Internet DRAFT - draft-ietf-forces-discovery
draft-ietf-forces-discovery
Furquan Ansari
Internet Draft Lucent Tech.
Document: draft-ietf-forces-discovery-02.txt Hormuzd Khosravi
Expires: September 5, 2006 Intel Corp.
Working Group: ForCES Jamal Hadi Salim
Znyx Networks
Joel M. Halpern
Megisto Systems
Xiaoyi Guo
Huawei Tech.
March 6, 2006
ForCES Intra-NE Topology Discovery
draft-ietf-forces-discovery-02.txt
Status of this Memo
By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that
any applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is
aware have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she
becomes aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of
BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that
other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-Drafts.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt
The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html
This Internet-Draft will expire on September 5, 2006.
Conventions used in this document
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in RFC-2119.
Ansari et al. Expires Sept. 5, 2006 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft ForCES Discovery July 2004
Abstract
This document describes a mechanism for discovering inter-FE topology,
topology maintenance in Intra-NE. Such a mechanism is essential for
all these elements in the set to behave as a single Network Element,
as required by the ForCES architecture as well as to perform certain
optimizations at the FE by making use of the topology. The mechanism
only operates during post-association phase of ForCES protocol.
Table of Contents
1. Definitions.........................................................2
2. Introduction........................................................3
2.1. Motivation....................................................4
3. Topology Discovery Mechanism........................................5
3.1. Minimum requirements..........................................6
3.2. Protocol Details..............................................6
3.2.1. Neighbor Finite State Machine............................8
3.2.2. Topology Discovery and Maintenance.......................8
3.2.3. Full topology computation at the CE from partial
topologies......................................................9
3.2.4. Update and Maintenance...................................9
3.3. Protocol and Message Headers.................................10
3.3.1. TLV definitions.........................................11
3.4. Inter-FE Topology Discovery Examples.........................12
3.4.1. Forwarding Elements connected in a daisy chain..........13
3.4.2. Forwarding Elements connected in a ring.................14
4. Security Considerations............................................15
5. References.........................................................15
5.1. Normative.....................................................15
5.2. Informative...................................................15
6. Authors' Addresses.................................................16
7. IANA Considerations................................................16
8. Full Copyright Notice..............................................17
9.Acknowledgements....................................................17
1. Definitions
Inter-FE topology discovery: Topology discovery relates to how the
FEs are interconnected with each other with respect to packet
forwarding. This is the complete view of the intra-NE network as
seen by the CE.
Inter-FE topology maintenance: Once the inter-FE topology has been
discovered, it has to be continuously monitored to ensure that any
changes to the topology are reported to the corresponding CE. This
represents the steady state and final phase of the protocol.
Ansari et al. Expires Sept. 5, 2006 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft ForCES Discovery July 2004
Edge FE: edge FE which has a port connected to other NEs or routers
outside of this NE, and also connects to intra-NE FE port.
Intra-NE: It describes the connection and status in a NE, these
status do not contact with outside NEs or other routers.
2. Introduction
The ForCES framework document [RFC 3746] describes how a set of
control elements (CEs) and forwarding elements (FEs) interact with
each other to form a single network element (NE). It describes the
ForCES post-association phase protocol working across the Fp
reference point between CE and FE. This document describes an
important aspect of the ForCES operational infrastructure - that of
discovering the layout of the different elements and forwarding
packet within an NE.
The Inter-FE/Intra-NE topology discovery protocol module may be
implemented as some separate LFBs on the FE. The protocol runs in an
ongoing discovery and maintenance mode wherein the LFB maintains
information about the known adjacencies per interface it is operated
on. Each FE simply maintains its own adjacency tables and notifies
the CE of any changes to the adjacency table based on the ForCES
notification mechanism or if the CE explicitly requests an update.
It is up to the CE to construct the full topology based on the
information received from individual FEs within the NE and generate
the NE routing table. Given that the CE can request and the FEs
should report back the topology updates using ForCES protocol.
The proposed discovery mechanism is required to scale to a very
large number of forwarding elements in the NE, with minimal impact
on the resources. The following list provides some of the features
and goals of the discovery mechanism.
. Determine connectivity between elements
. React to changes in link connectivity
. Construct topology information from the collected partial
topology information
. Tolerant to protocol message losses
. Applicable to all inter-FE network topologies such as ring, mesh,
star etc.
. Cause minimal overhead
. Agnostic of the network interconnect technology
As noted above, it is implicit that all the phases occur in the
ForCES post-association phase. In other words, the ForCES protocol
Ansari et al. Expires Sept. 5, 2006 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft ForCES Discovery July 2004
association between the CEs and the FEs should already have taken
place.
2.1. Motivation
The ForCES architecture defines a network element (NE) as a single
managed entity made up of a collection of FEs and CEs and is
indistinguishable from other network elements in the network. This NE
model definition leads to three types of links from the network
perspective: internal (or intra-NE) links and external (or inter-NE)
links and control links. Intra-NE links are purely internal to the
NE and are not exposed to the external world; whereas, inter-NE (or
external) links are exposed to the external world and over which
routing adjacencies (such as OSPF, IS-IS, BGP etc.) can be formed.
An NE can contain FEs that have zero or more internal/external links
e.g. in Fig. 1, FE3 has two internal links and no external links
while FE1 and FE2 have two internal links and one external link
each. Control links are those links that are used for communication
between the CE and FE. If the CE and FE are a single Layer 3 hop
apart as in Fig.1, the control link is typically a physical link
e.g. link A of FE1 in the figure. Control links can be logical as
well. It is important to note that the type definition for given for
a link is only logical, because a given physical link may be a
combination of more than one type - e.g. it could simultaneously be
a control link and an internal link at the same time. Based on this
link definitions, an FE can be considered to be an internal FE if it
only contains internal links and an edge FE if it contains external
links (and may also contain internal links).
A packet entering a ForCES NE may travel multiple FEs within the NE
before it exits onto the output link. This requires that the packet
be correctly forwarded from the ingress FE to the egress FE. This
internal forwarding requires knowledge of the physical FE inter-
connection topology so that the CE can appropriately setup internal
LFB tables at each FE to handle packet traversal in a sane manner.
NE 1
.....................................
. ----------------- .
. | CE | .
. ----------------- . ----------
. A ^ B ^ C ^ . | NE 1 |
. / | \ . | |
. / A v \ . ----------
. / ------- B \ . ^ ^
. / +->| FE3 |<-+ \ . <====> / \
Ansari et al. Expires Sept. 5, 2006 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft ForCES Discovery July 2004
. / |C | | | \ . / \
. A v | ------- | v A . v v
. -------B | |D ------- . -------- ---------
. | FE1 |<-+ +->| FE2 | . | NE 2 |<---->| NE 3 |
. | |<--------------->| | . | | | |
. ------- C C ------- . -------- ---------
. D^ ^B .
.....|.......................|........
| |
V V
-------- --------
| NE 2 |<--------------->| NE 3 |
| | | |
-------- --------
(a) (b)
Figure 1:(a) illustrates the internal/external links and topology
within a NE. (b) Shows the network topology as seen by external
routing protocols
3. Topology Discovery Mechanism
Since the topology discovery protocol described here operates in the
ForCES post-association phase, it is independent of whether the CE
and the FE is a single or multiple hops (layer 2 or layer 3) apart
from each other. It is up to the ForCES association protocol to
determine how to setup the ForCES channel between the CE and FE if
they are multiple hops away. The topology discovery protocol is
expected to work on all types of media and interfaces such as point-
to-point as well as multi-access links.
In order to keep the discovery and maintenance mechanism as simple as
possible, the FEs only maintain relationships with their respective
neighbors to determine the status of the neighbors. No databases
are exchanged between the neighbors. This implies that the
topology view for each FE is only limited to the adjacent elements.
This partial topology information may be reported back to the CE (or
queried by the CE) over the ForCES protocol using the ForCES
notification mechanism. Since the CE receives such information from
all the FEs, it can easily construct the full topology from
individual partial topologies reported by each FE. Once the CE
constructs the full topology, such information can be passed to the
FEs, if needed (depending on policy). The FEs may use such
information for dynamic intra-NE route calculation or certain other
optimizations.
Topology information is needed by a lot of LFBs and associated
services that span multiple FEs within a NE. In the case where the
Ansari et al. Expires Sept. 5, 2006 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft ForCES Discovery July 2004
FE aids the CE in offloading the table updates, then it makes sense
for the FE to be topology aware. It is sometimes also helpful to
keep full topology information at the FEs for cases such as message
snooping optimizations. For example, if an FE is aware of the
topology, it could snoop on messages sent to other FEs (e.g.,
broadcasts, multicasts) and update its own tables dynamically
without involving the CE. Another example would be FE-FE primary-
backup handover scenario. With each FE being fully aware of the
complete topology, the backup FE can take over the responsibilities
of the primary without involving the CE for such a handover.
3.1 Minimum requirements
In order for the protocol to work as described, the following
assumptions are made.
. Each element has been configured with their respective IDs
(CEID, FEID)
. Element bindings process has already taken place. In other
words, the CE know all the FEs it wants to control and each FE
knows which CE is allowed to control it.
. The ForCES protocol association has already taken place between
the CE and the FE in question.
. The protocol is enabled on the required interfaces.
Note that these are configuration requirements and are satisfied by
the respective managers (CEM/FEM).
3.2 Protocol Details
Once the ForCES protocol association has been established between a
CE and a given FE i.e. it is in post-association phase, the CE
starts sending/advertising Hello/Probe messages to the FE
neighbors such that the messages go through the given FE. In other
words, it looks like the given FE is generating probe messages to
the neighbor (except that these messages are coming from the CE over
the ForCES protocol first). However, this functionality of
generating probe messages by the CE can be offloaded to the FE
itself (to be more precise, to an FE LFB) so that the FE can
originate and terminate the probe messages. This provides better
scalability of the CE and it resources. The CE can now simply query
each FE neighbor relationship database and register for any events
related to topology changes.
Ansari et al. Expires Sept. 5, 2006 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft ForCES Discovery July 2004
All Hello/Probe messages travel a single PE hop and are not routed
to other elements beyond the first hop. An on-link IP multicast
address is used for sending all Hello packets. The packets should be
sent with a TTL of 255 and ignored on receipt if the TTL is not 254
(based on some of the recommendations from the generalized TTL
security mechanism to use TTL 255 rather than TTL 1). Hello packets
are only sent on interfaces configured for topology discovery
protocol operation. Further, the Hello messages will be multicast on
multicast capable links. Each FE topology LFB component maintains
the neighbor relationships as long as the Hello messages are
received from the neighbor. If it does not receive Hello messages
after a given (configured) period of time (called FE Neighbor dead
interval), it deletes the entry from the database and reports this
change to the CE in the form of an event-notification message over
the ForCES protocol. This ensures that the CE has the complete and
up-to-date information of the underlying topology of the Inter-FE
network.
The Hello message contains information necessary for discovering and
maintaining neighbor relationships. It contains the PE ID, type of
protocol element (i.e. CE or FE), interval between any two messages,
interval for deeming a neighbor inactive, capability information etc.
This is, in some ways, similar to the capabilities of the OSPF Hello
protocol.
On receiving the Hello messages from a neighbor, the FE responds back
with its own Hello message in a packet format similar to the one
received from the neighbor. Essentially, both sides are
independently sending Hello messages to each other and listing their
neighbor table. Also, each neighbor will see itself listed on its
neighbors Hello message. This ensures bi-directionality of the link
between any two neighbors.
The operation is concisely described by the following steps:
. CE activates the topology LFB/component on the FE to initialize on
specific ports
. FE topology LFB/component sends neighbor probes/hellos
. CE queries FE for its neighbors
. FE continues to send these probes afterwards (maintenance) and
updates asynchronously any new updates
Note: We would like to point out here that the Hello messaging
mechanism can very well be replaced by the BFD (Bi-Directional
Ansari et al. Expires Sept. 5, 2006 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft ForCES Discovery July 2004
Forwarding Detection) protocol in the future since it performs
similar task of detecting bi-directional faults between two
forwarding engines. Further, BFD protocol has the ability to be
bootstrapped by any other protocol that automatically forms peer,
neighbor or adjacency relationships to seed BFD endpoint discovery.
3.2.1. Neighbor Finite State Machine
In order to obtain bi-directionality verification of the links, and
to make the protocol more robust, a neighbor finite state machine is
needed. It consists of the following three states:
Neighbor-down: This is the initial state of the neighbor
conversation. It indicates that there has been no recent information
received from the neighbor
Neighbor-heard: In this state, a Hello packet was recently seen from
the neighbor. However, bi-directional communication has not been
fully established with the neighbor (i.e. the PE itself was not
listed in the neighbor Hello packet which is the check for bi-
directionality). All neighbors in this state (or higher) are listed
in the Hello packets sent from the associated interface.
Neighbor-adjacent: In this state, the communication between the two
neighbors is bi-directional. This has been assured by the Hello
protocol operation. This state corresponds to the final steady state
of the protocol.
3.2.2. Topology Discovery and Maintenance
Since the CE needs to maintain consistent and up-to-date view of the
inter-FE topology, it needs to obtain real-time information of the
status of the internal links connecting the FEs. Since the topology
discovery and maintenance occurs during the post-association phase,
we make use of the event-notification and query/response messages
[ForCESP] of the ForCES protocol to provide this information to the
CE. It is important to note that each FE only maintains partial
topology information obtained through neighbor relationship
maintenance through Hello messages. The partial topology view seen
by each FE is only the neighbor connectivity information. The CE has
to derive the complete topology view of the interconnected FEs based
on the partial topology information reported by each FE (or queried
by the CE). This ensures that that only the CE maintains all the
intelligence and the protocol operation on the FEs is very simple
and has minimal overhead. However, as mentioned above, if
optimizations can be performed by having the complete topology
information available at the FEs, the CE can push such information
to any FE interested in it (interest on the FE may be shown in the
Ansari et al. Expires Sept. 5, 2006 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft ForCES Discovery July 2004
form of policy configuration). This is an optional feature available
on each FE, which can be turned on or off through configuration or
during capability exchange negotiation at setup time. Each FE vendor
may decide to make use of this feature in different ways, so the
capability to obtain such topology information should exist.
The periodic Hello messages maintain PE neighbor relationships.
Any change in the link or neighbor status causes the FE to generate
an asynchronous/event-driven message to the CE indicating this
change. The mechanism defined in [ForCESP] is used for delivering
event-driven messages from the FE to the CE. This involves the CE
subscribing to such event-driven messages from the FE.
3.2.3. Full topology computation at the CE from partial topologies
The CE receives neighbor relationships information from each FE that
it uses to construct the full topology of the internal network. Each
FE neighbor relationship table contains information regarding the
local element ID, local port connecting the neighbor, the neighbor
ID, the neighbor port and any optional additional information.
Note that the fact that the FE already knows the neighbor port
information implies that it received the probe/hello messages from
the neighbor on that port in response to the hello sent and was,
therefore, able to establish bi-directionality of the link. If all
the links in the internal network are point-to-point links, the CE
simply has to aggregate all the neighbor relationship tables
obtained from all the FEs to generate the full topology. If we
assume the topology to be a graph, each edge of the graph will be
present twice essentially providing the same information from the
two endpoints of the graph. After deleting all the duplicate entries
(and thus reducing the table size by half), the CE now has accurate
view of the full topology. Please refer section 3.4 [Fig. 3(b)] for
more details.
[TBD: Sub-section on generating full topology from partial
topology information for broadcast/multi-access, point-to-
multipoint etc. type of links]
3.2.4. Update and Maintenance
The periodic Hello messages maintain PE neighbor relationships. Any
change in the link or neighbor status causes the FE to generate an
asynchronous/event-driven message to the CE indicating this change.
The mechanism defined in [ForCESP] is used for delivering event-
driven messages from the FE to the CE. This involves the CE
subscribing to such event-driven messages from the FE.
Ansari et al. Expires Sept. 5, 2006 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft ForCES Discovery July 2004
The CE aggregates the partial topology information received from
each FE and generates the inter-FE topology. With this complete
knowledge of the inter-FE topology, it can now make appropriate
updates to the LFB tables and routing table on each FE to move
packets inside the NE from ingress FE to egress FE, assuming that
the destination of the packet is not the current NE itself. Any
changes in the internal link states (and hence the topology)
requires that the CE reconfigure the LFB tables on the FEs based
on the most up-to-date information to ensure that the packets do not
end up in a black hole or enter a loop.
3.3. Protocol and Message Headers
The protocol hello message consists of a fixed length header (16
bytes) followed by one or more optional TLVs. The format of the
message is as follows.
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Version | Flags | Packet Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Checksum | Port ID |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| PE ID |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| TLV-Type | TLV-Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| TLV-Value ... |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| ... |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure (2)
Version (8 bit):
Version number of this protocol. Currently acceptable value
is 0x01
Flags (8 bit):
These indicate whether the message is sent by a FE, (0x01) or
CE (0x02). More options may be defined in the future.
Packet Length (16 bit):
The length of the protocol message in bytes, including the
header and the following TLVs.
Ansari et al. Expires Sept. 5, 2006 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft ForCES Discovery July 2004
Checksum (16 bit):
Checksum for the protocol message. The checksum calculation
does not include the IP header.
Port ID (16 bit):
This indicates the port on which this packet was sent out by
the sender useful for topology construction.
PE ID (32 bit):
32-bit identifier of the sender. It could either be CE ID or
FE ID, depending on the sender. See more details in ForCES
protocol section 6.1.
TLV Type (16 bit):
The TLV type field is two octets, and indicates the
type of data encapsulated within the TLV.
TLV Length (16 bit):
The TLV Length field is two octets, and indicates
the length of this TLV including the TLV Type, TLV Length,
and the TLV data in octets.
TLV Value (variable):
The TLV Value field carries the data. For extensibility,
the TLV value may in fact be a TLV. TLVs must be 32 bit
aligned. Padding used for the alignment must be zero on
transmission and must be ignored upon reception.
3.3.1. TLV definitions
The protocol header is followed by one or many TLVs. The following
TLVs types are defined:
Hello TLV: Indicates the Hello message as exchanged by the neighbors.
The TLV defines the common hello parameters such as the
Hello Interval, Hold time, Unidirectional targeted Hellos,
Sequence space number, if needed etc.
Data TLV: Indicates the neighbor or the topology information from
CE or neighbor FE.
Capabilities TLV: Provides the capabilities information - TBD
Vendor specific TLV: TBD
Other TLV: TBD
3.4. Inter-FE Topology Discovery Examples
Ansari et al. Expires Sept. 5, 2006 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft ForCES Discovery July 2004
The following examples illustrate the topology discovery mechanism.
For sake of simplicity, we assume that there is only one CE per NE.
The FEIDs of the FEs in the topologies below are FE1, FE2, FE3, and
FE4. Each FE has port IDs labeled alphabetically. This is also the
case with the CE.
-----------------
| CE |
-----------------
A ^ B ^ C ^
/ | \
/ A v \
/ ------- B \
/ +->| FE3 |<-+ \
/ |C | | | \
A v 2| ------- |1 v A
-------B | |E -------
| FE1 |<-+ +->| FE2 |
| |<--------------->| |
------- C 5 D -------
E ^ D| C ^ | B
| | | |
| v | v
FE3 Control Element reachability Table
--------------------------------------
<Dest Addr> <local intf>
CE A
--------------------------------------
FE3 NEIGHBOR ASSOCIATION TABLE
-----------------------------------------------
<local intf> <neighbor_FEID> <neighbor_portID>
B FE2 E
C FE1 B
-----------------------------------------------
Figure 4. (a) Full mesh among FE1, FE2, and FE3
During the element-binding phase, each FE sends out hello messages
with its FEID and Port ID (as outlined earlier) to all of its
neighbors. Since each neighboring FE also listens to such messages,
it receives the hello message and adds it to the neighbor
association table, which may look like that shown in Fig.4(a). In
the topology discovery phase, which is post ForCES association stage,
the CE queries each FE about its neighbor table. The FE responds
back with the partial topology information available through its
Ansari et al. Expires Sept. 5, 2006 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft ForCES Discovery July 2004
neighbor relationships. Both the query and the response are carried
by the ForCES protocol. The CE collects the partial topology
information from all the FEs in the NE and aggregates this
information to fully construct the inter-FE topology. Any changes to
the FE neighbor table, e.g. when a link state changes, generates a
trigger/update message to the CE. The new information is used to
recalculate the new topology and subsequently the CE takes
appropriate actions based on the new topology such as updating the
packet forwarding tables on the FEs.
The following examples show the neighbor association tables.
3.4.1. Forwarding Elements connected in a daisy chain
--------------
| CE |
--------------
A ^ ^ B ^ ^ D
/ | \ \
/------ | --\ -------\
A v A v v A v A
-------B -------B -------B -------
| FE1 |<--->| FE2 |<--->| FE3 |<--->| FE4 |
------- E------- E------- D-------
D ^ |C D ^ |C D^ |C C^ |B
| | | | | | | |
| v | v | v | v
FE1 NBR ASSOCIATION TABLE FE2 NBR ASSOCIATION TABLE
-------------------------------- ------------------------------
<locl intf> <nbr_FEID> <nbr_port> <locl intf> <nbr_FEID> <nbr_port>
B FE2 E E FE1 B
B FE3 E
FE3 NBR ASSOCIATION TABLE FE4 NBR ASSOCIATION TABLE
-------------------------------- -----------------------------
<locl intf> <nbr_FEID> <nbr_port> <locl intf> <nbr_FEID> <nbr_port>
B FE4 D D FE3 B
E FE2 B
Ansari et al. Expires Sept. 5, 2006 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft ForCES Discovery July 2004
CE Topology (Aggregate)View CE Topology View
-------------------------------- ------------------------------
<Node> <Port> <Node> <Port> <Node> <Port> <Node> <Port>
FE1 B FE2 E\ FE1 B FE2 E
FE2 E FE1 B/ => FE2 B FE3 E
FE2 B FE3 E\ FE3 B FE4 D
FE3 E FE2 B/ ------------------------------
FE3 B FE4 D\
FE4 D FE3 B/
--------------------------------
Fig.4 (b) Multiple FEs in a daisy chain
3.4.2. Forwarding Elements connected in a ring
^ |
D| v E
----------- A
| FE1 |<-----------------------|
----------- |
C ^ ^ B |
/ \ |
| ^ / \ ^ | V A
B v |C v D C v D| v E ----------
--------- --------- D| |
| FE2 | | FE3 |<------------>| CE |
--------- --------- A | |
A ^ ^ E ^ B ----------
| \ / C ^ ^ B
| \ / | |
| D v E v | |
| ----------- A | |
| | FE4 |<----------------------| |
| ----------- |
| C | ^ B |
| v | |
| |
|----------------------------------------|
Ansari et al. Expires Sept. 5, 2006 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft ForCES Discovery July 2004
FE1 NBR ASSOCIATION TABLE FE2 NBR ASSOCIATION TABLE
------------------------------- -----------------------------
<locl intf> <nbr_FEID> <nbr_port> <locl intf> <nbr_FEID> <nbr_port>
B FE3 C E FE4 D
C FE2 D D FE1 C
FE3 NBR ASSOCIATION TABLE FE4 NBR ASSOCIATION TABLE
-------------------------------- -----------------------------
<locl intf> <nbr_FEID> <nbr_port> <locl intf> <nbr_FEID> <nbr_port>
B FE4 E D FE2 E
C FE1 B E FE3 B
Fig. 4(c) Multiple FEs connected in a ring
4. Security Considerations
The ForCES protocol should ensure the communication security between
CEs and FEs. FEs should ensure that only properly authenticated ForCES
protocol participants are performing such manipulations.
5. References
5.1 Normative
[RFC3746] Yang, L., Dantu, R., Anderson, T. and R. Gopal,
"Forwarding and Control Element Separation (ForCES)
Framework", RFC 3746, April 2004.
[RFC3654] Khosravi, H. and T. Anderson, "Requirements for Separation
of IP Control and Forwarding", RFC 3654,
November 2003.
[ForCESP] F P Team, "ForCES protocol specification",
draft-ietf-forces-protocol-05.txt, Nov 2006.
5.2 Informative
[OSPF] J. Moy, OSPF Version 2, 1998, RFC 2328.
[BGP] Y. Rekhter, T. Li, Border Gateway Protocol 4 (BGP-4)
1995, RFC 1771.
[IS-IS] R. Collela et al., guidelines for OSI NSAP Allocation in
the Internet 1994, RFC 1629.
Ansari et al. Expires Sept. 5, 2006 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft ForCES Discovery July 2004
6. Authors' Addresses
Furquan Ansari
Bell Labs Research, Lucent Tech.
101 Crawfords Corner Road
Holmdel, NJ 07733
USA
Phone: +1 732-949-5249
Email: furquan@lucent.com
Hormuzd Khosravi
Intel
2111 N.E. 25th Avenue JF3-206
Hillsboro, OR 97124-5961
USA
Phone: +1 503 264 0334
Email: hormuzd.m.khosravi@intel.com
Jamal Hadi Salim
ZNYX Networks
Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
Email: hadi@znyx.com
Joel M. Halpern
Megisto systems, Inc.
0251 Century Blvd.
Germantown, MD, 20874-1162, USA
Phone: +1 301 444 17
Email: jhalpern@megisto.com
Xiaoyi Guo
Huawei Tech.
No.3 Xinxi Rd., Shang-Di,
Hai-Dian District Beijing P.R. China
7. IANA Considerations
There are no IANA considerations at this point since the protocol
completely operates within an NE.
Ansari et al. Expires Sept. 5, 2006 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft ForCES Discovery July 2004
8. Full Copyright Notice
"Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2006). This document is subject
to the rights, licenses and restrictions contained in BCP 78, and
except as set forth therein, the authors retain all their rights."
"This document and the information contained herein are provided on
an "AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE
REPRESENTS OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE
INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR
IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF
THE INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED
WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE."
9. Acknowledgments
We would like to thank Thyaga Nandagopal of Lucent Technologies for
his thoughts and contributions to the initial draft.
Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the
Internet Society.
Ansari et al. Expires Sept. 5, 2006 [Page 17]
