tipc based tml for forces protocol
DESCRIPTION
TIPC based TML for ForCES Protocol. Jon Maloy Shuchi Chawla Hormuzd Khosravi Furquan Ansari Jamal Hadi Salim 63 rd IETF Meeting, Paris. Topics. Similarities/Differences to TCP/IP TML Control/Data Channel Model Address Mapping Multicast Fulfilling Requirements. - PowerPoint PPT PresentationTRANSCRIPT
1
TIPC based TML for ForCES Protocol
Jon MaloyShuchi ChawlaHormuzd KhosraviFurquan AnsariJamal Hadi Salim
63rd IETF Meeting, Paris
2
Topics
Similarities/Differences to TCP/IP TML Control/Data Channel Model Address Mapping Multicast Fulfilling Requirements
3
Similar, multiplex/demultiplex modelNo TML encapsulation Control channel based on reliable TIPC connection Data channel based on “best effort” TIPC connection
–No “transport-on-transport” problem
Limited to closed LAN networks (one chassis) for now Performance No configuration required
–FE/CE ids map directly to TIPC addresses
Neighbour detection for free
Comparison to TCP based TML
4
Connection/Channel Model
FE Object
CE Object
FE
CE
TIP
CLFB 1 LFB 2
FB X FB Y
Connectionless SOCK_RDM TIPC
“Best Effort” Connection” as Data Channel
Reliable Connection” as Control Channel
5
Address Mapping
FE 5
CE 8
TIP
C
TIPC API
TML APItml_init(ce=8)
bind(CE_CTRL_TYPE,8)
CE Object
TIPC API
TML API tml_open(ce=8)
connect(CE_CTRL_TYPE,8) FE Object
6
Address Mapping
FE Object
CE Object
FE 5
CE 8
TIP
CLFB 6,2
FB Ysend_ctrl(fe = 5,lfb_type=6, lfb_inst = 2)
7
Address Mapping, Multicast
FE 5
CE 8
TIP
C
TIPC API
TML API CE Object
TIPC API
TML APIFE
Objectbind(mcid,5)
tml_join(mcid)
8
Address Mapping,Multicast
FE Object
CE Object
FE 5
CE 8
TIP
CLFB 6,2
FB Ysend_mc(mcid=4,lfb_type=6, lfb_inst = 2)
9
Reliability– Reliable transport in all modes
– Can be made unreliable per socket/direction
Security– Only secure within closed networks.
– No explicit authentication/encryption support yet, but planned
– Not IP-based, no router will forward TIPC messages!!
Congestion Control– At three levels: Connection/Transport, Signalling Link and Carrier
level– Will give feedback to PL layer if connection is broken
Multicast/Broadcast– Supported
Fulfilling Requirements(1)
10
Timeliness– Immediate delivery (No Nagle algorithm)
– Inter-node delivery time in the order of 100 microseconds
HA Considerations– L2 link failure detection and failover handled transparently for user
– Connection abortion with error code if no redundant carrier available
– Peer node failure detection after 0.5-1.5 seconds
Encapsulation– No TML layer encapsulaton
Priorities– Supports 4 message importance priorities, determining congestion
levels and abort/rejection levels
Fulfilling Requirements(2)
11
Questions ???
12
To Consider…
FE 5
CE 8
FB Y
TIPC API
FORCES API
forces_bind(lfb_type=6,inst=2)
bind(6,2)LFB 6,2
FE Object
CE Object
TIP
C
13
To Consider…
FE 5
CE 8
TIPC API
FORCES API
FB Y
TIPC API
FORCES API
forces_recv()
recvfrom()LFB 6,2
FE Object
CE Object
TIP
C
forces_send([fe = 5,] lfb_type=6,inst = 2)
sendto([5],6,2)
Control traffic: Reliable connectionless (SOCK_RDM)
Data traffic: Best Effort connectionless (SOCK_DGRAM)
14
Should generic PL layer according to spec really be mandatory ??
A service description of the ForCES communication service may be sufficient, and less restrictive
To Consider…