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

Versions: 00

Network File System Version 4                                   C. Lever
Internet-Draft                                                    Oracle
Intended status: Informational                             July 25, 2018
Expires: January 26, 2019


    RDMA Connection Manager Private Data For RPC-Over-RDMA Version 1
                draft-ietf-nfsv4-rpcrdma-cm-pvt-data-00

Abstract

   This document specifies the format of RDMA-CM Private Data exchanged
   between RPC-over-RDMA version 1 peers as a transport connection is
   established.  Such private data is used to indicate peer support for
   remote invalidation and larger-than-default inline thresholds.  The
   data format is extensible.

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 https://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 26, 2019.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2018 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
   (https://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.



Lever                   Expires January 26, 2019                [Page 1]


Internet-Draft        RPC-Over-RDMA CM Private Data            July 2018


Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
   2.  Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   3.  Advertised Transport Properties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   4.  Private Data Message Format . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
   5.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
   6.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
   7.  References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
   Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
   Author's Address  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10

1.  Introduction

   The RPC-over-RDMA version 1 transport protocol enables the use of
   RDMA data transfer for upper layer protocols based on RPC [RFC8166].
   The terms "Remote Direct Memory Access" (RDMA) and "Direct Data
   Placement" (DDP) are introduced in [RFC5040].

   The two most immediate shortcomings of RPC-over-RDMA version 1 are:

   o  Setting up an RDMA data transfer (via RDMA Read or Write) can be
      costly.  The small default size of messages transmitted using RDMA
      Send forces the use of RDMA Read or Write operations even for
      relatively small messages and data payloads.

      The original specification of RPC-over-RDMA version 1 provided an
      out-of-band protocol for passing inline threshold values between
      connected peers [RFC5666].  However, [RFC8166] eliminated support
      for this protocol making it unavailable for this purpose.

   o  Unlike most other contemporary RDMA-enabled storage protocols,
      there is no facility in RPC-over-RDMA version 1 that enables the
      use of Remote Invalidation [RFC5042].

   RPC-over-RDMA version 1 has no means of extending its XDR definition
   in such a way that interoperability with existing implementations is
   preserved.  As a result, an out-of-band mechanism is needed to help
   relieve these constraints for existing RPC-over-RDMA version 1
   implementations.

   This document specifies a simple, non-XDR-based message format
   designed to be passed between RPC-over-RDMA version 1 peers at the
   time each RDMA transport connection is first established.  The
   purpose of this message format is two-fold:

   o  To provide immediate relief from certain performance constraints
      inherent in RPC-over-RDMA version 1



Lever                   Expires January 26, 2019                [Page 2]


Internet-Draft        RPC-Over-RDMA CM Private Data            July 2018


   o  To enable experimentation with parameters of the base RDMA
      transport over which RPC-over-RDMA runs

2.  Requirements Language

   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
   "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
   "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP
   14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all
   capitals, as shown here.

3.  Advertised Transport Properties

3.1.  Inline Threshold Size

   Section 3.3.2 of [RFC8166] defines the term "inline threshold."  An
   inline threshold is the maximum number of bytes that can be
   transmitted using only one RDMA Send and one RDMA Receive.  There are
   a pair of inline thresholds per transport connection, one for each
   direction of message flow.

   If an incoming message exceeds the size of a receiver's inline
   threshold, the receive operation fails and the connection is
   typically terminated.  To convey a message larger than a receiver's
   inline threshold, an NFS client uses explicit RDMA data transfer
   operations, which are more expensive to use than RDMA Send.

   The default value of inline thresholds for RPC-over-RDMA version 1
   connections is 1024 bytes in both directions (see Section 3.3.3 of
   [RFC8166]).  This value is adequate for nearly all NFS version 3
   procedures.

   NFS version 4 COMPOUND operations [RFC7530] are larger on average
   than NFS version 3 procedures [RFC1813], forcing clients to use
   explicit RDMA operations for frequently-issued requests such as
   LOOKUP and GETATTR.  The use of RPCSEC_GSS security also increases
   the average size of RPC messages, due to the larger size of
   RPCSEC_GSS credential material included in RPC headers [RFC7861].

   If a sender and receiver can somehow agree on larger inline
   thresholds, frequently-used RPC transactions avoid the cost of
   explicit RDMA operations.

3.2.  Remote Invalidation

   After an RDMA data transfer operation completes, an RDMA peer can use
   Remote Invalidation to request that the remote peer RNIC invalidate
   an STag associated with the data transfer [RFC5042].



Lever                   Expires January 26, 2019                [Page 3]


Internet-Draft        RPC-Over-RDMA CM Private Data            July 2018


   An RDMA consumer requests Remote Invalidation by posting an RDMA Send
   With Invalidate Work Request in place of an RDMA Send Work Request.
   Each RDMA Send With Invalidate carries one STag to invalidate.  The
   receiver of an RDMA Send With Invalidate performs the requested
   invalidation, and then reports that invalidation as part of the
   completion of a waiting Receive Work Request.

   An RPC-over-RDMA responder can use Remote Invalidation when replying
   to an RPC request that provided Read or Write chunks.  The requester
   thus avoids dispatching an extra Work Request, the resulting context
   switch, and the invalidation completion interrupt as part of
   completing an RPC transaction that uses chunks.  The upshot is faster
   completion of RPC transactions that involve RDMA data transfer.

   There are some important caveats which contraindicate the blanket use
   of Remote Invalidation:

   o  Remote Invalidation is not supported by all RNICs.

   o  Not all RPC-over-RDMA requester implementations can recognize when
      Remote Invalidate has occurred.

   o  Not all RPC-over-RDMA responder implementations can generate RDMA
      Send With Invalidate Work Requests.

   o  On one connection in different RPC-over-RDMA transactions, or in a
      single RPC-over-RDMA transaction, an RPC-over-RDMA requester can
      expose a mixture of STags that may be invalidated remotely and
      some that must not.  No indication is provided at the RDMA layer
      as to which is which.

   A responder therefore must not employ Remote Invalidation unless it
   is aware of support for it in its own RDMA stack, and on the
   requester.  And, without altering the XDR structure of RPC-over-RDMA
   version 1 messages, it is not possible to support Remote Invalidation
   with requesters that mix STags that may and must not by invalidated
   remotely in a single RPC or on the same connection.

   However, it is possible to provide a simple signaling mechanism for a
   requester to indicate it can deal with Remote Invalidation of any
   STag it has presented to a responder.  There are some NFS/RDMA client
   implementations that can successfully make use of such a signaling
   mechanism.








Lever                   Expires January 26, 2019                [Page 4]


Internet-Draft        RPC-Over-RDMA CM Private Data            July 2018


4.  Private Data Message Format

   With an InfiniBand lower layer, for example, RDMA connection setup
   uses the InfiniBand Connection Manager to establish a Reliable
   Connection [IBARCH].  When an RPC-over-RDMA version 1 transport
   connection is established, the client (which actively establishes
   connections) and the server (which passively accepts connections)
   SHOULD populate the CM Private Data field exchanged as part of CM
   connection establishment.

   The transport properties exchanged via this mechanism are fixed for
   the life of the connection.  Each new connection presents an
   opportunity for a fresh exchange.

   For RPC-over-RDMA version 1, the CM Private Data field is formatted
   as described in the following subsection.  RPC clients and servers
   use the same format.  If the capacity of the Private Data field is
   too small to contain this message format, the underlying RDMA
   transport is not managed by a Connection Manager, or the underlying
   RDMA transport uses Private Data for its own purposes, the CM Private
   Data field cannot be used on behalf of RPC-over-RDMA version 1.

4.1.  Fixed Mandatory Fields

   The first 8 octets of the CM Private Data field MUST be formatted as
   follows:


    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
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                        Protocol Number                        |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |    Version    |     Flags     |   Send Size   | Receive Size  |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+


   Protocol Number
      This field contains a fixed 32-bit value that identifies the
      content of the Private Data field as an RPC-over-RDMA version 1 CM
      Private Data message.  The value of this field MUST be 0xf6ab0e18,
      in network byte order.  The use of this field is further expanded
      upon in Section 4.1.1.

   Version
      This 8-bit field contains a message format version number.  The
      value "1" in this field indicates that exactly eight octets are
      present, that they appear in the order described in this section,



Lever                   Expires January 26, 2019                [Page 5]


Internet-Draft        RPC-Over-RDMA CM Private Data            July 2018


      and that each has the meaning defined in this section.  Further
      considerations about the use of this field are discussed in
      Section 4.1.2.

   Bit Flags
      This 8-bit field contains eight bit flags that indicate the
      support status of optional features, such as Remote Invalidation.
      The meaning of these flags is defined in Section 4.1.3.

   Send Size
      This 8-bit field contains an encoded value corresponding to the
      maximum number of bytes this peer will transmit in a single RDMA
      Send.  The value is encoded as described in Section 4.1.4.

   Receive Size
      This 8-bit field contains an encoded value corresponding to the
      maximum number of bytes this peer can receive with a single RDMA
      Receive.  The value is encoded as described in Section 4.1.4.

4.1.1.  Interoperability Considerations

   RPC-over-RDMA version 1 implementations that support the extension
   described in this document are intended to interoperate fully with
   RPC-over-RDMA version 1 implementations that do not recognize the
   exchange of CM Private Data.  When a peer does not receive a CM
   Private Data message which conforms to Section 4, it MUST act as if
   the remote peer supports only the default RPC-over-RDMA version 1
   settings, as defined in [RFC8166].  In other words, the peer is to
   behave as if a Private Data message was received in which bit 8 of
   the Flags field is zero, and both Size fields contain the value zero.

   The Protocol Number field is provided in order to distinguish RPC-
   over-RDMA version 1 Private Data from private data inserted by layers
   below or above RPC-over RDMA version 1.  During connection
   establishment, RPC-over-RDMA version 1 implementations check for this
   protocol number before decoding subsequent fields.  If this protocol
   number is not present as the first 4 octets, an RPC-over-RDMA
   receiver MUST ignore the CM-Private Data (ie., behave as if no RPC-
   over-RDMA version 1 Private Data has been provided).

4.1.2.  Extending the Message Format

   Because the first 8 octets of the Private Data format described above
   contain a Version field, subsequent versions of this data structure
   MUST also start with these 8 octets exactly as they appear here.

   However, the Private Data format described here can be extended by
   adding additional fields which follow the first eight octets, or by



Lever                   Expires January 26, 2019                [Page 6]


Internet-Draft        RPC-Over-RDMA CM Private Data            July 2018


   making use of one of the bits in the Flags field that is marked
   reserved in this document.

   To introduce such changes while preserving interoperability, a new
   Version number is to be allocated, and new fields and bit flags are
   to be defined.  A description of how receivers should behave if they
   do not recognize the new format is to be provided as well.  Such
   situations may be addressed by specifying the new format in a
   document updating this one.

4.1.3.  Feature Support Flags

   The bits in the Flags field are labeled from bit 8 to bit 15, as
   shown in the diagram above.  When the Version field contains the
   value "1", the bits in the Flags field have the following meaning:

   Bit 15
      When both connection peers have set this flag in their CM Private
      Data, the responder MAY use RDMA Send With Invalidate when
      transmitting RPC Replies.  Each RDMA Send With Invalidate MUST
      invalidate an STag associated only with the XID in the rdma_xid
      field of the RPC-over-RDMA Transport Header it carries.

      When either peer on a connection clears this flag, the responder
      MUST use only RDMA Send when transmitting RPC Replies.

   Bits 14 - 8
      These bits are reserved and MUST be zero.

4.1.4.  Inline Threshold Values

   Inline threshold sizes from 1KB to 256KB can be represented in the
   Send Size and Receive Size fields.  A sender computes the encoded
   value by dividing the actual value by 1024 and subtracting one from
   the result.  A receiver decodes this value by performing a
   complementary set of operations.

   The requester MUST use the smaller of its own send size and the
   responder's reported receive size as the requester-to-responder
   inline threshold.  The responder MUST use the smaller of its own send
   size and the requester's reported receive size as the responder-to-
   requester inline threshold.

5.  IANA Considerations

   In accordance with [RFC8126], the author requests that IANA create a
   new registry in the "Remote Direct Data Placement" Protocol Category
   Group.  The new registry is to be called the "RDMA-CM Private Data



Lever                   Expires January 26, 2019                [Page 7]


Internet-Draft        RPC-Over-RDMA CM Private Data            July 2018


   Identifier Registry".  This is a registry of 32-bit numbers that
   identify the Upper Layer protocol associated with data that appears
   in the RDMA-CM Private Data area.

   The information that must be provided to add an entry to this
   registry will be an IESG-approved Standards Track specification
   defining the semantics and interoperability requirements of the
   proposed new value and the fields to be recorded in the registry.
   The fields in this registry include: Protocol number, Protocol name,
   RFC Reference.

   The initial contents of this registry are a single entry:

   0xf6ab0e18, RPC-over-RDMA version 1 CM Private Data, this
   specification.

   All other values are available to IANA for assignment.  New protocol
   numbers can be assigned at random as long as they do not conflict
   with existing entries in this registry.

   Allocation Policy: Standards Action [RFC8126]

6.  Security Considerations

   RDMA-CM Private Data typically traverses the link layer in the clear.
   A man-in-the-middle attack could alter the settings exchanged at
   connect time such that one or both peers might perform operations
   that result in premature termination of the connection.

7.  References

7.1.  Normative References

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

   [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, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5040>.

   [RFC5042]  Pinkerton, J. and E. Deleganes, "Direct Data Placement
              Protocol (DDP) / Remote Direct Memory Access Protocol
              (RDMAP) Security", RFC 5042, DOI 10.17487/RFC5042, October
              2007, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5042>.




Lever                   Expires January 26, 2019                [Page 8]


Internet-Draft        RPC-Over-RDMA CM Private Data            July 2018


   [RFC8126]  Cotton, M., Leiba, B., and T. Narten, "Guidelines for
              Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26,
              RFC 8126, DOI 10.17487/RFC8126, June 2017,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8126>.

   [RFC8166]  Lever, C., Ed., Simpson, W., and T. Talpey, "Remote Direct
              Memory Access Transport for Remote Procedure Call Version
              1", RFC 8166, DOI 10.17487/RFC8166, June 2017,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8166>.

   [RFC8174]  Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
              2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,
              May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.

7.2.  Informative References

   [IBARCH]   InfiniBand Trade Association, "InfiniBand Architecture
              Specification Volume 1", Release 1.3, March 2015,
              <http://www.infinibandta.org/content/
              pages.php?pg=technology_download>.

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

   [RFC5666]  Talpey, T. and B. Callaghan, "Remote Direct Memory Access
              Transport for Remote Procedure Call", RFC 5666,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC5666, January 2010,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5666>.

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

   [RFC7861]  Adamson, A. and N. Williams, "Remote Procedure Call (RPC)
              Security Version 3", RFC 7861, DOI 10.17487/RFC7861,
              November 2016, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7861>.

Acknowledgments

   Thanks to Christoph Hellwig and Devesh Sharma for suggesting this
   approach, and to Tom Talpey for his comments and review.  The author
   also wishes to thank Bill Baker and Greg Marsden for their support of
   this work.






Lever                   Expires January 26, 2019                [Page 9]


Internet-Draft        RPC-Over-RDMA CM Private Data            July 2018


   Special thanks go to Transport Area Director Spencer Dawkins, NFSV4
   Working Group Chairs Spencer Shepler and Brian Pawlowski, and NFSV4
   Working Group Secretary Thomas Haynes.

Author's Address

   Charles Lever
   Oracle Corporation
   1015 Granger Avenue
   Ann Arbor, MI  48104
   United States of America

   Phone: +1 248 816 6463
   Email: chuck.lever@oracle.com





































Lever                   Expires January 26, 2019               [Page 10]


Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.127, available from https://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/