Internet Draft L. Yang
Expiration: April 2004 Intel Labs
File: draft-ietf-forces-model-01.txt J. Halpern
Working Group: ForCES Megisto Systems
R. Gopal
Nokia
A. DeKok
IDT Inc.
Z. Haraszti
S. Blake
Ericsson
October 2003
ForCES Forwarding Element Model
draft-ietf-forces-model-01.txt
Status of this Memo
This document is an Internet-Draft and is in full conformance with
all provisions of Section 10 of RFC2026. 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.
Abstract
This document defines the forwarding element (FE) model used in the
Forwarding and Control Plane Separation (ForCES) protocol. The
model represents the capabilities, state and configuration of
forwarding elements within the context of the ForCES protocol, so
that control elements (CEs) can control the FEs accordingly. More
specifically, the model describes the logical functions that are
Internet Draft ForCES FE Model October 2003
present in an FE, what capabilities these functions support, and
how these functions are or can be interconnected. This FE model is
intended to satisfy the model requirements specified in the ForCES
requirements draft [1]. A list of the basic logical functional
blocks (LFBs) is also defined in the LFB class library to aid the
effort in defining individual LFBs.
Table of Contents
Abstract.........................................................1
1. Definitions...................................................3
2. Introduction..................................................5
2.1. Requirements on the FE model.............................6
2.2. The FE Model in Relation to FE Implementations...........6
2.3. The FE Model in Relation to the ForCES Protocol..........6
2.4. Modeling Language for FE Model...........................7
2.5. Document Structure.......................................8
3. FE Model Concepts.............................................8
3.1. State Model and Capability Model.........................8
3.2. LFB Modeling............................................11
3.2.1. LFB Input and Input Group..........................13
3.2.2. LFB Output and Output Group........................15
3.2.3. Packet Type........................................16
3.2.4. Metadata...........................................16
3.2.5. LFB Versioning.....................................18
3.2.6. LFB Inheritance....................................18
3.3. FE Datapath Modeling....................................19
3.3.1. Alternative Approaches for Modeling FE Datapaths...19
3.3.2. Configuring the LFB Topology.......................23
4. LFB Model -- LFB and Associated Data Definitions.............27
4.1. General Data Type Definitions...........................28
4.1.1. Arrays.............................................29
4.1.2. Structures.........................................29
4.1.3. Augmentations......................................30
4.2. Metadata Definitions....................................30
4.3. Frame Format Definitions................................30
4.4. LFB Class Definitions...................................31
4.4.1. LFB Inheritance....................................31
4.4.2. LFB Inputs.........................................31
4.4.3. LFB Outputs........................................32
4.4.4. LFB Attributes.....................................33
4.4.5. LFB Operational Specification......................34
5. LFB Topology Model (To be written)...........................34
6. FE Level Attributes (To be written)..........................35
7. LFB Class Library............................................35
7.1. Port LFB................................................35
7.2. Dropper LFB.............................................36
Yang, et al. Expires April 2004 [Page 2]
Internet Draft ForCES FE Model October 2003
7.3. Redirector (de-MUX) LFB.................................36
7.4. Scheduler LFB...........................................36
7.5. Queue LFB...............................................36
7.6. Counter LFB.............................................37
7.7. Meter LFB and Policer LFB...............................37
7.8. Classifier LFB..........................................37
7.9. Modifier LFB............................................38
7.10. Packet Header Rewriter LFB.............................38
8. Satisfying the Requirements on FE Model......................39
8.1. Port Functions..........................................39
8.2. Forwarding Functions....................................40
8.3. QoS Functions...........................................41
8.4. Generic Filtering Functions.............................41
8.5. Vendor Specific Functions...............................42
8.6. High-Touch Functions....................................42
8.7. Security Functions......................................42
8.8. Off-loaded Functions....................................43
8.9. IPFLOW/PSAMP Functions..................................43
9. Using the FE model in the ForCES Protocol....................43
9.1. FE Topology Query.......................................45
9.2. FE Capability Declarations..............................46
9.3. LFB Topology and Topology Configurability Query.........47
9.4. LFB Capability Declarations.............................47
9.5. State Query of LFB Attributes...........................48
9.6. LFB Attribute Manipulation..............................48
9.7. LFB Topology Re-configuration...........................49
10. Acknowledgments.............................................49
11. Security Considerations.....................................49
12. Normative References........................................49
13. Informative References......................................50
14. Authors' Addresses..........................................50
15. Intellectual Property Right.................................51
16. IANA consideration..........................................51
Conventions used in this document
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in
this document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC-2119].
1. Definitions
A set of terminology associated with the ForCES requirements is
defined in [1] and is not copied here. The following list of
terminology is relevant to the FE model defined in this document.
Yang, et al. Expires April 2004 [Page 3]
Internet Draft ForCES FE Model October 2003
FE Model -- The FE model is designed to model the logical
processing functions of an FE. The FE model proposed in this
document includes three components: the modeling of individual
logical functional blocks (LFB model), the logical interconnection
between LFBs (LFB topology) and the FE level attributes including
FE capabilities. The FE model provides the basis to define the
information elements exchanged between the CE and the FE in the
ForCES protocol.
Datapath -- A conceptual path taken by packets within the
forwarding plane, inside an FE. There might exist more than one
datapath within an FE.
LFB (Logical Function Block) class (or type) -- A template
representing a fine-grained, logically separable and well-defined
packet processing operation in the datapath. LFB classes are the
basic building blocks of the FE model.
LFB (Logical Function Block) Instance -- As a packet flows through
an FE along a datapath, it flows through one or multiple LFB
instances, with each implementing an instance of a certain LFB
class. There may be multiple instances of the same LFB in an FE's
datapath. Note that we often refer to LFBs without distinguishing
between LFB class and LFB instance when we believe the implied
reference is obvious for the given context.
LFB Model -- The LFB model describes the content and structures in
LFB and associated data definition. There are four types of
information defined in the LFB model. The core part of the LFB
model is LFB class definitions while the other three are to define
the associated data including common data types, supported frame
formats and metadata.
LFB Metadata -- Metadata is used to communicate per-packet state
from one LFB to another, but is not sent across the network. The
FE model defines how such metadata is identified, produced and
consumed by the LFBs, but not how metadata is encoded within an
implementation.
LFB Attribute -- Operational parameters of the LFBs that must be
visible to the CEs are conceptualized in the FE model as the LFB
attributes. The LFB attributes include, for example, flags, single
parameter arguments, complex arguments, and tables that the CE can
read or/and write via the ForCES protocol.
LFB Topology -- Representation of how the LFB instances are
logically interconnected and placed along the datapath within one
Yang, et al. Expires April 2004 [Page 4]
Internet Draft ForCES FE Model October 2003
FE. Sometimes it is also called intra-FE topology, to be
distinguished from inter-FE topology. LFB topology is outside of
the LFB model, but part of the FE model.
FE Topology -- Representation of how the multiple FEs in a single
NE are interconnected. Sometimes it is called inter-FE topology,
to be distinguished from intra-FE topology (i.e., LFB topology).
Individual FE may not have the global knowledge of full FE
topology, but the local view of its connectivity with other FEs are
considered part of the FE model. FE topology is discovered by the
ForCES base protocol or some other means.
Inter-FE Topology -- See FE Topology.
Intra-FE Topology -- See LFB Topology.
LFB class library -- A set of LFB classes that are identified as
the most common functions found in most FEs and hence should be
defined first by the ForCES Working Group.
2. Introduction
[2] specifies a framework by which control elements (CEs) can
configure and manage one or more separate forwarding elements (FEs)
within a networking element (NE) using the ForCES protocol. The
ForCES architecture allows Forwarding Elements of varying
functionality to participate in a ForCES network element. The
implication of this varying functionality is that CEs can make only
minimal assumptions about the functionality provided by FEs in a
NE. Before CEs can configure and control the forwarding behavior
of FEs, CEs need to query and discover the capabilities and states
of their FEs. [1] mandates that the capabilities, states and
configuration information be expressed in the form of an FE model.
RFC 3444 [11] made the observation that information models (IMs)
and data models (DMs) are different because they serve different
purposes. "The main purpose of an IM is to model managed objects
at a conceptual level, independent of any specific implementations
or protocols used". "DMs, conversely, are defined at a lower level
of abstraction and include many details. They are intended for
implementors and include protocol-specific constructs." Sometimes
it is difficult to draw a clear line between the two. The FE model
described in this document is first and foremost an information
model, but it also has a flavor of a data model as it contains
explicit definition of the LFB class schema and other data
structures. It is expected that this FE model will be used as the
basis to define the payload for information exchange between the CE
and FE in the ForCES protocol.
Yang, et al. Expires April 2004 [Page 5]
Internet Draft ForCES FE Model October 2003
2.1. Requirements on the FE model
[1] defines requirements which must be satisfied by a ForCES FE
model. To summarize, an FE model must define:
. Logically separable and distinct packet forwarding operations
in an FE datapath (logical functional blocks or LFBs);
. The possible topological relationships (and hence the sequence
of packet forwarding operations) between the various LFBs;
. The possible operational capabilities (e.g., capacity limits,
constraints, optional features, granularity of configuration)
of each type of LFB;
. The possible configurable parameters (i.e., attributes) of
each type of LFB;
. Metadata that may be exchanged between LFBs.
2.2. The FE Model in Relation to FE Implementations
The FE model proposed here is based on an abstraction of distinct
logical functional blocks (LFBs), interconnected in a directed
graph, and receiving, processing, modifying, and transmitting
packets along with metadata. Note that a real forwarding datapath
implementation should not be constrained by the model. On the
contrary, the FE model should be designed such that different
implementations of the forwarding datapath can all be logically
mapped onto the model with the functionality and sequence of
operations correctly captured. However, the model itself does not
directly address the issue of how a particular implementation maps
to an LFB topology. This is left to the forwarding plane vendors
as to how the FE functionality is represented using the FE model.
Nevertheless, we do strive to design the FE model such that it is
flexible enough to accommodate most common implementations.
The LFB topology model for a particular datapath implementation
MUST correctly capture the sequence of operations on the packet.
Metadata generation (by certain LFBs) must always precede any use
of that metadata (by subsequent LFBs in the topology graph); this
is required for logically consistent operation. Further,
modifications of packet fields that are subsequently used as inputs
for further processing must occur in the order specified in the
model for that particular implementation to ensure correctness.
2.3. The FE Model in Relation to the ForCES Protocol
The ForCES base protocol is used by the CEs and FEs to maintain the
communication channel between the CEs and FEs. The ForCES protocol
may be used to query and discover the inter-FE topology. The
Yang, et al. Expires April 2004 [Page 6]
Internet Draft ForCES FE Model October 2003
details of a particular datapath implementation inside an FE
including the LFB topology, along with the operational capabilities
and attributes of each individual LFB, are conveyed to the CE
within information elements in the ForCES protocol. The model of
an LFB class should define all of the information that would need
to be exchanged between an FE and a CE for the proper configuration
and management of that LFB.
Definition of the various payloads of ForCES messages (irrespective
of the transport protocol ultimately selected) cannot proceed in a
systematic fashion until a formal definition of the objects being
configured and managed (the FE and the LFBs within) is undertaken.
The FE Model document defines a set of classes and attributes for
describing and manipulating the state of the LFBs of an FE. These
class definitions themselves will generally not appear in the
Forces protocol. Rather, Forces protocol operations will
references classes defined in this model, including relevant
attributes (and operations if such are defined).
Section 9 provides more detailed discussion on how the FE model
should be used by the ForCES protocol.
2.4. Modeling Language for FE Model
Even though not absolutely required, it is beneficial to use a
formal data modeling language to represent the conceptual FE model
described in this document and a full specification will be written
using such a data modeling language. Using a formal language can
help in enforcing consistency and logical compatibility among LFBs.
In addition, formal definition of the LFB classes has the potential
to facilitate the eventual automation of some part of the code
generation process and the functional validation of arbitrary LFB
topologies.
The modeling language is used for writing the specification but not
necessarily for encoding the data over-the-wire between FEs and
CEs. When selecting the specification language, human readability
is very important, while there are no performance requirements on
the language for encoding, decoding, and transmission on the
language. XML is used as the specification language in this
document, because XML has the advantage of being human and machine
readable with widely available tools support.
The encoding method for over the wire transport is an issue
independent of the specification language chosen here. It is
outside the scope of this document and up to the ForCES protocol to
define.
Yang, et al. Expires April 2004 [Page 7]
Internet Draft ForCES FE Model October 2003
2.5. Document Structure
Section 3 provides conceptual overview of the FE model, laying the
foundation for the more detailed discussion and specifications in
the sections that follow. Section 4, 5, and 6 together constitute
the core of the FE model, detailing the three major components in
the FE model: LFB model, LFB topology, and FE level attributes
including capability. Section 7 presents a list of LFB classes in
the LFB class library that will be further specified according to
the FE model presented in earlier Sections (4, 5 and 6). Section 8
directly addresses the model requirements imposed by the ForCES
requirement draft [1] while Section 9 explains how the FE model
should be used in the ForCES protocol.
3. FE Model Concepts
Some of the most important concepts used throughout this document
are introduced in this section. Section 3.1 explains the
difference between a state model and a capability model, and how
the two can be combined in the FE model. Section 3.2 introduces
the concept of LFBs (Logical Functional Blocks) as the basic
functional building blocks in the FE model. Section 3.3 discusses
the logical inter-connection and ordering between LFB instances
within an FE, that is, the LFB topology.
The FE model proposed in this document is comprised of these three
components: LFB model, LFB topology and FE attributes including FE
capabilities. The LFB model provides the content and data
structures to define each individual LFB class; LFB topology
provides a mean to express the logical inter-connection between the
LFB instances along the datapath(s) within the FE; and FE
attributes provide information at the FE level and the capabilities
about what the FE can or cannot do at a coarse level. Details on
each of the three components are described in Section 4, 5 and 6,
respectively. The intention of this section is to discuss these
concepts at the high level and lay the foundation for the detailed
description in the following sections.
3.1. State Model and Capability Model
The FE capability model describes the capabilities and capacities
of an FE in terms of variations of functions supported or
limitations contained. Conceptually, the FE capability model
presents the many possible states allowed on an FE with capacity
information indicating certain quantitative limits or constraints.
Yang, et al. Expires April 2004 [Page 8]
Internet Draft ForCES FE Model October 2003
For example, an FE capability model may describe the FE at a coarse
level such as:
. this FE can handle IPv4 and IPv6 forwarding;
. this FE can perform classification on the following fields:
source IP address, destination IP address, source port number,
destination port number, etc;
. this FE can perform metering;
. this FE can handle up to N queues (capacity);
. this FE can add and remove encapsulating headers of types
including IPSec, GRE, L2TP.
On the other hand, an FE state model describes the current state of
the FE, that is, the instantaneous values or operational behavior
of the FE. The FE state model presents the snapshot view of the FE
to the CE. For example, using an FE state model, an FE may be
described to its CE as the following:
. on a given port the packets are classified using a given
classification filter;
. the given classifier results in packets being metered in a
certain way, and then marked in a certain way;
. the packets coming from specific markers are delivered into a
shared queue for handling, while other packets are delivered
to a different queue;
. a specific scheduler with specific behavior and parameters
will service these collected queues.
The information on the capabilities and capacities of the FE helps
the CE understand the flexibility and limitations of the FE
functions, so that the CE knows at a coarse level what
configurations are applicable to the FEs and what are not. Where
it gets more complicated is for the capability model to cope with
the detailed limits, issues such as how many classifiers the FE can
handle, how many queues, and how many buffer pools the FE can
support, how many meters the FE can provide.
While one could try to build an object model for representing
capabilities in full, other efforts have found this to be a
significant undertaking. A middle of the road approach is to define
coarse-grained capabilities and simple capacity measures. Then, if
the CE attempts to instruct the FE to set up some specific behavior
it is not capable of, the FE will return an error indicating the
problem. Examples of such approach include Framework Policy
Information Base (PIB) [RFC3318) and Differentiated Services QoS
Policy Information Base [4]. The capability reporting classes in
the DiffServ and Framework PIBs are all meant to allow the device
to indicate some general guidelines about what it can or cannot do,
but do not necessarily allow it to indicate every possible
Yang, et al. Expires April 2004 [Page 9]
Internet Draft ForCES FE Model October 2003
configuration that it can or cannot support. If a device receives
a configuration that it cannot implement, it can reject such
configuration by replying with a failure report.
Figure 1 shows the concepts of FE state, capabilities and
configuration in the context of CE-FE communication via ForCES
protocol.
+-------+ +-------+
| | FE capabilities: what it can/cannot do. | |
| |<-----------------------------------------| |
| | | |
| CE | FE state: what it is now. | FE |
| |<-----------------------------------------| |
| | | |
| | FE configuration: what it should be. | |
| |----------------------------------------->| |
+-------+ +-------+
Figure 1. Illustration of FE state, capabilities and configuration
exchange in the context of CE-FE communication via ForCES.
The ForCES FE model must include both a state model and some flavor
of a capability model. We believe that a good balance between
simplicity and flexibility can be achieved for the FE model by
combining the coarse level capability reporting with the error
reporting mechanism. Examples of similar approach include DiffServ
PIB [4] and Framework PIB [5].
The concepts of LFB and LFB topology will be discussed in the rest
of this section. It will become clear that some flavor of
capability model is needed at both the FE level and LFB level.
Capability information at the LFB level is an integral part of the
LFB model, and is modeled the same way as the other operational
parameters inside an LFB. For example, certain features of an LFB
class may be optional, in which case it must be possible for the CE
to determine if an optional feature is supported by a given LFB
instance or not. Such capability information can be modeled as a
read-only attribute in the LFB instance. See Section 4.4.4 for
more details on LFB attributes.
Capability information at the FE level may describe what LFB
classes the FE can instantiate; how many instances of each can be
created; the topological (i.e., linkage) limitations between these
LFB instances, etc. Section 6 defines the FE level attributes
including capability information.
Yang, et al. Expires April 2004 [Page 10]
Internet Draft ForCES FE Model October 2003
Once the FE capability is described to the CE, the FE state
information can be represented by two levels. The first level is
the logically separable and distinctive packet processing
functions, and we call these individual functions Logical
Functional Blocks (LFBs). The second level of information is about
how these individual LFBs are ordered and placed along the datapath
to deliver a complete forwarding plane service. The
interconnection and ordering of the LFBs is called LFB Topology.
Section 3.2 discuss high level concepts around LFBs while Section
3.3 discuss issues around LFB topology.
3.2. LFB Modeling
Each LFB (Logical Functional Block) performs a well-defined action
or computation on the packets passing through it. Upon completion
of such function, either the packets are modified in certain ways
(like decapsulator, marker), or some results are generated and
stored, probably in the form of metadata (like classifier). Each
LFB typically does one thing and one thing only. Classifiers,
shapers, meters are all examples of LFB. Modeling LFB at such fine
granularity allows us to use a small number of LFBs to create the
higher-order FE functions (like IPv4 forwarder) precisely, which in
turn can describe more complex networking functions and vendor
implementations of software and hardware.
(Editor's note: We need to revisit the granularity issue around LFB
later and provide a practical design guideline as how to partition
the FE functions into LFB classes. We will gain more insight on
the subject once we debate and settle on the LFB list in the LFB
class library, described in Section 7. So the text around
granularity here might be revised to reflect the lessons we learn.)
An LFB has one or more inputs, each of which takes a packet P, and
optionally metadata M; and produces one or more outputs, each of
which carries a packet P', and optionally metadata M'. Metadata is
data associated with the packet in the network processing device
(router, switch, etc.) and passed between one LFB to the next, but
not sent across the network. It is most likely that there are
multiple LFBs within one FE, as shown in Figure 2, and all the LFBs
share the same ForCES protocol termination point that implements
the ForCES protocol logic and maintains the communication channel
to and from the CE.
An LFB, as shown in Figure 2, has inputs, outputs and attributes
that can be queried and manipulated by the CE indirectly via Fp
reference point (defined in [2]) and the ForCES protocol
Yang, et al. Expires April 2004 [Page 11]
Internet Draft ForCES FE Model October 2003
termination point. The horizontal axis is in the forwarding plane
for connecting the inputs and outputs of LFBs within the same FE.
The vertical axis between the CE and the FE denotes the Fp
reference point where bidirectional communication between the CE
and FE happens: the CE to FE communication is for configuration,
control and packet injection while the FE to CE is for packet re-
direction to the control plane, monitoring and accounting
information, errors, etc. Note that the interaction between the CE
and the LFB is only abstract and indirect. The result of such
interaction is for the CE to indirectly manipulate the attributes
of the LFB instances.
+-----------+
| CE |
+-----------+
^
| Fp reference point
|
+--------------------------|-----------------------------------+
| FE | |
| v |
| +----------------------------------------------------------+ |
| | ForCES protocol | |
| | termination point | |
| +----------------------------------------------------------+ |
| ^ ^ |
| : : Internal control |
| : : |
| +---:----------+ +---:----------+ |
| | :LFB1 | | : LFB2 | |
| =====>| v |============>| v |======>...|
| Inputs| +----------+ |Outputs | +----------+ | |
| (P,M) | |Attributes| |(P',M') | |Attributes| |(P",M") |
| | +----------+ | | +----------+ | |
| +--------------+ +--------------+ |
| |
+--------------------------------------------------------------+
Figure 2. Generic LFB Diagram
A namespace is used to associate a unique name or ID with each LFB
class. The namespace must be extensible so that new LFB class can
also be added later to accommodate future innovation in the
forwarding plane.
Yang, et al. Expires April 2004 [Page 12]
Internet Draft ForCES FE Model October 2003
LFB operation must be specified in the model to allow the CE to
understand the behavior of the forwarding datapath. For instance,
the CE must understand at what point in the datapath the IPv4
header TTL is decremented (i.e., it needs to know if a control
packet could be delivered to the CE either before or after this
point in the datapath). In addition, the CE must understand where
and what type of header modifications (e.g., tunnel header append
or strip) are performed by the FEs. Further, the CE must verify
that various LFB along a datapath within an FE are compatible to
link together.
There is value to vendors if the operation of LFB classes can be
expressed in sufficient detail so that physical devices
implementing different LFB functions can be integrated easily into
a FE design. Therefore, semi-formal specification is needed; that
is, a text description of the LFB operation (human readable), but
sufficiently specific and unambiguous to allow conformance testing
and efficient design (i.e., eliminate guess-work), so that
interoperability between different CEs and FEs can be achieved.
The LFB class model specifies information like:
. number of inputs and outputs (and whether they are
configurable)
. metadata read/consumed from inputs;
. metadata produced at the outputs;
. packet type(s) accepted at the inputs and emitted at the
outputs;
. packet content modifications (including encapsulation or
decapsulation);
. packet routing criteria (when multiple outputs on an LFB are
present);
. packet timing modifications;
. packet flow ordering modifications;
. LFB capability information;
. LFB operational attributes, etc.
Section 5 of this document provides detailed discussion on the LFB
model with a formal specification of LFB class schema. The rest of
Section 3.2 here only intends to provide conceptual overview of
some important issues in LFB modeling, without covering all the
specific details.
3.2.1. LFB Input and Input Group
An LFB input is a conceptual port of the LFB where the LFB can
receive information from other LFBs. The information is typically a
packet (or frame in general) and associated metadata, although in
Yang, et al. Expires April 2004 [Page 13]
Internet Draft ForCES FE Model October 2003
some cases it might consist of only metadata, i.e., with a Null-
packet.
It is inevitable that there will be LFB instances that will receive
packets from more than one other LFB instances (fan-in). If these
fan-in links all carry the same type of information (packet type
and set of metadata) and require the same processing within the
LFB, then one input should be sufficient. If, however, the LFB
class can receive two or more very different types of input, and
the processing of these inputs are also very distinct, then that
may justify the definition of multiple inputs. But in these cases
splitting the LFB class into two LFB classes should always be
considered as an alternative. In intermediate cases, e.g., where
the inputs are somewhat different but they require very similar
processing, the shared input solution should be preferred. For
example, if an Ethernet framer LFB is capable of receiving IPv4 and
IPv6 packets, these can be served by the same LFB input.
Note that we assume the model allows for connecting more than one
LFB output to a single LFB input directly. There is no restriction
on the number of up-stream LFBs connecting their outputs to the
same input of a single LFB instance. Note that the behavior of the
system when multiple packets arrive at such an input simultaneously
is not defined by the model. If such behavior needs to be
described, it can be done either by separating the single input to
become multiple inputs (one per output), or by inserting other
appropriate LFBs (such as Queues and possibly Schedulers) between
the multiple outputs and the single input.
If there are multiple inputs with the same input type, we model
them as an input group, that is, multiple instances of the same
input type. In general, an input group is useful to allow an LFB
to differentiate packet treatment based on where the packet came
from.
+----+ +----+
|LFB1+---+ |LFB1+---+
+----+ | +---------+ +----+ | +-----------+
+--->|in LFB3 | input / +--->|in:1 LFB3 |
+----+ | +---------+ group \ +--->|in:2 |
|LFB2+---+ +----+ | +-----------+
+----+ |LFB2+---+
+----+
(a) without input group (b) with input group
Figure 3. An example of using input group.
Yang, et al. Expires April 2004 [Page 14]
Internet Draft ForCES FE Model October 2003
Consider the following two cases in Figure 3(a) and (b). In Figure
3(a), the output from two LFBs are directly connected into one
input of LFB3, assuming that it can be guaranteed no two packets
arrive at the same time instance. If LFB3 must do something
different based on the source of the packet (LFB1 or LFB2), the
only way to model that is to make LFB1 and LFB2 to pass some
metadata with different values so that LFB3 can make the
differentiation based on the metadata. In Figure 3(b), that
differentiation can be elegantly expressed within LFB3 using the
input group concept where the instance id can server as the
differentiating key. For example, a scheduler LFB can potentially
use an input group consisting of a variable number of inputs to
differentiate the queues from which the packets are coming.
3.2.2. LFB Output and Output Group
An LFB output is a conceptual port of the LFB where it can send
information to some other LFBs. The information is typically a
packet (or frame in general) and associated metadata, although in
some cases it might emit only metadata,, i.e., with a Null-packet.
We assume that a single LFB output can be connected to only one LFB
input (this is required to make the packet flow through the LFB
topology unambiguous). Therefore, to allow any non-trivial
topology, multiple outputs must be allowed for an LFB class. If
there are multiple outputs with the same output type, we model them
as output group, that is, multiple instances of the same output
type. For illustration of output group, consider the hypothetical
LFB in Figure 4. The LFB has two types of outputs, one of which
can be instantiated to form an output group.
+------------------+
| UNPROC +-->
| |
| PKTOUT:1 +--> \
--> PKTIN PKTOUT:2 +--> |
| . + . | Output group
| . + . |
| PKTOUT:N +--> /
+------------------+
Figure 4. An example of an LFB with output group.
Multiple outputs should mainly be used for functional separation
where the outputs are connected to very different types of LFBs.
For example, an IPv4 LPM (Longest-Prefix-Matching) LFB may have one
default output to send those packets for which look-up was
Yang, et al. Expires April 2004 [Page 15]
Internet Draft ForCES FE Model October 2003
successful (passing a META_ROUTEID as metadata); and have another
output for sending packets for which the look-up failed. The
former output may be connected to a route handler LFB, while the
latter can be connected to an ICMP response generator LFB or to a
packet handler LFB that passes the packet up to the CE.
3.2.3. Packet Type
When LFB classes are defined, the input and output packet formats
(e.g., IPv4, IPv6, Ethernet, etc.) must be specified: these are the
types of packets a given LFB input is capable of receiving and
processing, or a given LFB output is capable of producing. This
requires that distinct frame types be uniquely labeled with a
symbolic name and/or ID.
Note that each LFB has a set of packet types that it operates on,
but it does not care about whether the underlying implementation is
passing a greater portion of the packets. For example, an IPv4 LFB
might only operate on IPv4 packets, but the underlying
implementation may or may not be stripping the L2 header before
handing it over -- whether that is happening or not is opaque to
the CE.
3.2.4. Metadata
Metadata is used to communicate per-packet state from one LFB to
another. To ensure inter-operability among LFBs, the LFB class
specification must define what metadata the LFB class "reads" or
"consumes" on its input(s) and what metadata it "produces" on its
output(s). For that purpose, metadata types must be identified.
For example, an META_IFID, passed from a port LFB to an IPv4
processing LFB (with the IP packet) can be one of the defined
metadata types.
Symbolic names can be assigned for common metadata types. In
addition, additional information such as numeric data type, maximum
and minimum accepted values, and special values should be defined
for each metadata value. Some of these constraints will be defined
in the LFB class model, and some of them may be specific
capabilities of a particular LFB instance.
While it is important to define the metadata passing between LFB in
terms of its name, value and interpretation, it is not necessary to
define the exact encoding mechanism used by LFBs for metadata.
Different implementations are allowed to use different encoding
mechanisms for metadata. For example, one implementation may store
Yang, et al. Expires April 2004 [Page 16]
Internet Draft ForCES FE Model October 2003
metadata in registers or shared memory, while another
implementation may encode metadata in-band as preamble in the
packets.
A given LFB may require a certain metadata at its inputs for its
internal processing. What should happen with the metadata after it
is read by the LFB? In particular, should the metadata be
propagated along with the packet when the packet is forwarded from
the LFB to the next LFB, or should it be removed (consumed) by the
LFB?
In certain cases, passing the metadata along is desirable. For
example, a META_CLASSID metadata may denote the result of a
classification LFB and used in more than one downstream LFBs to
trigger the proper operation on the packet. In this case the first
LFB that uses the META_CLASSID should also allow the META_CLASSID
to be passed with the packet to the next LFB, and so on. On the
other hand, it is easy to see that if metadata is never consumed by
LFBs, then as the packet trickles through the datapath, a large
number of metadata will potentially be accumulated by the packet.
We believe that one way to accommodate both scenarios is to specify
the propagation mode for each element of metadata utilized by an
LFB class. Metadata elements which are not propagated are
specified with the CONSUME mode, while elements which are
propagated are specified with the PROPAGATE mode.
However, whether a metadata is useful beyond an LFB may depend on
the actual LFB topology, i.e., what other LFBs are placed
downstream. So the propagation mode of metadata should be
configurable.
A packet may arrive to an LFB with metadata that is not meaningful
to that LFB, but may be important to some other downstream LFBs.
To cater to such cases it should be the assumed (default) behavior
of all LFB classes that they transparently propagate any metadata
elements that they do not utilize internally.
Actual implementations of LFBs in hardware may have limitations on
how much metadata they can pass through. The limitation may be
expressed in terms of total framesize (packet + metadata), metadata
total size, number of metadata elements, or a combination of these.
The limitation may be on the FE level or may be specific to LFBs
within an FE. The pass-through capabilities of LFB instances and
FEs can be queried as part of the capability discovery process.
Yang, et al. Expires April 2004 [Page 17]
Internet Draft ForCES FE Model October 2003
(Editor's note: The definition of metadata here is only preliminary
and the authors intend to work on the subject in more detail.
Input is most welcome.)
3.2.5. LFB Versioning
LFB class versioning is a method to enable incremental evolution of
LFB classes. Unlike inheritance (discussed next in Section 3.2.6),
where it assumed that an FE datapath model containing an LFB
instance of a particular class C could also simultaneously contain
an LFB instance of a class C' inherited from class C; with
versioning, an FE would not be allowed to contain an LFB instance
for more than one version of a particular class.
LFB class versioning is supported by requiring a version string in
the class definition. CEs may support backwards compatibility
between multiple versions of a particular LFB class, but FEs are
not allowed to support more than one single version of a particular
class.
3.2.6. LFB Inheritance
LFB class inheritance is supported in the FE model as a means of
defining new LFB classes. This also allows FE vendors to add
vendor-specific extensions to standardized LFBs. An LFB class
specification MUST specify the base class (with version number) it
inherits from (with the default being the base LFB class).
Multiple-inheritance is not allowed, though, to avoid the
unnecessary complexity.
Inheritance should be used only when there is significant reuse of
the base LFB class definition. A separate LFB class should be
defined if there is not enough reuse between the derived and the
base LFB class.
An interesting issue related to class inheritance is backward
compatibility (between a descendant and an ancestor class).
Consider the following hypothetical scenario where there exists a
standardized LFB class "L1". Vendor A builds an FE that implements
LFB "L1" and vendors B builds a CE that can recognize and operate
on LFB "L1". Suppose that a new LFB class, "L2", is defined based
on the existing "L1" class (for example, by extending its
capabilities in some incremental way). Lets first examine the FE
backward compatibility issue by considering what would happen if
vendor B upgrades its FE from "L1" to "L2" while vendor C's CE is
not changed. The old L1-based CE can interoperate with the new L2-
Yang, et al. Expires April 2004 [Page 18]
Internet Draft ForCES FE Model October 2003
based FE if the derived LFB class "L2" is indeed backward
compatible with the base class "L1".
The reverse scenario is a much less problematic case, i.e., when CE
vendor B upgrades to the new LFB class "L2", but the FE is not
upgraded. Note that as long as the CE is capable of working with
older LFB classes, this problem does not affect the model; hence we
will use the term "backward compatibility" to refer to the first
scenario concerning FE backward compatibility.
Inheritance can be designed into the model with backward
compatibility support by constraining the LFB inheritance such that
the derived class is always a functional superset of the base
class, i.e., the derived class can only grow on top of the base
class, but not shrink from it. Additionally, the following
mechanisms are required to support FE backward compatibility:
1) When detecting an LFB instance of an LFB type that is
unknown to the CE, the CE MUST be able to query the base
class of such an LFB from the FE.
2) The LFB instance on the FE SHOULD support a backward
compatibility mode (meaning the LFB instance reverts itself
back to the base class instance), and the CE SHOULD be able
to configure the LFB to run in such mode.
3.3. FE Datapath Modeling
Packets coming into the FE from ingress ports generally flow
through multiple LFBs before leaving out of the egress ports. How
an FE treats a packet depends on many factors, such as type of the
packet (e.g., IPv4, IPv6 or MPLS), actual header values, time of
arrival, etc. The result of the operation of an LFB may have an
impact on how the packet is to be treated in further (downstream)
LFBs and this differentiation of packet treatment downstream can be
conceptualized as having alternative datapaths in the FE. For
example, the result of a 6-tuple classification (performed by a
classifier LFB) controls what rate meter is applied to the packet
(by a rate meter LFB) in a later stage in the datapath.
LFB topology is a directed graph representation of the logical
datapaths within an FE, with the nodes representing the LFB
instances and the directed link the packet flow direction from one
LFB to the next. Section 3.3.1 discusses how the FE datapaths can
be modeled as LFB topology; while Section 3.3.2 focuses on issues
around LFB topology reconfiguration.
3.3.1. Alternative Approaches for Modeling FE Datapaths
Yang, et al. Expires April 2004 [Page 19]
Internet Draft ForCES FE Model October 2003
There are two basic ways to express the differentiation in packet
treatment within an FE, one representing the datapath directly and
graphically (topological approach) and the other utilizing metadata
(the encoded state approach).
. Topological Approach
Using this approach, differential packet treatment is expressed
via actually splitting the LFB topology into alternative paths.
In other words, if the result of an LFB must control how the
packet is further processed, then such an LFB will have separate
output ports (one for each alternative treatment) connected to
separate sub-graphs (each expressing the respective treatment
downstream).
. Encoded State Approach
An alternative way of expressing differential treatment is using
metadata. The result of the operation of an LFB can be encoded
in a metadata which is passed along with the packet to
downstream LFBs. A downstream LFB, in turn, can use the
metadata (and its value, e.g., as an index into some table) to
decide how to treat the packet.
Theoretically, the two approaches can substitute for each other, so
one may consider using purely one (or the other) approach to
describe all datapaths in an FE. However, neither model by itself
is very useful for practically relevant cases. For a given FE with
certain logical datapaths, applying the two different modeling
approaches would result in very different looking LFB topology
graphs. A model using purely the topological approach may require
a very large graph with many links (i.e., paths) and nodes (i.e.,
LFB instances) to express all alternative datapaths. On the other
hand, a model using purely the encoded state model would be
restricted to a string of LFBs, which would make it very
unintuitive to describe very different datapaths (such as MPLS and
IPv4). Therefore, a mix of these two approaches will likely be
used for a practical model. In fact, as we illustrate it below,
the two approaches can be mixed even within the same LFB.
Using a simple example of a classifier with N classification
outputs followed by some other LFBs, Figure 5(a) shows what the LFB
topology looks like by using the purely topological approach. Each
output from the classifier goes to one of the N LFBs followed and
no metadata is needed here. The topological approach is simple,
straightforward and graphically intuitive. However, if N is large
and the N nodes followed the classifier (LFB#1, LFB#2, ..., LFB#N)
Yang, et al. Expires April 2004 [Page 20]
Internet Draft ForCES FE Model October 2003
all belong to the same LFB type (for example, meter) but each with
its own independent attributes, the encoded state approach gives a
much simpler topology representation, as shown in Figure 5(b). The
encoded state approach requires that a table of N rows of meter
attributes is provided in the Meter node itself, with each row
representing the attributes for one meter instance. A metadata M
is also needed to pass along with the packet P from the classifier
to the meter, so that the meter can use M as a look-up key (index)
to find the corresponding row of the attributes that should be used
for any particular packet P.
Now what if all the N nodes (LFB#1, LFB#2, ..., LFB#N) are not of
the same type? For example, if LFB#1 is a queue while the rest are
all meters, what is the best way to represent such datapaths?
While it is still possible to use either the pure topological
approach or the pure encoded state approach, the natural
combination of the two seems the best by representing the two
different functional datapaths using topological approach while
leaving the N-1 meter instances distinguished by metadata only, as
shown in Figure 5(c).
+----------+
P | LFB#1 |
+--------->|(Attrib-1)|
+-------------+ | +----------+
| 1|------+ P +----------+
| 2|---------------->| LFB#2 |
| classifier 3| |(Attrib-2)|
| ...|... +----------+
| N|------+ ...
+-------------+ | P +----------+
+--------->| LFB#N |
|(Attrib-N)|
+----------+
5(a) Using pure topological approach
+-------------+ +-------------+
| 1| | Meter |
| 2| (P, M) | (Attrib-1) |
| 3|---------------->| (Attrib-2) |
| ...| | ... |
| N| | (Attrib-N) |
+-------------+ +-------------+
5(b) Using pure encoded state approach to represent the LFB
topology in 5(a), if LFB#1, LFB#2, ..., and LFB#N are of the
same type (e.g., meter).
Yang, et al. Expires April 2004 [Page 21]
Internet Draft ForCES FE Model October 2003
+-------------+
+-------------+ (P, M) | queue |
| 1|------------->| (Attrib-1) |
| 2| +-------------+
| 3| (P, M) +-------------+
| ...|------------->| Meter |
| N| | (Attrib-2) |
+-------------+ | ... |
| (Attrib-N) |
+-------------+
5(c) Using a combination of the two, if LFB#1, LFB#2, ..., and
LFB#N are of different types (e.g., queue and meter).
Figure 5. An example of how to model FE datapaths
From this example, we demonstrate that each approach has distinct
advantage for different situations. Using the encoded state
approach, fewer connections are typically needed between a fan-out
node and its next LFB instances of the same type, because each
packet carries metadata with it so that the following nodes can
interpret and hence invoke a different packet treatment. For those
cases, a pure topological approach forces one to build elaborate
graphs with a lot more connections and often results in an unwieldy
graph. On the other hand, a topological approach is intuitive and
most useful for representing functionally very different datapaths.
For complex topologies, a combination of the two is the most useful
and flexible. Here we provide a general design guideline as to
what approach is best used for what situation. The topological
approach should primarily be used when the packet datapath forks
into areas with distinct LFB classes (not just distinct
parameterizations of the same LFB classes), and when the fan-outs
do not require changes (adding/removing LFB outputs) at all or
require only very infrequent changes. Configuration information
that needs to change frequently should preferably be expressed by
the internal attributes of one or more LFBs (and hence using the
encoded state approach).
+---------------------------------------------+
| |
+----------+ V +----------+ +------+ |
| | | | |if IP-in-IP| | |
---->| ingress |->+----->|classifier|---------->|Decap.|---->---+
| ports | | |----+ | |
Yang, et al. Expires April 2004 [Page 22]
Internet Draft ForCES FE Model October 2003
+----------+ +----------+ |others+------+
|
V
(a) The LFB topology with a logical loop
+-------+ +-----------+ +------+ +-----------+
| | | |if IP-in-IP | | | |
--->|ingress|-->|classifier1|----------->|Decap.|-->+classifier2|->
| ports | | |----+ | | | |
+-------+ +-----------+ |others +------+ +-----------+
|
V
(b) The LFB topology without the loop utilizing two
independent classifier instances.
Figure 6. An LFB topology example.
It is important to point out that the LFB topology here is the
logical topology that the packets flow through, not the physical
topology as determined by how the FE hardware is laid out.
Nevertheless, the actual implementation may still influence how the
functionality should be mapped into the LFB topology. Figure 6
shows one simple FE example. In this example, an IP-in-IP packet
from an IPSec application like VPN may go to the classifier first
and have the classification done based on the outer IP header; upon
being classified as an IP-in-IP packet, the packet is then sent to
a decapsulator to strip off the outer IP header, followed by a
classifier again to perform classification on the inner IP header.
If the same classifier hardware or software is used for both outer
and inner IP header classification with the same set of filtering
rules, a logical loop is naturally present in the LFB topology, as
shown in Figure 6(a). However, if the classification is
implemented by two different pieces of hardware or software with
different filters (i.e., one set of filters for outer IP header
while another set for inner IP header), then it is more natural to
model them as two different instances of classifier LFB, as shown
in Figure 6(b).
To distinguish multiple instances of the same LFB class, each LFB
instance has its own LFB instance ID. One way to encode the LFB
instance ID is to encode it as x.y where x is the LFB class ID
while y is the instance ID within each LFB class.
3.3.2. Configuring the LFB Topology
Yang, et al. Expires April 2004 [Page 23]
Internet Draft ForCES FE Model October 2003
While there is little doubt that the individual LFB must be
configurable, the configurability question is more complicated for
LFB topology. Since LFB topology is really the graphic
representation of the datapaths within FE, configuring the LFB
topology means dynamically changing the datapaths including changes
to the LFBs along the datapaths on an FE, e.g., creating (i.e.,
instantiating) or deleting LFBs, setting up or deleting
interconnections between outputs of upstream LFBs to inputs of
downstream LFBs.
Why would the datapaths on an FE ever change dynamically? The
datapaths on an FE is set up by the CE to provide certain data
plane services (e.g., DiffServ, VPN, etc.) to the NE's customers.
The purpose of reconfiguring the datapaths is to enable the CE to
customize the services the NE is delivering at run time. The CE
needs to change the datapaths when the service requirements change,
e.g., when adding a new customer, or when an existing customer
changes their service. However, note that not all datapath changes
result in changes in the LFB topology graph, and that is determined
by the approach we use to map the datapaths into LFB topology. As
discussed in 3.3.1, the topological approach and encoded state
approach can result in very different looking LFB topologies for
the same datapaths. In general, an LFB topology based on a pure
topological approach is likely to experience more frequent topology
reconfiguration than one based on an encoded state approach.
However, even an LFB topology based entirely on an encoded state
approach may have to change the topology at times, for example, to
totally bypass some LFBs or insert new LFBs. Since a mix of these
two approaches is used to model the datapaths, LFB topology
reconfiguration is considered an important aspect of the FE model.
We want to point out that allowing a configurable LFB topology in
the FE model does not mandate that all FEs must have such
capability. Even if an FE supports configurable LFB topology, it
is expected that there will be FE-specific limitations on what can
actually be configured. Performance-optimized hardware
implementation may have zero or very limited configurability, while
FE implementations running on network processors may provide more
flexibility and configurability. It is entirely up to the FE
designers to decide whether or not the FE actually implements such
reconfiguration and how much. Whether it is a simple runtime
switch to enable or disable (i.e., bypass) certain LFBs, or more
flexible software reconfiguration is all implementation detail
internal to the FE but outside of the scope of FE model. In either
case, the CE(s) must be able to learn the FE's configuration
capabilities. Therefore, the FE model must provide a mechanism for
Yang, et al. Expires April 2004 [Page 24]
Internet Draft ForCES FE Model October 2003
describing the LFB topology configuration capabilities of an FE.
These capabilities may include (see Section 6 for details):
. What LFB classes can the FE instantiate?
. How many instances of the same LFB class can be created?
. What are the topological limitations? For example:
o How many instances of the same class or any class can be
created on any given branch of the graph?
o Ordering restrictions on LFBs (e.g., any instance of LFB
class A must be always downstream of any instance of LFB
class B).
Even if the CE is allowed to configure LFB topology for an FE, how
can the CE interpret an arbitrary LFB topology (presented to the CE
by the FE) and know what to do with it? In another word, how does
the CE know the mapping between an LFB topology and a particular NE
service or application (e.g., VPN, DiffServ, etc.)? We argue that
first of all, it is unlikely that an FE can support any arbitrary
LFB topology; secondly, once the CE understands the coarse
capability of an FE, it is up to the CE to configure the LFB
topology according to the network service the NE is supposed to
provide. So the more important mapping that the CE has to
understand is from the high level NE service to a specific LFB
topology, not the other way around. Do we expect the CE has the
ultimate intelligence to translate any high level service policy
into the configuration data for the FEs? No, but it is conceivable
that within a given network service domain (like DiffServ), a
certain amount of intelligence can be programmed into the CE such
that the CE has a general understanding of the LFBs involved and so
the translation from a high level service policy to the low level
FE configuration can be done automatically. In any event, this is
considered an implementation issue internal to the control plane
and outside the scope of the FE model. Therefore, it is not
discussed any further in this draft.
+----------+ +-----------+
---->| Ingress |---->|classifier |--------------+
| | |chip | |
+----------+ +-----------+ |
v
+-------------------------------------------+
+--------+ | Network Processor |
<----| Egress | | +------+ +------+ +-------+ |
+--------+ | |Meter | |Marker| |Dropper| |
^ | +------+ +------+ +-------+ |
| | |
+----------+-------+ |
| | |
Yang, et al. Expires April 2004 [Page 25]
Internet Draft ForCES FE Model October 2003
| +---------+ +---------+ +------+ +---------+ |
| |Forwarder|<------|Scheduler|<--|Queue | |Counter | |
| +---------+ +---------+ +------+ +---------+ |
|--------------------------------------------------------------+
(a) The Capability of the FE, reported to the CE
+-----+ +-------+ +---+
| A|--->|Queue1 |--------------------->| |
------>| | +-------+ | | +---+
| | | | | |
| | +-------+ +-------+ | | | |
| B|--->|Meter1 |----->|Queue2 |------>| |->| |
| | | | +-------+ | | | |
| | | |--+ | | | |
+-----+ +-------+ | +-------+ | | +---+
classifier +-->|Dropper| | | IPv4
+-------+ +---+ Fwd.
Scheduler
(b) One LFB topology as configured by the CE and
accepted by the FE
Queue1
+---+ +--+
| A|------------------->| |--+
+->| | | | |
| | B|--+ +--+ +--+ +--+ |
| +---+ | | | | | |
| Meter1 +->| |-->| | |
| | | | | |
| +--+ +--+ | Ipv4
| Counter1 Dropper1 Queue2| +--+ Fwd.
+---+ | +--+ +--->|A | +-+
| A|---+ | |------>|B | | |
------>| B|------------------------------>| | +--->|C |->| |->
| C|---+ +--+ | +->|D | | |
| D|-+ | | | +--+ +-+
+---+ | | +---+ Queue3| | Scheduler
Classifier1 | | | A|------------> +--+ | |
| +->| | | |--+ |
| | B|--+ +--+ +-------->| | |
| +---+ | | | | +--+ |
| Meter2 +->| |-+ |
| | | |
| +--+ Queue4 |
| Marker1 +--+ |
Yang, et al. Expires April 2004 [Page 26]
Internet Draft ForCES FE Model October 2003
+---------------------------->| |----+
| |
+--+
(c) Another LFB topology as configured by the CE and
accepted by the FE
Figure 7. An example of configuring LFB topology.
Figure 7 shows an example where a QoS-enabled router has several
line cards that have a few ingress ports and egress ports, a
specialized classification chip, a network processor containing
codes for FE blocks like meter, marker, dropper, counter, queue,
scheduler and Ipv4 forwarder. Some of the LFB topology is already
fixed and has to remain static due to the physical layout of the
line cards. For example, all the ingress ports might be already
hard wired into the classification chip and so all packets must
follow from the ingress port into the classification engine. On
the other hand, the LFBs on the network processor and their
execution order are programmable, even though there might exist
certain capacity limits and linkage constraints between these LFBs.
Examples of the capacity limits might be: there can be no more than
8 meters; there can be no more than 16 queues in one FE; the
scheduler can handle at most up to 16 queues; etc. The linkage
constraints might dictate that classification engine may be
followed by a meter, marker, dropper, counter, queue or IPv4
forwarder, but not scheduler; queues can only be followed by a
scheduler; a scheduler must be followed by the IPv4 forwarder; the
last LFB in the datapath before going into the egress ports must be
the IPv4 forwarder, etc.
Once the FE reports such capability and capacity to the CE, it is
now up to the CE to translate the QoS policy into the desirable
configuration for the FE. Figure 7(a) depicts the FE capability
while 7(b) and 7(c) depict two different topologies that the FE
might be asked to configure to. Note that both the ingress and
egress are omitted in (b) and (c) for simple representation. The
topology in 7(c) is considerably more complex than 7(b) but both
are feasible within the FE capabilities, and so the FE should
accept either configuration request from the CE.
4. LFB Model -- LFB and Associated Data Definitions
The main goal of the FE model is to provide an abstract, generic,
modular, implementation independent representation of the FEs. This
is facilitated using the concept of LFBs which are instantiated
from LFB classes. The LFB model is defined in this section to
Yang, et al. Expires April 2004 [Page 27]
Internet Draft ForCES FE Model October 2003
describe the content and structures in LFB and associated data type
definition.
The core part of the model is the definition of LFB classes.
Section 4.4 provides more discussion on what will be part of an LFB
class definition.
Operational parameters of the LFBs that must be visible to the CEs
are conceptualized in the model as the LFB attributes. These
include, for example, flags, single parameter arguments, complex
arguments, and tables. The definition of the attributes of an LFB
MUST be part of the LFB class definition. To promote consistent and
terse definitions of the attributes of LFB classes, commonly used
attribute types SHOULD be defined in the model outside of the LFB
class definitions, so that LFB class definitions can "share" these
type definitions by simply referring to the types. What will
comprise a data type definition is further discussed in Section
4.1.
LFBs form a directed graph with each other by sending and receiving
packets and associated metadata. To provide consistency and logical
inter-operability among LFB classes, packet types (generic frame
types) and metadata types MUST BE specified outside of the LFB
class definitions (but part of the LFB model), so that the LFB
class definitions can simply refer to these types. These blocks are
further discussed in Section 4.3 and Section 4.2, respectively.
In summary, the LFB model will consist of the following four
categories of definitions:
1) Common data type definitions (Section 4.1)
2) Metadata definitions (Section 4.2);
3) Frame format definitions (Section 4.3);
4) LFB class definitions (Section 4.4).
It is not expected that the above information is exchanged between
FEs and CEs "over-the-wire". But the model will serve as an
important reference for the design and development of the CEs
(software) and FEs (mostly the software part).
4.1. General Data Type Definitions
Data types will be used to describe the LFB attributes (see Section
4.4.4). This is similar to the concept of having a common header
file for shared data types. Data types will include atomic data
types (e.g. integer, ASCII string), as well as compound or derived
data types (such as arrays and structures). Given that the FORCES
protocol will be getting and setting attribute values, all atomic
data types used here must be able to be conveyed in the FORCES
Yang, et al. Expires April 2004 [Page 28]
Internet Draft ForCES FE Model October 2003
protocol. Further, the FORCES protocol will need a mechanism to
convey compound data types. Details of such representation are for
the protocol document, not the model documents.
Compound data types can build on atomic data types and other
compound data types. There are three ways that compound data types
can be defined. They may be defined as an array of elements of
some compound or atomic data type. They may be a structure of
named elements of compound or atomic data types (ala C structures).
They may also be defined as augmentations (explained below in
4.1.3) of existing compound data types.
In addition, any data type may be used to define a new type by
restricting the range of values that an instance of the data type
can take on, and specifying specific semantics that go with that.
This is similar to the SNMP notion of a textual convention.
For each data type the following information MUST be provided:
. Symbolic name of data type. Example: "T_IPV4ADDRESS".
. Actual type declaration.
In addition, a data type definition MAY include the following:
. Range restrictions.
. A set of symbolic names for special values. Example:
"IPV4ADDR_LOOPBACK".
Note that not all attributes will exist at all times in all
implementations. While the capabilities will frequently indicate
this non-existence, CEs may attempt to reference non-existent or
non-permitted attributes anyway. The FORCES protocol mechanisms
should include appropriate error indicators for this case.
4.1.1. Arrays
Compound data types can be defined as arrays of compound or atomic
data types. Arrays can only be subscripted by integers, and will
be presumed to start with subscript 0. The mechanism defined above
for non-supported attributes can also apply to attempts to
reference non-existent array elements or to set non-permitted
elements. The valid range of the subscripts of the array must be
defined either in the definition of the array or in the LFB class
which uses the compound type definition.
4.1.2. Structures
A structure is comprised of a collection of data elements. Each
data element has a data type (either an atomic type or an existing
Yang, et al. Expires April 2004 [Page 29]
Internet Draft ForCES FE Model October 2003
compound type.) and is assigned a name unique within the scope of
the compound data type being defined. These serve the same
function as "struct" in C, etc.
4.1.3. Augmentations
Compound types can also be defined as augmentations of existing
compound types. If the existing compound type is a structure,
augmentation may add new elements to the type. They may replace
the type of an existing element with an augmentation derived from
the current type. They may not delete an existing element, nor may
they replace the type of an existing element with one that is not
an augmentation of the type that the element has in the basis for
the augmentation. If the existing compound type is an array,
augmentation means augmentation of the array element type.
One consequence of this is that augmentations are compatible with
the compound type from which they are derived. As such,
augmentations are useful in defining attributes for LFB subclasses
with backward compatibility. In addition to adding new attributes
to a class, the data type of an existing attribute may be replaced
by an augmentation of that attribute, and still meet the
compatibility rules for subclasses.
For example, consider a simple base LFB class A that has only one
attribute (attr1) of type X. One way to derive class A1 from A can
be simply adding a second attribute (of any type). Another way to
derive a class A2 from A can be replacing the original attribute
(attr1) in A of type X with one of type Y, where Y is an
augmentation of X. Both classes A1 and A2 are backward compatible
with class A.
4.2. Metadata Definitions
For each metadata type, the following MUST be specified:
. Metadata symbolic name. Used to refer to the metadata type in
LFB type specifications. Example: META_CLASSID.
. Brief synopsis of the metadata. Example: "Result of
classification (0 means no match)".
. Data type and valid range.
In addition, the following information MAY BE part of the metadata
definition:
. Symbolic definitions for frequently used or special values of
the metadata.
4.3. Frame Format Definitions
Yang, et al. Expires April 2004 [Page 30]
Internet Draft ForCES FE Model October 2003
This part of the LFB model will list packet types (frame types in
general) that LFB classes can receive at their inputs and/or emit
at their outputs.
For each distinct frame type, the following MUST be provided:
. Symbolic name of frame type. Example: FRAME_IPV4.
. Brief synopsis of the frame type. Example: "IPv4 packet".
4.4. LFB Class Definitions
Each LFB Class definition must provide the following information:
. Symbolic name of LFB class. Example: "LFB_IPV4_LPM"
. Short synopsis of LFB class. Example: "IPv4 LPM Lookup LFB"
. Version indicator
. Inheritance indicator (see discussion in Section 4.4.1)
. Inputs (see discussion in Section 4.4.2)
. Outputs (see discussion in Section 4.4.3)
. Attributes (see discussion in Section 4.4.4)
. Operational specification (see discussion in Section 4.4.5)
4.4.1. LFB Inheritance
To support LFB class inheritance, the LFB specification must have a
place holder for indicating the base class and its version. It is
assumed that the derived class is backward compatible with the base
class.
4.4.2. LFB Inputs
An LFB class may have zero, one, or more inputs. We assume that
most LFBs will have exactly one input. Multiple inputs with the
same input type are modeled as one input group. The input group
should count as one entry in the input specification. The number
of inputs (including input groups) is fixed.
Multiple inputs with different input type should be avoided if
possible (see discussion in Section 3.2.1). Some special LFBs will
have no inputs at all. For example, a packet generator LFB does
not need an input.
The LFB class definition MUST specify whether or not the number of
inputs of the LFB is fixed, and the exact number if fixed. For each
LFB input (group), the following MUST be specified:
Yang, et al. Expires April 2004 [Page 31]
Internet Draft ForCES FE Model October 2003
. Symbolic name of input. Example: "PKT_IN". Note that this
symbolic name must be unique only within the scope of the LFB
class.
. Brief synopsis of the input. Example: "Normal packet input".
. Indication of whether this input is an input group (i.e., if
it is allowed to be instantiated).
. List of allowed frame formats. Example: "{FRAME_IPV4,
FRAME_IPV6}". Note that this list should refer to symbols
specified in the frame definition of the LFB model (see
Section 4.3).
. List of required metadata. Example: {META_CLASSID, META_IFID}.
This list should refer to symbols specified in the metadata
definition of the LFB model (see Section 4.2). For each
metadata it should be specified whether the metadata is
required or optional. For each optional metadata a default
value MAY BE specified, which is used by the LFB if the
metadata is not provided at the input.
4.4.3. LFB Outputs
An LFB class may have zero, one, or more outputs. If there are
multiple outputs with the same output type, we model them as output
group. Some special LFBs may have no outputs at all (e.g.,
Dropper).
The number of outputs may be fixed for some LFB types and may be
configurable for others. The LFB Class definition MUST specify the
number of outputs (or output types) of the LFB. The output group
should count as one entry in the output specification, but the
entry should indicate that instantiation of the output is
allowed.
For each LFB output (group) the following MUST be specified:
. Symbolic name of the output. Example: "UNPROC". In case of an
output group, the symbolic name is the prefix used to
construct unique symbols for each output instance. Example:
"PKTOUT". Note that the symbolic name must be unique only
within the scope of the LFB class.
. Brief synopsis of the output. Example: "Normal packet output".
. Indication of whether this output is an output group (i.e., if
it is allowed to be instantiated).
. List of allowed frame formats. Example: "{FRAME_IPV4,
FRAME_IPV6}". Note that this list should refer to symbols
specified in the frame definition of the LFB model (see
Section 4.3).
. List of emitted (generated) metadata. Example: {META_CLASSID,
META_IFID}. This list should refer to symbols specified in the
Yang, et al. Expires April 2004 [Page 32]
Internet Draft ForCES FE Model October 2003
metadata definition of the LFB model (see Section 4.2). For
each generated metadata, it should be specified whether the
metadata is always generated or generated only in certain
conditions. This information is important when assessing
compatibility between LFBs.
4.4.4. LFB Attributes
The operational state of the LFB is modeled by the variables of the
LFB, collectively called attributes. Note that the attributes here
refer to the operational parameters of the LFBs that must be
visible to the CEs. The other variables that are internal to LFB
implementation are not included here in the LFB attributes and are
not modeled here.
Attribute types will include the following three categories:
. Capability attributes (see Section 9.4 for more on LFB
capabilities). Examples:
* Supported optional features of the LFB class;
* Maximum number of configurable outputs for an output group;
* Metadata pass-through limitations of the LFB;
* Maximum size of configurable attribute tables;
* Supported access modes of certain attributes (see below).
. Operational attributes, some of them are configurable by the
CE, while others might be internally maintained state which
are read-only for the CE and necessary for the CE to operate
properly. Examples:
* Configurable flags and switches selecting between
operational modes of the LFB;
* ARP tables;
* Number of outputs in an output group;
* Metadata CONSUME vs. PROPAGATE mode selector.
. Statistical attributes (collected by the FE and provided for
reading to the CE). Examples:
* Packet and byte counters;
* Other event counters.
Some of the attributes will be generically available in all LFBs
while others will be specific to the LFB class. Examples of
generic LFB attributes are:
. LFB class inheritance information (see Section 4.4.1)
. Number and type of inputs (in case the LFB is self-
descriptive)
. Number and type of outputs (in case the LFB is self-
descriptive)
. Number of current outputs for each output group
. Metadata CONSUME/PROPAGATE mode selector
Yang, et al. Expires April 2004 [Page 33]
Internet Draft ForCES FE Model October 2003
There may be various access permission restrictions on what the CE
can do with an LFB attribute. The following categories may be
supported:
. No-access attributes. This is useful when multiple access
modes maybe defined for a given attribute to allow some
flexibility for different implementations.
. Read-only attributes.
. Read-write attributes.
. Write-only attributes. This could be any configurable data
for which read capability is not provided to the CEs. (??? Do
we have good example???)
. Read-reset attributes. The CE can read and reset this
resource, but cannot set it to an arbitrary value. Example:
Counters.
. Firing-only attributes. A write attempt to this resource will
trigger some specific actions in the LFB, but the actual value
written is ignored. (??? Example???)
The LFB class may define more than one possible access mode for a
given attribute (for example, write-only and read-write), in which
case it is left to the actual implementation to pick one of the
modes. In such cases a corresponding capability parameter must
inform the CE of which mode the actual LFB instance supports.
The attributes of the LFB class must be defined as a list. For each
attribute the following information MUST be provided:
. Reference to the data type (e.g., specified in the generic
data type block of the LFB model or in an LFB specific data
type block).
. Access permission(s).
. Additional range restrictions (i.e., beyond what is specified
by the data type definition).
. Default value. Applied when the LFB is initialized or reset.
The actual structuring of LFB attributes requires further study.
4.4.5. LFB Operational Specification
This section of the model should verbally describe what the LFB
does. This will most likely be embedded in an unstructured text
field in the model.
5. LFB Topology Model (To be written)
(Editor's note: This is a place holder to describe the details on
how to model LFB topology.)
Yang, et al. Expires April 2004 [Page 34]
Internet Draft ForCES FE Model October 2003
6. FE Level Attributes (To be written)
(Editor's note: This is a place holder to describe the FE level
attributes including FE capabilities, for examples:
. How this FE is connected with other FEs (if known by the FE)?
. What LFB classes can the FE instantiate?
. How many instances of the same LFB class can be created?
. What are the topological limitations? For example:
o How many instances of the same class or any class can be
created on any given branch of the graph?
o Ordering restrictions on LFBs (e.g., any instance of LFB
class A must be always downstream of any instance of LFB
class B).
)
7. LFB Class Library
A set of LFB classes are identified here in the LFB class library
as necessary to build common FE functions.
Several working groups in the IETF have already done some relevant
work in modeling the provisioning policy data for some of the
functions we are interested in, for example, DiffServ
(Differentiated Services) PIB [4], IPSec PIB [8]. Whenever
possible, we should try to reuse the work done elsewhere instead of
reinventing the wheel.
7.1. Port LFB
A Port LFB is used to map a physical port into the LFB model.
The Port LFB maps sources and sinks of packets from outside the LFB
model onto one logical block which defines and models a physical
port implementing those functions.
The Port LFB contains a number of configurable parameters, which
may include, but are not limited to, the following items:
. the number of ports on this LFB;
. the sub-interfaces if any;
. the static attributes of each port (e.g., port type,
direction, link speed);
. the configurable attributes of each port (e.g., IP address,
administrative status);
. the statistics collected on each port (e.g., number of packets
received);
Yang, et al. Expires April 2004 [Page 35]
Internet Draft ForCES FE Model October 2003
. the current status (up or down).
The Port LFB can have three modes of operation:
. ingress only
. egress only
. hybrid (contains ingress and egress functions)
7.2. Dropper LFB
A dropper LFB has one input, and no outputs. It discards all
packets that it receives without any modification or examination of
those packets.
The purpose of a dropper LFB is to allow the description of "sinks"
within the model, where those sinks do not result in the packet
being sent into any object external to the model.
7.3. Redirector (de-MUX) LFB
A redirector LFB has one input, and N outputs.
The purpose of the redirector LFB is to explicitly represent a
place in the LFB Topology where the redirection process occurs, and
where it may be configured.
The redirector LFB takes an input packet P, and uses the metadata M
to redirect that packet to one or more of N outputs, e.g. unicast
forwarding, multicast, or broadcast.
Note that other LFBs may also have redirecting functionality, if
they have multiple outputs.
7.4. Scheduler LFB
A Scheduler LFB has multiple inputs and one output. The purpose of
the Scheduler LFB is to perform time-dependent packet forwarding.
The Scheduler LFB multiplexes from its inputs onto its output(s),
based on internal configuration such as packet priority, etc. The
packet is not modified during this process.
7.5. Queue LFB
The Queue LFB has one input and one output. It takes input packets
and places them onto queues. These packets are later forwarded to
the output(s) of the LFB, based on back-pressure from the next LFB
which typically is a scheduler LFB.
Yang, et al. Expires April 2004 [Page 36]
Internet Draft ForCES FE Model October 2003
7.6. Counter LFB
A counter LFB updates its statistical attributes, by counting
packets, or metadata. The packet is not modified, and the metadata
may, or may not, be modified.
The purpose of a Counter LFB is to record simple accounting of
events on the FE.
A counter LFB is independent of time 't', in that it does not
perform any time-dependent counting. The time at which a count is
made may, however, be associated with that count.
7.7. Meter LFB and Policer LFB
A Meter LFB is a counter LFB that is time dependent. That is, it
meters the rate over time at which packets or metadata flow through
the LFB. The purpose of the Meter LFB is to record time-dependent
accounting of events on the FE.
When a Meter LFB has multiple outputs, with one output being a
marker, or dropping the packet, then the Meter LFB becomes a
Policer LFB, performing a policing function.
7.8. Classifier LFB
A Classifier LFB uses its attributes to classify the packet into
one of N different logical classes.
The purpose of a Classifier LFB is to logically partition packets
into one or more classes. The result of this partitioning is that
the Classifier LFB produces metadata that describes the classes
into which the packet has been partitioned. The packet is not
modified during this process.
A Classifier LFB takes an input packet and metadata, and produces
the same packet with new or more metadata. A classifier is
parameterized by filters. Classification is done by matching the
contents of the incoming packets according to the filters, and the
result of classification is produced in the form of metadata. Note
that this classifier is modeled solely based on its internal
processing, and not on its inputs and outputs. The block is a
single-exit classifier that does NOT physically redirect the
packet. In contrast, a DiffServ-like classifier is a 1:N (fan-out)
device: It takes a single traffic stream as input and generate N
logically separate traffic streams as output. That kind of multi-
Yang, et al. Expires April 2004 [Page 37]
Internet Draft ForCES FE Model October 2003
exit classifier can be modeled by combining this classifier with a
redirector (see Section 6.1.6).
A filter decides if input packets match particular criteria. That
is, it "marks" a packet as either matching, or non-matching to the
filter criteria. According to [DiffServ], "a filter consists of a
set of conditions on the component values of a packet's
classification key (the header values, contents, and attributes
relevant for classification)".
Note that other FE LFBs MAY perform simple classification on the
packet or metadata. The purpose of the FE Classifier LFB is to
model an LFB that "digests" large amounts of input data (packet,
metadata), to produce a "summary" of the classification results, in
the form of additional metadata. Other FE LFBs can then use this
summary information to quickly and simply perform trivial
"classifications".
The requirement for a unique and separate FE Classifier LFB comes
about because it would not make sense to model a classifier LFB
inside each of every other LFB. Such a model would be highly
redundant. We therefore specifically model a complex
classification LFB, and explicitly state that other blocks may make
decisions based on the parameters S, t, and M, but not on P.
Note that a classifier LFB may have multiple outputs. In that
case, it may redirect input packets to one (or more) of the
outputs, and may not associate any metadata with those output
packets.
7.9. Modifier LFB
A modifier LFB modifies incoming packets and sends them out.
Usually the metadata is used to determine how to modify the packet.
This LFB is defined in a generic manner, and we expect that
specific examples of packet and/or metadata modification will be
described as a subclass of the modifier LFB.
For example, we may have an explicit LFB for packet compression and
decompression, or for encryption and decryption, or for packet
encapsulation. The decision as to how best to model these
functions will be made based on further investigation of the LFB
model, and with practical experience using it.
7.10. Packet Header Rewriter LFB
Yang, et al. Expires April 2004 [Page 38]
Internet Draft ForCES FE Model October 2003
This LFB is used to re-write fields on the packet header, such as
IPv4 TTL decrementing, checksum calculation, or TCP/IP NAT.
We may want to have multiple LFBs for different kinds of header re-
writing.
8. Satisfying the Requirements on FE Model
(Editor's Note: The text in this section is very preliminary but
we decide to leave it as is because it is too early to understand
how to model all the functions as dictated in [1] when Section 7
is still very much work in progress. This section should be
revised once Section 7 is more settled.)
A minimum set of FE functions is defined in [1] that must be
supported by any proposed FE model. In this section, we
demonstrate how the three components in FE model as described in
Section 4, 5, 6 along with the LFB class library defined in Section
7 can be used to express all the logical functions required in [1].
8.1. Port Functions
Every FE contains a certain number of interfaces (ports), including
both the inter-NE interfaces and intra-NE interfaces. The inter-NE
interfaces are the external interfaces for the NE to
receive/forward packets from/to the external world. The intra-NE
interfaces are used for FE-FE or FE-CE communications. Same model
should be used for both the inter-FE and intra-FE interfaces, but
it is necessary to make the distinction between the two known to
the CE so that the CE can do different configuration.
The port LFB class is designed to model the specific physical ports
while the source/sink LFB can be used to model the logical
interface.
The intra-NE interfaces that are used for FE-FE communications
should be modeled just like the inter-NE interfaces. The ForCES
base protocol will include FE topology query so that the CE can
learn of how the multiple FEs are interconnected via such
interfaces. But the intra-NE interfaces that are used for FE-CE
communications are part of the ForCES protocol entity on the FE and
so it is not necessary to model them explicitly. It is assumed
that every FE will have at least one internal interface to
communicate to the CE and such interface do not have to be visible
in the FE model.
Yang, et al. Expires April 2004 [Page 39]
Internet Draft ForCES FE Model October 2003
8.2. Forwarding Functions
Support for IPv4 and IPv6 unicast and multicast forwarding
functions must be provided by the model.
Typically, the control plane maintains the Routing Information Base
(RIB), which contains all the routes discovered by all the routing
protocols with all kinds of attributes relevant to the routes. The
forwarding plane uses a different database, the Forwarding
Information Base (FIB), which contains only the active subset of
those routes (only the best routes chosen for forwarding) with
attributes that are only relevant for forwarding. A component in
the control plane, termed Route Table Manager (RTM), is responsible
to manage the RIB in the CE and maintain the FIB used by the FEs.
Therefore, the most important aspect in modeling the forwarding
functions is the data model for the FIB. The model also needs to
support the possibility of multiple paths.
At the very minimum, each route in the FIB needs to contain the
following layer-3 information:
. the prefix of the destination IP address;
. the length of the prefix;
. the number of equal-cost multi-path;
. the next hop IP address and the egress interface for each
path.
Another aspect of the forwarding functions is the method to resolve
a next hop destination IP address into the associated media
address. There are many ways to resolve Layer 3 to Layer 2 address
mapping depending upon link layer. For example, in case of Ethernet
links, the Address Resolution Protocol (ARP, defined in RFC 826) is
used for IPv4 address resolution.
Assuming a separate table is maintained in the FEs for address
resolution, the following information is necessary for each address
resolution entry:
. the next hop IP address;
. the media address.
Different implementation may have different ways to maintain the
FIB and the resolution table. For example, a FIB may consist of two
separate tables, one to match the prefix to the next hop and the
other to match the next hop to the egress interface. Another
implementation may use one table instead. Our approach of using
the fine-grained FE blocks to model the forwarding functions allow
such flexibility.
Yang, et al. Expires April 2004 [Page 40]
Internet Draft ForCES FE Model October 2003
For example, a combination of a classifier, followed by a modifier
and a redirector can model the forwarding function.
8.3. QoS Functions
The IETF community has already done lots work in modeling the QoS
functions in the datapath. The IETF DiffServ working group has
defined an informal data model [3]for QoS-related functions like
classification, metering, marking, actions of marking, dropping,
counting and multiplexing, queueing, etc. The latest work on
DiffServ PIB (Policy Information Base) [4] defines a set of
provisioning classes to provide policy control of resources
implementing the Diferentiated Services Architecture. DiffServ PIB
also has an element of capability flavor to it. The IETF Policy
Framework working group is also defining an informational model [6]
to describe the QoS mechanisms inherent in different network
devices, including hosts. This model is intended to be used with
the QoS Policy Information Model [7] to model how policies can be
defined to manage and configure the QoS mechanisms present in the
datapath of devices.
Here is a list of QoS functions that should be supported by the FE
model:
. Classifier
. Meter
. Marker
. Dropper
. Counter
. Queue and Scheduler
. Shaper
LFB class library as described in Section 7 already supports most
of these functions directly.
Note that A shaper should be modeled as a queue feeding a scheduler
input that is serviced using a non-work-conserving policy. The
queue LFB would include multiple FIFO queue resources (selected by
META_QUEUE_ID) and AQManagers assigned to queues. The scheduler
LFB would include multiple input resources with associated service
policies. Queue outputs would be bound to scheduler inputs via
passing META_SCHED_ID with the packet at the output of the queue.
The metadata is only there to allow correlation in configuration
parameters between the queueing LFB and the scheduler LFB (assign
queue X to scheduler input Y by configuring queue X to emit
META_SCHED_ID Y).
8.4. Generic Filtering Functions
Yang, et al. Expires April 2004 [Page 41]
Internet Draft ForCES FE Model October 2003
A combination of classifier, redirector, modifier etc. can model
complex set of filtering functions. For example, Figure 8
represents a filtering function that classifies packets into one of
two logical classes: forward, and drop. These logical classes are
represented as meta data M1, and M2. The re-director uses this
meta data to re-direct the packet to one of two outputs. The first
sinks the packet back into the network. The second silently drops
the packets.
classifier -> redirector ---M1--- sink
\
\-M2--- dropper
Figure 8. A filtering function example.
8.5. Vendor Specific Functions
New LFB class can always be defined according to the LFB model as
described in Section 7 to support vendor specific functions. New
LFB class can also be derived from an existing LFB class by
inheritance.
8.6.High-Touch Functions
High-touch functions are those that take action on the contents or
headers of a packet based on content other than what is found in
the IP header. Examples of such functions include NAT, ALG,
firewall, tunneling and L7 content recognition.
The ForCES working group first needs to agree upon a small set of
common high-touch functions with well-defined behavior to be
included in the LFB class library. Here is a list of candidate
blocks:
. NAT
. Firewall
. Encapsulator
. Decapsulator
8.7. Security Functions
The FE model must be able to describe the types of encryption
and/or decryption functions that an FE supports and the associated
attributes for such functions.
The IP Security Policy (IPSP) Working Group in the IETF has started
work in defining the IPSec Policy Information Base [8]. Further
Yang, et al. Expires April 2004 [Page 42]
Internet Draft ForCES FE Model October 2003
study on this is needed to determine whether it can be reused here
and any other additional work is needed.
8.8. Off-loaded Functions
In addition to the packet processing functions that are typical to
find on the FEs, some logical functions may also be executed
asynchronously by some FEs, according to a certain finite-state
machine, triggered not only by packet events, but by timer events
as well. Examples of such functions include finite-state machine
execution required by TCP termination or OSPF Hello processing off-
loaded from the CE. The FE model must be capable of expressing
these asynchronous functions, so that the CE may take advantage of
such off-loaded functions on the FEs.
The ForCES working group first needs to agree upon a small set of
such off-loaded functions with well-understood behavior and
interactions with the control plane.
8.9. IPFLOW/PSAMP Functions
[9] defines architecture for IP traffic flow monitoring, measuring
and exporting. The LFB model supports statistics collection on the
LFB by including statistical attributes (Section 4.4.4) for all the
LFB class definitions, and meter LFB (Section 7.2.2) and counter
LFB (Section 7.2.1) can also be used to support accounting
functions in the FE.
[10] describes a framework to define a standard set of capabilities
for network elements to sample subsets of packets by statistical
and other methods. Time event generation, filter LFB, and
counter/meter LFB are the elements needed to support packet
filtering and sampling functions -- these elements are all included
in the FE model.
9. Using the FE model in the ForCES Protocol
The actual model of the forwarding plane in a given NE is
something the CE must learn and control via communicating with the
FEs (or by other means). Most of this communication will happen in
the post-association phase using the ForCES protocol. The
following types of information must be exchanged between CEs and
FEs via the ForCES protocol:
1) FE topology query;
2) FE capability declaration;
3) LFB topology (per FE) and configuration capabilities query;
4) LFB capability declaration;
Yang, et al. Expires April 2004 [Page 43]
Internet Draft ForCES FE Model October 2003
5) State query of LFB attributes;
6) Manipulation of LFB attributes;
7) LFB topology reconfiguration.
Items 1) through 5) are query exchanges, the main flow of
information being from the FEs to the CEs. Items 1) through 4) are
typically queried by the CE(s) in the beginning of the post-
association (PA) phase, though they may be repeatedly queried at
any time in the PA phase. Item 5) (state query) will be used at
the beginning of the PA phase, and often frequently during the PA
phase (especially for the query of statistical counters).
Items 6) and 7) are "command" type of exchanges, the main flow of
information being from the CEs to the FEs. Messages in Item 6)
(the LFB re-configuration commands) are expected to be used
frequently. Item 7) (LFB topology re-configuration) is needed
only if dynamic LFB topologies are supported by the FEs and it is
expected to be used infrequently.
Among the seven types of payload information the ForCES protocol
carries between CEs and FEs, the FE model covers all of them
except item 1), which concerns the inter-FE topology. The FE
model focuses on the LFB and LFB topology within a single FE.
Since the information of item 1) requires global knowledge about
all the FEs and their inter-connection with each other, this
exchange is made part of the ForCES base protocol instead of the
FE model.
The relationship between the FE model and the seven post-
association messages are visualized in Figure 9:
+--------+
..........-->| CE |
/----\ . +--------+
\____/ FE Model . ^ |
| |................ (1),2 | | 6, 7
| | (off-line) . 3, 4, 5 | |
\____/ . | v
. +--------+
e.g. RFCs ..........-->| FE |
+--------+
Figure 9. Relationship between FE model and the ForCES protocol
messages, where (1) is part of the ForCES base protocol, and the
rest are defined by the FE model.
Yang, et al. Expires April 2004 [Page 44]
Internet Draft ForCES FE Model October 2003
The actual encoding of these messages is defined by the ForCES
protocol and beyond the scope of the FE model. Their discussion is
nevertheless important here for the following reasons:
. These PA model components have considerable impact on the FE
model. For example, some of the above information can be
represented as attributes of the LFBs, in which case such
attributes must be defined in the LFB classes.
. The understanding of the type of information that must be
exchanged between the FEs and CEs can help to select the
appropriate protocol format and the actual encoding method
(such as XML, TLVs).
. Understanding the frequency of these types of messages should
influence the selection of the protocol format (efficiency
considerations).
The remaining sub-sections of this section address each of the
seven message types.
9.1. FE Topology Query
(Editor's Note: It is still an open issue where the FE topology
information query belongs -- it can be either supported as part of
FE attributes in the FE model, or it can be supported by the ForCES
protocol explicitly. Hence the text here is tentative and subject
to change per WG discussion.)
An FE may contain zero, one or more external ingress ports.
Similarly, an FE may contain zero, one or more external egress
ports. In another word, not every FE has to contain any external
ingress or egress interfaces. For example, Figure 10 shows two
cascading FEs. FE #1 contains one external ingress interface but
no external egress interface, while FE #2 contains one external
egress interface but no ingress interfce. It is possible to
connect these two FEs together via their internal interfaces to
achieve the complete ingress-to-egress packet processing function.
This provides the flexibility to spread the functions across
multiple FEs and interconnect them together later for certain
applications.
While the inter-FE communication protocol is out of scope for
ForCES, it is up to the CE to query and understand how multiple FEs
are inter-connected to perform a complete ingress-egress packet
processing function, like that described in Figure 10. The inter-
FE topology information may be provided by FEs, may be hard-coded
into CE, or may be provided by some other entity (e.g., a bus
manager) independent of the FEs. So while the ForCES protocol
supports FE topology query from FEs, it is optional for the CE to
Yang, et al. Expires April 2004 [Page 45]
Internet Draft ForCES FE Model October 2003
use it, assuming the CE has other means to gather such topology
information.
+-----------------------------------------------------+
| +---------+ +------------+ +---------+ |
input| | | | | | output |
---+->| Ingress |-->|Header |-->|IPv4 |---------+--->+
| | port | |Decompressor| |Forwarder| FE | |
| +---------+ +------------+ +---------+ #1 | |
+-----------------------------------------------------+ V
|
+-----------------------<-----------------------------+
|
| +----------------------------------------+
V | +------------+ +----------+ |
| input | | | | output |
+->--+->|Header |-->| Egress |---------+-->
| |Compressor | | port | FE |
| +------------+ +----------+ #2 |
+----------------------------------------+
Figure 10. An example of two FEs connected together.
Once the inter-FE topology is discovered by the CE after this
query, it is assumed that the inter-FE topology remains static.
However, it is possible that an FE may go down during the NE
operation, or a board may be inserted and a new FE activated, so
the inter-FE topology will be affected. It is up to the ForCES
protocol to provide mechanism for the CE to detect such events and
deal with the change in FE topology. FE topology is outside the
scope of the FE model.
9.2. FE Capability Declarations
FEs will have many types of limitations. Some of the limitations
must be expressed to the CEs as part of the capability model. The
CEs must be able to query these capabilities on a per-FE basis.
Examples:
. Metadata passing capabilities of the FE. Understanding these
capabilities will help the CE to evaluate the feasibility of
LFB topologies, and hence to determine the availability of
certain services.
. Global resource query limitations (applicable to all LFBs of
the FE).
. LFB supported by the FE.
. LFB class instantiation limit.
Yang, et al. Expires April 2004 [Page 46]
Internet Draft ForCES FE Model October 2003
. LFB topological limitations (linkage constraint, ordering
etc.)
9.3. LFB Topology and Topology Configurability Query
The ForCES protocol must provide the means for the CEs to discover
the current set of LFB instances in an FE and the interconnections
between the LFBs within the FE. In addition, there should be
sufficient information provided on whether the FE supports any CE-
initiated (dynamic) changes to the LFB topology, and if so, what
are the allowed topologies. Topology configurability can also be
considered as part of the FE capability query as described in
Section 9.3.
9.4. LFB Capability Declarations
LFB class specifications will define a generic set of capabilities.
When an LFB instance is implemented (instantiated) on a vendor's
FE, some additional limitations may be introduced. Note that we
discuss here only limitations that are within the flexibility of
the LFB class specification, that is, the LFB instance will remain
compliant with the LFB class specification despite these
limitations. For example, certain features of an LFB class may be
optional, in which case it must be possible for the CE to determine
if an optional feature is supported by a given LFB instance or not.
Also, the LFB class definitions will probably contain very few
quantitative limits (e.g., size of tables), since these limits are
typically imposed by the implementation. Therefore, quantitative
limitations should always be expressed by capability arguments.
LFB instances in the model of a particular FE implementation will
possess limitations on the capabilities defined in the
corresponding LFB class. The LFB class specifications must define
a set of capability arguments, and the CE must be able to query the
actual capabilities of the LFB instance via querying the value of
such arguments. The capability query will typically happen when
the LFB is first detected by the CE. Capabilities need not be re-
queried in case of static limitations. In some cases, however, some
capabilities may change in time (e.g., as a result of
adding/removing other LFBs, or configuring certain attributes of
some other LFB when the LFBs share physical resources), in which
case additional mechanisms must be implemented to inform the CE
about the changes.
The following two broad types of limitations will exist:
. Qualitative restrictions. For example, a standardized multi-
field classifier LFB class may define a large number of
Yang, et al. Expires April 2004 [Page 47]
Internet Draft ForCES FE Model October 2003
classification fields, but a given FE may support only a
subset of those fields.
. Quantitative restrictions, such as the maximum size of tables,
etc.
The capability parameters that can be queried on a given LFB class
will be part of the LFB class specification. The capability
parameters should be regarded as special attributes of the LFB. The
actual values of these arguments may be, therefore, obtained using
the same attribute query mechanisms as used for other LFB
attributes.
Capability attributes will typically be read-only arguments, but in
certain cases they may be configurable. For example, the size of a
lookup table may be limited by the hardware (read-only), in other
cases it may be configurable (read-write, within some hard limits).
Assuming that capabilities will not change frequently, the
efficiency of the protocol/schema/encoding is of secondary concern.
9.5. State Query of LFB Attributes
This feature must be provided by all FEs. The ForCES protocol and
the data schema/encoding conveyed by the protocol must together
satisfy the following requirements to facilitate state query of the
LFB attributes:
. Must permit FE selection. This is primarily to refer to a
single FE, but referring to a group of (or all) FEs may
optional be supported.
. Must permit LFB instance selection. This is primarily to refer
to a single LFB instance of an FE, but optionally addressing
of a group of LFBs (or all) may be supported.
. Must support addressing of individual attribute of an LFB.
. Must provide efficient encoding and decoding of the addressing
info and the configured data.
. Must provide efficient data transmission of the attribute
state over the wire (to minimize communication load on the CE-
FE link).
9.6. LFB Attribute Manipulation
This is a place-holder for all operations that the CE will use to
populate, manipulate, and delete attributes of the LFB instances on
the FEs. This is how the CE configures an individual LFB instance.
The same set of requirements as described in Section 9.5 for
attribute query applies here for attribute manipulation as well.
Yang, et al. Expires April 2004 [Page 48]
Internet Draft ForCES FE Model October 2003
Support for various levels of feedback from the FE to the CE (e.g.,
request received, configuration completed), as well as multi-
attribute configuration transactions with atomic commit and
rollback, may be necessary in some circumstances.
(Editor's note: It remains an open issue as to whether or not other
methods are needed in addition to "get attribute" and "set
attribute" (such as multi-attribute transactions). If the answer
to that question is yes, it is not clear whether such methods
should be supported by the FE model itself or the ForCES protocol.)
9.7. LFB Topology Re-configuration
Operations that will be needed to reconfigure LFB topology:
. Create a new instance of a given LFB class on a given FE.
. Connect a given output of LFB x to the given input of LFB y.
. Disconnect: remove a link between a given output of an LFB and
a given input of another LFB.
. Delete a given LFB (automatically removing all interconnects
to/from the LFB).
10. Acknowledgments
The authors would also like to thank the following individuals for
their invaluable technical input: David Putzolu, Hormuzd Khosravi,
Eric Johnson, David Durham, Andrzej Matejko, T. Sridhar, Jamal Hadi
Salim, Alex Audu, Gamil Cain.
11. Security Considerations
The FE model describes the representation and organization of data
sets and attributes in the FEs. ForCES framework document [2]
provides a comprehensive security analysis for the overall ForCES
architecture. For example, the ForCES protocol entities must be
authenticated per the ForCES requirements before they can access
the information elements described in this document via ForCES.
The access to the information contained in the FE model is
accomplished via the ForCES protocol which will be defined in
separate documents and so the security issues will be addressed
there.
12. Normative References
[1] Khosravi, H. et al., "Requirements for Separation of IP Control
and Forwarding", work in progress, July 2003, <draft-ietf-forces-
requirements-10.txt>.
Yang, et al. Expires April 2004 [Page 49]
Internet Draft ForCES FE Model October 2003
13. Informative References
[2] Yang, L. et al., "Forwarding and Control Element Separation
(ForCES) Framework", work in progress, July 2003, <draft-ietf-
forces-framework-07.txt>.
[3] Bernet, Y. et al., "An Informal Management Model for Diffserv
Routers", May 2002.
[4] Chan, K. et al., "Differentiated Services Quality of Service
Policy Information Base", March 2003.
[5] Sahita, R. et al., "Framework Policy Information Base", RFC
3318, March 2003.
[6] Moore, B. et al., "Information Model for Describing Network
Device QoS Datapath Mechanisms", work in progress, May 2002,
<draft-ietf-policy-qos-device-info-model-08.txt>.
[7] Snir, Y. et al., "Policy Framework QoS Information Model", work
in progress, Nov 2001, <draft-ietf-policy-qos-info-model-04.txt".
[8] Li, M. et al., "IPsec Policy Information Base", work in
progress, January 2003, <draft-ietf-ipsp-ipsecpib-07.txt>.
[9] Quittek, J. et Al., "Requirements for IP Flow Information
Export", work in progress, June 2003, <draft-ietf-ipfix-reqs-
10.txt>.
[10] Duffield, N., "A Framework for Passive Packet Measurement ",
work in progress, June 2003, <draft-ietf-psamp-framework-03.txt>.
[11] Pras, A. and Schoenwaelder, J., FRC 3444 "On the Difference
between Information Models and Data Models", January 2003.
14. Authors' Addresses
L. Lily Yang
Intel Labs
2111 NE 25th Avenue
Hillsboro, OR 97124, USA
Phone: +1 503 264 8813
Email: lily.l.yang@intel.com
Yang, et al. Expires April 2004 [Page 50]
Internet Draft ForCES FE Model October 2003
Joel M. Halpern
Megisto Systems, Inc.
20251 Century Blvd.
Germantown, MD 20874-1162, USA
Phone: +1 301 444-1783
Email: jhalpern@megisto.com
Ram Gopal
Nokia Research Center
5, Wayside Road,
Burlington, MA 01803, USA
Phone: +1 781 993 3685
Email: ram.gopal@nokia.com
Alan DeKok
IDT Inc.
1575 Carling Ave.
Ottawa, ON K1G 0T3, Canada
Phone: +1 613 724 6004 ext. 231
Email: alan.dekok@idt.com
Zsolt Haraszti
Ericsson
920 Main Campus Dr, St. 500
Raleigh, NC 27606, USA
Phone: +1 919 472 9949
Email: zsolt.haraszti@ericsson.com
Steven Blake
Ericsson
920 Main Campus Dr, St. 500
Raleigh, NC 27606, USA
Phone: +1 919 472 9913
Email: steven.blake@ericsson.com
15. Intellectual Property Right
The authors are not aware of any intellectual property right issues
pertaining to this document.
16. IANA consideration
A namespace is needed to uniquely identify the LFB type in the LFB
class library.
Frame type supported on input and output of LFB must also be
uniquely identified.
Yang, et al. Expires April 2004 [Page 51]
Internet Draft ForCES FE Model October 2003
A set of metadata supported by the LFB model must also be uniquely
identified with names.
Yang, et al. Expires April 2004 [Page 52]
