idnits 2.17.1 draft-ietf-ion-discov-nhrp-02.txt: Checking boilerplate required by RFC 5378 and the IETF Trust (see https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info): ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ** Cannot find the required boilerplate sections (Copyright, IPR, etc.) in this document. Expected boilerplate is as follows today (2024-04-20) according to https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info : IETF Trust Legal Provisions of 28-dec-2009, Section 6.a: This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. IETF Trust Legal Provisions of 28-dec-2009, Section 6.b(i), paragraph 2: Copyright (c) 2024 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the document authors. All rights reserved. IETF Trust Legal Provisions of 28-dec-2009, Section 6.b(i), paragraph 3: This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document. Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as described in the Simplified BSD License. Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/1id-guidelines.txt: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ** Missing expiration date. The document expiration date should appear on the first and last page. ** The document seems to lack a 1id_guidelines paragraph about Internet-Drafts being working documents. ** The document seems to lack a 1id_guidelines paragraph about 6 months document validity -- however, there's a paragraph with a matching beginning. Boilerplate error? ** The document seems to lack a 1id_guidelines paragraph about the list of current Internet-Drafts. ** The document seems to lack a 1id_guidelines paragraph about the list of Shadow Directories. == No 'Intended status' indicated for this document; assuming Proposed Standard == The page length should not exceed 58 lines per page, but there was 5 longer pages, the longest (page 2) being 60 lines == It seems as if not all pages are separated by form feeds - found 0 form feeds but 6 pages Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist : ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ** The document seems to lack an IANA Considerations section. (See Section 2.2 of https://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist for how to handle the case when there are no actions for IANA.) ** The document seems to lack separate sections for Informative/Normative References. All references will be assumed normative when checking for downward references. == There are 5 instances of lines with non-RFC6890-compliant IPv4 addresses in the document. If these are example addresses, they should be changed. Miscellaneous warnings: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == Line 150 has weird spacing: '...er/mask atmfS...' -- The document seems to lack a disclaimer for pre-RFC5378 work, but may have content which was first submitted before 10 November 2008. If you have contacted all the original authors and they are all willing to grant the BCP78 rights to the IETF Trust, then this is fine, and you can ignore this comment. If not, you may need to add the pre-RFC5378 disclaimer. (See the Legal Provisions document at https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info for more information.) -- The document date (Oct 15, 1998) is 9319 days in the past. Is this intentional? Checking references for intended status: Proposed Standard ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- (See RFCs 3967 and 4897 for information about using normative references to lower-maturity documents in RFCs) -- Possible downref: Non-RFC (?) normative reference: ref. '1' -- Possible downref: Non-RFC (?) normative reference: ref. '2' -- Possible downref: Non-RFC (?) normative reference: ref. '3' -- Possible downref: Non-RFC (?) normative reference: ref. '4' -- Possible downref: Non-RFC (?) normative reference: ref. '5' Summary: 8 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 5 warnings (==), 7 comments (--). Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about the items above. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2 Internet-Draft Mike Davison 3 Cisco Systems 4 Oct 15, 1998 6 ILMI-Based Server Discovery for NHRP 7 9 Status of this Memo 11 This document is an Internet-Draft. Internet-Drafts are working 12 documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), its areas, 13 and its working groups. Note that other groups may also distribute 14 working documents as Internet-Drafts. 16 Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months 17 and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any 18 time. It is inappropriate to use Internet- Drafts as reference 19 material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." 21 To learn the current status of any Internet Draft, please check the 22 ``1id-abstracts.txt'' listing contained in the Internet Drafts shadow 23 directories on ftp.is.co.za (Africa), nic.nordu.net (Europe), 24 munnari.oz.au (Pacific Rim), ftp.ietf.org (US East Coast), or 25 ftp.isi.edu (US West Coast). 27 This memo provides information for the Internet community. This memo 28 does not specify an Internet standard of any kind. Distribution of 29 this memo is unlimited. 31 Abstract 33 This memo defines how ILMI-based Server Discovery, which provides a 34 method for ATM-attached hosts and routers to dynamically determine 35 the ATM address of servers, shall be used to locate NHRP servers. 37 1. Introduction 39 Presently, configuring a host or router to use NHRP [1] is cumbersome 40 and error-prone since it requires at least one ATM addresses to be 41 statically configured on each host or router in the network. 42 Further, it is impossible to implement a diskless host to use NHRP 43 since local configuration is required. ILMI-based Server Discovery, 44 hereafter referred to as "server discovery," provides a solution to 45 these problems. 47 A brief overview of the Service Registry MIB, as defined by the ATM 48 Forum, is provided in this memo. The reader should consult [2] for a 49 complete description of this MIB, but the information contained here 50 is sufficient for an understanding of its use to support NHRP server 51 discovery. 53 2. ILMI 4.0 Service Registry MIB 55 Server discovery utilizes the Service Registry MIB defined by the ATM 56 Forum in ILMI Specification Version 4.0 [2]. To support the existing 57 framework for IP over ATM, ATM switches must support the Service 58 Registry MIB. 60 A row in the service registry table [2] is defined as: 62 AtmfSrvcRegEntry ::= SEQUENCE { 63 atmfSrvcRegPort INTEGER, 64 atmfSrvcRegServiceID OBJECT IDENTIFIER, 65 atmfSrvcRegATMAddress AtmAddress, 66 atmfSrvcRegAddressIndex INTEGER, 67 atmfSrvcRegParm1 OCTET STRING 68 } 70 The definition of each field in this structure is: 72 atmfSrvcRegPort - The port number for which this entry contains 73 management information. The value of zero may be used to 74 indicate the ATM interface over which a management request 75 was received. 77 atmfSrvcRegServiceID - This is the service identifier which 78 uniquely identifies the type of service at the address 79 provided in the table. (See Appendix for NHRP OID.) 81 atmfSrvcRegATMAddress - This is the full address of the service. 83 The ATM client will use this address to establish a connection 84 with the service. 86 atmfSrvcRegAddressIndex - An arbitrary integer to differentiate 87 multiple rows containing different ATM addresses for the same 88 service on the same port. 90 atmfSrvcRegParm1 - An octet string whose size and meaning is 91 determined by the value of atmfSrvcRegServiceID. 93 The service registry table is indexed by atmfSrvcRegPort, 94 atmfSrvcRegServiceID and atmfSrvcRegAddressIndex. 96 2.1 Service Parameter String 98 A generic parameter string is defined in the service registry table, 99 thus allowing protocol-specific parameters to be specified. To be 100 consistent with [1], the parameter string for NHRP shall be: 102 mar$pro.type 16 bits Protocol type 103 mar$pro.snap 40 bits Optional extension to protocol type 104 mar$plen 8 bits Length of protocol address (a) 105 mar$addr a octets Network address 106 mar$mask a octets Network mask 108 Where 110 mar$pro.type - See [1]. (IPv4 is 0x0800, IPv6 is 0x86DD) 111 mar$pro.snap - See [1]. (IPv4 and IPv6 are 0) 113 mar$plen - Length of the protocol address. 114 (IPv4 is 4, IPv6 is 16) 116 mar$addr - Network address represented in network byte 117 order 119 mar$mask - Network mask represented in network byte order 121 2.2 Service Object Identifier 123 This OID, assigned in the ATM Forum Service Registry MIB, names 124 ATMARP within the context of server discovery. 126 atmfSrvcRegNHRP OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { 1.3.6.1.4.1.353.1.5.5 } 128 It does not name any managed objects, rather is used to locate 129 appropriate rows in the service registery table. 131 3. Next Hop Client Behavior 133 An Next Hop Client NHC) will access the service registry table via 134 ILMI using the SNMP GetNext operator to "sweep" (SNMP parlance for a 135 linear search) beginning with {Port = 0, ServiceID = , 136 Index = 0} while holding the port number and the serviceID constant. 137 (Port number 0 is used within ILMI to indicate "this port.") 139 An NHC with no local configuration, such as a diskless workstation, 140 must use the row with the lowest index value if multiple Next Hop 141 Server (NHS), possibly for multiple networks, are listed. 143 NHC that have local IP configuration must use a row that has the 144 appropriate IP address. For example, consider the case where an IP 145 router has 3 logical interfaces defined on a single physical 146 interface with IP addresses 1.0.0.1/8, 128.10.0.1/16 and 147 171.69.150.226/24. The router will sweep the service registry table 148 looking for a rows that have atmfSrvcRegParm1 values as shown below: 150 Net number/mask atmfSrvcRegParm1 151 ---------------- -------------------------------------------------- 152 1.0.0.0/8 08 00 00 00 00 00 00 04 01 00 00 00 ff 00 00 00 153 128.10.0.0/16 08 00 00 00 00 00 00 04 80 0a 00 00 ff ff 00 00 154 171.69.150.0/24 08 00 00 00 00 00 00 04 ab 45 96 00 ff ff ff 00 156 When the correct atmfSrvcRegParm1 values are located, the router may 157 then establish an SVC to the selected NHS and perform the appropriate 158 protocol operations. 160 Redundant NHS are supported with multiple rows in the service 161 registry table. This list of NHS is ordered with the primary NHS 162 having the lowest index value. The NHC must attempt to utilize the 163 primary NHS before utilizing a secondary NHS. Administrators must 164 ensure that the listed NHS are synchronized via [3]. 166 4. NHRP Server (NHS) Behavior 168 A Next Hop Server (NHS) shall be locally configured. The NHS may 169 retrieve the NHRP service registry data to validate the results. If 170 an incorrect row is retrieved the error may be flagged in a locally 171 significant way. 173 5. Relationship with PNNI Augmented Routing 175 An augmented version PNNI ("PNNI Augmented Routing," or PAR) [4] is 176 being developed by the ATM Forum. PAR can distribute data such as NHS 177 addresses. Further, the ATM Forum is developing a proxy mechanism for 178 PAR (Proxy PAR) [5] that would allow a UNI-attached host or router to 179 access PAR data without a full PAR implementation. 181 These mechanisms offer a promising way to manage the service registry 182 tables maintained on each switch in an ATM network, yet would not 183 require changes to the mechanism defined in this memo. Hosts and 184 routers can continue to utilize ILMI-based or Proxy PAR-based server 185 discovery and network administrators could manage the service 186 registry data with local configuration or via PAR and Proxy PAR. 188 6. Security Considerations 190 The server discovery mechanism is intended for environments where a 191 given ATM switch and its attached hosts or routers are in the same 192 administrative domain, hence no authentication is required. 194 References 196 [1] Luciani, J., et al., "NBMA Next Hop Resolution Protocol," 197 , March, 1997. 199 [2] ATM Forum, "Integrated Local Management Interface (ILMI) 200 Specification Version 4.0," af-ilmi-0065.000, September, 1996. 202 [3] Luciani, J., and Fox, B., "A distributed NHRP Service Using 203 SCSP," , April, 1997. 205 [4] Callon, R., et al., "An Overview of PNNI Augmented Routing," 206 ATM-Forum 96-0354, April, 1996. 208 [5] Droz, P., Przygienda, T., "Proxy PAR," 209 , March, 1998. 211 Author's Address 212 Mike Davison 213 Cisco Systems 214 170 West Tasman Drive 215 San Jose, California 95134 217 Phone: (408) 526-4000 218 EMail: mike.davison@cisco.com