idnits 2.17.1 draft-ietf-ion-scsp-atmarp-00.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 (2024-04-27) 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 Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist : ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ** The document seems to lack a Security Considerations section. ** 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. ** The abstract seems to contain references ([2], [1]), which it shouldn't. Please replace those with straight textual mentions of the documents in question. ** The document seems to lack a both a reference to RFC 2119 and the recommended RFC 2119 boilerplate, even if it appears to use RFC 2119 keywords. RFC 2119 keyword, line 42: '...S). Since, there MAY be multiple ATMAR...' RFC 2119 keyword, line 43: '...y ATMARP server within the LIS MUST be...' RFC 2119 keyword, line 45: '...n the LIS, there MUST be a method by w...' RFC 2119 keyword, line 49: '...s, and thus SCSP MAY be applied to the...' RFC 2119 keyword, line 93: '... a crash), it MUST NOT rejoin the SG...' Miscellaneous warnings: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- 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 (September 1997) is 9721 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) -- No information found for draft-ion-ipatm-classic2 - is the name correct? -- Possible downref: Normative reference to a draft: ref. '1' == Outdated reference: A later version (-04) exists of draft-ietf-ion-scsp-01 ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 1700 (ref. '3') (Obsoleted by RFC 3232) Summary: 12 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 2 warnings (==), 4 comments (--). Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about the items above. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1 Internetworking Over NBMA James V. Luciani 2 INTERNET-DRAFT (Bay Networks) 3 Barbara Fox 4 (Harris & Jeffries) 5 Expires September 1997 7 A Distributed ATMARP Service Using SCSP 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 ds.internic.net (US East Coast), nic.nordu.net 24 (Europe), ftp.isi.edu (US West Coast), or munnari.oz.au (Pacific 25 Rim). 27 Abstract 29 This document describes a method for distributing an ATMARP service 30 within a LIS[1]. This method uses the Server Cache Synchronization 31 Protocol (SCSP)[2] to synchronize the ATMARP server databases within 32 a LIS. When SCSP is used to synchronize the caches of ATMARP servers 33 in a LIS, the LIS defines the boundary of an SCSP Server Group (SG). 35 1. Introduction 37 An ATMARP Client implicitly registers (e.g., by sending an ATMARP 38 Request for itself; see [1]) and refreshes its own ATMARP information 39 with a single ATMARP server in its atm$arp-req-list table. In 40 addition, the ATMARP Client uses the ATMARP service to gain access to 41 and re-validate ATMARP information about other ATMARP Clients in its 42 Logical IP Subnet (LIS). Since, there MAY be multiple ATMARP servers 43 in a given LIS, and since any ATMARP server within the LIS MUST be 44 able to reply to ATMARP requests for ATMARP information about any 45 ATMARP Clients within the LIS, there MUST be a method by which to 46 synchronize ATMARP information across all ATMARP Servers within the 47 LIS. The Server Cache Synchronization Protocol (SCSP) solves the 48 generalized server synchronization/cache-replication problem for 49 distributed databases, and thus SCSP MAY be applied to the ATMARP 50 server database synchronization problem with the LIS. When SCSP is 51 used to synchronize the caches of ATMARP servers in a LIS, the LIS 52 defines the boundary of an SCSP Server Group (SG). 54 SCSP is defined in two parts: the protocol independent part and the 55 client/server protocol specific part. The protocol independent part 56 is specified in [2] whereas this document will specify the 57 client/server protocol specific part where ATMARP is the 58 client/server protocol. 60 2. Overview 62 All ATMARP servers belonging to a Logical IP Subnet (LIS)[1] are said 63 to belong to a Server Group (SG). An SG is identified by, not 64 surprisingly, its SGID which is contained in a field in all SCSP 65 packets. All SCSP packets contain a Protocol ID (PID) field as well. 66 This PID field is set to 0x0001 to signify that SCSP is synchronizing 67 ATMARP server databases as opposed to synchronizing some other 68 protocol's databases (see Section B.2.0.1 of [2] for more details). 69 In general, PIDs for SCSP will be assigned by IANA upon request given 70 that a client/server protocol specific specification has been 71 written. In the case of ATMARP, the client/server protocol specific 72 specification was initially written at the same time as SCSP, and 73 thus a PID=0x0001 was assigned by the author. 75 SCSP places no topological requirements upon an ATMARP SG. 76 Obviously, however, the resultant graph of ATMARP servers must span 77 the set of ATMARP servers to be synchronized. For more information 78 about the client/server protocol independent part of SCSP, the reader 79 is encouraged to see [2]. 81 When an ATMARP SG is using SCSP for synchronization, a given ATMARP 82 Client will use only one ATMARP server and it will use that server 83 for remainder of its participation in the SG. This server is said to 84 be the "serving ATMARP server." There needs to be some hysteresis on 85 refreshes since every ATMARP Request may cause a cache update/refresh 86 in the serving ATMARP Server, and such refreshes might cause 87 excessive traffic if propagated to all ATMARP Servers in the SG. In 88 the case of mere refreshes, where no change occurs to the ATMARP 89 Server's cache entry for the ATMARP Client, SCSP updates will occur 90 at a maximum rate of once every 10+Random(2) minutes. 92 When an ATMARP client has left a server group (e.g., as the result of 93 a crash), it MUST NOT rejoin the SG by generating new ATMARP requests 94 to any other ATMARP Server than the one it previously used for a 95 period of time greater than 20 minutes minus the time since the last 96 ATMARP request was made by the ATMARP Client. This is necessary 97 because no mechanism exists to tell the ATMARP service that the 98 ATMARP Client has left the SG and because ATMARP Server table entries 99 are valid for 20 minutes from the time the entries are 100 created/updated. 102 3. Format of the CSA Record ATMARP Specific Part 104 CSA Records in SCSP contain a "Client/Server Protocol Specific Part" 105 which contains the non-protocol independent information for a given 106 server's cache entry. 108 0 1 2 3 109 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 1 110 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 111 | Hardware Type | Protocol Type | 112 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 113 | State | ATM Addr T/L |ATM SubAddr T/L| Proto Addr Len| 114 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 115 | ATM Address (variable length) | 116 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 117 | ATM SubAddress (variable length) | 118 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 119 | Protocol Address (variable length) | 120 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 122 With the exception of the State and unused fields, these fields 123 contain the values specified in the ATMARP Request and Reply packets 124 defined in [1] which are used to create, update, and access ATMARP 125 server cache entries. 127 Hardware Type 128 Defines the type of "link layer" addresses being carried. This 129 value is the ATM Forum 'address family number' specified in [3] as 130 19 decimal (0x0013). This is the ar$hrd field defined in [1]. 132 Protocol Type 133 This field is the protocol type number for the protocol using 134 ATMARP from [3]. (IP is 0x0800). This is the ar$pro field from 135 [1]. 137 State 138 This field contains a value which represents the new state of the 139 client. 141 0 - New client available. 142 1 - Client entry has been updated. 144 Note that a time-out of a cache entry does not cause a CSA Record 145 to be sent because, if everything is working properly then all 146 ATMARP servers have the cache entry timing out at the same time. 147 Thus, the individual servers would take the appropriate actions 148 necessary. 150 ATM Addr T/L 151 This field contains the type and length of the ATM Address field. 152 The type and length encodings are described in Section 8.7.3 of 153 [1]. 155 ATM SubAddr T/L 156 This field contains the type and length of the ATM SubAddress 157 field. The type and length encodings are described in Section 158 8.7.3 of [1]. 160 Proto Addr Len 161 This field contains the length of the Protocol Address field. For 162 IPv4, the value is 4. 164 ATM Number 165 This is the ATM address of an address binding in an ATMARP server 166 cache entry. The address, if specified, is E.164 or ATM Forum 167 NSAPA. 169 ATM Subaddress 170 This is the ATM subaddress of an address binding in an ATMARP 171 server cache entry. The subaddress, if specified, is an ATM Forum 172 NSAPA. If null, no storage will be allocated. 174 Protocol Address 175 This is the internetwork address of an address binding in an ATMARP 176 server cache entry. 178 4. Values for SCSP Protocol Independent Part 180 The following sections give values for fields of the SCSP Protocol 181 Independent Part of the various SCSP messages. 183 4.1 Values for the SCSP "Mandatory Common Part" 185 Protocol ID = 0x0001 186 Sender ID Len = 0x04 187 Recvr ID Len = 0x04 189 See Section B.2.0.1 of [2] for a detailed description of these 190 fields. 192 4.2 Values for the SCSP "CSAS Record" 194 Cache Key Len = 0x04 195 Orig ID Len = 0x04 197 See Section B.2.0.2 of [2] for a detailed description of these 198 fields. 200 References 202 [1] "Classic IP and ARP over ATM", Mark Laubach and Joel Halpern, 203 draft-ion-ipatm-classic2-02.txt, March, 1997. 205 [2] "Server Cache Synchronization Protocol", Luciani, Armitage, Halpern, 206 draft-ietf-ion-scsp-01.txt. 208 [3] Assigned Numbers, J. Reynolds and J. Postel, RFC 1700. 210 Acknowledgments 211 I would also like to thank the members of the ION working group of 212 the IETF, whose review and discussion of this document has been 213 invaluable. 215 Author's Address 217 James V. Luciani 218 Bay Networks, Inc. 219 3 Federal Street, BL3-04 220 Billerica, MA 01821 221 phone: +1-508-916-4734 222 email: luciani@baynetworks.com 224 Barbara A. Fox 225 Harris & Jeffries 226 888 Washington Street 227 Dedham, MA 02026 228 phone: +1-617-329-3200 229 email: bfox@hjinc.com