NSIS T. Tsenov
Internet-Draft H. Tschofenig
Expires: January 6, 2005 Siemens
X. Fu
Univ. Goettingen
C. Aoun
Nortel
E. Davies
Folly Consulting
July 5, 2005
GIMPS State Machine
draft-ietf-nsis-ntlp-statemachine-00.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 January 6, 2006.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2005). All Rights Reserved.
Abstract
This document describes the state machines for the General Internet
Messaging Protocol for Signaling (GIMPS). The states of GIMPS nodes
for a given flow and their transitions are presented in order to
illustrate how GIMPS may be implemented.
Tsenov, et al. [Page 1]
Internet-Draft GIMPS State Machines July 2005
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. Notational conventions used in state diagrams . . . . . . . 3
4. State Machine Symbols . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
5. Common Rules . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
5.1 Common Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
5.2 Common Variables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
5.3 Constants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
6. State machines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
6.1 Diagram notations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
6.2 State machine for GIMPS querying node . . . . . . . . . . 12
6.3 State machine for GIMPS responding node . . . . . . . . . 13
7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
8. Open Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
9. Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
10. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
11. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
11.1 Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
11.2 Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Appendix A. ASCII versions of the state diagrams . . . . . . . . 17
A.1 State machine for GIMPS querying node (Figure 2) . . . . 17
A.2 State Machine for GIMPS responding node (Figure 3) . . . 20
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . 24
Tsenov, et al. [Page 2]
Internet-Draft GIMPS State Machines July 2005
1. Introduction
This document describes the state machines for GIMPS [1], trying to
show how GIMPS can be implemented to support its deployment. The
state machines described in this document are illustrative of how the
GIMPS protocol defined in [1] may be implemented for the GIMPS nodes
in different locations of a flow path. Where there are differences
[1] are authoritative. The state machines are informative only.
Implementations may achieve the same results using different methods.
There are two types of possible entities for GIMPS signaling:
- GIMPS querying node - GIMPS node that initiates the discovery of
the next peer;
- GIMPS responding node - GIMPS node that is the discovered next
peer;
We describe a set of state machines for these entities to illustrate
how GIMPS may be implemented.
2. Terminology
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 [2].
3. Notational conventions used in state diagrams
The following text is reused from [3] and the state diagrams are
based on the conventions specified in [4], Section 8.2.1. Additional
state machine details are taken from [5].
The complete text is reproduced here:
State diagrams are used to represent the operation of the protocol by
a number of cooperating state machines each comprising a group of
connected, mutually exclusive states. Only one state of each machine
can be active at any given time.
All permissible transitions between states are represented by arrows,
the arrowhead denoting the direction of the possible transition.
Labels attached to arrows denote the condition(s) that must be met in
order for the transition to take place. All conditions are
expressions that evaluate to TRUE or FALSE; if a condition evaluates
to TRUE, then the condition is met. The label UCT denotes an
unconditional transition (i.e., UCT always evaluates to TRUE). A
transition that is global in nature (i.e., a transition that occurs
Tsenov, et al. [Page 3]
Internet-Draft GIMPS State Machines July 2005
from any of the possible states if the condition attached to the
arrow is met) is denoted by an open arrow; i.e., no specific state is
identified as the origin of the transition. When the condition
associated with a global transition is met, it supersedes all other
exit conditions including UCT. The special global condition BEGIN
supersedes all other global conditions, and once asserted remains
asserted until all state blocks have executed to the point that
variable assignments and other consequences of their execution remain
unchanged.
On entry to a state, the procedures defined for the state (if any)
are executed exactly once, in the order that they appear on the page.
Each action is deemed to be atomic; i.e., execution of a procedure
completes before the next sequential procedure starts to execute. No
procedures execute outside of a state block. The procedures in only
one state block execute at a time, even if the conditions for
execution of state blocks in different state machines are satisfied,
and all procedures in an executing state block complete execution
before the transition to and execution of any other state block
occurs, i.e., the execution of any state block appears to be atomic
with respect to the execution of any other state block and the
transition condition to that state from the previous state is TRUE
when execution commences. The order of execution of state blocks in
different state machines is undefined except as constrained by their
transition conditions. A variable that is set to a particular value
in a state block retains this value until a subsequent state block
executes a procedure that modifies the value.
On completion of all of the procedures within a state, all exit
conditions for the state (including all conditions associated with
global transitions) are evaluated continuously until one of the
conditions is met. The label ELSE denotes a transition that occurs
if none of the other conditions for transitions from the state are
met (i.e., ELSE evaluates to TRUE if all other possible exit
conditions from the state evaluate to FALSE). Where two or more exit
conditions with the same level of precedence become TRUE
simultaneously, the choice as to which exit condition causes the
state transition to take place is arbitrary.
In addition to the above notation, there are a couple of
clarifications specific to this document. First, all boolean
variables are initialized to FALSE before the state machine execution
begins. Second, the following notational shorthand is specific to
this document:
<variable> = <expression1> | <expression2> | ...
Execution of a statement of this form will result in <variable>
Tsenov, et al. [Page 4]
Internet-Draft GIMPS State Machines July 2005
having a value of exactly one of the expressions. The logic for
which of those expressions gets executed is outside of the state
machine and could be environmental, configurable, or based on
another state machine such as that of the method.
4. State Machine Symbols
MA
Messaging Association
Upstream/Downstream MRS
Message Routing State with upstream/downstream peer state info
( )
Used to force the precedence of operators in Boolean expressions
and to delimit the argument(s) of actions within state boxes.
;
Used as a terminating delimiter for actions within state boxes.
Where a state box contains multiple actions, the order of
execution follows the normal English language conventions for
reading text.
=
Assignment action. The value of the expression to the right of
the operator is assigned to the variable to the left of the
operator. Where this operator is used to define multiple
assignments, e.g., a = b = X the action causes the value of the
expression following the right-most assignment operator to be
assigned to all of the variables that appear to the left of the
right-most assignment operator.
!
Logical NOT operator.
&&
Logical AND operator.
||
Logical OR operator.
if...then...
Conditional action. If the Boolean expression following the if
evaluates to TRUE, then the action following the then is executed.
{ statement 1, ... statement N }
Compound statement. Braces are used to group statements that are
executed together as if they were a single statement.
Tsenov, et al. [Page 5]
Internet-Draft GIMPS State Machines July 2005
!=
Inequality. Evaluates to TRUE if the expression to the left of
the operator is not equal in value to the expression to the right.
==
Equality. Evaluates to TRUE if the expression to the left of the
operator is equal in value to the expression to the right.
>
Greater than. Evaluates to TRUE if the value of the expression to
the left of the operator is greater than the value of the
expression to the right.
<=
Less than or equal to. Evaluates to TRUE if the value of the
expression to the left of the operator is either less than or
equal to the value of the expression to the right.
++
Increment the preceding integer operator by 1.
+
Arithmetic addition operator.
&
Bitwise AND operator.
5. Common Rules
Throughout the document we use terms defined in the [1], such as
Query, Response, Confirm.
State machine represents handling of GIMPS messages that match a
Message Routing State's MRI and NSLPID and with no protocol errors.
Separate parallel instances of the state machines should handle
messages for different Message Routing States.
The state machine states represent the upstream/downstream peers
states of the Message Routing State.
For simplification not all objects included in a message are shown.
Only those that are significant for the case are shown. State
machines do not present handling of messages that are not significant
for management of the states.
Presented in this document state machines do not cover all functions
of a GIMPS node. Functionality of message forwarding, ROA
processing, transmission of NSLP data without MRS establishment and
Tsenov, et al. [Page 6]
Internet-Draft GIMPS State Machines July 2005
providing of the received messages to the appropriate MRS, we refer
as "Lower level pre-processing" step. The interaction of this step
with the presented here state machines is defined as follows:
Pre-processing provides to the appropriate MRS FSM only the messages
which are matched against waiting Query/Response cookies, or
established MRS MRI+NSLPID primary key. This is presented by "rx_*"
events in the state machines.
5.1 Common Procedures
Tg_SendMsg:
NSLP/GIMPS API message that request transmission of a NSLP
message.
Tg_SetStateLifetime(time_period):
NSLP/GIMPS API message providing info for the Lifetime of an RS,
required by the application. "Time_period = 0" represents the
cancellation of established RSs/MAs (invoked by NSLP application).
Tg_MessageDeliveryError:
NSLP/GIMPS API message informing NSLP application of unsuccessful
delivery of a message
Tg_RecvMsg:
NSLP/GIMPS API message that provides received message to the NSLP
Tg_NetworkNotification:
NSLP/GIMPS API message that informs NSLP for change in MRS
Tx_Query:
Transmit of Query message in Dmode
Tx_Response_Dmode:
Transmit of Response message in Dmode
Tx_Confirm_Dmode:
Transmit of Confirm message in Dmode
Rx_Query_Dmode:
Receive of Query message in Dmode
Rx_Response_Dmode:
Receive of Response message in Dmode
Rx_Confirm_Cmode:
Receive of Confirm message in Dmode
Tsenov, et al. [Page 7]
Internet-Draft GIMPS State Machines July 2005
Tx_Response_Cmode:
Transmit of Response message in Cmode (via MA)
Tx_Confirm_Cmode:
Transmit of Confirm message in Cmode (via MA)
Rx_Response_Cmode:
Receive of Response message in Cmode (via MA)
Rx_Confirm_Cmode:
Receive of Confirm message in Cmode (via MA)
Queue NSLP msg info:
Save NLSP messages in a queue until a required MA association is
established
Tx_Msg_Cmode:
Transmit message in Cmode (via MA)
Rx_Msg_Cmode:
Receive message in Cmode (via MA)
Tx_Msg_Dmode:
Transmit message in Dmode
Rx_Msg_Dmode:
Receive message in Dmode
TIMEOUT_MRSlifetime:
Expiration of the lifetime timer of the upstream/downstream peer
state info of the Message Routing State.
TIMEOUT_Refresh:
Refresh interval timer expiration
TIMEOUT_WaitResponse:
Expiration of Timer for the waiting period for Response message.
TIMEOUT_WaitConfirm:
Expiration of Timer for the waiting period for Confirm message.
Install downstream/upstream MRS:
Install new Message Routing State and save the corespoding peer
state info (IP address and UDP port or pointer to the used MA) for
the current Message Routing State or update the coresponding peer
state info.
DELETE MRS:
Tsenov, et al. [Page 8]
Internet-Draft GIMPS State Machines July 2005
Delete installed downstream/upstream peer's info for the current
Message Routing State and delete the Message Routing State if
required.
Establish MA:
Establish Message Association (MA) between current node and its
downstream peer
Established MA:
A Message Association (MA) is established between the current node
and its upstream peer. The initiator for the establishment is the
upstream peer. Re-use existing MA: An existing MA between the
current node and its peer is re-used.
DELETE MA:
Delete/disconnect used MA.
Stop using shared MA:
Stop using shared MA. If the shared MA is no more used by any
other MRSs, it depends on the local policy whether it is deleted
or kept.
REFRESH MRS:
Refreshes installed MRS.
Tg_MA_Error:
Error event with used MA.
Tg_PathChange:
External event for Path change detected.
Tg_Establish_MA:
Trigers establishment of MA.
Tg_MA_Established:
MA has been successfully established.
Tg_ERROR:
General Error event / system level error.
No_MRS_Installed:
Error response, send by the Responding node indicating lost
Confirm message.
5.2 Common Variables
It is assumed that the type of mode and destination info (which need
to be taken from the application parameters and local GIMPS policy)is
Tsenov, et al. [Page 9]
Internet-Draft GIMPS State Machines July 2005
provided. This is represented by the common variables Dmode, Cmode,
MAinfo, MApresent and Refresh.
Dmode:
The message MUST be transmitted in Dmode. This is specified by
"Message transfer attributes" set to the following values:
"Reliability" is set to FALSE.
"Security" is set to values that do not request special security
handling of a message.
"Local processing" is set to values that do not require services
offered by Cmode [1]
Cmode:
The message MUST be transmitted in Cmode. This is specified by
"Message transfer attributes" set to any of the following values:
"Reliability" is set to TRUE.
"Security" is set to values that request secure handling of a
message.
"Local processing" is set to values that require services offered
by Cmode (e.g., congestion control). [1]
MAinfo:
GIMPS message parameters describing the required MA or proposed MA
e.g. "Stack-proposal" and "Node-addressing". This list of GIMPS
parameters is not complete. A full mapping is left for future
version of the document.
NSLPdata:
NSLP application data.
RespCookie:
Responder Cookie that is being sent by the Responding node with
the Response message in case that its local policy requires a
confirmation from the querying node.
Refresh:
This variable specifies that the message is for refresh purposes.
ConfirmRequired:
TConfirm message is required by the local policy rule for
installation of the new MRS.
Tsenov, et al. [Page 10]
Internet-Draft GIMPS State Machines July 2005
NewPeer:
Response message is received from new responding peer.
MAexist:
Existing MA will be reused.
CheckPeerInfo:
The sender of the received data message is matched against the
installed peer info in the MRS.
UpstreamPeerInstalled:
Upstream peer info is installed in the MRS.
5.3 Constants
Tsenov, et al. [Page 11]
Internet-Draft GIMPS State Machines July 2005
6. State machines
The following section presents the state machine diagrams of GIMPS
peers.
6.1 Diagram notations
(see the .pdf version for missing diagram or
refer to Appendix A if reading the .txt version)
Figure 1: Diagram notations
6.2 State machine for GIMPS querying node
The following is a diagram of the GIMPS querying node state machine.
Also included is clarification of notation.
(see the .pdf version for missing diagram or
refer to Appendix A.1 if reading the .txt version)
Figure 1: GIMPS Querying Node State Machine
*) Response and Confirm messages might be send either in Dmode or
Cmode, before or after MA establishment depending on node's local
3-way handshake policy and the availability of MAs to be reused.
See draft for details.
**) Depending on the local policy NSLPdata might be send as payload
of Query and Confirm messages. (piggybacking)
1) Initial request from NSLP are received, which triggers Query
messages requesting either D_mode or C_mode. Dependign on local
policy of the node, NSLP data might be piggybacked in the Query
requesting D_mode.
2) Response message is received. If C_mode connections must be
established and there is no available MA to be reused, MA
establishment is initiated and waited to be completed. If D_mode
connection is requested or available MA can be reused if C_mode is
requested the MRS is established.
3) New MA is successfully established and MRS, which will use it, is
installed.
4) Path change detected events - local recovery procedure, where new
MA must be established for requested C_mode connection. THIS IS
VALID ONLY IF THE NODE IS CROSSOVER NODE.
5) Path change detected events - local recovery procedure, where
D_mode or C_mode with available MA must be established. THIS IS
VALID ONLY IF THE NODE IS CROSSOVER NODE.
6) NSLP data is queued, because downstream peer is not discovered or
required MA is still not established.
Tsenov, et al. [Page 12]
Internet-Draft GIMPS State Machines July 2005
7) Received Data messages are checked if their sender matches the
installed downstream peer info in the MRS and then processed.
8) Received Data messages are checked if their sender matches the
installed downstream peer info in the MRS and then processed. In
WaitResponse state, this event might happen in the process of MA
upgrade, when the downstream peer is still not aware of
establishment of the new MA.
9) Depending on the requested transport from NSLP and currently
established D_mode or C_mode, NSLP message is sent D_mode if
D_mode is requested and C_mode if the features of the used MA
covers the required transport. ( e.g. used MA is reliable and NSLP
request reliable but not secure transport)
10) External event notifies for Path Change and discovery procedures
is restarted. THIS IS VALID ONLY IF THE NODE IS CROSSOVER NODE OR
NSLP requests C_mode transport that is not covered by currently
used D_mode or MA (case of MA upgrade) and discovery procedure is
restared but current downstream peer info is kept in order to be
able to receive messages from it during the upgrade process.
6.3 State machine for GIMPS responding node
The following is a diagram of the GIMPS responding node state
machine. Also included is clarification of notation.
(see the .pdf version for missing diagram or
refer to Appendix A.2 if reading the .txt version)
Figure 3: GIMPS Responding Node State Machine
*) Response and Confirm messages might be send either in Dmode or
Cmode depending on node's local 3-way handshake policy and the
availability of MAs to be reused. See draft for details.
**) Differentiation between WaitConfirm timer expiration of initial
MRS event or MA_upgrade event is based on the presence of
installed peer info in the MRS. If no peer info is installed this
is initial MRS establishment.
1) Initial Query messages requesting either D_mode or C_mode
connection. In both cases, explicit Confirm message is required
for MRS installation, based on the local policy. Query requesting
D_mode might carry piggybacked NSLP data.
2) Initial Query messages requesting either D_mode or C_mode
connection. In both cases, MRS is installed immediately, based on
the local policy. Query requesting D_mode might carry piggybacked
NSLP data. In the case of C_mode request, Confirm message is
required to confirm the establishment of the used MA.
3) In case of lost Confirm message, data messages might be received
from the upstream node (it is unaware of the lost Confirm
message). Response indicating the loss of the Confirm is sent
Tsenov, et al. [Page 13]
Internet-Draft GIMPS State Machines July 2005
back to the upstream node.
4) Event of change of the upstream peer (e.g., path change) with
request of D_mode and non-paranoid local policy.
5) Event of request of change of the used connection mode (from
D_mode/C_mode to better C_mode), event of change of the upstream
peer (e.g., path change) with request for C_mode or D_mode
connection and paranoid local policy.
6) Confirm message is received which causes installation of the
complete MRS or just installation of the used MA as a upstream
peer info.
7) Differentiation between WaitConfirm timer expiration of initial
MRS event or MA upgrade/change event is based on the presence of
installed peer info in the MRS. If no peer info is installed this
is initial MRS establishment and installed MRS must be deleted.
8) Data messages are accepted only if complete MRS is installed,
e.g., there is installed upstream peer info. If not then Confirm
message is expected and data message will not be accepted but
Response indicating the loss of the Confirm is sent back to the
upstream node.
9) NSLP message can't be sent upstream if Confirm message is not
received and MA is not installed as upstream peer info. They are
queued.
8. Security Considerations
This document does not raise new security considerations. Any
security concerns with GIMPS are likely reflected in security related
NSIS work already (such as [1] or [6]).
For the time being, the state machines described in this document do
not consider the security aspect of GMIPS protocol itself. A future
versions of this document will add security relevant states and state
transitions.
9. Open Issues
We have left for further version of the document the following
issues:
1. The FSM that handles the management of a MA is considered in the
document (e.g., tg_Establish_MA, tg_MA_established events), but it
is not currently explicitely presented. It is left for future
version of the document.
2. Functionality of, as referred in the document "Lower level pre-
processing" (Section 5), namely message forwarding, RAO
processing, transmission of NSLP data without MRS establishment
and providing of the received messages to the appropriate MRS is
left for future version of the document.
Tsenov, et al. [Page 14]
Internet-Draft GIMPS State Machines July 2005
3. Currently we use WaitConfirm state in the Responding node FSM, but
following the DoS prevention approaches for no state installation
in the Responding node before receiving of Confirm message, we
consider possible removing of this state. This issue requires
further investigations.
10. Contributors
Christian Dickmann contributed to refining of the state machine since
01 version.
11. Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank Robert Hancock, Ingo Juchem, Andreas
Westermaier, Alexander Zrim, Julien Abeille Youssef Abidi and Bernd
Schloer for their insightful comments.
Tsenov, et al. [Page 15]
Internet-Draft GIMPS State Machines July 2005
12. References
12.1. Normative References
[1] Schulzrinne, H., "GIMPS: General Internet Messaging
Protocol for Signaling", draft-ietf-nsis-ntlp-05 (work in
progress), February
2005.
[2] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
11.2. Informative References
[3] Vollbrecht, J., Eronen, P., Petroni, N., and Y. Ohba,
"State Machines for Extensible Authentication Protocol
(EAP) Peer and Authenticator", draft-ietf-eap-
statemachine-06 (work in progress), December 2004.
[4] Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, "DRAFT
Standard for Local and Metropolitan Area Networks: Port-
Based
Network Access Control (Revision)", IEEE 802-1X-REV/D11,
July 2004.
[5] Ohba, Y., "State Machines for Protocol for Carrying
Authentication for Network Access (PANA)",
draft-ohba-pana-statemachine-01 (work in progress),
February 2005.
[6] Tschofenig, H. and D. Kroeselberg, "Security Threats for
NSIS", draft-ietf-nsis-threats-06 (work in progress),
October 2004.
Tsenov, et al. [Page 16]
Internet-Draft GIMPS State Machines July 2005
Appendix A. ASCII versions of state diagrams
This appendix contains the state diagrams in ASCII format. Please
use the PDF version whenever possible: it is much easier to
understand.
The notation is as follows: for each state there is a separate table
that lists in each row:
- an event that triggers a transition,
- actions taken as a result of the incoming event,
- and the new state at which the transitions ends.
A.1. State machine for GIMPS querying node (Figure 2)
-----------
State: IDLE
-----------
Condition Action State Note
------------------------+-------------------------+-----------+---
(tg_SendMsg)&&(Dmode) |Tx_Query |Wait |1)
|Queue_NSLP_msg_data |Response |**
| | |
(tg_SendMsg)&&(Cmode) |Tx_Query(MAinfo) |Wait |1)
|Queue_NSLP_msg_data |Response |
| | |
------------------------+-------------------------+-----------+---
-----------
State: WaitResponse
-----------
Condition Action State Note
------------------------+-------------------------+-----------+---
(rx_Response_Dmode)|| |Install MRS |Established|**
((rx_Response_?mode( |If (RespCookie) |Downstream |2)
MAinfo)&&(MAexist))| tx_Confirm_?mode(Resp |MRS |
| Cookie)| |
|Tx_queued_Msg_?mode | |
| | |
(rx_Response_?mode( |Tg_Establish_MA |Wait MA |*
MAinfo)&&(!MA_exist))|(Tx_Confirm_?mode) |Establish. |2)
| | |
rx_Msg_?mode |IF(CheckPeerInfo) |Wait |8)
| Tg_RecvMsg to Appl.|Response |
| | |
Tsenov, et al. [Page 17]
Internet-Draft GIMPS State Machines July 2005
tg_SendMsg |Queue NSLP msg data |Wait |6)
| |Response |
| | |
Timeout_WaitResponse |(Tx_Query(MAinfo)) || |Wait |
|(Tx_Query(NSLPdata))|| |Response |
|(Tx_Query) | |
| | |
(Timeout_WaitResponse) |Tg_MessageDeliveryError |IDLE |
&&(MaxRetry) | | |
| | |
Tg_ERROR |(Delete MRS) |IDLE |
|IF (MA is used) | |
| ((Delete MA)|| | |
| (Stop using shared MA))| |
|Tg_NetworkNotification | |
| | |
------------------------+-------------------------+-----------+---
-----------
State: Established Downstream MRS
-----------
Condition Action State Note
------------------------+-------------------------+-----------+---
rx_Msg_?mode |IF(CheckPeerInfo) |Established|7)
| Tg_RecvMsg to Appl.|Downstream |
| |MRS |
| | |
tg_SendMsg_?mode |IF(Cmode)&&(MAexist) |Established|9)
| Tx_Msg_Cmode |Downstream |
|IF(Dmode) Tx_Msg_Dmode |MRS |
| | |
((tg_SendMsg)&&(Cmode)&&|Tx_Query(MAinfo) |Wait |10)
(!MAexist))|| |Queue NSLP msg data |Response |
(tg_MA_error)|| | | |
(tg_Path_Change) | | |
| | |
Timeout_refresh |Tx_Query(Refresh) |Established|
| |Downstream |
| |MRS |
| | |
rx_Response(No_MRS |tx_Confirm(RespCookie) |Established|
_installed)|Tx_queued_Msg_Cmode |Downstream |
| |MRS |
Tsenov, et al. [Page 18]
Internet-Draft GIMPS State Machines July 2005
| | |
(Timeout_MRSlifetime)|| |(Delete MRS) |IDLE |
(tg_SetStateLifetime(0))| | |
||(Tg_ERROR) | | |
| | |
|Tg_NetworkNotification | |
| | |
(rx_Response_Dmode)|| |IF (MA is used) |Established|5)
(rx_Response_?mode( | ((Delete MA)|| |Downstream |
Mainfo)&&(NewPeer)&&| (Stop using shared MA))|MRS |
(MAexist) |Install MRS | |
|If (RespCookie) | |
| tx_Confirm_?mode(Resp | |
| Cookie)| |
| | |
(rx_Response_?mode( |((Delete MA)|| |Wait MA |*
MAinfo)&&(NewPeer)&&|(Stop using shared MA)) |Establish. |4)
(!MA_exist) |Tg_Establish_MA | |
|(Tx_Confirm_?mode) | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
------------------------+-------------------------+-----------+---
-----------
State: Wait MA Establishment
-----------
Condition Action State Note
------------------------+-------------------------+-----------+---
tg_SendMsg |Queue NSLP msg data |Wait MA |6)
| |Establish. |
| | |
Tg_MA_Established |Install MRS |Established|3)
|(Tx_Confirm_?mode) |Downstream |*
|(Tx_queued_Msg_Cmode) |MRS |**
| | |
Tg_MA_error |Delete MRS |IDLE |
|Tg_NetworkNotification | |
| | |
Tg_ERROR |(Delete MRS) |IDLE |
|IF (MA is used) | |
| ((Delete MA)|| | |
| (Stop using shared MA))| |
Tsenov, et al. [Page 19]
Internet-Draft GIMPS State Machines July 2005
|Tg_NetworkNotification | |
| | |
------------------------+-------------------------+-----------+---
Figure 4
A.2. State Machine for GIMPS responding node (Figure 3)
-----------
State: IDLE
-----------
Condition Action State Note
------------------------+-------------------------+-----------+---
rx_Query(?) |Tx_Response_Dmode(Resp |Wait |1)
&&(ConfirmRequired) | Cookie)|Confirm |
|IF(NSLPdata) | |
|Tg_RecvMsg(NSLPdata) | |
| to Appl.| |
| | |
rx_Query(?) |Tx_Response_Dmode |Established|2)
&&(!ConfirmRequired) |Install MRS |Upstream |
|IF(NSLPdata) |MRS |
|Tg_RecvMsg(NSLPdata) | |
| to Appl.| |
| | |
rx_Query(MAinfo) |Tx_Response_?mode(Resp |Wait |*
&&(ConfirmRequired) | Cookie, MAinfo)|Confirm |1)
| | |
rx_Query(Mainfo) |Tx_Response_?mode(Resp |Established|*
&&(!ConfirmRequired) | Cookie, MAinfo)|Upstream |2)
|Set WaitConfirm timer |MRS |
|Install MRS | |
| | |
------------------------+-------------------------+-----------+---
-----------
State: WAIT CONFIRM
-----------
Condition Action State Note
------------------------+-------------------------+-----------+---
rx_Msg_?mode |Tx_Response(No_MRS_ |Wait |3)
| installed)|Confirm |
| | |
Rx_Confirm_?mode |Install Upstream MRS |Established|*
Tsenov, et al. [Page 20]
Internet-Draft GIMPS State Machines July 2005
| |Upstream |6)
| |MRS |
| | |
Timeout_WaitConfirm | |IDLE |
| | |
------------------------+-------------------------+-----------+---
-----------
State: Established Upstream MRS
-----------
Condition Action State Note
------------------------+-------------------------+-----------+---
Rx_Confirm_?mode |Stop WaitConfirm timer |Established|6)
|Install MRS |Upstream |
|Tx_queued_Msg_Cmode |MRS |
| | |
(Timeout_WaitConfirm)&& |(Delete MRS) |IDLE |7)
(!UpstreamPeerInstalled)|IF (MA is used) | |**
| ((Delete MA)|| | |
| (Stop using shared MA))| |
|Tg_NetworkNotification | |
| | |
rx_Msg_?mode |IF(CheckPeerInfo) |Established|8)
| Tg_RecvMsg to Appl.|Upstream |
|ELSE |MRS |
|Tx_Response(No_MRS_ | |
| installed)| |
| | |
tg_SendMsg |IF(WaitConfirm timer set)|Established|9)
| Queue NSLP msg data|Upstream |
|ELSE Tx_Msg_?mode |MRS |
| | |
(Timeout_MRSlifetime)|| |(Delete MRS)&& |IDLE |
(tg_SetStateLifetime(0))|IF (MA is used) | |
| ((Delete MA)|| | |
| (Stop using shared MA))| |
|Tg_NetworkNotification | |
| | |
rx_Query(Refresh) |Refresh MRS |Established|
|Tx_Response(Refresh) |Upstream |
| |MRS |
| | |
(rx_Query(MAinfo))|| |Tx_Response_?mode(Resp |Established|*
((rx_Query)&&(!MAinfo)&&| Cookie, MAinfo)|Upstream |5)
(ConfirmRequired))|Set WaitConfirm timer |MRS |
Tsenov, et al. [Page 21]
Internet-Draft GIMPS State Machines July 2005
| | |
(rx_Query)&&(!MAinfo)&& |Install MRS |Established|4)
(!ConfirmRequired) |tx_Response |Upstream |
|IF (MA is used) |MRS |
| ((Delete MA)|| | |
| (Stop using shared MA))| |
|IF(NSLPdata) | |
|Tg_RecvMsg(NSLPdata) | |
| to Appl.| |
| | |
Tg_ERROR |(Delete MRS) |IDLE |
|IF (MA is used) | |
| ((Delete MA)|| | |
| (Stop using shared MA))| |
|Tg_NetworkNotification | |
| | |
------------------------+-------------------------+-----------+---
Figure 5
Tsenov, et al. [Page 22]
Internet-Draft GIMPS State Machines July 2005
Authors' Addresses
Tseno Tsenov
Siemens
Otto-Hahn-Ring 6
Munich, Bayern 81739
Germany
Email: tseno.tsenov@mytum.de
Hannes Tschofenig
Siemens
Otto-Hahn-Ring 6
Munich, Bayern 81739
Germany
Email: Hannes.Tschofenig@siemens.com
Xiaoming Fu
University of Goettingen
Telematics Group
Lotzestr. 16-18
Goettingen 37083
Germany
Email: fu@cs.uni-goettingen.de
Cedric Aoun
Nortel
France
Email: cedric.aoun@nortel.com
Elwyn B. Davies
Folly Consulting
Soham, Cambs
UK
Phone: +44 7889 488 335
Email: elwynd@dial.pipex.com
Tsenov, et al. [Page 23]
Internet-Draft GIMPS State Machines July 2005
Intellectual Property Statement
The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to
pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in
this document or the extent to which any license under such rights
might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has
made any independent effort to identify any such rights. Information
on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be
found in BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any
assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an
attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of
such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this
specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at
http://www.ietf.org/ipr.
The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any
copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary
rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement
this standard. Please address the information to the IETF at ietf-
ipr@ietf.org.
Disclaimer of Validity
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.
Copyright Statement
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2005). 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.
Acknowledgement
Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the
Internet Society.
Tsenov, et al. [Page 24]