wdiff draft-ietf-forces-netlink-03.txt draft-ietf-forces-netlink-04.txt

ForCES Working Group Jamal Hadi Salim
Internet Draft Znyx Networks
Hormuzd Khosravi
Intel
Andi Kleen
Suse
Alexey Kuznetsov
INR/Swsoft
June 2002A new Request for Comments is now available in online RFC libraries.

RFC 3549

Title: Linux Netlink as an IP Services Protocol
draft-ietf-forces-netlink-03.txt

Status of this Memo

This document is an Internet-Draft and is in full conformance with
all provisions of Section 10 of RFC2026. 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 [RFC-2119].

1. Abstract
Author(s): J. Salim, H. Khosravi, A. Kleen, A. Kuznetsov
Status: Informational
Date: July 2003
Mailbox: hadi@znyx.com, hormuzd.m.khosravi@intel.com,
ak@suse.de, kuznet@ms2.inr.ac.ru
Pages: 33
Characters: 72161
Updates/Obsoletes/SeeAlso: None

I-D Tag: draft-ietf-forces-netlink-04.txt

URL: ftp://ftp.rfc-editor.org/in-notes/rfc3549.txt

This document describes Linux Netlink, which is used in Linux both
as an intra-kernel messaging system as well as between kernel and

jhs_hk_ak_ank draft-forces-Netlink-03.txt
user space. This document is intended as informational in the con-
text of prior art for the ForCES IETF working group. The focus of this document is to describe Netlink from a perspective of Netlink's
functionality as a protocol between a Forwarding Engine Component
(FEC) and a Control Plane Component (CPC), the two components that
define an IP service.

The As a result of this focus, this document
ignores the ability other uses of Netlink Netlink, including its use as a intra-kernel mes-
saging
messaging system, as an inter-process communication scheme (IPC), or
as a configuration tool for other non-networking or non-IP network
services (such as decnet, etc.).

2. Introduction

The concept of IP Service control-forwarding separation was first
introduced in the early 1980s by the BSD 4.4 routing sockets
[Stevens]. The focus at that time was a simple IP(v4) forwarding
service and how the CPC, either via a command line configuration
tool or a dynamic route daemon, could control forwarding tables for
that IPv4 forwarding service.

The IP world has evolved considerably since those days. Linux
Netlink, when observed from a service provisioning and management
point of view, takes routing sockets one step further by breaking
the barrier of focus around IPv4 forwarding. Since the Linux 2.1
kernel, Netlink has been providing the IP service abstraction to a
few services other than the classical RFC 1812 IPv4 forwarding.

The motivation for this document is not to list every possible ser-
vice for which Netlink is applied. In fact, we leave out a lot of
services (multicast routing, tunnelling, policy routing, etc.).
Neither is this document intended to be a tutorial on Netlink. The
idea is to explain the overall Netlink view with a special focus on
the mandatory building blocks within the ForCES charter (i.e., IPv4
and QoS).

This document also serves to capture prior art to many
mechanisms that are useful within the context of ForCES. The text
is limited to a subset of what is available in kernel 2.4.6, the
newest kernel when this document was first written. It is also
limited to IPv4 functionality.

We first give some concept definitions and then describe how
Netlink fits in.

jhs_hk_ak_ank draft-forces-Netlink-03.txt

2.1. Definitions

A Control Plane (CP) is an execution environment that may have sev-
eral sub-components, which we refer to as CPCs. Each CPC provides
control for a different IP service being executed by a Forwarding
Engine (FE) component. This relationship means that there might be
several CPCs on a physical CP, if it is controlling several IP ser-
vices. In essence, the cohesion between a CP component and an FE
component is the service abstraction.

2.1.1. Control Plane Components (CPCs)

Control Plane Components encompass signalling protocols, with
diversity ranging from dynamic routing protocols, such as OSPF
[RFC2328], to tag distribution protocols, such as CR-LDP [RFC3036].
Classical management protocols and activities also fall under this
category. These include SNMP [RFC1157], COPS [RFC2748], and pro-
prietary CLI/GUI configuration mechanisms.

The purpose of the control plane is to provide an execution envi-
ronment for the above-mentioned activities with the ultimate goal
being to configure and manage the second Network Element (NE) com-
ponent: the FE. The result of the configuration defines the way
that packets traversing the FE are treated.

2.1.2. Forwarding Engine Components (FECs)

The FE is the entity of the NE that incoming packets (from the net-
work into the NE) first encounter.

The FE's service-specific component massages the packet to provide
it with a treatment to achieve an IP service, as defined by the
Control Plane Components for that IP service. Different services
will utilize different FECs. Service modules may be chained to
achieve a more complex service (refer to the Linux FE model,
described later). When built for providing a specific service, the
FE service component will adhere to a forwarding model.

jhs_hk_ak_ank draft-forces-Netlink-03.txt

2.1.2.1. Linux IP Forwarding Engine Model

____ +---------------+
+->-| FW |---> | TCP, UDP, ... |
| +----+ +---------------+
| |
^ v
| _|_
+----<----+ | FW |
| +----+
^ |
| Y
To host From host
stack stack
^ |
|_____ |
Ingress ^ Y
device ____ +-------+ +|---|--+ ____ +--------+ Egress
->----->| FW |-->|Ingress|-->---->| Forw- |->| FW |->| Egress | device
+----+ | TC | | ard | +----+ | TC |-->
+-------+ +-------+ +--------+

The figure above shows the Linux FE model per device. The only
mandatory part of the datapath is the Forwarding module, which is
RFC 1812 conformant. The different Firewall (FW), Ingress Traffic
Control, and Egress Traffic Control building blocks are not manda-
tory in the datapath and may even be used to bypass the RFC 1812
module. These modules are shown intended as simple blocks in the datapath
but, informational in fact, could be multiple cascaded, independent submodules
within the indicated blocks. More information can be found at
[Netfilter] and [Diffserv].

Packets arriving at the ingress device first pass through a fire-
wall module. Packets may be dropped, munged, etc., by the firewall
module. The incoming packet, depending on set policy, may then be
passed via an Ingress Traffic Control module. Metering and polic-
ing activities are contained within the Ingress TC module. Packets
may be dropped, depending on metering results and policing poli-
cies, at this module. Next, the packet is subjected to the only
non-optional module, the RFC 1812-conformant Forwarding module.
The packet may be dropped if it is nonconformant (to the many RFCs
complementing 1812 and 1122). This module is a juncture point at
which packets destined to the forwarding NE may be sent up to the
host stack.

Packets that are not for the NE may further traverse a policy rout-
ing submodule (within the forwarding module), if so provisioned.

jhs_hk_ak_ank draft-forces-Netlink-03.txt

Another firewall module is walked next. The firewall module can
drop or munge/transform packets, depending on the configured sub-
modules encountered and their policies. If all goes well, the
Egress TC module is accessed next.

The Egress TC may drop packets for policing, scheduling, congestion
control, or rate control reasons. Egress queues exist at this
point and any of the drops or delays may happen before or after the
packet is queued. All is dependent on configured module algorithms
and policies.

2.1.3. IP Services

An IP service is the treatment of an IP packet within the NE. This
treatment is provided by a combination of both the CPC and the FEC.

The time span of the service is from the moment when the packet
arrives at the NE to the moment that it departs. In essence, an IP
service in this context is a Per-Hop Behavior. CP components run-
ning on NEs define the end-to-end path control for a service by
running control/signaling protocol/management-applications. These
distributed CPCs unify the end-to-end view of the IP service. As
noted above, these CP components then define the behavior of the FE
(and therefore the NE) for a described packet.

A simple example of an IP service is the classical IPv4 Forwarding.
In this case, control components, such as routing protocols (OSPF,
RIP, etc.) and proprietary CLI/GUI configurations, modify the FE's
forwarding tables in order to offer the simple service of forward-
ing packets to the next hop. Traditionally, NEs offering this sim-
ple service are known as routers. In the diagram below, we show a
simple FE<->CP setup to provide an example of the classical IPv4
service with an extension to do some basic QoS egress scheduling
and illustrate how the setup fits in this described model.

jhs_hk_ak_ank draft-forces-Netlink-03.txt

Control Plane (CP)
.------------------------------------
| /^^^^^^\ /^^^^^^\ |
| | | | COPS |-\ |
| | ospfd | | PEP | \ |
| \ / \_____/ | |
/------\_____/ | / |
| | | | / |
| |_________\__________|____|_________|
| | | |
******************************************
Forwarding ************* Netlink layer ************
Engine (FE) *****************************************
.-------------|-----------|----------|---|-------------
| IPv4 forwading | | |
| FE Service / / |
| Component / / |
| ---------------/---------------/--------- |
| | | / | |
packet | | --------|-- ----|----- | packet
in | | | IPv4 | | Egress | | out
-->--->|------>|---->|Forwading |----->| QoS |--->| ---->|->
| | | | | Scheduler| | |
| | ----------- ---------- | |
| | | |
| --------------------------------------- |
| |
-------------------------------------------------------

The above diagram illustrates ospfd, an OSPF protocol control dae-
mon, and a COPS Policy Enforcement Point (PEP) as distinct CPCs.
The IPv4 FE component includes the IPv4 Forwarding service module
as well as the Egress Scheduling service module. Another service
might add a policy forwarder between the IPv4 forwarder and the QoS
egress scheduler. A simpler classical service would have consti-
tuted only the IPv4 forwarder.

Over the years, it has become important to add aditional services
to routers to meet emerging requirements. More complex services
extending classical forwarding have been added and standardized.
These newer services might go beyond the layer 3 contents of the
packet header. However, the name "router," although a misnomer, is
still used to describe these NEs. Services (which may look beyond
the classical L3 service headers) include firewalling, QoS in Diff-
serv and RSVP, NAT, policy based routing, etc. Newer control pro-
tocols or management activities are introduced with these new ser-
vices.

jhs_hk_ak_ank draft-forces-Netlink-03.txt

One extreme definition of a IP service is something for which a
service provider would be able to charge.

3. Netlink Architecture

Control of IP service components is defined by using templates.

The FEC and CPC participate to deliver the IP service by communi-
cating using these templates. The FEC might continously get
updates from the Control Plane Component on how to operate the ser-
vice (e.g., for v4 forwarding or for route additions or deletions).

The interaction between the FEC and the CPC, in the Netlink con-
text, defines a protocol. Netlink provides mechanisms prior art
for the CPC
(residing in user space) and the FEC (residing in kernel space) to
have their own protocol definition--kernel space and user space
just mean different protection domains. Therefore, a wire protocol
is needed to communicate. The wire protocol is normally provided
by some privileged service that is able to copy between multiple
protection domains. We will refer to this service as the Netlink
service. The Netlink service can also be encapsulated in a differ-
ent transport layer, if the CPC executes on a different node than
the FEC. The FEC and CPC, using Netlink mechanisms, may choose to
define a reliable protocol between each other. By default, how-
ever, Netlink provides an unreliable communication.

Note that the FEC and CPC can both live in the same memory protec-
tion domain and use the connect() system call to create a path to
the peer and talk to each other. We will not discuss this mecha-
nism further other than to say that it is available. Throughout
this document, we will refer interchangebly to the FEC to mean ker-
nel space and the CPC to mean user space. ForCES IETF working group.

This denomination is not
meant, however, to restrict the two components to these protection
domains or to the same compute node.

Note: Netlink allows participation in IP services by both service
components.

3.1. Netlink Logical Model

In the diagram below we show a simple FEC<->CPC logical relation-
ship. We use the IPv4 forwarding FEC (NETLINK_ROUTE, which is

jhs_hk_ak_ank draft-forces-Netlink-03.txt

discussed further below) as an example.

Control Plane (CP)
.------------------------------------
| /^^^^^\ /^^^^^\ |
| | | / CPC-2 \ |
| | CPC-1 | | COPS | |
| | ospfd | | PEP | |
| / _____/ |
| _____/ | |
| | | |
****************************************|
************* BROADCAST WIRE ************
FE---------- *****************************************.
| IPv4 forwading | | | |
| FEC | | | |
| --------------/ ----|-----------|-------- |
| | / | | | |
| | .-------. .-------. .------. | |
| | |Ingress| | IPv4 | |Egress| | |
| | |police | |Forward| | QoS | | |
| | |_______| |_______| |Sched | | |
| | ------ | |
| --------------------------------------- |
| |
-----------------------------------------------------

Netlink logically models FECs and CPCs in the form of nodes inter-
connected to each other via a broadcast wire.

The wire document is specific to a service. The example above shows the
broadcast wire belonging to the extended IPv4 forwarding service.

Nodes (CPCs or FECs as illustrated above) connect to the wire and
register to receive specific messages. CPCs may connect to multi-
ple wires if it helps them to control the service better. All
nodes (CPCs and FECs) dump packets on the broadcast wire. Packets
can be discarded by the wire if they are malformed or not specifi-
cally formatted for the wire. Dropped packets are not seen by any
of the nodes. The Netlink service MAY signal an error to the
sender if it detects a malformatted Netlink packet.

Packets sent on the wire can be broadcast, multicast, or unicast.
FECs or CPCs register for specific messages of interest for pro-
cessing or just monitoring purposes.

jhs_hk_ak_ank draft-forces-Netlink-03.txt

Appendices 1 and 2 have a high level overview product of this interaction.

3.2. Message Format

There are three levels to a Netlink message: The general Netlink
message header, the IP service specific template, and the IP ser-
vice specific data.

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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
| Netlink message header |
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
| IP Service Template |
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
| IP Service specific data in TLVs |
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

The Netlink message is used to communicate between the FEC Forwarding and CPC
for parametrization of the FECs, asynchoronous event notification Control Element
Separation Working Group of FEC events to the CPCs, and statistics querying/gathering (typi-
cally by a CPC).

The Netlink message header is generic for all services, whereas the
IP Service Template header is specific to a service. Each IP Ser-
vice then carries parametrization data (CPC->FEC direction) or
response (FEC->CPC direction). These parametrizations are in TLV
(Type-Length-Value) format and are unique to the service.

3.3. Protocol Model IETF.

This section expands on how Netlink memo provides the mechanism information for ser-
vice-oriented FEC and CPC interaction.

jhs_hk_ak_ank draft-forces-Netlink-03.txt

3.3.1. Service Addressing

Access is provided by first connecting to the service on the FE.
The connection is achieved by making a socket() system call to the
PF_NETLINK domain. Each FEC is identified by a protocol number.
One may open either SOCK_RAW or SOCK_DGRAM type sockets, although
Netlink Internet community. It does
not distinguish between the two. The socket connec-
tion provides the basis for the FE<->CP addressing.

Connecting to a service is followed (at any point during the life
of the connection) by either issuing a service-specific command
(from the CPC to the FEC, mostly for configuration purposes), issu-
ing a statistics-collection command, or subscribing/unsubscribing
to service events. Closing the socket terminates the transaction.
Refer to Appendices 1 and 2 for examples.

3.3.2. Netlink Message Header

Netlink messages consist of a byte stream with one or multiple
Netlink headers and an associated payload. If the payload is too
big to fit into a single message it, can be split over multiple
Netlink messages, collectively called a multipart message. For
multipart messages, the first and all following headers have the
NLM_F_MULTI Netlink header flag set, except for the last header
which has the Netlink header type NLMSG_DONE.

The Netlink message header is shown 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
0 1 2 3
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Type | Flags |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Sequence Number |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Process ID (PID) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

The fields in the header are:

jhs_hk_ak_ank draft-forces-Netlink-03.txt

Length: 32 bits
The length of the message in bytes, including the header.

Type: 16 bits
This field describes the message content.
It can be one of the standard message types:
NLMSG_NOOP Message is ignored.
NLMSG_ERROR The message signals an error and the payload
contains a nlmsgerr structure. This can be looked
at as a NACK and typically it is from FEC to CPC.
NLMSG_DONE Message terminates a multipart message.

Individual IP services specify more message types, e.g.,
NETLINK_ROUTE service specifies several types, such as RTM_NEWLINK,
RTM_DELLINK, RTM_GETLINK, RTM_NEWADDR, RTM_DELADDR, RTM_NEWROUTE,
RTM_DELROUTE, etc.

Flags: 16 bits
The an Internet standard flag bits used in Netlink are
NLM_F_REQUEST Must be set on all request messages (typically
from user space to kernel space)
NLM_F_MULTI Indicates the message is part of a multipart
message terminated by NLMSG_DONE
NLM_F_ACK Request for an acknowledgment on success.
Typical direction any kind. Distribution of request is from user
space (CPC) to kernel space (FEC).
NLM_F_ECHO Echo this request. Typical direction of
request
memo is from user space (CPC) to kernel
space (FEC).

Additional flag bits for GET requests on config information in
the FEC.
NLM_F_ROOT Return the complete table instead of a
single entry.
NLM_F_MATCH Return all entries matching criteria passed in
message content.
NLM_F_ATOMIC Return an atomic snapshot of the table being
referenced. unlimited.

This may require special privileges
because it has the potential to interrupt
service in the FE for a longer time.

Convenience macros for flag bits:
NLM_F_DUMP This is NLM_F_ROOT or'ed with NLM_F_MATCH

Additional flag bits for NEW requests
NLM_F_REPLACE Replace existing matching config object with
this request.
NLM_F_EXCL Don't replace the config object if it already

jhs_hk_ak_ank draft-forces-Netlink-03.txt

exists.
NLM_F_CREATE Create config object if it doesn't already
exist.
NLM_F_APPEND Add to the end of the object list.

For those familiar with BSDish use of such operations in route
sockets, the equivalent translations are:

- BSD ADD operation equates to NLM_F_CREATE or-ed
with NLM_F_EXCL
- BSD CHANGE operation equates to NLM_F_REPLACE
- BSD Check operation equates to NLM_F_EXCL
- BSD APPEND equivalent announcement is actually mapped to
NLM_F_CREATE

Sequence Number: 32 bits
The sequence number of the message.

Process ID (PID): 32 bits
The PID of the process sending the message. The PID is used by the
kernel to multiplex to the correct sockets. A PID of zero is used
when sending messages to user space from the kernel.

3.3.2.1. Mechanisms for Creating Protocols

One could create a reliable protocol between an FEC and a CPC by
using the combination of sequence numbers, ACKs, and retransmit
timers. Both sequence numbers and ACKs are provided by Netlink;
timers are provided by Linux.

One could create a heartbeat protocol between the FEC and CPC by
using the ECHO flags and the NLMSG_NOOP message.

3.3.2.2. The ACK Netlink Message

This message is actually used to denote both an ACK and a NACK.
Typically, the direction is from FEC to CPC (in response to an ACK
request message). However, the CPC should be able to send ACKs
back to FEC when requested. The semantics for this are IP service-
specific.

jhs_hk_ak_ank draft-forces-Netlink-03.txt

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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Netlink message header |
| type = NLMSG_ERROR |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Error code |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| OLD Netlink message header |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

Error code: integer (typically 32 bits)

An error code of zero indicates that the message is an ACK
response. An ACK response message contains the original Netlink
message header, which can be used to compare against (sent sequence
numbers, etc).

A non-zero error code message is equivalent to a Negative ACK
(NACK). In such a situation, the Netlink data that was sent down
to the kernel is returned appended to the original Netlink message
header. An error code printable via the perror() is also set (not
in the message header, rather in the executing environment state
variable).

3.3.3. FE System Services' Templates

These are services that are offered by the system for general use
by other services. They include the ability to configure, gather
statistics and listen to changes in shared resources. IP address
management, link events, etc. fit here. We create this section for
these services for logical separation, despite the fact that they
are accessed via the NETLINK_ROUTE FEC. The reason that they exist
within NETLINK_ROUTE is due to historical cruft: the BSD 4.4 Route
Sockets implemented them as part of the IPv4 forwarding sockets.

3.3.3.1.

Network Interface Service Module

jhs_hk_ak_ank draft-forces-Netlink-03.txt

This service provides the ability to create, remove, or get infor-
mation about a specific network interface. The network interface
can be either physical or virtual IETF list and is network protocol indepen-
dent (e.g., an x.25 interface can be defined via this message).
The Interface service message template is shown 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
0 1 2 3
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Family | Reserved | Device Type |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Interface Index |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Device Flags |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Change Mask |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

jhs_hk_ak_ank draft-forces-Netlink-03.txt

Family: 8 bits
This is always set to AF_UNSPEC.

Device Type: 16 bits
This defines the type of the link. The link could be Ethernet, a
tunnel, etc. We are interested only in IPv4, although the link type
is L3 protocol-independent.

Interface Index: 32 bits
Uniquely identifies interface.

Device Flags: 32 bits

IFF_UP Interface is administrativel up.
IFF_BROADCAST Valid broadcast address set.
IFF_DEBUG Internal debugging flag.
IFF_LOOPBACK Interface is a loopback interface.
IFF_POINTOPOINT Interface is a point-to-point link.
IFF_RUNNING Interface is operationally up.
IFF_NOARP No ARP protocol needed for this interface.
IFF_PROMISC Interface is in promiscuous mode.
IFF_NOTRAILERS Avoid use of trailers.
IFF_ALLMULTI Receive all multicast packets.
IFF_MASTER Master of a load balancing bundle.
IFF_SLAVE Slave of a load balancing bundle.
IFF_MULTICAST Supports multicast
IFF_PORTSEL Is able RFC-DIST list.
Requests to select media type via ifmap.
IFF_AUTOMEDIA Auto media selection active.
IFF_DYNAMIC Interface was dynamically created.

Change Mask: 32 bits
Reserved for future use. Must be set to 0xFFFFFFFF.

Applicable attributes:
Attribute Description
...........................................................
IFLA_UNSPEC Unspecified.
IFLA_ADDRESS Hardware address interface L2 address.
IFLA_BROADCAST Hardware address L2 broadcast
address.
IFLA_IFNAME ASCII string device name.
IFLA_MTU MTU of the device.
IFLA_LINK ifindex of link to which this device
is bound.
IFLA_QDISC ASCII string defining egress root
queueing discipline.
IFLA_STATS Interface statistics.

jhs_hk_ak_ank draft-forces-Netlink-03.txt

Netlink message types specific to this service:
RTM_NEWLINK, RTM_DELLINK, and RTM_GETLINK

3.3.3.2. IP Address Service Module

This service provides the ability added to add, remove, or receive information
about an IP address associated with an interface. The address provi-
sioning service message template is shown below.

Family: 8 bits
Address Family: AF_INET for IPv4; and AF_INET6 for IPV4.

Length: 8 bits
The length of the address mask.

Flags: 8 bits
IFA_F_SECONDARY For secondary address (alias interface).
IFA_F_PERMANENT For a permanent address set by the user.
When this is not set, it means the address
was dynamically created (e.g., by stateless
autoconfiguration).
IFA_F_DEPRECATED Defines deprecated (IPV4) address.
IFA_F_TENTATIVE Defines tentative (IPV4) address (duplicate
address detection is still in progress).

Scope: 8 bits
The address scope in which the address stays valid.
SCOPE_UNIVERSE: Global scope.
SCOPE_SITE (IPv6 only): Only valid within this site.
SCOPE_LINK: Valid only on this device.
SCOPE_HOST: Valid only on this host.

Applicable attributes:

jhs_hk_ak_ank draft-forces-Netlink-03.txt

Attribute Description
.........................................................
IFA_UNSPEC Unspecified.
IFA_ADDRESS Raw protocol address of interface.
IFA_LOCAL Raw protocol local address.
IFA_LABEL ASCII string name of the interface.
IFA_BROADCAST Raw protocol broadcast address.
IFA_ANYCAST Raw protocol anycast address.
IFA_CACHEINFO Cache address information.

Netlink messages specific to this service: RTM_NEWADDR,
RTM_DELADDR, and RTM_GETADDR.

4. Currently Defined Netlink IP Services

Although there are many other IP services defined that are using
Netlink, as mentioned earlier, we will talk only about a handful of
those integrated into kernel version 2.4.6. These are:

NETLINK_ROUTE, NETLINK_FIREWALL, and NETLINK_ARPD.

4.1. IP Service NETLINK_ROUTE

This service allows CPCs to modify the IPv4 routing table in deleted from the
Forwarding Engine. It can also IETF distribution list
should be used by CPCs to receive routing
updates, as well as sent to collect statistics.

4.1.1. Network Route Service Module

This service provides the ability IETF-REQUEST@IETF.ORG. Requests to create, remove or receive
information about a network route. The service message template is
shown below.

jhs_hk_ak_ank draft-forces-Netlink-03.txt

Family: 8 bits
Address Family: AF_INET for IPv4; and AF_INET6 for IPV4.

Src length: 8 bits
Prefix length of source IP address.

Dest length: 8 bits
Prefix length of destination IP address.

TOS: 8 bits
The 8-bit TOS (should be deprecated to make room for DSCP).

jhs_hk_ak_ank draft-forces-Netlink-03.txt

Table ID: 8 bits
Table identifier. Up to 255 route tables are supported.
RT_TABLE_UNSPEC An unspecified routing table.
RT_TABLE_DEFAULT The default table.
RT_TABLE_MAIN The main table.
RT_TABLE_LOCAL The local table.

The user may assign arbitary values between
RT_TABLE_UNSPEC(0) and RT_TABLE_DEFAULT(253).

Protocol: 8 bits
Identifies what/who
added the route.
Protocol Route origin.
..............................................
RTPROT_UNSPEC Unknown.
RTPROT_REDIRECT By an ICMP redirect.
RTPROT_KERNEL By the kernel.
RTPROT_BOOT During bootup.
RTPROT_STATIC By the administrator.

Values larger than RTPROT_STATIC(4) are not interpreted by the
kernel, they are just for user information. They may be used to
tag the source of a routing information or to distingush between
multiple routing daemons. See <linux/rtnetlink.h> for the
routing daemon identifiers that are already assigned.

Scope: 8 bits
Route scope (valid distance to destination).
RT_SCOPE_UNIVERSE Global route.
RT_SCOPE_SITE Interior route in the
local autonomous system.
RT_SCOPE_LINK Route on this link.
RT_SCOPE_HOST Route on the local host.
RT_SCOPE_NOWHERE Destination does not exist.

The values between RT_SCOPE_UNIVERSE(0) and RT_SCOPE_SITE(200)
are available to the user.

Type: 8 bits
The type of route.

Route type Description
----------------------------------------------------
RTN_UNSPEC Unknown route.
RTN_UNICAST A gateway or direct route.
RTN_LOCAL A local interface route.
RTN_BROADCAST A local broadcast route

jhs_hk_ak_ank draft-forces-Netlink-03.txt

(sent as a broadcast).
RTN_ANYCAST An anycast route.
RTN_MULTICAST A multicast route.
RTN_BLACKHOLE A silent packet dropping route.
RTN_UNREACHABLE An unreachable destination.
Packets dropped and host
unreachable ICMPs are sent to the
originator.
RTN_PROHIBIT A packet rejection route. Packets
are dropped and communication
prohibited ICMPs are sent to the
originator.
RTN_THROW When used with policy routing,
continue routing lookup in another
table. Under normal routing,
packets are dropped and net
unreachable ICMPs are sent to the
originator.
RTN_NAT A network address translation
rule.
RTN_XRESOLVE Refer to an external resolver (not
implemented).

Flags: 32 bits
Further qualify the route.
RTM_F_NOTIFY If the route changes, notify the
user.
RTM_F_CLONED Route is cloned deleted from another route.
RTM_F_EQUALIZE Allow randomization of next hop
path in multi-path routing
(currently not implemented).

Attributes applicable to this service:
Attribute Description
---------------------------------------------------
RTA_UNSPEC Ignored.
RTA_DST Protocol address for route
destination address.
RTA_SRC Protocol address for route source
address.
RTA_IIF Input interface index.
RTA_OIF Output interface index.
RTA_GATEWAY Protocol address for the gateway of
the route
RTA_PRIORITY Priority of route.
RTA_PREFSRC Preferred source address in cases

jhs_hk_ak_ank draft-forces-Netlink-03.txt

where more than one source address
could be used.
RTA_METRICS Route metrics attributed to route
and associated protocols (e.g.,
RTT, initial TCP window, etc.).
RTA_MULTIPATH Multipath route next hop's
attributes.
RTA_PROTOINFO Firewall based policy routing
attribute.
RTA_FLOW Route realm.
RTA_CACHEINFO Cached route information.

Additional Netlink message types applicable to this service:
RTM_NEWROUTE, RTM_DELROUTE, and RTM_GETROUTE

4.1.2. Neighbour Setup Service Module

This service provides the ability to add, remove, or receive infor-
mation about a neighbour table entry (e.g., an ARP entry or an IPv4
neighbour solicitation, etc.). The service message template is
shown below.

jhs_hk_ak_ank draft-forces-Netlink-03.txt

Family: 8 bits
Address Family: AF_INET for IPv4; and AF_INET6 for IPV4.

Interface Index: 32 bits
The unique interface index.

State: 16 bits
A bitmask of the following states:
NUD_INCOMPLETE Still attempting to resolve.
NUD_REACHABLE A confirmed working cache entry
NUD_STALE an expired cache entry.
NUD_DELAY Neighbour no longer reachable.
Traffic sent, waiting for
confirmation.
NUD_PROBE A cache entry that is currently
being re-solicited.
NUD_FAILED An invalid cache entry.
NUD_NOARP A device which does not do neighbor
discovery (ARP).
NUD_PERMANENT A static entry.

Flags: 8 bits
NTF_PROXY A proxy ARP entry.
NTF_ROUTER An IPv6 router.

Attributes applicable to this service:
Attributes Description
------------------------------------
NDA_UNSPEC Unknown type.
NDA_DST A neighbour cache network.
layer destination address
NDA_LLADDR A neighbour cache link layer
address.
NDA_CACHEINFO Cache statistics.

Additional Netlink message types applicable to this service:
RTM_NEWNEIGH, RTM_DELNEIGH, and RTM_GETNEIGH.

4.1.3. Traffic Control Service

This service provides the ability to provision, query or listen to
events under the auspicies of traffic control. These include
queueing disciplines, (schedulers and queue treatment

jhs_hk_ak_ank draft-forces-Netlink-03.txt

algorithms--e.g., priority-based scheduler or the RED algorithm)
and classifiers. Linux Traffic Control Service is very flexible
and allows for hierachical cascading of the different blocks for
traffic resource sharing.

++ ++ +-----+ +-------+ ++ ++ .++
|| . || +------+ | |-->| Qdisc |-->|| || ||
|| ||---->|Filter|--->|Class| +-------+ ||-+ || ||
|| || | +------+ | +---------------+| | || ||
|| . || | +----------------------+ | || .||
|| . || | +------+ | || ||
|| || +->|Filter|-_ +-----+ +-------+ ++ | || .||
|| -->|| | +------+ ->| |-->| Qdisc |-->|| | ||->||
|| . || | |Class| +-------+ ||-+-->|| .||
->dev->|| || | +------+ _->| +---------------+| || ||
|| || +->|Filter|- +----------------------+ || .||
|| || +------+ || .||
|| . |+----------------------------------------------+| ||
|| | Parent Queuing discipline | .||
|| . +------------------------------------------------+ .||
|| . . .. . . .. . . . .. .. .. . .. ||
|+--------------------------------------------------------+|
| Parent Queuing discipline |
| (attached to egress device) |
+----------------------------------------------------------+

The above diagram shows an example of the Egress TC block. We try
to be very brief here. For more information, please refer to
[Diffserv]. A packet first goes through a filter that is used to
identify a class to which the packet may belong. A class is essen-
tially a terminal queueing discipline and has a queue associated
with it. The queue may RFC-DIST distribution list should
be subject sent to a simple algorithm, like
FIFO, or a more complex one, like RED RFC-DIST-REQUEST@RFC-EDITOR.ORG.

Details on obtaining RFCs via FTP or a token bucket. The out-
ermost queueing discipline, which is refered to as the parent is
typically associated with a scheduler. Within this scheduler hier-
archy, however, EMAIL may be other scheduling algorithms, making the
Linux Egress TC very flexible.

The service message template that makes this possible is shown
below. This template is used in both the ingress and the egress
queueing disciplines (refer to the egress traffic control model in
the FE model section). Each of the specific components of the
model has unique attributes that describe it best. The common
attributes are described below.

jhs_hk_ak_ank draft-forces-Netlink-03.txt

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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Family | Reserved1 | Reserved2 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Interface Index |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Qdisc handle |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Parent Qdisc |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| TCM Info |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

Family: 8 bits
Address Family: AF_INET for IPv4; and AF_INET6 for IPV4.

Interface Index: 32 bits
The unique interface index.

Qdisc handle: 32 bits
Unique identifier for instance of queueing discipline. Typically,
this is split into major:minor of 16 bits each. The major number
would also be the major number of the parent of this instance.

Parent Qdisc: 32 bits
Used in hierarchical layering of queueing disciplines. If this
value and the Qdisc handle are the same and equal to TC_H_ROOT,
then the defined qdisc is the top most layer known as the root
qdisc.

jhs_hk_ak_ank draft-forces-Netlink-03.txt

TCM Info: 32 bits
Set obtained by the FE to 1 typically, except when the Qdisc instance is in
use, in which case it is set to imply a reference count. From the
CPC towards the direction of the FEC, this is typically set to 0
except when used in the context of filters. In that case, this
32-bit field is split into a 16-bit priority field and 16-bit
protocol field. The protocol is defined in kernel source
<include/linux/if_ether.h>, however, the most commonly used one
is ETH_P_IP (the IP protocol).

The priority is used for conflict resolution when filters
intersect in their expressions.

Generic attributes applicable to this service:

Attribute Description
------------------------------------
TCA_KIND Canonical name of FE component.
TCA_STATS Generic usage statistics of FEC
TCA_RATE rate estimator being attached to
FEC. Takes snapshots of stats to
compute rate.
TCA_XSTATS Specific statistics of FEC.
TCA_OPTIONS Nested FEC-specific attributes.

Appendix 3 has an example of configuring sending
an FE component for a FIFO
Qdisc.

Additional Netlink EMAIL message types applicable to this service:
RTM_NEWQDISC, RTM_DELQDISC, RTM_GETQDISC, RTM_NEWTCLASS, RTM_DELT-
CLASS, RTM_GETTCLASS, RTM_NEWTFILTER, RTM_DELTFILTER, and RTM_GET-
TFILTER.

4.2. IP Service NETLINK_FIREWALL

This service allows CPCs to receive, manipulate, and re-inject
packets via the IPv4 firewall service modules in the FE. A fire-
wall rule is first inserted to activate packet redirection. The
CPC informs the FEC whether it would like to receive just the meta-
data on the packet or the actual data and, if the metadata is
desired, what is the maximum data length to be redirected. The
redirected packets are still stored in the FEC, waiting a verdict

jhs_hk_ak_ank draft-forces-Netlink-03.txt

from the CPC. The verdict could constitute a simple accept or drop
decision of the packet, in which case the verdict is imposed on the
packet still sitting on the FEC. The verdict may also include a
modified packet to be sent on as a replacement.

Two types of messages exist that can be sent from CPC to FEC.
These are: Mode messages and Verdict messages. Mode messages are
sent immediately to the FEC to describe what the CPC would like to
receive. Verdict messages are sent to the FEC after a decision has
been made on the fate of a received packet. The formats are
described below.

The mode message is described first.

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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Mode | Reserved1 | Reserved2 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Range |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

Mode: 8 bits
Control information on the packet to be sent to the CPC. The
different types are:

IPQ_COPY_META Copy only packet metadata to CPC.
IPQ_COPY_PACKET Copy packet metadata and packet payloads
to CPC.

Range: 32 bits
If IPQ_COPY_PACKET, this defines the maximum length to copy.

jhs_hk_ak_ank draft-forces-Netlink-03.txt

A packet and associated metadata received from user space looks
as follows.

0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
0 1 2 3
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Packet ID |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Mark |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| timestamp_m |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| timestamp_u |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| hook |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| indev_name |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| outdev_name |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| hw_protocol | hw_type |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| hw_addrlen | Reserved |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| hw_addr |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| data_len |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Payload . . . |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

Packet ID: 32 bits
The unique packet identifier as passed to the CPC by the FEC.

Mark: 32 bits
The internal metadata value set to describe the rule in which
the packet was picked.

timestamp_m: 32 bits
Packet arrival time (seconds)

timestamp_u: 32 bits
Packet arrival time (useconds in addition to the seconds in
timestamp_m)

hook: 32 bits

jhs_hk_ak_ank draft-forces-Netlink-03.txt

The firewall module from which the packet was picked.

indev_name: 128 bits
ASCII name of incoming interface.

outdev_name: 128 bits
ASCII name of outgoing interface.

hw_protocol: 16 bits
Hardware protocol, in network order.

hw_type: 16 bits
Hardware type.

hw_addrlen: 8 bits
Hardware address length.

hw_addr: 64 bits
Hardware address.

data_len: 32 bits
Length of packet data.

Payload: size defined by data_len
The payload of rfc-info@RFC-EDITOR.ORG with the packet received.

The Verdict message format is as follows

0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
0 1 2 3
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Value |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Packet ID |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Data Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Payload . . . |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

Value: 32 bits
This is the verdict to body
help: ways_to_get_rfcs. For example:

To: rfc-info@RFC-EDITOR.ORG
Subject: getting rfcs

help: ways_to_get_rfcs

Requests for special distribution should be imposed on the packet still sitting
in the FEC. Verdicts could be:
NF_ACCEPT Accept the packet and let it continue its
traversal.
NF_DROP Drop the packet.

jhs_hk_ak_ank draft-forces-Netlink-03.txt

Packet ID: 32 bits
The packet identifier as passed addressed to either the CPC by the FEC.

Data Length: 32 bits
The data length
author of the modified packet (in bytes). If you dont
modify the packet just set it to 0.

Payload:
Size as defined by the Data Length field.

4.3. IP Service NETLINK_ARPD

This service is used by CPCs for managing the neighbor table in the
FE. The message format used between the FEC and CPC is described
in the section on the Neighbour Setup Service Module.

The CPC service is expected to participate RFC in neighbor solicitation
protocol(s).

A neighbor message of type RTM_NEWNEIGH is sent towards the CPC by
the FE to inform the CPC of changes that might have happened on
that neighbour's entry (e.g., a neighbor being perceived as
unreachable).

RTM_GETNEIGH is used question, or to solicit the CPC for information RFC-Manager@RFC-EDITOR.ORG. Unless
specifically noted otherwise on a spe-
cific neighbor.

5. Security Considerations

Netlink lives in a trusted environment of a single host separated
by kernel and user space. Linux capabilities ensure that only
someone with CAP_NET_ADMIN capability (typically, the root user) is
allowed to open sockets.

6. References

jhs_hk_ak_ank draft-forces-Netlink-03.txt

[RFC1633] R. Braden, D. Clark, and S. Shenker, "Integrated
Services in the Internet Architecture: an Overview", RFC 1633,
ISI, MIT, and PARC, June 1994.

[RFC1812] F. Baker, "Requirements for IP Version 4
Routers", RFC 1812, June 1995.

[RFC2475] M. Carlson, W. Weiss, S. Blake, Z. Wang, D.
Black, and E. Davies, "An Architecture for Differentiated
Services", RFC 2475, December 1998.

[RFC2748] J. Boyle, R. Cohen, D. Durham, S. Herzog, R.
Rajan, A. Sastry, "The COPS (Common Open Policy Service) Pro-
tocol", RFC 2748, January 2000.

[RFC2328] J. Moy, "OSPF Version 2", RFC 2328, April 1998.

[RFC1157] J.D. Case, M. Fedor, M.L. Schoffstall, C. Davin,
"Simple Network Management Protocol (SNMP)", RFC 1157, May
1990.

[RFC3036] L. Andersson, P. Doolan, N. Feldman, A. Fredette,
B. Thomas "LDP Specification", RFC 3036, January 2001.

[Stevens] G.R Wright, W. Richard Stevens. "TCP/IP Illus-
trated Volume 2, Chapter 20", June 1995

[Netfilter] http://netfilter.samba.org

[Diffserv] http://diffserv.sourceforge.net

7. Acknowledgements

1) Andi Kleen, for man pages on netlink and rtnetlink.

2) Alexey Kuznetsov is credited for extending Netlink to the IP ser-
vice delivery model. The original Netlink character device was

jhs_hk_ak_ank draft-forces-Netlink-03.txt

written by Alan Cox.

3) Jeremy Ethridge for taking the role of someone who did not under-
stand Netlink and reviewing the document to make sure that it made
sense.

8. Author's Address:

Jamal Hadi Salim
Znyx Networks
Ottawa, Ontario
Canada
hadi@znyx.com

Hormuzd M Khosravi
Intel
2111 N.E. 25th Avenue JF3-206
Hillsboro OR 97124-5961
USA
1 503 264 0334
hormuzd.m.khosravi@intel.com

Andi Kleen
SuSE
Stahlgruberring 28
81829 Muenchen
Germany

Alexey Kuznetsov
INR/Swsoft
Moscow
Russia

9. Appendix 1: Sample Service Hierachy

In the diagram below we show a simple IP service, foo, and the
interaction it has between CP and FE components for the service
(labels 1-3).

The diagram is also used to demonstrate CP<->FE addressing. In
this section, we illustrate only the addressing semantics. In
Apendix 2, the diagram is referenced again to define the protocol
interaction between service foo's CPC and FEC (labels 4-10).

jhs_hk_ak_ank draft-forces-Netlink-03.txt

CP
[--------------------------------------------------------.
| .-----. |
| | . -------. |
| | CLI | / |
| | | | CP protocol |
| /->> -. | component | <-. |
| __ _/ | | For | | |
| | | IP service | ^ |
| Y | foo | | |
| | ___________/ ^ |
| Y 1,4,6,8,9 / ^ 2,5,10 | 3,7 |
--------------- Y------------/---|----------|-----------
| ^ | ^
**|***********|****|**********|**********
************* Netlink layer ************
**|***********|****|**********|**********
FE | | ^ ^
.-------- Y-----------Y----|--------- |----.
| | / |
| Y / |
| . --------^-------. / |
| |FE component/module|/ |
| | for IP Service | |
--->---|------>---| foo |----->-----|------>--
| ------------------- |
| |
| |
------------------------------------------

The control plane protocol for IP service foo does the following to
connect to its FE counterpart. The steps below are also numbered
above in the diagram.

1) Connect to the IP service foo through a socket connect. A typical
connection would be via a call to: socket(AF_NETLINK, SOCK_RAW,
NETLINK_FOO).

2) Bind to listen to specific asynchronous events for service foo.

3) Bind to listen to specific asynchronous FE events.

jhs_hk_ak_ank draft-forces-Netlink-03.txt

10. Appendix 2: Sample Protocol for the Foo IP Service

Our example IP service foo is used again to demonstrate how one can
deploy a simple IP service control using Netlink.

These steps itself, all RFCs are continued from Appendix 1 (hence the numbering).

4) Query for current config of FE component.

5) Receive response to (4) via channel on (3).

6) Query
unlimited distribution.echo
Submissions for current state of IP service foo.

7) Receive response to (6) via channel on (2).

9) Register the protocol-specific packets you would like the FE to
forward to you.

10) Send service-specific foo commands and receive responses Requests for them,
if needed.

10.1. Interacting with Other IP services

The diagram in Appendix 1 shows another control component configur-
ing the same service. In this case, it is a proprietary Command
Line Interface. The CLI may or may not be using the Netlink proto-
col to communicate to the foo component. If the CLI issues com-
mands that will affect the policy of the FEC for service foo then,
then the foo CPC is notified. It could then make algorithmic deci-
sions based on this input. For example, if an FE allowed another
service to delete policies installed by a different service and a
policy that foo installed was deleted by service bar, there might Comments should be a need to propagate this to all the peers of service foo.

11. Appendix 3: Examples

In this example, we show a simple configuration Netlink message sent from a TC CPC to an egress TC FIFO queue. This queue algo-
rithm is based on packet counting and drops packets when the limit
exceeds 100 packets. We assume that the queue is in a hierachical
setup with a parent 100:0 and a classid of 100:1 and that it is
RFC-EDITOR@RFC-EDITOR.ORG. Please consult RFC 2223, Instructions to
be installed on a device with an ifindex of 4.

jhs_hk_ak_ank draft-forces-Netlink-03.txt