draft-ietf-rddp-ddp-05.txt   draft-ietf-rddp-ddp-06.txt 
Remote Direct Data Placement Work Group Hemal Shah Remote Direct Data Placement Hemal Shah
INTERNET-DRAFT Intel Corporation Working Group Broadcom Corporation
Category: Standards Track James Pinkerton INTERNET-DRAFT James Pinkerton
draft-ietf-rddp-ddp-05.txt Microsoft Corporation Category: Standards Track Microsoft Corporation
Renato Recio draft-ietf-rddp-ddp-06.txt Renato Recio
IBM Corporation IBM Corporation
Paul Culley Paul Culley
Hewlett-Packard Company Hewlett-Packard Company
Expires: January, 2006 July, 2005 Expires: January, 2007 June, 2006
Direct Data Placement over Reliable Transports Direct Data Placement over Reliable Transports
Status of this Memo Status of this Memo
By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any
applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware 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 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. aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79.
skipping to change at line 46 skipping to change at line 46
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html. http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.
Abstract Abstract
The Direct Data Placement protocol provides information to Place the The Direct Data Placement protocol provides information to Place the
incoming data directly into an upper layer protocol's receive buffer incoming data directly into an upper layer protocol's receive buffer
without intermediate buffers. This removes excess CPU and memory without intermediate buffers. This removes excess CPU and memory
utilization associated with transferring data through the utilization associated with transferring data through the
intermediate buffers. intermediate buffers.
Shah, et. al. Expires January 2006 1 Shah, et. al. Expires January 2007 1
Table of Contents Table of Contents
Status of this Memo...............................................1 Status of this Memo...............................................1
Abstract..........................................................1 Abstract..........................................................1
1 Introduction................................................4 1 Introduction................................................4
1.1 Architectural Goals.........................................4 1.1 Architectural Goals.........................................4
1.2 Protocol Overview...........................................5 1.2 Protocol Overview...........................................5
1.3 DDP Layering................................................6 1.3 DDP Layering................................................6
2 Glossary....................................................9 2 Glossary....................................................9
2.1 General.....................................................9 2.1 General.....................................................9
2.2 LLP........................................................10 2.2 LLP........................................................10
2.3 Direct Data Placement (DDP)................................10 2.3 Direct Data Placement (DDP)................................11
3 Reliable Delivery LLP Requirements.........................13 3 Reliable Delivery LLP Requirements.........................13
4 Header Format..............................................15 4 Header Format..............................................15
4.1 DDP Control Field..........................................15 4.1 DDP Control Field..........................................15
4.2 DDP Tagged Buffer Model Header.............................16 4.2 DDP Tagged Buffer Model Header.............................16
4.3 DDP Untagged Buffer Model Header...........................17 4.3 DDP Untagged Buffer Model Header...........................17
4.4 DDP Segment Format.........................................18 4.4 DDP Segment Format.........................................18
5 Data Transfer..............................................19 5 Data Transfer..............................................19
5.1 DDP Tagged or Untagged Buffer Models.......................19 5.1 DDP Tagged or Untagged Buffer Models.......................19
5.1.1 Tagged Buffer Model.......................................19 5.1.1 Tagged Buffer Model.......................................19
5.1.2 Untagged Buffer Model.....................................19 5.1.2 Untagged Buffer Model.....................................19
skipping to change at line 87 skipping to change at line 87
7 Error Semantics............................................25 7 Error Semantics............................................25
7.1 Errors detected at the Data Sink...........................25 7.1 Errors detected at the Data Sink...........................25
7.2 DDP Error Numbers..........................................26 7.2 DDP Error Numbers..........................................26
8 Security Considerations....................................27 8 Security Considerations....................................27
8.1 Protocol-specific Security Considerations..................27 8.1 Protocol-specific Security Considerations..................27
8.2 Association of an STag and a DDP Stream....................27 8.2 Association of an STag and a DDP Stream....................27
8.3 Security Requirements......................................28 8.3 Security Requirements......................................28
8.3.1 RNIC Requirements.........................................29 8.3.1 RNIC Requirements.........................................29
8.3.2 Privileged Resources Manager Requirement..................29 8.3.2 Privileged Resources Manager Requirement..................29
8.4 Security Services for DDP..................................30 8.4 Security Services for DDP..................................30
9 IANA Considerations........................................32 8.4.1 Available Security Services...............................30
10 References.................................................33 8.4.2 Requirements for IPsec Services for DDP...................31
10.1 Normative References......................................33 9 IANA Considerations........................................33
10.2 Informative References....................................33 10 References.................................................34
11 Appendix...................................................34 10.1 Normative References......................................34
11.1 Receive Window sizing.....................................34 10.2 Informative References....................................34
12 Author's Addresses.........................................35 11 Appendix...................................................36
13 Acknowledgments............................................36 11.1 Receive Window sizing.....................................36
14 Intellectual Property Statement............................39 12 Authors' Addresses.........................................37
15 Disclaimer.................................................40 13 Contributors...............................................38
16 Copyright Notice...........................................41 14 Intellectual Property Statement............................41
15 Copyright Notice...........................................42
Shah, et. al. Expires January 2006 2 Shah, et. al. Expires January 2007 2
Table of Figures Table of Figures
Figure 1 DDP Layering.............................................7 Figure 1 DDP Layering.............................................7
Figure 2 MPA, DDP, and RDMAP Header Alignment.....................8 Figure 2 MPA, DDP, and RDMAP Header Alignment.....................8
Figure 3 DDP Control Field.......................................15 Figure 3 DDP Control Field.......................................15
Figure 4 Tagged Buffer DDP Header................................16 Figure 4 Tagged Buffer DDP Header................................16
Figure 5 Untagged Buffer DDP Header..............................17 Figure 5 Untagged Buffer DDP Header..............................17
Figure 6 DDP Segment Format......................................18 Figure 6 DDP Segment Format......................................18
Shah, et. al. Expires January 2006 3 Shah, et. al. Expires January 2007 3
1 Introduction 1 Introduction
Direct Data Placement Protocol (DDP) enables an Upper Layer Protocol Direct Data Placement Protocol (DDP) enables an Upper Layer Protocol
(ULP) to send data to a Data Sink without requiring the Data Sink to (ULP) to send data to a Data Sink without requiring the Data Sink to
Place the data in an intermediate buffer - thus when the data Place the data in an intermediate buffer - thus when the data
arrives at the Data Sink, the network interface can Place the data arrives at the Data Sink, the network interface can Place the data
directly into the ULP's buffer. This can enable the Data Sink to directly into the ULP's buffer. This can enable the Data Sink to
consume substantially less memory bandwidth than a buffered model consume substantially less memory bandwidth than a buffered model
because the Data Sink is not required to move the data from the because the Data Sink is not required to move the data from the
intermediate buffer to the final destination. Additionally, this can intermediate buffer to the final destination. Additionally, this can
also enable the network protocol to consume substantially fewer CPU also enable the network protocol to consume substantially fewer CPU
cycles than if the CPU was used to move the data, and removes the cycles than if the CPU was used to move the data, and removes the
bandwidth limitation of only being able to move data as fast as the bandwidth limitation of only being able to move data as fast as the
CPU can copy the data. CPU can copy the data.
DDP preserves ULP record boundaries (messages) while providing a DDP preserves ULP record boundaries (messages) while providing a
variety of data transfer mechanisms and completion mechanisms to be variety of data transfer mechanisms and completion mechanisms to be
used to transfer ULP messages. used to transfer ULP messages.
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 RFC 2119.
1.1 Architectural Goals 1.1 Architectural Goals
DDP has been designed with the following high-level architectural DDP has been designed with the following high-level architectural
goals: goals:
* Provide a buffer model that enables the Local Peer to Advertise * Provide a buffer model that enables the Local Peer to Advertise
a named buffer (i.e. a Tag for a buffer) to the Remote Peer, a named buffer (i.e. a Tag for a buffer) to the Remote Peer,
such that across the network the Remote Peer can Place data such that across the network the Remote Peer can Place data
into the buffer at Remote Peer specified locations. This is into the buffer at Remote Peer specified locations. This is
referred to as the Tagged Buffer Model. referred to as the Tagged Buffer Model.
skipping to change at line 159 skipping to change at line 164
* Provide segmentation and reassembly of ULP messages. * Provide segmentation and reassembly of ULP messages.
* Enable the ULP buffer to be used as a reassembly buffer, * Enable the ULP buffer to be used as a reassembly buffer,
without a need for a copy, even if incoming DDP Segments arrive without a need for a copy, even if incoming DDP Segments arrive
out of order. This requires the protocol to separate Data out of order. This requires the protocol to separate Data
Placement of ULP Payload contained in an incoming DDP Segment Placement of ULP Payload contained in an incoming DDP Segment
from Data Delivery of completed ULP Messages. from Data Delivery of completed ULP Messages.
* If the LLP supports multiple LLP streams within a LLP * If the LLP supports multiple LLP streams within a LLP
Connection, provide the above capabilities independently on Connection, provide the above capabilities independently on
Shah, et. al. Expires January 2007 4
each LLP stream and enable the capability to be exported on a each LLP stream and enable the capability to be exported on a
per LLP stream basis to the ULP. per LLP stream basis to the ULP.
Shah, et. al. Expires January 2006 4
1.2 Protocol Overview 1.2 Protocol Overview
DDP supports two basic data transfer models - a Tagged Buffer data DDP supports two basic data transfer models - a Tagged Buffer data
transfer model and an Untagged Buffer data transfer model. transfer model and an Untagged Buffer data transfer model.
The Tagged Buffer data transfer model requires the Data Sink to send The Tagged Buffer data transfer model requires the Data Sink to send
the Data Source an identifier for the ULP buffer, referred to as a the Data Source an identifier for the ULP buffer, referred to as a
Steering Tag (STag). The STag is transferred to the Data Source Steering Tag (STag). The STag is transferred to the Data Source
using a ULP defined method. Once the Data Source ULP has an STag for using a ULP defined method. Once the Data Source ULP has an STag for
a destination ULP buffer, it can request that DDP send the ULP data a destination ULP buffer, it can request that DDP send the ULP data
skipping to change at line 215 skipping to change at line 220
* For the Tagged Buffer Model, a DDP Message can start at an * For the Tagged Buffer Model, a DDP Message can start at an
arbitrary offset within the Tagged Buffer. For the Untagged arbitrary offset within the Tagged Buffer. For the Untagged
Buffer Model, a DDP Message can only start at offset 0. Buffer Model, a DDP Message can only start at offset 0.
* The Tagged Buffer Model allows multiple DDP Messages targeted * The Tagged Buffer Model allows multiple DDP Messages targeted
to a Tagged Buffer with a single ULP buffer Advertisement. The to a Tagged Buffer with a single ULP buffer Advertisement. The
Untagged Buffer Model requires associating a receive ULP buffer Untagged Buffer Model requires associating a receive ULP buffer
for each DDP Message targeted to an Untagged Buffer. for each DDP Message targeted to an Untagged Buffer.
Shah, et. al. Expires January 2007 5
Either data transfer model Places a ULP Message into a DDP Message. Either data transfer model Places a ULP Message into a DDP Message.
Each DDP Message is then sliced into DDP Segments that are intended Each DDP Message is then sliced into DDP Segments that are intended
Shah, et. al. Expires January 2006 5
to fit within a lower-layer-protocol's (LLP) Maximum Upper Layer to fit within a lower-layer-protocol's (LLP) Maximum Upper Layer
Protocol Data Unit (MULPDU). Thus the ULP can post arbitrary size Protocol Data Unit (MULPDU). Thus the ULP can post arbitrary size
ULP Messages, containing up to 2^32 - 1 octets of ULP Payload, and ULP Messages, containing up to 2^32 - 1 octets of ULP Payload, and
DDP slices the ULP message into DDP Segments which are reassembled DDP slices the ULP message into DDP Segments which are reassembled
transparently at the Data Sink. transparently at the Data Sink.
DDP provides in-order Delivery for the ULP. However, DDP DDP provides in-order Delivery for the ULP. However, DDP
differentiates between Data Delivery and Data Placement. DDP differentiates between Data Delivery and Data Placement. DDP
provides enough information in each DDP Segment to allow the ULP provides enough information in each DDP Segment to allow the ULP
Payload in each inbound DDP Segment payloads to be directly Placed Payload in each inbound DDP Segment payloads to be directly Placed
skipping to change at line 263 skipping to change at line 267
A DDP protocol could potentially run over reliable Delivery LLPs or A DDP protocol could potentially run over reliable Delivery LLPs or
unreliable Delivery LLPs. This specification requires reliable, in unreliable Delivery LLPs. This specification requires reliable, in
order Delivery LLPs. order Delivery LLPs.
1.3 DDP Layering 1.3 DDP Layering
DDP is intended to be LLP independent, subject to the requirements DDP is intended to be LLP independent, subject to the requirements
defined in section 3. However, DDP was specifically defined to be defined in section 3. However, DDP was specifically defined to be
part of a family of protocols that were created to work well part of a family of protocols that were created to work well
together, as shown in Figure 1 DDP Layering. For LLP protocol together, as shown in Figure 1 DDP Layering. For LLP protocol
definitions of each LLP, see [MPA], [TCP], and [SCTP]. definitions of each LLP, see Marker PDU Aligned Framing for TCP
Specification [MPA] and Stream Control Transmission Protocol (SCTP)
Direct Data Placement (DDP) Adaptation [SCTPDDP].
DDP enables direct data Placement capability for any ULP, but it has DDP enables direct data Placement capability for any ULP, but it has
been specifically designed to work well with RDMAP (see [RDMA]), and been specifically designed to work well with RDMAP (see [RDMAP]),
is part of the iWARP protocol suite. and is part of the iWARP protocol suite.
Shah, et. al. Expires January 2006 6 Shah, et. al. Expires January 2007 6
+-------------------+ +-------------------+
| | | |
| RDMA ULP | | RDMA ULP |
| | | |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| | | | | |
| ULP | RDMAP | | ULP | RDMAP |
| | | | | |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| | | |
skipping to change at line 300 skipping to change at line 306
| | | | | |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 1 DDP Layering Figure 1 DDP Layering
If DDP is layered below RDMAP and on top of MPA and TCP, then the If DDP is layered below RDMAP and on top of MPA and TCP, then the
respective headers and payload are arranged as follows (Note: For respective headers and payload are arranged as follows (Note: For
clarity, MPA header and CRC are included but framing markers are not clarity, MPA header and CRC are included but framing markers are not
shown.): shown.):
Shah, et. al. Expires January 2006 7 Shah, et. al. Expires January 2007 7
0 1 2 3 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 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 // // TCP Header //
| | | |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| MPA Header | | | MPA Header | |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +
| | | |
skipping to change at line 327 skipping to change at line 333
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| | | |
// RDMAP ULP Payload // // RDMAP ULP Payload //
| | | |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| MPA CRC | | MPA CRC |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 2 MPA, DDP, and RDMAP Header Alignment Figure 2 MPA, DDP, and RDMAP Header Alignment
Shah, et. al. Expires January 2006 8 Shah, et. al. Expires January 2007 8
2 Glossary 2 Glossary
2.1 General 2.1 General
Advertisement (Advertised, Advertise, Advertisements, Advertises) - Advertisement (Advertised, Advertise, Advertisements, Advertises) -
The act of informing a Remote Peer that a local RDMA Buffer is The act of informing a Remote Peer that a local RDMA Buffer is
available to it. A Node makes available an RDMA Buffer for available to it. A Node makes available an RDMA Buffer for
incoming RDMA Read or RDMA Write access by informing its incoming RDMA Read or RDMA Write access by informing its
RDMA/DDP peer of the Tagged Buffer identifiers (STag, base RDMA/DDP peer of the Tagged Buffer identifiers (STag, base
skipping to change at line 359 skipping to change at line 365
"Data Placement". "Data Placement".
Data Sink - The peer receiving a data payload. Note that the Data Data Sink - The peer receiving a data payload. Note that the Data
Sink can be required to both send and receive RDMA/DDP Messages Sink can be required to both send and receive RDMA/DDP Messages
to transfer a data payload. to transfer a data payload.
Data Source - The peer sending a data payload. Note that the Data Data Source - The peer sending a data payload. Note that the Data
Source can be required to both send and receive RDMA/DDP Source can be required to both send and receive RDMA/DDP
Messages to transfer a data payload. Messages to transfer a data payload.
Delivery - See Data Delivery in Section 2.1.
Delivered - See Data Delivery in Section 2.1.
Delivers - See Data Delivery in Section 2.1.
iWARP - A suite of wire protocols comprised of RDMAP [RDMAP], DDP iWARP - A suite of wire protocols comprised of RDMAP [RDMAP], DDP
[DDP], and MPA [MPA]. The iWARP protocol suite may be layered (this specification), and MPA [MPA]. The iWARP protocol suite
above TCP, SCTP, or other transport protocols. may be layered above TCP, SCTP, or other transport protocols.
Local Peer - The RDMA/DDP protocol implementation on the local end Local Peer - The RDMA/DDP protocol implementation on the local end
of the connection. Used to refer to the local entity when of the connection. Used to refer to the local entity when
describing a protocol exchange or other interaction between two describing a protocol exchange or other interaction between two
Nodes. Nodes.
Node - A computing device attached to one or more links of a Node - A computing device attached to one or more links of a
network. A Node in this context does not refer to a specific network. A Node in this context does not refer to a specific
application or protocol instantiation running on the computer. A application or protocol instantiation running on the computer. A
Node may consist of one or more RNICs installed in a host Node may consist of one or more RNICs installed in a host
computer. computer.
Placement - See "Data Placement" in Section 2.3
Shah, et. al. Expires January 2007 9
Placed - See "Data Placement" in Section 2.3
Places - See "Data Placement" in Section 2.3
Remote Peer - The RDMA/DDP protocol implementation on the opposite Remote Peer - The RDMA/DDP protocol implementation on the opposite
end of the connection. Used to refer to the remote entity when end of the connection. Used to refer to the remote entity when
describing protocol exchanges or other interactions between two describing protocol exchanges or other interactions between two
Nodes. Nodes.
RNIC - RDMA Enabled Network Interface Controller. In this context, RNIC - RDMA Enabled Network Interface Controller. In this context,
this would be a network I/O adapter or embedded controller with this would be a network I/O adapter or embedded controller with
iWARP functionality. iWARP functionality.
Shah, et. al. Expires January 2006 9
ULP - Upper Layer Protocol. The protocol layer above the protocol ULP - Upper Layer Protocol. The protocol layer above the protocol
layer currently being referenced. The ULP for RDMA/DDP is layer currently being referenced. The ULP for RDMA/DDP is
expected to be an OS, application, adaptation layer, or expected to be an OS, application, adaptation layer, or
proprietary device. The RDMA/DDP documents do not specify a ULP proprietary device. The RDMA/DDP documents do not specify a ULP
- they provide a set of semantics that allow a ULP to be - they provide a set of semantics that allow a ULP to be
designed to utilize RDMA/DDP. designed to utilize RDMA/DDP.
ULP Message - The ULP data that is handed to a specific protocol ULP Message - The ULP data that is handed to a specific protocol
layer for transmission. Data boundaries are preserved as they layer for transmission. Data boundaries are preserved as they
are transmitted through iWARP. are transmitted through iWARP.
ULP Payload - The ULP data that is contained within a single ULP Payload - The ULP data that is contained within a single
protocol segment or packet (e.g. a DDP Segment). protocol segment or packet (e.g. a DDP Segment).
2.2 LLP 2.2 LLP
LLP - Lower Layer Protocol. The protocol layer beneath the protocol LLP - Lower Layer Protocol. The protocol layer beneath the protocol
layer currently being referenced. For example, for DDP the LLP layer currently being referenced. For example, for DDP the LLP
is SCTP, MPA, or other transport protocols. For RDMA, the LLP is is SCTP DDP Adaptation, MPA, or other transport protocols. For
DDP. RDMA, the LLP is DDP.
LLP Connection - Corresponds to an LLP transport-level connection LLP Connection - Corresponds to an LLP transport-level connection
between the peer LLP layers on two nodes. between the peer LLP layers on two nodes.
LLP Stream - Corresponds to a single LLP transport-level stream LLP Stream - Corresponds to a single LLP transport-level stream
between the peer LLP layers on two Nodes. One or more LLP between the peer LLP layers on two Nodes. One or more LLP
Streams may map to a single transport-level LLP Connection. For Streams may map to a single transport-level LLP Connection. For
transport protocols that support multiple streams per connection transport protocols that support multiple streams per connection
(e.g. SCTP), a LLP Stream corresponds to one transport-level (e.g. SCTP), a LLP Stream corresponds to one transport-level
stream. stream.
MULPDU - Maximum Upper Layer Protocol Data Unit. The current maximum MULPDU - Maximum Upper Layer Protocol Data Unit (ULPDU). The current
size of the record that is acceptable for DDP to pass to the LLP maximum size of the record that is acceptable for DDP to pass to
for transmission. the LLP for transmission.
2.3 Direct Data Placement (DDP) ULPDU - Upper Layer Protocol Data Unit. The data record defined by
the layer above MPA.
DDP Graceful Teardown - The act of closing a DDP Stream such that Shah, et. al. Expires January 2007 10
all in-progress and pending DDP Messages are allowed to complete
successfully.
DDP Abortive Teardown - The act of closing a DDP Stream without 2.3 Direct Data Placement (DDP)
attempting to complete in-progress and pending DDP Messages.
Data Placement (Placement, Placed, Places) - For DDP, this term is Data Placement (Placement, Placed, Places) - For DDP, this term is
specifically used to indicate the process of writing to a data specifically used to indicate the process of writing to a data
buffer by a DDP implementation. DDP Segments carry Placement buffer by a DDP implementation. DDP Segments carry Placement
information, which may be used by the receiving DDP information, which may be used by the receiving DDP
implementation to perform Data Placement of the DDP Segment ULP implementation to perform Data Placement of the DDP Segment ULP
Payload. See "Data Delivery" and "Direct Data Placement". Payload. See "Data Delivery" and "Direct Data Placement".
DDP Abortive Teardown - The act of closing a DDP Stream without
attempting to complete in-progress and pending DDP Messages.
DDP Graceful Teardown - The act of closing a DDP Stream such that
all in-progress and pending DDP Messages are allowed to complete
successfully.
DDP Control Field - A fixed 8-bit field in the DDP Header. DDP Control Field - A fixed 8-bit field in the DDP Header.
Shah, et. al. Expires January 2006 10
DDP Header - The header present in all DDP Segments. The DDP Header DDP Header - The header present in all DDP Segments. The DDP Header
contains control and Placement fields that are used to define contains control and Placement fields that are used to define
the final Placement location for the ULP Payload carried in a the final Placement location for the ULP Payload carried in a
DDP Segment. DDP Segment.
DDP Message - A ULP defined unit of data interchange, which is DDP Message - A ULP defined unit of data interchange, which is
subdivided into one or more DDP Segments. This segmentation may subdivided into one or more DDP Segments. This segmentation may
occur for a variety of reasons, including segmentation to occur for a variety of reasons, including segmentation to
respect the maximum segment size of the underlying transport respect the maximum segment size of the underlying transport
protocol. protocol.
skipping to change at line 473 skipping to change at line 495
within DDP Segments may be Placed directly into its final within DDP Segments may be Placed directly into its final
destination in memory without processing of the ULP. This may destination in memory without processing of the ULP. This may
occur even when the DDP Segments arrive out of order. Out of occur even when the DDP Segments arrive out of order. Out of
order Placement support may require the Data Sink to implement order Placement support may require the Data Sink to implement
the LLP and DDP as one functional block. the LLP and DDP as one functional block.
Direct Data Placement Protocol (DDP) - Also, a wire protocol that Direct Data Placement Protocol (DDP) - Also, a wire protocol that
supports Direct Data Placement by associating explicit memory supports Direct Data Placement by associating explicit memory
buffer placement information with the LLP payload units. buffer placement information with the LLP payload units.
Shah, et. al. Expires January 2007 11
Message Offset (MO) - For the DDP Untagged Buffer Model, specifies Message Offset (MO) - For the DDP Untagged Buffer Model, specifies
the offset, in octets, from the start of a DDP Message. the offset, in octets, from the start of a DDP Message.
Message Sequence Number (MSN) - For the DDP Untagged Buffer Model, Message Sequence Number (MSN) - For the DDP Untagged Buffer Model,
specifies a sequence number that is increasing with each DDP specifies a sequence number that is increasing with each DDP
Message. Message.
Protection Domain (PD) - A Mechanism used to associate a DDP Stream Protection Domain (PD) - A Mechanism used to associate a DDP Stream
and an STag. Under this mechanism, the use of an STag is valid and an STag. Under this mechanism, the use of an STag is valid
on a DDP Stream if the STag has the same Protection Domain on a DDP Stream if the STag has the same Protection Domain
Identifier (PD ID) as the DDP Stream. Identifier (PD ID) as the DDP Stream.
Protection Domain Identifier (PD ID) - An identifier for the Protection Domain Identifier (PD ID) - An identifier for the
Protection Domain. Protection Domain.
Queue Number (QN) - For the DDP Untagged Buffer Model, identifies a Queue Number (QN) - For the DDP Untagged Buffer Model, identifies a
destination Data Sink queue for a DDP Segment. destination Data Sink queue for a DDP Segment.
Shah, et. al. Expires January 2006 11
Steering Tag - An identifier of a Tagged Buffer on a Node, valid as Steering Tag - An identifier of a Tagged Buffer on a Node, valid as
defined within a protocol specification. defined within a protocol specification.
STag - Steering Tag STag - Steering Tag
Tagged Buffer - A buffer that is explicitly Advertised to the Remote Tagged Buffer - A buffer that is explicitly Advertised to the Remote
Peer through exchange of an STag, Tagged Offset, and length. Peer through exchange of an STag, Tagged Offset, and length.
Tagged Buffer Model - A DDP data transfer model used to transfer Tagged Buffer Model - A DDP data transfer model used to transfer
Tagged Buffers from the Local Peer to the Remote Peer. Tagged Buffers from the Local Peer to the Remote Peer.
skipping to change at line 523 skipping to change at line 545
Untagged Buffer - A buffer that is not explicitly Advertised to the Untagged Buffer - A buffer that is not explicitly Advertised to the
Remote Peer. Remote Peer.
Untagged Buffer Model - A DDP data transfer model used to transfer Untagged Buffer Model - A DDP data transfer model used to transfer
Untagged Buffers from the Local Peer to the Remote Peer. Untagged Buffers from the Local Peer to the Remote Peer.
Untagged DDP Message - A DDP Message that targets an Untagged Untagged DDP Message - A DDP Message that targets an Untagged
Buffer. Buffer.
Shah, et. al. Expires January 2006 12 Shah, et. al. Expires January 2007 12
3 Reliable Delivery LLP Requirements 3 Reliable Delivery LLP Requirements
Any protocol that can serve as an LLP to DDP MUST meet the following
requirements.
1. LLPs MUST expose MULPDU & MULPDU Changes. This is required so 1. LLPs MUST expose MULPDU & MULPDU Changes. This is required so
that the DDP layer can perform segmentation aligned with the that the DDP layer can perform segmentation aligned with the
MULPDU and can adapt as MULPDU changes come about. The corner MULPDU and can adapt as MULPDU changes come about. The corner
case of how to handle outstanding requests during a MULPDU case of how to handle outstanding requests during a MULPDU
change is covered by the requirements below. change is covered by the requirements below.
2. In the event of a MULPDU change, DDP MUST NOT be required by the 2. In the event of a MULPDU change, DDP MUST NOT be required by the
LLP to re-segment DDP Segments that have been previously posted LLP to re-segment DDP Segments that have been previously posted
to the LLP. Note that under pathological conditions the LLP may to the LLP. Note that under pathological conditions the LLP may
change the advertised MULPDU more frequently than the queue of change the advertised MULPDU more frequently than the queue of
skipping to change at line 575 skipping to change at line 600
of other LLP streams and a DDP error occurs on a specific DDP of other LLP streams and a DDP error occurs on a specific DDP
Stream, then the LLP MUST label the associated LLP stream as an Stream, then the LLP MUST label the associated LLP stream as an
erroneous LLP stream and MUST NOT allow any further data erroneous LLP stream and MUST NOT allow any further data
transfer on that LLP stream after DDP requests the associated transfer on that LLP stream after DDP requests the associated
DDP Stream to be torn down. DDP Stream to be torn down.
9. For a specific LLP Stream, the LLP MUST provide a mechanism to 9. For a specific LLP Stream, the LLP MUST provide a mechanism to
indicate that the LLP Stream has been gracefully torn down. For indicate that the LLP Stream has been gracefully torn down. For
a specific LLP Connection, the LLP MUST provide a mechanism to a specific LLP Connection, the LLP MUST provide a mechanism to
indicate that the LLP Connection has been gracefully torn down. indicate that the LLP Connection has been gracefully torn down.
Shah, et. al. Expires January 2007 13
Note that if the LLP does not allow an LLP Stream to be torn Note that if the LLP does not allow an LLP Stream to be torn
down independently of the LLP Connection, the above requirements down independently of the LLP Connection, the above requirements
allow the LLP to notify DDP of both events at the same time. allow the LLP to notify DDP of both events at the same time.
Shah, et. al. Expires January 2006 13
10. For a specific LLP Connection, when all LLP Streams are either 10. For a specific LLP Connection, when all LLP Streams are either
gracefully torn down or are labeled as erroneous LLP streams, gracefully torn down or are labeled as erroneous LLP streams,
the LLP Connection MUST be torn down. the LLP Connection MUST be torn down.
11. The LLP MUST NOT pass a duplicate DDP Segment to the DDP Layer 11. The LLP MUST NOT pass a duplicate DDP Segment to the DDP Layer
after it has passed all the previous DDP Segments to the DDP after it has passed all the previous DDP Segments to the DDP
Layer and the associated ordering information for the previous Layer and the associated ordering information for the previous
DDP Segments and the current DDP Segment. DDP Segments and the current DDP Segment.
Shah, et. al. Expires January 2006 14 Shah, et. al. Expires January 2007 14
4 Header Format 4 Header Format
DDP has two different header formats: one for Data Placement into DDP has two different header formats: one for Data Placement into
Tagged Buffers, and the other for Data Placement into Untagged Tagged Buffers, and the other for Data Placement into Untagged
Buffers. See Section 5.1 for a description of the two models. Buffers. See Section 5.1 for a description of the two models.
4.1 DDP Control Field 4.1 DDP Control Field
The first 8 bits of the DDP Header carry a DDP Control Field that is The first 8 bits of the DDP Header carry a DDP Control Field that is
skipping to change at line 643 skipping to change at line 669
Delivered to the ULP after: Delivered to the ULP after:
. Placement of all DDP Segments of this DDP Message and all . Placement of all DDP Segments of this DDP Message and all
prior DDP Messages, and prior DDP Messages, and
. Delivery of each prior DDP Message. . Delivery of each prior DDP Message.
If the Last flag is set to zero, the DDP Segment is an If the Last flag is set to zero, the DDP Segment is an
intermediate DDP Segment. intermediate DDP Segment.
Shah, et. al. Expires January 2006 15 Shah, et. al. Expires January 2007 15
Rsvd - Reserved: 4 bits. Rsvd - Reserved: 4 bits.
Reserved for future use by the DDP protocol. This field MUST be Reserved for future use by the DDP protocol. This field MUST be
set to zero on transmit, and not checked on receive. set to zero on transmit, and not checked on receive.
DV - Direct Data Placement Protocol Version: 2 bits. DV - Direct Data Placement Protocol Version: 2 bits.
The version of the DDP Protocol in use. This field MUST be set The version of the DDP Protocol in use. This field MUST be set
to one to indicate the version of the specification described to one to indicate the version of the specification described
in this document. The value of DV MUST be the same for all the in this document. The value of DV MUST be the same for all the
skipping to change at line 698 skipping to change at line 724
specific DDP Message MUST contain the same value for this specific DDP Message MUST contain the same value for this
field. The Data Source MUST ensure that each DDP Segment within field. The Data Source MUST ensure that each DDP Segment within
a specific DDP Message contains the same value for this field. a specific DDP Message contains the same value for this field.
STag - Steering Tag: 32 bits. STag - Steering Tag: 32 bits.
The Steering Tag identifies the Data Sink's Tagged Buffer. The The Steering Tag identifies the Data Sink's Tagged Buffer. The
STag MUST be valid for this DDP Stream. The STag is associated STag MUST be valid for this DDP Stream. The STag is associated
with the DDP Stream through a mechanism that is outside the with the DDP Stream through a mechanism that is outside the
Shah, et. al. Expires January 2006 16 Shah, et. al. Expires January 2007 16
scope of the DDP Protocol specification. At the Data Source, scope of the DDP Protocol specification. At the Data Source,
DDP MUST set the STag field to the value specified by the ULP. DDP MUST set the STag field to the value specified by the ULP.
At the Data Sink, the DDP MUST provide the STag field when the At the Data Sink, the DDP MUST provide the STag field when the
ULP Message is delivered. Each DDP Segment within a specific ULP Message is delivered. Each DDP Segment within a specific
DDP Message MUST contain the same value for this field and MUST DDP Message MUST contain the same value for this field and MUST
be the value supplied by the ULP. The Data Source MUST ensure be the value supplied by the ULP. The Data Source MUST ensure
that each DDP Segment within a specific DDP Message contains that each DDP Segment within a specific DDP Message contains
the same value for this field. the same value for this field.
TO - Tagged Offset: 64 bits. TO - Tagged Offset: 64 bits.
skipping to change at line 751 skipping to change at line 777
RsvdULP - Reserved for use by the ULP: 40 bits. RsvdULP - Reserved for use by the ULP: 40 bits.
The RsvdULP field is opaque to the DDP protocol and can be The RsvdULP field is opaque to the DDP protocol and can be
structured in any way by the ULP. At the Data Source, DDP MUST structured in any way by the ULP. At the Data Source, DDP MUST
set RsvdULP Field to the value specified by the ULP. It is set RsvdULP Field to the value specified by the ULP. It is
transferred unmodified from the Data Source to the Data Sink. transferred unmodified from the Data Source to the Data Sink.
At the Data Sink, DDP MUST provide RsvdULP field to the ULP At the Data Sink, DDP MUST provide RsvdULP field to the ULP
when the ULP Message is Delivered. Each DDP Segment within a when the ULP Message is Delivered. Each DDP Segment within a
specific DDP Message MUST contain the same value for the specific DDP Message MUST contain the same value for the
Shah, et. al. Expires January 2006 17 Shah, et. al. Expires January 2007 17
RsvdULP field. At the Data Sink, the DDP implementation is NOT RsvdULP field. At the Data Sink, the DDP implementation is NOT
REQUIRED to verify that the same value is present in the REQUIRED to verify that the same value is present in the
RsvdULP field of each DDP Segment within a specific DDP Message RsvdULP field of each DDP Segment within a specific DDP Message
and MAY provide the value from any one of the received DDP and MAY provide the value from any one of the received DDP
Segment to the ULP when the ULP Message is Delivered. Segment to the ULP when the ULP Message is Delivered.
QN - Queue Number: 32 bits. QN - Queue Number: 32 bits.
The Queue Number identifies the Data Sink's Untagged Buffer The Queue Number identifies the Data Sink's Untagged Buffer
queue referenced by this header. Each DDP segment within a queue referenced by this header. Each DDP segment within a
skipping to change at line 799 skipping to change at line 825
Each DDP Segment MUST contain a DDP Header. Each DDP Segment may Each DDP Segment MUST contain a DDP Header. Each DDP Segment may
also contain ULP Payload. Following is the DDP Segment format: also contain ULP Payload. Following is the DDP Segment format:
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| DDP | | | DDP | |
| Header| ULP Payload (if any) | | Header| ULP Payload (if any) |
| | | | | |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 6 DDP Segment Format Figure 6 DDP Segment Format
Shah, et. al. Expires January 2006 18 Shah, et. al. Expires January 2007 18
5 Data Transfer 5 Data Transfer
DDP supports multi-segment DDP Messages. Each DDP Message is DDP supports multi-segment DDP Messages. Each DDP Message is
composed of one or more DDP Segments. Each DDP Segment contains a composed of one or more DDP Segments. Each DDP Segment contains a
DDP Header. The DDP Header contains the information required by the DDP Header. The DDP Header contains the information required by the
receiver to Place any ULP Payload included in the DDP Segment. receiver to Place any ULP Payload included in the DDP Segment.
5.1 DDP Tagged or Untagged Buffer Models 5.1 DDP Tagged or Untagged Buffer Models
skipping to change at line 855 skipping to change at line 881
communicate how many buffers have been queued is outside the scope communicate how many buffers have been queued is outside the scope
of this specification. Similarly, the exact implementation of the of this specification. Similarly, the exact implementation of the
buffer queue is outside the scope of this specification. buffer queue is outside the scope of this specification.
5.2 Segmentation and Reassembly of a DDP Message 5.2 Segmentation and Reassembly of a DDP Message
At the Data Source, the DDP layer MUST segment the data contained in At the Data Source, the DDP layer MUST segment the data contained in
a ULP message into a series of DDP Segments, where each DDP Segment a ULP message into a series of DDP Segments, where each DDP Segment
contains a DDP Header and ULP Payload, and MUST be no larger than contains a DDP Header and ULP Payload, and MUST be no larger than
Shah, et. al. Expires January 2006 19 Shah, et. al. Expires January 2007 19
the MULPDU value advertised by the LLP. The ULP Message Length MUST the MULPDU value advertised by the LLP. The ULP Message Length MUST
be less than 2^32. At the Data Source, the DDP layer MUST send all be less than 2^32. At the Data Source, the DDP layer MUST send all
the data contained in the ULP message. At the Data Sink, the DDP the data contained in the ULP message. At the Data Sink, the DDP
layer MUST Place the ULP Payload contained in all valid incoming DDP layer MUST Place the ULP Payload contained in all valid incoming DDP
Segments associated with a DDP Message into the ULP Buffer. Segments associated with a DDP Message into the ULP Buffer.
DDP Message segmentation at the Data Source is accomplished by DDP Message segmentation at the Data Source is accomplished by
identifying a DDP Message (which corresponds one-to-one with a ULP identifying a DDP Message (which corresponds one-to-one with a ULP
Message) uniquely and then, for each associated DDP Segment of a DDP Message) uniquely and then, for each associated DDP Segment of a DDP
Message, by specifying an octet offset for the portion of the ULP Message, by specifying an octet offset for the portion of the ULP
skipping to change at line 910 skipping to change at line 936
of the STag effectively enables the ULP to implement of the STag effectively enables the ULP to implement
segmentation and reassembly due to ULP specific constraints. segmentation and reassembly due to ULP specific constraints.
See [RDMAP] for details of how this is done. See [RDMAP] for details of how this is done.
A different implementation of a ULP could use an Untagged DDP A different implementation of a ULP could use an Untagged DDP
Message sent after the Tagged DDP Message which details the Message sent after the Tagged DDP Message which details the
initial TO for the STag that was used in the Tagged DDP initial TO for the STag that was used in the Tagged DDP
Message. And finally, another implementation of a ULP could Message. And finally, another implementation of a ULP could
choose to always use an initial TO of zero such that no choose to always use an initial TO of zero such that no
Shah, et. al. Expires January 2006 20 Shah, et. al. Expires January 2007 20
additional message is required to convey the initial TO used in additional message is required to convey the initial TO used in
a Tagged DDP Message. a Tagged DDP Message.
Regardless of whether the ULP chooses to recover the original ULP Regardless of whether the ULP chooses to recover the original ULP
Message boundary at the Data Sink for a Tagged DDP Message, DDP Message boundary at the Data Sink for a Tagged DDP Message, DDP
supports segmentation and reassembly of the Tagged DDP Message. The supports segmentation and reassembly of the Tagged DDP Message. The
STag is used to identify the ULP Buffer at the Data Sink and the TO STag is used to identify the ULP Buffer at the Data Sink and the TO
is used to identify the octet-offset within the ULP Buffer is used to identify the octet-offset within the ULP Buffer
referenced by the STag. The ULP at the Data Source MUST specify the referenced by the STag. The ULP at the Data Source MUST specify the
STag and the initial TO when the ULP Message is handed to DDP. STag and the initial TO when the ULP Message is handed to DDP.
skipping to change at line 964 skipping to change at line 990
* SHOULD transmit DDP Segments within a DDP Message in increasing * SHOULD transmit DDP Segments within a DDP Message in increasing
MO order for Untagged DDP Messages and in increasing TO order MO order for Untagged DDP Messages and in increasing TO order
for Tagged DDP Messages. for Tagged DDP Messages.
At the Data Sink, DDP (Note: The following rules are motivated by At the Data Sink, DDP (Note: The following rules are motivated by
LLP implementations that separate Placement and Delivery.): LLP implementations that separate Placement and Delivery.):
* MAY perform Placement of DDP Segments out of order, * MAY perform Placement of DDP Segments out of order,
Shah, et. al. Expires January 2006 21 Shah, et. al. Expires January 2007 21
* MAY perform Placement of a DDP Segment more than once, * MAY perform Placement of a DDP Segment more than once,
* MUST Deliver a DDP Message to the ULP at most once, * MUST Deliver a DDP Message to the ULP at most once,
* MUST Deliver DDP Messages to the ULP in the order they were * MUST Deliver DDP Messages to the ULP in the order they were
sent by the Data Source. sent by the Data Source.
5.4 DDP Message Completion & Delivery 5.4 DDP Message Completion & Delivery
At the Data Source, DDP Message transfer is considered completed At the Data Source, DDP Message transfer is considered completed
skipping to change at line 1001 skipping to change at line 1027
At the Data Sink, DDP MUST provide the ULP Message Length to the ULP At the Data Sink, DDP MUST provide the ULP Message Length to the ULP
when an Untagged DDP Message is Delivered. The ULP Message Length when an Untagged DDP Message is Delivered. The ULP Message Length
may be calculated by adding the MO and the ULP Payload length in the may be calculated by adding the MO and the ULP Payload length in the
last DDP Segment (with the Last flag set) of an Untagged DDP last DDP Segment (with the Last flag set) of an Untagged DDP
Message. Message.
At the Data Sink, DDP MUST provide the RsvdULP Field of the DDP At the Data Sink, DDP MUST provide the RsvdULP Field of the DDP
Message to the ULP when the DDP Message is delivered. Message to the ULP when the DDP Message is delivered.
Shah, et. al. Expires January 2006 22 Shah, et. al. Expires January 2007 22
6 DDP Stream Setup & Teardown 6 DDP Stream Setup & Teardown
This section describes LLP independent issues related to DDP Stream This section describes LLP independent issues related to DDP Stream
setup and teardown. setup and teardown.
6.1 DDP Stream Setup 6.1 DDP Stream Setup
It is expected that the ULP will use a mechanism outside the scope It is expected that the ULP will use a mechanism outside the scope
of this specification to establish an LLP Connection, and that the of this specification to establish an LLP Connection, and that the
skipping to change at line 1055 skipping to change at line 1081
torn down. torn down.
If the Local Peer LLP supports a half-closed LLP Stream, on the If the Local Peer LLP supports a half-closed LLP Stream, on the
receipt of a LLP graceful teardown request of the DDP Stream, DDP receipt of a LLP graceful teardown request of the DDP Stream, DDP
SHOULD indicate the half-closed state to the ULP, and continue to SHOULD indicate the half-closed state to the ULP, and continue to
process outbound data transfer requests normally. Following this process outbound data transfer requests normally. Following this
event, when the Local Peer ULP requests graceful teardown, DDP MUST event, when the Local Peer ULP requests graceful teardown, DDP MUST
indicate to the LLP that it SHOULD perform a graceful close of the indicate to the LLP that it SHOULD perform a graceful close of the
other half of the LLP Stream. other half of the LLP Stream.
Shah, et. al. Expires January 2006 23 Shah, et. al. Expires January 2007 23
If the Local Peer LLP supports a half-closed LLP Stream, on the If the Local Peer LLP supports a half-closed LLP Stream, on the
receipt of a ULP graceful half-close teardown request of the DDP receipt of a ULP graceful half-close teardown request of the DDP
Stream, DDP SHOULD keep data reception enabled on the other half of Stream, DDP SHOULD keep data reception enabled on the other half of
the LLP stream. the LLP stream.
6.2.2 DDP Abortive Teardown 6.2.2 DDP Abortive Teardown
As previously mentioned, DDP does not independently terminate a DDP As previously mentioned, DDP does not independently terminate a DDP
Stream. Thus any of the following fatal errors on a DDP Stream MUST Stream. Thus any of the following fatal errors on a DDP Stream MUST
cause DDP to indicate to the ULP that a fatal error has occurred: cause DDP to indicate to the ULP that a fatal error has occurred:
skipping to change at line 1085 skipping to change at line 1111
Error Numbers) and complete all outstanding ULP requests with an Error Numbers) and complete all outstanding ULP requests with an
error. If the underlying LLP Stream is still intact, DDP SHOULD error. If the underlying LLP Stream is still intact, DDP SHOULD
continue to allow the ULP to transfer additional DDP Messages on the continue to allow the ULP to transfer additional DDP Messages on the
outgoing half connection after the fatal error was indicated to the outgoing half connection after the fatal error was indicated to the
ULP. This enables the ULP to transfer an error syndrome to the ULP. This enables the ULP to transfer an error syndrome to the
Remote Peer. After indicating to the ULP a fatal error has occurred, Remote Peer. After indicating to the ULP a fatal error has occurred,
the DDP Stream MUST NOT be terminated until the Local Peer ULP the DDP Stream MUST NOT be terminated until the Local Peer ULP
indicates to the DDP layer that the DDP Stream should be abortively indicates to the DDP layer that the DDP Stream should be abortively
torndown. torndown.
Shah, et. al. Expires January 2006 24 Shah, et. al. Expires January 2007 24
7 Error Semantics 7 Error Semantics
All LLP errors reported to DDP SHOULD be passed up to the ULP. All LLP errors reported to DDP SHOULD be passed up to the ULP.
7.1 Errors detected at the Data Sink 7.1 Errors detected at the Data Sink
For non-zero length Untagged DDP Segments, the DDP Segment MUST be For non-zero length Untagged DDP Segments, the DDP Segment MUST be
validated before Placement by verifying: validated before Placement by verifying:
skipping to change at line 1139 skipping to change at line 1165
available to handle the incoming DDP Segments. available to handle the incoming DDP Segments.
For non-zero length Tagged DDP Segments, the segment MUST be For non-zero length Tagged DDP Segments, the segment MUST be
validated before Placement by verifying: validated before Placement by verifying:
1. The STag is valid for this stream. 1. The STag is valid for this stream.
2. The STag has an associated buffer that allows Placement of the 2. The STag has an associated buffer that allows Placement of the
payload. payload.
Shah, et. al. Expires January 2006 25 Shah, et. al. Expires January 2007 25
3. The TO falls in the range of legal offsets registered for the 3. The TO falls in the range of legal offsets registered for the
STag. STag.
4. The sum of the DDP Segment payload length and the TO falls in 4. The sum of the DDP Segment payload length and the TO falls in
the range of legal offsets registered for the STag. the range of legal offsets registered for the STag.
5. A 64-bit unsigned sum of the DDP Segment payload length and the 5. A 64-bit unsigned sum of the DDP Segment payload length and the
TO does not wrap. TO does not wrap.
If the DDP layer detects any of the receive errors listed in this If the DDP layer detects any of the receive errors listed in this
skipping to change at line 1187 skipping to change at line 1213
0x2 Untagged Buffer Error 0x2 Untagged Buffer Error
0x01 Invalid QN 0x01 Invalid QN
0x02 Invalid MSN - no buffer available 0x02 Invalid MSN - no buffer available
0x03 Invalid MSN - MSN range is not valid 0x03 Invalid MSN - MSN range is not valid
0x04 Invalid MO 0x04 Invalid MO
0x05 DDP Message too long for available buffer 0x05 DDP Message too long for available buffer
0x06 Invalid DDP version 0x06 Invalid DDP version
0x3 Rsvd Reserved for the use by the LLP 0x3 Rsvd Reserved for the use by the LLP
Shah, et. al. Expires January 2006 26 Shah, et. al. Expires January 2007 26
8 Security Considerations 8 Security Considerations
This section discusses both protocol-specific considerations and the This section discusses both protocol-specific considerations and the
implications of using DDP with existing security mechanisms. The implications of using DDP with existing security mechanisms. The
security requirements for the DDP implementation are provided at the security requirements for the DDP implementation are provided at the
end of the section. A more detailed analysis of the security issues end of the section. A more detailed analysis of the security issues
around the implementation and the use of the DDP can be found in around the implementation and the use of the DDP can be found in
[RDMASEC]. [RDMASEC].
skipping to change at line 1212 skipping to change at line 1238
such as TCP and SCTP over IP. A third party, by injecting spoofed such as TCP and SCTP over IP. A third party, by injecting spoofed
packets into the network that are Delivered to a DDP Data Sink, packets into the network that are Delivered to a DDP Data Sink,
could launch a variety of attacks that exploit DDP-specific could launch a variety of attacks that exploit DDP-specific
behavior. Since DDP directly or indirectly exposes memory addresses behavior. Since DDP directly or indirectly exposes memory addresses
on the wire, the Placement information carried in each DDP Segment on the wire, the Placement information carried in each DDP Segment
must be validated, including invalid STag and octet level must be validated, including invalid STag and octet level
granularity base and bounds check, before any data is Placed. For granularity base and bounds check, before any data is Placed. For
example, a third-party adversary could inject random packets that example, a third-party adversary could inject random packets that
appear to be valid DDP Segments and corrupt the memory on a DDP Data appear to be valid DDP Segments and corrupt the memory on a DDP Data
Sink. Since DDP is IP transport protocol independent, communication Sink. Since DDP is IP transport protocol independent, communication
security mechanisms such as IPsec [IPSEC] or TLS [TLS] may be used security mechanisms such as IPsec [IPSEC] may be used to prevent
to prevent such attacks. such attacks.
8.2 Association of an STag and a DDP Stream 8.2 Association of an STag and a DDP Stream
There are several mechanisms for associating an STag and a DDP There are several mechanisms for associating an STag and a DDP
Stream. Two required mechanisms for this association are a Stream. Two required mechanisms for this association are a
Protection Domain (PD) association and a DDP Stream association. Protection Domain (PD) association and a DDP Stream association.
Under the Protection Domain (PD) association, a unique Protection Under the Protection Domain (PD) association, a unique Protection
Domain Identifier (PD ID) is created and used locally to associate Domain Identifier (PD ID) is created and used locally to associate
an STag with a set of DDP Streams. Under this mechanism, the use of an STag with a set of DDP Streams. Under this mechanism, the use of
skipping to change at line 1242 skipping to change at line 1268
Under the DDP Stream association, a DDP Stream is identified locally Under the DDP Stream association, a DDP Stream is identified locally
by a unique DDP Stream identifier (ID). An STag is associated with a by a unique DDP Stream identifier (ID). An STag is associated with a
DDP Stream by using a DDP Stream ID. In this case, for an incoming DDP Stream by using a DDP Stream ID. In this case, for an incoming
DDP Segment of a Tagged DDP Message on a DDP Stream, if the DDP DDP Segment of a Tagged DDP Message on a DDP Stream, if the DDP
Stream ID of the DDP Stream is not the same as the DDP Stream ID of Stream ID of the DDP Stream is not the same as the DDP Stream ID of
the STag targeted by the Tagged DDP Message, then the DDP Segment is the STag targeted by the Tagged DDP Message, then the DDP Segment is
not placed and the DDP layer MUST surface a local error to the ULP. not placed and the DDP layer MUST surface a local error to the ULP.
Note that the DDP Stream ID is locally defined, and cannot be Note that the DDP Stream ID is locally defined, and cannot be
directly manipulated by the Remote Peer. directly manipulated by the Remote Peer.
Shah, et. al. Expires January 2006 27 Shah, et. al. Expires January 2007 27
A ULP SHOULD associate an STag with at least one DDP Stream. DDP A ULP SHOULD associate an STag with at least one DDP Stream. DDP
MUST support Protection Domain association and DDP Stream MUST support Protection Domain association and DDP Stream
association mechanisms for associating an STag and a DDP Stream. association mechanisms for associating an STag and a DDP Stream.
8.3 Security Requirements 8.3 Security Requirements
[RDMASEC] defines the security model and general assumptions for [RDMASEC] defines the security model and general assumptions for
RDMAP/DDP. This subsection provides the security requirements for RDMAP/DDP. This subsection provides the security requirements for
the DDP implementation. For more details on the type of attacks, the DDP implementation. For more details on the type of attacks,
type of attackers, trust models, and resource sharing for the DDP type of attackers, trust models, and resource sharing for the DDP
skipping to change at line 1293 skipping to change at line 1319
ULP. DDP MUST provide a mechanism for the ULP to establish and ULP. DDP MUST provide a mechanism for the ULP to establish and
revoke the TO range associated with the ULP Buffer referenced by revoke the TO range associated with the ULP Buffer referenced by
the STag. the STag.
2. STags are only valid for the duration established by the ULP. The 2. STags are only valid for the duration established by the ULP. The
ULP may revoke them at any time, in accordance with its own upper ULP may revoke them at any time, in accordance with its own upper
layer protocol requirements. DDP MUST provide a mechanism for the layer protocol requirements. DDP MUST provide a mechanism for the
ULP to establish and revoke STag validity. ULP to establish and revoke STag validity.
3. DDP MUST provide a mechanism for the ULP to communicate the 3. DDP MUST provide a mechanism for the ULP to communicate the
association between a STag and a specific DDP Stream. association between a STag and a specific DDP Stream.
Shah, et. al. Expires January 2006 28 Shah, et. al. Expires January 2007 28
4. A ULP may only expose memory to remote access to the extent that 4. A ULP may only expose memory to remote access to the extent that
it already had access to that memory itself. it already had access to that memory itself.
5. If an STag is not valid on a DDP Stream, DDP MUST pass the invalid 5. If an STag is not valid on a DDP Stream, DDP MUST pass the invalid
access attempt to the ULP. The ULP may provide a mechanism for access attempt to the ULP. The ULP may provide a mechanism for
terminating the DDP Stream. terminating the DDP Stream.
Further, DDP provides a mechanism that directly Places incoming Further, DDP provides a mechanism that directly Places incoming
payloads in user-mode ULP Buffers. This avoids the risks of prior payloads in user-mode ULP Buffers. This avoids the risks of prior
solutions that relied upon exposing system buffers for incoming solutions that relied upon exposing system buffers for incoming
payloads. payloads.
For the DDP implementation, two components MUST be provided: a RDMA For the DDP implementation, two components MUST be provided: a RDMA
enabled NIC (RNIC) and a Privileged Resource Manager (PRM). enabled NIC (RNIC) and a Privileged Resource Manager (PRM).
8.3.1 RNIC Requirements 8.3.1 RNIC Requirements
The RNIC MUST implement the DDP wire Protocol and perform the The RNIC MUST implement the DDP wire Protocol and perform the
security semantics described below. security semantics described below.
1. An RNIC MUST ensure that a specific DDP Stream in a specific 1. An RNIC MUST ensure that a specific DDP Stream in a specific
Protection Domain cannot access an STag in a different Protection Protection Domain cannot access an STag in a different
Domain. Protection Domain.
2. An RNIC MUST ensure that if an STag is limited in scope to a 2. An RNIC MUST ensure that if an STag is limited in scope to a
single DDP Stream, no other DDP Stream can use the STag. single DDP Stream, no other DDP Stream can use the STag.
3. An RNIC MUST ensure that a Remote Peer is not able to access 3. An RNIC MUST ensure that a Remote Peer is not able to access
memory outside of the buffer specified when the STag was enabled memory outside of the buffer specified when the STag was
for remote access. enabled for remote access.
4. An RNIC MUST provide a mechanism for the ULP to establish and 4. An RNIC MUST provide a mechanism for the ULP to establish and
revoke the association of a ULP Buffer to an STag and TO range. revoke the association of a ULP Buffer to an STag and TO range.
5. An RNIC MUST provide a mechanism for the ULP to establish and 5. An RNIC MUST provide a mechanism for the ULP to establish and
revoke read, write, or read and write access to the ULP Buffer revoke read, write, or read and write access to the ULP Buffer
referenced by an STag. referenced by an STag.
6. An RNIC MUST ensure that the network interface can no longer 6. An RNIC MUST ensure that the network interface can no longer
modify an advertised buffer after the ULP revokes remote access modify an advertised buffer after the ULP revokes remote access
rights for an STag. rights for an STag.
7. An RNIC MUST NOT enable firmware to be loaded on the RNIC directly 7. An RNIC MUST NOT enable firmware to be loaded on the RNIC
from an untrusted Local Peer or Remote Peer, unless the Peer is directly from an untrusted Local Peer or Remote Peer, unless
properly authenticated (by a mechanism outside the scope of this the Peer is properly authenticated (by a mechanism outside the
specification. The mechanism presumably entails authenticating scope of this specification. The mechanism presumably entails
that the remote ULP has the right to perform the update), and the authenticating that the remote ULP has the right to perform the
update is done via a secure protocol, such as IPsec. update), and the update is done via a secure protocol, such as
IPsec.
8.3.2 Privileged Resources Manager Requirement 8.3.2 Privileged Resources Manager Requirement
The PRM MUST implement the security semantics described below. The PRM MUST implement the security semantics described below.
Shah, et. al. Expires January 2006 29 Shah, et. al. Expires January 2007 29
1. All Non-Privileged ULP interactions with the RNIC Engine that 1. All Non-Privileged ULP interactions with the RNIC Engine that
could affect other ULPs MUST be done using the Privileged Resource could affect other ULPs MUST be done using the Privileged
Manager as a proxy. Resource Manager as a proxy.
2. All ULP resource allocation requests for scarce resources MUST 2. All ULP resource allocation requests for scarce resources MUST
also be done using a Privileged Resource Manager. also be done using a Privileged Resource Manager.
3. The Privileged Resource Manager MUST NOT assume different ULPs 3. The Privileged Resource Manager MUST NOT assume different ULPs
share Partial Mutual Trust unless there is a mechanism to ensure share Partial Mutual Trust unless there is a mechanism to
that the ULPs do indeed share partial mutual trust. ensure that the ULPs do indeed share partial mutual trust.
4. If Non-Privileged ULPs are supported, the Privileged Resource 4. If Non-Privileged ULPs are supported, the Privileged Resource
Manager MUST verify that the Non-Privileged ULP has the right to Manager MUST verify that the Non-Privileged ULP has the right
access a specific Data Buffer before allowing an STag for which to access a specific Data Buffer before allowing an STag for
the ULP has access rights to be associated with a specific Data which the ULP has access rights to be associated with a
Buffer. specific Data Buffer.
5. The Privileged Resource Manager SHOULD prevent a Local Peer from 5. The Privileged Resource Manager SHOULD prevent a Local Peer
allocating more than its fair share of resources. from allocating more than its fair share of resources.
If an RNIC provides the ability to share receive buffers across If an RNIC provides the ability to share receive buffers across
multiple DDP Streams, the combination of the RNIC and the multiple DDP Streams, the combination of the RNIC and the
Privileged Resource Manager MUST be able to detect if the Remote Privileged Resource Manager MUST be able to detect if the
Peer is attempting to consume more than its fair share of Remote Peer is attempting to consume more than its fair share
resources so that the Local Peer can apply countermeasures to of resources so that the Local Peer can apply countermeasures
detect and prevent the attack. to detect and prevent the attack.
8.4 Security Services for DDP 8.4 Security Services for DDP
DDP uses an IP based network services, therefore, all exchanged DDP DDP uses an IP based network services, therefore, all exchanged DDP
Segments are vulnerable to spoofing, tampering and information Segments are vulnerable to spoofing, tampering and information
disclosure attacks. If a DDP Stream may be subject to impersonation disclosure attacks. If a DDP Stream may be subject to impersonation
attacks, or Stream hijacking attacks, it is highly RECOMMENDED that attacks, or Stream hijacking attacks, it is highly RECOMMENDED that
the DDP Stream be authenticated, integrity protected, and protected the DDP Stream be authenticated, integrity protected, and protected
from replay attacks; it MAY use confidentiality protection to from replay attacks; it MAY use confidentiality protection to
protect from eavesdropping. protect from eavesdropping.
8.4.1 Available Security Services
IPsec can be used to protect against the packet injection attacks IPsec can be used to protect against the packet injection attacks
outlined above. Because IPsec is designed to secure arbitrary IP outlined above. Because IPsec is designed to secure arbitrary IP
packet streams, including streams where packets are lost, DDP can packet streams, including streams where packets are lost, DDP can
run on top of IPsec without any change. run on top of IPsec without any change.
DDP security may also profit from SSL or TLS security services
provided for TCP or SCTP based ULPs [TLS] as well as from DTLS
[DTLS] security services provided beneath the transport protocol.
See [RDMASEC] for further discussion of these approaches and the
rationale for selection of IPsec security services for the RDDP
protocols.
Shah, et. al. Expires January 2007 30
8.4.2 Requirements for IPsec Services for DDP
IPsec packets are processed (e.g., integrity checked and possibly IPsec packets are processed (e.g., integrity checked and possibly
decrypted) in the order they are received, and a DDP Data Sink will decrypted) in the order they are received, and a DDP Data Sink will
process the decrypted DDP Segments contained in these packets in the process the decrypted DDP Segments contained in these packets in the
same manner as DDP Segments contained in unsecured IP packets. same manner as DDP Segments contained in unsecured IP packets.
The IP Storage working group has defined the normative IPsec The IP Storage working group has defined the normative IPsec
requirements for IP Storage [RFC3723]. Portions of this requirements for IP Storage [RFC3723]. Portions of this
specification are applicable to the DDP. In particular, a compliant specification are applicable to the DDP. In particular, a compliant
implementation of IPsec services MUST meet the requirements as implementation of IPsec services MUST meet the requirements as
outlined in Section 2.3 of [RFC3723]. Without replicating the outlined in Section 2.3 of [RFC3723]. Without replicating the
detailed discussion in [RFC3723], this includes the following detailed discussion in [RFC3723], this includes the following
requirements: requirements:
Shah, et. al. Expires January 2006 30 1. The implementation MUST support IPsec ESP [RFC2406], as well as
1. The implementation MUST support IPSec ESP [RFC 2406], as well as the replay protection mechanisms of IPsec. When ESP is
the replay protection mechanisms of IPsec. When ESP is utilized, utilized, per-packet data origin authentication, integrity and
per-packet data origin authentication, integrity and replay replay protection MUST be used.
protection MUST be used.
2. It MUST support ESP in tunnel mode and MAY implement ESP in 2. It MUST support ESP in tunnel mode and MAY implement ESP in
transport mode. transport mode.
3. It MUST support IKE [RFC 2409] for peer authentication, 3. It MUST support IKE [RFC 2409] for peer authentication,
negotiation of security associations, and key management, using negotiation of security associations, and key management, using
the IPsec DOI [RFC 2407]. the IPsec DOI [RFC 2407].
4. It MUST not interpret the receipt of a IKE Phase 2 delete message 4. It MUST NOT interpret the receipt of a IKE Phase 2 delete
as a reason for tearing down the DDP Stream. Since IPsec message as a reason for tearing down the DDP stream. Since
acceleration hardware may only be able to handle a limited number IPsec acceleration hardware may only be able to handle a
of active IKE Phase 2 SAs, idle SAs may be dynamically brought limited number of active IKE Phase 2 SAs, idle SAs may be
down and a new SA be brought up again, if activity resumes. dynamically brought down and a new SA be brought up again, if
activity resumes.
5. It MUST support peer authentication using a pre-shared key, and 5. It MUST support peer authentication using a pre-shared key, and
MAY support certificate-based peer authentication using digital MAY support certificate-based peer authentication using digital
signatures. Peer authentication using the public key encryption signatures. Peer authentication using the public key encryption
methods [RFC 2409] SHOULD NOT be used. methods [RFC 2409] SHOULD NOT be used.
6. It MUST support IKE Main Mode and SHOULD support aggressive Mode. 6. It MUST support IKE Main Mode and SHOULD support Aggressive
IKE Main Mode with pre-shared key authentication SHOULD NOT be Mode. IKE Main Mode with pre-shared key authentication SHOULD
used when either of the peers uses a dynamically assigned IP NOT be used when either of the peers uses a dynamically
address. assigned IP address.
7. Access to locally stored secret information (pre-shared or private 7. Access to locally stored secret information (pre-shared or
key for digital signing) must be suitably restricted, since private key for digital signing) must be suitably restricted,
compromise of the secret information nullifies the security since compromise of the secret information nullifies the
properties of the IKE/IPsec protocols. security properties of the IKE/IPsec protocols.
8. It MUST follow the guidelines of Section 2.3.4 of [RFC 3723] on 8. It MUST follow the guidelines of Section 2.3.4 of [RFC 3723] on
the setting of IKE parameters to achieve a high level of the setting of IKE parameters to achieve a high level of
interoperability without requiring extensive configuration. interoperability without requiring extensive configuration.
Shah, et. al. Expires January 2007 31
Furthermore, implementation and deployment of the IPsec services for Furthermore, implementation and deployment of the IPsec services for
DDP should follow the Security Considerations outlined in Section 5 DDP should follow the Security Considerations outlined in Section 5
of [RFC 3723]. of [RFC 3723].
Shah, et. al. Expires January 2006 31 Shah, et. al. Expires January 2007 32
9 IANA Considerations 9 IANA Considerations
This document requests no direct action from IANA. The following
consideration is listed here as commentary.
If DDP was enabled a priori for a ULP by connecting to a well-known If DDP was enabled a priori for a ULP by connecting to a well-known
port, this well-known port would be registered for the DDP with port, this well-known port would be registered for the DDP with
IANA. The registration of the well-known port will be the IANA. The registration of the well-known port will be the
responsibility of the ULP specification. responsibility of the ULP specification.
Shah, et. al. Expires January 2006 32 Shah, et. al. Expires January 2007 33
10 References 10 References
10.1 Normative References 10.1 Normative References
[RFC2026] Bradner, S., "The Internet Standards Process -- Revision
3", BCP 9, RFC 2026, October 1996.
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[RFC2406] Kent, S. and Atkinson, R., "IP Encapsulating Security [RFC2406] Kent, S. and Atkinson, R., "IP Encapsulating Security
Payload (ESP)", RFC 2406, November 1998. Payload (ESP)", RFC 2406, November 1998.
[RFC2407] Piper, D., "The Internet IP Security Domain of [RFC2407] Piper, D., "The Internet IP Security Domain of
Interpretation of ISAKMP", RFC 2407, November 1998. Interpretation of ISAKMP", RFC 2407, November 1998.
[RFC2409] Harkins, D. and Carrel, D., "The Internet Key Exchange [RFC2409] Harkins, D. and Carrel, D., "The Internet Key Exchange
(IKE)", RFC 2409, November 1998. (IKE)", RFC 2409, November 1998.
[RFC3723] Aboba, B., Tseng, J., Walker, J., Rangan, V., Travostino, [RFC3723] Aboba, B., Tseng, J., Walker, J., Rangan, V., Travostino,
F., "Securing Block Storage Protocols over IP", RFC 3723, April F., "Securing Block Storage Protocols over IP", RFC 3723, April
2004. 2004.
[MPA] Culley, P., Elzur, U., Recio, R., Bailey, S., Carrier, J., [MPA] Culley, P., Elzur, U., Recio, R., Bailey, S., Carrier, J.,
"Marker PDU Aligned Framing for TCP Specification", Internet "Marker PDU Aligned Framing for TCP Specification", Internet
[RDMAP] Recio, R., Culley, P., Garcia, D., Hilland, J., "An RDMA [RDMAP] Recio, R., Culley, P., Garcia, D., Hilland, J., "An RDMA
Protocol Specification", Internet Draft draft-ietf-rddp-rdmap- Protocol Specification", Internet Draft draft-ietf-rddp-rdmap-
01.txt (work in progress), October 2003 06.txt (work in progress), June 2006.
[RDMASEC] Pinkerton J. and Deleganes E., "DDP/RDMAP Security",
draft-ietf-rddp-security-10.txt (work in progress), June 2006.
[SCTP] Stewart, R. et al., "Stream Control Transmission Protocol", [SCTP] Stewart, R. et al., "Stream Control Transmission Protocol",
RFC 2960, October 2000. RFC 2960, October 2000.
[SCTPDDP] C. Bestler and R. Stewart, "Stream Control Transmission
Protocol (SCTP) Direct Data Placement (DDP) Adaptation",
Internet Draft draft-ietf-rddp-sctp-04.txt (work in progress),
June 2006.
[TCP] Postel, J., "Transmission Control Protocol", STD 7, RFC 793, [TCP] Postel, J., "Transmission Control Protocol", STD 7, RFC 793,
September 1981. September 1981.
10.2 Informative References 10.2 Informative References
[TLS] Dierks, T. and C. Allen, "The TLS Protocol Version 1.0", RFC [DTLS] Rescorla, E. and Modadugu, N., "Datagram Transport Layer
2246, November 1998. Security", RFC 4347, April 2006.
[IPSEC] Atkinson, R., Kent, S., "Security Architecture for the [IPSEC] Atkinson, R. and Kent, S., "Security Architecture for the
Internet Protocol", RFC 2401, November 1998. Internet Protocol", RFC 2401, November 1998.
[RDMASEC] Pinkerton J., Deleganes E., Romanow A., Bitan S., [TLS] Dierks, T. and Rescorla, E., "The Transport Layer Security
"DDP/RDMAP Security", draft-ietf-rddp-security-05.txt (work in (TLS) Protocol Version 1.1", RFC 4346, April 2006.
progress), August 2004.
Shah, et. al. Expires January 2006 33 Shah, et. al. Expires January 2007 34
Shah, et. al. Expires January 2007 35
11 Appendix 11 Appendix
11.1 Receive Window sizing 11.1 Receive Window sizing
This section provides guidance to LLP implementers.
Reliable, sequenced, LLPs include a mechanism to advertise the Reliable, sequenced, LLPs include a mechanism to advertise the
amount of receive buffer space a sender may consume. This is amount of receive buffer space a sender may consume. This is
generally called a "receive window". generally called a "receive window".
DDP allows data to be transferred directly to predefined buffers at DDP allows data to be transferred directly to predefined buffers at
the Data Sink. Accordingly, the LLP receive window size need not be the Data Sink. Accordingly, the LLP receive window size need not be
affected by the reception of a DDP Segment, if that segment is affected by the reception of a DDP Segment, if that segment is
placed before additional segments arrive. placed before additional segments arrive.
The LLP implementation SHOULD maintain an advertised receive window The LLP implementation SHOULD maintain an advertised receive window
skipping to change at line 1534 skipping to change at line 1586
the rate that DDP Segments can be retired; there may be some cases the rate that DDP Segments can be retired; there may be some cases
where segment processing cannot keep up with the incoming packet where segment processing cannot keep up with the incoming packet
rate. If this occurs, one reasonable way to slow the incoming packet rate. If this occurs, one reasonable way to slow the incoming packet
rate is to reduce the receive window. rate is to reduce the receive window.
Note that the LLP should take care to comply with the applicable Note that the LLP should take care to comply with the applicable
RFCs; for instance, for TCP, receivers are highly discouraged from RFCs; for instance, for TCP, receivers are highly discouraged from
"shrinking" the receive window (reducing the right edge of the "shrinking" the receive window (reducing the right edge of the
window after it has been advertised). window after it has been advertised).
Shah, et. al. Expires January 2006 34 Shah, et. al. Expires January 2007 36
12 Author's Addresses 12 Authors' Addresses
Hemal Shah Hemal Shah
Intel Corporation Broadcom Corporation
MS AN1-PTL1 16215 Alton Parkway
1501 South Mopac Expressway, #400 Irvine, CA. USA 92619-7013
Austin, TX 78746 USA Phone: 949-926-6941
Phone: +1 (512) 732-3963 Email: hemal@broadcom.com
Email: hemal.shah@intel.com
James Pinkerton James Pinkerton
Microsoft Corporation Microsoft Corporation
One Microsoft Way One Microsoft Way
Redmond, WA 98052 USA Redmond, WA 98052 USA
Phone: +1 (425) 705-5442 Phone: +1 (425) 705-5442
Email: jpink@microsoft.com Email: jpink@microsoft.com
Renato Recio Renato Recio
IBM Corporation IBM Corporation
skipping to change at line 1567 skipping to change at line 1618
Phone: +1 (512) 838-1365 Phone: +1 (512) 838-1365
Email: recio@us.ibm.com Email: recio@us.ibm.com
Paul R. Culley Paul R. Culley
Hewlett-Packard Company Hewlett-Packard Company
20555 SH 249 20555 SH 249
Houston, TX 77070-2698 USA Houston, TX 77070-2698 USA
Phone: +1 (281) 514-5543 Phone: +1 (281) 514-5543
Email: paul.culley@hp.com Email: paul.culley@hp.com
Shah, et. al. Expires January 2006 35 Shah, et. al. Expires January 2007 37
13 Acknowledgments 13 Contributors
Many thanks to the following individuals for their contributions.
John Carrier John Carrier
Adaptec, Inc. Adaptec, Inc.
691 S. Milpitas Blvd. 691 S. Milpitas Blvd.
Milpitas, CA 95035 USA Milpitas, CA 95035 USA
Phone: +1 (360) 378-8526 Phone: +1 (360) 378-8526
Email: john_carrier@adaptec.com Email: john_carrier@adaptec.com
Hari Ghadia Hari Ghadia
Adaptec, Inc. Adaptec, Inc.
691 S. Milpitas Blvd., 691 S. Milpitas Blvd.,
Milpitas, CA 95035 USA Milpitas, CA 95035 USA
Phone: +1 (408) 957-5608 Phone: +1 (408) 957-5608
Email: hari_ghadia@adaptec.com Email: hari_ghadia@adaptec.com
Patricia Thaler Caitlin Bestler
Agilent Technologies, Inc. Broadcom Corporation
1101 Creekside Ridge Drive, #100 16215 Alton Parkway
M/S-RG10 Irvine, California 92619-7013 USA
Roseville, CA 95678 Phone: +1 (949) 926-6383
Phone: +1-916-788-5662 Email: caitlinb@Broadcom.com
email: pat_thaler@agilent.com
Uri Elzur
Broadcom Corporation
16215 Alton Parkway
Irvine, California 92619-7013 USA
Phone: +1 (949) 585-6432
Email: uri@Broadcom.com
Mike Penna Mike Penna
Broadcom Corporation Broadcom Corporation
16215 Alton Parkway 16215 Alton Parkway
Irvine, California 92619-7013 USA Irvine, California 92619-7013 USA
Phone: +1 (949) 926-7149 Phone: +1 (949) 926-7149
Email: MPenna@Broadcom.com Email: MPenna@Broadcom.com
Uri Elzur Patricia Thaler
Broadcom Corporation Broadcom Corporation
16215 Alton Parkway 16215 Alton Parkway
Irvine, California 92619-7013 USA Irvine, CA. USA 92619-7013
Phone: +1 (949) 585-6432 Phone: +1-949-926-8635
Email: Uri@Broadcom.com email: pthaler@broadcom.com
Ted Compton Ted Compton
EMC Corporation EMC Corporation
Research Triangle Park, NC 27709, USA Research Triangle Park, NC 27709, USA
Phone: 919-248-6075 Phone: 919-248-6075
Email: compton_ted@emc.com Email: compton_ted@emc.com
Shah, et. al. Expires January 2007 38
Jim Wendt Jim Wendt
Hewlett-Packard Company Hewlett-Packard Company
8000 Foothills Boulevard 8000 Foothills Boulevard
Roseville, CA 95747-5668 USA Roseville, CA 95747-5668 USA
Phone: +1 (916) 785-5198 Phone: +1 (916) 785-5198
Email: jim_wendt@hp.com Email: jim_wendt@hp.com
Mike Krause Mike Krause
Hewlett-Packard Company, 43LN Hewlett-Packard Company, 43LN
Shah, et. al. Expires January 2006 36
19410 Homestead Road 19410 Homestead Road
Cupertino, CA 95014 USA Cupertino, CA 95014 USA
Phone: +1 (408) 447-3191 Phone: +1 (408) 447-3191
Email: krause@cup.hp.com Email: krause@cup.hp.com
Dave Minturn Dave Minturn
Intel Corporation Intel Corporation
MS JF1-210 MS JF1-210
5200 North East Elam Young Parkway 5200 North East Elam Young Parkway
Hillsboro, OR 97124 USA Hillsboro, OR 97124 USA
skipping to change at line 1668 skipping to change at line 1726
Dave Garcia Dave Garcia
Hewlett-Packard Company Hewlett-Packard Company
19333 Vallco Parkway 19333 Vallco Parkway
Cupertino, Ca. 95014 USA Cupertino, Ca. 95014 USA
Phone: +1 (408) 285-6116 Phone: +1 (408) 285-6116
Email: dave.garcia@hp.com Email: dave.garcia@hp.com
Jeff Hilland Jeff Hilland
Hewlett-Packard Company Hewlett-Packard Company
Shah, et. al. Expires January 2007 39
20555 SH 249 20555 SH 249
Houston, Tx. 77070-2698 USA Houston, Tx. 77070-2698 USA
Phone: +1 (281) 514-9489 Phone: +1 (281) 514-9489
Email: jeff.hilland@hp.com Email: jeff.hilland@hp.com
Shah, et. al. Expires January 2006 37
Barry Reinhold Barry Reinhold
Lamprey Networks Lamprey Networks
Durham, NH 03824 USA Durham, NH 03824 USA
Phone: +1 (603) 868-8411 Phone: +1 (603) 868-8411
Email: bbr@LampreyNetworks.com Email: bbr@LampreyNetworks.com
Shah, et. al. Expires January 2006 38 Shah, et. al. Expires January 2007 40
14 Intellectual Property Statement 14 Intellectual Property Statement
The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed
to pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described to pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described
in this document or the extent to which any license under such in this document or the extent to which any license under such
rights might or might not be available; nor does it represent that rights might or might not be available; nor does it represent that
it has made any independent effort to identify any such rights. it has made any independent effort to identify any such rights.
Information on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC Information on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC
skipping to change at line 1706 skipping to change at line 1765
of such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this of such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this
specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository
at http://www.ietf.org/ipr. at http://www.ietf.org/ipr.
The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any
copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary
rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement
this standard. Please address the information to the IETF at ietf- this standard. Please address the information to the IETF at ietf-
ipr@ietf.org. ipr@ietf.org.
Shah, et. al. Expires January 2006 39 Shah, et. al. Expires January 2007 41
15 Disclaimer 15 Copyright Notice
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2006).
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 This document and the information contained herein are provided on
an "AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE an "AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE
REPRESENTS OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE REPRESENTS OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE
INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR
IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF
THE INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED THE INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED
WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
Shah, et. al. Expires January 2006 40 Shah, et. al. Expires January 2007 42
16 Copyright Notice
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2005).
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 contains contributions from individuals representing
or sponsored by ADAPTEC INC., AGILENT TECHNOLOGIES INC., BROADCOM
CORPORATION, CISCO SYSTEMS INC., EMC CORPORATION, HEWLETT-PACKARD
COMPANY, INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS MACHINES CORPORATION, INTEL
CORPORATION, MICROSOFT CORPORATION, NETWORK APPLIANCE INC.
Shah, et. al. Expires January 2006 41
 End of changes. 93 change blocks. 
149 lines changed or deleted 214 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.32. The latest version is available from http://www.levkowetz.com/ietf/tools/rfcdiff/