draft-ietf-manet-credit-window-06.txt   draft-ietf-manet-credit-window-07.txt 
Mobile Ad hoc Networks Working Group S. Ratliff Mobile Ad hoc Networks Working Group S. Ratliff
Internet-Draft VT iDirect Internet-Draft VT iDirect
Intended status: Standards Track October 31, 2016 Intended status: Standards Track November 13, 2016
Expires: May 4, 2017 Expires: May 17, 2017
Credit Windowing extension for DLEP Credit Windowing extension for DLEP
draft-ietf-manet-credit-window-06 draft-ietf-manet-credit-window-07
Abstract Abstract
This draft describes an extension to the DLEP protocol to provide a This draft describes an extension to the DLEP protocol to provide a
credit-windowing scheme for destination-specific flow control. credit-windowing scheme for destination-specific flow control.
Status of This Memo Status of This Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
skipping to change at page 1, line 31 skipping to change at page 1, line 31
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on May 4, 2017. This Internet-Draft will expire on May 17, 2017.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2016 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2016 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved. document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents publication of this document. Please review these documents
skipping to change at page 2, line 19 skipping to change at page 2, line 19
3. Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 3. Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
4. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 4. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
5. Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 5. Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
6. DLEP Messages for Credit-Window Extension . . . . . . . . . . 5 6. DLEP Messages for Credit-Window Extension . . . . . . . . . . 5
7. DLEP Status Codes for Credit-Window Extension . . . . . . . . 5 7. DLEP Status Codes for Credit-Window Extension . . . . . . . . 5
8. DLEP Data Items for Credit-Window Extension . . . . . . . . . 5 8. DLEP Data Items for Credit-Window Extension . . . . . . . . . 5
9. Credit Window Data Item Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 9. Credit Window Data Item Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
9.1. Credit Grant . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 9.1. Credit Grant . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
9.2. Credit Window Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 9.2. Credit Window Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
9.3. Credit Request . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 9.3. Credit Request . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
9.4. DLEP Destination Up Message . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 10. Credit Data Item Use in DLEP Messages . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
9.5. DLEP Destination Announce Message . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 10.1. DLEP Destination Up Message . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
9.6. DLEP Destination Up Response Message . . . . . . . . . . 9 10.2. DLEP Destination Announce Message . . . . . . . . . . . 9
9.7. DLEP Destination Announce Response Message . . . . . . . 10 10.3. DLEP Destination Up Response Message . . . . . . . . . . 9
9.8. DLEP Destination Update Message . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 10.4. DLEP Destination Announce Response Message . . . . . . . 10
9.9. DLEP Link Characteristics Request Message . . . . . . . . 11 10.5. DLEP Destination Update Message . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
10. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 10.6. DLEP Link Characteristics Request Message . . . . . . . 11
11. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 11. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
11.1. Registrations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 12. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
12. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 12.1. Registrations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
13. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 13. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
14. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
In the world of radio-based networking, there are modems that need In the world of radio-based networking, there are modems that need
fine-grained flow control over traffic ingressing from a LAN fine-grained flow control over traffic ingressing from a LAN
connection, bound for transmission over a Radio Frequency (RF) link. connection, bound for transmission over a Radio Frequency (RF) link.
The need for such fine-grained control can exist for multiple The need for such fine-grained control can exist for multiple
reasons. For example, radio devices are typically connected to the reasons. For example, radio devices are typically connected to the
network by Ethernet. The capacity of an Ethernet link is normally network by Ethernet. The capacity of an Ethernet link is normally
skipping to change at page 9, line 19 skipping to change at page 9, line 19
0 1 2 3 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 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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Data Item Type | Length | | Data Item Type | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Data Item Type: TBD6 Data Item Type: TBD6
Length: 0 Length: 0
The credit-windowing data items are inserted into DLEP messages as 10. Credit Data Item Use in DLEP Messages
follows:
9.4. DLEP Destination Up Message 10.1. DLEP Destination Up Message
If use of credits is desired for the destination, then the If use of credits is desired for the destination, then the
Destination Up message MUST contain one Credit Grant (Section 9.1) Destination Up message MUST contain one Credit Grant (Section 9.1)
data item. The value of the credit increment is at the discretion of data item. The value of the credit increment is at the discretion of
the implementation. If use of credits is accepted by the receiver, the implementation. If use of credits is accepted by the receiver,
the value in the Credit Grant data item in the Destination Up message the value in the Credit Grant data item in the Destination Up message
MUST be used as the initial value for the appropriate window. MUST be used as the initial value for the appropriate window.
If the Destination Up message does not contain the Credit Grant data If the Destination Up message does not contain the Credit Grant data
item, credits MUST NOT be used for that destination. item, credits MUST NOT be used for that destination.
9.5. DLEP Destination Announce Message 10.2. DLEP Destination Announce Message
If use of credits is required for the destination, then the If use of credits is required for the destination, then the
Destination Announce message MUST contain one Credit Grant Destination Announce message MUST contain one Credit Grant
(Section 9.1) data item. The value of the credit increment is at the (Section 9.1) data item. The value of the credit increment is at the
discretion of the implementation. The receiver of the Destination discretion of the implementation. The receiver of the Destination
Announce message MUST use the value in Credit Grant as the initial Announce message MUST use the value in Credit Grant as the initial
value for the appropriate window. value for the appropriate window.
If the Destination Announce message does not contain the Credit Grant If the Destination Announce message does not contain the Credit Grant
data item, credits MUST NOT be used for that destination. data item, credits MUST NOT be used for that destination.
9.6. DLEP Destination Up Response Message 10.3. DLEP Destination Up Response Message
If the corresponding Destination Up message contained a Credit Grant If the corresponding Destination Up message contained a Credit Grant
(Section 9.1) data item, the Destination Up Response message MUST (Section 9.1) data item, the Destination Up Response message MUST
contain either: contain either:
o a Credit Grant (Section 9.1) data item, to initialize the o a Credit Grant (Section 9.1) data item, to initialize the
receiver's window, or receiver's window, or
o a Status Data Item, containing the 'Credit Use Rejected' status o a Status Data Item, containing the 'Credit Use Rejected' status
code. Optional text MAY be included with the Status Data Item to code. Optional text MAY be included with the Status Data Item to
skipping to change at page 10, line 31 skipping to change at page 10, line 31
When an implementation detects a mismatch in the presence or absence When an implementation detects a mismatch in the presence or absence
of credit window data items between the DLEP Destination Up and of credit window data items between the DLEP Destination Up and
Destination Up Response messages (e.g, the Destination Up message was Destination Up Response messages (e.g, the Destination Up message was
sent using credits but the received Destination Up Response message sent using credits but the received Destination Up Response message
does NOT include credits), the implementation detecting the credit- does NOT include credits), the implementation detecting the credit-
use mismatch MUST terminate the destination by issuing a Destination use mismatch MUST terminate the destination by issuing a Destination
Down message with a status code of 'Credit Window Out of Sync', and Down message with a status code of 'Credit Window Out of Sync', and
continue processing on other DLEP destinations. continue processing on other DLEP destinations.
9.7. DLEP Destination Announce Response Message 10.4. DLEP Destination Announce Response Message
If the corresponding Destination Announce message contained a Credit If the corresponding Destination Announce message contained a Credit
Grant (Section 9.1) data item, the Destination Announce Response Grant (Section 9.1) data item, the Destination Announce Response
message MUST contain either: message MUST contain either:
o a Credit Grant (Section 9.1) data item, to initialize the o a Credit Grant (Section 9.1) data item, to initialize the
receiver's window, or receiver's window, or
o a Status Data Item, containing the 'Credit Use Rejected' status o a Status Data Item, containing the 'Credit Use Rejected' status
code. Optional text MAY be included with the Status Data Item to code. Optional text MAY be included with the Status Data Item to
skipping to change at page 11, line 15 skipping to change at page 11, line 15
When an implementation detects a mismatch in the presence or absence When an implementation detects a mismatch in the presence or absence
of credit window data items between the DLEP Destination Announce and of credit window data items between the DLEP Destination Announce and
Destination Announce Response messages (e.g, the Destination Announce Destination Announce Response messages (e.g, the Destination Announce
message was sent using credits but the received Destination Up message was sent using credits but the received Destination Up
Response message does NOT include credits), the implementation Response message does NOT include credits), the implementation
detecting the credit-use mismatch MUST terminate the destination by detecting the credit-use mismatch MUST terminate the destination by
issuing a Destination Down message with a status code of 'Credit issuing a Destination Down message with a status code of 'Credit
Window Out of Sync', and continue processing on other DLEP Window Out of Sync', and continue processing on other DLEP
destinations. destinations.
9.8. DLEP Destination Update Message 10.5. DLEP Destination Update Message
If the corresponding Destination Up or Destination Announce message If the corresponding Destination Up or Destination Announce message
contained the Credit Grant data item, the Destination Update message contained the Credit Grant data item, the Destination Update message
MAY contain one of each of the following data items: MAY contain one of each of the following data items:
o Credit Grant (Section 9.1) o Credit Grant (Section 9.1)
o Credit Window Status (Section 9.2) o Credit Window Status (Section 9.2)
o Credit Request (Section 9.3) o Credit Request (Section 9.3)
DLEP peers supporting the extension MAY format and send a DLEP DLEP peers supporting the extension MAY format and send a DLEP
Destination Update message solely for the purposes of maintaining the Destination Update message solely for the purposes of maintaining the
credit windows. In cases where a peer already has information credit windows. In cases where a peer already has information
requiring a Destination Update message, (e.g., a change in Latency on requiring a Destination Update message, (e.g., a change in Latency on
the link), the credit data items MAY be included in addition to that the link), the credit data items MAY be included in addition to that
information. information.
9.9. DLEP Link Characteristics Request Message 10.6. DLEP Link Characteristics Request Message
If the corresponding Destination Up or Destination Announce message If the corresponding Destination Up or Destination Announce message
contained the credit Grant data item, the Link Characteristics contained the credit Grant data item, the Link Characteristics
Request message MAY contain the following data item: Request message MAY contain the following data item:
o Credit Request (Section 9.3) o Credit Request (Section 9.3)
DLEP peers supporting the extension MAY format and send a DLEP Link DLEP peers supporting the extension MAY format and send a DLEP Link
Characteristics Request message solely for the purposes of Characteristics Request message solely for the purposes of
maintaining the credit windows. In cases where a peer already has maintaining the credit windows. In cases where a peer already has
information requiring a Link Characteristics Request message, the information requiring a Link Characteristics Request message, the
Credit Request data MAY be included in addition to that information. Credit Request data MAY be included in addition to that information.
10. Security Considerations 11. Security Considerations
The extension introduces a mechanims for destination-specific flow The extension introduces a mechanims for destination-specific flow
control between a router and modem supporting the DLEP protocol. The control between a router and modem supporting the DLEP protocol. The
extension does not introduce any additional threats above those extension does not introduce any additional threats above those
documented in [DLEP]. The approach taken to security in that documented in [DLEP]. The approach taken to security in that
document applies when implementing this extension. document applies when implementing this extension.
11. IANA Considerations 12. IANA Considerations
This section specifies requests to IANA. This section specifies requests to IANA.
11.1. Registrations 12.1. Registrations
This specification defines three (3) new entries in the repository This specification defines three (3) new entries in the repository
entitled "Data Item Type Values for the Dynamic Link Exchange entitled "Data Item Type Values for the Dynamic Link Exchange
Protocol (DLEP)". Assignments from that registry are requested for: Protocol (DLEP)". Assignments from that registry are requested for:
o Credit Grant o Credit Grant
o Credit Request o Credit Request
o Credit Window Status o Credit Window Status
skipping to change at page 12, line 37 skipping to change at page 12, line 37
o Credit Windowing o Credit Windowing
In addition, the specification defines two (2) new DLEP status codes. In addition, the specification defines two (2) new DLEP status codes.
Assignments from the repository entitled "Status Code Values for the Assignments from the repository entitled "Status Code Values for the
Dynamic Link Exchange Protocol (DLEP)" are requested for: Dynamic Link Exchange Protocol (DLEP)" are requested for:
o Credit Window Out of Sync o Credit Window Out of Sync
o Credit Use Rejected o Credit Use Rejected
12. Acknowledgements 13. Acknowledgements
The author would like to acknowledge and thank the members of the The author would like to acknowledge and thank the members of the
MANET working group, who have provided valuable insight. MANET working group, who have provided valuable insight.
Specifically, the author would like to thank Lou Berger, David Specifically, the author would like to thank Lou Berger, David
Wiggins, Justin Dean, Brian Amundson, Rick Taylor, John Dowdell, Wiggins, Justin Dean, Brian Amundson, Rick Taylor, John Dowdell,
Shawn Jury, and Darryl Satterwhite. Shawn Jury, and Darryl Satterwhite.
13. Normative References 14. Normative References
[DLEP] Ratliff, S., Jury, S., Satterwhite, D., Taylor, R., and B. [DLEP] Ratliff, S., Jury, S., Satterwhite, D., Taylor, R., and B.
Berry, "Dynamic Link Exchange Protocol (DLEP)", draft- Berry, "Dynamic Link Exchange Protocol (DLEP)", draft-
ietf-manet-dlep-25 IETF draft, October 2016. ietf-manet-dlep-25 IETF draft, October 2016.
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997, DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>. <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
 End of changes. 16 change blocks. 
28 lines changed or deleted 28 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.45. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/