| < draft-suzuki-st2-over-atm-01.txt | draft-suzuki-st2-over-atm-02.txt > | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Network Working Group Muneyoshi Suzuki | Network Working Group Muneyoshi Suzuki | |||
| INTERNET DRAFT NTT | INTERNET DRAFT NTT | |||
| Expires September 25, 1997 March 25, 1997 | Expires April 14, 1998 October 14, 1997 | |||
| ST2+ over ATM | ST2+ over ATM | |||
| Protocol Specification - UNI 3.1 Version | Protocol Specification - UNI 3.1 Version | |||
| <draft-suzuki-st2-over-atm-01.txt> | <draft-suzuki-st2-over-atm-02.txt> | |||
| Status of this Memo | Status of this Memo | |||
| This document is an Internet-Draft. Internet-Drafts are working | This document is an Internet-Draft. Internet-Drafts are working | |||
| documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), its areas, | documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), its areas, | |||
| and its working groups. Note that other groups may also distribute | and its working groups. Note that other groups may also distribute | |||
| working documents as Internet-Drafts. | working documents as Internet-Drafts. | |||
| Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months | Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months | |||
| and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any | and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any | |||
| skipping to change at page 3, line 12 ¶ | skipping to change at page 3, line 12 ¶ | |||
| Note: The UNI 3.1 version of the ST2+ over ATM protocol does not | Note: The UNI 3.1 version of the ST2+ over ATM protocol does not | |||
| support the above feature. It will be supported by the UNI 3.1/4.0 | support the above feature. It will be supported by the UNI 3.1/4.0 | |||
| version. | version. | |||
| 1.3 Goals and Non-goals of ST2+ over ATM Protocol | 1.3 Goals and Non-goals of ST2+ over ATM Protocol | |||
| The ST2+ over ATM protocol is designed to achieve the following | The ST2+ over ATM protocol is designed to achieve the following | |||
| goals. | goals. | |||
| o Specify protocol interaction between ST2+ [4] and ATM on the ATM | o Specify protocol interaction between ST2+ [4] and ATM on the ATM | |||
| Forum Private UNI 3.1/4.0 (Sb point) [5]. | Forum Private UNI 3.1/4.0 (Sb point) [10, 11]. | |||
| Note: The UNI 3.1 version of the ST2+ over ATM protocol does not | Note: The UNI 3.1 version of the ST2+ over ATM protocol does not | |||
| support UNI 4.0. It will be supported by the UNI 3.1/4.0 version. | support UNI 4.0. It will be supported by the UNI 3.1/4.0 version. | |||
| o Support ST2+ stream across ATM and non-ATM networks. | o Support ST2+ stream across ATM and non-ATM networks. | |||
| o Define one VC on the UNI corresponding to one ST2+ hop; this VC is | o Define one VC on the UNI corresponding to one ST2+ hop; this VC is | |||
| not shared with other ST2+ hops, and also this ST2+ hop is not | not shared with other ST2+ hops, and also this ST2+ hop is not | |||
| divided into multiple VCs. | divided into multiple VCs. | |||
| o Support both SVC and PVC. | o Support both SVC and PVC. | |||
| o Not require any ATM specification changes. | o Not require any ATM specification changes. | |||
| o Coexist with RFC 1483 [14] IPv4 encapsulation. | o Coexist with RFC 1483 [16] IPv4 encapsulation. | |||
| o Coexist with RFC 1577 [15] ATMarp. | ||||
| o Coexist with RFC 1755 [16] ATM signaling for IPv4. | o Coexist with RFC 1577 [17] ATMarp. | |||
| o Coexist with NHRP [17]. | o Coexist with RFC 1755 [18] ATM signaling for IPv4. | |||
| o Incorporate the I.371 [13] ITU-T new traffic control recommendation | o Coexist with NHRP [19]. | |||
| for ATM WAN connectivity. | ||||
| Because ST2+ is independent of both routing and IP address resolution | Because ST2+ is independent of both routing and IP address resolution | |||
| protocols, the ST2+ over ATM protocol does not specify the following | protocols, the ST2+ over ATM protocol does not specify the following | |||
| protocols. | protocols. | |||
| o IP-ATM address resolution protocol | o IP-ATM address resolution protocol | |||
| o Routing protocol | o Routing protocol | |||
| Because the ST2+ over ATM protocol is specified for the UNI, it is | Because the ST2+ over ATM protocol is specified for the UNI, it is | |||
| skipping to change at page 4, line 4 ¶ | skipping to change at page 3, line 47 ¶ | |||
| protocols. | protocols. | |||
| o IP-ATM address resolution protocol | o IP-ATM address resolution protocol | |||
| o Routing protocol | o Routing protocol | |||
| Because the ST2+ over ATM protocol is specified for the UNI, it is | Because the ST2+ over ATM protocol is specified for the UNI, it is | |||
| independent of: | independent of: | |||
| o NNI protocol | o NNI protocol | |||
| o Router/switch architecture | o Router/switch architecture | |||
| 2. Protocol Architecture | 2. Protocol Architecture | |||
| The ST2+ over ATM protocol specifies the interaction between ST2+ and | The ST2+ over ATM protocol specifies the interaction between ST2+ and | |||
| ATM on the user, management, and control planes, which correspond to | ATM on the user, management, and control planes, which correspond to | |||
| the three planes in ITU-T Recommendation I.321 B-ISDN Protocol | the three planes in ITU-T Recommendation I.321 B-ISDN Protocol | |||
| Reference Model [10]. | Reference Model [14]. | |||
| 2.1 User Plane Architecture | 2.1 User Plane Architecture | |||
| The user plane specifies the rules for encapsulating the ST2+ Data | The user plane specifies the rules for encapsulating the ST2+ Data | |||
| PDU into the AAL5 [12] or AAL1 [11] PDU. An user plane protocol stack | PDU into the AAL5 [15] PDU. An user plane protocol stack is shown in | |||
| is shown in Fig. 2.1. | Fig. 2.1. | |||
| +---------------------------------+ | +---------------------------------+ | |||
| | RFC 1819 ST2+ | | | RFC 1819 ST2+ | | |||
| | (ST2+ Data) | | | (ST2+ Data) | | |||
| +---------------------------------+ Point of ST2+ over ATM | +---------------------------------+ Point of ST2+ over ATM | |||
| |/////////////////////////////////| <--- protocol specification of | |/////////////////////////////////| <--- protocol specification of | |||
| +----------------+----------------+ user plane | +---------------------------------+ user plane | |||
| | | | | | | | |||
| | | | | | | | |||
| | I.363.1 | I.363.5 | | | I.363.5 | | |||
| | | | | | | | |||
| | AAL1 | AAL5 | | | AAL5 | | |||
| | | | | | | | |||
| | | | | | | | |||
| +----------------+----------------+ | +---------------------------------+ | |||
| | I.361 ATM | | | I.361 ATM | | |||
| +---------------------------------+ | +---------------------------------+ | |||
| | PHY | | | PHY | | |||
| +----------------+----------------+ | +----------------+----------------+ | |||
| | UNI | | UNI | |||
| +--------||------- | +--------||------- | |||
| Fig. 2.1: User plane protocol stack. | Fig. 2.1: User plane protocol stack. | |||
| If AAL1 is used for encapsulating the ST2+ Data PDU, the 12 bytes ST | ||||
| header is not mapped to the AAL1 PDU, and the value of the Pri field | ||||
| in the ST2+ Data PDU header is lost. | ||||
| An example of interworking from an ATM network to an IEEE 802.X LAN | An example of interworking from an ATM network to an IEEE 802.X LAN | |||
| is shown in Fig. 2.2. | is shown in Fig. 2.2. | |||
| ST2+ ST2+ ST2+ | ST2+ ST2+ ST2+ | |||
| Origin ATM Cloud Intermediate Agent Target | Origin ATM Cloud Intermediate Agent Target | |||
| +---------+ +---------+ | +---------+ +---------+ | |||
| | AP |--------------------------------------------->| AP | | | AP |--------------------------------------------->| AP | | |||
| +---------+ +-------------------+ +---------+ | +---------+ +-------------------+ +---------+ | |||
| |ST2+ Data|------------------>| RFC 1819 ST2+ Data|----->|ST2+ Data| | |ST2+ Data|------------------>| RFC 1819 ST2+ Data|----->|ST2+ Data| | |||
| +---------+ +---------+---------+ +---------+ | +---------+ +---------+---------+ +---------+ | |||
| |I.363 AAL|------------------>|I.363 AAL| SNAP |----->| SNAP | | |I.363 AAL|------------------>|I.363 AAL| SNAP |----->| SNAP | | |||
| +---------+ +---------+ +---------+---------+ +---------+ | +---------+ +---------+ +---------+---------+ +---------+ | |||
| |I.361 ATM|--->|I.361 ATM|--->|I.361 ATM| LLC |----->| LLC | | |I.361 ATM|--->|I.361 ATM|--->|I.361 ATM| LLC |----->| LLC | | |||
| +---------+ +---------+ +---------+---------+ +---------+ | +---------+ +---------+ +---------+---------+ +---------+ | |||
| | PHY |--->| PHY |--->| PHY |IEEE802.X|----->|IEEE802.X| | | | | | | |IEEE802.X| |IEEE802.X| | |||
| | PHY |--->| PHY |--->| PHY | & 802.1p|----->| & 802.1p| | ||||
| +---------+ +---------+ +---------+---------+ +---------+ | +---------+ +---------+ +---------+---------+ +---------+ | |||
| Fig. 2.2: Example of interworking from | Fig. 2.2: Example of interworking from | |||
| an ATM network to an IEEE 802.X LAN. | an ATM network to an IEEE 802.X LAN. | |||
| The ATM cell supports priority indication using the CLP field; | The ATM cell supports priority indication using the CLP field; | |||
| indication is also supported by the ST2+ Data PDU by using the Pri | indication is also supported by the ST2+ Data PDU by using the Pri | |||
| field. It may be feasible to map these fields to each other. The | field. It may be feasible to map these fields to each other. The | |||
| ST2+ over ATM protocol specifies an optional function that maps the | ST2+ over ATM protocol specifies an optional function that maps the | |||
| Pri field in the ST header to the CLP field in the ATM cell. | Pri field in the ST header to the CLP field in the ATM cell. | |||
| However, implementors should note that current ATM standardization | However, implementors should note that current ATM standardization | |||
| tends not to support tagging, and also that this optional function | tends not to support tagging. | |||
| assumes the value of the Pri field can be obtained in the ATM | ||||
| network. | ||||
| 2.2 Management Plane Architecture | 2.2 Management Plane Architecture | |||
| The management plane specifies, or refers to a document that | The management plane specifies the Null FlowSpec, the Controlled-Load | |||
| specifies, the Controlled-Load Service [6] FlowSpec and the | Service [5] FlowSpec, and the Guaranteed Service [6] FlowSpec mapping | |||
| Guaranteed Service [7] FlowSpec mapping rules for UNI 3.1 traffic | rules [8] for UNI 3.1 traffic management. A management plane | |||
| management. A management plane protocol stack is shown in Fig. 2.3. | protocol stack is shown in Fig. 2.3. | |||
| +---------------------------------+ | +---------------------------------+ | |||
| | Null FlowSpec | | ||||
| |Controlled-Load Service FlowSpec | | |Controlled-Load Service FlowSpec | | |||
| | Guaranteed Service FlowSpec | | | Guaranteed Service FlowSpec | | |||
| +---------------------------------+ Point of ST2+ over ATM | +---------------------------------+ Point of ST2+ over ATM | |||
| |/////////////////////////////////| <--- protocol specification of | |/////////////////////////////////| <--- protocol specification of | |||
| +---------------------------------+ management plane | +---------------------------------+ management plane | |||
| | | | | | | |||
| | UNI 3.1/4.0 | | | UNI 3.1 | | |||
| | | | | | | |||
| | | | | | | |||
| | Traffic Management | | | Traffic Management | | |||
| | | | | | | |||
| | | | | | | |||
| | CBR/VBR/UBR | | | VBR/UBR | | |||
| | | | | | | |||
| +---------------------------------+ | +---------------------------------+ | |||
| Note: The UNI 3.1 version of the ST2+ over ATM protocol does not | ||||
| support UNI 4.0. It will be supported by the UNI 3.1/4.0 version. | Fig. 2.3: Management plane protocol stack. | |||
| Note: The UNI 3.1 version of the ST2+ over ATM protocol does not | Note: The UNI 3.1 version of the ST2+ over ATM protocol does not | |||
| support Guaranteed Services. It will be supported by the UNI 3.1/4.0 | support Guaranteed Services. It will be supported by the UNI 3.1/4.0 | |||
| version. | version. | |||
| Fig. 2.3: Management plane protocol stack. | ||||
| The ST2+ over ATM protocol specifies the ST FlowSpec format for the | The ST2+ over ATM protocol specifies the ST FlowSpec format for the | |||
| Integrated Services. Basically, FlowSpec parameter negotiation, | Integrated Services. Basically, FlowSpec parameter negotiation, | |||
| except for the MTU, is not supported. This is because, in the ST2+ | except for the MTU, is not supported. This is because, in the ST2+ | |||
| environment, negotiated FlowSpec parameters are not always unique to | environment, negotiated FlowSpec parameters are not always unique to | |||
| each target. The current ATM standard does not support heterogeneous | each target. The current ATM standard does not support heterogeneous | |||
| QoS to receivers. | QoS to receivers. | |||
| The ST2+ over ATM protocol supports FlowSpec changes by using the | The ST2+ over ATM protocol supports FlowSpec changes by using the | |||
| CHANGE message (RFC 1819, Section 4.6.5) if the I-bit in the CHANGE | CHANGE message (RFC 1819, Section 4.6.5) if the I-bit in the CHANGE | |||
| message is set to one and if the CHANGE message affects all targets | message is set to one and if the CHANGE message affects all targets | |||
| in the stream. This is because the current ATM standard does not | in the stream. This is because the UNI 3.1 does not support QoS | |||
| support QoS changes. The ST2+ over ATM protocol supports FlowSpec | changes. The ST2+ over ATM protocol supports FlowSpec changes by | |||
| changes by releasing old ATM connections and establishing new ones. | releasing old ATM connections and establishing new ones. | |||
| The ST2+ over ATM protocol does not support stream preemption (RFC | The ST2+ over ATM protocol does not support stream preemption (RFC | |||
| 1819, Section 6.3). This is because the Integrated Services FlowSpec | 1819, Section 6.3). This is because the Integrated Services FlowSpec | |||
| does not support the concept of precedence. | does not support the concept of precedence. | |||
| It does not support the ST2+ FlowSpec (RFC 1819, Section 9.2). ST2+ | It does not support the ST2+ FlowSpec (RFC 1819, Section 9.2). ST2+ | |||
| FlowSpec specifies useful services, but requires a data link layer to | FlowSpec specifies useful services, but requires a datalink layer to | |||
| support heterogeneous QoS to receivers. The current ATM standard | support heterogeneous QoS to receivers. The current ATM standard | |||
| does not support heterogeneous QoS to receivers. | does not support heterogeneous QoS to receivers. | |||
| 2.3 Control Plane Architecture | 2.3 Control Plane Architecture | |||
| The control plane specifies the relationship between ST2+ SCMP and | The control plane specifies the relationship between ST2+ SCMP and | |||
| PVC management for ST2+ data and the protocol interaction between | PVC management for ST2+ data and the protocol interaction between | |||
| ST2+ SCMP and Q.2931 UNI signaling [5, 9]. A control plane protocol | ST2+ SCMP and UNI 3.1 signaling [10]. A control plane protocol stack | |||
| stack is shown in Fig. 2.4. | is shown in Fig. 2.4. | |||
| +---------------------------------+ | +---------------------------------+ | |||
| | RFC 1819 ST2+ | | | RFC 1819 ST2+ | | |||
| | (ST2+ SCMP) | | | (ST2+ SCMP) | | |||
| +---------------------------------+ Point of ST2+ over ATM | +---------------------------------+ Point of ST2+ over ATM | |||
| |/////////////////////////////////| <--- protocol specification of | |/////////////////////////////////| <--- protocol specification of | |||
| +----------------+----------------+ control plane | +----------------+----------------+ control plane | |||
| | IEEE 802 |Q.2931 Signaling| | | IEEE 802 |UNI3.1 Signaling| | |||
| | SNAP +----------------+ | | SNAP +----------------+ | |||
| +----------------+ Q.2130 SSCF | | +----------------+ Q.2130 SSCF | | |||
| | ISO 8802-2 +----------------+ | | ISO 8802-2 +----------------+ | |||
| | LLC Type1 | Q.2110 SSCOP | | | LLC Type1 | Q.2110 SSCOP | | |||
| +----------------+----------------+ | +----------------+----------------+ | |||
| | I.363.5 AAL5 | | | I.363.5 AAL5 | | |||
| +---------------------------------+ | +---------------------------------+ | |||
| | I.361 ATM | | | I.361 ATM | | |||
| +---------------------------------+ | +---------------------------------+ | |||
| | PHY | | | PHY | | |||
| skipping to change at page 7, line 49 ¶ | skipping to change at page 7, line 49 ¶ | |||
| VCs for ST2+ SCMP transfer. Selection of these VCs depends on the | VCs for ST2+ SCMP transfer. Selection of these VCs depends on the | |||
| implementation. | implementation. | |||
| Implementors should note that when ST2+ data and SCMP belong to a | Implementors should note that when ST2+ data and SCMP belong to a | |||
| stream, the routing directions on the ST2+ layer must be the same. | stream, the routing directions on the ST2+ layer must be the same. | |||
| Implementors should also note that ST2+ and IPv4 directions for | Implementors should also note that ST2+ and IPv4 directions for | |||
| routing to the same IP destination address are not always the same. | routing to the same IP destination address are not always the same. | |||
| The ST2+ over ATM protocol supports both SVC and PVC for ST2+ Data | The ST2+ over ATM protocol supports both SVC and PVC for ST2+ Data | |||
| PDU transfer. If SVC is used, the ST2+ and ATM layers establish a | PDU transfer. If SVC is used, the ST2+ and ATM layers establish a | |||
| connection sequentially by using respectively ST2+ SCMP and Q.2931. | connection sequentially by using respectively ST2+ SCMP and UNI 3.1 | |||
| An example of ST2+ SCMP and Q.2931 message flows for establishing and | signaling. An example of ST2+ SCMP and UNI 3.1 signaling message | |||
| releasing of ST2+ data connections is shown in Fig. 2.5, where (S) | flows for establishing and releasing of ST2+ data connections is | |||
| means an ST2+ entity and (Q) means a Q.2931 entity. | shown in Fig. 2.5, where (S) means an ST2+ entity and (Q) means a UNI | |||
| 3.1 signaling entity. | ||||
| ATM SW ATM SW | ATM SW ATM SW | |||
| +------------+ UNI +----+ NNI +----+ UNI +------------+ | +------------+ UNI +----+ NNI +----+ UNI +------------+ | |||
| ____|Intermediate|--||--| \/ |______| \/ |--||--|Intermediate|____ | ____|Intermediate|--||--| \/ |______| \/ |--||--|Intermediate|____ | |||
| | (Upstream) | | /\ | | /\ | |(Downstream)| | | (Upstream) | | /\ | | /\ | |(Downstream)| | |||
| +------------+ +----+ +----+ +------------+ | +------------+ +----+ +----+ +------------+ | |||
| SCMP | SCMP | |||
| ------->(S)<------------------------------------------>(S)<------- | ------->(S)<------------------------------------------>(S)<------- | |||
| \ Q.2931 Q.2931 / | \ UNI Sig. UNI Sig. / | |||
| CONNECT | (Q)<--------->(Q)<-------->(Q)<--------->(Q) | | CONNECT | (Q)<--------->(Q)<-------->(Q)<--------->(Q) | | |||
| -------->| | | -------->| | | |||
| ACK <----|--------------------CONNECT------------------>| CONNECT | ACK <----|--------------------CONNECT------------------>| CONNECT | |||
| |<---------------------ACK---------------------|--------> | |<---------------------ACK---------------------|--------> | |||
| | |<--- ACK | | |<--- ACK | |||
| | | ACCEPT | | | ACCEPT | |||
| | |<-------- | | |<-------- | |||
| |<-------------------ACCEPT--------------------|---> ACK | |<-------------------ACCEPT--------------------|---> ACK | |||
| |----------------------ACK-------------------->| | |----------------------ACK-------------------->| | |||
| | | | | | | |||
| skipping to change at page 8, line 44 ¶ | skipping to change at page 8, line 45 ¶ | |||
| DISCONN | | | DISCONN | | | |||
| -------->| | | -------->| | | |||
| ACK <----|-------------------DISCONNECT---------------->| | ACK <----|-------------------DISCONNECT---------------->| | |||
| |<---------------------ACK---------------------| | |<---------------------ACK---------------------| | |||
| | | | | | | |||
| |->|---RELEASE-->| | | | | |->|---RELEASE-->| | | | | |||
| |<-|<--REL COMP--|----------->|---RELEASE-->|->| DISCONN | |<-|<--REL COMP--|----------->|---RELEASE-->|->| DISCONN | |||
| | | | |<--REL COMP--|<-|--------> | | | | |<--REL COMP--|<-|--------> | |||
| | |<--- ACK | | |<--- ACK | |||
| Fig. 2.5: Example of ST2+ SCMP and Q.2931 message flows. | Fig. 2.5: Example of ST2+ SCMP and UNI 3.1 signaling message flows. | |||
| UNI 3.1/4.0 specifies PVC, point-to-point SVC, and point-to- | UNI 3.1/4.0 specifies PVC, point-to-point SVC, and point-to- | |||
| multipoint SVC as VC styles. However, in actual ATM network | multipoint SVC as VC styles. However, in actual ATM network | |||
| environments, especially public ATM WANs, only PVC and bi-directional | environments, especially public ATM WANs, only PVC and bi-directional | |||
| point-to-point SVC may be supported. To support the diverse VC | point-to-point SVC may be supported. To support the diverse VC | |||
| styles, the ST2+ over ATM protocol supports the following VC styles | styles, the ST2+ over ATM protocol supports the following VC styles | |||
| for ST2+ Data PDU transfer. | for ST2+ Data PDU transfer. | |||
| o PVC | o PVC | |||
| skipping to change at page 10, line 22 ¶ | skipping to change at page 10, line 22 ¶ | |||
| | +-+-+ V | | +-+-+ V | |||
| | | X | ATM SW | | | X | ATM SW | |||
| | +-+-+ A | | +-+-+ A | |||
| SCMP | | | NNI Signaling | SCMP | | | NNI Signaling | |||
| | +-+-+ V | | +-+-+ V | |||
| | | X | ATM SW | | | X | ATM SW | |||
| | +-+-+ A | | +-+-+ A | |||
| | | | | | | | | |||
| | = | UNI Signaling | | = | UNI Signaling | |||
| V | V | V | V | |||
| +-----+------+ Non-ATM Link | +-----+------+ IEEE 802.X & 802.1p | |||
| |Intermediate|--------------------+ | | |<---------------------+ | |||
| | Agent |<-----------------+ | | |Intermediate|--------------------+ | | |||
| +------------+ SCMP | | | | |<-----------------+ | | | |||
| A | A | | | +------------+ L2 Signaling| | | | |||
| | = | UNI Signaling | | | A | A | | | | |||
| | | | | | | | = | UNI Signaling | | | SCMP | |||
| | +-+-+ V V_|__ | | | | | | | | |||
| | | X | ATM SW / \ | | +-+-+ V | | | | |||
| | +-+-+ A (Target ) | | | X | ATM SW V | | | |||
| SCMP | | | NNI Signaling \ / | | +-+-+ A +---+-|-+ | |||
| | +-+-+ V ~~~~~ | SCMP | | | NNI Signaling | \ /| | | |||
| | | X | ATM SW | | +-+-+ V | X | |LAN SW | |||
| | +-+-+ A | | | X | ATM SW | / \| | | |||
| | | | | | +-+-+ A +---+-|-+ | |||
| | = | UNI Signaling | | | | A | | | |||
| V __|__ V | | = | UNI Signaling | | | | |||
| / \ | V __|__ V V_|_V | |||
| (Target ) | / \ / \ | |||
| \ / | (Target ) (Target ) | |||
| ~~~~~ | \ / \ / | |||
| ~~~~~ ~~~~~ | ||||
| Fig. 2.6: Example of ST2+ SCMP interworking. | Fig. 2.6: Example of ST2+ SCMP interworking. | |||
| 3. Revision of RFC 1819 ST2+ | 3. Revision of RFC 1819 ST2+ | |||
| To specify the ST2+ over ATM protocol, the functions in RFC 1819 ST2+ | To specify the ST2+ over ATM protocol, the functions in RFC 1819 ST2+ | |||
| must be extended to support ATM. However, it is difficult for the | must be extended to support ATM. However, it is difficult for the | |||
| current ATM standard to support part of the specifications in RFC | current ATM standard to support part of the specifications in RFC | |||
| 1819 ST2+. This section specifies the extended, restricted, and | 1819 ST2+. This section specifies the extended, restricted, | |||
| unsupported functions in RFC 1819 ST2+. Errata for RFC 1819 appears | unsupported, and modified functions in RFC 1819 ST2+. Errata for RFC | |||
| in Appendix A. | 1819 appears in Appendix A. | |||
| 3.1 Extended Functions of RFC 1819 ST2+ | 3.1 Extended Functions of RFC 1819 ST2+ | |||
| 3.1.1 ST FlowSpec for Controlled-Load Service | 3.1.1 ST FlowSpec for Controlled-Load Service | |||
| The ST2+ over ATM protocol specifies the ST FlowSpec format for the | The ST2+ over ATM protocol specifies the ST FlowSpec format for the | |||
| Integrated Services. Basically, FlowSpec parameter negotiation, | Integrated Services. Basically, FlowSpec parameter negotiation, | |||
| except for the MTU, is not supported. The ST2+ intermediate agent | except for the MTU, is not supported. The ST2+ intermediate agent | |||
| and the target decide whether to accept or refuse the FlowSpec | and the target decide whether to accept or refuse the FlowSpec | |||
| parameters, except for the MTU. Therefore, each of the FlowSpec | parameters, except for the MTU. Therefore, each of the FlowSpec | |||
| skipping to change at page 12, line 23 ¶ | skipping to change at page 12, line 23 ¶ | |||
| The Ver (Message Format Version) field identifies the Integrated | The Ver (Message Format Version) field identifies the Integrated | |||
| Services FlowSpec message format version. The current version is | Services FlowSpec message format version. The current version is | |||
| zero. | zero. | |||
| The Overall Length field for the Controlled-Load Service is 7 | The Overall Length field for the Controlled-Load Service is 7 | |||
| words. | words. | |||
| The SVC Number (Service ID Number) field identifies the Integrated | The SVC Number (Service ID Number) field identifies the Integrated | |||
| Services. If the Integrated Services FlowSpec appears in the | Services. If the Integrated Services FlowSpec appears in the | |||
| CONNECT or the CHANGE message, the value of the SVC Number field is | CONNECT or CHANGE message, the value of the SVC Number field is 1. | |||
| 1. If it appears in the ACCEPT, the NOTIFY, or the STATUS-RESPONSE | If it appears in the ACCEPT, NOTIFY, or STATUS-RESPONSE message, | |||
| message, the value of the SVC Number field is 5. | the value of the SVC Number field is 5. | |||
| The SVC Length (Service-specific Data Length) field for the | The SVC Length (Service-specific Data Length) field for the | |||
| Controlled-Load Service is 6 words. | Controlled-Load Service is 6 words. | |||
| The Param Num (Parameter Number) field is 127. | The Param Num (Parameter Number) field is 127. | |||
| The Flags (Per-parameter Flags) field is zero. | The Flags (Per-parameter Flags) field is zero. | |||
| The Param Length (Length of Per-parameter Data) field is 5 words. | The Param Length (Length of Per-parameter Data) field is 5 words. | |||
| Definitions of the Token Bucket Rate [r], the Token Bucket Size | Definitions of the Token Bucket Rate [r], the Token Bucket Size | |||
| [b], the Peak Data Rate [p], the Minimum Policed Unit [m], and the | [b], the Peak Data Rate [p], the Minimum Policed Unit [m], and the | |||
| Maximum Packet Size [M] fields are given in [6]. See section 5 of | Maximum Packet Size [M] fields are given in [5]. See section 5 of | |||
| [6] for details. | [5] for details. | |||
| The ST2+ agent, that creates the FlowSpec element in the SCMP | The ST2+ agent, that creates the FlowSpec element in the SCMP | |||
| message, must assign valid values to all fields. The other agents | message, must assign valid values to all fields. The other agents | |||
| must not modify any values in the element. | must not modify any values in the element. | |||
| The MaxMsgSize field in the CONNECT message is assigned by the origin | The MaxMsgSize field in the CONNECT message is assigned by the origin | |||
| or the intermediate agent acting as origin, and updated by each agent | or the intermediate agent acting as origin, and updated by each agent | |||
| based on the MTU value of the datalink layer. | based on the MTU value of the datalink layer. | |||
| The negotiated value of MaxMsgSize is set back to the origin or the | The negotiated value of MaxMsgSize is set back to the origin or the | |||
| skipping to change at page 13, line 34 ¶ | skipping to change at page 13, line 34 ¶ | |||
| 3.1.2 ST FlowSpec for Guaranteed Service | 3.1.2 ST FlowSpec for Guaranteed Service | |||
| Note: The UNI 3.1 version of the ST2+ over ATM protocol does not | Note: The UNI 3.1 version of the ST2+ over ATM protocol does not | |||
| support Guaranteed Services. It will be supported by the UNI 3.1/4.0 | support Guaranteed Services. It will be supported by the UNI 3.1/4.0 | |||
| version. | version. | |||
| 3.1.3 VC-type common SCMP element | 3.1.3 VC-type common SCMP element | |||
| The ST2+ over ATM protocol specifies an additional common SCMP | The ST2+ over ATM protocol specifies an additional common SCMP | |||
| element that designates the VC type used to support the diverse VC | element that designates the VC type used to support the diverse VC | |||
| styles. The CONNECT and CHANGE messages that pass across UNIs must | styles. The CONNECT and CHANGE messages that establish a hop with a | |||
| contain a VC-type common SCMP element. This element is valid between | VC must contain a VC-type common SCMP element. This element is valid | |||
| neighboring ST2+ agents, but must not propagate beyond the previous- | between neighboring ST2+ agents, but must not propagate beyond the | |||
| hop or next-hop ST2+ agent. | previous-hop or next-hop ST2+ agent. | |||
| The format of the VC-type common SCMP element is shown in Fig. 3.2. | The format of the VC-type common SCMP element is shown in Fig. 3.2. | |||
| 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 | |||
| +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | |||
| | PCode = 8 | PBytes = 20 | VCType | | | PCode = 8 | PBytes = 20 | VCType | | |||
| +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | |||
| | PVCIdentifer | | | PVCIdentifer | | |||
| +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | |||
| skipping to change at page 15, line 23 ¶ | skipping to change at page 15, line 23 ¶ | |||
| 3.1.4 Reason Code | 3.1.4 Reason Code | |||
| The extension of the Reason Code (RFC 1819, Section 10.5.3) to the | The extension of the Reason Code (RFC 1819, Section 10.5.3) to the | |||
| ST2+ over ATM protocol is shown below. | ST2+ over ATM protocol is shown below. | |||
| 57 CantChange Partial changes not supported. | 57 CantChange Partial changes not supported. | |||
| 58 NoRecover Stream recovery not supported. | 58 NoRecover Stream recovery not supported. | |||
| 3.2 Restricted Functions of RFC 1819 ST2+ | 3.2 Restricted Functions of RFC 1819 ST2+ | |||
| 3.2.1 Pri field in ST2+ Data PDU | 3.2.1 FlowSpec changes | |||
| If AAL1 is used for encapsulating the ST2+ Data PDU, the value of the | ||||
| Pri field in the ST2+ Data PDU header is lost. | ||||
| 3.2.2 FlowSpec changes | ||||
| In the following cases, the ST2+ over ATM protocol supports stream | In the following case, the ST2+ over ATM protocol supports stream | |||
| FlowSpec changes by using the CHANGE message. | FlowSpec changes by using the CHANGE message. | |||
| o The I-bit is set to 1 and the G-bit is set to 1. | o The I-bit is set to 1 and the G-bit is set to 1. | |||
| o The I-bit is set to 1, the G-bit is set to zero, and the TargetList | In the following case, the CHANGE fails and a REFUSE message, with | |||
| matches all downstream targets. | ||||
| In the following cases, the CHANGE fails and a REFUSE message, with | ||||
| the E and N-bits set to 1 and the ReasonCode set to CantChange, is | the E and N-bits set to 1 and the ReasonCode set to CantChange, is | |||
| propagated upstream. | propagated upstream. | |||
| o The I-bit is set to zero. | o The I and/or G-bits are set to zero. | |||
| o The I-bit is set to 1, the G-bit is set to zero, and the TargetList | ||||
| does not match all downstream targets. | ||||
| 3.3 Unsupported Functions of RFC 1819 ST2+ | 3.3 Unsupported Functions of RFC 1819 ST2+ | |||
| 3.3.1 ST2+ FlowSpec | 3.3.1 ST2+ FlowSpec | |||
| The ST2+ over ATM protocol does not support the ST2+ FlowSpec (RFC | The ST2+ over ATM protocol does not support the ST2+ FlowSpec (RFC | |||
| 1819, Section 9.2). The ST2+ FlowSpec specifies useful services, but | 1819, Section 9.2). The ST2+ FlowSpec specifies useful services, but | |||
| requires the data link layer to support heterogeneous QoS to | requires the datalink layer to support heterogeneous QoS to | |||
| receivers. The current ATM standard does not support heterogeneous | receivers. The current ATM standard does not support heterogeneous | |||
| QoS to receivers. | QoS to receivers. | |||
| 3.3.2 Stream preemption | 3.3.2 Stream preemption | |||
| The ST2+ over ATM protocol does not support stream preemption (RFC | The ST2+ over ATM protocol does not support stream preemption (RFC | |||
| 1819, Section 6.3). This is because the Integrated Services FlowSpec | 1819, Section 6.3). This is because the Integrated Services FlowSpec | |||
| does not support the concept of precedence. | does not support the concept of precedence. | |||
| 3.3.3 HELLO message | 3.3.3 HELLO message | |||
| skipping to change at page 16, line 45 ¶ | skipping to change at page 16, line 29 ¶ | |||
| 5.3.2, 6.2, and 6.2.1) are unclear and incomplete. It is thus | 5.3.2, 6.2, and 6.2.1) are unclear and incomplete. It is thus | |||
| possible that if a link failure occurs and several ST2+ agents detect | possible that if a link failure occurs and several ST2+ agents detect | |||
| it simultaneously, the recovery process may encounter problems. | it simultaneously, the recovery process may encounter problems. | |||
| The ST2+ over ATM protocol does not support stream recovery. If | The ST2+ over ATM protocol does not support stream recovery. If | |||
| recovery is needed, the application should support it. A CONNECT | recovery is needed, the application should support it. A CONNECT | |||
| message in which the NoRecover option is not selected will fail; a | message in which the NoRecover option is not selected will fail; a | |||
| REFUSE message in which the N-bit is set to 1 and the ReaseonCode is | REFUSE message in which the N-bit is set to 1 and the ReaseonCode is | |||
| set to NoRecover is then propagated upstream. | set to NoRecover is then propagated upstream. | |||
| 3.3.5 IP encapsulation of ST | 3.3.5 Subnet Resources Sharing | |||
| The ST2+ over ATM protocol does not support subnet resources sharing | ||||
| (RFC 1819, Section 7.1.4). This is because ATM does not support the | ||||
| concept of the MAC layer. | ||||
| 3.3.6 IP encapsulation of ST | ||||
| The ST2+ over ATM protocol does not support IP encapsulation of ST | The ST2+ over ATM protocol does not support IP encapsulation of ST | |||
| (RFC 1819, Section 8.7), because there is no need to implement IP | (RFC 1819, Section 8.7), because there is no need to implement IP | |||
| encapsulation in this protocol. | encapsulation in this protocol. | |||
| 3.3.6 IP Multicasting | 3.3.7 IP Multicasting | |||
| The ST2+ over ATM protocol does not support IP multicasting (RFC | The ST2+ over ATM protocol does not support IP multicasting (RFC | |||
| 1819, Section 8.8), because this protocol does not support IP | 1819, Section 8.8), because this protocol does not support IP | |||
| encapsulation of ST. | encapsulation of ST. | |||
| 3.4 Modified Functions of RFC 1819 ST2+ | ||||
| The ST2+ receiver-oriented stream creation procedure has some fatal | ||||
| problems: the value of the LnkReferecnce field in the CONNECT message | ||||
| that is a response to a JOIN message is not valid, ST2+ agent cannot | ||||
| update the LnkReference field in the JOIN-REJECT message, and ST2+ | ||||
| agent cannot deliver the JOIN-REJECT message to the target because | ||||
| the JOIN-REJECT message does not contain a TargetList field. To | ||||
| solve these problems, the ST2+ over ATM protocol modifies the ST2+ | ||||
| protocol processing rules. | ||||
| 3.4.1 Modifications of Message Processing Rules | ||||
| Modifications of the CONNECT, JOIN, and JOIN-REJECT message | ||||
| processing rules in the ST2+ over ATM protocol are described in the | ||||
| following. | ||||
| o The target that creates a JOIN message assigns the same value as in | ||||
| the Reference field to the LnkReference field. | ||||
| o The agent that creates a CONNECT message as a response to a JOIN | ||||
| message assigns the same value as in the LnkReference field in the | ||||
| JOIN message to the LnkReference field. In other cases, the value | ||||
| of the LnkReference field in a CONNECT message is zero. | ||||
| o The agent that creates a JOIN-REJECT message assigns the same value | ||||
| as in the LnkReference field in the JOIN message to the | ||||
| LnkReference field. | ||||
| o An intermediate agent must not modify the value of the LnkReference | ||||
| field in the CONNECT, JOIN, or JOIN-REJECT message. Note that this | ||||
| rule differs from the LnkReference field processing rule in the | ||||
| ACCEPT and REFUSE messages. | ||||
| 3.4.2 Modified JOIN-REJECT Control Message | ||||
| The modified JOIN-REJECT control message in the ST2+ over ATM | ||||
| protocol is shown in Fig. 3.3 | ||||
| 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 | ||||
| +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | ||||
| | OpCode = 9 | 0 | TotalBytes | | ||||
| +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | ||||
| | Reference | LnkReference | | ||||
| +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | ||||
| | SenderIPAddress | | ||||
| +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | ||||
| | Checksum | ReasonCode | | ||||
| +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | ||||
| | GeneratorIPAddress | | ||||
| +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | ||||
| : TargetList : | ||||
| +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | ||||
| Fig. 3.3: JOIN-REJECT Control Message. | ||||
| The TargetList is assigned the same TargetList in the JOIN message as | ||||
| the one that corresponds to the JOIN-REJECT message. | ||||
| 4. Protocol Specification of the User Plane | 4. Protocol Specification of the User Plane | |||
| This section specifies the AAL5 [12] and AAL1 [11] PDU | This section specifies the AAL5 PDU encapusulation for the ST2+ Data | |||
| encapusulations for the ST2+ Data PDU. On the ST2+ over ATM user | PDU. | |||
| plane, AAL5 support is mandatory and AAL1 support is optional. | ||||
| 4.1 Service Primitives Provided by User Plane | 4.1 Service Primitives Provided by User Plane | |||
| 4.1.1 Overview of interactions | 4.1.1 Overview of interactions | |||
| The ST2+ data layer entity on the user plane of the ST2+ over ATM | The ST2+ data layer entity on the user plane of the ST2+ over ATM | |||
| protocol provides the following services to the upper layer. | protocol provides the following services to the upper layer. | |||
| o st2p_unitdata.req | o st2p_unitdata.req | |||
| skipping to change at page 20, line 39 ¶ | skipping to change at page 23, line 5 ¶ | |||
| ST2+ Data PDU. That is, the payload in AAL5 CPCS_PDU is mapped to | ST2+ Data PDU. That is, the payload in AAL5 CPCS_PDU is mapped to | |||
| the ST2+ Data PDU. | the ST2+ Data PDU. | |||
| If the value of STATUS in AAL5_UNITDATA.ind is valid, it is assigned | If the value of STATUS in AAL5_UNITDATA.ind is valid, it is assigned | |||
| to the status in st2p_unitdata.ind. | to the status in st2p_unitdata.ind. | |||
| 4.3.3 Value of MTU | 4.3.3 Value of MTU | |||
| The value of MTU is Maximum CPCS_SDU size. | The value of MTU is Maximum CPCS_SDU size. | |||
| 4.4 Service Primitives Provided by AAL1 | 5. Protocol Specification of the Management Plane | |||
| 4.4.1 Requirements for AAL1 | ||||
| The requirements for the AAL1 layer on the ST2+ over ATM user plane | ||||
| are as follows: | ||||
| o The CS must support the synchronous circuit transport function | ||||
| described in ITU-T Recommendation I.231. The others CS functions | ||||
| need not be supported. | ||||
| o Structured data transfer and forward error correction need not be | ||||
| supported. | ||||
| o The CBR rate is N * 64 Kbit/s, where N is between 1 and 65,535. | ||||
| Note: It is recommended to support 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 12, | ||||
| 15, 18, 20, 24, 30, 36, 40, 45, 60, 72, 90, 120, 180, and 360 as | ||||
| values of N. | ||||
| 4.4.2 Overview of interactions | ||||
| The AAL1 layer entity on the ST2+ over ATM user plane provides the | ||||
| following services to the ST2+ data layer. | ||||
| o AAL1_UNITDATA.req | ||||
| o AAL1_UNITDATA.ind | ||||
| 4.4.2.1 AAL1_UNITDATA.req | ||||
| The AAL1_UNITDATA.req primitive sends a request for an AAL1 data | ||||
| transfer from the ST2+ data layer entity to the AAL1 layer entity. | ||||
| The semantics of the primitive are as follows: | ||||
| AAL1_UNITDATA.req ( | ||||
| DATA, | ||||
| CLP | ||||
| ) | ||||
| The DATA parameter specifies the AAL1 data to be transferred. The | ||||
| CLP parameter specifies the value of the CLP field in the ATM cell. | ||||
| 4.4.2.2 AAL1_UNITDATA.ind | ||||
| The AAL1_UNITDATA.ind indicates an AAL1 Data delivery from the AAL1 | ||||
| layer entity to the ST2+ data layer entity. The semantics of the | ||||
| primitive are as follows: | ||||
| AAL1_UNITDATA.ind ( | ||||
| DATA, | ||||
| CLP, | ||||
| STATUS [optional] | ||||
| ) | ||||
| The DATA parameter indicates the delivered AAL1 data. The CLP | ||||
| parameter indicates the value of the CLP field in the ATM cell. The | ||||
| STATUS parameter is an optional parameter that indicates whether the | ||||
| delivered AAL1 data is corrupt or not. | ||||
| 4.5 AAL1 Encapsulation for ST2+ Data PDU | ||||
| 4.5.1 Mapping from st2_unitdata.req to AAL1_UNITDATA.req | ||||
| The data in st2_unitdata.req is regarded as a sequential-byte stream; | ||||
| every 47 bytes of the data are assigned to the DATA parameter in | ||||
| AAL1_UNITDATA.req. That is, as shown in Fig. 4.2, every 47 bytes of | ||||
| the ST2+ data in the ST2+ Data PDU are continuously mapped to the | ||||
| payload of AAL1 SAR_PDU. | ||||
| Therefore, one st2_unitdata.req corresponds to one or more than one | The management plane specifies the Null FlowSpec, the Controlled-Load | |||
| AAL1_UNITDATA.req, and one AAL1_UNITDATA.req may correspond to more | Service FlowSpec, and the Guaranteed Service FlowSpec mapping rules | |||
| than one st2p_unitdata.req. | for UNI 3.1 traffic management. | |||
| -------+ +-------+---------------------------+ | 5.1 Mapping of the Null FlowSpec | |||
| | | ST | ST2+ data | ST2+ | ||||
| |..| header| | ...... Data PDU | ||||
| -------+ +-------+---------------------------+ | ||||
| ///\\\\\\ /////////\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ | ||||
| // \\\\\\ ///////// \\\\\\\\\\\\\ \\\\\\\\ | ||||
| / \\\\\\ ///////// \\\\\\\\\\\\\ \\\\\\\\ | ||||
| \\\\\\ ///////// \\\\\\\\\\\\\ | ||||
| \\\\\\///////// \\\\\\\\\\\\\ | ||||
| +-------+-----------+ +-------+-----------+ | ||||
| |SAR_PDU| SAR_PDU | |SAR_PDU| SAR_PDU | AAL1 | ||||
| |header | payload |..|header | payload |...... SAR_PDU | ||||
| +-------+-----------+ +-------+-----------+ | ||||
| Fig. 4.2: Mapping of ST2+ data to AAL1 SAR_PDU payload. | The Null FlowSpec is mapped to the UBR (VBR with the Best Effort | |||
| Indicator). | ||||
| The value of the CLP in AAL1_UNITDATA.req depends on the | The value of the PCR (CLP=0+1) is shown in section 6.7.2. | |||
| implementation: 1 (low priority) or zero (high priority) may be | ||||
| assigned permanently, or they may be assigned depending on the value | ||||
| of pri in st2_unitdata.req. | ||||
| 4.5.2 Mapping from AAL1_UNITDATA.ind to st2p_unitdata.ind | 5.2 Mapping of the Controlled-Load Service FlowSpec | |||
| The DATA parameter in AAL1_UNITDATA.ind is regarded as a sequential- | The Controlled-Load FlowSpec is mapped to the VBR whose PCR | |||
| byte stream. A certain number of bytes, where the number is equal to | (CLP=0+1), SCR (CLP=0+1), and MBS (CLP=0+1) are specified. | |||
| or less than the negotiated downstream MTU value, are assigned to the | ||||
| data in st2p_unitdata.ind. That is, as shown in Fig. 4.2, some bytes | ||||
| of the payload in AAL1 SAR_PDU are mapped to the ST2+ data in the | ||||
| ST2+ Data PDU. | ||||
| Therefore, one st2_unitdata.ind corresponds to one or more than one | The value of the PCR (CLP=0+1) is shown in section 6.7.2. | |||
| AAL1_UNITDATA.ind, and one AAL1_UNITDATA.ind may correspond to more | ||||
| than one st2p_unitdata.ind. | ||||
| An implementation-dependent value is assigned to pri in | Let scr be the calculated value of the SCR (CLP=0+1). Based on the | |||
| st2p_unitdata.ind. | value of the [r] field in the Controlled-Load FlowSpec, it is given | |||
| by: | ||||
| scr = ([r] / 48) * S, | ||||
| If the value of STATUS in AAL1_UNITDATA.ind is valid, it is assigned | where S is the coefficient of segmentation, and in an implementation, | |||
| to the status in st2p_unitdata.ind. | it must be configurable to any value between 1.0 and 56.0. The | |||
| recommended default value is 1.2. The value of the SCR (CLP=0+1) is | ||||
| a minimum integer equal to or more than the calculated value of the | ||||
| scr. | ||||
| 4.5.3 Value of MTU | Let mbs be the calculated value of the MBS (CLP=0+1). Based on the | |||
| value of the [b] field in the Controlled-Load FlowSpec, it is given | ||||
| by: | ||||
| mbs = ([b] / 48) * S. | ||||
| Because AAL1 is not designed to directly support packet | The value of the MBS (CLP=0+1) is a minimum integer equal to or more | |||
| communications and thus has no MTU, the value of MTU is | than the calculated value of the mbs. | |||
| implementation-dependent and equal to or less than 65,535 bytes. The | ||||
| value of MTU may be determined by the rate of the VC, by the buffer | ||||
| length, or by the packet-processing rule. | ||||
| 5. Protocol Specification of the Management Plane | The values of the [p] and [m] fields in the Controlled-Load FlowSpec | |||
| are ignored. | ||||
| TBD | 5.3 Mapping of the Guaranteed Service FlowSpec | |||
| This section will be prepared based on the discussions of the ISSLL | Note: The UNI 3.1 version of the ST2+ over ATM protocol does not | |||
| working group. | support Guaranteed Services. It will be supported by the UNI 3.1/4.0 | |||
| version. | ||||
| 6. Protocol Specification of the Control Plane | 6. Protocol Specification of the Control Plane | |||
| This section specifies the relationship between ST2+ SCMP and PVC | This section specifies the relationship between ST2+ SCMP and PVC | |||
| management for ST2+ data, and the protocol interaction between ST2+ | management for ST2+ data, and the protocol interaction between ST2+ | |||
| SCMP and Q.2931 UNI signaling [5, 9]. | SCMP and UNI 3.1 signaling. | |||
| 6.1 AAL5 Encapsulation for ST2+ SCMP PDU | 6.1 AAL5 Encapsulation for ST2+ SCMP PDU | |||
| This subsection describes AAL5 PDU encapsulation for the ST2+ SCMP | This subsection describes AAL5 PDU encapsulation for the ST2+ SCMP | |||
| PDU. AAL5 encapsulation based on RFC 1483 and on the RFC 1483 | PDU. AAL5 encapsulation based on RFC 1483 and on the RFC 1483 | |||
| extension are specified. Selection of which one to use depends on | extension are specified. Selection of which one to use depends on | |||
| the implementation. | the implementation. | |||
| The ST2+ over ATM protocol does not cover a VC (SVC/PVC) that | The ST2+ over ATM protocol does not cover a VC (SVC/PVC) that | |||
| transfers ST2+ SCMP. VCs for IPv4 transfer may be used for ST2+ SCMP | transfers ST2+ SCMP. VCs for IPv4 transfer may be used for ST2+ SCMP | |||
| skipping to change at page 25, line 16 ¶ | skipping to change at page 25, line 16 ¶ | |||
| The RFC 1483 extension base encapsulation is the same as for RFC 1483 | The RFC 1483 extension base encapsulation is the same as for RFC 1483 | |||
| base encapsulation, except that the value of the OUI is 0x00-00-5E | base encapsulation, except that the value of the OUI is 0x00-00-5E | |||
| (IANA) and the value of the PID is 0xXX-XX (TBD). | (IANA) and the value of the PID is 0xXX-XX (TBD). | |||
| The RFC 1483 base encapsulation for the SCMP is ideal, but requires | The RFC 1483 base encapsulation for the SCMP is ideal, but requires | |||
| modifying the IPv4 processing in the driver software of the WS or PC. | modifying the IPv4 processing in the driver software of the WS or PC. | |||
| Therefore, the RFC 1483 base encapsulation may be difficult to | Therefore, the RFC 1483 base encapsulation may be difficult to | |||
| implement. This encapsulation is designed to solve this problem. | implement. This encapsulation is designed to solve this problem. | |||
| The following subsections will be added in the next draft. | ||||
| 6.2 Service Primitives Provided by Control Plane | 6.2 Service Primitives Provided by Control Plane | |||
| 6.3 Service Primitives Provided by ST2+ SCMP | RFC 1819 ST2+ does not specify SCMP state machines. And the ST2+ | |||
| over ATM protocol does not correspond to SCMP state machines. | ||||
| Therefore, the control plane specification assumes the following. | ||||
| 6.4 Service Primitives Provided by Q.2931 | o The ST2+ agent has ST2+ SCMP layer entities that correspond to the | |||
| next hops and the previous hop in the stream. | ||||
| 6.5 CONNECT Processing | o The SCMP layer entity terminates ACK, ERROR, and timeout processing | |||
| and provides reliable SCMP delivery. | ||||
| 6.6 CHANGE Processing | o The origin consists of an upper layer entity, ST2+ SCMP layer | |||
| entities for next hops, and a routing machine that delivers SCMP | ||||
| messages between these entities. | ||||
| 6.7 DISCONNECT Processing | o The intermediate agent consists of ST2+ SCMP layer entities for a | |||
| previous hop and for next hops and a routing machine that delivers | ||||
| SCMP messages between these entities. | ||||
| 6.8 REFUSE Processing | o The target consists of an upper layer entity, an ST2+ SCMP layer | |||
| entity for a previous hop, and a routing machine that delivers SCMP | ||||
| messages between these entities. | ||||
| 6.9 Q.2931 Information Element Coding | At least, the ST2+ SCMP layer entity for the next hop provides the | |||
| following services to the routing machine. | ||||
| 6.10 State Transit of ST2+ SCMP Entity | o connect.req | |||
| This primitive sends a request for a CONNECT message transfer to | ||||
| the ST2+ SCMP layer entity. | ||||
| o change.req | ||||
| This primitive sends a request for a CHANGE message transfer to the | ||||
| ST2+ SCMP layer entity. | ||||
| o accept.ind | ||||
| This primitive indicates an ACCEPT message delivery from the ST2+ | ||||
| SCMP layer entity. | ||||
| o disconnect.req | ||||
| This primitive sends a request for a DISCONNECT message transfer to | ||||
| the ST2+ SCMP layer entity. | ||||
| o refuse.ind | ||||
| This primitive indicates a REFUSE message delivery from the ST2+ | ||||
| SCMP layer entity, or indicates detection of an abnormal status | ||||
| such as an illegal message or timeout in the ST2+ SCMP layer | ||||
| entity. | ||||
| At least, the ST2+ SCMP layer entity for the previous hop provides | ||||
| the following services to the routing machine. | ||||
| o connect.ind | ||||
| This primitive indicates a CONNECT message delivery from the ST2+ | ||||
| SCMP layer entity. | ||||
| o change.ind | ||||
| This primitive indicates a CHANGE message delivery from the ST2+ | ||||
| SCMP layer entity. | ||||
| o accept.req | ||||
| This primitive sends a request for an ACCEPT message transfer to | ||||
| the ST2+ SCMP layer entity. | ||||
| o disconnect.ind | ||||
| This primitive indicates a DISCONNECT message delivery from the | ||||
| ST2+ SCMP layer entity, or indicates detection of an abnormal | ||||
| status such as an illegal message or timeout in the ST2+ SCMP layer | ||||
| entity. | ||||
| o refuse.req | ||||
| This primitive sends a request for a REFUSE message transfer to the | ||||
| ST2+ SCMP layer entity. | ||||
| 6.3 Service Primitives Provided by UNI 3.1 Signaling | ||||
| The UNI 3.1 signaling layer entity on the ST2+ over ATM control plane | ||||
| provides the following services to the ST2+ SCMP layer entity. The | ||||
| ST2+ over ATM protocol does not specify the UNI 3.1 signaling state | ||||
| machines. These are defined in [10, 12, 13]. | ||||
| o setup.req | ||||
| This primitive sends a request for a SETUP message transfer from | ||||
| the ST2+ SCMP layer entity to the UNI 3.1 signaling layer entity. | ||||
| The ST2+ SCMP layer entity that sent this primitive receives an | ||||
| acknowledgment. If the setup succeeds the acknowledgment is a | ||||
| setup.conf primitive and if the setup fails it is a release.ind or | ||||
| release.conf primitive. | ||||
| o setup.conf | ||||
| This primitive indicates a CONNECT message delivery from the UNI | ||||
| 3.1 signaling layer entity to the ST2+ SCMP layer entity. | ||||
| o setup.ind | ||||
| This primitive indicates a SETUP message delivery from the UNI 3.1 | ||||
| signaling layer entity to the ST2+ SCMP layer entity. The ST2+ | ||||
| SCMP layer entity that received this primitive sends an | ||||
| acknowledgment. If the setup is accepted the acknowledgment is a | ||||
| setup.resp primitive and if the setup is rejected it is a | ||||
| release.resp primitive if the state of the UNI 3.1 signaling layer | ||||
| entity is U6; otherwise it is a release.req primitive. | ||||
| o setup.resp | ||||
| This primitive sends a request for a CONNECT message transfer from | ||||
| the ST2+ SCMP layer entity to the UNI 3.1 signaling layer entity. | ||||
| The ST2+ SCMP layer entity that sent this primitive receives an | ||||
| acknowledgment. If the setup is completed the acknowledgment is a | ||||
| setup-complete.ind primitive and if the setup fails it is a | ||||
| release.ind or release.conf primitive. | ||||
| o setup-complete.ind | ||||
| This primitive indicates a CONNECT ACKNOWLEDGE message delivery | ||||
| from the UNI 3.1 signaling layer entity to the ST2+ SCMP layer | ||||
| entity. | ||||
| o release.req | ||||
| This primitive sends a request for a RELEASE message transfer from | ||||
| the ST2+ SCMP layer entity to the UNI 3.1 signaling layer entity. | ||||
| The ST2+ SCMP layer entity that sent this primitive receives an | ||||
| acknowledgment that is a release.conf primitive. | ||||
| o release.conf | ||||
| This primitive indicates a RELEASE COMPLETE message delivery, or | ||||
| indicates a RELEASE message delivery when the status of the UNI 3.1 | ||||
| signaling layer entity is U11, or indicates detection of an | ||||
| abnormal status such as an illegal message or timeout in the UNI | ||||
| 3.1 signaling layer entity, from the UNI 3.1 signaling layer entity | ||||
| to the ST2+ SCMP layer entity. | ||||
| o release.ind | ||||
| This primitive indicates a RELEASE message delivery from the UNI | ||||
| 3.1 signaling layer entity to the ST2+ SCMP layer entity when the | ||||
| status of the UNI 3.1 signaling layer entity is other than U11. | ||||
| The ST2+ SCMP layer entity that received this primitive sends an | ||||
| acknowledgment that is a release.resp primitive. And this | ||||
| primitive also indicates detection of an abnormal status such as an | ||||
| illegal message or timeout in the UNI 3.1 signaling layer entity | ||||
| and then a REFUSE message is transferred. In this case, the ST2+ | ||||
| SCMP layer entity that received this primitive receives a | ||||
| release.conf primitive in succession. | ||||
| o release.resp | ||||
| This primitive sends a request for a RELEASE COMPLETE message | ||||
| transfer from the ST2+ SCMP layer entity to the UNI 3.1 signaling | ||||
| layer entity. | ||||
| o add-party.req | ||||
| This primitive sends a request for an ADD PARTY message transfer | ||||
| from the ST2+ SCMP layer entity to the UNI 3.1 signaling layer | ||||
| entity. The ST2+ SCMP layer entity that sent this primitive | ||||
| receives an acknowledgment. If the setup is succeeds the | ||||
| acknowledgment is an add-party.conf primitive and if the setup | ||||
| fails it is a drop-party.conf primitive. | ||||
| o add-party.conf | ||||
| This primitive indicates an ADD PARTY ACKNOWLEDGE message delivery | ||||
| from the UNI 3.1 signaling layer entity to the ST2+ SCMP layer | ||||
| entity. | ||||
| o drop-party.req | ||||
| This primitive sends a request for a DROP PARTY message transfer | ||||
| from the ST2+ SCMP layer entity to the UNI 3.1 signaling layer | ||||
| entity. The ST2+ SCMP layer entity that sent this primitive | ||||
| receives an acknowledgment that is a drop-party.conf primitive. | ||||
| o drop-party.conf | ||||
| This primitive indicates an ADD PARTY REJECT message delivery, or | ||||
| indicates a DROP PARTY ACKNOWLEDGE message delivery, or indicates | ||||
| detection of an abnormal status such as an illegal message or | ||||
| timeout in the UNI 3.1 signaling layer entity, from the UNI 3.1 | ||||
| signaling layer entity to the ST2+ SCMP layer entity. | ||||
| o drop-party.ind | ||||
| This primitive indicates a DROP PARTY message delivery from the UNI | ||||
| 3.1 signaling layer entity to the ST2+ SCMP layer entity. The ST2+ | ||||
| SCMP layer entity that sent this primitive receives an | ||||
| acknowledgment that is a drop-party.resp primitive. | ||||
| o drop-party.resp | ||||
| This primitive sends a request for a DROP PARTY ACKNOWLEDGE message | ||||
| transfer from the ST2+ SCMP layer entity to the UNI 3.1 signaling | ||||
| layer entity. | ||||
| 6.4 VC Style Selection Criteria | ||||
| The ST2+ over ATM protocol supports PVC, the reverse channel of bi- | ||||
| directional SVC, point-to-point SVC, and point-to-multipoint SVC for | ||||
| ST2+ Data PDU transfer. And SVC supports both upstream and | ||||
| downstream call initiation styles. | ||||
| A 32-bit PVC identifier that is unique between neighboring ST2+ | ||||
| agents is assigned to each PVC. And the reverse channel of the bi- | ||||
| directional point-to-point SVC used by the existing stream is | ||||
| identified by the SID of the stream that occupies the forward | ||||
| channel. | ||||
| When the ST2+ agent sets up a stream or changes QoS, the ST2+ agent | ||||
| must select one VC style from these SVC and PVC styles as a hop that | ||||
| is part of the stream. In the ST2+ over ATM protocol, VC style | ||||
| selection criteria depend on the implementation. | ||||
| This subsection describes examples of VC style selection criteria for | ||||
| the ST2+ over ATM protocol as a reference for implementors. Note | ||||
| that the following descriptions in this subsection are not part of | ||||
| the ST2+ over ATM protocol specification. | ||||
| 6.4.1 Examples of PVC selection criteria | ||||
| At least, the ST2+ agent may have to manage the following information | ||||
| for each PVC that can be used by ST2+ Data PDU transfer. | ||||
| o PVC identifier | ||||
| o ATM interface identifier in the ST2+ agent | ||||
| o VPI/VCI | ||||
| o State of VC: e.g. enabled or disabled, occupied or vacant | ||||
| o QoS of VC | ||||
| o Nexthop IP address | ||||
| When a PVC is selected for a hop of a stream, at least confirmations, | ||||
| that is the state of the PVC is vacant and the next hop IP address | ||||
| and QoS are consistent with the requirements from the stream, may be | ||||
| needed. | ||||
| It is also feasible to introduce access lists to each PVC and to | ||||
| consider the access lists in the selection process. Examples of an | ||||
| access list are shown in the following. | ||||
| o Permit or deny use by a stream whose the previous hop is specified. | ||||
| o Permit or deny use by a stream whose the origin is specified. | ||||
| o Permit or deny use by a stream whose the SID is specified. | ||||
| o Permit or deny use by a stream whose the target is specified. | ||||
| o Permit or deny use by a stream whose the target and SAP are | ||||
| specified. | ||||
| o Any combination of the above. | ||||
| 6.4.2 Examples of reverse channel of bi-directional SVC selection | ||||
| criteria | ||||
| At least, the ST2+ agent may have to manage the following information | ||||
| for each reverse channel of bi-directional SVCs. | ||||
| o SID of the stream that occupies the forward channel | ||||
| o ATM interface identifier in the ST2+ agent | ||||
| o VPI/VCI | ||||
| o State of the reverse channel in the VC: e.g. enabled or disabled, | ||||
| occupied or vacant | ||||
| o QoS of VC | ||||
| o Nexthop IP address | ||||
| When a reverse channel of the bi-directional point-to-point SVC used | ||||
| by the existing stream is selected for a hop of a stream, at least | ||||
| confirmations, that is the state of the channel is vacant and the | ||||
| next hop IP address and QoS are consistent with the requirements from | ||||
| the stream, may be needed. | ||||
| It is also feasible to introduce selection rules to the ST2+ agent. | ||||
| Examples of selection rule are shown in the following. | ||||
| o Permit reuse of the reverse channel by a stream whose the origin is | ||||
| one of targets in the stream that occupies the forward channel. | ||||
| o Permit reuse of the reverse channel by a stream whose one of | ||||
| targets is the origin in the stream that occupies the forward | ||||
| channel. | ||||
| o Permit reuse of the reverse channel by a stream whose the previous | ||||
| hop is one of the next hops in the stream that occupies the forward | ||||
| channel. | ||||
| o Any combination of the avobe. | ||||
| 6.4.3 Examples of SVC selection criteria | ||||
| When an SVC is used for a hop of a stream, at first, the ST2+ agent | ||||
| must select point-to-point or point-to-multipoint SVC. Examples of | ||||
| this selection rule are shown in the following. | ||||
| o If the network supports only point-to-point SVC, select it. | ||||
| o If the network supports point-to-multipoint SVC, select it. | ||||
| If point-to-point SVC is selected, the ST2+ agent must select | ||||
| upstream or downstream call initiation style. Examples of this | ||||
| selection rule are shown in the following. | ||||
| o A VC for a stream whose previous hop is specified is initiated from | ||||
| upstream or downstream. | ||||
| o A VC for a stream whose next hop is specified is initiated from | ||||
| upstream or downstream. | ||||
| o A VC for a stream whose origin is specified is initiated from | ||||
| upstream or downstream. | ||||
| o A VC for a stream whose SID is specified is initiated from upstream | ||||
| or downstream. | ||||
| o A VC for a stream whose target is specified is initiated from | ||||
| upstream or downstream. | ||||
| o A VC for a stream whose target and SAP are specified is initiated | ||||
| from upstream or downstream. | ||||
| o Any combination of the above. | ||||
| 6.5 VC Management | ||||
| This subsection specifies VC management in the ST2+ over ATM | ||||
| protocol. | ||||
| 6.5.1 Outgoing call processing of SVC | ||||
| When outgoing call processing of the first leaf of a point-to- | ||||
| multipoint SVC or a point-to-point SVC is required inside the ST2+ | ||||
| SCMP layer entity, a setup.req primitive is sent to the UNI 3.1 | ||||
| signaling layer entity. If the UNI 3.1 signaling layer entity | ||||
| responds with a setup.conf primitive, the call processing is assumed | ||||
| to have succeeded. If the UNI 3.1 signaling layer entity responds | ||||
| with anything other than this primitive, the processing rule is the | ||||
| same as the SVC disconnect processing that is shown in section 6.5.4 | ||||
| and the outgoing call processing is assumed to have failed. | ||||
| When outgoing call processing of a later leaf of a point-to- | ||||
| multipoint SVC is required, an add-party.req primitive is sent to the | ||||
| UNI 3.1 signaling layer entity. If the UNI 3.1 signaling layer | ||||
| entity responds with an add-party.conf primitive, the call processing | ||||
| is assumed to have succeeded. If the UNI 3.1 signaling layer entity | ||||
| responds with anything other than this primitive, the processing rule | ||||
| is the same as the SVC disconnect processing that is shown in section | ||||
| 6.5.4 and the outgoing call processing is assumed to have failed. | ||||
| 6.5.2 Incoming call processing of SVC | ||||
| When an incoming call processing of SVC is required inside the ST2+ | ||||
| SCMP layer entity, it sets a watchdog timer. The time interval of | ||||
| the timer depends on the implementation. | ||||
| The ST2+ SCMP layer entity waits for a setup.ind primitive indication | ||||
| from the UNI 3.1 signaling layer entity. When this primitive is | ||||
| indicated and the parameters in it are acceptable, the ST2+ SCMP | ||||
| layer entity responds with a setup.resp primitive. If the parameters | ||||
| are not acceptable, the ST2+ SCMP layer entity stops the timer, and | ||||
| if the state of the UNI 3.1 signaling layer entity is U6, the entity | ||||
| responds with a release.resp primitive, and if the state is other | ||||
| than this, the entity responds with a release.req primitive, and then | ||||
| waits for a release.conf primitive response and the incoming call | ||||
| processing is assumed to have failed. | ||||
| If the ST2+ SCMP layer entity responds with a setup.resp primitive, | ||||
| then the entity waits for the next primitive indication, and when the | ||||
| next primitive is indicated, the ST2+ SCMP layer entity stops the | ||||
| timer. If a setup-complete.ind primitive is indicated, the incoming | ||||
| call processing is assumed to have succeeded. If the UNI 3.1 | ||||
| signaling layer entity responds with anything other than this | ||||
| primitive or if the timer expires, the processing rule is the same as | ||||
| the SVC disconnect processing that is shown in section 6.5.4 and the | ||||
| incoming call processing is assumed to have failed. | ||||
| 6.5.3 VC release processing inside ST2+ SCMP layer | ||||
| When a VC release is required inside an ST2+ SCMP layer entity, if | ||||
| the previous hop or next hop is connected with a PVC, the PVC state | ||||
| is set to vacant and the VC release processing is assumed to be | ||||
| completed. | ||||
| If the previous hop or next hop is connected with a point-to-point | ||||
| SVC whose reverse channel is occupied, the state of the channel in | ||||
| the VC is set to vacant, the SID information of the VC is updated, | ||||
| and the VC release processing is assumed to be completed. | ||||
| If the previous hop or next hop is connected with a point-to-point | ||||
| SVC whose reverse channel is vacant, if the previous hop is connected | ||||
| with a point-to-multipoint SVC, or if the next hop is connected with | ||||
| a point-to-multipoint SVC and the number of leaves is 1, then the | ||||
| ST2+ SCMP layer entity sends a release.req primitive to the UNI 3.1 | ||||
| signaling layer entity, then waits for a release.conf primitive | ||||
| indication; when one is indicated, the VC release processing is | ||||
| assumed to be completed. | ||||
| If the next hop is connected with a point-to-multipoint SVC and the | ||||
| number of leaves is other than 1, the ST2+ SCMP layer entity sends a | ||||
| drop-party.req primitive to the UNI 3.1 signaling layer entity, then | ||||
| waits for a drop-party.conf primitive indication; when one is | ||||
| indicated, the VC release processing is assumed to be completed. | ||||
| 6.5.4 VC disconnect processing from UNI 3.1 signaling layer | ||||
| If an ST2+ SCMP layer entity corresponds to a UNI 3.1 signaling layer | ||||
| entity, and if the ST2+ SCMP layer entity is sent a release.ind | ||||
| primitive from the UNI 3.1 signaling layer entity, whose cause is a | ||||
| delivery of a RELEASE message, the ST2+ SCMP layer entity responds | ||||
| with a release.resp primitive, and then the VC disconnect processing | ||||
| is assumed to be completed. If the ST2+ SCMP layer entity is sent a | ||||
| release.ind primitive, whose cause is other than the previous case, | ||||
| the ST2+ SCMP layer entity waits for a release.conf primitive | ||||
| response. When a release.conf primitive is indicated, the VC | ||||
| disconnect processing is assumed to be completed. | ||||
| Note that if next hops from ST2+ SCMP layer entities are connected | ||||
| with a point-to-multipoint SVC, the ST2+ SCMP layer entities to next | ||||
| hops correspond to a UNI 3.1 signaling layer entity. In this case, | ||||
| if the ST2+ SCMP layer entities are sent release.ind primitives from | ||||
| the UNI 3.1 signaling layer entity, whose cause is the delivery of a | ||||
| RELEASE message, one of the ST2+ SCMP layer entities responds with a | ||||
| release.resp primitive, and then the VC disconnect processing in the | ||||
| entities that are sent release.ind primitives are assumed to be | ||||
| completed. If the ST2+ SCMP layer entities are sent release.ind | ||||
| primitives, whose cause is other than the previous case, the ST2+ | ||||
| SCMP layer entities wait for release.conf primitives responses. When | ||||
| release.conf primitives are indicated, the VC disconnect processing | ||||
| in the entities that are indicated release.ind primitives are assumed | ||||
| to be completed. | ||||
| If the ST2+ SCMP layer entity is sent a drop-party.ind primitive from | ||||
| the UNI 3.1 signaling layer entity, the ST2+ SCMP layer entity | ||||
| responds with a drop-party.resp primitive, and then the VC disconnect | ||||
| processing is assumed to be completed. If the ST2+ SCMP layer entity | ||||
| is sent a drop-party.conf primitive, the VC disconnect processing is | ||||
| assumed to be completed. | ||||
| 6.6 Additional SCMP Processing Rules | ||||
| This subsection specifies the additional SCMP processing rules that | ||||
| are defined in RFC 1819 ST2+ protocol specification. The following | ||||
| additional rules are applied when the previous hop or next hop is | ||||
| connected with an ATM connection in the ST2+ SCMP layer entity. | ||||
| 6.6.1 Additional connect.req processing rules | ||||
| When a connect.req primitive is sent to the ST2+ SCMP layer entity | ||||
| for the next hop, the entity confirms whether or not the VC for the | ||||
| next hop exists. | ||||
| If it does, the entity forwards a CONNECT message that does not | ||||
| include a VC-type common SCMP element to the next hop. | ||||
| If it does not, the entity selects a VC style. If the result is a | ||||
| PVC or a reverse channel of a bi-directional point-to-point SVC used | ||||
| by an existing stream, the VC state is set to occupied. The entity | ||||
| forwards a CONNECT message with a VC-type common SCMP element that | ||||
| reflects the result of the selection to the next hop. | ||||
| 6.6.2 Additional connect.ind processing rules | ||||
| The ST2+ SCMP layer entity for the previous hop confirms whether or | ||||
| not the CONNECT message includes a VC-type common SCMP element. | ||||
| If a VC-type common SCMP element is not included and the VC for the | ||||
| next hop exists, a connect.ind primitive is sent to the routing | ||||
| machine. If the VC for the next hop does not exist, a REFUSE message | ||||
| is forwarded to the previous hop. | ||||
| If a VC-type common SCMP element is included and a point-to-point | ||||
| SVC, whose calling party is the upstream or downstream, or a point- | ||||
| to-multipoint SVC is specified, a connect.ind primitive is sent to | ||||
| the routing machine. If a PVC or a reverse channel of a bi- | ||||
| directional point-to-point SVC used by an existing stream is | ||||
| specified and the specified VC exists, the VC state is set to | ||||
| occupied and a connect.ind primitive is sent to the routing machine. | ||||
| Otherwise, a REFUSE message is forwarded to the previous hop. | ||||
| 6.6.3 Additional change.req processing rules | ||||
| When a change.req primitive is sent to the ST2+ SCMP layer entity for | ||||
| the next hop, the entity releases the VC whose process is shown in | ||||
| section 6.5.3. | ||||
| Then, the entity selects a VC style. If the result is a PVC or a | ||||
| reverse channel of a bi-directional point-to-point SVC used by an | ||||
| existing stream, the VC state is set to occupied. The entity | ||||
| forwards a CHANGE message with a VC-type common SCMP element that | ||||
| reflects the result of the selection to the next hop. | ||||
| 6.6.4 Additional change.ind processing rules | ||||
| The ST2+ SCMP layer entity for the previous hop confirms whether the | ||||
| CHANGE message includes a VC-type common SCMP element. If a VC-type | ||||
| common SCMP element is not included, a REFUSE message is forwarded to | ||||
| the previous hop. | ||||
| If a VC-type common SCMP element is included, the entity releases the | ||||
| VC whose process is shown in section 6.5.3. If the element specifies | ||||
| a point-to-point SVC, whose calling party is the upstream or | ||||
| downstream, or a point-to-multipoint SVC, a change.ind primitive is | ||||
| sent to the routing machine. If a PVC or a reverse channel of a bi- | ||||
| directional point-to-point SVC used by an existing stream is | ||||
| specified and the specified VC exists, the VC state is set to | ||||
| occupied and a change.ind primitive is sent to the routing machine. | ||||
| Otherwise, a REFUSE message is forwarded to the previous hop. | ||||
| 6.6.5 Additional accept.req processing rules | ||||
| When an accept.req primitive is sent to the ST2+ SCMP layer entity | ||||
| for the previous hop, the entity confirms the state of the UNI 3.1 | ||||
| signaling layer entity. If the state of the entity is other than U0 | ||||
| or U10, the accept.req primitive is queued and is processed after the | ||||
| state changes to U0 or U10. | ||||
| If the state of the entity is U0 or U10, the ST2+ SCMP layer entity | ||||
| confirms whether or not the VC for the previous hop exists. If it | ||||
| does, an ACCEPT message is forwarded to the previous hop. | ||||
| If it does not and the CONNECT or CHANGE message that corresponds to | ||||
| the accept.req primitive specified a point-to-point SVC whose calling | ||||
| party is the upstream or a point-to-multipoint SVC, then the entity | ||||
| processes an incoming call that is shown in section 6.5.2. If the | ||||
| incoming call processing succeeds, an ACCEPT message is forwarded to | ||||
| the previous hop. If the CONNECT or CHANGE message that corresponds | ||||
| to the accept.req primitive specified a point-to-point SVC whose | ||||
| calling party is downstream, the entity converts from the IP address | ||||
| of the previous hop to the ATM address, and then the entity processes | ||||
| an outgoing call that is shown in section 6.5.1. If the outgoing | ||||
| call processing succeeds, an ACCEPT message is forwarded to the | ||||
| previous hop. For cases other than those described above or if the | ||||
| incoming or outgoing call processing fails, a REFUSE message is | ||||
| forwarded to the previous hop and a disconnect.ind primitive is sent | ||||
| to the routing machine. | ||||
| 6.6.6 Additional accept.ind processing rules | ||||
| When an ACCEPT message is processed in the ST2+ SCMP layer entity for | ||||
| the next hop, the entity confirms the state of the UNI 3.1 signaling | ||||
| layer entity. If the state of the entity is other than U0 or U10, | ||||
| the ACCEPT message is queued and is processed after the state changes | ||||
| to U0 or U10. | ||||
| If the state of the entity is U0 or U10, the ST2+ SCMP layer entity | ||||
| confirms whether or not the VC for the next hop exists. If it does, | ||||
| an accept.ind primitive is sent to the routing machine. | ||||
| If it does not and the CONNECT or CHANGE message that corresponds to | ||||
| the ACCEPT message specified a point-to-point SVC whose calling party | ||||
| is the upstream or a point-to-multipoint SVC, then the entity | ||||
| converts from the IP address of the next hop to the ATM address, and | ||||
| then the entity processes an outgoing call that is shown in section | ||||
| 6.5.1. If the outgoing call processing succeeds, an accept.ind | ||||
| primitive is sent to the routing machine. If the CONNECT or CHANGE | ||||
| message that corresponds to the ACCEPT message specified a point-to- | ||||
| point SVC whose calling party is downstream, the entity processes an | ||||
| incoming call that is shown in section 6.5.2. If the incoming call | ||||
| processing succeeds, an accept.ind primitive is sent to the routing | ||||
| machine. For cases other than those described above or if the | ||||
| incoming or outgoing call processing fails, a refuse.ind primitive is | ||||
| sent to the routing machine and a DISCONNECT message is forwarded to | ||||
| the next hop. | ||||
| 6.6.7 Additional disconnect.req processing rules | ||||
| At first, the ST2+ SCMP layer entity for the next hop forwards a | ||||
| DISCONNECT message to the next hop. | ||||
| And then, after the disconnect.req processing, if there are no more | ||||
| targets that are connected downstream of the entity and the entity is | ||||
| not waiting for an ACCEPT or REFUSE message response from targets, | ||||
| the entity releases the VC whose process is shown in section 6.5.3. | ||||
| 6.6.8 Additional disconnect.ind processing rules | ||||
| AT first, after the disconnect.ind processing, if there are no more | ||||
| targets that are connected downstream of the ST2+ SCMP layer entity | ||||
| for the previous hop and the entity is not waiting for an ACCEPT or | ||||
| REFUSE message response from targets, the entity releases the VC | ||||
| whose process is shown in section 6.5.3. | ||||
| And then, the entity sends a disconnect.ind primitive to the routing | ||||
| machine. | ||||
| 6.6.9 Additional refuse.req processing rules | ||||
| At first, the ST2+ SCMP layer entity for the previous hop forwards a | ||||
| REFUSE message to the previous hop. | ||||
| And then, after the refuse.req processing, if there are no more | ||||
| targets that are connected downstream of the entity and the entity is | ||||
| not waiting for an ACCEPT or REFUSE message response from targets, | ||||
| the entity releases the VC whose process is shown in section 6.5.3. | ||||
| 6.6.10 Additional refuse.ind processing rules | ||||
| At first, after the refuse.ind processing, if there are no more | ||||
| targets that are connected downstream of the ST2+ SCMP layer entity | ||||
| for the next hop and the entity is not waiting for an ACCEPT or | ||||
| REFUSE message response from targets, the entity releases the VC | ||||
| whose process is shown in section 6.5.3. | ||||
| And then, the entity sends a refuse.ind primitive to the routing | ||||
| machine. | ||||
| 6.6.11 SVC disconnect processing | ||||
| When the ST2+ SCMP layer entity for the previous hop is sent a SVC | ||||
| disconnect processing from the UNI 3.1 signaling layer entity and | ||||
| then the SVC disconnect processing is completed, the entity forwards | ||||
| a REFUSE message to the previous hop and sends a disconnect.ind | ||||
| primitive to the routing machine. | ||||
| When the ST2+ SCMP layer entity for the next hop is sent a SVC | ||||
| disconnect processing from the UNI 3.1 signaling layer entity and | ||||
| then the SVC disconnect processing is completed, the entity sends a | ||||
| refuse.ind primitive to the routing machine and forwards a DISCONNECT | ||||
| message to the previous hop. | ||||
| 6.7 UNI 3.1 Signaling Information Element Coding Rules | ||||
| The ST2+ over ATM protocol does not specify the coding rules needed | ||||
| for the following information elements in UNI 3.1 signaling. The | ||||
| usages of these information elements are specified in [10]. | ||||
| o Protocol discriminator | ||||
| o Call reference | ||||
| o Message type | ||||
| o Message length | ||||
| o Call state | ||||
| o Called party number | ||||
| o Called party subaddress | ||||
| o Calling party number | ||||
| o Calling party subaddress | ||||
| o Cause | ||||
| o Connection identifier | ||||
| o Broadband repeat indicator | ||||
| o Restart indicator | ||||
| o Broadband sending complete | ||||
| o Transit network selection | ||||
| o Endpoint reference | ||||
| o Endpoint state | ||||
| 6.7.1 ATM adaptation layer parameters coding | ||||
| The SETUP and ADD PARTY messages in the ST2+ over ATM protocol must | ||||
| include an ATM adaptation layer parameters information element. The | ||||
| CONNECT message may or may not include this element. The coding | ||||
| rules for the fields are as follows. | ||||
| o The AAL Type is set to AAL5. | ||||
| o The value of the Forward maximum CPCS size field is set to the same | ||||
| as that of the MaxMsgSize field in the CONNECT SCMP message | ||||
| corresponding to the SETUP or ADD PARTY message. | ||||
| o If the VC is established as a point-to-point call, the value of the | ||||
| Backward maximum CPCS size field is set the same as that of the | ||||
| Forward maximum CPCS size field. If the VC is established as a | ||||
| point-to-multipoint call, the value of the Backward maximum CPCS | ||||
| size field is set to zero. | ||||
| o The SSCS type is set to null. | ||||
| 6.7.2 ATM traffic descriptor coding | ||||
| If the Null FlowSpec is specified in the ST2+ over ATM protocol, the | ||||
| coding rules for the fields in the ATM traffic descriptor information | ||||
| element in the SETUP message are as follows. | ||||
| o The value of the Forward PCR (CLP=0+1) field depends on the | ||||
| specification of the ATM network. The Forward PCR (CLP=0+1) field | ||||
| in each ATM interface in an implementation must be configurable to | ||||
| any value between zero and 16,777,215. | ||||
| o If the VC is established as a point-to-point call, the value of the | ||||
| Backward PCR (CLP=0+1) field is set the same as that of the Forward | ||||
| PCR (CLP=0+1) field. If the VC is established as a point-to- | ||||
| multipoint call, the value of the Backward PCR (CLP=0+1) field is | ||||
| set to zero. | ||||
| o The Best effort indication must be present. | ||||
| If the Controlled-Load Service FlowSpec is specified, the coding | ||||
| rules for the fields are as follows. | ||||
| o The value of the Forward PCR (CLP=0+1) field depends on the | ||||
| specification of the ATM network. The Forward PCR (CLP=0+1) field | ||||
| in each ATM interface in an implementation must be configurable to | ||||
| any value between zero and 16,777,215. | ||||
| o If the VC is established as a point-to-point call, the value of the | ||||
| Backward PCR (CLP=0+1) field is set the same as that of the Forward | ||||
| PCR (CLP=0+1) field. If the VC is established as a point-to- | ||||
| multipoint call, the value of the Backward PCR (CLP=0+1) field is | ||||
| set to zero. | ||||
| o The method for calculating the Forward SCR (CLP=0+1) field is shown | ||||
| in section 5. | ||||
| o If the VC is established as a point-to-point call, the value of the | ||||
| Backward SCR (CLP=0+1) field is set the same as that of the Forward | ||||
| SCR (CLP=0+1) field. If the VC is established as a point-to- | ||||
| multipoint call, this field must not be present. | ||||
| o The method for calculating the Forward MBS (CLP=0+1) field is shown | ||||
| in section 5. | ||||
| o If the VC is established as a point-to-point call, the value of the | ||||
| Backward MBS (CLP=0+1) field is set the same as that of the Forward | ||||
| MBS (CLP=0+1) field. If the VC is established as a point-to- | ||||
| multipoint call, this field must not be present. | ||||
| o The Best effort indication, Tagging backward, and Tagging forward | ||||
| fields must not be present. | ||||
| 6.7.3 Broadband bearer capability coding | ||||
| If the Null FlowSpec is specified in the ST2+ over ATM protocol, the | ||||
| coding rules for the fields in the Broadband bearer capability | ||||
| information element in the SETUP message are as follows. | ||||
| o The Bearer class depends on the specification of the ATM network. | ||||
| The Bearer class in each ATM interface in an implementation must be | ||||
| configurable as either BCOB-X or BCOB-C. BCOB-X is recommended as | ||||
| the default configuration. | ||||
| o The Traffic type and Timing requirements fields must not be | ||||
| present. | ||||
| o The Susceptibility to clipping field is set to not susceptible to | ||||
| clipping. | ||||
| o If the VC is established as a point-to-point call, the User plane | ||||
| connection configuration field is set to point-to-point, and if the | ||||
| VC is established as a point-to-multipoint call, it is set to | ||||
| point-to-multipoint. | ||||
| If the Controlled-Load Service FlowSpec is specified, the coding | ||||
| rules for the fields are as follows. | ||||
| o The Bearer class depends on the specification of the ATM network. | ||||
| The Bearer class in each ATM interface in an implementation must be | ||||
| configurable as either BCOB-X or BCOB-C. BCOB-X is recommended as | ||||
| the default configuration. | ||||
| o If the Bearer class is BCOB-X, the Traffic type and Timing | ||||
| requirements fields depend on the specification of the ATM network. | ||||
| The Traffic type and Timing requirements fields in each ATM | ||||
| interface in an implementation must be configurable as either no | ||||
| indication or VBR and Not required, respectively. No indication is | ||||
| recommended as the default configuration. If the Bearer class is | ||||
| BCOB-C, the Traffic type and Timing requirements fields must not be | ||||
| present. | ||||
| o The Susceptibility to clipping field depends on the specification | ||||
| of the ATM network. The Susceptibility to clipping field in each | ||||
| ATM interface in an implementation must be configurable as either | ||||
| not susceptible to clipping or susceptible to clipping. Not | ||||
| susceptible to clipping is recommended as the default | ||||
| configuration. | ||||
| o If the VC is established as a point-to-point call, the User plane | ||||
| connection configuration field is set to point-to-point, and if the | ||||
| VC is established as a point-to-multipoint call, it is set to | ||||
| point-to-multipoint. | ||||
| 6.7.4 Broadband high layer information coding | ||||
| The SETUP and ADD PARTY messages in the ST2+ over ATM protocol must | ||||
| include a Broadband high layer information information element. The | ||||
| coding rules for the fields are as follows. | ||||
| o The High layer information type is set to User specific. | ||||
| o The first 6 bytes in the High layer information field are set to | ||||
| the SID of the stream corresponding to the VC. | ||||
| 6.7.5 Broadband low layer information coding | ||||
| The SETUP and ADD PARTY messages in the ST2+ over ATM protocol must | ||||
| include a Broadband low layer information information element. The | ||||
| CONNECT message may or may not include this element. The coding | ||||
| rules for the fields are as follows. | ||||
| o The User information layer 3 protocol field is set to ISO/IEC TR | ||||
| 9577. | ||||
| o The IPI field is set to IEEE 802.1 SNAP (0x80). | ||||
| o The OUI field is set to IANA (0x00-00-5E). | ||||
| o The PID field is set to ST2+ (TBD). | ||||
| 6.7.6 QoS parameter coding | ||||
| If the Null FlowSpec is specified in the ST2+ over ATM protocol, the | ||||
| coding rules for the fields in the QoS parameter in the SETUP message | ||||
| are as follows. | ||||
| o The QoS class forward and QoS class backward fields are set to QoS | ||||
| class 0. | ||||
| If the Controlled-Load Service FlowSpec is specified, the coding | ||||
| rules for the fields are as follows. | ||||
| o The QoS class forward and QoS class backward fields depend on the | ||||
| specification of the ATM network. The QoS class forward and QoS | ||||
| class backward fields in each ATM interface in an implementation | ||||
| must be configurable as either QoS class 0 or QoS class 3. QoS | ||||
| class 0 is recommended as the default configuration. | ||||
| 7. Security Considerations | 7. Security Considerations | |||
| Security considerations are not discussed in this document. | The ST2+ over ATM protocol modifies RFC 1819 ST2+ protocol, but | |||
| basically these modifications are minimum extensions for ATM support | ||||
| and bug fixes, so they do not weaken the security of the ST2+ | ||||
| protocol. | ||||
| The ST2+ over ATM protocol specifies protocol interaction between | ||||
| ST2+ and UNI 3.1, and this does not weaken the security of the UNI | ||||
| 3.1 protocol. | ||||
| In an ST2+ agent that processes an incoming call of SVC, if the | ||||
| incoming SETUP message contains the calling party number and if it is | ||||
| verified and passed by the ATM network or it is provided by the | ||||
| network, then it is feasible to use the calling party number for part | ||||
| of the calling party authentication to strengthen security. | ||||
| References | References | |||
| [1] M. Borden, E. Crawley, B. Davie, and S. Batsell, "Integration | [1] M. Borden, E. Crawley, B. Davie, and S. Batsell, "Integration | |||
| of Real-time Services in an IP-ATM Network Architecture," RFC | of Real-time Services in an IP-ATM Network Architecture," RFC | |||
| 1821, August 1995. | 1821, August 1995. | |||
| [2] S. Jackowski, "Native ATM Support for ST2+," RFC 1946, May | [2] S. Jackowski, "Native ATM Support for ST2+," RFC 1946, May | |||
| 1996. | 1996. | |||
| [3] S. Damaskos and A. Gavras, "Connection Oriented Protocols over | [3] S. Damaskos and A. Gavras, "Connection Oriented Protocols over | |||
| ATM: A case study," Proc. SPIE, Vol. 2188, pp.226-278, February | ATM: A case study," Proc. SPIE, Vol. 2188, pp.226-278, February | |||
| 1994. | 1994. | |||
| [4] L. Delgrossi and L. Berger, Ed., "Internet Stream Protocol | [4] L. Delgrossi and L. Berger, Ed., "Internet Stream Protocol | |||
| Version 2 (ST2) Protocol Specification - Version ST2+," RFC 1819, | Version 2 (ST2) Protocol Specification - Version ST2+," RFC 1819, | |||
| August 1995. | August 1995. | |||
| [5] The ATM Forum, "ATM User-Network Interface Specification | [5] J. Wroclawski, "Specification of the Controlled-Load Network | |||
| Version 3.1," September 1994. | Element Service," RFC 2211, September 1997. | |||
| [6] J. Wroclawski, "Specification of the Controlled-Load Network | [6] S. Shenker, C. Partridge, and R. Guerin, "Specification of | |||
| Element Service," Internet Draft, November 1996, <draft-ietf- | Guaranteed Quality of Service," RFC 2212, September 1997. | |||
| intserv-ctrl-load-svc-04.txt>. | ||||
| [7] S. Shenker, C. Partridge, and R. Guerin, "Specification of | [7] J. Wroclawski, "The Use of RSVP with IETF Integrated | |||
| Guaranteed Quality of Service," Internet Draft, February 1997, | Services," RFC 2210, September 1997. | |||
| <draft-ietf-intserv-guaranteed-svc-07.txt>. | ||||
| [8] J. Wroclawski, "The Use of RSVP with IETF Integrated | [8] M. Garrett and M. Borden, "Interoperation of Controlled-Load | |||
| Services," Internet Draft, October 1996, <draft-ietf-intserv- | Service and Guaranteed Service with ATM," Internet Draft, July | |||
| rsvp-use-01.txt>. | 1997, <draft-ietf-issll-atm-mapping-03.txt>. | |||
| [9] ITU-T, "Broadband Integrated Services Digital Network (B- | [9] A. Ghanwani, J. W. Pace, and V. Srinivasan, "A Framework for | |||
| Providing Integrated Services Over Shared and Switched LAN | ||||
| Technologies," Internet Draft, May 1997, <draft-ietf-issll-is802- | ||||
| framework-02.txt>. | ||||
| [10] The ATM Forum, "ATM User-Network Interface Specification | ||||
| Version 3.1," September 1994. | ||||
| [11] The ATM Forum, "ATM User-Network Interface (UNI) Signaling | ||||
| Specification Version 4.0," af-sig-0061.000, July 1996. | ||||
| [12] ITU-T, "Broadband Integrated Services Digital Network (B- | ||||
| ISDN)-Digital Subscriber Signaling System No. 2 (DSS 2)-User- | ISDN)-Digital Subscriber Signaling System No. 2 (DSS 2)-User- | |||
| Network Interface (UNI) Layer 3 Specification for Basic | Network Interface (UNI) Layer 3 Specification for Basic | |||
| Call/Connection Control," ITU-T Recommendation Q.2931, September | Call/Connection Control," ITU-T Recommendation Q.2931, September | |||
| 1995. | 1995. | |||
| [10] ITU-T, "B-ISDN Protocol Reference Model and its Application," | [13] ITU-T, "Broadband Integrated Services Digital Network (B- | |||
| CCITT Recommendation I.321, April 1991. | ISDN)-Digital Subscriber Signaling System No. 2 (DSS 2)-User- | |||
| Network Interface Layer 3 Specification for Point-to-Multipoint | ||||
| [11] ITU-T, "B-ISDN ATM Adaptation Layer (AAL) specification, | Call/Connection Control," ITU-T Recommendation Q.2971, October | |||
| types 1 and 2," Draft new ITU-T Recommendation I.363.1, September | ||||
| 1995. | 1995. | |||
| [12] ITU-T, "B-ISDN ATM Adaptation Layer (AAL) type 5 | [14] ITU-T, "B-ISDN Protocol Reference Model and its Application," | |||
| CCITT Recommendation I.321, April 1991. | ||||
| [15] ITU-T, "B-ISDN ATM Adaptation Layer (AAL) type 5 | ||||
| specification," Draft new ITU-T Recommendation I.363.5, September | specification," Draft new ITU-T Recommendation I.363.5, September | |||
| 1995. | 1995. | |||
| [13] ITU-T, "Traffic Control and Congestion Control in B-ISDN," | [16] J. Heinanen, "Multiprotocol Encapsulation over ATM | |||
| ITU-T Recommendation I.371, July 1995. | ||||
| [14] J. Heinanen, "Multiprotocol Encapsulation over ATM | ||||
| Adaptation Layer 5," RFC 1483, July 1993. | Adaptation Layer 5," RFC 1483, July 1993. | |||
| [15] M. Laubach, "Classical IP and ARP over ATM," RFC 1577, | [17] M. Laubach, "Classical IP and ARP over ATM," RFC 1577, | |||
| January 1994. | January 1994. | |||
| [16] M. Perez, F. Liaw, A. Mankin, E. Hoffman, D. Grossman, and A. | [18] M. Perez, F. Liaw, A. Mankin, E. Hoffman, D. Grossman, and A. | |||
| Malis, "ATM Signaling Support for IP over ATM," RFC 1755, February | Malis, "ATM Signaling Support for IP over ATM," RFC 1755, February | |||
| 1995. | 1995. | |||
| [17] J. Luciani, D. Katz, D. Piscitello, and B. Cole, "NBMA Next | [19] J. Luciani, D. Katz, D. Piscitello, and B. Cole, "NBMA Next | |||
| Hop Resolution Protocol (NHRP)," Internet Draft, March 1997, | Hop Resolution Protocol (NHRP)," Internet Draft, March 1997, | |||
| <draft-ietf-rolc-nhrp-11.txt>. | <draft-ietf-rolc-nhrp-11.txt>. | |||
| Acknowledgments | Acknowledgments | |||
| TBD | ATM is a huge technology and without the help of many colleagues | |||
| at NTT who are involved in ATM research and development, it would | ||||
| have been impossible for me to complete this protocol | ||||
| specification. I would like to thank Hideaki Arai of the NTT | ||||
| Network Strategy Planning Dept., Shin-ichi Kuribayashi of the NTT | ||||
| Business Communications Hqs., Naotaka Morita, Jun Aramomi, and | ||||
| Takumi Ohba of the NTT Network Service Systems Labs., and also | ||||
| Hisao Uose of the NTT Multimedia Networks Labs. for their valuable | ||||
| comments and discussions. | ||||
| And I would also like to especially thank Eric Crawley of | ||||
| Gigapacket Networks, John Wroclawski of MIT, Steven Jackowski of | ||||
| Net Manage, Louis Berger of FORE Systems, Steven Willis of Bay | ||||
| Networks, Greg Burch of Qosnetics, and Denis Gallant, James Watt, | ||||
| and Joel Halpern of Newbridge Networks for their valuable comments | ||||
| and suggestions. | ||||
| Also this specification is based on various discussions during NTT | ||||
| Multimedia Joint Project with NACSIS. I would like to thank | ||||
| Professor Shoichiro Asano of the National Center for Science | ||||
| Information Systems for his invaluable advice in this area. | ||||
| Author's Address | Author's Address | |||
| Muneyoshi Suzuki | Muneyoshi Suzuki | |||
| NTT Multimedia Networks Laboratories | NTT Multimedia Networks Laboratories | |||
| 3-9-11, Midori-cho | 3-9-11, Midori-cho | |||
| Musashino-shi, Tokyo 180, Japan | Musashino-shi, Tokyo 180, Japan | |||
| Phone: +81-422-59-2119 | Phone: +81-422-59-2119 | |||
| Fax: +81-422-59-3203 | Fax: +81-422-59-3203 | |||
| skipping to change at page 28, line 19 ¶ | skipping to change at page 46, line 19 ¶ | |||
| The following sentence in the second paragraph: | The following sentence in the second paragraph: | |||
| < For some SCMP messages (CONNECT, CHANGE, JOIN, and STATUS) the | < For some SCMP messages (CONNECT, CHANGE, JOIN, and STATUS) the | |||
| should be changed to | should be changed to | |||
| > For some SCMP messages (CONNECT, CHANGE, and JOIN) the | > For some SCMP messages (CONNECT, CHANGE, and JOIN) the | |||
| A.2 4.4.4 User Data | A.2 4.4.4 User Data | |||
| The following: | The following sentence: | |||
| < option can be included with ACCEPT, CHANGE, CONNECT, DISCONNECT, and | < option can be included with ACCEPT, CHANGE, CONNECT, DISCONNECT, and | |||
| < REFUSE messages. The format of the UserData parameter is shown in | < REFUSE messages. The format of the UserData parameter is shown in | |||
| should be changed to | should be changed to | |||
| > option can be included with ACCEPT, CHANGE, CONNECT, DISCONNECT, NOTIFY, | > option can be included with ACCEPT, CHANGE, CONNECT, DISCONNECT, NOTIFY, | |||
| > and REFUSE messages. The format of the UserData parameter is shown in | > and REFUSE messages. The format of the UserData parameter is shown in | |||
| A.3 5.5.1 Mismatched FlowSpecs | A.3 5.3.2 Other Cases | |||
| The following sentence: | ||||
| < CONNECT with a REFUSE message with the affected targets specified in | ||||
| < the TargetList and an appropriate ReasonCode (StreamExists). | ||||
| should be changed to | ||||
| > CONNECT with a REFUSE message with the affected targets specified in | ||||
| > the TargetList and an appropriate ReasonCode (TargetExists). | ||||
| A.4 5.5.1 Mismatched FlowSpecs | ||||
| The following sentence: | The following sentence: | |||
| < notifies the processing ST agent which should respond with ReasonCode | < notifies the processing ST agent which should respond with ReasonCode | |||
| < (FlowSpecMismatch). | < (FlowSpecMismatch). | |||
| should be changed to | should be changed to | |||
| > notifies the processing ST agent which should respond with a REFUSE | > notifies the processing ST agent which should respond with a REFUSE | |||
| > message with ReasonCode (FlowSpecMismatch). | > message with ReasonCode (FlowSpecMismatch). | |||
| A.4 10.2 Control PDUs | A.5 6.2.1 Problems in Stream Recovery | |||
| The following: | The following sentence: | |||
| < some time after a failure. As a result, the ST agent attempting the | ||||
| < recovery may receive ERROR messages for the new CONNECTs that are | ||||
| < ... | ||||
| < failure, and will interpret the new CONNECT as resulting from a | ||||
| < routing failure. It will respond with an ERROR message with the | ||||
| < appropriate ReasonCode (StreamExists). Since the timeout that the ST | ||||
| < ... | ||||
| < remnants of the broken stream will soon be torn down by a DISCONNECT | ||||
| < message. Therefore, the ST agent that receives the ERROR message with | ||||
| < ReasonCode (StreamExists) should retransmit the CONNECT message after | ||||
| should be changed to | ||||
| > some time after a failure. As a result, the ST agent attempting the | ||||
| > recovery may receive REFUSE messages for the new CONNECTs that are | ||||
| > ... | ||||
| > failure, and will interpret the new CONNECT as resulting from a | ||||
| > routing failure. It will respond with a REFUSE message with the | ||||
| > appropriate ReasonCode (TargetExists). Since the timeout that the ST | ||||
| > ... | ||||
| > remnants of the broken stream will soon be torn down by a DISCONNECT | ||||
| > message. Therefore, the ST agent that receives the REFUSE message with | ||||
| > ReasonCode (TargetExists) should retransmit the CONNECT message after | ||||
| A.6 6.3 Stream Preemption} | ||||
| The following sentence: | ||||
| < (least important) to 256 (most important). This value is | ||||
| should be changed to | ||||
| > (least important) to 255 (most important). This value is | ||||
| A.7 10.2 Control PDUs | ||||
| The following sentence: | ||||
| <o Reference is a transaction number. Each sender of a request control | <o Reference is a transaction number. Each sender of a request control | |||
| < message assigns a Reference number to the message that is unique | < message assigns a Reference number to the message that is unique | |||
| < with respect to the stream. | < with respect to the stream. | |||
| should be changed to | should be changed to | |||
| >o Reference is a transaction number. Each sender of a request control | >o Reference is a transaction number. Each sender of a request control | |||
| > message assigns a Reference number to the message that is unique | > message assigns a Reference number to the message that is unique | |||
| > with respect to the stream for messages generated by each agent. | > with respect to the stream for messages generated by each agent. | |||
| A.5 10.3.4 Origin | A.8 10.3.4 Origin | |||
| The following: | The following: | |||
| < +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | < +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | |||
| < | PCode = 5 | PBytes | NextPcol |OriginSAPBytes | | < | PCode = 5 | PBytes | NextPcol |OriginSAPBytes | | |||
| < +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | < +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | |||
| should be changed to | should be changed to | |||
| > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | |||
| > | PCode = 4 | PBytes | NextPcol |OriginSAPBytes | | > | PCode = 4 | PBytes | NextPcol |OriginSAPBytes | | |||
| > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | |||
| A.6 10.5.3 ReasonCode | A.9 10.4.1 ACCEPT | |||
| The following sentence: | ||||
| <o IPHops is the number of IP encapsulated hops traversed by the | ||||
| < stream. This field is set to zero by the origin, and is incremented | ||||
| < at each IP encapsulating agent. | ||||
| should be changed to | ||||
| >o IPHops is the number of IP encapsulated hops traversed by the | ||||
| > stream. | ||||
| A.10 10.4.2 ACK | ||||
| The following: | ||||
| < +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | ||||
| < | OpCode = 2 | 0 | TotalBytes | | ||||
| < +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | ||||
| should be changed to | ||||
| > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | ||||
| > | OpCode = 2 | 0 | TotalBytes = 16 | | ||||
| > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | ||||
| A.11 10.4.3 CHANGE | ||||
| The following sentence: | ||||
| <o I (bit 7) is used to indicate that the LRM is permitted to interrupt | ||||
| should be changed to | ||||
| >o I (bit 9) is used to indicate that the LRM is permitted to interrupt | ||||
| A.12 10.4.7 HELLO | ||||
| The following: | ||||
| < +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | ||||
| < | OpCode = 7 |R| 0 | TotalBytes | | ||||
| < +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | ||||
| should be changed to | ||||
| > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | ||||
| > | OpCode = 7 |R| 0 | TotalBytes = 20 | | ||||
| > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | ||||
| A.13 10.4.9 JOIN-REJECT | ||||
| The following sentence: | ||||
| <o Reference contains a number assigned by the ST agent sending the | ||||
| < REFUSE for use in the acknowledging ACK. | ||||
| should be changed to | ||||
| >o Reference contains a number assigned by the ST agent sending the | ||||
| > JOIN-REJECT for use in the acknowledging ACK. | ||||
| A.14 10.4.13 STATUS-RESPONSE | ||||
| The following sentence: | ||||
| < possibly Groups of the stream. It the full target list can not fit in | ||||
| should be changed to | ||||
| > possibly Groups of the stream. If the full target list can not fit in | ||||
| A.15 10.5.3 ReasonCode | ||||
| The following: | The following: | |||
| < 32 PCodeUnknown Control PDU has a parameter with an invalid | < 32 PCodeUnknown Control PDU has a parameter with an invalid | |||
| < PCode. | < PCode. | |||
| should be removed because a common SCMP element with an unknown PCode | should be removed because a common SCMP element with an unknown PCode | |||
| is equivalent to the UserData (RFC 1819, Section 10.3.8). | is equivalent to the UserData (RFC 1819, Section 10.3.8). | |||
| End of changes. 85 change blocks. | ||||
| 265 lines changed or deleted | 1200 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/ | ||||