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

Versions: (draft-khs-forces-lfb-subsidiary-management) 00 01 02 RFC 7729

ForCES WG                                                  B. Khasnabish
Internet-Draft                                              ZTE TX, Inc.
Intended status: Standards Track                           E. Haleplidis
Expires: March 3, 2016                              University of Patras
                                                      J. Hadi Salim, Ed.
                                                       Mojatatu Networks
                                                         August 31, 2015


     IETF ForCES Logical Function Block (LFB) Subsidiary Management
             draft-ietf-forces-lfb-subsidiary-management-02

Abstract

   Deployment experience has demonstrated the value of using the
   Forwarding and Control Element Separation (ForCES) architecture to
   manage resources other than packet forwarding.  In that spirit, the
   Forwarding Element Manager (FEM) is modelled by creating a Logical
   Functional Block (LFB) to represent its functionality.  We refer to
   this LFB as the Subsidiary Mechanism (SM) LFB.  A Control Element
   (CE) that controls a Forwarding Element's (FE) resources can also
   manage its configuration via the SM LFB.  This document introduces
   the SM LFB class, an LFB class that specifies the configuration
   parameters of an FE.  The configuration parameters include new LFB
   class loading, CE associations as well as to provide manipulation of
   debug mechanisms along with a general purpose attribute definition to
   describe config information.

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 March 3, 2016.







Khasnabish, et al.        Expires March 3, 2016                 [Page 1]


Internet-Draft      ForCES LFB Subsidiary Management         August 2015


Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2015 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.

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
     1.1.  Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
     1.2.  Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
   2.  Use cases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
     2.1.  High Availability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
     2.2.  Scalability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
     2.3.  Adding New Resources To An NE . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
     2.4.  New LFB class installation  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
     2.5.  Logging Mechanism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
     2.6.  General Purpose Attribute Definition  . . . . . . . . . .   7
   3.  Applicability statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
     3.1.  FE Integrated . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
     3.2.  Virtual FEs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
   4.  SM Library  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
     4.1.  Frame Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
     4.2.  Datatype Definitions  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
     4.3.  Metadata Definitions  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
     4.4.  SM  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
       4.4.1.  Data Handling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
       4.4.2.  Components  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
       4.4.3.  Capabilities  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
       4.4.4.  Events  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
   5.  XML for SM LFB  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
   6.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  17
   7.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  17
     7.1.  LFB Class Names and LFB Class Identifiers . . . . . . . .  17
   8.  Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  18
   9.  References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  18
     9.1.  Normative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  18
     9.2.  Informative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  19
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  19



Khasnabish, et al.        Expires March 3, 2016                 [Page 2]


Internet-Draft      ForCES LFB Subsidiary Management         August 2015


1.  Introduction

   Deployment experience has demonstrated the value of using the
   Forwarding and Control Element Separation (ForCES) architecture to
   manage resources other than packet forwarding.  In that spirit, the
   Forwarding Element Manager (FEM) is modelled by creating a Logical
   Functional Block (LFB) to represent its functionality.  We refer to
   this LFB as the Subsidiary Mechanism (SM) LFB.  A Control Element
   (CE) that controls a Forwarding Element's (FE) resources can also
   manage its configuration via the SM LFB.  This document introduces
   the SM LFB class, an LFB that specifies the configuration parameters
   of an FE.

   On a running FE, a CE application may update an FE's runtime
   configuration via the SM LFB instance.




































Khasnabish, et al.        Expires March 3, 2016                 [Page 3]


Internet-Draft      ForCES LFB Subsidiary Management         August 2015


                              ForCES Network Element
                             +-------------------------------------+
                             |         +---------------------+     |
                             |         | Control Application |     |
                             |         +--+--------------+---+     |
                             |            |              |         |
                             |            |              |         |
      --------------   Fc    | -----------+--+      +-----+------+ |
      | CE Manager |---------+-|     CE 1    |------|    CE 2    | |
      --------------         | |             |  Fr  |            | |
            |                | +-+---------+-+      +------------+ |
            | Fl             |   |         | Fp        /           |
            |                |   |         +--------+ /            |
            |                |   | Fp               |/             |
            |                |   |                  |              |
            |                |   |         Fp      /|----+         |
            |                |   |       /--------/      |         |
      --------------     Ff  | ---+----------      --------------  |
      | FE Manager |---------+-|     FE 1   |  Fi  |     FE 2   |  |
      --------------         | |            |------|            |  |
                             | --------------      --------------  |
                             |   |  |  |  |          |  |  |  |    |
                             ----+--+--+--+----------+--+--+--+-----
                                 |  |  |  |          |  |  |  |
                                 |  |  |  |          |  |  |  |
                                   Fi/f                   Fi/f

          Fp: CE-FE interface
          Fr: CE-CE interface
          Fc: Interface between the CE Manager and a CE
          Ff: Interface between the FE Manager and an FE
          Fl: Interface between the CE Manager and the FE Manager
          Fi/f: FE external interface

                  Figure 1: ForCES Architectural Diagram

   Figure 1 shows a control application manipulating, at runtime, FE
   config via the SM LFB control.  It would appear that that control
   application is playing the part of the FE Manager thus appears as the
   messaging for Ff (FEM to FE interface) going via the standard Fp
   plane.  However the SM LFB describes a subset of the operations that
   can be performed over Ff; it does not suggest moving away from the Ff
   interface.

   The SM LFB class describes the configuration parameters of an FE,
   namely the LFB classes it should load, the CEs it should be
   associated with as well the respective CE IP addresses.  Additionally
   the SM LFB provides a general purpose attribute definition to



Khasnabish, et al.        Expires March 3, 2016                 [Page 4]


Internet-Draft      ForCES LFB Subsidiary Management         August 2015


   describe config information, as well as the ability to manipulate
   debug logging mechanism.

   This document assumes that FEs are already booted.  The FE's
   configuration can then be updated at runtime via the SM LFB for
   runtime config purposes.  This document does not specify or
   standardize the FEM-FE (Ff) interface as depicted in [RFC3746].  This
   document describes a mechanism with which a CE can instruct the SM
   for FE management using ForCES.

   This work item makes no assumption of whether FE resources are
   physical or virtual.  In fact, the LFB library provided here is
   applicable to both.  Thus it can also be useful in addressing control
   of virtual FEs where individual FEM Managers can be addressed to
   control the creation, configuration, and resource assignment of such
   virtual FEs within a physical FE.

1.1.  Requirements Language

   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].

1.2.  Definitions

   This document follows the terminology defined by [RFC3654],
   [RFC3746], [RFC5810] and [RFC5812].  In particular, the reader is
   expected to be familiar with the following terms:

   o  Logical Functional Block (LFB)

   o  Forwarding Element (FE)

   o  Control Element (CE)

   o  ForCES Network Element (NE)

   o  FE Manager (FEM)

   o  CE Manager

   o  ForCES Protocol

   o  ForCES Protocol Layer (ForCES PL)

   o  ForCES Protocol Transport Mapping Layer (ForCES TML)





Khasnabish, et al.        Expires March 3, 2016                 [Page 5]


Internet-Draft      ForCES LFB Subsidiary Management         August 2015


2.  Use cases

   In this section we present sample use cases to illustrate the need
   and usefulness of the SM LFB.

   All use cases assume that an FE is already booted up and tied to at
   least one CE.  A control application can delete a CE from an FE's
   table of CEs which instructs the FE to terminate the connection with
   that removed CE.  Likewise, the control application via the master CE
   instructs an FE to establish a ForCES association with a new CE by
   adding a particular CE to the FE's CEs table.

2.1.  High Availability

   Assume an FE associated to only one CE.  At runtime, a CE management
   application may request for redundancy reasons that an FE to be
   associated to another CE as a backup.  To achieve this goal, the CE
   management application specifies the CEID of the new backup CE (to be
   uniquely identified within the NE) and the CE's IP address (IPv4 or
   IPv6).

2.2.  Scalability

   Assume an NE cluster that has FEs connected possibly in an active
   backup setup to multiple CEs.  Assume that system analytics discover
   that the CE is becoming a bottleneck.  A new CE could be booted and
   some FEs moved to it.  To achieve this goal, the CE management
   application will first ask an FE to connect to a new CE and would
   then instruct that FE to change its master to the new CE as described
   in [RFC7121].

2.3.  Adding New Resources To An NE

   Assume a resource pooling setup with multiple FEs belonging to a
   resource pool all connected to a dormant resource pool CE.  An NE
   system manager by demand could move an FE from the resource pool to a
   working NE by asking it first to connect to a CE on the working NE
   and then asking it to disconnect from the resource pool manager CE.

2.4.  New LFB class installation

   A CE can learn, via the DynamicLFBLoading capability of the SM LFB,
   whether an FE is capable of loading new LFB classes.  Provided that
   the FE supports new LFB class loading, the CE can request a new LFB
   to be installed and supported by the FE.

   To load an LFB class on an FE, the CE will have to provide the
   following parameters:



Khasnabish, et al.        Expires March 3, 2016                 [Page 6]


Internet-Draft      ForCES LFB Subsidiary Management         August 2015


      LFB class - The LFB class ID

      LFB version - The version of the LFB class

      LFB class name - Optional, the LFB name

      Parameters - Optional parameters.  These parameters are
      implementation specific, for example in one implementation they
      may contain the path where the LFB class implementation resides.

   The parameter are fields which will be need to be described in
   documentation, depending on the implementation.  As an example the
   location of the LFB Class to be installed and/or mechanism to
   download it.  The exact detail of the location semantics is
   implementation specific and out of scope of this document.  However
   this LFB library provides a placeholder, namely the
   SupportedParameters capability, which will host any standardized
   parameters.

   This document does not standardize these parameters.  It is expected
   that some future document will perform that task.  These parameters
   are placeholders for future use, in order not to redefine the LFB
   class versions each time.  They are simple strings that define the
   parameters supported by the LFB.  The CE is expected to read this
   capability in order to understand the parameters it can use.

2.5.  Logging Mechanism

   The SM LFB class also provides a useful log level manipulation.
   Experience has proven that the CE may require to increase or decrease
   the debug levels of parts of the FE, whether that be LFBs or portions
   of LFBs or generic processing code (all called modules).  The module
   granularity is implementation specific and is not discussed in this
   document.  The debug levels are derived from
   <http://www.iana.org/assignments/syslog-parameters/syslog-
   parameters.xhtml#syslog-parameters-2> defined in [RFC3164].

2.6.  General Purpose Attribute Definition

   Experience has shown that a generic attribute name-value pair is
   useful for describing config information.  This LFB class defines
   such a generic attribute name-value pair defined as a table of
   attribute-name values.  The attribute name-value pair is
   implementation specific and at the moment there is nothing to
   standardize.  As an example consider switches which have exactly the
   same LFB classes and capabilities but needing to be used in different
   roles.  A good example would be a switch which could be used either
   as Spine or ToR in data-centre setups.  An attribute which defines



Khasnabish, et al.        Expires March 3, 2016                 [Page 7]


Internet-Draft      ForCES LFB Subsidiary Management         August 2015


   the role could be retrieved from the FE which will then dictate how
   it is controlled/configured.  However, as in the case of LFB class
   loading parameters this LFB class library provides a placeholder,
   namely the SupportedArguments capability, which will host any
   standardized arguments.  This document does not standardize these
   parameters.  It is expected that some future document(s) help
   standardize or define good practise of such attributes.  It is
   expected that the CE read this capability in order to know what the
   attributes it can use.

3.  Applicability statement

   Examples of SM usage are the following, but not limiting, two usage
   scenarios.  These two, but not limiting, scenarios are not
   implementation details, but rather depict how the SM class can be
   used to achieve the intended subsidiary mechanism for manipulating
   the configuration of FEs.

3.1.  FE Integrated

   Only one instance of the SM LFB class can exist and is directly
   related to the FE.

3.2.  Virtual FEs

   In the case of the FE software that has hierarchical virtual FEs,
   multiple instances of the SM LFB class can exist, one per each
   virtual FE.

4.  SM Library

4.1.  Frame Definitions

   This LFB class does not define any frames

4.2.  Datatype Definitions

   This library defines the following datatypes.













Khasnabish, et al.        Expires March 3, 2016                 [Page 8]


Internet-Draft      ForCES LFB Subsidiary Management         August 2015


   +------------+--------------------------------------+---------------+
   | DataType   | Type                                 | Synopsis      |
   | Name       |                                      |               |
   +------------+--------------------------------------+---------------+
   | loglevels  | An enumerated char based atomic      | The possible  |
   |            | datatype.                            | debug log     |
   |            |                                      | levels.       |
   |            |                                      | Derived from  |
   |            |                                      | syslog.       |
   | LogRowType | A struct containing three            | The logging   |
   |            | components. The LogModule (string),  | module row    |
   |            | the optional ModuleFilename (string) |               |
   |            | and optional DebugLevel which is one |               |
   |            | of the enumerated loglevels.         |               |
   | CERow      | A Struct that contains three         | A struct that |
   |            | components. The address family of    | defines the   |
   |            | the CE IP (uchar), the CE's IPs      | CE table row. |
   |            | (octetstring[16] and the CE's ID     |               |
   |            | (uint32)                             |               |
   | LCRowtype  | A Struct that contains four          | The LFB Class |
   |            | components. The LFB Class ID         | Config        |
   |            | (uint32), the LFB version            | Definition    |
   |            | (string[8]), the optional LFB Name   |               |
   |            | (string) and optional Parameters     |               |
   |            | (string).                            |               |
   | NameVal    | A Struct that contains two           | Arbitrary     |
   |            | components. An attribute name        | Name Value    |
   |            | (string) and an attribute value      | struct        |
   |            | (string)                             |               |
   +------------+--------------------------------------+---------------+

                              FEM Data Types

4.3.  Metadata Definitions

   This LFB does not define any metadata definition

4.4.  SM

   The Subsidiary Mechanism LFB is an LFB that standardizes
   configuration of the FE parameters.

4.4.1.  Data Handling

   The SM LFB does not handle any packets.  It's function is to provide
   the configuration parameters to the CE to be updated at runtime.





Khasnabish, et al.        Expires March 3, 2016                 [Page 9]


Internet-Draft      ForCES LFB Subsidiary Management         August 2015


4.4.2.  Components

   This LFB class has four components specified.

   The Debug component (ID 1) is a table to support changing of an FE's
   module debug levels.  Changes in an FE's debug table rows will alter
   the debug level of the corresponding module.

   The LFBLoad component (ID 2) is a table of LFBs classes that the FE
   loads.  Adding new rows in this table instructs the FE to load new
   LFB classes, and removing rows will unload them when possible.  These
   two actions will in effect alter the SupportedLFBs capabilities table
   of FEObject LFB [RFC5812].  Each such row MUST provide (and is
   specified by this library) the LFB Class ID.  Optionally the LFB
   class ID version may be specified, the FE MUST assume that version
   1.0 is used when the version is unspecified.

   The AttributeValues component (ID 3) is the AttributeValues table, a
   generic attribute-value pair.

   The CEs (ID 4) is the table of runtime CEs we are asking the FE to be
   able to connect with.  By adding a row in this table, the CE
   instructs the FE to be able to connect with the specified CE.  By
   doing a delete on this table, the CE instructs the FE to terminate
   any connection with that CE.  How the FE interacts with the new CEs
   is dependent on the operations discussed in [RFC7121]

   It is worth noting that the generic attribute value pairs, the
   LFBload parameters and the module information are all strings.  To
   cope with string sizes, a CE application can extract that information
   from the component properties as defined in [RFC5812]

4.4.3.  Capabilities

   This LFB provides three capabilities.  The first, DynamicLFBLoading,
   specifies whether this FE supports dynamic loading of new LFB
   classes.  The second, SupportedParameters, is a placeholder and will
   store all the supported parameters for LFB class loading.  The final,
   SupportedAttributes, is also a placeholder and will store all the
   supported attributes for the attribute-value pair table.

4.4.4.  Events

   This LFB has four events specified.

   Two events reflect CE additions and report to the CE whether an entry
   of the CEs information has been added or deleted.  In both cases the
   event report constitutes the added or deleted row contents.



Khasnabish, et al.        Expires March 3, 2016                [Page 10]


Internet-Draft      ForCES LFB Subsidiary Management         August 2015


   The other two events reflect LFB class loading and notify whether an
   entry of the LFBLoad table is added or deleted.

5.  XML for SM LFB

  <LFBLibrary xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:forces:lfbmodel:1.1"
   xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance" provides="SM">
    <!-- XXX  -->
    <dataTypeDefs>
      <dataTypeDef>
        <name>loglevels</name>
        <synopsis>The possible debug log levels. Derived from syslog.
        </synopsis>
        <atomic>
          <baseType>char</baseType>
          <specialValues>
            <specialValue value="-1">
              <name>DEB_OFF</name>
              <synopsis> The logs are totally turned off </synopsis>
            </specialValue>
            <specialValue value="0">
              <name>DEB_EMERG</name>
              <synopsis> Emergency level </synopsis>
            </specialValue>
            <specialValue value="1">
              <name>DEB_ALERT</name>
              <synopsis> Alert level </synopsis>
            </specialValue>
            <specialValue value="2">
              <name>DEB_CRIT</name>
              <synopsis> Critical level </synopsis>
            </specialValue>
            <specialValue value="3">
              <name>DEB_ERR</name>
              <synopsis> error level </synopsis>
            </specialValue>
            <specialValue value="4">
              <name>DEB_WARNING</name>
              <synopsis> warning level </synopsis>
            </specialValue>
            <specialValue value="5">
              <name>DEB_NOTICE</name>
              <synopsis>Notice level </synopsis>
            </specialValue>
            <specialValue value="6">
              <name>DEB_INFO</name>
              <synopsis>Info level </synopsis>
            </specialValue>



Khasnabish, et al.        Expires March 3, 2016                [Page 11]


Internet-Draft      ForCES LFB Subsidiary Management         August 2015


            <specialValue value="7">
              <name>DEB_DEBUG</name>
              <synopsis>Debug level </synopsis>
            </specialValue>
          </specialValues>
        </atomic>
      </dataTypeDef>
      <dataTypeDef>
        <name>LogRowtype</name>
        <synopsis>The logging module row</synopsis>
        <struct>
          <component componentID="1">
            <name>lmodule</name>
            <synopsis>The LOG Module Name</synopsis>
            <typeRef>string</typeRef>
          </component>
          <component componentID="2">
            <name>filename</name>
            <synopsis>The Module File Name</synopsis>
            <optional/>
            <typeRef>string</typeRef>
          </component>
          <component componentID="3">
            <name>deblvl</name>
            <synopsis>debug level</synopsis>
            <optional/>
            <typeRef>loglevels</typeRef>
          </component>
        </struct>
      </dataTypeDef>
      <dataTypeDef>
        <name>CERow</name>
        <synopsis>The CE Table Row</synopsis>
        <struct>
          <component componentID="1">
            <name>AddressFamily</name>
            <synopsis>The address family</synopsis>
            <atomic>
              <baseType>uchar</baseType>
              <specialValues>
                <specialValue value="2">
                  <name>IFA_AF_INET</name>
                  <synopsis>IPv4</synopsis>
                </specialValue>
                <specialValue value="10">
                  <name>IFA_AF_INET6</name>
                  <synopsis>IPv6</synopsis>
                </specialValue>



Khasnabish, et al.        Expires March 3, 2016                [Page 12]


Internet-Draft      ForCES LFB Subsidiary Management         August 2015


              </specialValues>
            </atomic>
          </component>
          <component componentID="2">
            <name>CEIP</name>
            <synopsis>CE ip v4 or v6(selected by family)</synopsis>
            <typeRef>octetstring[16]</typeRef>
          </component>
          <component componentID="3">
            <name>CEID</name>
            <synopsis>The CE ID</synopsis>
            <optional/>
            <typeRef>uint32</typeRef>
          </component>
        </struct>
      </dataTypeDef>
      <dataTypeDef>
        <name>LCRowtype</name>
        <synopsis>The LFB Class Config Definition</synopsis>
        <struct>
          <component componentID="1">
            <name>LFBClassID</name>
            <synopsis>The LFB Class ID</synopsis>
            <typeRef>uint32</typeRef>
          </component>
          <component componentID="2">
            <name>LFBVersion</name>
            <synopsis>The LFB Class Version</synopsis>
            <optional/>
            <typeRef>string</typeRef>
          </component>
          <component componentID="3">
            <name>LFBName</name>
            <synopsis>The LFB Class Name</synopsis>
            <optional/>
            <typeRef>string</typeRef>
          </component>
          <component componentID="4">
            <name>Parameters</name>
            <synopsis>Optional parameters such as where the LFB is
            located</synopsis>
            <optional/>
            <typeRef>string</typeRef>
          </component>
        </struct>
      </dataTypeDef>
      <dataTypeDef>
        <name>NameVal</name>



Khasnabish, et al.        Expires March 3, 2016                [Page 13]


Internet-Draft      ForCES LFB Subsidiary Management         August 2015


        <synopsis>Arbitrary Name Value struct</synopsis>
        <struct>
          <component componentID="1">
            <name>AttrName</name>
            <synopsis>The Attribute Name</synopsis>
            <typeRef>string</typeRef>
          </component>
          <component componentID="2">
            <name>AttrVal</name>
            <synopsis>The Attribute Value</synopsis>
            <typeRef>string</typeRef>
          </component>
        </struct>
      </dataTypeDef>
    </dataTypeDefs>
    <LFBClassDefs>
      <LFBClassDef LFBClassID="19">
        <name>SM</name>
        <synopsis>
           The Subsidiary Management LFB
        </synopsis>
        <version>1.0</version>
        <components>
          <component componentID="1" access="read-write">
            <name>Debug</name>
            <synopsis>A table to support changing of all debug levels
            </synopsis>
            <array type="variable-size">
              <typeRef>LogRowtype</typeRef>
            </array>
          </component>
          <component componentID="2" access="write-only">
            <name>LFBLoad</name>
            <synopsis>An LFB Class to Load</synopsis>
            <array type="variable-size">
              <typeRef>LCRowtype</typeRef>
            </array>
          </component>
          <component componentID="3" access="read-write">
            <name>AttributeValues</name>
            <synopsis>Table of general purpose SM attribute Values
            </synopsis>
            <array type="variable-size">
              <typeRef>NameVal</typeRef>
            </array>
          </component>
          <component componentID="4" access="write-only">
            <name>CEs</name>



Khasnabish, et al.        Expires March 3, 2016                [Page 14]


Internet-Draft      ForCES LFB Subsidiary Management         August 2015


            <synopsis>Table of CEs we are asking the FE to associate
             with</synopsis>
            <array type="variable-size">
              <typeRef>CERow</typeRef>
            </array>
          </component>
        </components>
        <!---->
        <capabilities>
          <capability componentID="10">
            <name>DynamicLFBLoading</name>
            <synopsis>This capability specifies whether this FE supports
             dynamic loading of new LFBs</synopsis>
            <typeRef>boolean</typeRef>
          </capability>
          <capability componentID="11">
            <name>SupportedParameters</name>
            <synopsis>This capability contains all the supported
             parameters</synopsis>
            <array type="variable-size">
              <typeRef>string</typeRef>
            </array>
          </capability>
          <capability componentID="12">
            <name>SupportedAttributes</name>
            <synopsis>This capability contains all the supported
             attributes names</synopsis>
            <array type="variable-size">
              <typeRef>string</typeRef>
            </array>
          </capability>
        </capabilities>
        <events baseID="20">
          <event eventID="1">
            <name>CEAdded</name>
            <synopsis>An CE has been added</synopsis>
            <eventTarget>
              <eventField>CEs</eventField>
            </eventTarget>
            <eventCreated/>
            <eventReports>
              <eventReport>
                <eventField>CEs</eventField>
                <eventSubscript>_CEIDsrowid_</eventSubscript>
              </eventReport>
            </eventReports>
          </event>
          <event eventID="2">



Khasnabish, et al.        Expires March 3, 2016                [Page 15]


Internet-Draft      ForCES LFB Subsidiary Management         August 2015


            <name>CEDeleted</name>
            <synopsis>An CE has been deleted</synopsis>
            <eventTarget>
              <eventField>CEs</eventField>
              <eventSubscript>_CEIDsrowid_</eventSubscript>
            </eventTarget>
            <eventDeleted/>
            <eventReports>
              <eventReport>
                <eventField>CEs</eventField>
                <eventSubscript>_CEIDsrowid_</eventSubscript>
              </eventReport>
            </eventReports>
          </event>
          <event eventID="3">
            <name>LFBLoaded</name>
            <synopsis>An LFB has been loaded</synopsis>
            <eventTarget>
              <eventField>LFBLoad</eventField>
            </eventTarget>
            <eventCreated/>
            <eventReports>
              <eventReport>
                <eventField>LFBLoad</eventField>
                <eventSubscript>_LFBLoadrowid_</eventSubscript>
              </eventReport>
            </eventReports>
          </event>
          <event eventID="4">
            <name>LFBUnloaded</name>
            <synopsis>An CE has been unloaded</synopsis>
            <eventTarget>
              <eventField>LFBLoad</eventField>
              <eventSubscript>_LFBLoadrowid_</eventSubscript>
            </eventTarget>
            <eventDeleted/>
            <eventReports>
              <eventReport>
                <eventField>LFBLoad</eventField>
                <eventSubscript>_LFBLoadrowid_</eventSubscript>
              </eventReport>
            </eventReports>
          </event>
        </events>
      </LFBClassDef>
    </LFBClassDefs>
  </LFBLibrary>




Khasnabish, et al.        Expires March 3, 2016                [Page 16]


Internet-Draft      ForCES LFB Subsidiary Management         August 2015


                       Figure 2: FEM XML LFB library

6.  Security Considerations

   This document does not alter the ForCES Model [RFC5812] or the ForCES
   Protocol [RFC5810].  As such, it has no impact on their security
   considerations.  This document simply defines the operational
   parameters and capabilities of an LFB that manages subsidiary
   mechanism for loading LFBs and create new connections between FEs and
   CEs.

   On the issue of trust, a designer should take into account that the
   CE that creating new connections to CEs is either:

   o  The FE manager which is the one responsible for managing the FEs

   o  An already associated CE

   In both these cases, the entity making the connections should already
   be trusted to perform such activities.  If the entity making the
   connections is faulty, rogue or hacked, there is no way for the FE to
   know and will perform any action that the CE requests.  Therefore,
   this document does not attempt to analyze the security issues that
   may arise from misuse of the SM LFB.  Any such issues, if they exist,
   and mitigation strategies are for the designers of the particular SM
   implementation, not the general mechanism.

   The reader is also referred to the ForCES framework [RFC3746]
   document, particular section 8, for an analysis of potential threats
   introduced by ForCES and how the ForCES architecture addresses them.

7.  IANA Considerations

7.1.  LFB Class Names and LFB Class Identifiers

   LFB classes defined by this document belong to LFBs defined by
   Standards Track RFCs.  According to IANA, the registration procedure
   is Standards Action for the range 0 to 65535 and First Come First
   Served with any publicly available specification for over 65535.
   This specification includes the following LFB class names and LFB
   class identifiers:










Khasnabish, et al.        Expires March 3, 2016                [Page 17]


Internet-Draft      ForCES LFB Subsidiary Management         August 2015


   +------------+-------+---------+------------------------+-----------+
   | LFB Class  |  LFB  |   LFB   |      Description       | Reference |
   | Identifier | Class | Version |                        |           |
   |            |  Name |         |                        |           |
   +------------+-------+---------+------------------------+-----------+
   |     19     |   SM  |   1.0   |      An SM LFB to      |    This   |
   |            |       |         | standardize subsidiary |  document |
   |            |       |         | management for ForCES  |           |
   |            |       |         |    Network Elements    |           |
   +------------+-------+---------+------------------------+-----------+

     Logical Functional Block (LFB) Class Names and Class Identifiers

8.  Acknowledgments

   The authors would like to thank Damascene Joachimpillai, Joel
   Halpern, Chuanhuang Li, and many others for their discussions and
   support.

   The authors are grateful to Joel Halpern for shepherding this
   document.  The authors would also like to thank Alia Atlas for taking
   on the role of sponsoring this document.  Finally Juergen
   Schoenwaelder for his operational directorate's review and Alexey
   Melnikov for his security review.

9.  References

9.1.  Normative References

   [RFC5810]  Doria, A., Ed., Hadi Salim, J., Ed., Haas, R., Ed.,
              Khosravi, H., Ed., Wang, W., Ed., Dong, L., Gopal, R., and
              J. Halpern, "Forwarding and Control Element Separation
              (ForCES) Protocol Specification", RFC 5810,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC5810, March 2010,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5810>.

   [RFC5812]  Halpern, J. and J. Hadi Salim, "Forwarding and Control
              Element Separation (ForCES) Forwarding Element Model",
              RFC 5812, DOI 10.17487/RFC5812, March 2010,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5812>.

   [RFC7121]  Ogawa, K., Wang, W., Haleplidis, E., and J. Hadi Salim,
              "High Availability within a Forwarding and Control Element
              Separation (ForCES) Network Element", RFC 7121,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC7121, February 2014,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7121>.





Khasnabish, et al.        Expires March 3, 2016                [Page 18]


Internet-Draft      ForCES LFB Subsidiary Management         August 2015


9.2.  Informative References

   [RFC2119]  Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
              Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.

   [RFC3164]  Lonvick, C., "The BSD Syslog Protocol", RFC 3164,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC3164, August 2001,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3164>.

   [RFC3654]  Khosravi, H., Ed. and T. Anderson, Ed., "Requirements for
              Separation of IP Control and Forwarding", RFC 3654,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC3654, November 2003,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3654>.

   [RFC3746]  Yang, L., Dantu, R., Anderson, T., and R. Gopal,
              "Forwarding and Control Element Separation (ForCES)
              Framework", RFC 3746, DOI 10.17487/RFC3746, April 2004,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3746>.

Authors' Addresses

   Bhumip Khasnabish
   ZTE TX, Inc.
   55 Madison Avenue, Suite 160
   Morristown, New Jersey  07960
   USA

   Phone: +001-781-752-8003
   Email: vumip1@gmail.com, bhumip.khasnabish@ztetx.com
   URI:   http://tinyurl.com/bhumip/


   Evangelos Haleplidis
   University of Patras
   Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering
   Patras  26500
   Greece

   Email: ehalep@ece.upatras.gr










Khasnabish, et al.        Expires March 3, 2016                [Page 19]


Internet-Draft      ForCES LFB Subsidiary Management         August 2015


   Jamal Hadi Salim (editor)
   Mojatatu Networks
   Suite 200, 15 Fitzgerald Rd,
   Ottawa, Ontario  K2H 9G1
   Canada

   Email: hadi@mojatatu.com












































Khasnabish, et al.        Expires March 3, 2016                [Page 20]


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