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

Versions: (RFC 5667) 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 RFC 8267

Network File System Version 4                              C. Lever, Ed.
Internet-Draft                                                    Oracle
Obsoletes: 5667 (if approved)                              June 30, 2016
Intended status: Standards Track
Expires: January 1, 2017


     Network File System (NFS) Upper Layer Binding To RPC-Over-RDMA
                     draft-ietf-nfsv4-rfc5667bis-01

Abstract

   This document specifies the Upper Layer Bindings of Network File
   System (NFS) protocol versions to RPC-over-RDMA transports.  Such
   Upper Layer Bindings are required to enable RPC-based protocols to
   use direct data placement when conveying large data payloads on RPC-
   over-RDMA transports.  This document obsoletes RFC 5667.

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 1, 2017.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2016 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




Lever                    Expires January 1, 2017                [Page 1]


Internet-Draft            NFS On RPC-Over-RDMA                 June 2016


   the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
   described in the Simplified BSD License.

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
     1.1.  Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
     1.2.  Changes Since RFC 5667  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
     1.3.  Planned Changes To This Document  . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   2.  Conveying NFS Operations On RPC-Over-RDMA Transports  . . . .   4
     2.1.  Use Of The Read List  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     2.2.  Use Of The Write List . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
     2.3.  Construction Of Individual Chunks . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
     2.4.  Use Of Long Calls And Replies . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
   3.  NFS Versions 2 And 3 Upper Layer Binding  . . . . . . . . . .   5
   4.  NFS Version 4 Upper Layer Binding . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
     4.1.  NFS Version 4 COMPOUND Considerations . . . . . . . . . .   7
     4.2.  NFS Version 4 Callbacks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
   5.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
   6.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
   7.  Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
   8.  References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
     8.1.  Normative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
     8.2.  Informative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
   Author's Address  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11

1.  Introduction

   Remote Direct Memory Access Transport for Remote Procedure Call,
   Version One [I-D.ietf-nfsv4-rfc5666bis] (RPC-over-RDMA) enables the
   use of direct data placement to accelerate the transmission of large
   data payloads associated with RPC transactions.

   Each RPC-over-RDMA transport header can convey lists of memory
   locations involved in direct transfers of data payloads.  These
   memory locations correspond to XDR data items defined in an Upper
   Layer Protocol (such as NFS).

   To facilitate interoperation, RPC client and server implementations
   must agree on what XDR data items in which RPC procedures are
   eligible for direct data placement (DDP).

   This document specifies the set of XDR data items in each of the
   following NFS protocol versions that are eligible for DDP.  It also
   contains additional material required of Upper Layer Bindings as
   specified in [I-D.ietf-nfsv4-rfc5666bis].

   o  NFS Version 2 [RFC1094]



Lever                    Expires January 1, 2017                [Page 2]


Internet-Draft            NFS On RPC-Over-RDMA                 June 2016


   o  NFS Version 3 [RFC1813]

   o  NFS Version 4.0 [RFC7530]

   o  NFS Version 4.1 [RFC5661]

   o  NFS Version 4.2 [I-D.ietf-nfsv4-minorversion2]

   The Upper Layer Binding specified in this document can be extended to
   cover the addition of new DDP-eligible XDR data items defined by
   versions of the NFS version 4 protocol specified after this document
   has been ratified.

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.  Changes Since RFC 5667

   Corrections and updates made necessary by new language in
   [I-D.ietf-nfsv4-rfc5666bis] has been introduced.  For example,
   references to deprecated features of RPC-over-RDMA Version One, such
   as RDMA_MSGP, and the use of the Read list for handling RPC replies,
   has been removed.  The term "mapping" has been replaced with the term
   "binding" or "Upper Layer Binding" throughout the document.  Material
   that duplicates what is in [I-D.ietf-nfsv4-rfc5666bis] has been
   deleted.

   Material required by [I-D.ietf-nfsv4-rfc5666bis] for Upper Layer
   Bindings that was not present in [RFC5667] has been added, including
   discussion of how each NFS version properly estimates the maximum
   size of RPC replies.

   The following changes have been made, relative to [RFC5667]:

   o  Ambiguous or erroneous uses of RFC2119 terms have been corrected.

   o  References to specific data movement mechanisms have been made
      generic or removed.

   o  References to obsolete RFCs have been replaced.

   o  Technical corrections have been made.  For example, the mention of
      12KB and 36KB inline thresholds have been removed.  The reference
      to a non-existant NFS version 4 SYMLINK operation has been
      replaced with NFS version 4 CREATE(NF4LNK).



Lever                    Expires January 1, 2017                [Page 3]


Internet-Draft            NFS On RPC-Over-RDMA                 June 2016


   o  An IANA Considerations Section has replaced the "Port Usage
      Considerations" Section.

   o  Code excerpts have been removed, and figures have been modernized.

   o  Language inconsistent with or contradictory to
      [I-D.ietf-nfsv4-rfc5666bis] has been removed from Sections 2 and
      3, and both Sections have been combined into Section 2 in the
      present document.

   o  An explicit discussion of NFSv4.0 and NFSv4.1 backchannel
      operation will replace the previous treatment of callback
      operations.  No NFSv4.x callback operation is DDP-eligible.

   o  The binding for NFSv4.1 has been completed.  No additional DDP-
      eligible operations exist in NFSv4.1.

   o  A binding for NFSv4.2 has been added that includes discussion of
      new data-bearing operations like READ_PLUS.

1.3.  Planned Changes To This Document

   The following changes are planned, relative to [RFC5667]:

   o  The discussion of NFS version 4 COMPOUND handling will be
      completed.

   o  Remarks about handling DDP-eligibility violations will be
      introduced.

   o  A discussion of how the NFS binding to RPC-over-RDMA is extended
      by standards action will be added.

2.  Conveying NFS Operations On RPC-Over-RDMA Transports

   Definitions of terminology and a general discussion of how RPC-over-
   RDMA is used to convey RPC transactions can be found in
   [I-D.ietf-nfsv4-rfc5666bis].  In this section, these general
   principals are applied to the specifics of the NFS protocol.

2.1.  Use Of The Read List

   The Read list in each RPC-over-RDMA transport header represents a set
   of memory regions containing DDP-eligible NFS argument data.  Large
   data items, such as the file data payload of an NFS WRITE request,
   are referenced by the Read list and placed directly into server
   memory.




Lever                    Expires January 1, 2017                [Page 4]


Internet-Draft            NFS On RPC-Over-RDMA                 June 2016


   XDR unmarshaling code on the NFS server identifies the correspondence
   between Read chunks and particular NFS arguments via the chunk
   Position value encoded in each Read chunk.

2.2.  Use Of The Write List

   The Write list in each RPC-over-RDMA transport header represents a
   set of memory regions that can receive DDP-eligible NFS result data.
   Large data items such as the payload of an NFS READ request are
   referenced by the Write list and placed directly into client memory.

   Each Write chunk corresponds to a specific XDR data item in an NFS
   reply.  This document specifies how NFS client and server
   implementations identify the correspondence between Write chunks and
   each XDR result.

2.3.  Construction Of Individual Chunks

   Each Read chunk is represented as a list of segments at the same XDR
   Position, and each Write chunk is represented as an array of
   segments.  An NFS client thus has the flexibility to advertise a set
   of discontiguous memory regions in which to send or receive a single
   DDP-eligible data item.

2.4.  Use Of Long Calls And Replies

   Small RPC messages are conveyed using RDMA Send operations which are
   of limited size.  If an NFS request is too large to be conveyed via
   an RDMA Send, and there are no DDP-eligible data items that can be
   removed, an NFS client must send the request using a Long Call.  The
   entire NFS request is sent in a special Read chunk.

   If a client expects that an NFS reply will be too large to be
   conveyed via an RDMA Send, it provides a Reply chunk in the RPC-over-
   RDMA transport header conveying the NFS request.  The server can
   place the entire NFS reply in the Reply chunk.

   These are described in more detail in [I-D.ietf-nfsv4-rfc5666bis].

3.  NFS Versions 2 And 3 Upper Layer Binding

   An NFS client MAY send a single Read chunk to supply opaque file data
   for an NFS WRITE procedure, or the pathname for an NFS SYMLINK
   procedure.  For all other NFS procedures, the server MUST ignore Read
   chunks that have a non-zero value in their Position fields, and Read
   chunks beyond the first in the Read list.





Lever                    Expires January 1, 2017                [Page 5]


Internet-Draft            NFS On RPC-Over-RDMA                 June 2016


   Similarly, an NFS client MAY provide a single Write chunk to receive
   either opaque file data from an NFS READ procedure, or the pathname
   from an NFS READLINK procedure.  The server MUST ignore the Write
   list for any other NFS procedure, and any Write chunks beyond the
   first in the Write list.

   There are no NFS version 2 or 3 procedures that have DDP-eligible
   data items in both their Call and Reply.  However, if an NFS client
   is sending a Long Call or Reply, it MAY provide a combination of Read
   list, Write list, and/or a Reply chunk in the same transaction.

   NFS clients already successfully estimate the maximum reply size of
   each operation in order to provide an adequate set of buffers to
   receive each NFS reply.  An NFS client provides a Reply chunk when
   the maximum possible reply size is larger than the client's responder
   inline threshold.

   How does the server respond if the client has not provided enough
   Write list resources to handle an NFS WRITE or READLINK reply?  How
   does the server respond if the client has not provided enough Reply
   chunk resources to handle an NFS reply?

4.  NFS Version 4 Upper Layer Binding

   This specification applies to NFS Version 4.0 [RFC7530], NFS Version
   4.1 [RFC5661], and NFS Version 4.2 [I-D.ietf-nfsv4-minorversion2].
   It also applies to the callback protocols associated with each of
   these minor versions.

   An NFS client MAY send a Read chunk to supply opaque file data for a
   WRITE operation or the pathname for a CREATE(NF4LNK) operation in an
   NFS version 4 COMPOUND procedure.  An NFS client MUST NOT send a Read
   chunk that corresponds with any other XDR data item in any other NFS
   version 4 operation.

   Similarly, an NFS client MAY provide a Write chunk to receive either
   opaque file data from a READ operation, NFS4_CONTENT_DATA from a
   READ_PLUS operation, or the pathname from a READLINK operation in an
   NFS version 4 COMPOUND procedure.  An NFS client MUST NOT provide a
   Write chunk that corresponds with any other XDR data item in any
   other NFS version 4 operation.

   There is no prohibition against an NFS version 4 COMPOUND procedure
   constructed with both a READ and WRITE operation, say.  Thus it is
   possible for NFS version 4 COMPOUND procedures to use both the Read
   list and Write list simultaneously.  An NFS client MAY provide a Read
   list and a Write list in the same transaction if it is sending a Long
   Call or Reply.



Lever                    Expires January 1, 2017                [Page 6]


Internet-Draft            NFS On RPC-Over-RDMA                 June 2016


   Some remarks need to be made about how NFS version 4 clients estimate
   reply size, and how DDP-eligibility violations are reported.

4.1.  NFS Version 4 COMPOUND Considerations

   An NFS version 4 COMPOUND procedure supplies arguments for a sequence
   of operations, and returns results from that sequence.  A client MAY
   construct an NFS version 4 COMPOUND procedure that uses more than one
   chunk in either the Read list or Write list.  The NFS client provides
   XDR Position values in each Read chunk to disambiguate which chunk is
   associated with which XDR data item.

   However NFS server and client implementations must agree in advance
   on how to pair Write chunks with returned result data items.  The
   mechanism specified in [I-D.ietf-nfsv4-rfc5666bis]) is applied here:

   o  The first chunk in the Write list MUST be used by the first READ
      or READLINK operation in an NFS version 4 COMPOUND procedure.  The
      next Write chunk is used by the next READ or READLINK, and so on.

   o  If there are more READ or READLINK operations than Write chunks,
      then any remaining operations MUST return their results inline.

   o  If an NFS client presents a Write chunk, then the corresponding
      READ or READLINK operation MUST return its data by placing data
      into that chunk.

   o  If the Write chunk has zero RDMA segments, or if the total size of
      the segments is zero, then the corresponding READ or READLINK
      operation MUST return its result inline.

   The following example shows a Write list with three Write chunks, A,
   B, and C.  The server consumes the provided Write chunks by writing
   the results of the designated operations in the compound request,
   READ and READLINK, back to each chunk.


      Write list:

         A --> B --> C

      NFS version 4 COMPOUND request:

         PUTFH LOOKUP READ PUTFH LOOKUP READLINK PUTFH LOOKUP READ
                       |                   |                   |
                       v                   v                   v
                       A                   B                   C




Lever                    Expires January 1, 2017                [Page 7]


Internet-Draft            NFS On RPC-Over-RDMA                 June 2016


   If the client does not want to have the READLINK result returned
   directly, it provides a zero-length array of segment triplets for
   buffer B or sets the values in the segment triplet for buffer B to
   zeros to indicate that the READLINK result must be returned inline.

   Unlike NFS versions 2 and 3, the maximum size of an NFS version 4
   COMPOUND is not bounded.  However, typical NFS version 4 clients
   rarely issue such problematic requests.  In practice, NFS version 4
   clients behave in much more predictable ways.  Rsize and wsize apply
   to COMPOUND operations by capping the total amount of data payload
   allowed in each COMPOUND.  An extension to NFS version 4 supporting a
   comprehensive exchange of upper-layer message size parameters is part
   of [RFC5661].

4.2.  NFS Version 4 Callbacks

   The NFS version 4 protocols support server-initiated callbacks to
   notify clients of events such as recalled delegations.  There are no
   DDP-eligible data items in callback protocols associated with
   NFSv4.0, NFSv4.1, or NFSv4.2.

   In NFS version 4.1 and 4.2, callback operations may appear on the
   same connection as one used for NFS version 4 client requests.  To
   operate on RPC-over-RDMA transports, NFS version 4 clients and
   servers MUST use the mechanism described in
   [I-D.ietf-nfsv4-rpcrdma-bidirection].

5.  IANA Considerations

   NFS use of direct data placement introduces a need for an additional
   NFS port number assignment for networks that share traditional UDP
   and TCP port spaces with RDMA services.  The iWARP [RFC5041]
   [RFC5040] protocol is such an example (InfiniBand is not).

   NFS servers for versions 2 and 3 [RFC1094] [RFC1813] traditionally
   listen for clients on UDP and TCP port 2049, and additionally, they
   register these with the portmapper and/or rpcbind [RFC1833] service.
   However, [RFC7530] requires NFS servers for version 4 to listen on
   TCP port 2049, and they are not required to register.

   An NFS version 2 or version 3 server supporting RPC-over-RDMA on such
   a network and registering itself with the RPC portmapper MAY choose
   an arbitrary port, or MAY use the alternative well-known port number
   for its RPC-over-RDMA service.  The chosen port MAY be registered
   with the RPC portmapper under the netid assigned by the requirement
   in [I-D.ietf-nfsv4-rfc5666bis].





Lever                    Expires January 1, 2017                [Page 8]


Internet-Draft            NFS On RPC-Over-RDMA                 June 2016


   An NFS version 4 server supporting RPC-over-RDMA on such a network
   MUST use the alternative well-known port number for its RPC-over-RDMA
   service.  Clients SHOULD connect to this well-known port without
   consulting the RPC portmapper (as for NFSv4/TCP).

   The port number assigned to an NFS service over an RPC-over-RDMA
   transport is available from the IANA port registry [RFC3232].

6.  Security Considerations

   The RDMA transport for RPC [I-D.ietf-nfsv4-rfc5666bis] supports all
   RPC [RFC5531] security models, including RPCSEC_GSS [RFC2203]
   security and transport-level security.  The choice of RDMA Read and
   RDMA Write to convey RPC argument and results does not affect this,
   since it only changes the method of data transfer.  Specifically, the
   requirements of [I-D.ietf-nfsv4-rfc5666bis] ensure that this choice
   does not introduce new vulnerabilities.

   Because this document defines only the binding of the NFS protocols
   atop [I-D.ietf-nfsv4-rfc5666bis], all relevant security
   considerations are therefore to be described at that layer.

7.  Acknowledgments

   The author gratefully acknowledges the work of Brent Callaghan and
   Tom Talpey on the original NFS Direct Data Placement specification
   [RFC5667].  The author also wishes to thank Bill Baker and Greg
   Marsden for their support of this work.

   Dave Noveck provided excellent review, constructive suggestions, and
   consistent navigational guidance throughout the process of drafting
   this document.

   Special thanks go to nfsv4 Working Group Chair Spencer Shepler and
   nfsv4 Working Group Secretary Thomas Haynes for their support.

8.  References

8.1.  Normative References

   [I-D.ietf-nfsv4-minorversion2]
              Haynes, T., "NFS Version 4 Minor Version 2", draft-ietf-
              nfsv4-minorversion2-41 (work in progress), January 2016.








Lever                    Expires January 1, 2017                [Page 9]


Internet-Draft            NFS On RPC-Over-RDMA                 June 2016


   [I-D.ietf-nfsv4-rfc5666bis]
              Lever, C., Simpson, W., and T. Talpey, "Remote Direct
              Memory Access Transport for Remote Procedure Call, Version
              One", draft-ietf-nfsv4-rfc5666bis-07 (work in progress),
              May 2016.

   [I-D.ietf-nfsv4-rpcrdma-bidirection]
              Lever, C., "Bi-directional Remote Procedure Call On RPC-
              over-RDMA Transports", draft-ietf-nfsv4-rpcrdma-
              bidirection-05 (work in progress), June 2016.

   [RFC1833]  Srinivasan, R., "Binding Protocols for ONC RPC Version 2",
              RFC 1833, DOI 10.17487/RFC1833, August 1995,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1833>.

   [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>.

   [RFC2203]  Eisler, M., Chiu, A., and L. Ling, "RPCSEC_GSS Protocol
              Specification", RFC 2203, DOI 10.17487/RFC2203, September
              1997, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2203>.

   [RFC5531]  Thurlow, R., "RPC: Remote Procedure Call Protocol
              Specification Version 2", RFC 5531, DOI 10.17487/RFC5531,
              May 2009, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5531>.

   [RFC5661]  Shepler, S., Ed., Eisler, M., Ed., and D. Noveck, Ed.,
              "Network File System (NFS) Version 4 Minor Version 1
              Protocol", RFC 5661, DOI 10.17487/RFC5661, January 2010,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5661>.

   [RFC7530]  Haynes, T., Ed. and D. Noveck, Ed., "Network File System
              (NFS) Version 4 Protocol", RFC 7530, DOI 10.17487/RFC7530,
              March 2015, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7530>.

8.2.  Informative References

   [RFC1094]  Nowicki, B., "NFS: Network File System Protocol
              specification", RFC 1094, DOI 10.17487/RFC1094, March
              1989, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1094>.

   [RFC1813]  Callaghan, B., Pawlowski, B., and P. Staubach, "NFS
              Version 3 Protocol Specification", RFC 1813,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC1813, June 1995,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1813>.




Lever                    Expires January 1, 2017               [Page 10]


Internet-Draft            NFS On RPC-Over-RDMA                 June 2016


   [RFC3232]  Reynolds, J., Ed., "Assigned Numbers: RFC 1700 is Replaced
              by an On-line Database", RFC 3232, DOI 10.17487/RFC3232,
              January 2002, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3232>.

   [RFC5040]  Recio, R., Metzler, B., Culley, P., Hilland, J., and D.
              Garcia, "A Remote Direct Memory Access Protocol
              Specification", RFC 5040, DOI 10.17487/RFC5040, October
              2007, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5040>.

   [RFC5041]  Shah, H., Pinkerton, J., Recio, R., and P. Culley, "Direct
              Data Placement over Reliable Transports", RFC 5041,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC5041, October 2007,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5041>.

   [RFC5667]  Talpey, T. and B. Callaghan, "Network File System (NFS)
              Direct Data Placement", RFC 5667, DOI 10.17487/RFC5667,
              January 2010, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5667>.

Author's Address

   Charles Lever (editor)
   Oracle Corporation
   1015 Granger Avenue
   Ann Arbor, MI  48104
   USA

   Phone: +1 734 274 2396
   Email: chuck.lever@oracle.com























Lever                    Expires January 1, 2017               [Page 11]


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