draft-audu-forces-pl-00 : Please review and comment.
Alex Audu <Aaudu2000@AOL.COM> Sat, 17 July 2004 20:36 UTC
Message-Id: <SAT.17.JUL.2004.163605.EDT.>
Date: Sat, 17 Jul 2004 16:36:05 -0400
From: Alex Audu <Aaudu2000@AOL.COM>
Subject: draft-audu-forces-pl-00 : Please review and comment.
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="-----------------------------1090096562"
Hi All,
Please take a few moments to review this draft. Comments appreciated.
Thanks,
Alex.
===================================================================
Internet Draft Alex Audu
Expiration: December 23 2004 Alcatel USA Inc.
File: draft-audu-forces-PL-00.txt
Working Group: ForCES
June 24 2004
Forwarding and Control Element Separation Protocol Layer
draft-audu-forces-PL-00.txt
Status of this Memo
This document is an Internet-Draft and is in full conformance with
all provisions of Section 10 of [STD]. 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.
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 [KEYWORDS].
Abstract
This document defines the Forces-PL protocol that is designed for
communicating between Forwarding and Control Elements that make up a
ForCEs-compliant network element. This protocol addresses all the
requirements described in the Forces [FORCES-REQ] requirements document.
This document also specifies architectural attributes necessary in an
implementation of Forces-PL to ensure correct and secure protocol operation.
Table of Content
1. Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3. Protocol Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3.1. Independence from Interconnect . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
3.2. Reliability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
audu Expires December 23, 2004 Page 1
Internet-Draft ForCES-PL June 24 2004
3.3. Fail-Over Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .10
4. Forces-PL Message Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .10
4.1. Protocol Message Header structure . . . . . . . . . .10
4.1.1. Version . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .11
4.1.2. eType . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .11
4.1.3. Prio (Priority Bits) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .11
4.1.4. Message Classes and Types . . . . . . . . . . . . . .12
4.1.5. Length . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .14
4.1.6. Element Tag . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .14
4.1.7. Source Tag . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .15
4.1.8. Destination Tag . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .15
4.1.9. Transaction Sequence Number (TSN) . . . . . . . . . .15
4.2. Service Data or Payload Structure . . . . . . . . . .15
5. Forces-PL Messages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .17
5.1. Association and Connection (CA) Messages . . . . . . . . . .17
5.1.1. Join Request . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .17
5.1.2. Join Response . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .18
5.1.3. Leave Request . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .19
5.1.4. Leave Response . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .21
5.1.5. Join Multicast Address (JoinMCastAddr) Request . . . . . .21
5.1.6. Join Multicast Address Response . . . . . . . . . .22
5.1.7. Leave Multicast Address Request . . . . . . . . . .22
5.1.8. Leave Multicast Address Response . . . . . . . . . .23
5.2. Capabilities Control (CC) Messages . . . . . . . . . .24
5.2.1. Capability Request . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .24
5.2.2. Capability Response . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .25
5.2.3. Configure Request . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .26
5.2.4. Configure Response . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .27
5.2.5. Topology Request . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .28
5.2.6. Topology Response . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .29
5.2.7. Query Request . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .29
5.2.8. Query Response . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .31
5.2.9. Error TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .31
5.3. Protocol Element (PE) Maintenance Messages . . . . . .32
5.3.1. Protocol Element Up (PEUP) . . . . . . . . . . . . . .32
5.3.2. Protocol Element Up Acknowledge (PEUP-ACK) . . . . . .32
5.3.3. Protocol Element Active (PEACT) . . . . . . . . . .33
5.3.4. Protocol Element Active Acknowledge (PEACT-ACK) . . . . .34
5.3.5. Protocol Element Inactive (PEINACT) . . . . . . . . . .34
5.3.6. Protocol Element Inactive Acknowledge (PEINACT-ACK) . . .35
5.3.7. Protocol Element Down (PEDOWN) . . . . . . . . . . . . . .35
5.3.8. Protocol Element Down Acknowledge (PEDOWN-ACK) . . . . . .36
5.3.9. Heartbeat . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .36
5.3.10. Heartbeat Acknowledge (HB-ACK) . . . . . . . . . . . .37
5.4. PE Traffic Maintenance (TM) Messages . . . . . . . . . .37
5.4.1. Control Packet Redirect to CE From FE . . . . . . . . . .37
5.4.2. Control Packet Forwarding to FE from CE . . . . . . . .38
5.4.3. Control Packet Forwarding Acknowledgement . . . . . . . .39
5.5. Event Notification Messages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .39
5.5.1. Event Register . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .39
5.5.2. Event Register Acknowledgement . . . . . . . . . . . . . .40
5.5.3. Event De-Register . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .40
5.5.4. Event De-Register Acknowledgement . . . . . . . . . .40
5.5.5. Asynchronous Event Notification . . . . . . . . . .40
audu Expires December 23, 2004 Page 2
Internet-Draft ForCES-PL June 24 2004
5.6. Application And Vendor Specific Function Message Handling. .41
5.6.1. Application And Vendor Specific Data (AV-DATA Request) . .41
5.6.2. Vendor Specific Data Ack (VS-Data Ack) . . . . . . . . . .42
6. Procedures for Forces-PL Protocol . . . . . . . . . . . . . .42
6.1. CE and FE State Maintenance . . . . . . . . . . . . . .42
6.1.1. CE and FE States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .43
6.2. State Maintenance Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . .44
6.2.1. Protocol Element Up . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .44
6.2.2. Protocol Element Down . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .45
6.2.3. Protocol Element ACTIVE . . . . . . . . . . . . . .45
6.2.4. Protocol Element Inactive . . . . . . . . . . . . . .46
7. Example Scenarios . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .46
7.1. Establishment of Association . . . . . . . . . . . . . .46
7.2. Steady State Communication . . . . . . . . . . . . . .47
7.3. CE Fail-over Scenarios . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .48
8. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .50
8.1. TLS Usage with Forces-PL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .50
9. Architecture support for Forces-PL protocol . . . . . . . . .51
9.1. Configurable parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .51
10. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .51
11. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .51
11.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .51
11.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .52
12. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .52
13. Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .52
1. Definitions
The following definitions are taken from [FORCES-REQ],[FE-MODEL]
Forwarding Element (FE) - A logical entity that implements the ForCES
protocol. FEs use the underlying hardware to provide per-packet processing
and handling as directed by a CE via the ForCES protocol. FEs may use PFE
partitions, whole PFEs, or multiple PFEs.
Control Element (CE) - A logical entity that implements the ForCES protocol
and uses it to instruct one or more FEs how to process packets. CEs handle
functionality such as the execution of control
and signaling protocols.
Pre-association Phase - The period of time during which a FE Manager (see
below) and a CE Manager (see below) are determining which FE and CE should
be part of the same network element and delivering that information to the
FE and CE.
Post-association Phase - The period of time during which a FE has the
information specifying what CE is to control it and vice versa, including
the time during which the CE and FE are establishing communication with
one another.
ForCES Post-Association Phase Protocol - The protocol used for
post-association phase communication between CEs and FEs. This protocol
audu Expires December 23, 2004 Page 3
Internet-Draft ForCES-PL June 24 2004
does not apply to CE-to-CE communication, FE-to-FE communication, or to
communication between FE and CE managers. The ForCES protocol is a
master-slave protocol in which FEs are slaves and CEs are masters. This
protocol includes both the management of the communication channel (e.g.,
connection establishment, heartbeats) and the control messages themselves.
The term ForCES protocol may refer to a suite of protocols that are used
to exchange control information as well as redirect data packets between
the CEs and FEs.
FE Manager - A logical entity that operates in the pre-association phase
and is responsible for determining with which CE(s) an FE should
communicate.
This process is called CE discovery and may involve the FE manager learning
the capabilities of available CEs. A FE manager may use anything from a
static configuration to a pre-association phase protocol (see below) to
determine which CE(s) to use. Being a logical entity, an FE manager might
be physically combined with any of the other logical entities mentioned in
this section.
CE Manager - A logical entity that operates in the pre-association phase
and is responsible for determining with which FE(s) a CE should communicate.
This process is called FE discovery and may involve the CE manager learning
the capabilities of available FEs. A CE manager may use anything from a
static configuration to a pre-association phase protocol (see below) to
determine which FE to use.
Being a logical entity, a CE manager might be physically combined with any
of the other logical entities mentioned in this section.
Pre-association Phase Protocol - A protocol between FE managers and CE
managers that is used to determine which CEs or FEs to use. A
pre-association phase protocol may include a CE and/or FE capability
discovery mechanism. Note that this capability discovery process is wholly
separate from (and does not replace) that used within the ForCES protocol.
However, the two capability discovery mechanisms may utilize the same FE
model.
ForCES Network Element (NE) - An entity composed of one or more CEs and one
or more FEs. To entities outside a NE, the NE represents a single point of
management. Similarly, a NE usually hides its internal organization from
external entities.
ForCES Protocol Element (PE) - A Forwarding Element or a Control Element
that speaks the ForCES protocol.
LFB (Logical Function Block) class (or type) -- A generic template
representing a fine-grained, logically separable and well-defined packet
processing operation in the datapath. LFB class is the basic building block
of the FE model.
FE Model (FEM) - Modeling/Organization of LFBs in the Forwarding plane.
2. Introduction
audu Expires December 23, 2004 Page 4
Internet-Draft ForCES-PL June 24 2004
Network Elements (NE) such as routers are becoming more and more complex
as they try to cope with demanding features like policy based routing,
firewalls and NATs, and QoS aware routing. As a result, issues like
scalability, (the ability to cost-effectively grow a network as demand
increases) and programmability (the ability to dynamically program the
network for some specific services by programming the NEs that handle
those services) become very important. The ForCEs protocol has been
specified to help resolve these issues by decoupling control and forwarding
parts of a network element, and also adding programmability features to
the NE.
It is also important for the ForCES protocol to run over varying transport
media. To this end, ForCES has been split into two layers: the Protocol
Layer (PL) and the Transport Mapping Layer (TML). The PL is generic and
common to all implementations of ForCES and is standardized by this IETF
document. The TML is defined in other documents. There is a TML generated
per transport medium. The default TML is the IP-TML that corresponds to a
TCP/IP transport medium. The (PL) sits on top of (and receives services
from) the (TML).
Forces-PL has been designed for use in a redundant environment, for relaying
messages between control elements (CE) and forwarding elements (FE)
distributed in a network as found in ForCEs. The relationship between CEs
and FEs is a master/slave one.
audu Expires December 23, 2004 Page 5
Internet-Draft ForCES-PL June 24 2004
3. Protocol Overview
ForCES is a framework consisting of set of protocols representing the
forwarding and control elements in the form of an extensible model
[FRAMEWK],[FE-MODEL]. CEs handle control, signaling and management
protocols, while FEs perform forwarding functions. CEs control the behavior
of FEs in a master/slave fashion.
To handle the transport of data and control between the CEs and FEs, ForCES
has specified two protocol entities: ForCES-Protocol Layer (Froces-PL) and
the Transport Mapping Layer (Forces-TML). The ForCES-PL is independent of
the transport interconnect type, but it requires service from the ForCES-TML
to communicate with its peer.
+-----------+
| Forces-PL | CE
| |
+-----------+
| TML | Control Plane
+-----------+
| | | | | |
uw1 | | | | | |
+---------------+ | | | | +---------------+
| +-uw2----------+ | | +--------------+ |
| | | | | |
| | +--mw1--------+-|--------------+ | |
| | | | | | |
| | | +--mw2--------+------------+ | | |
| | | | | | | |
+-----------+ +-----------+
| TML | | TML |
+-----------+ . . . .. +-----------+ Forwarding
| Forces-PL | | Forces-PL | Plane
+-----------+ +-----------+
FE1 FEn
Legend: Forces-PL - Protocol Layer
TML - Transport Mapping Layer
uwi - unicast wire with priority i
uwj - unicast wire with priority j
mwk - multicast wire with priority k
mwl - multicast wire with priority l
Figure 1. Forces-PL and TML connecting FEs and CE
In Figure 1, virtual wires or links connect a CE in the control plane to a
set of FEs (FE1 to FEn) in the forwardding plane. There are two types of
links : unicast and multicast. Unicast links carry unicast data or control
between endpoints. Multicast links carry point-to-multipoint data or
control.
Each link can be assigned a priority.
The links could be of different quality of service (e.g. reliable, or
unreliable), but they are all congestion aware. This allows the protocol to
audu Expires December 23, 2004 Page 6
Internet-Draft ForCES-PL June 24 2004
separate control and data traffic into different streams, to reduce the
threat of Denial of Service (DoS) attacks on the survivability of the system
and making the protocol more robust.
In a redundant system, CE s and FE s will be replicated, with one set being
active at a particular time while the other is in standby.
[DO: summarize main functions of PL here, followed by those of TML]
The ForCES protocol also provides a notion of distributed IPC mechanism by
providing support functions required for replication, high availability and
fail-over support for the ForCES distributed network element environment.
3.1. Independence from Interconnect
The Forces-PL protocol is independent of the Interconnect Layer. It makes
no assumptions about the interconnect layer and uses interconnect
independent addressing in its common header and API.
All interconnect specific properties are encapsulated by the TML.
3.2. Reliability
Separate Control and Data channels
The ForCES NEs are subject to Denial of Service (DoS) attacks
[FORCES-REQ Section 7 #15]. A malicious system in the network can flood a
ForCES NE with bogus control packets such as spurious RIP or OSPF packets
in an attempt to disrupt the operation of and the communication between the
CEs and FEs. In order to protect against this situation, the ForCES protocol
uses separate control and data channels for communication between the CEs
and FEs.
The data channel carries the control protocol packets such as RIP, OSPF
messages as outlined in [FORCES-REQ] Section 7 #10, which are carried in
ForCES-PL PE Traffic Maintenance messages (section 5.4), between the CEs
and FEs. All the other Forces-PL messages, which are used for
configuration/capability exchanges, event notification, etc, are carried
over the control channel. The data channel is set up only after the control
channel is set up via the use of the Join process (see section 5.1.1). The
CE signals the FE to establish the data channel at the appropriate time.
The priority bits in the Forces-PL common header can be used to distinguish
between different types of data traffic on the data channel. For example,
OSPF packets (encoded as PE Traffic Maintenance messages) could be given
higher priority than ping packets on the data channel. The use of separate
control and data channels along with rate limiting mechanisms on the FE
provides robustness to the Forces-PL protocol against DoS attacks.
audu Expires December 23, 2004 Page 7
Internet-Draft ForCES-PL June 24 2004
3.3. Fail-Over Model
The Forces-PL protocol provides CE fail-over functions in order to support
high availability of the network element [FORCES-REQ].
The CE-SET (see section 4.1.4) is a list of CEs that reside within a Network
Element (NE) as a cooperating unit. Likewise, the FE-SET is a list of FEs
that reside in an NE as a cooperating unit.
The following are the high-availability mechanisms that are provided by
Forces-PL protocol.
(1) Strong Consistency: In strong consistency mode, the FE sends all
asynchronous notifications/ control protocol packets to the primary and
backup CEs in the CE set. By doing this, the FE enables both the primary
and backup CEs to keep the state synchronized.
(2) Weak Consistency (Fail-over): In this mode, the FE communicates directly
with the primary CE. If the primary CE fails, the FE starts
communicating with the backup CE. The Forces-PL protocol specifies that
selection of primary and backup CEs be done during pre-association
phase.
In all the above cases, CE (including primary and backup CEs) and FEs are
pre-configured to perform such activities as part of pre-association phase.
4. Forces-PL Message Overview
Force-PL protocol messages are made up of two parts: the common header, and
the message body or service payload part. This section describes the details
of the common header and payload structure.
All messages are sent network Byte Ordere across the network.
4.1. Protocol Message Header structure
Forces-PL protocol Header is fixed size and contains the following fields.
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|vers |eType | prio| reservd | msgClass | msgType |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| message length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Source-Tag | Destination-Tag |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Sequence Number |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
audu Expires December 23, 2004 Page 8
Internet-Draft ForCES-PL June 24 2004
4.1.1. Version
The version field (4-bits) contains the version of the Forces-PL protocol
supported by the implementation. The current supported version is :
value 0x01
Protocol elements implementing the Forces-PL protocol SHOULD provide
backwards compatibility with prior versions of the protocol.
4.1.2. eType
This field identifies the format of data exchange used between the
communicating endpoints. Valid values include:
Value Description
0x1 TLV
0x2 XML
0x3 BINARY-XML
4.1.3. Prio (Priority Bits)
This three bit field allows eight(8) different levels of priority to be
assigned to different packet streams. This enables the different packet
streams to be given preferential treatments based on the priority. The
default setting is 0 (for normal priority)
4.1.4. Message Classes and Types
Forces-PL's messages are grouped into six (6) classes namely:
1) Connection and Association messages, which help establish logical
connections between FEs and CEs,
2) Capabilities Control messages, which the CE uses to query and configure
the capabilities of the FE,
3) State Maintenance messages, which are used to track element states,
4) Traffic Maintenance messages, which are used to exchange control packets
between CEs and FEs,
5) Event Notification messages used for reporting asynchronous events,
(including errors), and
6) Application and Vendor Specific messages which are used to exchange
application data between CE and FE application endpoints, and extend the
protocol beyond its current capabilities.
Each class consists of a set of related message types.
audu Expires December 23, 2004 Page 9
Internet-Draft ForCES-PL June 24 2004
The valid message classes are:
Message Class: 8 bits (unsigned integer)
0 Reserved
1 PE Connection and association (CA) Messages
2 Capabilities Control (CC) Messages
3 PE State Maintenance (SM ) Message
4 PE Traffic Maintenance (TM) Messages
5 Event Notification (EN) Messages
6 Vendor Specific (AV) Messages
7- 255 Reserved by IETF for future use
The message types (5 bits) for the defined message classes are as follows:
Message Type for Connection and Association (CA) Message Class
0 Reserved
1 Join Request
2 Join Response
3 Leave Request
4 Leave Response
5 Join MCastAddr Request
6 Join MCastAddr Response
7 Leave MCastAddr Request
8 Leave MCastAddr Response
9-255 Reserved by IETF for future use
Message Type for Capabilities Control (CC) Message Class
0 Reserved
1 Capability Request
2 Capability Response
3 Configure Request
4 Configure Response.
5 Topology Request
6 Topology Response
7 Query Request
8 Query Response
9 -255 Reserved by IETF for future use
Message Types for PE State Maintenance (SM) Message Class
0 Reserved
1 PE Up
2 PE Up Ack
3 PE Down
4 PE Down Ack
5 PE Active
6 PE Active ACK
audu Expires December 23, 2004 Page 10
Internet-Draft ForCES-PL June 24 2004
7 PE Inactive
8 PE Inactive ACK
9 Heartbeat
10 Heartbeat Ack
11-255 Reserved by IETF for future use
Message Types for PE Traffic Maintenance (TM) Message Class
0 Reserved
1 Control Packet Redirect
2 Control Packet Forward
3 Control Packet Forward Response
4-255 Reserved by IETF for future use
Message Types for Event Notification (EN) Message Class
0 Reserved
1 Event Register
2 Event Register Response
3 Event De-register
4 Event De-register Response
5 Asynchronous FE Event Notification
6-255 Reserved by IETF for future use
Message Types for Application and Vendor Specific (AV) Message Class
0 Reserved
1 AV-Data Request
2 AV-Data Response
3 -255 Reserved for other vendor specific messages
Application and Vendor specific message types interpretation is beyond the
scope of this protocol.
4.1.5. Length
This denotes the length of the message in octets, including the message
header part.
4.1.6. Element Tag
This is used to identity a CE or an FE element in the NE for the purpose
of exchanging data within the system.
audu Expires December 23, 2004 Page 11
Internet-Draft ForCES-PL June 24 2004
It is made up of a SET number (identifying the group or set the source
element belongs to), and a unique Identifier of that element in the set.
Thus for a CE or FE, the Element-Tag would look like the following:
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
a) | CE-Set Number | CE-Identifier |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
b) | FE-Set Number | FE-Identifier |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Fig 2: Showing element-tags for CE and FE
During the pre-association phase, the CEs and FEs are configured by the
CE-Manager and FE-Manager respectively into groups or sets. A group can
contain one or more elements, and it is identified by a group number
(CE-SET or FE-SET number). Any element within a group also has a number to
identify it. The combination of this identifier and the set number is the
element-tag number.
4.1.7. Source Tag
This denotes the element-tag of the source of the message being exchanged
between a communicating CE and FE peer.
4.1.8. Destination Tag
This denotes the element-tag of the destination or sink of the message
being exchanged between a communicating CE and FE peer.
4.1.9. Transaction Sequence Number (TSN)
This 32-bit field uniquely identifies a transaction between an FE and a
CE. When an endpoint makes a request it generates a TSN for use in the
request message; the other endpoint copies this same TSN number in its
reply message. Requests using TSNs are usable by both the CE and FE.
audu Expires December 23, 2004 Page 12
Internet-Draft ForCES-PL June 24 2004
4.2. Service Data or Payload Structure
Forces-PL protocol messages consist of the Common Message Header described
in the previous section, followed by zero or more variable length
parameters, as defined by the message type. This constitutes the
Payload or Service Data. All Forces-PL messages are 32-bit aligned.
Examples of the service data are the following:
* LFB configuration
* LFB status and events
* FE capability and topology information
* Control protocol packets
The variable length parameters in the payload are defined in a
Tag-Length-Value (TLV) format as shown below:
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Parameter Tag | Parameter Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
\ \
/ Parameter Value /
\ \
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Mandatory parameters MUST be placed before optional parameters in
a message.
Parameter Tag: 16 bits
The Tag field is a 16-bit unique identifier of the type of the parameter.
It takes a value of 0 to 65534. Appendix-1 lists all used Tag values and
related messages. Values other than those defined in specific parameter
description are reserved for use by the IETF.
Parameter Length: 16 bits
The Parameter Length field contains the size of the parameter in
bytes, including the Parameter Tag, Parameter Length, and Parameter
Value fields. The Parameter Length does not include any padding bytes.
Parameter Value: variable-length
The Parameter Value field contains the actual information to be
transferred in the parameter.
The total length of a parameter (including Tag, Parameter Length and Value
fields) MUST be a multiple of 4 bytes. If the length of the parameter is
not a multiple of 4 bytes, the sender pads the parameter at the end (i.e.,
after the Parameter Value field) with all zero bytes. The length of the
padding is NOT included in the parameter length field. A sender MUST NEVER
pad with more than 3 bytes. The receiver MUST ignore the padding bytes.
audu Expires December 23, 2004 Page 13
Internet-Draft ForCES-PL June 24 2004
5. Forces-PL Messages
This section defines the messages and their parameter contents.
5.1. Association and Connection (CA) Messages
5.1.1. Join Request
After the pre-association phase [section 9], the FEs can join or leave
any CE in a CE-set. An FE uses the Join Request message to initiate
association with a CE in a CE-set. The message contains the requester's
identity that was configured during pre-association. After a successful
join process, FEs can report their capabilities to the CE.
At a given point, CEs from one CE set can communicate with an FE. The FE
has to know which CE's requests it can accept. This information is
configured during the pre-association phase, during which a list of CEs
allowed to control the FE is configured in the FE. The FE uses this CE-list
to send the join request. It first tries one of the CE's in the list and
if it not successful, it tries the next CE in the list. If all of the CEs
in the list are tried without success, the FE should start over again until
the Retry timer expires.
The format of the JOIN Message payload 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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Tag (0x20) | Length (8) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
> Address <
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
The Join request Body
Address: The Interconnect dependent unique address of the FE.
The tag value determines the type of addressing used.
Valid values are:
0x20 -- IPv4 (32 bits)
0x30 -- IEEE (48 bits)
0x80 -- IPV6 (128 bits)
0xFF -- UNKNOWN
audu Expires December 23, 2004 Page 14
Internet-Draft ForCES-PL June 24 2004
5.1.2. Join Response
After receiving a join request message, the CE performs the following
operations.
(1) Matches the FE" "s element-tag in the request message against those
in its database. If not found, then the CE generates a unique
association ID for that FE (to denote the CE-FE connection) and
allocates resources for its attributes in its database. This is a
cold-start operation.
(2) If the FE’s element-tag was found in the CE’s database, then the
CE checks up its previously stored configuration for that FE. If it
has any, it will use that to configure the FE in subsequent messages.
This is warm restart operation.
(3) If the CE needs to reject the join request for some reason, it sends a
Leave Response Message as indicated later.
After a successful JOIN operation, the CE should initiate the next phase
of the association establishment process by querying the FE for its
capabilities, its topologies, etc, and then configuring the FE for the
functions it is to perform in the NE.
The format for the JOIN RESPONSE message payload 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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Tag (0x11) | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| FE identifier | FE Behavior |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Association ID |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Heartbeat Interval |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Association Expiry Timer |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| FE Behavior Expiry Timer (optional) | Prio|
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Association-ID: This uniquely identifies the stream or virtual
connection (wire) between the FE and CE. Further
communication between this FE-CE peer uses the stream.
FE Behavior: This defines the FE behavior when all the CEs are
down. A value of 1 indicates the FE should continue
forwarding packets; a value of 0 indicates the FE
should stop forwarding packets when the CEs are down.
audu Expires December 23, 2004 Page 15
Internet-Draft ForCES-PL June 24 2004
Heartbeat Interval: This gives the time interval for the heartbeat
messages sent from the CE to the FE in milliseconds.
Association Expiry Timer: This gives the timer value in milliseconds
after which if the FE does not receive any heartbeat
messages from the CE it should consider the
association with the CE to have expired (CE DOWN).
FE Behavior Expiry Timer: This is an optional timer value, which
applies in case the FE behavior is to continue forwarding
packets when CEs are down. This value indicated the time
in seconds for which the FE should continue forwarding
packets without associations with any CE. Values range
from 0x0 (don't forward) to 0xffff(forward forever)
Priority: This is the priority being requested for the
association that may result from a successful join.
Note that each FE can set up multiple unicast associations by making
multiple Join requests, each with a different priority value. This allows
an FE to set up an association for control information and another one for
user data exchange between the CE and the FE. For this version of ForCES-PL,
the maximum limit is two (2) associations per FE.
5.1.3. Leave Request
The FE can leave by sending Leave request to CE. The CE's upon receiving
such request releases the associated resources assigned for the FE.
The LEAVE message contains the following parameters:
Reason
Info String (optional)
The format for the LEAVE Message parameters is same 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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Tag (0xa) | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Reason |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Tag (0x4) | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
> INFO String* <
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
The format and description of the optional Info String parameter is
the same as for the PE Up message (See Section 4.3.2.1.).
audu Expires December 23, 2004 Page 16
Internet-Draft ForCES-PL June 24 2004
The reason parameter indicates the reason the FE (or CE) is leaving the NE.
Valid values are as follows:
Value Description
0x1 Management Inhibit (Manual Removal)
0x2 Invalid NE group
0x3 FE or CE not ready.(Recipient should retry 10 ms later)
0x4 Max number of FEs reached (for leave response only)
0x5 Physical (Connection) Layer Fault
0x6 Fail-over switching (refer to Section 7.3)
The optional INFO String parameter can be any meaningful 8-bit character
string (up to 255 characters). This may be used for debugging purposes.
Note that it is possible for a CE about to leave a CE-SET to also send a
Leave Request.
5.1.4. Leave Response
When an FE is leaving the CE, the CE generates an acknowledgment to the
FE in the form of a Leave Response message. A CE could have generated the
Leave Request. In this case, the (active) CE in the CE-set will generate
the response sent to the leaving CE.
(NOTE: Currently, CE-CE communication is out of scope and the mode if CE-CE
communication is entirely proprietary)
If a CE needs to reject a join request from a FE for some reason, it sends
a Leave Response Message to the FE as well (Refer to Section 5.1.2).
The LEAVE Response message contains the following parameters:
Reason
Info String (optional)
The format of the Leave Response message is the same as in the Leave
Request message (See 5.1.3)
5.1.5. Join Multicast Address (JoinMCastAddr) Request
This used by the FE or CE to join a multicast address group. Messages sent
from a group member will be sent to all other members in the group.
audu Expires December 23, 2004 Page 17
Internet-Draft ForCES-PL June 24 2004
The format of the JOIN MCAST_ADDR Message payload 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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Tag (0x20) | Length (8) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
> Address <
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Tag (0x10) | Length (8) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Mcast_Address |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| reserved | prio|
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 4 Join Mcast Address request
Address: The Interconnect dependent unique address of the FE.
The tag value determines the type of addressing used.
Valid values are:
0x20 -- IPv4 (32 bits)
0x30 -- IEEE (48 bits)
0x80 -- IPV6 (128 bits)
0xFF -- UNKNOWN
Mcast_Address: This is the multicast group address being joined.
Link Priority: This is the value of the priority for the
link that may result from the join request. The value
set here will be reflected in the Prio header bits
for data exchanges between source and sink using the
requested multicast address.
5.1.6. Join Multicast Address Response
This is the response sent to a requester after a successful multicast
address Join process. The format of the body of this message is the same
as in the request (see 5.1.5).
Note this message will typically be sent by the TML (Transport layer).
If the join request was not successful for some reason, a Leave Multicast
Address response (see 5.1.8) will be sent back to the requester.
5.1.7. Leave Multicast Address Request
This message is sent by a CE or an FE endpoint to signal its intention to
stop receiving multicast messages sent to a particular group address.
audu Expires December 23, 2004 Page 18
Internet-Draft ForCES-PL June 24 2004
The format of the LEAVE MCAST_ADDR Message payload 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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Tag (0x10) | Length (8) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Mcast_Address |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Reason |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 6: Leave Multicast Address Request
Mcast-Adress: This is the multicast address being vacated.
Reason: Reason for leaving the group
Valid reason values include:
Reason Description
0x1 Management Inhibit
5.1.8. Leave Multicast Address Response
This is sent to the requesting FE or CE to acknowledge a successful
discontinuation of the requestor's membership in a multicast address
group. It can also be sent in the event of an unsuccessful
join-multicast-address request. Thereafter, messages sent to that multicast
address will not be delivered to that endpoint.
The LEAVE MCAST-ADDR response message contains the following parameters:
Mcast-Address: Multicast address being vacated
Reason: Reason for leaving the group
Info String (optional)
The format for the LEAVE MCAST-ADDR Message parameters is same 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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Tag (0x20) | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Mcast_Address |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Tag (0xa) | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Reason |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Tag (0x4) | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
> INFO String* <
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Fig 7. Leave Multicast Address Response
audu Expires December 23, 2004 Page 19
Internet-Draft ForCES-PL June 24 2004
Info-String: The optional INFO String parameter can be any
meaningful 8-bit character string (up to 255 characters).
This may be used for debugging purposes.
Valid reasons for leaving an address group are as follows:
Reason Description
0x1 Management Inhibit
0x2 Invalid Address Group
0x3 Address Server Not ready (retry after 20ms)
0x4 Max group size reached
0x5 User-Request
Note: This message will typically be sent by the TML layer.
5.2. Capabilities Control (CC) Messages
This is the next phase of the JOIN process. After an FE has been
successfully
accepted into a CE-SET, the CE initiates the next phase of the association
establishment process by querying the FE for its capabilities, its topology,
etc, and then configuring the FE for the functions it is to perform in the
NE
5.2.1. Capability Request
This message is used to request the FE to report its Capabilities to
the CE. It consists only of the header part (zero length body).
The FE may have one or more LFBs on the forwarding plane like meter, shaper,
egress port etc. CE may configure or query these components and their status
at any time. In order to do this, CE needs to know the LFBs placement and
sequence in the forwarding data path. The FE Model document [FE-MODEL]]
describes the arrangement and the relationship of those components.
For the sake of clarity, we provide the following summary:
An FE identifier identifies FE; The FE may contain one or more parallel
data path(s). On each parallel data path, there may be one or more LFBs and
each one is connected to another either in series or in parallel fashion.
The LFB is uniquely identified by a number. Examples of LFBs are filter,
shaper, egress port etc.
5.2.2. Capability Response
This is used by the FE to report its capabilities to the CE as per CE's
request. This message structure might change depending on the FE Model
[FE-MODEL]].
audu Expires December 23, 2004 Page 20
Internet-Draft ForCES-PL June 24 2004
The format for the Capability Response 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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Tag (0x06) | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| LFB Count |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
> LFB Info <
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
The format for the LFB Info 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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| LFB Handle |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| LFB Type |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| DownStream L.Comp. Count |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| DownStream L.Comp. Handle |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
. .
| DownStream L.Comp. Handle |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
5.2.3. Configure Request
This message is used by the CE to configure the FE. The FE consists of LFBs
that could be configured to achieve a desired behavior of the FE in the
network. Some configurable attributes of the FE include LFB parameters.
Examples of such attributes are:
* Port attributes (direction, bandwidth,..)
* routing table functions
* High Touch functions
* Off-Load functions
* Filter functions
The CE might also have received a command (either through CLI or through
SNMP etc) to setup some tunnels or paths or some configuration through the
NE. This may sometimes involve configuring more than one FE. For example,
packets may arrive through one FE and egress the NE through another. In
this situation, the CE has to configure both FEs’ LFBs. If one of the
configuration operation fails, the CE has to perform rollback operation
and issue a command failure notification to the management station or CLI
or SNMP etc.
audu Expires December 23, 2004 Page 21
Internet-Draft ForCES-PL June 24 2004
This operation is called 2-phase commit. To perform this, CE sends series
of commands to each FE with command bundling bit set. Each FE after
receiving the command will have to save the current configuration and check
whether it can program the requested configuration. A status message should
be sent back to the CE. Once CE receives all the status messages, it can
then send an execute command with same transaction sequence number,
signaling the FEs to now switch to the new configuration.
Command bundling refers to the ability to send an ordered set of commands
to the FE. Forces-PL supports command bundling via multiple TLVs in its
payload as described in section 4.2. Each command is formatted as a TLV
structure shown below, and multiple commands are sent to the FE in a
single Configure Request message.
The format of the Configure Request 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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Tag (0x07) | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| C-Operation| C-Command | reserved |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| LFB Handle |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
> Command Data <
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
C-Operation:
FEs and CEs may engage in two-phase commit operation. This
field provides the stage of such transactions.
0x00 - Command is single operation
0x01 - This command is a two-phase operation, FE needs to
save the previous state if rollback operation may be
performed later by FE.
0x10 - Rollback to the previous state.
0x11 - Execute and complete the command.
During this operation the unique TSN value in the common header is
the same and is used to identify the transaction. Note that TSNs are
only unique in combination with a CE identifier, that is, two
separate CEs using the same TSN are considered different transactions.
Configuration-command:
This field defines the command type. Its valid values:
0 Reserved
1 NULL
2 Add
3 Update
4 Delete
5 Delete All (Flush or Purge)
audu Expires December 23, 2004 Page 21
Internet-Draft ForCES-PL June 24 2004
LFB Handle:
This field defines the LFB handle for which this command is
being issued.
Command Data:
This is the variable length configuration data for the LFB.
This can be encapsulated using TLV or OID or XML formats.
5.2.4. Configure Response
This is sent by the FE to CE to acknowledge LFB configuration request by
CE.
The format of the Configure Response 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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Tag (0x1d) | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| C-Operation| Configuration Command | Result |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Logical Component Handle |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Tag (0x4) | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
> INFO String* <
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
The response contains the information from the command, but with
"Result" field filled in to indicate success or failure.
Result Value Meaning
CNFG-OK 0x0 Success
CNFG-BADCMD 0x1 Bad or unsupported configuration command
CNFG-BADPRM 0x2 Bad configuration parameter
CNFG-NORESRC 0x3 FE Out of resources
CNFG-FEOOS 0x4 FE Out of service
Logical Component Handle:
This field defines the logical component handle or identifier
for which this command is being issued.
Info-String: This is an optional string used to convey more details
about the command result, especially in the case of failure. It
is character string of up to 255 characters in length. This could
be used for debugging purposes.
5.2.5. Topology Request
CE wants to know how each FE is connected or configured during the
pre-association phase. This may be used by the CE to control and configure
the different FEs correctly. This message consists of the Forces-PL header
with the Topology Request message type.
audu Expires December 23, 2004 Page 23
Internet-Draft ForCES-PL June 24 2004
5.2.6. Topology Response
This message is sent from the FE to CE in response to the Topology Request.
It provides the CE with the topology information of how the FEs are
connected to each other.
The format for the Topology Response 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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Tag (0x1e) | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
> Topology Info <
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
The exact content of the topology information is addressed in the
[FE-Model] document. A possible format shown below consists of a list of
FE-ID s of the FE s directly connected to the communicating FE.
The format of the topology Info 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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| #of neighbor FEs |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| FE1 ID |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| FE2 ID |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
. .
. .
| FEN ID |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
5.2.7. Query Request
CE may be interested in querying the properties of Logical Components or
collecting statistical information from FE, including that of its logical
components. In this case, a CE sends a Query Request Message to a FE and
expects a Query Response Message from it.
audu Expires December 23, 2004 Page 24
Internet-Draft ForCES-PL June 24 2004
The format for the Query Request Message parameters 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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Tag (0x13) | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Type of Info | NumOfCompoents |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Tag (0x23) | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Logical component Handle 1 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Query Specific Data 1 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Tag (0x23) | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Logical component Handle2 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Query Specific Data 2 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
: :
| Tag (0x23) | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Logical component HandleN |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Query Specific Data N |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
There can be multiple logical component IDs in one message.
Valid values of the Info Type are:
GEN-STATS (0x0) - General Statistics
PORT-STATS (0x1) - Port Statistics
LINK-STATS (0x2) - Link Statistics
LComp-STATS (0x3) - Logical Component Statistics
LComp-PROPS (0x4) - Logical Component Properties
PORT-PROPS (0x5) - Port Properties
Query Specific Data: This is query specific data, which can be in
encapsulated as TLV or OID or XML.
5.2.8. Query Response
After receiving a Query Request Message, a FE replies with the Query
Response Message. The format of the Query Response Message is as follows:
audu Expires December 23, 2004 Page 25
Internet-Draft ForCES-PL June 24 2004
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Tag (0x14) | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Info Type | NumOfComponents |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Tag (0x24) | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Logical component Handle |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Logical component Data |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
> <
| Tag (0x24) | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Logical component Handle |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Logical component Data |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
The Logical Component data is encapsulated similar to the query specific
data in the respective format.
5.2.9. Error TLV
The Error TLV is used to notify the CE or FE of an error associated with
an incoming synchronous Request message. For example, the message might be
unexpected, given the current state, or a parameter value might be invalid.
This Error TLV can be sent as a result of a request (synchronous), or it
could be triggered as a result of asynchronous events occuring in the
system
The format of the Error TLV 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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Tag (0xc) | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Error Code |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
The Error Code parameter indicates the reason for the error.
Possible error parameter values include:
INV-PROT (0x01) - Invalid Protocol Version
INV-ASSOC (0x02) - Invalid Association ID
BAD-MSGCLS (0x03) - Unsupported message class
BAD-MSGTYP (0x04) - Unsupported message type
UNEX-MSG (0x05) - Unexpected message
PROT-ERROR (0x06) - Protocol Error
TWOPHASE-ERR (0x07) - Could not complete two-phase command
COMM-FAIL (0x08) - Communication lost between CE and FE
BAD-TRAF-MODE (0x09) - Unsupported Traffic Mode
audu Expires December 23, 2004 Page 26
Internet-Draft ForCES-PL June 24 2004
5.3. Protocol Element (PE) Maintenance Messages
This subsection describes the messages used to maintain the state of the
protocol elements (FE and CE) in the NE.
5.3.1. Protocol Element Up (PEUP)
The UP message is sent by a PE to indicate to its master (or slave)
that it is UP (in-service) and ready to be used.
The format of the PEUP 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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Tag (0xb) | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
> INFO String* <
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
The UP message contains the following parameters
INFO String (Optional)
The optional Info String parameter can be any meaningful 8-bit character
string, up to 255 characters in length.
5.3.2. Protocol Element Up Acknowledge (PEUP-ACK)
The PEUP Acknowledgement message is used to acknowledge a PE-Up message
received from a remote PE slave or master peer.
The PEUP Acknowledgement message contains the following parameters:
INFO String (Optional)
The format for the PEUP Acknowledgement message is the same as in PE UP
Message.
5.3.3. Protocol Element Active (PEACT)
The ACT message is sent by a controlling CE to ask its slave FE to go
ACTIVE and start handling traffic. The FE must be UP and must have sent
the PEUP message to the CE. This message is used to trigger the
establishment of the data channel between the FE and CE.
The ACT message contains the following parameters:
Traffic Mode Type
INFO String (Optional)
audu Expires December 23, 2004 Page 27
Internet-Draft ForCES-PL June 24 2004
The format for the ACT message payload 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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Tag (0xb) | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| reserved | Traffic Mode Type |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Tag (0x4) | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
> INFO String* <
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
The Traffic Mode Type parameter identifies the failover mode of the FE
within an NE. The valid values for Type are shown in the following table:
Value Description
0x1 Simplex Mode (Unreplicated)
0x2 Redundant Active-Cold-Standby
0x3 Redundant Active-Hot-Standby
0x4 Load-shared
Within a particular NE, only one Traffic Mode Type can be used. In
Active-Cold-Standby, Over-ride value indicates that the CE is over-riding
the current E.
In Simplex Mode of operation, the active element is the only one in service.
Any removal of this element will cause service outage.
In a Redundant Active/Cold-Standby mode, an inactive but in-service element
will take over from the active element when the active element goes down or
it is removed from service. However, its state database may need to be
updated before being launched to active. This is the same as
Over-ride-weak-consistency mode of operation.
In a Redundant Active-Hot-Standby mode, an inactive but in-service element
will take over track handling duties when the active element goes down or
is removed from service. It has all the necessary state information needed
to assume active duty instantly. This mode is recommended for minimum
service downtime. This is the same mode as the Over-ride-strong-consistency
mode.
In Load-Shared mode, this active element is sharing traffic burden with
other active elements in the NE. The algorithm for distributing the traffic
amongst the active elements is beyond the scope of this document.
The optional Info String parameter can be any meaningful 8-bit character
string, up to 255 characters in length.
audu Expires December 23, 2004 Page 28
Internet-Draft ForCES-PL June 24 2004
5.3.4. Protocol Element Active Acknowledge (PEACT-ACK)
The ACT Acknowledgement message is used to acknowledge a PE-Active message
received from a remote CE master.
The ACT Acknowledgement message contains the following parameters:
Traffic Mode Type
INFO String (Optional)
The format for the ACT Acknowledgement message is the same as in PE Active
Message (See 5.3.3)
5.3.5. Protocol Element Inactive (PEINACT)
The INACT message is sent by a controlling CE to ask its slave FE to go
INACTIVE and stop handling traffic. After receiving this message, the FE
shuts down the Data channel with the CE.
The INACT message contains the following parameters:
Traffic Mode Type
INFO String (Optional)
The format for the CE/FE Inactive message parameters is as shown for
FE/CE Active Message(See 5.3.3)
5.3.6. Protocol Element Inactive Acknowledge (PEINACT-ACK)
The INACT Acknowledgement message is used to acknowledge a PE-Inactive
message received from a remote CE master.
The INACT-ACK message contains the following parameters:
Traffic Mode Type
INFO String (Optional)
The format for the FE or CE Inactive Acknowledgement message parameters is
same as CE or FE Active Message (See 5.3.3)
5.3.7. Protocol Element Down (PEDOWN)
Due to failure or maintenance operation, an FE can send this DOWN message
to its primary CE. Upon receiving this request, primary CE may reassign the
responsibility to other FE’s (if possible).
Similarly CE in a CE-set can generate the same message to all other CE's in
the same CE-set.
audu Expires December 23, 2004 Page 29
Internet-Draft ForCES-PL June 24 2004
The DOWN message contains the following parameters:
Reason - (Mandatory) reason for going down
Info String - (Optional) information to augment reason
The format for the DOWN 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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Tag (0xc) | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Reason |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Tag (0x4) | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
> INFO String* <
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
The reason parameter indicates the reason the PE is leaving the NE.
Valid values are as follows:
Value Description
0x1 Management Inhibit (Manual Removal)
0x2 Device Fault
The format and description of the optional Info String parameter is
the same as for the PE Up message (See Section 5.3.1).
5.3.8. Protocol Element Down Acknowledge (PEDOWN-ACK)
The PEDN-ACK message is used by the primary CE to acknowledge the PEDN
message sent by the outgoing PE. The format of this message is the same
as for the PEDN message.
The DOWN ACK message contains the following parameters:
Reason - (Mandatory) reason for going down
Info String - (Optional) information to augment reason
The format for the DOWN ACK Message is same as for DOWN message.
5.3.9. Heartbeat
CE periodically polls each FE to ensure that it is operational. A CE starts
generating these messages after the PE Active message has been sent to the
FE. The timers for these messages are configurable during pre-configuration
and can be different for the active and standby CEs. The heartbeat interval
for a standby CE can be much larger than that of the active CE.
audu Expires December 23, 2004 Page 30
Internet-Draft ForCES-PL June 24 2004
An optional Heartbeat Data parameter may be sent in the heart beat message.
Its contents are defined by the sending node and are simply echoed back by
the receiving FE via the HB-ACK message (see below). Examples of values
encoded in the Heartbeat Data field by FEs could include a Heartbeat
Sequence Number or Timestamp. The receiver of a Heartbeat message does not
process this field as it is only of significance to the sender. The receiver
MUST respond with a Heartbeat Acknowledgement message.
The format for the Heartbeat 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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Tag (0x9) | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
> Heartbeat Data <
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Note that this function can also be done by the TML.
5.3.10. Heartbeat Acknowledge (HB-ACK)
The receiving FE simply echo " "s the original heartbeat message back to
the sender.
5.4. PE Traffic Maintenance (TM) Messages
These messages are sent over the data channel. The data channel is
established after the PE Active message is sent from the CE to FE.
5.4.1. Control Packet Redirect to CE From FE
When a Router receives both control and data packets through a physical
port, any of the following scenarios may occur:
(a) Forwarding blade receives IP packet that is not destined for it; these
packets are forwarded to the CE by the forwarding plane component.
(b) Forwarding blade receives IP packet that is destined for it. These
packets are not forwarded to the Control plane; rather they are
processed by the forwarding plane control logic (stack in the
forwarding plane). Example of such packet is ping request.
(c) Forwarding blade receives IP packets that may be routing protocol
packets or packets which cannot be processed by the stack in the line
card. Such packets have to be forwarded to the control plane by the FE.
audu Expires December 23, 2004 Page 31
Internet-Draft ForCES-PL June 24 2004
The format of the Control Packet Redirect 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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Tag (0xe) | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Port ID on which packet arrived |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Tag (0xe) | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
> Control Packet <
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Control Packet: The control packet that the network element
received through a particular IP interface.
5.4.2. Control Packet Forwarding to FE from CE
CE may generate a packet and want FE to forward that packet through a
particular or multiple egress port(s). Examples of such packets are
routing protocol updates, discoveries, etc.
Before generating such request, CE has to know the FE's logical components
and the list of available port and the configuration status.
(reference snapshot of Logical components )
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Tag (0xf) | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Egress Port ID through which to forward packet |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Tag (0xe) | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
> Packet to be forwarded <
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Packet to be forwarded is preceded by the egress port through
which the packet must be forwarded by the FE.
5.4.3. Control Packet Forwarding Acknowledgement
This is used by the FE to acknowledge the Control Packet Forwarding
Request initiated by the CE.
The format of this message is the same as for the Control Packet Forwarding
Request message.
audu Expires December 23, 2004 Page 32
Internet-Draft ForCES-PL June 24 2004
5.5. Event Notification Messages
Various events in the data path can be monitored for by the FE and
reported to the CE. The CE must first inform the FE which of these events
it is interested in through a registration process.
5.5.1. Event Register
This is sent by the CE to the FE to request that FE notify the CE when
the indicated events occur on the FE. The format of the payload 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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Tag (0xe) | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Event Type |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
> Event Specific Data <
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Event Type is the type of the event to report. Valid values are :
NO-EVENTS (0x0) - No Events reported
PKT-EVENTS (0x1) - Packet events (e.g. data errors)
PORT-EVENTS (0x2) - Port Events (e.g. port status changes)
LINK-EVENTS (0x3) - Link related events (link status changes)
GFE-EVENTS (0x4) - Generic FE events (events within FE itself)
RSRC-USAGE (0x5) - System Specific levels (CPU, buffer usage)
LC-EVENTS (0x6) - Logical Component events
ALL-EVENTS (0x8) - All events reported
Event Specific Data: This is the variable length event specific data,
which can be encapsulated using TLV or OID or XML formats. For example,
this could be used to specify what packets should be redirected to the CE.
This may also be a regular expression.
5.5.2. Event Register Acknowledgement
This is used by the FE to acknowledge CE's event registration request.
The format of this payload is same as in the Event Register Request
5.5.3. Event De-Register
This is sent by the CE to the FE to indicate that it no longer is
interested in receiving notifies for the events indicated in message. The
format of this payload is same as in the Event Register Request. After
receiving this message the FE SHOULD not deliver further events to the CE
and MUST send an Event De-Register Acknowledgement to the CE.
audu Expires December 23, 2004 Page 33
Internet-Draft ForCES-PL June 24 2004
5.5.4. Event De-Register Acknowledgement
The FE sends this message to the CE to acknowledge CE's request not get
any more notifies for events indicated in message. The format for this
payload is same as in the Event Register Request. After a FE transmits this
message to a CE it MUST not deliver any further events until a new event
register is received and acknowledged.
5.5.5. Asynchronous Event Notification
This is used to report asynchronous events occurring in the FE. These could
be overall FE errors, Port/Link errors or Logical Component specific events.
The message contains the following:
Event Type - same as that defined for Event Register
Event ID
Logical Component Handle
Diagnostic Info - this describes the event in more detail.
The format of the ASYNC-NTFY 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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Tag (0x1e) | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Event Type | Event ID |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Logical Component Handle |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Tag (0x7) | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
> Diagnostic Info <
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Valid values of the Event ID are as follows:
CPU-USAGE (0x1) - CPU usage more than 75% of capacity
FE-ERROR (0x2) - FE in non-catastrophic error state
PORT-DOWN (0x3) - Port is down.
PORT-UP (0x4) - Port is up.
PORT-ERROR (0x5) - Port is in non-catastrophic error state
LINK-DOWN (0x6) - Link attached to port is down; port is up.
LINK-UP (0x7) - Link attached to port is up; port is up.
LINK-ERROR (0x8) - Link attached to port is in error state.
PRI-CE-DOWN (0x9) - Primary CE has gone DOWN.
PRI-CE-DOWN (0xa) - Other LC specific.
SECURITY-ALERT (0xb) - Possible DOS due to high resource use
audu Expires December 23, 2004 Page 34
Internet-Draft ForCES-PL June 24 2004
5.6. Application And Vendor Specific Function Message Handling
This allows application messages to be transported opaquely over the
ForCES-PL protocol. Also, it allows extensions to the FE functions so that
new, currently unknown FE functionality (outside of those already specified)
can be expressed. These messages will be transported transparently by the
ForCEs-PL protocol. Interpretation of the transported messages will be left
solely to the application layers sitting on ForCES-PL in the CE and FE.
5.6.1. Application And Vendor Specific Data (AV-DATA Request)
Separated PEs may use this message to pass any information that is not to
be consumed by ForCES-PL to each other. This message is not destined outside
the involved PEs either. Application layers sitting on top of the FoRCES-PL
protocol layer can exchange information with this message between PEs.
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Tag (0x4e) | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
> Data to be transported <
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
As this message is opaque to ForCES-PL, the content is vendor-specific.
ForCES-PL does not parse the content of this message.
5.6.2. Vendor Specific Data Ack (VS-Data Ack)
This is used by the PE that receives an Inter-PE communication message to
acknowledge the reception to the original sender.
The format of this message is same as for VS-DATA Request.
6. Procedures for Forces-PL Protocol
6.1. CE and FE State Maintenance
Forces-PL layer on the CE needs to maintain the states of the FEs it
communicates with. Likewise, the Forces-PL layer on the FE needs to maintain
the states of the CEs the FE communicates with. The state of the (logical)
NE also needs to be maintained. Since the NE is comprised of CEs and FEs,
the NE state will be determined by the states of the contained FE and CE
elements.
audu Expires December 23, 2004 Page 35
Internet-Draft ForCES-PL June 24 2004
Figure 2 below shows a hypothetical NE with its set of CEs and FEs
+---------------------------------------------------------+
| NE |
| +--------+ +---------+ |
| | CE1 | | CE2 | |
| |(active)| |(standby)| |
| +--------+ +---------+ |
| ^ ^ ^ ^ |
| | | | | |
| | +-----+ |--------+ | |
| | |-------|--+ |----------+ |
| v v v v |
| +-------+ +------+ +--------+ +---------+ |
| | FE1 | | FE2 | | FE3 | | FE4 | |
| |(act) | -->|(act) | |(standby)| |(standby)| |
| +-------+ +------+ +--------+ +---------+ |
| ^ | |
| | | |
+-----------|------------|--------------------------------+
| v
Figure 2. Showing logical NE and its components
6.1.1. CE and FE States
The state of each configured FE and CE is maintained by the Forces-PL layer.
The state of each CE or FE element can change due to the following events:
* Reception of management messages by CE.
* Reception of management messages by FE.
* Reception of control messages by FE from CE.
* Loss of communication between CE and FE (e.g. due to faults).
The CE and FE state transition diagram is shown in figure 3.
audu Expires December 23, 2004 Page 36
Internet-Draft ForCES-PL June 24 2004
+-------------+
+---------------------| |
| Alternate +-------| PE-ACTIVE |
| PE | +-------------+
| Takeover | ^ |
| | CE/FE | | CE/FE
| | Active | | Inactive
| | | v
| | +-------------+
| | | |
| +------>| PE-INACT |
| +-------------+
| ^ |
CE/FE Down/ | CE/FE | | CE/FE Down /
CE-FE COMM | Up | | CE-FE COMM FAIL
FAIL | | v
| +-------------+
+-------------------->| |
| PE-DOWN |
+-------------+
Figure 3. CE and FE State Transition Diagram
The possible states of a protocol element (CE or FE) are:
PE-DOWN: CE or FE is unavailable for service and/or the related CE-FE
association is down. Initially, all CEs and FEs will be in this state.
A CE or FE in this state should not be sent any traffic messages.
PE-INACTIVE: The CE or FE is available for service and the related
CE-FE ForCES-PL association is up, but application traffic is stopped
(the CE or FE could be in a standby state for example). In this state,
the CE or FE involved can be sent management, control, and non-traffic
related messages.
PE-ACTIVE: The CE or FE is available, and actively carrying application
traffic.
6.2. State Maintenance Procedures
Before the establishment of a CE-FE association, the CE must be in-service
and active but the FE is Down. Local management (CE Manager or FE Manager)
can be used to effect appropriate state transitions of CEs and FEs.
6.2.1. Protocol Element Up
After an FE has successfully established an association with a CE, the FE
sends a PE-UP message to indicate to the CE that it has finished all its
internal configuration and is available.
audu Expires December 23, 2004 Page 37
Internet-Draft ForCES-PL June 24 2004
When the CE gets the PE-UP message, and the FE is not locked out for local
management reasons, Forces-PL at the CE will mark the FE as UP but
"Inactive". The CE responds with a PE-UP Ack message in acknowledgement.
If for any reason the CE cannot respond with a PE-UP, it will respond with
a PE-DOWN Ack message with an appropriate reason parameter.
The CE can also generate the PE-UP message. The last ACTIVE CE may have
gone DOWN after establishing an association with a FE. In this case, the NE
would first transition into the PENDING state for a duration of T(r), and
then to DOWN state. The first CE that transitions to UP state will send a
PE-UP to the FE to notify it of its status, assuming the link between them
is up. The FE will acknowledge with a PE-UP Ack.
If the source PE does not receive a response from the target PE, or if a
PE-DOWN Ack is received, source PE MAY resend PE-UP message until it
receives a PE-UP Ack from the target. The default behavior is NO
retransmission.
6.2.2. Protocol Element Down
The FE will send a PE-DOWN to the CE when the FE is to be removed from the
list of FEs in an NE that it is a member of, that is eligible to receive
application traffic or management messages.
Forces-PL at the CE marks the FE as "Down" and returns a PE-DOWN Ack message
to the FE if one of the following events occur:
- a PE-DOWN message is received from the FE
- another state message is received from an FE but the FE is locked out
by management for some reason.
The CE sends a PE-DOWN Ack message in response this message. If the FE does
not receive a response from the CE, the FE MAY send PE-DOWN messages until
it receives a PE-DOWN Ack message from the CE or the association goes down.
The default behavior is NO retransmission.
The CE may also send a PE-DOWN messaged to the FE. This occurs when the CE
is about to be removed from service, and it is the ACTIVE CE. On getting
this notification, the FE will respond with a PE-DOWN Ack, and stop sending
any more messages to the out-going CE.
The whole mechanism allows for a graceful removal of CEs or FEs.
6.2.3. Protocol Element ACTIVE
Any time after the CE has sent a PE-UP Ack to the FE, the CE can send a
PE-Active (PEACT) to the FE, to activate the FE to start processing traffic.
When a PEACT message is received, the FE responds with a PEACT Ack message,
after which it starts handling traffic messages. The FE establishes the Data
channel with the CE after this message. The FE must wait for the PEACT
message from the CE before handling traffic data. The CE only sends the
PEACT message if it intends to transition the FE to ACTIVE state.
audu Expires December 23, 2004 Page 38
Internet-Draft ForCES-PL June 24 2004
6.2.4. Protocol Element Inactive
Any time after the CE has sent a PE-Active to the FE, the CE can send a
PE-Inactive (PEINACT) to the FE, to command the FE to stop processing
traffic.
When a PEINACT message is received, the FE responds with a PEINACT Ack
message, after which it stops handling traffic messages. The FE shuts down
the Data channel with the CE after it receives this message. The FE must
wait for another PEACT message from the CE before starting handling traffic
again. The CE only sends the PEINACT message if it intends to transition
the FE to INACTIVE state.
7. Example Scenarios
7.1. Establishment of Association
The associations among CEs and FEs are initiated via Join request and
response messages. If a join request is granted by the CE, a join response
message is replied to the request message. If a join request is denied, a
Leave response message is replied to the join request message. If CEs and
FEs are operating in an insecure environment then a security association
has to be established between them before any ForCES-PL messages can be
exchanged (see section 8).
This is followed by capability query, topology query. When the FE is ready
to start forwarding data traffic, it sends a PE-UP message to the CE. The
CE responds with PE-UP Ack. According to the configuration, the CE sends a
PE-ACTIVE to inform the FE to go active and start forwarding data traffic.
The FE acknowledges it with a PE-ACTIVE Ack and starts forwarding traffic .
At this point the association establishment is complete. The FE establishes
the data channel with the CE after this. The sequences of messages are
illustrated in the Figure below.
FE CE
| |
| Join REQ |
1 |---------------------->|
| |
| Join RESP |
2 |<----------------------|
| |
| CAPABILITY Request |
3 |<----------------------|
| |
| CAPABILITY Response |
4 |---------------------->|
| |
| TOPOLOGY Request |
5 |<----------------------|
| |
audu Expires December 23, 2004 Page 39
Internet-Draft ForCES-PL June 24 2004
| TOPOLOGY Response |
6 |---------------------->|
| |
| PE UP |
7 |---------------------->|
| |
| PE UP ACK |
8 |<----------------------|
| |
| PE ACT |
9|<----------------------|
| |
| PE-ACT ACK |
10|---------------------->|
| |
| Data channel Estb |
11|<--------------------->|
Figure 4: Association Establishment messages between CE and FE
7.2. Steady State Communication
Once the CE and FEs establish their association and exchange initial
configuration information, they enter a phase of steady state communication,
with the following example messages exchanging.
FE CE
| |
|Heart Beat |
1 |<--------------------->|
| |
|Heart Beat ACK |
2 |<--------------------->|
| |
| Query Request |
3 |<----------------------|
| |
| Query Response |
4 |---------------------->|
| |
| Aysnc Event Notice |
5 |---------------------->|
| |
|Configure Request |
6 |<----------------------|
| |
|Configure Response |
7 |---------------------->|
| |
|Control Packet Redirect|(over data channel)
8 |---------------------->|
Figure 5: Steady State communication between CE and FE
audu Expires December 23, 2004 Page 40
Internet-Draft ForCES-PL June 24 2004
When transferring forwarding information to FE, the CE uses the configure
request message with the length field indicating the number of bytes of
configuration information.
7.3. CE Fail-over Scenarios
As mentioned before, there are two basic modes of high-availability or
Failover support provided by Forces-PL protocol. This is configured during
the pre-association phase [as described in section 9]. For both cases, the
FE must establish association using ForCES-PL protocol [as described in
section 7.1] with both the primary and standby CEs in the CE set. This
association establishment includes the security associations described in
section 8, also capability and topology discovery. This helps with fast
failover since the FE avoids re-establishment of CE-FE association during
failover.
For strong consistency, the FE establishes the control and data channels
with both CEs and forwards all asynchronous events and protocol control
packets such as RIP, OSPF packets to both CEs. But only the primary CE
configures and controls the FE, the standby CE uses the information provided
by the FE to keep its state synchronized with the primary CE. When FE
detects failure of primary CE it informs the standby CE using the
asynchronous Event message. The standby CE can also obtain that information
using some CE-to-CE protocol. In case of failure of the primary CE, the
standby CE takes over the control of the FE. Note that in case of strong
consistency, CE-to-CE protocol is not needed to keep the state in the
primary and standby CEs synchronized.
FE CE Primary CE Standby
| | |
| Asso Estb(Caps, topo) | |
1 |<--------------------->| |
| | |
| Asso Estb(Caps, topo exchange) |
2 |<----------------------|------------------->|
| | |
| data + control | |
3 |<--------------------->| |
| | |
| data + control|(HeartBeats only) |
4 |-----------------------|------------------->|
| | |
| FAILURE |
| |
| PRI-CE-DOWN |
5 |------------------------------------------->|
| |
| data + control |
6 |------------------------------------------->|
Figure 6: CE Failover for strong consistency mode
audu Expires December 23, 2004 Page 41
Internet-Draft ForCES-PL June 24 2004
For weak consistency, the FE establishes the control channel with both CEs
but the data channel with only the primary CE. The only communication with
the standby CE is the heartbeat exchange. The standby CE keeps it state
synchronized using some CE-to-CE protocol. When FE detects failure of
primary CE it informs the standby CE using the asynchronous Event message.
In case of failure of the primary CE, the FE establishes the data channel
with the standby CE which then takes over the control of the FE.
Note that in both failover modes the FE does not need to store any state
in order to synchronize the CEs.
FE CE Primary CE Standby
| | |
| Asso Estb(Caps, topo)| |
1 |<--------------------->| |
| | |
| Asso Estb(Caps, topo exchange) |
2 |<----------------------|------------------->|
| | |
| data + control | |
3 |<--------------------->| |
| | |
| control|(HeartBeats only) |
4 |-----------------------|------------------->|
| | |
| FAILURE |
| |
| PRI-CE-DOWN |
5 |------------------------------------------->|
| |
| data + control |
6 |------------------------------------------->|
Figure 7: CE Failover for weak consistency mode
8. Security Considerations
If the CE or FE are in a single box and network operator is running under a
secured environment then it is up to the network administrator to turn off
all the security functions. This is configured during the pre-association
phase of the protocol.
Whether FE and CE are in a single box or multiple-hop, rate limiter
mechanism should be in place to defend against the CPU bound and bandwidth
(network) bound DoS attacks. We recommend this for all security mechanisms.
When the CEs, FEs or ForCES-PL endpoints are running over IP networks or in
an insecure environment, ForCES-PL MUST use TLS [TLS] to provide security.
The security association between the CEs and FEs MUST be established before
any ForCES-PL association establishment messages are exchanged between the
CEs and FEs.
audu Expires December 23, 2004 Page 42
Internet-Draft ForCES-PL June 24 2004
8.1. TLS Usage with Forces-PL
This section is applicable for CE or FE endpoints that use Forces-PL with
TLS [TLS-SCTP][TLS] to secure the communication.
Since CE is master and FEs are slaves, the FEs are TLS clients and CEs are
TLS server. Forces-PL endpoints that implement TLS MUST perform mutual
authentication during TLS session establishment process. CE must request
certificate from FE and FE needs to pass the requested information.
We recommend "TLS-RSA-with-AES-128-CBC-SHA" cipher suite, but CE or FE may
negotiate other TLS cipher suites. TLS must be used for all control channel
messages. TLS is optional for the data channel since data channel packets
are not encrypted externally to the NE.
Forces-PL uses TLS to provide security when the NE is in an insecure
environment. This is because IPsec provides less flexibility when
configuring trust anchors since it is transparent to the application and
use of Port identifiers is prohibited within IKE Phase 1. This provides
restriction for IPsec to configure trust anchors for each application
separately and policy configuration is common for all applications.
9. Architecture support for Forces-PL protocol
Pre-association phase is used to configure certain key attributes.
FE-Manager and CE-Manager are responsible for providing that information.
9.1. Configurable parameters
The following are the currently identified configurable parameters that can
be done through FE-Manager and CE-Manager for FE and CE's respectively
(1) Fail over configuration (Strong, Weak consistency)
(2) Number of CEs with which it has to communicate
(3) Maximum number of CE
(4) Timer for health check
(5) Maximum numbers of FEs that each CE can support in a NE
10. IANA Considerations
ForCES-PL protocol needs to have a two well-defined port numbers, which
needs to be assigned by IANA.
11. References
11.1. Normative References
[STD] S. Bradner, "The Internet Standards Process-Revision 3", RFC 2026,
October 1996.
audu Expires December 23, 2004 Page 43
Internet-Draft ForCES-PL June 24 2004
[KEYWORDS]S. Bradner, "Keywords for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", RFC2119 (BCP), IETF, March 1997.
[FORCES-REQ] Khosravi, et. al., "Requirements for Separation of IP
Control and Forwarding", rfc 3654, November 2003, rfc 3654.
[FRAMEWK] L. Yang, et. al, " ForCES Architectural Framework",
rfc 3746 April 2004,
[FE-MODEL] L. Yang, et. al, "ForCES Forwarding Element Functional
Model", work in progress, February 2004,<draft-ietf-forces-
model-02.txt>
11.2. Informative References
[IUA] Morneault, K,. Rengasami, S,. Kalla, M., and G. Sidebottom,
"ISDN Q.921-User Adaptation Layer", RFC 3057, February 2001
[OSPF] J. Moy, "OSPF Version 2", RFC 2328, April 1998
[TLS] Dierks, T., Allen, C., Treese, W., Karlton, P., Freier, A. and
P. Kocher, "The TLS Protocol Version 1.0", RFC 2246, January 1999.
[TLS-SCTP] Jungmaier, A., Rescorla, E. and M. Tuexen, "Transport
Layer Security over Stream Control Transmission Protocol",
RFC 3436, December 2002.
[SCTP] R. Stewart, et al, "Stream Control Transmission Protocol
(SCTP)", RFC 2960, October 2000.
[DCCP] E. Kohler, M. Handley, S. Floyd, J. Padhye, "Datagram
Congestion Control Protocol (DCCP)", draft-ietf-dccp-spec-
04.txt, June 2003.
[CONG-CONTRL] Floyd, S., "Congestion Control Principles", RFC 2914,
September 2000.
[FACT] Audu A., Gopal R., Khosravi H., Wu C. "Forwarding and Control
Element protocol (FACT)" draft-gopal-forces-fact-06.txt,
February 2004.
12. Acknowledgments
This work is based mostly on the ideas expressed in [FACT]. We hereby
acknowledge all the contributors to FACT, including Ram Gopal, Chaoping Wu
and Hormuzd Khosravi.
audu Expires December 23, 2004 Page 44
Internet-Draft ForCES-PL June 24 2004
13. Authors' Addresses
Alex Audu
Alcatel R&I
3400 West Plano Parkwy
Plano, TX 75075
Phone: 1-972-477-7809
Email: alex.audu@alcatel.com
Appendix-1: Tag (Hex) Values Used in Forces-PL Messages
+-----+--------------------+---------------------------------------+
|Tag | Meaning | Messages |
+-----+--------------------+---------------------------------------+
|0001 |IPv4 Join Address | Join Request |
+-----+--------------------+---------------------------------------+
|0002 |IPv6 Join Address | Join Request |
+-----+--------------------+---------------------------------------+
|0003 |Join Configuration | Join Response |
+-----+--------------------+---------------------------------------+
|0004 |Leave Reason | Leave Request/Response |
+-----+--------------------+---------------------------------------+
|0005 |Info String | Leave Req/Resp |
+-----+--------------------+---------------------------------------+
|0006 |FE Capability | Capability Response |
+-----+--------------------+---------------------------------------+
|0007 |Config Compo Command| Configure Request |
+-----+--------------------+---------------------------------------+
|0008 |Config Compo Result | Configure Response |
+-----+--------------------+---------------------------------------+
|0009 |Topology Data | Topology Response |
+-----+--------------------+---------------------------------------+
|000A |Query Data | Query Request |
+-----+--------------------+---------------------------------------+
|000B |LFB Data | Query Response |
+-----+--------------------+---------------------------------------+
|000C |Traffic Mode | PE (IN)ACT/ACK |
+-----+--------------------+---------------------------------------+
|000D |Data Channel Info | PE ACT |
+-----+--------------------+---------------------------------------+
|000E |Down Reason | PE DOWN/ACK |
+-----+--------------------+---------------------------------------+
|000F |Heartbeat Data | Heartbeat/Heartbeat ACK |
+-----+--------------------+---------------------------------------+
|0010 |LFB ID | CP Redirect, CP Forwarding/Resp |
+-----+--------------------+---------------------------------------+
|0011 |Control Packet | CP Redirect, CP Forwarding/Resp |
+-----+--------------------+---------------------------------------+
|0012 |Log. Comp ID list | CP Forwarding/Resp |
+-----+--------------------+---------------------------------------+
|0013 |Event Data | Event (De-)Register Req |
+-----+--------------------+---------------------------------------+
audu Expires December 23, 2004 Page 45
Internet-Draft ForCES-PL June 24 2004
|0014 | Diagnostic Info | Asynchronous EE Event Notification |
+-----+--------------------+---------------------------------------+
|0015 |Event-Handle ID | Asynchronous EE Event Notification |
+-----+--------------------+---------------------------------------+
|0016 |Error Code | Join, leave, Cap, Topo Response msgs |
+-----+--------------------+---------------------------------------+
|0017 |Vendor Specific Data| VS-DATA Request/Resp |
+-----+--------------------+---------------------------------------+
|0018 |Result | Event (De-)Register Resp |
+-----+--------------------+---------------------------------------+
Appendix-2: Interfaces To Local Management(CE/FE Manager)
As part of any normal protocol operation, management interface either CLI
or EMS or NMS or other suitable entity would like to send commands to either
FE or CE. This section identifies minimal command set that may be required
for such operation. This may be implemented by vendors in various ways and
is beyond the scope of ForCES protocol. This section describes the minimal
message and how FE and CE may use ForCES-PL to inform the local management
operation of each other.
M-PE-STATUS
The status of CEs and FEs are stored in and tracked by ForCES-PL. This
primitive is used to request, confirm, and indicate the status of a
PE (FE or CE) to local management.
M-ASSOCIATION-STATUS
This is used to request and indicate the status of the association
between a CE and an FE.
M-ERROR
This is used to indicate an error with a received ForCES-PL message to
FE or CE Manager.
M-PE-UP
This primitive can be used by FE or CE Manager to request that a FE or CE
be restored into in-service (UP) state by ForCES-PL. This could be triggered
by a RESTORE request from the CLI (Command Line Interface) into FE or CE
Manager.
(CLI)----Restore(COLD)--->( FE or CE Manager)---- M-PE-UP(COLD)--->(FPL)
Forces-PL can also use this primitive to indicate or acknowledge to FE or CE
Managerthat a FE or CE is UP (with a M-PE-UP.indicate and M-PE-UP.confirm
Primitives respectively). Valid parameters to M-PE-UP.req are:
COLD - initialize all attributes of PE during restore process.
WARM - use previous attributes in memory to restore PE (assumes
those attributes have not been lost).
CONFIG - Restore PE with new configuration attributes.
audu Expires December 23, 2004 Page 46
Internet-Draft ForCES-PL June 24 2004
M-PE-DOWN
This can be used by FE or CE Manager to request that a PE be taken to the
DOWN State. It could be triggered for example, by CLI sending a Remove
request to the local management layer.
(CLI)---Remove(BOOT)--->(FE or CE Manager)----- M-PE-DOWN(BOOT) --->(FPL)
Forces-PL can in turn indicate a PE-DOWN event or confirm the DOWN request
with a M-PE-DOWN.ind or M-PE-DOWN.con respectively. Valid parameters to
M-PE-DOWN.req are:
NO-BOOT - previous (static) contents in memory are preserved.
BOOT - all previous contents in memory are zero'd out.
CONFIG - previous configuration information between FE and CE are
lost and new ones are being established.
M-PE-ACTIVE
This is used by ForCES-PL to inform FE or CE Manager that FE or CE has
gone ACTIVE.
M-PE-INACTIVE
This is used by ForCES-PL to inform FE or CE Manager that FE or CE has gone
INACTIVE.
Appendix-3: NE States
It may be necessary to track the state of the NE itself. Since the NE
consists of distributed CEs and FEs, the state of the NE will be dependent
on the states of its CEs and FEs. The state of the NE is maintained by
Forces-PL in both FE and CE.
The state of an NE can be changed due to events including:
* CE or FE state transitions
* Recovery timer triggers
The possible states of a NE are as follows:
NE-DOWN: The network element is not available for service. This implies
all related CEs and FEs are in the PE-DOWN state. Initially,
the NE will be in this state.
NE-INACTIVE: The network element is available but no application traffic
is active. Here, one or more protocol elements (CE or FE) are in
the PE-INACTIVE state, but none in the PE-ACTIVE state. Also,
the recovery timer is not running, or has expired. This may be
the state of standby NE if redundancy is provided at logical NE
level.
NE-ACTIVE: The network element is available and it is carrying application
traffic. This implies that at least, one CE-FE communicating pair
is in PE-ACTIVE state.
audu Expires December 23, 2004 Page 47
Internet-Draft ForCES-PL June 24 2004
NE-PENDING: An active CE or FE has transitioned into inactive or down
state, and it was the last remaining active CE or FE in the NE.
A recovery timer T(r), will be started, and the source FE or CE
will queue up messages meant for the inactive target. If another
target CE or FE becomes active (depending on which went inactive),
before T(r) expires, the queued up messages are directed to the
newly active CE or FE, and T(r) timer is cancelled. In this case,
NE will move back to the NE-ACTIVE state. However, if T(r) expires
before an alternate CE or FE becomes active, the queued up
messages are discarded, and the NE will move to NE-DOWN state.
+----------+ one PE goes ACTIVE +-------------+
| |------------------------>| |
| NE-INACT | | NE-ACTIVE |
| | | |
| |< | |
+----------+ \ +-------------+
^ | \ Tr fires; ^ |
| | \ at least one | |
| | \ PE is UP | |
| | \ | |
| | \ | |
| | \ | |
one PE | | \ one PE | | Last ACTIVE PE
goes | | all PEs \------\ goes to | | goes INACT
to | | go DOWN \ ACTIVE | | or DOWN
INACT | | \ | | (start Tr timer)
| | \ | |
| | \ | |
| | \ | |
| v \ | v
+----------+ \ +-------------+
| | -| |
| NE-DOWN | | NE-PENDING |
| | | (queueing) |
| |