  The M bit must be set to 1 if
   there is more than one record in the database.  When the master DE
   transmits its last database record, it will set the M bit to 0 to
   indicate that there are no more records to be sent.  After receiving
   a message with M bit set to 0, the slave DE begins to send its
   database to the master DE.  When the slave DE sends the last database
   record it will set also the M bit to 0 and the synchronization
   process completes.

   When a link state changes (e.g. in case of a link failure), the
   FUNC_LEVEL_RM_DE that detects the change will send a Link State
   Advertisement message (Figure 9) to all its neighboring



Chaparadza, et al.      Expires January 20, 2012               [Page 33]


Internet-Draft  IP based Generic Control Protocol (IGCP)       July 2011


   FUNC_LEVEL_RM_DEs.  A Link State Advertisement message may contain
   updates about the changes of more than one link.  The sequence number
   from the advertisement message is compared to the value from the DE's
   local database.  If the sequence number is new, the receiver DE will
   update the state of the link in the local database and it will issue
   a new Link State Advertisement message to all other interfaces in
   order to propagate the updates.

       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      |     Code      |          Checksum             |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |            Sender_Id          |         Receiver_Id           |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |   Group_Id    |          InfoType             |     Flags     |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |                        Sender_Eth_Id                          |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |   HelloType   |                   Reserved                    |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |                         Hello_Interval                        |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |                         Dead_Interval                         |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |                       Sender_Router_Id                        |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

                         Figure 6: Hello Message.

   Sender_Eth_Id
      Interface identifier of the sender of the Hello message

   HelloType
      The type of the Hello message

   Hello_Interval
      The time between two consecutive Hello messages, expressed in
      seconds

   Dead_Interval
      The time for the dead interval, expressed in seconds

   Sender_Router_Id
      Router identifier of the sender of the Hello message






Chaparadza, et al.      Expires January 20, 2012               [Page 34]


Internet-Draft  IP based Generic Control Protocol (IGCP)       July 2011


       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      |     Code      |          Checksum             |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |            Sender_Id          |         Receiver_Id           |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |   Group_Id    |          InfoType             |    Flags  |A|M|
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |            SeqNum             |            Reserved           |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |                                                               |
      .                    Link_State_Option (only one)               .
      .                          (24 octects)                         .
      |                                                               |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

                  Figure 7: Link State Exchange Message.

   Flags
      A: Acknowledgement bit.  This bit should be set to zero when
      sending Link State Exchange messages.  If this bit is set to 1
      then it indicates that the message is an acknowledgment (see next
      sub-section for more details).
      M: If this bit is set to 1 more Link State Exchange messages will
      follow.  When the last Link State Exchange message is sent, this
      bit must be set to 0 (see next sub-section for more details).
      All the rest of the bits should be set to zero by any sender of a
      Link State Exchange message.

   SeqNum
      Sequence number of Link State Exchange message



















Chaparadza, et al.      Expires January 20, 2012               [Page 35]


Internet-Draft  IP based Generic Control Protocol (IGCP)       July 2011


       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
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |                        Sender_Router_Id                       |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |                       Neighbor_Router_Id                      |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |                       Sender_Interface_Id                     |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |                      Neighbor_Interface_Id                    |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |                           Timestamp                           |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |            Metric             |            Reserved           |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

                       Figure 8: Link State Option.

   Sender_Router_Id
      Router identifier of the sender

   Neighbour_Router_Id
      Neighbour Router identifier

   Sender_Interface_Id
      Interface identifier of the sender

   Neighbour_Interface_Id
      Neighbour Interface identifier

   Timestamp
      Timestamp at which this Link State Option was generated



















Chaparadza, et al.      Expires January 20, 2012               [Page 36]


Internet-Draft  IP based Generic Control Protocol (IGCP)       July 2011


       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      |     Code      |          Checksum             |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |            Sender_Id          |         Receiver_Id           |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |   Group_Id    |          InfoType             |    Flags  |A|0|
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |            SeqNum             |         LSA_Counter           |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |                                                               |
      .                       Link_State_Options                      .
      .                         (at least one)                        .
      |                                                               |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

                Figure 9: Link State Advertisement Message.

   Flags
      A: Acknowledgement bit.  This bit should be set to zero when
      sending Link State Advertisement messages.  If this bit is set to
      1 then it indicates that the message is an acknowledgment (see
      next sub-section for more details).
      All the rest of the bits should be set to zero by any sender of a
      Link State Exchange message.

   SeqNum
      The sequence number of Link State Advertisement message

   LSA_Counter
      This field indicates how many Link State Options (Figure 8) are
      present in the message.


















Chaparadza, et al.      Expires January 20, 2012               [Page 37]


Internet-Draft  IP based Generic Control Protocol (IGCP)       July 2011


Appendix B.  Conclusions

   The proposed generic control protocol (IGCP) and its generic Data
   Part offers an opportunity to accommodate different types of control
   information exchange contexts in the current and future IP networks.
   As an example domain of application of IGCP: the growing concept of
   self-management and autonomic networking, which can be applied to
   existing networking paradigms and architectures would benefit from
   such a multi-purpose control protocol as the network's Decision-
   making-Elements(DEs) defined by the GANA Reference Model presented in
   brief in this document, that are meant to dynamically (re)-configure,
   adapt and regulate the behaviour of protocols, stacks and mechanisms
   require exchanging control information.  The IGCP protocol can be
   used by any types of functional entities intending to exchange
   control messages.  When applied for use in the domain of autonomic
   networking, by Decision-Elements (DEs) defined by the GANA Model, the
   Data Part can be customized according to the needs of the different
   types of Decision Elements.  In this draft we illustrated the
   customization of the Data Part of IGCP for the needs of one specific
   type of a Decision Element, namely the Function-Level-Routing-
   Management-DE (FUNC_LEVEL_RM_DE).  The customization of the Data Part
   for the needs of other types of DEs would require the definition of
   more Internet Drafts accordingly.




























Chaparadza, et al.      Expires January 20, 2012               [Page 38]


Internet-Draft  IP based Generic Control Protocol (IGCP)       July 2011


Authors' Addresses

   Ranganai Chaparadza
   Fraunhofer Fokus


   Razvan Petre
   Fraunhofer Fokus


   Heikki Mahkonen
   Ericsson


   Li Xin
   BUPT


   Michael Behringer
   Cisco Systems































Chaparadza, et al.      Expires January 20, 2012               [Page 39]


Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.129d, available from https://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/