draft-ietf-nfsv4-rpcrdma-cm-pvt-data-01.txt   draft-ietf-nfsv4-rpcrdma-cm-pvt-data-02.txt 
Network File System Version 4 C. Lever Network File System Version 4 C. Lever
Internet-Draft Oracle Internet-Draft Oracle
Intended status: Informational November 6, 2018 Intended status: Informational May 5, 2019
Expires: May 10, 2019 Expires: November 6, 2019
RDMA Connection Manager Private Data For RPC-Over-RDMA Version 1 RDMA Connection Manager Private Data For RPC-Over-RDMA Version 1
draft-ietf-nfsv4-rpcrdma-cm-pvt-data-01 draft-ietf-nfsv4-rpcrdma-cm-pvt-data-02
Abstract Abstract
This document specifies the format of RDMA-CM Private Data exchanged This document specifies the format of RDMA-CM Private Data exchanged
between RPC-over-RDMA version 1 peers as a transport connection is between RPC-over-RDMA version 1 peers as part of establishing a
established. Such private data is used to indicate peer support for connection. Such private data is used to indicate peer support for
remote invalidation and larger-than-default inline thresholds. remote invalidation and larger-than-default inline thresholds.
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.
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 https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. Drafts is at https://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 10, 2019. This Internet-Draft will expire on November 6, 2019.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2018 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2019 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
(https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of (https://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
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
skipping to change at page 2, line 27 skipping to change at page 2, line 27
6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
8.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 8.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
8.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 8.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
The RPC-over-RDMA version 1 transport protocol enables the use of The RPC-over-RDMA version 1 transport protocol [RFC8166] enables
RDMA data transfer for upper layer protocols based on RPC [RFC8166]. payload data transfer using Remote Direct Memory Access (RDMA) for
The terms "Remote Direct Memory Access" (RDMA) and "Direct Data upper layer protocols based on Remote Procedure Calls (RPC)
Placement" (DDP) are introduced in [RFC5040]. [RFC5531]. The terms "Remote Direct Memory Access" (RDMA) and
"Direct Data Placement" (DDP) are introduced in [RFC5040].
The two most immediate shortcomings of RPC-over-RDMA version 1 are: The two most immediate shortcomings of RPC-over-RDMA version 1 are:
o Setting up an RDMA data transfer (via RDMA Read or Write) can be o Setting up an RDMA data transfer (via RDMA Read or Write) can be
costly. The small default size of messages transmitted using RDMA costly. The small default size of messages transmitted using RDMA
Send forces the use of RDMA Read or Write operations even for Send forces the use of RDMA Read or Write operations even for
relatively small messages and data payloads. relatively small messages and data payloads.
The original specification of RPC-over-RDMA version 1 provided an The original specification of RPC-over-RDMA version 1 provided an
out-of-band protocol for passing inline threshold values between out-of-band protocol for passing inline threshold values between
connected peers [RFC5666]. However, [RFC8166] eliminated support connected peers [RFC5666]. However, [RFC8166] eliminated support
for this protocol making it unavailable for this purpose. for this protocol making it unavailable for this purpose.
o Unlike most other contemporary RDMA-enabled storage protocols, o Unlike most other contemporary RDMA-enabled storage protocols,
there is no facility in RPC-over-RDMA version 1 that enables the there is no facility in RPC-over-RDMA version 1 that enables the
use of remote invalidation [RFC5042]. use of remote invalidation [RFC5042].
RPC-over-RDMA version 1 has no means of extending its XDR definition RPC-over-RDMA version 1 has no means of extending its XDR definition
skipping to change at page 3, line 8 skipping to change at page 3, line 8
RPC-over-RDMA version 1 has no means of extending its XDR definition RPC-over-RDMA version 1 has no means of extending its XDR definition
in such a way that interoperability with existing implementations is in such a way that interoperability with existing implementations is
preserved. As a result, an out-of-band mechanism is needed to help preserved. As a result, an out-of-band mechanism is needed to help
relieve these constraints for existing RPC-over-RDMA version 1 relieve these constraints for existing RPC-over-RDMA version 1
implementations. implementations.
This document specifies a simple, non-XDR-based message format This document specifies a simple, non-XDR-based message format
designed to be passed between RPC-over-RDMA version 1 peers at the designed to be passed between RPC-over-RDMA version 1 peers at the
time each RDMA transport connection is first established. The time each RDMA transport connection is first established. The
purpose of this message format is two-fold: purpose of such a message exchange is to enable the connecting peers
to indicate support for transport properties that are not defined in
o To provide immediate relief from certain performance constraints the base RPC-over-RDMA version 1 protocol defined in [RFC8166].
inherent in RPC-over-RDMA version 1
o To enable experimentation with parameters of the base RDMA
transport over which RPC-over-RDMA runs
The message format may be extended as needed. In addition, The message format can be extended as needed. In addition,
interoperation between implementations of RPC-over-RDMA version 1 interoperation between implementations of RPC-over-RDMA version 1
that present this message format to peers and those that do not that present this message format to peers and those that do not
recognize this message format is guaranteed. recognize this message format is guaranteed.
2. Requirements Language 2. Requirements Language
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
"OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP
14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all 14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all
skipping to change at page 10, line 10 skipping to change at page 10, line 10
[IBARCH] InfiniBand Trade Association, "InfiniBand Architecture [IBARCH] InfiniBand Trade Association, "InfiniBand Architecture
Specification Volume 1", Release 1.3, March 2015, Specification Volume 1", Release 1.3, March 2015,
<http://www.infinibandta.org/content/ <http://www.infinibandta.org/content/
pages.php?pg=technology_download>. pages.php?pg=technology_download>.
[RFC1813] Callaghan, B., Pawlowski, B., and P. Staubach, "NFS [RFC1813] Callaghan, B., Pawlowski, B., and P. Staubach, "NFS
Version 3 Protocol Specification", RFC 1813, Version 3 Protocol Specification", RFC 1813,
DOI 10.17487/RFC1813, June 1995, DOI 10.17487/RFC1813, June 1995,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1813>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1813>.
[RFC5531] Thurlow, R., "RPC: Remote Procedure Call Protocol
Specification Version 2", RFC 5531, DOI 10.17487/RFC5531,
May 2009, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5531>.
[RFC5666] Talpey, T. and B. Callaghan, "Remote Direct Memory Access [RFC5666] Talpey, T. and B. Callaghan, "Remote Direct Memory Access
Transport for Remote Procedure Call", RFC 5666, Transport for Remote Procedure Call", RFC 5666,
DOI 10.17487/RFC5666, January 2010, DOI 10.17487/RFC5666, January 2010,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5666>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5666>.
[RFC7530] Haynes, T., Ed. and D. Noveck, Ed., "Network File System [RFC7530] Haynes, T., Ed. and D. Noveck, Ed., "Network File System
(NFS) Version 4 Protocol", RFC 7530, DOI 10.17487/RFC7530, (NFS) Version 4 Protocol", RFC 7530, DOI 10.17487/RFC7530,
March 2015, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7530>. March 2015, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7530>.
[RFC7861] Adamson, A. and N. Williams, "Remote Procedure Call (RPC) [RFC7861] Adamson, A. and N. Williams, "Remote Procedure Call (RPC)
Security Version 3", RFC 7861, DOI 10.17487/RFC7861, Security Version 3", RFC 7861, DOI 10.17487/RFC7861,
November 2016, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7861>. November 2016, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7861>.
Acknowledgments Acknowledgments
Thanks to Christoph Hellwig and Devesh Sharma for suggesting this Thanks to Christoph Hellwig and Devesh Sharma for suggesting this
approach, and to Tom Talpey and Dave Noveck for their expert comments approach, and to Tom Talpey and Dave Noveck for their expert comments
and review. The author also wishes to thank Bill Baker and Greg and review. The author also wishes to thank Bill Baker and Greg
Marsden for their support of this work. Marsden for their support of this work.
Special thanks go to Transport Area Director Spencer Dawkins, NFSV4 Special thanks go to Transport Area Director Magnus Westerlund, NFSV4
Working Group Chairs Spencer Shepler and Brian Pawlowski, and NFSV4 Working Group Chairs Spencer Shepler and Brian Pawlowski, and NFSV4
Working Group Secretary Thomas Haynes. Working Group Secretary Thomas Haynes.
Author's Address Author's Address
Charles Lever Charles Lever
Oracle Corporation Oracle Corporation
1015 Granger Avenue
Ann Arbor, MI 48104
United States of America United States of America
Email: chuck.lever@oracle.com Email: chuck.lever@oracle.com
 End of changes. 12 change blocks. 
23 lines changed or deleted 21 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.47. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/