💾 Archived View for gemini.bortzmeyer.org › rfc-mirror › rfc7391.txt captured on 2023-04-26 at 14:15:28.
⬅️ Previous capture (2021-11-30)
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) J. Hadi Salim
Request for Comments: 7391 Mojatatu Networks
Updates: 5810, 7121 October 2014
Category: Standards Track
ISSN: 2070-1721
Forwarding and Control Element Separation (ForCES) Protocol Extensions
Abstract
Experience in implementing and deploying the Forwarding and Control
Element Separation (ForCES) architecture has demonstrated the need
for a few small extensions both to ease programmability and to
improve wire efficiency of some transactions. The ForCES protocol is
extended with a table range operation and a new extension for error
handling. This document updates the semantics in RFCs 5810 and 7121
to achieve that end goal.
Status of This Memo
This is an Internet Standards Track document.
This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force
(IETF). It represents the consensus of the IETF community. It has
received public review and has been approved for publication by the
Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG). Further information on
Internet Standards is available in Section 2 of RFC 5741.
Information about the current status of this document, any errata,
and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at
http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7391.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2014 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License.
Hadi Salim Standards Track [Page 1]
RFC 7391 ForCES Protocol Extensions October 2014
Table of Contents
1. Introduction ....................................................2
1.1. Terminology and Conventions ................................3
1.1.1. Requirements Language ...............................3
1.1.2. Terminology .........................................3
2. Problem Overview ................................................4
2.1. Table Ranges ...............................................4
2.2. Error Codes ................................................4
3. Protocol Update .................................................5
3.1. Table Ranges ...............................................5
3.2. Error Codes ................................................6
3.2.1. New Codes ...........................................7
3.2.2. Private Vendor Codes ................................8
3.2.3. Extended Result TLV .................................8
3.2.3.1. Extended Result Backward Compatibility .....9
3.3. Large Table Dumping ........................................9
4. IANA Considerations ............................................11
5. Security Considerations ........................................12
6. References .....................................................12
6.1. Normative References ......................................12
6.2. Informative References ....................................12
Appendix A. New FEPO Version ......................................13
Acknowledgments ...................................................23
Author's Address ..................................................23
1. Introduction
Experience in implementing and deploying the ForCES architecture has
demonstrated the need for a few small extensions both to ease
programmability and to improve wire efficiency of some transactions.
This document describes a few extensions to the semantics in the
ForCES protocol specification [RFC5810] to achieve that end goal.
This document describes and justifies the need for two small
extensions that are backward compatible. This document also
clarifies details of how dumping of a large table residing on an FE
(Forwarding Element) is achieved. To summarize:
1. A table range operation to allow a controller or control
application to request an arbitrary range of table rows is
introduced.
2. Additional error codes returned to the controller (or control
application) by an FE are introduced. Additionally, a new
extension to carry details on error codes is introduced. As a
result, this document updates the definition of the FE Protocol
Object (FEPO) Logical Functional Block (LFB) in [RFC7121].
Hadi Salim Standards Track [Page 2]
RFC 7391 ForCES Protocol Extensions October 2014
3. While already supported, an FE response to a GET request of a
large table that does not fit in a single Protocol Layer (PL)
message is not described in [RFC5810]. This document clarifies
the details.
1.1. Terminology and Conventions
1.1.1. Requirements Language
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 [RFC2119].
1.1.2. Terminology
This document reiterates the terminology defined in several ForCES
documents ([RFC3746], [RFC5810], [RFC5811], and [RFC5812]) for the
sake of contextual clarity.
Control Element (CE)
Forwarding Element (FE)
FE Model
LFB (Logical Functional Block) Class (or type)
LFB Instance
LFB Model
LFB Metadata
ForCES Component
LFB Component
ForCES Protocol Layer (ForCES PL)
ForCES Protocol Transport Mapping Layer (ForCES TML)
Hadi Salim Standards Track [Page 3]
RFC 7391 ForCES Protocol Extensions October 2014
2. Problem Overview
In this section, we present sample use cases to illustrate each
challenge being addressed.
2.1. Table Ranges
Consider, for the sake of illustration, an FE table with 1 million
reasonably sized table rows that are sparsely populated. Assume,
again for the sake of illustration, that there are 2000 table rows
sparsely populated between the row indices 23-10023.
Implementation experience has shown that existing approaches for
retrieving or deleting a sizable number of table rows are both
programmatically tedious and inefficient on utilization of both
compute and wire resources.
By definition, ForCES GET and DEL requests sent from a controller (or
control application) are prepended with a path to a component and
sent to the FE. In the case of indexed tables, the component path
can point to either a table or a table row index.
As an example, a control application attempting to retrieve the first
2000 table rows appearing between row indices 23 and 10023 can
achieve its goal in one of the following ways:
o Dump the whole table and filter for the needed 2000 table rows.
o Send up to 10000 ForCES PL requests, incrementing the index by one
each time, and stop when the needed 2000 entries are retrieved.
o If the application had knowledge of which table rows existed (not
unreasonable given the controller is supposed to be aware of state
within a Network Element (NE)), then the application could take
advantage of ForCES batching to send fewer large messages (each
with different path entries for a total of 2000).
As argued, while the above options exist, all are tedious.
2.2. Error Codes
[RFC5810] has defined a generic set of error codes that are to be
returned to the CE from an FE. Deployment experience has shown that
it would be useful to have more fine-grained error codes. As an
example, the error code E_NOT_SUPPORTED could be mapped to many FE
error source possibilities that need to then be interpreted by the
caller based on some understanding of the nature of the sent request.
This makes debugging more time consuming.
Hadi Salim Standards Track [Page 4]
RFC 7391 ForCES Protocol Extensions October 2014
3. Protocol Update
This section describes a normative update to the ForCES protocol to
address the issues discussed in Section 2.
3.1. Table Ranges
We define a new TLV, TABLERANGE-TLV (type ID 0x0117), that will be
associated with the PATH-DATA-TLV in the same manner the KEYINFO-TLV
is. Figure 1 shows how this new TLV is constructed.
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 (0x0117) | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Start Index |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| End Index |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 1: ForCES Table Range Request Layout
Figure 2 illustrates a GET request for a range of rows 11 to 23 of a
table with a component path of "1/6".
OPER = GET-TLV
PATH-DATA-TLV:
flags = F_SELTABRANGE, IDCount = 2, IDs = {1,6}
TABLERANGE-TLV content = {11,23}
Figure 2: ForCES Table Range Request Example
The path flag F_SELTABRANGE (0x2, i.e., bit 1, where bit 0 is
F_SELKEY as defined in [RFC5810]) MUST be set to indicate the
presence of the TABLERANGE-TLV. The path flag bit F_SELTABRANGE can
only be used in a GET or DEL and is mutually exclusive with F_SELKEY.
The FE MUST enforce the path flag constraints and ensure that the
selected path belongs to a defined, indexed table component. Any
violation of these constraints MUST be rejected with an error code of
E_INVALID_TFLAGS with a description of what the problem is when using
extended error reporting (refer to Section 3.2).
It should be noted that there are combinations of path selection
mechanisms that should not appear together for the sake of simplicity
of operations. These include TABLERANGE-TLV and KEYINFO-TLV as well
as multiple nested TABLERANGE-TLVs.
Hadi Salim Standards Track [Page 5]
RFC 7391 ForCES Protocol Extensions October 2014
The TABLERANGE-TLV contents constitute:
o A 32-bit start index. An index of 0 implies the beginning of the
table row.
o A 32-bit end index. A value of 0xFFFFFFFF implies the last entry.
The response for a table range query will either be:
o The requested table data returned (when at least one referenced
row is available); in such a case, a response with a path pointing
to the table and whose data content contains the row(s) will be
sent to the CE. The data content MUST be encapsulated in a
SPARSEDATA-TLV. The SPARSEDATA-TLV content will have the "I" (in
Index-Length-Value (ILV)) for each table row indicating the table
indices.
o An EXTENDEDRESULT-TLV (refer to Section 3.2.3) when:
* the response is to a range delete request. The result will
either be:
+ a success if any of the rows that were requested are
deleted; or
+ a proper error code if none of the rows that were requested
can be deleted.
* data is absent and an error code of E_EMPTY with an optional
content string describing the nature of the error is used
(refer to Section 3.2).
* both a path key and path table range were stated on the path
flags of the original request. In such a case, an error code
of E_INVALID_TFLAGS with an optional content string describing
the nature of the error is used (refer to Section 3.2).
* other standard ForCES errors (such as Access Control List (ACL)
constraints trying to retrieve contents of an unreadable table,
accessing unknown components, etc.) occur.
3.2. Error Codes
We define the following:
1. A new set of error codes.
2. Allocation of some reserved codes for private use.
Hadi Salim Standards Track [Page 6]
RFC 7391 ForCES Protocol Extensions October 2014
3. A new TLV, EXTENDEDRESULT-TLV (0x0118), that will carry a code
(which will be a superset of what is currently specified in
[RFC5810]) as well as an optional cause content. This is
illustrated in Figure 3.
3.2.1. New Codes
The EXTENDEDRESULT-TLV Result Value is 32 bits and is a superset of
the RESULT-TLV Result Value defined in [RFC5810]. The new version
code space is 32 bits as opposed to the code size of 8 bits in
[RFC5810]. The first 8-bit values (256 codes) are common to both
code spaces.
+------------+-------------------------+----------------------------+
| Code | Mnemonic | Details |
+------------+-------------------------+----------------------------+
| 0x18 | E_TIMED_OUT | A timeout occurred while |
| | | processing the message |
| | | |
| 0x19 | E_INVALID_TFLAGS | Invalid table flags |
| | | |
| 0x1A | E_INVALID_OP | Requested operation is |
| | | invalid |
| | | |
| 0x1B | E_CONGEST_NT | Node congestion |
| | | notification |
| | | |
| 0x1C | E_COMPONENT_NOT_A_TABLE | Component not a table |
| | | |
| 0x1D | E_PERM | Operation not permitted |
| | | |
| 0x1E | E_BUSY | System is busy |
| | | |
| 0x1F | E_EMPTY | Table is empty |
| | | |
| 0x20 | E_UNKNOWN | A generic catch-all error |
| | | code. Carries a string to |
| | | further extrapolate what |
| | | the error implies. |
+------------+-------------------------+----------------------------+
Table 1: New Codes
Hadi Salim Standards Track [Page 7]
RFC 7391 ForCES Protocol Extensions October 2014
3.2.2. Private Vendor Codes
Codes 0x100-0x200 are reserved for use as private codes. Since these
are freely available, it is expected that the FE and CE side
implementations will both understand/interpret the semantics of any
used codes and avoid any conflicts.
3.2.3. Extended Result TLV
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 = EXTENDEDRESULT-TLV | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Result Value |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Optional Cause Content |
. .
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 3: EXTENDEDRESULT-TLV
o Like all other ForCES TLVs, the EXTENDEDRESULT-TLV is expected to
be 32-bit aligned.
o The EXTENDEDRESULT-TLV Result Value derives and extends from the
same current namespace that is used by the RESULT-TLV Result Value
as specified in Section 7.1.7 of [RFC5810]. The main difference
is that there is now a 32-bit Result Value (as opposed to the old
8-bit).
o The Optional Cause Content is defined to further disambiguate the
Result Value. It is expected that UTF-8 string values will be
used. The content Result Value is intended to be consumed by the
(human) operator, and implementations may choose to specify
different content for the same error code. Additionally, future
codes may specify cause content to be of types other than string.
o It is recommended that the maximum size of the cause string should
not exceed 32 bytes. The cause string is not standardized by this
document.
Hadi Salim Standards Track [Page 8]
RFC 7391 ForCES Protocol Extensions October 2014
3.2.3.1. Extended Result Backward Compatibility
To support backward compatibility, we update the FEPO LFB (in
Appendix A) to version 1.2. We also add a new component ID 16 (named
EResultAdmin), and a capability component ID 32 (named EResultCapab).
An FE will advertise its capability to support extended TLVs via the
EResultCapab table. When an FE is capable of responding with both
extended results and older result TLVs, it will have two table rows,
one for each supported value. By default, an FE capable of
supporting both modes will assume the lowest common denominator
(i.e., EResultAdmin will be EResultNotSupported) and will issue
responses using RESULT-TLVs. It should be noted that an FE
advertising FEPO version 1.2 MUST support EXTENDEDRESULT-TLVs at
minimum.
On an FE that supports both RESULT-TLVs and EXTENDEDRESULT-TLVs, a
master CE can turn on support for extended results by setting the
EResultAdmin value to 2, in which case the FE MUST switch over to
sending only EXTENDEDRESULT-TLVs. Likewise, a master CE can turn off
extended result responses by writing a 1 to the EResultAdmin. An FE
that does not support one mode or the other MUST reject setting
EResultAdmin to a value it does not support by responding with an
error code of E_NOT_SUPPORTED. It is expected that all CEs
participating in a high availability (HA) mode be capable of
supporting FEPO version 1.2 whenever EResultAdmin is set to strict
support of EXTENDEDRESULT-TLVs. The consensus between CEs in an HA
set up to set strict support of EXTENDEDRESULT-TLVs is out of scope
for this document.
3.3. Large Table Dumping
Imagine a GET request to a path that is a table, i.e., a table dump.
Such a request is sent to the FE with a specific correlator, say X.
Imagine this table to have a large number of entries at the FE. For
the sake of illustration, let's say millions of rows. This requires
that the FE delivers the response over multiple messages, all using
the same correlator X.
The ForCES protocol document [RFC5810] does not adequately describe
how a large multi-part GET response message is delivered; the text in
this section clarifies. We limit the discussion to a table object
only.
Implementation experience of dumping large tables shows that we can
use transaction flags to indicate that a GET response is the
beginning, middle, or end of a multi-part message. In other words,
we mirror the effect of an atomic transaction sent by a CE to an FE.
Hadi Salim Standards Track [Page 9]
RFC 7391 ForCES Protocol Extensions October 2014
CE PL FE PL
| |
| (0) Query, Path-to-a-large-table, OP=GET |
|----------------------------------------------------->|
| correlator = X |
| |
| (1) Query-Response, SOT,AT, OP=GET-RESPONSE, DATA |
|<-----------------------------------------------------|
| correlator = X |
| DATA TLV (SPARSE/FULL) |
| |
| (2) Query-Response, MOT,AT, OP=GET-RESPONSE, DATA |
|<-----------------------------------------------------|
| correlator = X |
| DATA TLV (SPARSE/FULL) |
| |
| (3) Query-Response, MOT,AT, OP=GET-RESPONSE, DATA |
|<-----------------------------------------------------|
| correlator = X |
| DATA TLV (SPARSE/FULL) |
. .
. .
. .
. .
| |
| (N) Query-Response, MOT,AT, OP=GET-RESPONSE, DATA |
|<-----------------------------------------------------|
| correlator = X |
| DATA TLV (SPARSE/FULL) |
| |
| (N) Query-Response, EOT,AT, OP=GET-RESPONSE |
|<-----------------------------------------------------|
| correlator = X |
| RESULT-TLV (SUCCESS) |
| |
Figure 4: Large Table Dump Time Sequence
The last message to go to the CE, which carries the End Of
Transaction (EOT) flag, MUST NOT carry any data. This allows us to
mirror ForCES two-phase commit (2PC) messaging [RFC5810] where the
last message is an empty commit message. A GET response will carry a
RESULT-TLV in such a case.
Hadi Salim Standards Track [Page 10]
RFC 7391 ForCES Protocol Extensions October 2014
4. IANA Considerations
This document updates <https://www.iana.org/assignments/forces>
as follows:
This document registers two new top-level TLVs and two new path
flags; it also updates an IANA-registered FE Protocol Object Logical
Functional Block (LFB).
Appendix A defines an update to the FE Protocol Object LFB to
version 1.2. An entry for FE Protocol Object LFB version 1.2 has
been added to the "Logical Functional Block (LFB) Class Names and
Class Identifiers" sub-registry.
The following new TLVs have been defined and added to the "TLV Types"
sub-registry:
o TABLERANGE-TLV (type ID 0x0117)
o EXTENDEDRESULT-TLV (type ID 0x0118)
The "RESULT-TLV Result Values" sub-registry has been updated
as follows:
o Codes 0x21-0xFE are marked as Unassigned.
o Codes 0x18-0x20 are defined by this document in Section 3.2.1.
o Codes 0x100-0x200 are reserved for private use.
A new "EXTENDEDRESULT-TLV Result Values" sub-registry has been
created. The codes 0x00-0xFF are mirrored from the "RESULT-TLV
Result Values" sub-registry. Any future allocations of this code
range (in the range 0x21-0xFE) must be made only in the new
"EXTENDEDRESULT-TLV Result Values" sub-registry and not in the
"RESULT-TLV Result Values" sub-registry. The codes 0x100-0x200 are
reserved for private use as described earlier, and the code ranges
0x21-0xFE and 0x201-0xFFFFFFFF are marked as Unassigned with the IANA
allocation policy of Specification Required [RFC5226]. The
Designated Expert (DE) needs to ensure that existing deployments are
not broken by any specified request. The DE should post a given code
request to the ForCES WG mailing list (or a successor designated by
the Area Director) for comment and review. The DE should then either
approve or deny the registration request, publish a notice of the
decision to the ForCES WG mailing list or its successor, and inform
IANA of his/her decision. A denial notice must be justified by an
Hadi Salim Standards Track [Page 11]
RFC 7391 ForCES Protocol Extensions October 2014
explanation and, in the cases where it is possible, concrete
suggestions on how the request can be modified so as to become
acceptable.
5. Security Considerations
The security considerations described in the ForCES protocol
[RFC5810] apply to this document as well.
6. References
6.1. Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[RFC5226] Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an
IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 5226,
May 2008, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5226>.
[RFC5810] Doria, A., Hadi Salim, J., Haas, R., Khosravi, H., Wang,
W., Dong, L., Gopal, R., and J. Halpern, "Forwarding and
Control Element Separation (ForCES) Protocol
Specification", RFC 5810, March 2010,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5810>.
[RFC5811] Hadi Salim, J. and K. Ogawa, "SCTP-Based Transport Mapping
Layer (TML) for the Forwarding and Control Element
Separation (ForCES) Protocol", RFC 5811, March 2010,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5811>.
[RFC5812] Halpern, J. and J. Hadi Salim, "Forwarding and Control
Element Separation (ForCES) Forwarding Element Model",
RFC 5812, March 2010, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/
info/rfc5812>.
[RFC7121] Ogawa, K., Wang, W., Haleplidis, E., and J. Hadi Salim,
"High Availability within a Forwarding and Control Element
Separation (ForCES) Network Element", RFC 7121,
February 2014, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7121>.
6.2. Informative References
[RFC3746] Yang, L., Dantu, R., Anderson, T., and R. Gopal,
"Forwarding and Control Element Separation (ForCES)
Framework", RFC 3746, April 2004,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3746>.
Hadi Salim Standards Track [Page 12]
RFC 7391 ForCES Protocol Extensions October 2014
Appendix A. New FEPO Version
This version of FEPO updates the earlier one given in [RFC7121]. The
XML has been validated against the schema defined in [RFC5812].
<LFBLibrary xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:forces:lfbmodel:1.0"
xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance"
xsi:noNamespaceSchemaLocation="lfb-schema.xsd" provides="FEPO">
<!-- XXX -->
<dataTypeDefs>
<dataTypeDef>
<name>CEHBPolicyValues</name>
<synopsis>
The possible values of CE heartbeat policy
</synopsis>
<atomic>
<baseType>uchar</baseType>
<specialValues>
<specialValue value="0">
<name>CEHBPolicy0</name>
<synopsis>
The CE will send heartbeats to the FE
every CEHDI timeout if no other messages
have been sent since.
</synopsis>
</specialValue>
<specialValue value="1">
<name>CEHBPolicy1</name>
<synopsis>
The CE will not send heartbeats to the FE.
</synopsis>
</specialValue>
</specialValues>
</atomic>
</dataTypeDef>
<dataTypeDef>
<name>FEHBPolicyValues</name>
<synopsis>
The possible values of FE heartbeat policy
</synopsis>
<atomic>
<baseType>uchar</baseType>
<specialValues>
<specialValue value="0">
<name>FEHBPolicy0</name>
<synopsis>
The FE will not generate any heartbeats to the CE.
</synopsis>
Hadi Salim Standards Track [Page 13]
RFC 7391 ForCES Protocol Extensions October 2014
</specialValue>
<specialValue value="1">
<name>FEHBPolicy1</name>
<synopsis>
The FE generates heartbeats to the CE every
FEHI if no other
messages have been sent to the CE.
</synopsis>
</specialValue>
</specialValues>
</atomic>
</dataTypeDef>
<dataTypeDef>
<name>FERestartPolicyValues</name>
<synopsis>
The possible values of FE restart policy
</synopsis>
<atomic>
<baseType>uchar</baseType>
<specialValues>
<specialValue value="0">
<name>FERestartPolicy0</name>
<synopsis>
The FE restarts its state from scratch.
</synopsis>
</specialValue>
</specialValues>
</atomic>
</dataTypeDef>
<dataTypeDef>
<name>HAModeValues</name>
<synopsis>
The possible values of HA modes
</synopsis>
<atomic>
<baseType>uchar</baseType>
<specialValues>
<specialValue value="0">
<name>NoHA</name>
<synopsis>
The FE is not running in HA mode.
</synopsis>
</specialValue>
<specialValue value="1">
<name>ColdStandby</name>
<synopsis>
The FE is running in HA mode cold standby.
</synopsis>
Hadi Salim Standards Track [Page 14]
RFC 7391 ForCES Protocol Extensions October 2014
</specialValue>
<specialValue value="2">
<name>HotStandby</name>
<synopsis>
The FE is running in HA mode hot standby.
</synopsis>
</specialValue>
</specialValues>
</atomic>
</dataTypeDef>
<dataTypeDef>
<name>CEFailoverPolicyValues</name>
<synopsis>
The possible values of CE failover policy
</synopsis>
<atomic>
<baseType>uchar</baseType>
<specialValues>
<specialValue value="0">
<name>CEFailoverPolicy0</name>
<synopsis>
The FE should stop functioning immediately
and transition to FE OperDisable state.
</synopsis>
</specialValue>
<specialValue value="1">
<name>CEFailoverPolicy1</name>
<synopsis>
The FE should continue forwarding even
without an associated CE for CEFTI. The
FE goes to FE OperDisable when the CEFTI
expires and there is no association. Requires
graceful restart support.
</synopsis>
</specialValue>
</specialValues>
</atomic>
</dataTypeDef>
<dataTypeDef>
<name>FEHACapab</name>
<synopsis>
The supported HA features
</synopsis>
<atomic>
<baseType>uchar</baseType>
<specialValues>
<specialValue value="0">
<name>GracefullRestart</name>
Hadi Salim Standards Track [Page 15]
RFC 7391 ForCES Protocol Extensions October 2014
<synopsis>
The FE supports graceful restart.
</synopsis>
</specialValue>
<specialValue value="1">
<name>HA</name>
<synopsis>
The FE supports HA.
</synopsis>
</specialValue>
</specialValues>
</atomic>
</dataTypeDef>
<dataTypeDef>
<name>CEStatusType</name>
<synopsis>Status values. Status for each CE</synopsis>
<atomic>
<baseType>uchar</baseType>
<specialValues>
<specialValue value="0">
<name>Disconnected</name>
<synopsis>No connection attempt with the CE yet
</synopsis>
</specialValue>
<specialValue value="1">
<name>Connected</name>
<synopsis>The FE connection with the CE at the TML
has been completed.
</synopsis>
</specialValue>
<specialValue value="2">
<name>Associated</name>
<synopsis>The FE has associated with the CE.
</synopsis>
</specialValue>
<specialValue value="3">
<name>IsMaster</name>
<synopsis>The CE is the master (and associated).
</synopsis>
</specialValue>
<specialValue value="4">
<name>LostConnection</name>
<synopsis>The FE was associated with the CE but
lost the connection.
</synopsis>
</specialValue>
<specialValue value="5">
<name>Unreachable</name>
Hadi Salim Standards Track [Page 16]
RFC 7391 ForCES Protocol Extensions October 2014
<synopsis>The CE is deemed as unreachable by the FE.
</synopsis>
</specialValue>
</specialValues>
</atomic>
</dataTypeDef>
<dataTypeDef>
<name>StatisticsType</name>
<synopsis>Statistics Definition</synopsis>
<struct>
<component componentID="1">
<name>RecvPackets</name>
<synopsis>Packets received</synopsis>
<typeRef>uint64</typeRef>
</component>
<component componentID="2">
<name>RecvErrPackets</name>
<synopsis>Packets received from CE with errors
</synopsis>
<typeRef>uint64</typeRef>
</component>
<component componentID="3">
<name>RecvBytes</name>
<synopsis>Bytes received from CE</synopsis>
<typeRef>uint64</typeRef>
</component>
<component componentID="4">
<name>RecvErrBytes</name>
<synopsis>Bytes received from CE in error</synopsis>
<typeRef>uint64</typeRef>
</component>
<component componentID="5">
<name>TxmitPackets</name>
<synopsis>Packets transmitted to CE</synopsis>
<typeRef>uint64</typeRef>
</component>
<component componentID="6">
<name>TxmitErrPackets</name>
<synopsis>
Packets transmitted to CE that incurred
errors
</synopsis>
<typeRef>uint64</typeRef>
</component>
<component componentID="7">
<name>TxmitBytes</name>
<synopsis>Bytes transmitted to CE</synopsis>
<typeRef>uint64</typeRef>
Hadi Salim Standards Track [Page 17]
RFC 7391 ForCES Protocol Extensions October 2014
</component>
<component componentID="8">
<name>TxmitErrBytes</name>
<synopsis>Bytes transmitted to CE incurring errors
</synopsis>
<typeRef>uint64</typeRef>
</component>
</struct>
</dataTypeDef>
<dataTypeDef>
<name>AllCEType</name>
<synopsis>Table Type for AllCE component</synopsis>
<struct>
<component componentID="1">
<name>CEID</name>
<synopsis>ID of the CE</synopsis>
<typeRef>uint32</typeRef>
</component>
<component componentID="2">
<name>Statistics</name>
<synopsis>Statistics per CE</synopsis>
<typeRef>StatisticsType</typeRef>
</component>
<component componentID="3">
<name>CEStatus</name>
<synopsis>Status of the CE</synopsis>
<typeRef>CEStatusType</typeRef>
</component>
</struct>
</dataTypeDef>
<dataTypeDef>
<name>ExtendedResultType</name>
<synopsis>
Possible extended result support
</synopsis>
<atomic>
<baseType>uchar</baseType>
<rangeRestriction>
<allowedRange min="1" max="2"/>
</rangeRestriction>
<specialValues>
<specialValue value="1">
<name>EResultNotSupported</name>
<synopsis>
Extended results are not supported.
</synopsis>
</specialValue>
<specialValue value="2">
Hadi Salim Standards Track [Page 18]
RFC 7391 ForCES Protocol Extensions October 2014
<name>EResultSupported</name>
<synopsis>
Extended results are supported.
</synopsis>
</specialValue>
</specialValues>
</atomic>
</dataTypeDef>
</dataTypeDefs>
<LFBClassDefs>
<LFBClassDef LFBClassID="2">
<name>FEPO</name>
<synopsis>
The FE Protocol Object, with extended result control
</synopsis>
<version>1.2</version>
<components>
<component componentID="1" access="read-only">
<name>CurrentRunningVersion</name>
<synopsis>Currently running ForCES version</synopsis>
<typeRef>uchar</typeRef>
</component>
<component componentID="2" access="read-only">
<name>FEID</name>
<synopsis>Unicast FEID</synopsis>
<typeRef>uint32</typeRef>
</component>
<component componentID="3" access="read-write">
<name>MulticastFEIDs</name>
<synopsis>
The table of all multicast IDs
</synopsis>
<array type="variable-size">
<typeRef>uint32</typeRef>
</array>
</component>
<component componentID="4" access="read-write">
<name>CEHBPolicy</name>
<synopsis>
The CE Heartbeat Policy
</synopsis>
<typeRef>CEHBPolicyValues</typeRef>
</component>
<component componentID="5" access="read-write">
<name>CEHDI</name>
<synopsis>
The CE Heartbeat Dead Interval in milliseconds
</synopsis>
Hadi Salim Standards Track [Page 19]
RFC 7391 ForCES Protocol Extensions October 2014
<typeRef>uint32</typeRef>
</component>
<component componentID="6" access="read-write">
<name>FEHBPolicy</name>
<synopsis>
The FE Heartbeat Policy
</synopsis>
<typeRef>FEHBPolicyValues</typeRef>
</component>
<component componentID="7" access="read-write">
<name>FEHI</name>
<synopsis>
The FE Heartbeat Interval in milliseconds
</synopsis>
<typeRef>uint32</typeRef>
</component>
<component componentID="8" access="read-write">
<name>CEID</name>
<synopsis>
The Primary CE this FE is associated with
</synopsis>
<typeRef>uint32</typeRef>
</component>
<component componentID="9" access="read-write">
<name>BackupCEs</name>
<synopsis>
The table of all backup CEs other than the
primary
</synopsis>
<array type="variable-size">
<typeRef>uint32</typeRef>
</array>
</component>
<component componentID="10" access="read-write">
<name>CEFailoverPolicy</name>
<synopsis>
The CE Failover Policy
</synopsis>
<typeRef>CEFailoverPolicyValues</typeRef>
</component>
<component componentID="11" access="read-write">
<name>CEFTI</name>
<synopsis>
The CE Failover Timeout Interval in milliseconds
</synopsis>
<typeRef>uint32</typeRef>
</component>
<component componentID="12" access="read-write">
Hadi Salim Standards Track [Page 20]
RFC 7391 ForCES Protocol Extensions October 2014
<name>FERestartPolicy</name>
<synopsis>
The FE Restart Policy
</synopsis>
<typeRef>FERestartPolicyValues</typeRef>
</component>
<component componentID="13" access="read-write">
<name>LastCEID</name>
<synopsis>
The Primary CE this FE was last associated
with
</synopsis>
<typeRef>uint32</typeRef>
</component>
<component componentID="14" access="read-write">
<name>HAMode</name>
<synopsis>
The HA mode used
</synopsis>
<typeRef>HAModeValues</typeRef>
</component>
<component componentID="15" access="read-only">
<name>AllCEs</name>
<synopsis>The table of all CEs</synopsis>
<array type="variable-size">
<typeRef>AllCEType</typeRef>
</array>
</component>
<component componentID="16" access="read-write">
<name>EResultAdmin</name>
<synopsis>
Turn extended results off or on,
but default to off.
</synopsis>
<typeRef>ExtendedResultType</typeRef>
<defaultValue>1</defaultValue>
</component>
</components>
<capabilities>
<capability componentID="30">
<name>SupportableVersions</name>
<synopsis>
The table of ForCES versions that FE supports
</synopsis>
<array type="variable-size">
<typeRef>uchar</typeRef>
</array>
</capability>
Hadi Salim Standards Track [Page 21]
RFC 7391 ForCES Protocol Extensions October 2014
<capability componentID="31">
<name>HACapabilities</name>
<synopsis>
The table of HA capabilities the FE supports
</synopsis>
<array type="variable-size">
<typeRef>FEHACapab</typeRef>
</array>
</capability>
<capability componentID="32">
<name>EResultCapab</name>
<synopsis>
The table of supported result capabilities
</synopsis>
<array type="variable-size">
<typeRef>ExtendedResultType</typeRef>
</array>
</capability>
</capabilities>
<events baseID="61">
<event eventID="1">
<name>PrimaryCEDown</name>
<synopsis>
The primary CE has changed.
</synopsis>
<eventTarget>
<eventField>LastCEID</eventField>
</eventTarget>
<eventChanged/>
<eventReports>
<eventReport>
<eventField>LastCEID</eventField>
</eventReport>
</eventReports>
</event>
<event eventID="2">
<name>PrimaryCEChanged</name>
<synopsis>A new primary CE has been selected.
</synopsis>
<eventTarget>
<eventField>CEID</eventField>
</eventTarget>
<eventChanged/>
<eventReports>
<eventReport>
<eventField>CEID</eventField>
</eventReport>
</eventReports>
Hadi Salim Standards Track [Page 22]
RFC 7391 ForCES Protocol Extensions October 2014
</event>
</events>
</LFBClassDef>
</LFBClassDefs>
</LFBLibrary>
Acknowledgments
The author would like to thank Evangelos Haleplidis and Joel Halpern
for discussions that made this document better. Adrian Farrel did an
excellent AD review of the document, which improved the quality of
this document. Tobias Gondrom did the Security Directorate review.
Brian Carpenter did the Gen-ART review. Nevil Brownlee performed the
Operations Directorate review. S. Moonesamy (SM) worked hard to
review our publication process. Pearl Liang caught issues in the
IANA text.
The author would like to thank the following IESG members who
reviewed and improved this document: Alia Atlas, Barry Leiba, Brian
Haberman, Kathleen Moriarty, Richard Barnes, and Spencer Dawkins.
Author's Address
Jamal Hadi Salim
Mojatatu Networks
Suite 400, 303 Moodie Dr.
Ottawa, Ontario K2H 9R4
Canada
EMail: hadi@mojatatu.com
Hadi Salim Standards Track [Page 23]