1 / 14

Exploring TIPC-Based TML for ForCES Protocol: A Comparative Analysis at IETF 63

This document presents a detailed analysis of the TIPC-based Transport Management Layer (TML) for the ForCES protocol, as discussed at the 63rd IETF Meeting in Paris. Key topics include the similarities and differences with TCP/IP TML, the control/data channel model, address mapping, and multicast capabilities. The paper explores fulfilling requirements compared to TCP-based TML, emphasizing performance, reliability, and security aspects limited to closed LAN networks. We will also address questions regarding generic PL layer mandates in ForCES communication.

afric
Télécharger la présentation

Exploring TIPC-Based TML for ForCES Protocol: A Comparative Analysis at IETF 63

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. TIPC based TML for ForCES Protocol Jon Maloy Shuchi Chawla Hormuzd Khosravi Furquan Ansari Jamal Hadi Salim 63rd IETF Meeting, Paris

  2. Topics • Similarities/Differences to TCP/IP TML • Control/Data Channel Model • Address Mapping • Multicast • Fulfilling Requirements

  3. Comparison to TCP based TML • Similar, multiplex/demultiplex model • No TML encapsulation • Control channel based on reliable TIPC connection • Data channel based on “best effort” TIPC connection • No “transport-on-transport” problem • Limited to closed LAN networks (one chassis) for now • Performance • No configuration required • FE/CE ids map directly to TIPC addresses • Neighbour detection for free

  4. Connection/Channel Model Connectionless SOCK_RDM TIPC CE CE Object FB X FB Y Reliable Connection” as Control Channel “Best Effort” Connection” as Data Channel TIPC FE FE Object LFB 1 LFB 2

  5. Address Mapping CE 8 tml_init(ce=8) CE Object TML API bind(CE_CTRL_TYPE,8) TIPC API TIPC FE 5 TIPC API connect(CE_CTRL_TYPE,8) FE Object TML API tml_open(ce=8)

  6. Address Mapping CE 8 CE Object send_ctrl(fe = 5,lfb_type=6, lfb_inst = 2) FB Y TIPC FE 5 FE Object LFB 6,2

  7. Address Mapping, Multicast CE 8 CE Object TML API TIPC API TIPC FE 5 TIPC API bind(mcid,5) FE Object TML API tml_join(mcid)

  8. Address Mapping,Multicast CE 8 CE Object send_mc(mcid=4,lfb_type=6, lfb_inst = 2) FB Y TIPC FE 5 FE Object LFB 6,2

  9. Fulfilling Requirements(1) • Reliability • Reliable transport in all modes • Can be made unreliable per socket/direction • Security • Only secure within closed networks. • No explicit authentication/encryption support yet, but planned • Not IP-based, no router will forward TIPC messages!! • Congestion Control • At three levels: Connection/Transport, Signalling Link and Carrier level • Will give feedback to PL layer if connection is broken • Multicast/Broadcast • Supported

  10. Fulfilling Requirements(2) • Timeliness • Immediate delivery (No Nagle algorithm) • Inter-node delivery time in the order of 100 microseconds • HA Considerations • L2 link failure detection and failover handled transparently for user • Connection abortion with error code if no redundant carrier available • Peer node failure detection after 0.5-1.5 seconds • Encapsulation • No TML layer encapsulaton • Priorities • Supports 4 message importance priorities, determining congestion levels and abort/rejection levels

  11. Questions ???

  12. To Consider… CE 8 CE Object FB Y TIPC FE 5 LFB 6,2 TIPC API bind(6,2) FE Object FORCES API forces_bind(lfb_type=6,inst=2)

  13. To Consider… CE 8 FORCES API forces_send([fe = 5,] lfb_type=6,inst = 2) CE Object sendto([5],6,2) TIPC API FB Y Control traffic: Reliable connectionless (SOCK_RDM) Data traffic: Best Effort connectionless (SOCK_DGRAM) TIPC FE 5 LFB 6,2 TIPC API recvfrom() FE Object FORCES API forces_recv()

  14. To Consider… • Should generic PL layer according to spec really be mandatory ?? • A service description of the ForCES communication service may be sufficient, and less restrictive

More Related