💾 Archived View for gemini.bortzmeyer.org › rfc-mirror › rfc4755.txt captured on 2021-12-04 at 18:04:22.
⬅️ Previous capture (2021-11-30)
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Network Working Group V. Kashyap
Request for Comments: 4755 IBM
Category: Standards Track December 2006
IP over InfiniBand: Connected Mode
Status of This Memo
This document specifies an Internet standards track protocol for the
Internet community, and requests discussion and suggestions for
improvements. Please refer to the current edition of the "Internet
Official Protocol Standards" (STD 1) for the standardization state
and status of this protocol. Distribution of this memo is unlimited.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2006).
Abstract
This document specifies transmission of IPv4/IPv6 packets and address
resolution over the connected modes of InfiniBand.
Kashyap Standards Track [Page 1]
RFC 4755 Connected Mode IPoIB December 2006
Table of Contents
1. Introduction ....................................................2
2. IPoIB-connected Mode ............................................3
2.1. Multicasting ...............................................3
2.2. Outline of Address Resolution ..............................4
2.3. Outline of Connection Setup ................................4
3. Address Resolution ..............................................4
3.1. Link-layer Address .........................................4
3.2. IB Connection Setup ........................................6
3.3. Simultaneous IB Connections ................................6
3.4. IPoIB-CM IB Connection Teardown ............................7
3.5. Service-ID .................................................7
4. Frame Format ....................................................8
5. Maximum Transmission Unit .......................................8
5.1. Per-Connection MTU .........................................9
6. Private-Data Format .............................................9
7. IPoIB-CM Considerations ........................................10
7.1. A Cautionary Note on IPoIB-RC .............................10
7.2. IPoIB-CM Per-Destination MTU ..............................10
8. Security Considerations ........................................11
9. IANA Considerations ............................................11
10. Acknowledgements ..............................................11
11. Normative References ..........................................11
12. Informative References ........................................11
1. Introduction
The InfiniBand specification [IB_ARCH] can be found at
www.infinibandta.org. The document [RFC4392] provides a short
overview of InfiniBand architecture along with consideration for
specifying IP over InfiniBand networks.
The InfiniBand Architecture (IBA) defines multiple modes of
transports. Of these the unreliable datagram (UD) transport method
best matches the needs of IP. IP over InfiniBand (IPoIB) over UD is
described in [RFC4391]. This document describes IP transmission over
the connected modes of IBA.
IBA defines two connected modes:
1. Reliable Connected (RC)
2. Unreliable Connected (UC)
As is evident from the nomenclature, the two modes differ mainly in
providing reliability of data delivery across the connection. This
document applies equally to both the connected modes. IPoIB over
these two modes is referred to as IPoIB-CM (connected mode) in this
Kashyap Standards Track [Page 2]
RFC 4755 Connected Mode IPoIB December 2006
document. For clarity, IPoIB over the unreliable datagram mode as
described in [RFC4391] is referred to as IPoIB-UD.
IBA requires that all Host Channel Adapters (HCAs) support the
reliable and unreliable connected modes [IB_ARCH]. It is optional
for Target Channel Adapters (TCAs) to support the connected modes.
The connected modes offer link MTUs of up to 2^31 octets in length.
Thus, the use of connected modes can offer significant benefits by
supporting reasonably large MTUs. The datagram modes of InfiniBand
Architecture (IBA) are limited to 4096 octets.
Reliability is also enhanced if the underlying feature of "automatic
path migration" supported by the connected modes is utilized.
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 [RFC2119].
2. IPoIB-connected Mode
IPoIB over connected mode is an OPTIONAL extension to IPoIB-UD.
Every IPoIB implementation MUST support [RFC4391] and MAY support the
extensions described in this document.
Therefore, IP encapsulation, default MTU, link-layer address format,
and the IPv6 stateless autoconfiguration mechanism apply to IPoIB-CM
exactly as described in [RFC4391].
2.1. Multicasting
The connected modes of IBA define a non-broadcast, multiple-access
network. The connected modes of IBA do not support multicasting
though every node can communicate with every other node if desired.
This requires that multicasting be emulated in some form by the
network. However, in the case of an InfiniBand network, instead of
an emulation, an unreliable datagram (UD) queue pair (QP) can be used
to support multicasting while the connected mode QP is used for
unicast traffic. Since every IPoIB implementation is required to
support the UD mode, every implementation supporting IPoIB-CM will be
able to utilize the pre-existing IPoIB-UD QP for all
broadcast/multicast communications. Multicast mapping, transmission,
and reception of multicast packets and multicast routing MUST use the
UD QP associated with the IPoIB interface.
Kashyap Standards Track [Page 3]
RFC 4755 Connected Mode IPoIB December 2006
2.2. Outline of Address Resolution
Every IPoIB-CM interface MUST have two sets of QPs associated with
it:
1) One unreliable datagram QP
2) One or more connected mode QPs
[RFC4391] describes the address resolution method to determine the
link address of the peer. This response is received on the UD QP
associated with the IPoIB interface.
2.3. Outline of Connection Setup
Once the link address of the remote node is known, an IB connection
must be set up between the nodes before any IP communication may
occur.
To make a connection, the sender must know the service-ID to use in
the request to make a connection [IB_ARCH]. It must also supply the
"connection mode" queue pair to the remote node. The peer replies
with its queue pair. Each IB connection is peer to peer and uses one
connected mode QP at each end.
Though the address resolution occurs at an individual IP address
level, the connection between the nodes is at the IB layer.
Therefore, every individual address resolution does not imply a new
connection between the peers.
3. Address Resolution
Address resolution queries are sent out on the "broadcast-GID"
(Broadcast-Group Identifier) over the UD QP associated with the IPoIB
interface [RFC4391]. A unicast reply is received on the UD QP.
3.1. Link-layer Address
IPoIB encapsulation [RFC4391] describes the link-layer address as
follows:
<1 octet reserved>:QP: GID
This document extends the link-layer address as follows:
<Flags>:QPN:GID
Kashyap Standards Track [Page 4]
RFC 4755 Connected Mode IPoIB December 2006
Flags:
This is a single-octet field. The bits indicate the connected
modes supported by the interface.
Bit 0 specifies the support for the "reliable connected" (RC)
mode. Bit 1 indicates the support for the "unreliable connected"
(UC) mode. All other bits in the octet are reserved and MUST be
set to 0 on transmits and ignored on receives. The format of the
flags is as follows:
+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+
|RC|UC| 0| 0| 0| 0| 0| 0|
+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+
Both the RC and UC MAY be set at the same time if the interface
supports both the modes. Since the IPoIB-UD mode is always
supported, there are no flags to indicate IPoIB-UD support.
If IPoIB-CM is not supported, i.e., if the implementation only
supports IPoIB-UD, then the implementation MUST ignore the <Flags>
on reception. It MUST set the <Flags> octet to all zeros on
transmission as specified in [RFC4391].
QPN:
The queue-pair number (QPN) on which the unicast address
resolution replies will be received [RFC4391]. An IPoIB interface
has only one UD QP associated with it whether or not it supports
this extension.
The QPN also serves another purpose. It is used to form the
Service-ID that is used to set up the IB connection.
On receiving the multicast/broadcast address resolution request, the
receiver replies with its own link address, including the associated
UD QPN and the appropriate flags.
The receiver's reply is unicast back to the sender after the receiver
has, as in the case of IPoIB-UD, resolved the GID to the Local
Identifier (LID), and determined other required parameters [RFC4391].
Once the address resolution is completed, the underlying IB
connection on the supported connection modes can be set up. An
implementation is NOT REQUIRED to set up a connection merely because
the peer indicates the capability. The decision to make such a
connection is left to the implementation.
Kashyap Standards Track [Page 5]
RFC 4755 Connected Mode IPoIB December 2006
3.2. IB Connection Setup
Once the address resolution is complete, the IB connection can be set
up by either of the peers. To set up a connection, IB Management
Datagrams (MADs) are directed to the peer's communication manager
(CM). The connection request always contains a Service-ID for the
peer to associate the request with the appropriate service. If the
request is accepted, the peer returns the relevant connected mode QPN
in the response MAD. The format of the CM connection messages and
the IB connection setup process is described in [IB_ARCH]. The
overall handshake is of the form:
REQ ---->
<---- REP [or REJ(reject)]
RTA ---->
[or REJ(reject)]
The CM messages include, among other parameters, the Service-ID,
Local connection-mode QPN, and the payload size to use over the
connection.
Note: The IB connection is set up using the Service-ID as defined in
Section 3.5 below. The node MUST keep a record of IB
connections it is participating in. The node MAY attempt
another connection to the remote peer using the same Service-ID
as used for an existing IB connection. Similarly, the receiver
of such a connection MAY drop the request with a suitable error
indication in the CM response. The decision to accept or
initiate multiple connections from or to an IPoIB interface is
left to the implementation.
The node that initiated the connection is aware of the target node's
IP address as described above. The node receiving the IB connection
request, however, cannot determine the initiating node's link
address. To enable this determination, every CM message exchanged in
setting up the IB connection MUST include the sender's IPoIB-UD QPN
in the "private data" [IB_ARCH] field. The IPoIB-UD QPN MUST be
included in all "REJ" [IB_ARCH] messages too.
3.3. Simultaneous IB Connections
To ensure that two IB connections are not set up between the peers
due to REQ crossing, the following rules MUST be followed:
The receiver forms the remote node's link-layer address using the
UD QPN received in the "private data" field of the "REQ" message
and the GID of the sender included in the "REQ" message. The
link-layer address is used to determine if there is already an
Kashyap Standards Track [Page 6]
RFC 4755 Connected Mode IPoIB December 2006
outstanding connection request "REQ" sent by the local interface
to the given received link-layer address. If such an outstanding
request is determined, then the two link-layer addresses (local
and remote) are numerically compared. If the local link-layer
address is numerically smaller, then the connection is accepted,
otherwise rejected. The error code in "REJ" MAD is set to
"Consumer Reject" [IB_ARCH].
Note: The link-layer addresses formed for comparison zero out the
connection mode flags specified in Section 3.1. The
comparison is performed from the most significant octet to
the least significant octet of the link-layer address.
The above holds even if the receiver supports multiple IB
connections from the same peer. This is to ensure that only one
more connection is set up when the "REQ" messages cross.
3.4. IPoIB-CM IB Connection Teardown
IB connections created through IPoIB-CM are considered part of an
IPoIB interface. As such, they SHOULD be torn down when the IPoIB
interfaces they are associated with are torn down.
Furthermore, the IB connection between two peers MAY be torn down by
either peer whenever the address resolution entry expires. An
implementation is free to implement alternative policies for tearing
down of IB connections between peers.
3.5. Service-ID
The InfiniBand specification defines a block of Service-IDs for IETF
use. The InfiniBand specification has left the definition and
management of this block to the IETF [IB_ARCH]. The 64-bit block is
as follows:
+--------+--------+--------+--------+-------+--------+--------+------+
|00000001|<-------------------IETF use------------------------------>|
+--------+--------+--------+--------+-------+--------+--------+------+
Kashyap Standards Track [Page 7]
RFC 4755 Connected Mode IPoIB December 2006
The Service-IDs used by IPoIB will be in the following format:
+--------+--------+--------+--------+-------+-------+--------+-------+
|00000001| Type | Reserved | QPN |
+--------+--------+--------+--------+-------+-------+--------+-------+
The "Type" field MUST be set to 0.
The "Reserved" field MUST be set to zeros.
The QPN MUST be the UD QP exchanged during address resolution.
4. Frame Format
All IP datagrams transported over InfiniBand are prefixed by a
4-octet encapsulation header as described in [RFC4391].
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| | |
| Type | Reserved |
| | |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
The type field SHALL indicate the encapsulated protocol as per
the following table.
+----------+-------------+
| Type | Protocol |
|------------------------|
| 0x800 | IPv4 |
|------------------------|
| 0x86DD | IPv6 |
+------------------------+
These values are taken from the "ETHER TYPE" numbers assigned by
Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA). Other network protocols,
identified by different values of "ETHER TYPE", may use the
encapsulation format defined herein, but such use is outside of the
scope of this document.
5. Maximum Transmission Unit
The IB connection setup might be used for both IPv4 and IPv6 or it
could be used for only one of them while a different connection is
used for the other. The link MTU MUST be able to support the minimum
MTU required by the protocols.
Kashyap Standards Track [Page 8]
RFC 4755 Connected Mode IPoIB December 2006
The default MTU of the IPoIB-CM interface is 2044 octets, i.e.,
2048-octet IPoIB-link MTU minus the 4-octet encapsulation header.
However, connected modes of InfiniBand allow message sizes up to 2^31
octets. Therefore, IPoIB-CM can use a much larger MTU for unicast
communication between any two endpoints. The maximum and/or optimal
payload that can be received or sent over an InfiniBand connection is
dependent on the implementation, IB Channel Adapter, and the
resources configured.
An implementation MAY utilize the following mechanism to exchange the
optimal message size across the IB connection.
5.1. Per-Connection MTU
Every IB connection setup message includes a "private data" field
[IB_ARCH]. The "private data" field in the connection setup message
(CM REQ) MUST include the "Receive MTU". This indicates the maximum
packet size the requester can accept. The requester MUST be able to
accept smaller MTU sizes as well.
It is up to the implementation to utilize this mechanism for setting
the per-IB connection MTU. To calculate the resultant IPoIB MTU over
the connection the smaller of the two IB "Receive MTU" values is used
by both the peers. The IPoIB interface must also account for the 4-
octet encapsulation header and so the IPoIB MTU over the connection
will be further reduced by that amount.
6. Private-Data Format
The "private data" field in every CM message for connection
establishment must include the following values:
1. UD QPN of the sender
2. Receive MTU supported by the sender
The format of the "private data" field MUST be as follows:
0 7 15 23 31
+--------+--------+--------+--------+
|Reserved| UD QPN |
+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| Receive MTU |
+--------+--------+--------+--------+
The Reserved value MUST be set to zero on transmit and ignored on
receive.
Kashyap Standards Track [Page 9]
RFC 4755 Connected Mode IPoIB December 2006
7. IPoIB-CM Considerations
Every IPoIB interface supports IPoIB-UD. It may additionally support
one or both of the IPoIB-CM modes. Therefore, there can be multiple
methods of communicating between any two peers. This implies that an
interface MAY transmit/receive a packet over any of the RC, UC, or UD
modes depending on the modes supported between it and the peer. It
further follows that every IPoIB implementation compliant with this
document MUST accept all IP unicast transmissions over any of the
IPoIB modes it supports. Multicast and broadcast packets by their
nature will always be transmitted and received over the IPoIB-UD QP.
Additionally, all address resolution responses (ARP or Neighbor
Discovery) MUST always be encapsulated in a UD mode packet.
7.1. A Cautionary Note on IPoIB-RC
The RC mode of InfiniBand guarantees in-order delivery of packets.
Every message transmitted over the RC connection is broken into
physical MTU-sized packets by the RC connection. If any packet is
lost, it is retransmitted until the complete message is exchanged.
Therefore, there is a possibility of an upper transport layer
experiencing a timeout, while the RC layer is still in the process of
transferring the complete message. TCP will view the timeout as an
indicator of congestion and enter slow-start thereby affecting
throughput drastically [RFC2581]. Other upper-layer protocols might
insert retransmissions into the fabric, adding to the already
existing congestion.
The applicability of Infiniband reliability is on a fabric with short
latencies (not wide area). Therefore, the RC timer values should be
short compared with the starting minimum time values used by the
upper end-to-end transports. In addition, because the RC mode does
not have measurement-based reliable transmission, its use over
fabrics with long latency or very dynamic latency may be a concern
for congestion-aware traffic traversing those fabrics.
7.2. IPoIB-CM Per-Destination MTU
As described above, interfaces on the same subnet may support
different link MTUs based on the negotiated value or due to the link
type (UD or connected mode). Therefore, an implementation might
choose to define a large IP MTU, which is reduced based on the MTU to
the destination. The relevant MTU may be stored in a suitable per-
destination object, such as a route cache or a neighbor cache. The
per-destination MTU is known to the IPoIB-CM interface as described
in Section 5.
Kashyap Standards Track [Page 10]
RFC 4755 Connected Mode IPoIB December 2006
Implementations might choose not to support differing MTU values and
always support an MTU equal to the IPoIB-UD MTU determined from the
broadcast GID.
8. Security Considerations
An impostor may return a false set of flags to an IPOIB interface.
This may cause unnecessary attempts and some delay/disruption in
IPoIB communication. The same is the case if wrong/spurious QPN
values are provided during address resolution broadcast/multicast.
9. IANA Considerations
Future uses of the reserved bits and octets in the link-layer address
(Section 3.1), Service-ID (Section 3.5), and "Private-Data Format"
(Section 6) MUST be published as RFCs. This document requires that
the reserved bits be set to zero on sends.
10. Acknowledgements
The author thanks the IPoIB Working Group for the various comments
and suggestions. A special thanks to Bernie King-Smith and Dror
Goldenberg for the detailed review and suggestions.
11. Normative References
[IB_ARCH] InfiniBand Architecture Specification, version 1.2
www.infinibandta.org
[RFC4392] Kashyap, V., "IP over InfiniBand (IPoIB) Architecture",
RFC 4392, April 2006.
[RFC4391] Chu, J. and V. Kashyap, "Transmission of IP over
InfiniBand (IPoIB)", RFC 4391, April 2006.
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
12. Informative References
[RFC2581] Allman, M., Paxson, V., and W. Stevens, "TCP Congestion
Control ", RFC 2581, April 1999.
Kashyap Standards Track [Page 11]
RFC 4755 Connected Mode IPoIB December 2006
Author's Address
Vivek Kashyap
15350, SW Koll Parkway
Beaverton
OR 97006
Phone: +1 503 578 3422
EMail: vivk@us.ibm.com
Kashyap Standards Track [Page 12]
RFC 4755 Connected Mode IPoIB December 2006
Full Copyright Statement
Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2006).
This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions
contained in BCP 78, and except as set forth therein, the authors
retain all their rights.
This document and the information contained herein are provided on an
"AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS
OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY, THE IETF TRUST,
AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES,
EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT
THE USE OF THE INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY
IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR
PURPOSE.
Intellectual Property
The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to
pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in
this document or the extent to which any license under such rights
might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has
made any independent effort to identify any such rights. Information
on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be
found in BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any
assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an
attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of
such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this
specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at
http://www.ietf.org/ipr.
The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any
copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary
rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement
this standard. Please address the information to the IETF at
ietf-ipr@ietf.org.
Acknowledgement
Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the
Internet Society.
Kashyap Standards Track [Page 13]