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

Versions: 00 01 02

     ForCES Working Group                                    Weiming Wang
     Internet-Draft                                           Ligang Dong
     Expires: Sept., 2007                                       Bin Zhuge
                                                 Zhejiang Gongshang Univ.
                                                                Mar. 2007
  
             TCP and UDP based ForCES Protocol TML over IP Networks
  
                          draft-wang-forces-iptml-02.txt
  
  
  
  Status of this Memo
  
     By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any
     applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware
     have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes
     aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79.
  
     Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
     Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups.  Note that
     other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-Drafts.
  
     Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six
     months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents
     at any time.  It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
     material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
  
     The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
     http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt.
  
     The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
     http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.
  
  
  Conventions used in this document
  
     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].
  
  Abstract
  
     This document defines ForCES Transport Mapping Layer (TML) over IP
     networks, the framework and the specifications to meet the ForCES TML
     requirements.
  
  
  Table of Contents
  
  
  


  Internet Draft              ForCES TML over IP            Mar. 2007
  
  
     1. Introduction....................................................2
     2. Definitions.....................................................2
     3. ForCES TML Overview.............................................3
        3.1. TML in ForCES Framework....................................3
        3.2. TML Requirements...........................................5
        3.3. PL-TML Service Primitives..................................6
     4. IP TML Framework................................................7
        4.1. Connection Manager Component (CMC).........................9
        4.2. Arbiter Component (AC)....................................11
     5. IP TML to meet TML Requirements................................12
        5.1. Reliability...............................................12
        5.2. Security..................................................12
        5.3. Congestion Control and Protection against DoS Attacks.....12
        5.4. High Availability.........................................13
        5.5. Multicast.................................................13
        5.6. Prioritization............................................16
        5.7. Encapsulation.............................................16
     6. Security Considerations........................................17
     7. IANA Considerations............................................17
     8. References.....................................................17
     9. Author's Address...............................................17
     Copyright Statement...............................................18
  
  
  1.
                  Introduction
  
     The Forwarding and Control Element Separation (ForCES), the
     requirements have been defined in RFC3654, and the framework in
     RFC3746. The ForCES protocol, which standardizes the information
     exchange method between Control Element (CE) and Forwarding Element
     (FE), is being defined in [ForCES-PL] by IETF.
  
     Variant transport media (like IP, ATM, Ethernet, etc) may be applied
     to ForCES protocol for the interconnection between CE and FE. To make
     the ForCES protocol specification independent of these variant
     transport means, a Transport Mapping Layer (TML) is induced in the
     ForCES protocol. It is expected that different TML specifications be
     individually defined by IETF. A set of service primitives has been
     defined to provide standard interconnection between the ForCES
     Protocol Layer(PL) and the TML [TML-SP].
  
     This document defines a TCP and UDP based ForCES Transport Mapping
     Layer (TML) over IP networks. It applies TCP and UDP protocols as the
     transport protocol for the ForCES protocol messages. Details are
     presented in this document for this TML to meet the ForCES TML
     requirements and the requirements of PL-TML service primitives
     defined in [TML-SP].
  
  2.
                  Definitions
  
  W. M. Wang               Expires Sept., 2007                 [Page 2]


  Internet Draft              ForCES TML over IP            Mar. 2007
  
  
  
     Many definitions related to ForCES can be found in RFC3654, RFC3746
     and the ForCES protocol [ForCES-PL], like:
  
     ForCES Protocol Layer (ForCES PL) -- A layer in ForCES protocol
     architecture that defines the ForCES protocol messages, the protocol
     state transfer scheme, as well as the ForCES protocol architecture
     itself (including requirements of ForCES TML (see below).
     Specifications of ForCES PL are defined by [ForCES-PL].
  
     ForCES Protocol Transport Mapping Layer (ForCES TML) -- A layer in
     ForCES protocol architecture that uses the capabilities of existing
     transport protocols to specifically address protocol message
     transportation issues, such as how the protocol messages are mapped
     to different transport media (like TCP, IP, ATM, Ethernet, etc), and
     how to achieve and implement reliability, multicast, ordering, etc.
     The ForCES TML specifications are detailed in separate ForCES
     documents, one for each TML.
  
     This document defines the following notions:
  
     ForCES TML over IP networks -- TML for ForCES protocol that are
     applied to CE-FE interconnect networks, which run IP protocol at the
     Network Layer.
  
     IP TML -- Specifically means ForCES TML over IP networks in this
     document, it uses TCP and UDP as the transport protocols.
  
     Connection Manager Component (CMC) -- a component in IP TML that is
     responsible for all IP TML level connection management.
  
     Arbiter Component (AC) -- a component in IP TML that is responsible
     for putting PL messages into IP TML level connections.
  
  3.
                  ForCES TML Overview
  
  3.1. TML in ForCES Framework
  
     The ForCES protocol[ForCES-PL] has defined the relationship between
     ForCE PL and TML in the protocol framework, as shown in Figure 1. A
     TML always lies below a PL in the same ForCES NE and provides
     services to the PL. Semantic descriptions of the services are
     provided by the TML Service Primitives document [TML-SP].
  
  
  
         +-------------------+                  +-------------------+
         |    CE PL layer    |                  |    FE PL layer    |
         +-------------------+                  +-------------------+
         |    CE TML layer   |                  |    FE TML layer   |
  
  W. M. Wang               Expires Sept., 2007                 [Page 3]


  Internet Draft              ForCES TML over IP            Mar. 2007
  
  
         +-------------------+                  +-------------------+
                   ^                                      ^
                   |        ForCES protocol messages      |
                   +--------------------------------------+
  
                Figure 1. The TML in the ForCES Protocol Framework
  
     During ForCES pre-association phase, a CE/FE TML is usually managed
     by CE Manager(CEM)/FE Manager(FEM), as shown in Figure 2, so as to be
     pre-configured with some initialization parameters, like IP addresses
     in this TCP/UDP based TML for establishment of the TML connections.
  
               +-----------+                     +-----------+
               |   CEM     |                     |    FEM    |
               +-----------+                     +-----------+
                     ^                                 ^
         +-----------|------------+        +-----------|------------+
         |CE         |            |        |FE         |            |
         |   ...     Y            |        |   ...     Y            |
         |     +-----------+      |        |     +-----------+      |
         |     |    TML    |      |        |     |    TML    |      |
         |     +-----------+      |        |     +-----------+      |
         |           ^            |        |           ^            |
         +-----------|------------+        +-----------|------------+
                     +---------------------------------+
                Figure 2. TML during ForCES pre-association phase
  
     Note that although Figure 2 shows CEM/FEM being entities outside
     CE/FE, it is also possible CEM/FEM is physically embedded in CE/FE.
  
     During ForCES post-association phase, ForCES PL is activated. TML is
     then associated to the local PL. From ForCES model point of view, to
     associate a CE/FE TML to the CE/FE PL is actually to associate the
     CE/FE TML to the CE/FE protocol entities in the CE/FE. In FE, the
     protocol entity is the FE protocol LFB. Note that at the same time,
     TMLs will have to still be associated to CEM/FEM. This actually
     infers that CEM/FEM will still be active during the post-association
     phase for TML management. Figure 3 shows the diagram for TML
     structure during post-association phase.
  
                          +-----------+ +-----------+
                          |   CEM     | |    FEM    |
                          +-----------+ +-----------+
                                    ^    ^
                                    |    |
         +------------------------+ |    | +------------------------+
         |CE                      | |    | |FE                      |
         |      ... ...           | |    | |      ... ...           |
         |                        | |    | |                        |
         |   +---------------+    | |    | |   +---------------+    |
  
  W. M. Wang               Expires Sept., 2007                 [Page 4]


  Internet Draft              ForCES TML over IP            Mar. 2007
  
  
         |   |CE protocol    |    | |    | |   |FE Protocol LFB|    |
         |   |Entity         |    | |    | |   |     ...       |    |
         |   | +-----------+ |    | |    | |   | +-----------+ |    |
         |   | |Entity Core| |    | |    | |   | |  LFB Core | |    |
         |   | +-----------+ |    | |    | |   | +-----------+ |    |
         |   |        ^ |    |    | |    | |   |        ^ |    |    |
         |   |Service | |    |    | |    | |   |Service | |    |    |
         |  Primitives| Y    |    | |    | |  Primitives| Y    |    |
         |   | +-----------+ |    | |    | |   | +-----------+ |    |
         |   | |    TML    |<------ +    +------>|    TML    | |    |
         |   | +-----------+ |    |        |   | +-----------+ |    |
         |   |       ^       |    |        |   |       ^       |    |
         |   +-------|-------+    |        |   +-------|-------+    |
         +-----------|------------+        +-----------|------------+
                     |                                 |
                     +---------------------------------+
                Figure 3. TML during ForCES post-association phase
  
     Figure 3 also indicates that:
  
     1. TML properties (attributes, capabilities, events, etc) appearing
        at the PL level are actually part of the properties of CE/FE
        Protocol entities. Especially those TML properties that need to
        be accessible by CE must be appeared as FE Protocol properties.
     2. PL-TML Service Primitives are used by cores of CE/FE Protocol
        entities to access the TML properties, as well as to send/receive
        PL messages via TML.
  
     From Figure 3, it is also shown that TML receives configurations
     from both PL layer and CEM/FEM during the post-association phase. It
     is important to note the difference of the two types of management.
     CEM/FEM management for TML at post-association phase is a consistent
     management from pre-association phase, which is mainly for TML
     connection management, while PL level management for TML is for the
     management that is independent of actual TML media and only based on
     the uniformly defined TML service primitives.
  
  3.2. TML Requirements
  
     The ForCES protocol[ForCES-PL] has defined the general requirements
     to all types of  ForCES TMLs, as below:
  
     1. Reliability
     As defined by RFC 3654, section 6 #6.
  
     2. Security
     TML provides security services to the ForCES PL. TML layer should
     support the following security services and describe how they are
     achieved.
  
  
  W. M. Wang               Expires Sept., 2007                 [Page 5]


  Internet Draft              ForCES TML over IP            Mar. 2007
  
  
            *  Endpoint authentication of FE and CE.
  
            *  Message Authentication
  
            *  Confidentiality service
  
     3. Congestion Control
     The congestion control scheme used needs to be defined. The
     congestion control mechanism defined by the TML should prevent the FE
     from being overloaded by the CE or the CE from being overwhelmed by
     traffic from the FE.  Additionally, the circumstances under which
     notification is sent to the PL to notify it of congestion must be
     defined.
  
     4.Uni/multi/broadcast addressing/delivery if any
     If there is any mapping between PL and TML level Uni/Multi/Broadcast
     addressing it needs to be defined.
  
     5. HA decisions
     It is expected that availability of transport links is the TML's
     responsibility.  However, on config basis, the PL layer may wish to
     participate in link failover schemes and therefore the TML must
     support this capability.
  
     6. Encapsulations used.
     Different types of TMLs will encapsulate the PL messages on
     different types of headers. The TML needs to specify the
     encapsulation used.
  
     7. Prioritization
     It is expected that the TML will be able to handle up to 8 priority
     levels needed by the PL layer and will provide preferential treatment.
     TML needs to define how this is achieved. The requirement for
     supporting up to 8 priority levels does not mean that the underlying
     TML MUST be capable of handling up to 8 priority levels.  In such an
     event the priority levels should be divided between the available TML
     priority levels.  For example, if the TML only supports 2 priority
     levels, the 0-3 could go in one TML priority level, while 4-7 could
     go in the other.
  
     8. Protection against DoS attacks
     As described in RFC 3654, section 6
  
  3.3. PL-TML Service Primitives
  
     PL-TML service primitives are standard interfaces between PL and TML
     for the information exchanges. The following service primitives are
     defined in [TML-SP]:
          TMLopen()
          TMLclose()
  
  W. M. Wang               Expires Sept., 2007                 [Page 6]


  Internet Draft              ForCES TML over IP            Mar. 2007
  
  
          TMLconfig()
          TMLquery()
          TMLsend()
          TMLreceive()
  
     Refer to [TML-SP] for more details.
  
  4.
                  IP TML Framework
  
     We define the architectural framework of a TCP and UDP based ForCES
     TML over IP networks (IP TML) as in Figure 4. This framework applies
     to both CE TML and FE TML over IP networks.
  
     -------------------------------------------------------------------
     PL Layer
                    TMLconfig  TMLevent       TMLsend   TMLrecv TMLconfig
                    TMLopen
         Service    TMLclose      ^                |         ^        |
     --- Primitives ----|---------|----------------|---------|--------|--
                        |         |       Control  | Redirect|        |
     IP TML Layer       |         |       Messages | Messages|        |
                        |         |               / \        |        |
                        |         |              /   \       |        |
                        |         |             V     V      |        |
                        |         |            |  | |  |     |        |
                        |         |            |--| |--|     |        |
                        |         |            |--| |--|     |        |
                        |         |            +--+ +--+     |        |
                        |         |              |   |       |        |
                        |         |              V   V       |        |
                        |         |  +-----------------------------+  |
                        |  +----->+<-|   Arbiter Component (AC)    |<-+
                        |  | ------->+-----------------------------+
                        |  | |                    / \
                        V  | V     . . . . . . . .| |. . . . . . . . .
                    +----------+   .              | |                .
     Ctrl. from     |Connection|   .              | |TCP-UDP pair    .
     CEM/FEM ------>|Manager   |-->.              | |Connection(s)   .
                    |Component |<--.              | |                .
                    |(CMC)     |   . . . . . . . .| |. . . . . . . . .
                    +----------+                  | |
                                         ------ Sockets ----------------
                                                  | |  TCP/UDP Layer
                                                  | |
                                         -------------------------------
                                                  | |  IP Layer
                                                  | |  and Below
                                                  | |
     --------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  \ /
  
  W. M. Wang               Expires Sept., 2007                 [Page 7]


  Internet Draft              ForCES TML over IP            Mar. 2007
  
  
                                            Network Interface(s)
  
                          Figure 4. Framework of IP TML
  
     IP TML as showed in Figure 4 uses a "TCP-UDP pair connection" for
     interconnection between CE TMLs and FE TMLs. A TCP-UDP pair
     connection contains a TCP connection and a UDP connection, which MUST
     have the same source and destination IP addresses and port numbers.
  
     We define that IP TML connections should always be established in
     the form of TCP-UDP pair connection format, i.e., whenever a TCP
     connection is established, a UDP connection with the same source and
     destination addresses should also be available for this IP TML.
  
     Note that, a UDP in a TCP-UDP pair is capable of multicast with the
     support from IP multicast protocols.
  
     The TCP-UDP pair connections are managed by a component called
     "Connection Manager Component (CMC)". The CMC is responsible to all
     TML connections for the establishment and release, security of the
     connections, TML level High Availability (HA) management.  Usually
     CMC fulfills these tasks by receiving configuration information from
     CE/FE Managers as described in Figure 2 and Figure 3. CMC also
     receives configuration information from local PL layer by means of
     the PL running TML Configure service primitive.
  
     Section 4.1 describes the CMC component in details.
  
     Interfaces between PL and TML in this IP TML framework shall comply
     with the defined PL-TML service primitives [TML-SP].
  
     Once PL messages are generated by PL layer, they are sent to TML
     layer by the TMLsend service primitive. IP TML receives the PL
     messages and put the messages into two separate message queues
     according to the types of the PL messages. PL messages with ’Redirect
     Message’ type are put in a redirect message queue, while all other
     messages that are called control messages are put in a control
     message queue.
  
     PL messages are put into TML level connections via a component
     called "Arbiter Component (AC)". The AC decides when and to which TML
     connections a PL message in the two queues should be injected into.
     Usually IP TML uses TCP/UDP socket interfaces to put the messages in
     the IP TML connections.
  
     The AC also receives PL messages from peer TML via the TML
     connections, and makes them ready for local PL layer to fetch by
     means of the PL using TML Receive service primitive.
  
  
  
  W. M. Wang               Expires Sept., 2007                 [Page 8]


  Internet Draft              ForCES TML over IP            Mar. 2007
  
  
     The AC may also generate TML events according to the TML connection
     state and notifies local PL layer of the events. The TML events
     should comply with the TML event specifications defined in the PL-TML
     service primitives [TML-SP].
  
     The AC has to receive configuration information from PL layer via
     TML configure service primitive.
  
     The AC will also share information about TML connections with CMC.
     The TML Connection Table in the CMC can also be accessed by AC. AC
     will then use the table to arbitrate PL messages and to put them in
     TML connections.
  
     PL messages are encapsulated to TCP/UDP packets in AC before they
     are put in IP TML connections. PL messages are de-encapsulated in AC
     when received from peering TML and made ready to output to local PL.
  
     Section 4.2 describes in details the AC component.
  
  4.1.Connection Manager Component (CMC)
  
     The Connection Manager Component (CMC) receives configuration
     information from CE manager (if it is a CE TML) or FE manager (if a
     FE TML), as well as from local PL layer.
  
     There is only one kind of TML connections defined in this IP TML:
     TCP-UDP pair connection(s). A recommendation for the assignment of
     the TCP-UDP pairs is as below:
  
     1. A base TCP-UDP pair connection between every CE and every FE MUST
        be applied.
     2. Multiple TCP-UDP pair connections between one same CE and one
        same FE MAY be applied for the sake of TML requirements like
        prioritization.
     3. PL control messages always use TCP in the TCP-UDP pair
        connection(s) for transportation.
     4. PL redirect messages always use UDP in the TCP-UDP pair
        connection(s) for transportation.
  
     The following steps may be adopted to establish a TCP-UDP pair
     connection between a CE and a FE:
     1. CMC in a CE acts as a server and waits for a TCP connection from
        FEs
     2. CMC in a FE acts as a client, and it should get information from
        the FE manager for connecting to peering CE TML, which usually
        includes the IP address and the port number for the CE TML.
     3. CMC in the FE makes a TCP connection to the CE TML.
     4. A UDP connection with the same source and destination addresses
        is then simultaneously and implicitly established.
  
  
  W. M. Wang               Expires Sept., 2007                 [Page 9]


  Internet Draft              ForCES TML over IP            Mar. 2007
  
  
     CMC maintains a table called "TML Connection Table". This table
     contains information about all TCP-UDP pair connections that have
     been established. For every TCP-UDP pair connection, the table
     usually contains the following information:
  
     . Connection destination CE/FE ID
     . Connection destination IP address and port number
     . PL Message type(s) the connection applies for
     . PL Message priority(s) the connection applies for
  
     The TML connections establishment process usually occurs once TML
     receives TML open service primitives from local PL. When a new FE is
     up and is going to associate itself to a CE, the FE PL usually needs
     to open the TML first, then to send a FE Association Message to join
     in the ForCES NE.
  
     All active TML connections will be closed and shutdown if a TML
     close service primitive is received from local PL by a TML. When a FE
     is going to leave a CE, it will send a FE teardown message to CE
     first, then the PL will send a TML close primitive to local TML to
     close all TML connections.
  
     After a TML is opened, the TML connections can be modified or
     released. Some new connections can be added. All newly modified
     connection information will immediately trigger CMC to change the
     connection state.
  
     CMC generates TML events and notify local PL of the events. How it
     is notified to PL is an implementation detail and depends upon
     individual OS platforms the IP TML and the PL adopts. For instance,
     in several OS platforms, a callback mechanism may be adopted for this
     purpose.
  
     The TML events generated by CMC include:
  
     .TML error event
  
     This event will happen once the TML TCP-UDP pair connections have
     encountered some failure.
  
     TML error code    TML error                  Associated Data
  
           1        all local TML link failure      none
                    i.e., there is no one TML
                    connection available owing
                    to local problem
  
           2        some local TML link failure  peer TML CE/FE ID(s)
  
           3        peer TML unavailable         peer TML CE/FE ID(s)
  
  W. M. Wang               Expires Sept., 2007                 [Page 10]


  Internet Draft              ForCES TML over IP            Mar. 2007
  
  
                    i.e., in the TCP-UDP pair
                    connection, no ack or response
                    received from peer TML(s)
  
           4        peer TML abnormally left     peer TML CE/FE ID(s)
                    i.e., in the TCP-UDP pair
                    connection, an abnormal TCP
                    connection close information
                    is received.
  
  
  4.2.Arbiter Component (AC)
  
     Arbiter Component (AC) should fulfill the following tasks:
  
     1. To decide when and at what rate to inject PL messages into TML
     connections
  
     By AC fulfilling this task, it is expected the IP TML meet the TML
     requirements for prioritization, congestion control, and in some way,
     protection against DoS attacks from redirect data.
  
     2. To decide which connection(s) a PL message to be injected into.
  
     AC does this work by use of the "TML Connection Table" generated by
     CMC as described above. AC will use the "Destination ID", "Message
     type" and "Message priority", which are associated with every
     message received from PL, to match the table to find out the
     corresponding IP TML connection(s).
  
     3. To encapsulate PL messages to packets of TML connections or to
     de-encapsulate PL messages from packets of TML connections.
  
     4. To receive PL messages from TML connections and send them to
     local PL by use of TML service primitives.
  
     On receiving packets coming from peer TML, the IP TML just de-
     encapsulates them to get PDU of PL messages, then to put the messages
     in a receive queue waiting for PL to to fetch.
  
     5. To generate TML events and to notify local PL of the events if
     the events have been subscribed by the PL.
  
     The TML events generated by AC include:
  
     .TML message arrival event
  
     .TML congestion alert event
     This event includes the following cases:
     1.Control message congestion alert
  
  W. M. Wang               Expires Sept., 2007                 [Page 11]


  Internet Draft              ForCES TML over IP            Mar. 2007
  
  
     The conditions invoking this alert is defined as below:
     (TBD)
     2.Redirect message congestion alert
     The conditions invoking this alert is defined as below:
     (TBD)
  
     3.aler fro redirect DoS attack
     The conditions invoking this alert is defined as below:
     (TBD)
  
  5.
                  IP TML to meet TML Requirements
  
     This section defines how the ForCES IP TML is specified to meet
     ForCES TML requirements as defined by [ForCES-PL].
  
  5.1.Reliability
  
     This IP TML meets the reliability requirement by defining that PL
     control messages must be transported by TCP, while PL redirect
     messages must be transported by UDP.
  
     TCP reliability features like no packet loss, no reordering, and no
     corruption then maps to the reliability of PL control message
     transportation, but note that TCP does not guarantee a timely
     transportation, therefore timeliness is not guaranteed in the IP TML.
  
     The reason to mandate UDP for PL redirect messages is that:
  
     1. UDP provides relatively raw data transportation performance,
        which fits well in the cases where the application level of which
        may further be embedded with some Internet protocols like IP, UDP
        and even congestion awareness protocols like TCP protocol.
        Usually, redirect data contain data that may load other Internet
        protocols like TCP, UDP, and IP.
     2. UDP provides multicast/broadcast mechanisms. This provides
        efficient support for PL layer multicast/broadcast.
  
  5.2.Security
     (TBD)
  
  5.3.Congestion Control and Protection against DoS Attacks
  
     Although PL control messages and redirect messages are transmitted
     separately over TCP and UDP, such separation itself does not provide
     congestion control and protection against DoS attacks from redirect
     data [GRMP-TEST]. Therefore, IP TML using the framework as Figure 4
     may still face the danger of control messages being congested or even
     DoS attacked.
  
  
  
  W. M. Wang               Expires Sept., 2007                 [Page 12]


  Internet Draft              ForCES TML over IP            Mar. 2007
  
  
     This specification does not specify any detailed implementation on
     how the IP TML meets the Congestion and DoS attack protection
     requirement. This specification also does not require that an IP TML
     implementation must provide a pure IP TML layer mechanism for
     congestion control and protection against DoS attacks, although
     individual implementations may apply such mechanism. Instead, this
     specification just specifies that an IP TML must provide a congestion
     alert event notification as defined in Section 4.2 to PL, so that PL
     may use the signal to construct a PL level congestion control and DoS
     attack protection.
  
  5.4.High Availability
  
     ForCES protocol has provided Heartbeat Messages specifically for
     CE/FE availability detection at PL layer, therefore TML layer does
     not need to take care of CE/FE level availability.
  
     TML may take care of High Availability on TML connections.
  
     In this IP TML, every TML connection is a TCP-UDP pair connection. A
     TCP connection is connection-oriented and has provided connection
     management. Although UDP does not provide such connection management,
     the UDP is defined to have associated to a TCP and formed a TCP-UDP
     pair. As a Result, IP TML connections with TCP-UDP pairs does not
     need to take extra means to detect its connection availability.
  
  5.5.Multicast
  
     PL level Multicast for ForCES messages must map to IP TML level
     multicast by the following specifications:
  
     . Multicast control messages from a CE to FEs or from a FE to CEs
     must map to multiple unicast TCPs at IP TML
     . Multicast redirect messages from a CE to FEs or from a FE to CEs
     must map to UDP multicast at IP TML
  
     Definition of a Multicast list data structure used for IP TML
     complies with that specified in [TML-SP].
  
     To fulfill a UDP multicast at the IP TML level, a special parameter
     shall further be defined. The purpose of the parameter is to
     associate a PL level multicast ID to an IP level IP multicast address,
     in order for UDP to use the IP multicast address to multicast PL
     level messages. This parameter is to be defined as an TML media
     specific TML attribute as defined in [TML-SP], so that it can be set
     by CE PL layer. We call the attribute a "UDP multicast address for
     PL" attribute.  The attribute therefore has the following element
     format:
  
       UDP multicast address for PL =
  
  W. M. Wang               Expires Sept., 2007                 [Page 13]


  Internet Draft              ForCES TML over IP            Mar. 2007
  
  
                         {multicast id, IP(UDP) multicast address}
  
     Where, multicast id is the PL level destination ID for multicast, IP
     multicast address is a multicast IP address.
  
  
     IP TML multicast can further be classified with four cases,
     according to the multicast message types and the transmission
     directions, as below:
  
     1. Multicast control messages from a CE to FEs
     2. Multicast redirect messages from a CE to FEs
     3. Multicast control messages from a FE to CEs
     4. Multicast redirect messages from a FE to CEs
  
     They are described in details as below.
  
     1. Multicast control messages from a CE to FEs
  
     As described above, this case is mapped to IP TML with IP TML
     multiple unicast TCPs, and by the following steps:
  
     a. CE PL (or its application layer) forms a PL level multicast list.
     TML Service Primitive has defined such multicast list as an TML
     attribute of TML [TML-SP] as below:
  
       multicast list = {multicast id, member1, member2, ... memberN}
  
  
     Where, multicast id is the PL level destination id for multicast,
     followed are the members of the multicast, including this CE ID  and
     several FE IDs that are in the multicast group.
  
     b. CE PL sends the PL mulitcast list to the CE TML by TMLconfig
     service primitive.
  
     c. CE PL also use unicast to send the PL multicast list to all FE
     members by use of ForCES protocol configure messages. In every FE,
     the PL multicast list has been defined as an attribute of its FE
     protocol LFB.
  
     The FEs further send the PL multicast list to the FE TMLs by means
     of TML service primitive.
  
     d. When a CE PL use a TML send service primitive to send CE TML a
     control message with its destination ID being the multicast id as in
     the multicast list TML attribute, the CE TML distributes the messages
     to individual TCP connections according to the FE member IDs and the
     connection information in TML connection tables.
  
  
  W. M. Wang               Expires Sept., 2007                 [Page 14]


  Internet Draft              ForCES TML over IP            Mar. 2007
  
  
     e. At the FEs side, when such CE PL message arrives at individual FE
     TML in the multicast group, the FE TMLs just accept the message and
     deliver it to the FE PLs, for the FE TMLs know it is a member of the
     multicast from the multicast list TML attribute just configured.
  
  
     3. Multicast redirect messages from a CE to FEs
  
     As defined above, this multicast is mapped to IP TML with UDP
     multicast, and by the following steps:
  
     a. CE PL (or its application layer) forms a PL multicast list and a
     UDP multicast address for PL. The UDP multicast list address for PL
     is defined as above.
  
     b. CE PL then sends the PL mulitcast list and the UDP multicast
     address for PL to the CE TML by TML configuration service primitives.
  
     c. When the CE TML receives the UDP multicast address for PL, it
     triggers some IP layer multicast protocol, like IGMP, to let the CE
     TML join in the IP multicast group designated by the IP multicast
     address in the UDP multicast address for PL.
  
     d. CE PL also send the PL multicast list and the UDP multicast
     address for PL to all the multicast FE members by use of ForCES
     protocol configure messages. The FE members further send the lists to
     their TMLs.
  
     e. When an FE TML has received the UDP multicast address for PL , it
     triggers some IP layer multicast protocol, like IGMP, to let the FE
     TML join in the IP multicast group.
  
     f. When a CE generates and sends to the CE TML a PL redirect message
     with its destination ID being the multicast id, the CE TML will
     transmit the message by means of a UDP protocol with its IP address
     assigned with the IP multicast address designated by the UDP
     multicast address for PL.
  
     g. At the FEs side, because the TMLs of all multicast FE members
     have already joined in the IP multicast group, any of the FE TMLs can
     receive the packet transported by step f). The TML further deliver
     the redirect message to its PL layer, finishing the transportation of
     ForCES redirect messages from CE to FEs by means of UDP multicast.
  
  
     3. Multicast control messages from a FE to CEs
  
     (TBD)
  
     4. Multicast redirect messages from a FE to CEs
  
  W. M. Wang               Expires Sept., 2007                 [Page 15]


  Internet Draft              ForCES TML over IP            Mar. 2007
  
  
     (TBD)
  
  5.6.Prioritization
  
     This IP TML can meet the different prioritization from PL level by
     use of several TCP-UDP pair connections between one same CE and one
     same FE.
  
  5.7.Encapsulation
  
     1. TCP Encapsulation
  
     When ForCES PL messages are transported over TCP, a TCP port number
     or port numbers (if multiple TCP connections are established) that
     are specifically assigned for ForCES protocol should be adopted.
  
     The encapsulation format is as below:
  
       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
      |-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |                                                               |
      ~    TCP header with the port number for the ForCES protocol    ~
      |                                                               |
      |-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |                                                               |
      ~                    ForCES PL Message                          ~
      |                                                               |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
  
     2. UDP Encapsulation
  
     When ForCES PL messages are transported over UDP protocol, a UDP
     port number that is specifically assigned to ForCES protocol should
     be used.
  
     The encapsulation format is as below:
  
       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
      |-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |                                                               |
      ~    UDP header with the port number for the ForCES protocol    ~
      |                                                               |
      |-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |                                                               |
      ~                    ForCES PL Message                          ~
      |                                                               |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
  
  
  W. M. Wang               Expires Sept., 2007                 [Page 16]


  Internet Draft              ForCES TML over IP            Mar. 2007
  
  
  
  6.
                  Security Considerations
     (TBD)
  
  7.
                  IANA Considerations
     The Following Assigned Numbers are considered:
  
        TCP Port Number(s) for ForCES Protocol
        UDP Port Number for ForCES protocol
  
  8.
                  References
  
     [RFC3654] H. Khosravi, et al., Requirements for Separation of IP
     Control and Forwarding, RFC 3654, November 2003.
  
     [RFC3746] L. Yang, et al., Forwarding and Control Element Separation
     (ForCES) Framework, RFC 3746, April 2004.
  
     [ForCES-PL] A. Doria, et al., ForCES protocol specifications, draft-
     ietf-forces-protocol-08.txt, work-in-progress, Mar. 2006.
  
     [ForCES-Model] J. Halpern, E. Deleganes, ForCES Forwarding Element
     Model, draft-ietf-forces-model-06.txt. work-in-progress, Oct. 2006.
  
     [TML-SP] W. M. Wang, J. Hadi, et al., ForCES TML Service Primitives,
     work-in-progress, draft-ietf-forces-tmlsp-01.txt, Feb., 2007
  
     [GRMP-TEST]L. Dong, L. Shi, and W. Wang, A Testbed for GRMP Protocol,
     Proceedings of 59th IETF Meeting, 2004, Feb.29-Mar.4, Seoul, Korea,
     http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/04mar/slides/forces-2.pdf
  
  9.
                  Author's Address
  
     Weiming Wang
     Zhejiang Gongshang University
     149 Jiaogong Road
     Hangzhou  310035
     P.R.China
     Phone: +86-571-28877721
     EMail: wmwang@mail.zjgsu.edu.cn
  
     Ligang Dong
     Zhejiang Gongshang University
     149 Jiaogong Road
     Hangzhou  310035
     P.R.China
     Phone: +86-571-28877751
     EMail: donglg@mail.zjgsu.edu.cn
  
     Bin Zhuge
  
  W. M. Wang               Expires Sept., 2007                 [Page 17]


  Internet Draft              ForCES TML over IP            Mar. 2007
  
  
     Zhejiang Gongshang University
     149 Jiaogong Road
     Hangzhou  310035
     P.R.China
     Phone: +86-571-28877751
     EMail: zhugebin@mail.zjgsu.edu.cn
  
  
  Copyright Statement
  
     Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2007).
  
     This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions
     contained in BCP 78, and except as set forth therein, the authors
     retain all their rights.
  
     This document and the information contained herein are provided on
     an "AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE
     REPRESENTS OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY, THE
     IETF TRUST AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM
     ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO
     ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT
     INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY
     OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  W. M. Wang               Expires Sept., 2007                 [Page 18]
  

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