| < draft-ietf-rddp-problem-statement-04.txt | draft-ietf-rddp-problem-statement-05.txt > | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Allyn Romanow (Cisco) | Internet-Draft Allyn Romanow (Cisco) | |||
| Internet-Draft Jeff Mogul (HP) | Expires: April 2005 Jeff Mogul (HP) | |||
| Expires: January 2005 Tom Talpey (NetApp) | Tom Talpey (NetApp) | |||
| Stephen Bailey (Sandburst) | Stephen Bailey (Sandburst) | |||
| Remote Direct Memory Access (RDMA) over IP Problem Statement | Remote Direct Memory Access (RDMA) over IP Problem Statement | |||
| draft-ietf-rddp-problem-statement-04 | draft-ietf-rddp-problem-statement-05 | |||
| Status of this Memo | Status of this Memo | |||
| By submitting this Internet-Draft, I certify that any applicable | By submitting this Internet-Draft, I certify that any applicable | |||
| patent or other IPR claims of which I am aware have been disclosed, | patent or other IPR claims of which I am aware have been disclosed, | |||
| or will be disclosed, and any of which I become aware will be | or will be disclosed, and any of which I become aware will be | |||
| disclosed, in accordance with RFC 3668. | disclosed, in accordance with RFC 3668. | |||
| Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering | Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering | |||
| Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that | Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that | |||
| other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet- | other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet- | |||
| Drafts. | Drafts. | |||
| Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six | Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six | |||
| months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other | months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other | |||
| documents at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts | documents at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts | |||
| as reference material or to cite them other than as "work in | as reference material or to cite them other than as "work in | |||
| progress." | progress." | |||
| The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at | The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at | |||
| http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt The list of | http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt | |||
| Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at | ||||
| The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at | ||||
| http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html | http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html | |||
| Copyright Notice | Copyright Notice | |||
| Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2004). All Rights Reserved. | Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2004). All Rights Reserved. | |||
| Abstract | Abstract | |||
| This draft addresses an IP-based solution to the problem of high | Overhead due to the movement of user data in the end-system network | |||
| system overhead due to the movement of user data in the network I/O | I/O processing path at high speeds is significant, and has limited | |||
| path. The overhead has limited the use of TCP/IP in | the use of Internet protocols in interconnection networks and the | |||
| interconnection networks, especially where high bandwidth, low | Internet itself - especially where high bandwidth, low latency | |||
| latency and/or low overhead of end-system data movement are | and/or low overhead are required by the hosted application. | |||
| required by the hosted application. An architectural solution | ||||
| enabling "copy avoidance" is proposed to eliminate it. | This draft examines this overhead, and addresses an architectural, | |||
| IP-based "copy avoidance" solution for its elimination, by enabling | ||||
| Remote Direct Memory Access (RDMA). | ||||
| Table Of Contents | Table Of Contents | |||
| 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 | 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 | |||
| 2. The high cost of data movement operations in network I/O . 4 | 2. The high cost of data movement operations in network I/O . 4 | |||
| 2.1. Copy avoidance improves processing overhead . . . . . . . 5 | 2.1. Copy avoidance improves processing overhead . . . . . . . 5 | |||
| 3. Memory bandwidth is the root cause of the problem . . . . 6 | 3. Memory bandwidth is the root cause of the problem . . . . 6 | |||
| 4. High copy overhead is problematic for many key Internet | 4. High copy overhead is problematic for many key Internet | |||
| applications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 | applications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 | |||
| 5. Copy Avoidance Techniques . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 | 5. Copy Avoidance Techniques . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 | |||
| 5.1. A Conceptual Framework: DDP and RDMA . . . . . . . . . . . 11 | 5.1. A Conceptual Framework: DDP and RDMA . . . . . . . . . . . 12 | |||
| 6. Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 | 6. Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 | |||
| 7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 | 7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 | |||
| 8. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 | 8. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 | |||
| 9. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 | 9. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 | |||
| Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 | Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 | |||
| Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 | Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 | |||
| Full Copyright Statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 | Full Copyright Statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 | |||
| 1. Introduction | 1. Introduction | |||
| This draft considers the problem of high host processing overhead | This draft considers the problem of high host processing overhead | |||
| associated with the movement of user data to and from the network | associated with the movement of user data to and from the network | |||
| skipping to change at page 3, line 14 ¶ | skipping to change at page 3, line 14 ¶ | |||
| sessions (transport connections), which, in aggregate, are | sessions (transport connections), which, in aggregate, are | |||
| responsible for > 1 Gbits/s of communication. Nonetheless, the | responsible for > 1 Gbits/s of communication. Nonetheless, the | |||
| cost of copying overhead for a particular load is the same whether | cost of copying overhead for a particular load is the same whether | |||
| from few or many sessions. | from few or many sessions. | |||
| The I/O bottleneck, and the role of data movement operations, have | The I/O bottleneck, and the role of data movement operations, have | |||
| been widely studied in research and industry over the last | been widely studied in research and industry over the last | |||
| approximately 14 years, and we draw freely on these results. | approximately 14 years, and we draw freely on these results. | |||
| Historically, the I/O bottleneck has received attention whenever | Historically, the I/O bottleneck has received attention whenever | |||
| new networking technology has substantially increased line rates - | new networking technology has substantially increased line rates - | |||
| 100 Megabit per second (Mbits/s) FDDI and Fast Ethernet, 155 | 100 Megabit per second (Mbits/s) Fast Ethernet and Fibre | |||
| Mbits/s ATM, 1 Gbits/s Ethernet. In earlier speed transitions, the | Distributed Data Interface [FDDI], 155 Mbits/s Asynchronous | |||
| availability of memory bandwidth allowed the I/O bottleneck issue | Transfer Mode [ATM], 1 Gbits/s Ethernet. In earlier speed | |||
| to be deferred. Now however, this is no longer the case. While | transitions, the availability of memory bandwidth allowed the I/O | |||
| the I/O problem is significant at 1 Gbits/s, it is the introduction | bottleneck issue to be deferred. Now however, this is no longer | |||
| of 10 Gbits/s Ethernet which is motivating an upsurge of activity | the case. While the I/O problem is significant at 1 Gbits/s, it is | |||
| in industry and research [DAFS, IB, VI, CGZ01, Ma02, MAF+02]. | the introduction of 10 Gbits/s Ethernet which is motivating an | |||
| upsurge of activity in industry and research [DAFS, IB, VI, CGZ01, | ||||
| Ma02, MAF+02]. | ||||
| Because of high overhead of end-host processing in current | Because of high overhead of end-host processing in current | |||
| implementations, the TCP/IP protocol stack is not used for high | implementations, the TCP/IP protocol stack is not used for high | |||
| speed transfer. Instead, special purpose network fabrics, using a | speed transfer. Instead, special purpose network fabrics, using a | |||
| technology generally known as Remote Direct Memory Access (RDMA), | technology generally known as Remote Direct Memory Access (RDMA), | |||
| have been developed and are widely used. RDMA is a set of | have been developed and are widely used. RDMA is a set of | |||
| mechanisms that allow the network adapter, under control of the | mechanisms that allow the network adapter, under control of the | |||
| application, to steer data directly into and out of application | application, to steer data directly into and out of application | |||
| buffers. Examples of such interconnection fabrics include Fibre | buffers. Examples of such interconnection fabrics include Fibre | |||
| Channel [FIBRE] for block storage transfer, Virtual Interface | Channel [FIBRE] for block storage transfer, Virtual Interface | |||
| Architecture [VI] for database clusters, and Infiniband [IB], | Architecture [VI] for database clusters, and Infiniband [IB], | |||
| Compaq Servernet [SRVNET] and Quadrics [QUAD] for System Area | Compaq Servernet [SRVNET] and Quadrics [QUAD] for System Area | |||
| Networks. These link level technologies limit application scaling | Networks. These link level technologies limit application scaling | |||
| in both distance and size, meaning that the number of nodes cannot | in both distance and size, meaning that the number of nodes cannot | |||
| be arbitrarily large. | be arbitrarily large. | |||
| This problem statement substantiates the claim that in network I/O | This problem statement substantiates the claim that in network I/O | |||
| processing, high overhead results from data movement operations, | processing, high overhead results from data movement operations, | |||
| specifically copying; and that copy avoidance significantly | specifically copying; and that copy avoidance significantly | |||
| decreases the processing overhead. It describes when and why the | decreases this processing overhead. It describes when and why the | |||
| high processing overheads occur, explains why the overhead is | high processing overheads occur, explains why the overhead is | |||
| problematic, and points out which applications are most affected. | problematic, and points out which applications are most affected. | |||
| The document goes on to discuss why the problem is relevant to the | The document goes on to discuss why the problem is relevant to the | |||
| Internet and its applications, where high processing overheads work | Internet and to Internet-based applications. Applications which | |||
| to limit the available scaling of end-systems. Copy avoidance | store, manage and distribute the information of the Internet are | |||
| eliminates overhead and latency for these systems, and further can | well suited to applying the copy avoidance solution. They will | |||
| benefit by avoiding high processing overheads, which removes limits | ||||
| to the available scaling of tiered end-systems. Copy avoidance | ||||
| also eliminates latency for these systems, which can further | ||||
| benefit effective distributed processing. | benefit effective distributed processing. | |||
| In addition, this document introduces an architectural approach to | In addition, this document introduces an architectural approach to | |||
| solving the problem, which is developed in detail in [BT04]. It | solving the problem, which is developed in detail in [BT04]. It | |||
| also discusses how the proposed technology may introduce security | also discusses how the proposed technology may introduce security | |||
| concerns and how they should be addressed. | concerns and how they should be addressed. | |||
| Finally, this document includes a Terminology section to aid as a | Finally, this document includes a Terminology section to aid as a | |||
| reference for several new terms introduced by RDMA. | reference for several new terms introduced by RDMA. | |||
| skipping to change at page 12, line 46 ¶ | skipping to change at page 13, line 11 ¶ | |||
| An architectural solution to alleviate these bottlenecks best | An architectural solution to alleviate these bottlenecks best | |||
| satisifies the issue. Further, the high speed of today's | satisifies the issue. Further, the high speed of today's | |||
| interconnects and the deployment of these hosts on Internet | interconnects and the deployment of these hosts on Internet | |||
| Protocol-based networks leads to the desireability to layer such a | Protocol-based networks leads to the desireability to layer such a | |||
| solution on the Internet Protocol Suite. The architecture | solution on the Internet Protocol Suite. The architecture | |||
| described in [BT04] is such a proposal. | described in [BT04] is such a proposal. | |||
| 7. Security Considerations | 7. Security Considerations | |||
| Solutions to the problem of reducing copying overhead in high | Solutions to the problem of reducing copying overhead in high | |||
| bandwidth transfers via one or more protocols may introduce new | bandwidth transfers may introduce new security concerns. Any | |||
| security concerns. Any proposed solution must be analyzed for | proposed solution must be analyzed for security vulnerabilities and | |||
| security vulnerabilities and any such vulnerabilities addressed. | any such vulnerabilities addressed. Potential security weaknesses | |||
| Potential security weaknesses due to resource issues that might | due to resource issues that might lead to denial-of-service | |||
| lead to denial-of-service attacks, overwrites and other concurrent | attacks, overwrites and other concurrent operations, the ordering | |||
| operations, the ordering of completions as required by the RDMA | of completions as required by the RDMA protocol, the granularity of | |||
| protocol, the granularity of transfer, and any other identified | transfer, and any other identified vulnerabilities; need to be | |||
| vulnerabilities; need to be examined, described and an adequate | examined, described and an adequate resolution to them found. | |||
| resolution to them found. | ||||
| Layered atop Internet transport protocols, the RDMA protocols will | Layered atop Internet transport protocols, the RDMA protocols will | |||
| gain leverage from and must permit integration with Internet | gain leverage from and must permit integration with Internet | |||
| security standards, such as IPsec and TLS [IPSEC, TLS]. However, | security standards, such as IPsec and TLS [IPSEC, TLS]. However, | |||
| there may be implementation ramifications for certain security | there may be implementation ramifications for certain security | |||
| approaches with respect to RDMA, due to its copy avoidance. | approaches with respect to RDMA, due to its copy avoidance. | |||
| IPsec, operating to secure the connection on a packet-by-packet | IPsec, operating to secure the connection on a packet-by-packet | |||
| basis, seems to be a natural fit to securing RDMA placement, which | basis, seems to be a natural fit to securing RDMA placement, which | |||
| operates in conjunction with transport. Because RDMA enables an | operates in conjunction with transport. Because RDMA enables an | |||
| implementation to avoid buffering, it is preferable to perform all | implementation to avoid buffering, it is preferable to perform all | |||
| applicable security protection prior to processing each transport | applicable security protection prior to processing of each segment | |||
| and RDMA layer segment. Such a layering enables the most efficient | by the transport and RDMA layers. Such a layering enables the most | |||
| secure RDMA implementation. | efficient secure RDMA implementation. | |||
| The TLS record protocol, on the other hand, is layered on top of | The TLS record protocol, on the other hand, is layered on top of | |||
| reliable transports and cannot provide such security assurance | reliable transports and cannot provide such security assurance | |||
| until an entire record is available, which may require the | until an entire record is available, which may require the | |||
| buffering and/or assembly of several distinct messages prior to TLS | buffering and/or assembly of several distinct messages prior to TLS | |||
| processing. This defers RDMA processing and introduces overheads | processing. This defers RDMA processing and introduces overheads | |||
| that RDMA is designed to avoid. TLS therefore is viewed as | that RDMA is designed to avoid. TLS therefore is viewed as | |||
| potentially a less natural fit for protecting the RDMA protocols. | potentially a less natural fit for protecting the RDMA protocols. | |||
| A thorough analysis of the degree to which security protocols | It is necessary to guarantee properties such as confidentiality, | |||
| address potential threats via RDMA is required. | integrity, and authentication on an RDMA communications channel. | |||
| However, these properties cannot defend against all attacks from | ||||
| Security for an RDMA design requires more than just securing the | properly authenticated peers, which might be malicious, | |||
| communication channel. While it is necessary to be able to | compromised, or buggy. Therefore the RDMA design must address | |||
| guarantee channel properties such as confidentiality, integrity, | protection against such attacks. For example, an RDMA peer should | |||
| and authentication, these properties cannot defend against all | ||||
| attacks from properly authenticated peers, which might be | ||||
| malicious, compromised, or buggy. For example, an RDMA peer should | ||||
| not be able to read or write memory regions without prior consent. | not be able to read or write memory regions without prior consent. | |||
| Further, it must not be possible to evade consistency checks at the | Further, it must not be possible to evade memory consistency checks | |||
| recipient. The RDMA design must allow the recipient to rely on its | at the recipient. The RDMA design must allow the recipient to rely | |||
| consistent memory contents by controlling peer access to memory | on its consistent memory contents by explicitly controlling peer | |||
| regions explicitly. Peers which do not pass authentication and | access to memory regions at appropriate times. | |||
| authorization checks must not be permitted to connect to an | ||||
| inappropriate endpoint. Peer accesses must be authenticated and | ||||
| made subject to authorization checks prior to any operation to a | ||||
| memory region. | ||||
| The RDMA protocols must ensure that regions addressable by RDMA | Peer connections which do not pass authentication and authorization | |||
| peers be under strict application control. Remote access to local | checks by upper layers must not be permitted to begin processing in | |||
| memory by a network peer introduces a number of potential security | RDMA mode with an inappropriate endpoint. Once associated, peer | |||
| concerns. This becomes particularly important in the Internet | accesses to memory regions must be authenticated and made subject | |||
| context, where such access can be exported globally. | to authorization checks in the context of the association and | |||
| connection on which they are to be performed, prior to any transfer | ||||
| operation or data being accessed. | ||||
| The RDMA protocols carry in part what is essentially user | The RDMA protocols must ensure that these region protections be | |||
| information, explicitly including addressing information and | under strict application control. Remote access to local memory by | |||
| operation type (read or write), and implicitly including protection | a network peer is particularly important in the Internet context, | |||
| and attributes. As such, the protocol requires checking of these | where such access can be exported globally. | |||
| higher level aspects in addition to the basic formation of | ||||
| messages. The semantics associated with each class of error must | ||||
| be clearly defined, and the expected action to be taken on mismatch | ||||
| be specified. In some cases, this will result in a catastrophic | ||||
| error on the RDMA association, however in others a local or remote | ||||
| error may be signalled. Certain of these errors may require | ||||
| consideration of abstract local semantics, which must be carefully | ||||
| specified so as to provide useful behavior while not constraining | ||||
| the implementation. | ||||
| 8. Terminology | 8. Terminology | |||
| This section contains general terminology definitions for this | This section contains general terminology definitions for this | |||
| document and for Remote Direct Memory Access in general. | document and for Remote Direct Memory Access in general. | |||
| Remote Direct Memory Access (RDMA) | Remote Direct Memory Access (RDMA) | |||
| A method of accessing memory on a remote system in which the | A method of accessing memory on a remote system in which the | |||
| local system specifies the location of the data to be | local system specifies the location of the data to be | |||
| transferred. | transferred. | |||
| skipping to change at page 15, line 21 ¶ | skipping to change at page 15, line 18 ¶ | |||
| An RDMA interface, protocol suite and link layer specification | An RDMA interface, protocol suite and link layer specification | |||
| defined by an industry trade association. [IB] | defined by an industry trade association. [IB] | |||
| 9. Acknowledgements | 9. Acknowledgements | |||
| Jeff Chase generously provided many useful insights and | Jeff Chase generously provided many useful insights and | |||
| information. Thanks to Jim Pinkerton for many helpful discussions. | information. Thanks to Jim Pinkerton for many helpful discussions. | |||
| 10. Informative References | 10. Informative References | |||
| [ATM] | ||||
| The ATM Forum, "Asynchronous Transfer Mode Physical Layer | ||||
| Specification" af-phy-0015.000, etc. drafts available from | ||||
| http://www.atmforum.com/standards/approved.html | ||||
| [BCF+95] | [BCF+95] | |||
| N. J. Boden, D. Cohen, R. E. Felderman, A. E. Kulawik, C. L. | N. J. Boden, D. Cohen, R. E. Felderman, A. E. Kulawik, C. L. | |||
| Seitz, J. N. Seizovic, and W. Su. "Myrinet - A gigabit-per- | Seitz, J. N. Seizovic, and W. Su. "Myrinet - A gigabit-per- | |||
| second local-area network", IEEE Micro, February 1995 | second local-area network", IEEE Micro, February 1995 | |||
| [BJM+96] | [BJM+96] | |||
| G. Buzzard, D. Jacobson, M. Mackey, S. Marovich, J. Wilkes, | G. Buzzard, D. Jacobson, M. Mackey, S. Marovich, J. Wilkes, | |||
| "An implementation of the Hamlyn send-managed interface | "An implementation of the Hamlyn send-managed interface | |||
| architecture", in Proceedings of the Second Symposium on | architecture", in Proceedings of the Second Symposium on | |||
| Operating Systems Design and Implementation, USENIX Assoc., | Operating Systems Design and Implementation, USENIX Assoc., | |||
| skipping to change at page 16, line 4 ¶ | skipping to change at page 16, line 9 ¶ | |||
| [BS96] | [BS96] | |||
| J. C. Brustoloni, P. Steenkiste, "Effects of buffering | J. C. Brustoloni, P. Steenkiste, "Effects of buffering | |||
| semantics on I/O performance", Proceedings OSDI'96, USENIX, | semantics on I/O performance", Proceedings OSDI'96, USENIX, | |||
| Seattle, WA October 1996, pp. 277-291 | Seattle, WA October 1996, pp. 277-291 | |||
| [BT04] | [BT04] | |||
| S. Bailey, T. Talpey, "The Architecture of Direct Data | S. Bailey, T. Talpey, "The Architecture of Direct Data | |||
| Placement (DDP) And Remote Direct Memory Access (RDMA) On | Placement (DDP) And Remote Direct Memory Access (RDMA) On | |||
| Internet Protocols", Internet Draft Work in Progress, draft- | Internet Protocols", Internet Draft Work in Progress, draft- | |||
| ietf-rddp-arch-05, July 2004 | ietf-rddp-arch-06, October 2004 | |||
| [CFF+94] | [CFF+94] | |||
| C-H Chang, D. Flower, J. Forecast, H. Gray, B. Hawe, A. | C-H Chang, D. Flower, J. Forecast, H. Gray, B. Hawe, A. | |||
| Nadkarni, K. K. Ramakrishnan, U. Shikarpur, K. Wilde, "High- | Nadkarni, K. K. Ramakrishnan, U. Shikarpur, K. Wilde, "High- | |||
| performance TCP/IP and UDP/IP networking in DEC OSF/1 for | performance TCP/IP and UDP/IP networking in DEC OSF/1 for | |||
| Alpha AXP", Proceedings of the 3rd IEEE Symposium on High | Alpha AXP", Proceedings of the 3rd IEEE Symposium on High | |||
| Performance Distributed Computing, August 1994, pp. 36-42 | Performance Distributed Computing, August 1994, pp. 36-42 | |||
| [CGY01] | [CGY01] | |||
| J. S. Chase, A. J. Gallatin, and K. G. Yocum, "End system | J. S. Chase, A. J. Gallatin, and K. G. Yocum, "End system | |||
| skipping to change at page 17, line 4 ¶ | skipping to change at page 17, line 8 ¶ | |||
| P. Druschel, M. B. Abbott, M. A. Pagels, L. L. Peterson, | P. Druschel, M. B. Abbott, M. A. Pagels, L. L. Peterson, | |||
| "Network subsystem design", IEEE Network, July 1993, pp. 8-17 | "Network subsystem design", IEEE Network, July 1993, pp. 8-17 | |||
| [DP93] | [DP93] | |||
| P. Druschel, L. L. Peterson, "Fbufs: a high-bandwidth cross- | P. Druschel, L. L. Peterson, "Fbufs: a high-bandwidth cross- | |||
| domain transfer facility", Proceedings of the 14th ACM | domain transfer facility", Proceedings of the 14th ACM | |||
| Symposium of Operating Systems Principles, December 1993 | Symposium of Operating Systems Principles, December 1993 | |||
| [DWB+93] | [DWB+93] | |||
| C. Dalton, G. Watson, D. Banks, C. Calamvokis, A. Edwards, J. | C. Dalton, G. Watson, D. Banks, C. Calamvokis, A. Edwards, J. | |||
| Lumley, "Afterburner: architectural support for high- | Lumley, "Afterburner: architectural support for high- | |||
| performance protocols", Technical Report, HP Laboratories | performance protocols", Technical Report, HP Laboratories | |||
| Bristol, HPL-93-46, July 1993 | Bristol, HPL-93-46, July 1993 | |||
| [EBBV95] | [EBBV95] | |||
| T. von Eicken, A. Basu, V. Buch, and W. Vogels, "U-Net: A | T. von Eicken, A. Basu, V. Buch, and W. Vogels, "U-Net: A | |||
| user-level network interface for parallel and distributed | user-level network interface for parallel and distributed | |||
| computing", Proc. of the 15th ACM Symposium on Operating | computing", Proc. of the 15th ACM Symposium on Operating | |||
| Systems Principles, Copper Mountain, Colorado, December 3-6, | Systems Principles, Copper Mountain, Colorado, December 3-6, | |||
| 1995 | 1995 | |||
| [FDDI] | ||||
| International Standards Organization, "Fibre Distributed Data | ||||
| Interface", ISO/IEC 9314, committee drafts available from | ||||
| http://www.iso.org | ||||
| [FGM+99] | [FGM+99] | |||
| R. Fielding, J. Gettys, J. Mogul, F. Frystyk, L. Masinter, P. | R. Fielding, J. Gettys, J. Mogul, F. Frystyk, L. Masinter, P. | |||
| Leach, T. Berners-Lee, "Hypertext Transfer Protocol - | Leach, T. Berners-Lee, "Hypertext Transfer Protocol - | |||
| HTTP/1.1", RFC 2616, June 1999 | HTTP/1.1", RFC 2616, June 1999 | |||
| [FIBRE] | [FIBRE] | |||
| ANSI Technical Committee T10, "Fibre Channel Protocol (FCP)" | ANSI Technical Committee T10, "Fibre Channel Protocol (FCP)" | |||
| (and as revised and updated), ANSI X3.269:1996 [R2001], | (and as revised and updated), ANSI X3.269:1996 [R2001], | |||
| committee draft available from | committee draft available from | |||
| http://www.t10.org/drafts.htm#FibreChannel | http://www.t10.org/drafts.htm#FibreChannel | |||
| End of changes. 19 change blocks. | ||||
| 75 lines changed or deleted | 77 lines changed or added | |||
This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.48. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/ | ||||