TIPC based TML for ForCES Protocol

1
TIPC based TML for ForCES Protocol

• Jon Maloy
• Shuchi Chawla
• Hormuzd Khosravi
• Furquan Ansari
• Jamal Hadi Salim
• 63rd IETF Meeting, Paris

2
Topics

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

3
Comparison to TCP based TML

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

4
Connection/Channel Model
Connectionless SOCK_RDM TIPC
CE
CE Object
FB X
FB Y
Best Effort Connection as Data Channel
Reliable Connection as Control Channel
TIPC
FE
FE Object
LFB 1
LFB 2
5
Address Mapping
CE 8
tml_init(ce8)
CE Object
TML API
bind(CE_CTRL_TYPE,8)
TIPC API
TIPC
FE 5
TIPC API
connect(CE_CTRL_TYPE,8)
FE Object
TML API
tml_open(ce8)
6
Address Mapping
CE 8
CE Object
send_ctrl(fe 5,lfb_type6, lfb_inst 2)
FB Y
TIPC
FE 5
FE Object
LFB 6,2
7
Address Mapping, Multicast
CE 8
CE Object
TML API
TIPC API
TIPC
FE 5
TIPC API
bind(mcid,5)
FE Object
TML API
tml_join(mcid)
8
Address Mapping,Multicast
CE 8
CE Object
send_mc(mcid4,lfb_type6, lfb_inst 2)
FB Y
TIPC
FE 5
FE Object
LFB 6,2
9
Fulfilling Requirements(1)

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

10
Fulfilling Requirements(2)

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

11
Questions ???
12
To Consider
CE 8
CE Object
FB Y
TIPC
FE 5
LFB 6,2
TIPC API
bind(6,2)
FE Object
FORCES API
forces_bind(lfb_type6,inst2)
13
To Consider
CE 8
FORCES API
forces_send(fe 5, lfb_type6,inst 2)
CE Object
sendto(5,6,2)
TIPC API
FB Y
Control traffic Reliable connectionless
(SOCK_RDM) Data traffic Best Effort
connectionless (SOCK_DGRAM)
TIPC
FE 5
LFB 6,2
TIPC API
recvfrom()
FE Object
FORCES API
forces_recv()
14
To Consider

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