Internet Engineering Task Force E. Haleplidis Internet-Draft University of Patras Intended status: Informational February 25, 2013 Expires: August 29, 2013 ForCES Model Extension draft-haleplidis-forces-model-extension-02 Abstract Forwarding and Control Element Separation (ForCES) defines an architectural framework and associated protocols to standardize information exchange between the control plane and the forwarding plane in a ForCES Network Element (ForCES NE). RFC5812 has defined the ForCES Model provides a formal way to represent the capabilities, state, and configuration of forwarding elements within the context of the ForCES protocol, so that control elements (CEs) can control the FEs accordingly. More specifically, the model describes the logical functions that are present in an FE, what capabilities these functions support, and how these functions are or can be interconnected. RFC5812 has been around for two years and experience in its use has shown room for extensions without a need to alter the protocol while retaining backward compatibility with older xml libraries. Status of this Memo This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. 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." This Internet-Draft will expire on August 29, 2013. Copyright Notice Copyright (c) 2013 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the document authors. All rights reserved. Haleplidis Expires August 29, 2013 [Page 1] Internet-Draft ForCES Model Extension February 2013 This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (http://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. Table of Contents 1. Terminology and Conventions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1.1. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1.2. Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 3. ForCES Model Extension overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 4. Extensions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 4.1. Complex Metadata . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 4.2. DataType Optional Default Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 4.3. Struct Optional Access Type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 4.4. New datatype: Bitmap . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 4.5. New Event Condition: EqualTo . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 4.6. Enhancing XML Validation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 5. XML Extension Schema for LFB Class Library Documents . . . . . 14 6. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 8. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 Haleplidis Expires August 29, 2013 [Page 2] Internet-Draft ForCES Model Extension February 2013 1. Terminology and Conventions 1.1. Requirements Language 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 [RFC2119]. 1.2. Definitions This document follows the terminology defined by the ForCES Model in [RFC5812]. The required definitions are repeated below for clarity. FE Model - The FE model is designed to model the logical processing functions of an FE. The FE model proposed in this document includes three components; the LFB modeling of individual Logical Functional Block (LFB model), the logical interconnection between LFBs (LFB topology), and the FE-level attributes, including FE capabilities. The FE model provides the basis to define the information elements exchanged between the CE and the FE in the ForCES protocol [RFC5810]. LFB (Logical Functional Block) Class (or type) - A template that represents a fine-grained, logically separable aspect of FE processing. Most LFBs relate to packet processing in the data path. LFB classes are the basic building blocks of the FE model. LFB Instance - As a packet flows through an FE along a data path, it flows through one or multiple LFB instances, where each LFB is an instance of a specific LFB class. Multiple instances of the same LFB class can be present in an FE's data path. Note that we often refer to LFBs without distinguishing between an LFB class and LFB instance when we believe the implied reference is obvious for the given context. LFB Model - The LFB model describes the content and structures in an LFB, plus the associated data definition. XML is used to provide a formal definition of the necessary structures for the modeling. Four types of information are defined in the LFB model. The core part of the LFB model is the LFB class definitions; the other three types of information define constructs associated with and used by the class definition. These are reusable data types, supported frame (packet) formats, and metadata. Element - Element is generally used in this document in accordance with the XML usage of the term. It refers to an XML tagged part of an XML document. For a precise definition, please see the full set of XML specifications from the W3C. This term is included in Haleplidis Expires August 29, 2013 [Page 3] Internet-Draft ForCES Model Extension February 2013 this list for completeness because the ForCES formal model uses XML. Attribute - Attribute is used in the ForCES formal modeling in accordance with standard XML usage of the term, i.e., to provide attribute information included in an XML tag. LFB Metadata - Metadata is used to communicate per-packet state from one LFB to another, but is not sent across the network. The FE model defines how such metadata is identified, produced, and consumed by the LFBs, but not how the per-packet state is implemented within actual hardware. Metadata is sent between the FE and the CE on redirect packets. ForCES Component - A ForCES Component is a well-defined, uniquely identifiable and addressable ForCES model building block. A component has a 32-bit ID, name, type, and an optional synopsis description. These are often referred to simply as components. LFB Component - An LFB component is a ForCES component that defines the Operational parameters of the LFBs that must be visible to the CEs. LFB Class Library - The LFB class library is a set of LFB classes that has been identified as the most common functions found in most FEs and hence should be defined first by the ForCES Working Group. Haleplidis Expires August 29, 2013 [Page 4] Internet-Draft ForCES Model Extension February 2013 2. Introduction The ForCES Model [RFC5812] presents a formal way to define FEs Logical Function Blocks (LFBs) using XML. [RFC5812] has been published a litlte more than two years and current experience in its use has shown some room for adding new and changing existing modeling concepts. This document extends the ForCES Model by changing and adding new concepts. These extensions do not require any changes on the ForCES protocol [RFC5810] as they are simply changes of the schema definition. Additionally backward compatibility is ensured as xml libraries produced with the earlier schema are still valid with the new one. Haleplidis Expires August 29, 2013 [Page 5] Internet-Draft ForCES Model Extension February 2013 3. ForCES Model Extension overview The folowing extensions are considered: 1. Allow complex metadata. 2. Allow optional default values for datatypes. 3. Allow optional access type for struct datatypes. 4. New datatype: Bitmap. 5. New Event Condition: EqualTo. Additionally this document is also enhancing the XML validation. Haleplidis Expires August 29, 2013 [Page 6] Internet-Draft ForCES Model Extension February 2013 4. Extensions Some of these extensions were product of the work done on the OpenFlow library [I-D.haleplidis-forces-openflow-lib] document. 4.1. Complex Metadata Section 4.6. (Element for Metadata Definitions) in the ForCES Model [RFC5812] limits the datatype use in metadata to only atomic types. Figure 1 shows the xml schema excerpt where ony typeRef and atomic are allowed for a metadata definition. With this extension (Figure 2), complex data types are also allowed, specifically structs and arrays as metadata. The key declarations are required to check for validity of content keys in arrays and componentIDs in structs. Figure 1: Initial MetadataDefType Defintion in the schema Haleplidis Expires August 29, 2013 [Page 7] Internet-Draft ForCES Model Extension February 2013 Figure 2: New MetadataDefType Defintion for the schema Two simple use cases can be seen in the OpenFlow switch [OpenFlowSpec1.1]: 1. The Action Set metadata follows a packet inside the Flow Tables. The Action Set metadata is an array of actions to be performed at the end of the pipeline. 2. When a packet is received from a controller it may be accompanied by a list of actions to be performed on it prior to be sent on the flow table pipeline which is also an array. Haleplidis Expires August 29, 2013 [Page 8] Internet-Draft ForCES Model Extension February 2013 4.2. DataType Optional Default Value In the original schema, default values can be defined only in datatypes defined inside LFB components. However when it's a complex datatype or it's a refered datatype, using the default value field is difficult to be used. Additionally there is no option in a complex datatype to use the default value field for only one component in the complex datatype. This extension allows optionally to add default values to atomic and typeref types, whether they are as simple or complex datatypes. A simple use case would be to have a struct component where one of the components is a counter which the default value would be zero. This extension alters the definition of the typeDeclarationGroup in the xml schema from Figure 3 to Figure 4 to allow default values to TypeRef. Figure 3: Initial Excerpt of typeDeclarationGroup Defintion in the schema Figure 4: New Excerpt of typeDeclarationGroup Defintion in the schema Additionally it appends to the declaration of the AtomicType this xml (Figure 5) to allow default values to Atomic datatypes. Figure 5: Appending xml in of AtomicType Defintion in the schema 4.3. Struct Optional Access Type In the original schema, the access type can be only be defined on components of LFB. However when it's a struct datatype it is not possible to fine-tune access type per component in the struct. With this extension is it allowed to define the access type for a struct component either in the datatype definitions or in the LFB component definitions. Haleplidis Expires August 29, 2013 [Page 9] Internet-Draft ForCES Model Extension February 2013 This extension allows to optionally specify access type for struct components. A simple use case would be to have a read-write struct component where one of the components is a counter where the access- type could be read-reset or read-only. When the optional access type for a struct component is defined it MUST override the access type of the struct. If by accident an access type for a component in a capability is defined, the access type MUST not be taken into account. This extension alters the definition of the struct in the xml schema from Figure 6 to Figure 7. Figure 6: Initial xml for the struct definition in the schema Haleplidis Expires August 29, 2013 [Page 10] Internet-Draft ForCES Model Extension February 2013 Figure 7: New xml for the struct definition in the schema 4.4. New datatype: Bitmap With the current schema it is valid to create a struct of booleans in order to simulate a bitmap value. However each boolean is sent as 4bytes. This extension adds the bitmap, a set of sequential named bits. The goal is to accompany the bitmap with a TLV for transporting it in a more compact format. A first approach would be to define it as T-L followed by a 16bits that would specify the number of bits, followed by the actual bits and the necessary padding for the 32-bit alignment. In the new schema, bits are named followed by the bitsize per named bits. An example: Haleplidis Expires August 29, 2013 [Page 11] Internet-Draft ForCES Model Extension February 2013 Bitmap example A bitmap field example Figure 8: Example of bitmap Defintion The ordering of the bits MUST be implemented in the order that are defined in the xml library. The bitmap is defined in the model extension schema is as follows: Figure 9: New Excerpt of bitmap Defintion in the schema Along with the needed addition to the typeDeclarationGroup Definition: Figure 10: New Excerpt of typeDeclarationGroup Defintion in the schema 4.5. New Event Condition: EqualTo This extensions adds one more event condition in the model schema, that of EqualTo. The difference between Greater Than and Less Than, is that when the value is exactly that of the EqualTo, the event is triggered. This event condition is particular useful when there is a need to monitor one or more states of an LFB or the FE. For example Haleplidis Expires August 29, 2013 [Page 12] Internet-Draft ForCES Model Extension February 2013 in the CEHA [I-D.ietf-forces-ceha] document it may be useful for the master CE to know which backup CEs have just become associated in order to connect to them and begin synchronizing the state of the FE. The master CE could always poll for such information but getting such an event will speed up the process and the event may be useful in other cases as well for monitoring state. A user subscribing to such an event SHOULD always set the Event Time Filtering for the EqualTo event condition in order to avoid getting a large amount of generated events. The EqualTo is appended to the schema as follows: Figure 11: New Excerpt of EqualTo event condition definition in the schema 4.6. Enhancing XML Validation As specified earlier this is not an extension but an enhancement of the schema to provide additional validation rules. This includes adding new key declarations to provide uniqueness as deinfed by the ForCES Model [RFC5812]. Such validations work only on within the same xml file. The following validation rules have been appended in the original schema in [RFC5812]: 1. Each metadata ID must be unique. 2. LFB Class IDs must be unique. 3. Component ID, Capability ID and Event Base ID must be unique per LFB. 4. Event IDs must be unique per LFB. 5. Special Values in Atomic datatypes must be unique per atomic datatype. Haleplidis Expires August 29, 2013 [Page 13] Internet-Draft ForCES Model Extension February 2013 5. XML Extension Schema for LFB Class Library Documents Schema for Defining LFB Classes and associated types (frames, data types for LFB attributes, and metadata). Haleplidis Expires August 29, 2013 [Page 14] Internet-Draft ForCES Model Extension February 2013 Haleplidis Expires August 29, 2013 [Page 15] Internet-Draft ForCES Model Extension February 2013 Haleplidis Expires August 29, 2013 [Page 16] Internet-Draft ForCES Model Extension February 2013 Haleplidis Expires August 29, 2013 [Page 17] Internet-Draft ForCES Model Extension February 2013 Haleplidis Expires August 29, 2013 [Page 18] Internet-Draft ForCES Model Extension February 2013 Haleplidis Expires August 29, 2013 [Page 19] Internet-Draft ForCES Model Extension February 2013 Haleplidis Expires August 29, 2013 [Page 20] Internet-Draft ForCES Model Extension February 2013 Haleplidis Expires August 29, 2013 [Page 22] Internet-Draft ForCES Model Extension February 2013 Haleplidis Expires August 29, 2013 [Page 24] Internet-Draft ForCES Model Extension February 2013 Haleplidis Expires August 29, 2013 [Page 25] Internet-Draft ForCES Model Extension February 2013 Haleplidis Expires August 29, 2013 [Page 26] Internet-Draft ForCES Model Extension February 2013 OpenFlow XML Library Haleplidis Expires August 29, 2013 [Page 27] Internet-Draft ForCES Model Extension February 2013 6. Acknowledgements TBD Haleplidis Expires August 29, 2013 [Page 28] Internet-Draft ForCES Model Extension February 2013 7. IANA Considerations This memo includes no request to IANA. Haleplidis Expires August 29, 2013 [Page 29] Internet-Draft ForCES Model Extension February 2013 8. Security Considerations TBD Haleplidis Expires August 29, 2013 [Page 30] Internet-Draft ForCES Model Extension February 2013 9. References 9.1. Normative References [I-D.haleplidis-forces-openflow-lib] Haleplidis, E., Cherkaoui, O., Hares, S., and W. Wang, "Forwarding and Control Element Separation (ForCES) OpenFlow Model Library", draft-haleplidis-forces-openflow-lib-01 (work in progress), July 2012. [I-D.ietf-forces-ceha] Ogawa, K., Wang, W., Haleplidis, E., and J. Salim, "ForCES Intra-NE High Availability", draft-ietf-forces-ceha-06 (work in progress), February 2013. [OpenFlowSpec1.1] http://www.OpenFlow.org/, "The OpenFlow 1.1 Specification.", . [RFC5810] Doria, A., Hadi Salim, J., Haas, R., Khosravi, H., Wang, W., Dong, L., Gopal, R., and J. Halpern, "Forwarding and Control Element Separation (ForCES) Protocol Specification", RFC 5810, March 2010. [RFC5812] Halpern, J. and J. Hadi Salim, "Forwarding and Control Element Separation (ForCES) Forwarding Element Model", RFC 5812, March 2010. 9.2. Informative References [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. Haleplidis Expires August 29, 2013 [Page 31] Internet-Draft ForCES Model Extension February 2013 Author's Address Evangelos Haleplidis University of Patras Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering Patras, 26500 Greece Email: ehalep@ece.upatras.gr Haleplidis Expires August 29, 2013 [Page 32]