Internet Draft L. Yang
Expiration: July 2004 Intel Corp.
File: draft-ietf-forces-model-03.txt J. Halpern
Working Group: ForCES Megisto Systems
R. Gopal
Nokia
A. DeKok
IDT Inc.
Z. Haraszti
S. Blake
Ericsson
E. Deleganes
Intel Corp.
July 2004
ForCES Forwarding Element Model
draft-ietf-forces-model-03.txt
Status of this Memo
This document is an Internet-Draft and is in full conformance with
all provisions of Section 10 of RFC2026. Internet-Drafts are
working documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF),
its areas, and its working groups. Note that other groups may also
distribute working documents as Internet-Drafts.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six
months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other
documents at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts
as reference material or to cite them other than as ``work in
progress.''
The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt.
The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.
Abstract
This document defines the forwarding element (FE) model used in the
Forwarding and Control Element Separation (ForCES) protocol. The
model represents the capabilities, state and configuration of
Internet Draft ForCES FE Model July 2004
forwarding elements within the context of the ForCES protocol, so
that control elements (CEs) can control the FEs accordingly. More
specifically, the model describes the logical functions that are
present in an FE, what capabilities these functions support, and
how these functions are or can be interconnected. This FE model is
intended to satisfy the model requirements specified in the ForCES
requirements draft [1]. A list of the basic logical functional
blocks (LFBs) is also defined in the LFB class library to aid the
effort in defining individual LFBs.
Table of Contents
Abstract.........................................................1
1. Definitions...................................................4
2. Introduction..................................................5
2.1. Requirements on the FE model.............................6
2.2. The FE Model in Relation to FE Implementations...........6
2.3. The FE Model in Relation to the ForCES Protocol..........7
2.4. Modeling Language for the FE Model.......................7
2.5. Document Structure.......................................8
3. FE Model Concepts.............................................8
3.1. FE Capability Model and State Model......................9
3.2. LFB (Logical Functional Block) Modeling.................11
3.2.1. LFB Outputs........................................13
3.2.2. LFB Inputs.........................................16
3.2.3. Packet Type........................................19
3.2.4. Metadata...........................................20
3.2.5. LFB Versioning.....................................27
3.2.6. LFB Inheritance....................................27
3.3. FE Datapath Modeling....................................28
3.3.1. Alternative Approaches for Modeling FE Datapaths...29
3.3.2. Configuring the LFB Topology.......................33
4. Model and Schema for LFB Classes.............................37
4.1. Namespace...............................................37
4.2. <LFBLibrary> Element....................................37
4.3. <load> Element..........................................39
4.4. <frameDefs> Element for Frame Type Declarations.........39
4.5. <dataTypeDefs> Element for Data Type Definitions........40
4.5.1. <typeRef> Element for Aliasing Existing Data Types.42
4.5.2. <atomic> Element for Deriving New Atomic Types.....42
4.5.3. <array> Element to Define Arrays...................43
4.5.4. <struct> Element to Define Structures..............45
4.5.5. <union> Element to Define Union Types..............46
4.5.6. Augmentations......................................46
4.6. <metadataDefs> Element for Metadata Definitions.........47
4.7. <LFBClassDefs> Element for LFB Class Definitions........48
4.7.1. <derivedFrom> Element to Express LFB Inheritance...49
Yang, et al. Expires January 2005 [Page 2]
Internet Draft ForCES FE Model July 2004
4.7.2. <inputPorts> Element to Define LFB Inputs..........49
4.7.3. <outputPorts> Element to Define LFB Outputs........52
4.7.4. <attributes> Element to Define LFB Operational
Attributes................................................54
4.7.5. <capabilities> Element to Define LFB Capability
Attributes................................................57
4.7.6. <description> Element for LFB Operational
Specification.............................................58
4.8. XML Schema for LFB Class Library Documents..............58
5. FE Attributes and Capabilities...............................67
5.1. XML Schema for FE Attribute Documents...................68
5.2. FEDocument..............................................72
5.2.1. FECapabilities.....................................72
5.2.2. FEAttributes.......................................75
5.3. Sample FE Attribute Document............................77
6. LFB Class Library............................................80
6.1. Port LFB................................................80
6.2. L2 Interface LFB........................................81
6.3. IP interface LFB........................................82
6.4. Classifier LFB..........................................84
6.5. Next Hop LFB............................................85
6.6. Rate Meter LFB..........................................87
6.7. Redirector (de-MUX) LFB.................................87
6.8. Packet Header Rewriter LFB..............................88
6.9. Counter LFB.............................................88
6.10. Dropper LFB............................................89
6.11. IPv4 Fragmenter LFB....................................89
6.12. L2 Address Resolution LFB..............................90
6.13. Queue LFB..............................................90
6.14. Scheduler LFB..........................................91
6.15. MPLS ILM/Decapsulation LFB.............................91
6.16. MPLS Encapsulation LFB.................................92
6.17. Tunnel Encapsulation/Decapsulation LFB.................92
6.18. Replicator LFB.........................................93
7. Satisfying the Requirements on FE Model......................93
7.1. Port Functions..........................................94
7.2. Forwarding Functions....................................94
7.3. QoS Functions...........................................94
7.4. Generic Filtering Functions.............................95
7.5. Vendor Specific Functions...............................95
7.6. High-Touch Functions....................................95
7.7. Security Functions......................................95
7.8. Off-loaded Functions....................................95
7.9. IPFLOW/PSAMP Functions..................................96
8. Using the FE model in the ForCES Protocol....................96
8.1. FE Topology Query.......................................98
8.2. FE Capability Declarations..............................99
Yang, et al. Expires January 2005 [Page 3]
Internet Draft ForCES FE Model July 2004
8.3. LFB Topology and Topology Configurability Query.........99
8.4. LFB Capability Declarations............................100
8.5. State Query of LFB Attributes..........................101
8.6. LFB Attribute Manipulation.............................101
8.7. LFB Topology Re-configuration..........................102
9. Acknowledgments.............................................102
10. Security Considerations....................................102
11. Normative References.......................................102
12. Informative References.....................................103
13. Authors' Addresses.........................................103
14. Intellectual Property Right................................104
15. IANA consideration.........................................105
Conventions used in this document
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].
1. Definitions
Terminology associated with the ForCES requirements is defined in
[1] and is not copied here. The following list of terminology is
relevant to the FE model defined in this document.
FE Model -- The FE model is designed to model the logical
processing functions of an FE. The FE model proposed in this
document includes three components: the modeling of individual
logical functional blocks (LFB model), the logical interconnection
between LFBs (LFB topology) and the FE level attributes, including
FE capabilities. The FE model provides the basis to define the
information elements exchanged between the CE and the FE in the
ForCES protocol.
Datapath -- A conceptual path taken by packets within the
forwarding plane inside an FE. Note that more than one datapath
can exist within an FE.
LFB (Logical Function Block) class (or type) -- A template
representing a fine-grained, logically separable and well-defined
packet processing operation in the datapath. LFB classes are the
basic building blocks of the FE model.
LFB (Logical Function Block) Instance -- As a packet flows through
an FE along a datapath, it flows through one or multiple LFB
instances, where each LFB implements an instance of a specific LFB
Yang, et al. Expires January 2005 [Page 4]
Internet Draft ForCES FE Model July 2004
class. Multiple instances of the same LFB class can be present in
an FE's datapath. Note that we often refer to LFBs without
distinguishing between an LFB class and LFB instance when we
believe the implied reference is obvious for the given context.
LFB Model -- The LFB model describes the content and structures in
an LFB, plus the associated data definition. Four types of
information are defined in the LFB model. The core part of the LFB
model is the LFB class definitions; the other three types define
the associated data including common data types, supported frame
formats and metadata.
LFB Metadata -- Metadata is used to communicate per-packet state
from one LFB to another, but is not sent across the network. The
FE model defines how such metadata is identified, produced and
consumed by the LFBs, but not how the per-packet state is
implemented within actual hardware.
LFB Attribute -- Operational parameters of the LFBs that must be
visible to the CEs are conceptualized in the FE model as the LFB
attributes. The LFB attributes include: flags, single parameter
arguments, complex arguments, and tables that the CE can read
or/and write via the ForCES protocol.
LFB Topology -- A representation of the logical interconnection and
the placement of LFB instances along the datapath within one FE.
Sometimes this representation is called intra-FE topology, to be
distinguished from inter-FE topology. LFB topology is outside of
the LFB model, but is part of the FE model.
FE Topology -- A representation of how multiple FEs within a single
NE are interconnected. Sometimes this is called inter-FE topology,
to be distinguished from intra-FE topology (i.e., LFB topology).
An individual FE might not have the global knowledge of the full FE
topology, but the local view of its connectivity with other FEs is
considered to be part of the FE model. The FE topology is
discovered by the ForCES base protocol or some other means.
Inter-FE Topology -- See FE Topology.
Intra-FE Topology -- See LFB Topology.
LFB class library -- A set of LFB classes that has been identified
as the most common functions found in most FEs and hence should be
defined first by the ForCES Working Group.
2. Introduction
Yang, et al. Expires January 2005 [Page 5]
Internet Draft ForCES FE Model July 2004
[2] specifies a framework by which control elements (CEs) can
configure and manage one or more separate forwarding elements (FEs)
within a networking element (NE) using the ForCES protocol. The
ForCES architecture allows Forwarding Elements of varying
functionality to participate in a ForCES network element. The
implication of this varying functionality is that CEs can make only
minimal assumptions about the functionality provided by FEs in an
NE. Before CEs can configure and control the forwarding behavior
of FEs, CEs need to query and discover the capabilities and states
of their FEs. [1] mandates that the capabilities, states and
configuration information be expressed in the form of an FE model.
RFC 3444 [11] observed that information models (IMs) and data
models (DMs) are different because they serve different purposes.
"The main purpose of an IM is to model managed objects at a
conceptual level, independent of any specific implementations or
protocols used". "DMs, conversely, are defined at a lower level of
abstraction and include many details. They are intended for
implementors and include protocol-specific constructs." Sometimes
it is difficult to draw a clear line between the two. The FE model
described in this document is primarily an information model, but
also includes some aspects of a data model, such as explicit
definitions of the LFB class schema and FE schema. It is expected
that this FE model will be used as the basis to define the payload
for information exchange between the CE and FE in the ForCES
protocol.
2.1. Requirements on the FE model
[1] defines requirements that must be satisfied by a ForCES FE
model. To summarize, an FE model must define:
. Logically separable and distinct packet forwarding operations
in an FE datapath (logical functional blocks or LFBs);
. The possible topological relationships (and hence the sequence
of packet forwarding operations) between the various LFBs;
. The possible operational capabilities (e.g., capacity limits,
constraints, optional features, granularity of configuration)
of each type of LFB;
. The possible configurable parameters (i.e., attributes) of
each type of LFB;
. Metadata that may be exchanged between LFBs.
2.2. The FE Model in Relation to FE Implementations
The FE model proposed here is based on an abstraction of distinct
logical functional blocks (LFBs), which are interconnected in a
directed graph, and receive, process, modify, and transmit packets
Yang, et al. Expires January 2005 [Page 6]
Internet Draft ForCES FE Model July 2004
along with metadata. The FE model should be designed such that
different implementations of the forwarding datapath can be
logically mapped onto the model with the functionality and sequence
of operations correctly captured. However, the model itself does
not directly address how a particular implementation maps to an LFB
topology. It is left to the forwarding plane vendors to define how
the FE functionality is represented using the FE model. Our goal
is to design the FE model such that it is flexible enough to
accommodate most common implementations.
The LFB topology model for a particular datapath implementation
MUST correctly capture the sequence of operations on the packet.
Metadata generation (by certain LFBs) must always precede any use
of that metadata (by subsequent LFBs in the topology graph); this
is required for logically consistent operation. Further,
modification of packet fields that are subsequently used as inputs
for further processing must occur in the order specified in the
model for that particular implementation to ensure correctness.
2.3. The FE Model in Relation to the ForCES Protocol
The ForCES base protocol is used by the CEs and FEs to maintain the
communication channel between the CEs and FEs. The ForCES protocol
may be used to query and discover the inter-FE topology. The
details of a particular datapath implementation inside an FE,
including the LFB topology, along with the operational capabilities
and attributes of each individual LFB, are conveyed to the CE
within information elements in the ForCES protocol. The model of
an LFB class should define all of the information that needs to be
exchanged between an FE and a CE for the proper configuration and
management of that LFB.
Specifying the various payloads of the ForCES messages in a
systematic fashion is difficult without a formal definition of the
objects being configured and managed (the FE and the LFBs within).
The FE Model document defines a set of classes and attributes for
describing and manipulating the state of the LFBs within an FE.
These class definitions themselves will generally not appear in the
ForCES protocol. Rather, ForCES protocol operations will reference
classes defined in this model, including relevant attributes (and
the defined operations).
Section 8 provides more detailed discussion on how the FE model
should be used by the ForCES protocol.
2.4. Modeling Language for the FE Model
Yang, et al. Expires January 2005 [Page 7]
Internet Draft ForCES FE Model July 2004
Even though not absolutely required, it is beneficial to use a
formal data modeling language to represent the conceptual FE model
described in this document. Use of a formal language can help to
enforce consistency and logical compatibility among LFBs. A full
specification will be written using such a data modeling language.
The formal definition of the LFB classes has the potential to
facilitate the eventual automation of some part of the code
generation process and the functional validation of arbitrary LFB
topologies.
Human readability was the most important factor considered when
selecting the specification language. Encoding, decoding and
transmission performance was not a selection factor for the
language because the encoding method for over the wire transport is
an issue independent of the specification language chosen. It is
outside the scope of this document and up to the ForCES protocol to
define.
XML was chosen as the specification language in this document,
because XML has the advantage of being both human and machine
readable with widely available tools support.
2.5. Document Structure
Section 3 provides a conceptual overview of the FE model, laying
the foundation for the more detailed discussion and specifications
in the sections that follow. Section 4 and 5 constitute the core
of the FE model, detailing the two major components in the FE
model: LFB model and FE level attributes including capability and
LFB topology. Section 6 presents a list of LFB classes in the LFB
class library that will be further specified in separate documents
according to the FE model presented in Sections 4 and 5. Section 7
directly addresses the model requirements imposed by the ForCES
requirement draft [1] while Section 8 explains how the FE model
should be used in the ForCES protocol.
3. FE Model Concepts
Some of the important concepts used throughout this document are
introduced in this section. Section 3.1 explains the difference
between a state model and a capability model, and how the two can
be combined in the FE model. Section 3.2 introduces the concept of
LFBs (Logical Functional Blocks) as the basic functional building
blocks in the FE model. Section 3.3 discusses the logical inter-
connection and ordering between LFB instances within an FE, that
is, the LFB topology.
Yang, et al. Expires January 2005 [Page 8]
Internet Draft ForCES FE Model July 2004
The FE model proposed in this document is comprised of two major
components: LFB model and FE level attributes, including FE
capabilities and LFB topology. The LFB model provides the content
and data structures to define each individual LFB class. FE
attributes provide information at the FE level particularly the
capabilities of the FE at a coarse level. Part of the FE level
information is the LFB topology, which expresses the logical inter-
connection between the LFB instances along the datapath(s) within
the FE. Details of these components are described in Section 4 and
5. The intent of this section is to discuss these concepts at the
high level and lay the foundation for the detailed description in
the following sections.
3.1. FE Capability Model and State Model
The ForCES FE model must describe both a capability and a state
model. The FE capability model describes the capabilities and
capacities of an FE by specifying the variation in functions
supported and any limitations. The FE state model describes the
current state of the FE, that is, the instantaneous values or
operational behavior of the FE.
Conceptually, the FE capability model tells the CE which states are
allowed on an FE, with capacity information indicating certain
quantitative limits or constraints. Thus, the CE has general
knowledge about which configurations are applicable to a particular
FE and which ones are not. For example, an FE capability model may
describe the FE at a coarse level such as:
. this FE can handle IPv4 and IPv6 forwarding;
. this FE can perform classification on the following fields:
source IP address, destination IP address, source port number,
destination port number, etc;
. this FE can perform metering;
. this FE can handle up to N queues (capacity);
. this FE can add and remove encapsulating headers of types
including IPSec, GRE, L2TP.
While one could try and build an object model to fully represent
the FE capabilities, other efforts found this to be a significant
undertaking. The main difficulty arises in describing detailed
limits, such as the maximum number of classifiers, queues, buffer
pools, and meters the FE can provide. We believe that a good
balance between simplicity and flexibility can be achieved for the
FE model by combining the coarse level capability reporting with an
error reporting mechanism. That is, if the CE attempts to instruct
the FE to set up some specific behavior it cannot support, the FE
Yang, et al. Expires January 2005 [Page 9]
Internet Draft ForCES FE Model July 2004
will return an error indicating the problem. Examples of similar
approaches include DiffServ PIB [4] and Framework PIB [5].
The FE state model presents the snapshot view of the FE to the CE.
For example, using an FE state model, an FE may be described to its
corresponding CE as the following:
. on a given port, the packets are classified using a given
classification filter;
. the given classifier results in packets being metered in a
certain way, and then marked in a certain way;
. the packets coming from specific markers are delivered into a
shared queue for handling, while other packets are delivered
to a different queue;
. a specific scheduler with specific behavior and parameters
will service these collected queues.
Figure 1 shows the concepts of FE state, capabilities and
configuration in the context of CE-FE communication via the ForCES
protocol.
+-------+ +-------+
| | FE capabilities: what it can/cannot do. | |
| |<-----------------------------------------| |
| | | |
| CE | FE state: what it is now. | FE |
| |<-----------------------------------------| |
| | | |
| | FE configuration: what it should be. | |
| |----------------------------------------->| |
+-------+ +-------+
Figure 1. Illustration of FE state, capabilities and configuration
exchange in the context of CE-FE communication via ForCES.
The concepts relating to LFB, particularly capability at the LFB
level, and LFB topology will be discussed in the rest of this
section.
Capability information at the LFB level is an integral part of the
LFB model, and is modeled the same way as the other operational
parameters inside an LFB. For example, certain features of an LFB
class may be optional, in which case it must be possible for the CE
to determine whether or not an optional feature is supported by a
given LFB instance. Such capability information can be modeled as
a read-only attribute in the LFB instance, see Section 4.7.5 for
details.
Yang, et al. Expires January 2005 [Page 10]
Internet Draft ForCES FE Model July 2004
Capability information at the FE level may describe the LFB classes
the FE can instantiate; the number of instances of each that can be
created; the topological (i.e., linkage) limitations between these
LFB instances, etc. Section 5 defines the FE level attributes
including capability information.
Once the FE capability is described to the CE, the FE state
information can be represented by two levels. The first level is
the logically separable and distinctive packet processing
functions, called Logical Functional Blocks (LFBs). The second
level of information describes how these individual LFBs are
ordered and placed along the datapath to deliver a complete
forwarding plane service. The interconnection and ordering of the
LFBs is called LFB Topology. Section 3.2 discusses high level
concepts around LFBs, whereas Section 3.3 discusses LFB topology
issues.
3.2. LFB (Logical Functional Block) Modeling
Each LFB performs a well-defined action or computation on the
packets passing through it. Upon completion of such a function,
either the packets are modified in certain ways (e.g.,
decapsulator, marker), or some results are generated and stored,
often in the form of metadata (like a classifier). Each LFB
typically performs a single action. Classifiers, shapers, meters
are all examples of such LFBs. Modeling LFBs at such a fine
granularity allows us to use a small number of LFBs to express the
higher-order FE functions (such as an IPv4 forwarder) precisely,
which in turn can describe more complex networking functions and
vendor implementations of software and hardware. Section 6
provides a list of useful LFBs with such granularity.
An LFB has one or more inputs, each of which takes a packet P, and
optionally metadata M; and produces one or more outputs, each of
which carries a packet P', and optionally metadata M'. Metadata is
data associated with the packet in the network processing device
(router, switch, etc.) and is passed from one LFB to the next, but
is not sent across the network. In general, multiple LFBs are
contained in one FE, as shown in Figure 2, and all the LFBs share
the same ForCES protocol termination point that implements the
ForCES protocol logic and maintains the communication channel to
and from the CE.
Yang, et al. Expires January 2005 [Page 11]
Internet Draft ForCES FE Model July 2004
+-----------+
| CE |
+-----------+
^
| Fp reference point
|
+--------------------------|-----------------------------------+
| FE | |
| v |
| +----------------------------------------------------------+ |
| | ForCES protocol | |
| | termination point | |
| +----------------------------------------------------------+ |
| ^ ^ |
| : : Internal control |
| : : |
| +---:----------+ +---:----------| |
| | :LFB1 | | : LFB2 | |
| =====>| v |============>| v |======>...|
| Inputs| +----------+ |Outputs | +----------+ | |
| (P,M) | |Attributes| |(P',M') | |Attributes| |(P",M") |
| | +----------+ | | +----------+ | |
| +--------------+ +--------------+ |
| |
+--------------------------------------------------------------+
Figure 2. Generic LFB Diagram
An LFB, as shown in Figure 2, has inputs, outputs and attributes
that can be queried and manipulated by the CE indirectly via an Fp
reference point (defined in [2]) and the ForCES protocol
termination point. The horizontal axis is in the forwarding plane
for connecting the inputs and outputs of LFBs within the same FE.
The vertical axis between the CE and the FE denotes the Fp
reference point where bidirectional communication between the CE
and FE occurs: the CE to FE communication is for configuration,
control and packet injection while FE to CE communication is used
for packet re-direction to the control plane, monitoring and
accounting information, errors, etc. Note that the interaction
between the CE and the LFB is only abstract and indirect. The
result of such an interaction is for the CE to indirectly
manipulate the attributes of the LFB instances.
A namespace is used to associate a unique name or ID with each LFB
class. The namespace must be extensible so that a new LFB class
Yang, et al. Expires January 2005 [Page 12]
Internet Draft ForCES FE Model July 2004
can also be added later to accommodate future innovation in the
forwarding plane.
LFB operation must be specified in the model to allow the CE to
understand the behavior of the forwarding datapath. For instance,
the CE must understand at what point in the datapath the IPv4
header TTL is decremented (i.e., it needs to know if a control
packet could be delivered to the CE either before or after this
point in the datapath). In addition, the CE must understand where
and what type of header modifications (e.g., tunnel header append
or strip) are performed by the FEs. Further, the CE must verify
that the various LFBs along a datapath within an FE are compatible
to link together.
There is value to vendors if the operation of LFB classes can be
expressed in sufficient detail so that physical devices
implementing different LFB functions can be integrated easily into
an FE design. Therefore, a semi-formal specification is needed;
that is, a text description of the LFB operation (human readable),
but sufficiently specific and unambiguous to allow conformance
testing and efficient design (i.e., eliminate guess-work), so that
interoperability between different CEs and FEs can be achieved.
The LFB class model specifies information such as:
. number of inputs and outputs (and whether they are
configurable)
. metadata read/consumed from inputs;
. metadata produced at the outputs;
. packet type(s) accepted at the inputs and emitted at the
outputs;
. packet content modifications (including encapsulation or
decapsulation);
. packet routing criteria (when multiple outputs on an LFB are
present);
. packet timing modifications;
. packet flow ordering modifications;
. LFB capability information;
. LFB operational attributes, etc.
Section 4 of this document provides a detailed discussion of the
LFB model with a formal specification of LFB class schema. The
rest of Section 3.2 only intends to provide a conceptual overview
of some important issues in LFB modeling, without covering all the
specific details.
3.2.1. LFB Outputs
Yang, et al. Expires January 2005 [Page 13]
Internet Draft ForCES FE Model July 2004
An LFB output is a conceptual port on an LFB that can send
information to another LFB. The information is typically a packet
and its associated metadata, although in some cases it might
consist of only metadata, i.e., with no packet data.
A single LFB output can be connected to only one LFB input. This
is required to make the packet flow through the LFB topology
unambiguously.
Some LFBs will have a single output, as depicted in Figure 3.a.
+---------------+ +-----------------+
| | | |
| | | OUT +-->
... OUT +--> ... |
| | | EXCEPTIONOUT +-->
| | | |
+---------------+ +-----------------+
a. One output b. Two distinct outputs
+---------------+ +-----------------+
| | | EXCEPTIONOUT +-->
| OUT:1 +--> | |
... OUT:2 +--> ... OUT:1 +-->
| ... +... | OUT:2 +-->
| OUT:n +--> | ... +...
+---------------+ | OUT:n +-->
+-----------------+
c. One output group d. One output and one output group
Figure 3. Examples of LFBs with various output combinations.
To accommodate a non-trivial LFB topology, multiple LFB outputs are
needed so that an LFB class can fork the datapath. Two mechanisms
are provided for forking: multiple singleton outputs and output
groups (the two concepts can be also combined in the same LFB
class).
Multiple separate singleton outputs are defined in an LFB class to
model a pre-determined number of semantically different outputs.
That is, the number of outputs is known when the LFB class is
defined. Additional singleton outputs cannot be created at LFB
instantiation time, nor can they be created on the fly after the
LFB is instantiated.
Yang, et al. Expires January 2005 [Page 14]
Internet Draft ForCES FE Model July 2004
For example, an IPv4 LPM (Longest-Prefix-Matching) LFB may have one
output(OUT) to send those packets for which the LPM look-up was
successful (passing a META_ROUTEID as metadata); and have another
output (EXCEPTIONOUT) for sending exception packets when the LPM
look-up failed. This example is depicted in Figure 3.b. Packets
emitted by these two outputs not only require different downstream
treatment, but they are a result of two different conditions in the
LFB, plus they also carry different metadata. This concept assumes
that the number of distinct outputs is known when the LFB class is
defined. For each singleton output, the LFB class definition
defines what types of frames and metadata the output emits.
An output group, on the other hand, is used to model the case where
a flow of seemingly similar packets with an identical set of
metadata needs to be split into multiple paths, and where the
number of such paths is not known when the LFB class is defined
(i.e., because it is not an inherent property of the LFB class).
An output group consists of a number of outputs (called the output
instances of the group), all sharing the same frame and metadata
emission definitions (see Figure 3.c). Each output instance can
connect to a different downstream LFB, just as if they were
separate singleton outputs. But the number of output instances can
be different between one instance of the LFB class and another.
The class definition may include a lower and/or an upper limit on
the number of output instances. In addition, for configurable FEs,
the FE capability information may include further limits on the
number of instances in specific output groups for certain LFBs.
The actual number of output instances in a group is an attribute of
the LFB instance, which is read-only for static topologies, and
read-write for dynamic topologies. The output instances in a group
are numbered sequentially, from 0 to N-1, and are addressable from
within the LFB. The LFB has a built-in mechanism to select one
specific output instance for each packet. This mechanism is
described in the textual definition of the class and is typically
configurable via some attributes of the LFB.
For example, consider a re-director LFB, whose sole purpose is to
direct packets to one of N downstream paths based on one of the
metadata associated with each arriving packet. Such an LFB is
fairly versatile and can be used in many different places in a
topology. For example, a redirector can be used to divide the data
path into an IPv4 and an IPv6 path based on a FRAMETYPE metadata
(N=2), or to fork into color specific paths after metering using
the COLOR metadata (red, yellow, green; N=3), etc.
Using an output group in the above LFB class provides the desired
flexibility to adapt each instance of this class to the required
Yang, et al. Expires January 2005 [Page 15]
Internet Draft ForCES FE Model July 2004
operation. The metadata to be used as a selector for the output
instance is a property of the LFB. For each packet, the value of
the specified metadata may be used as a direct index to the output
instance. Alternatively, the LFB may have a configurable selector
table that maps a metadata value to output instance.
Note that other LFBs may also use the output group concept to build
in similar adaptive forking capability. For example, a classifier
LFB with one input and N outputs can be defined easily by using the
output group concept. Alternatively, a classifier LFB with one
singleton output in combination with an explicit N-output re-
director LFB models the same processing behavior. The decision of
whether to use the output group model for a certain LFB class is
left to the LFB class designers.
The model allows the output group be combined with other singleton
output(s) in the same class, as demonstrated in Figure 3.d. The
LFB here has two types of outputs, OUT, for normal packet output,
and EXCEPTIONOUT for packets that triggered some exception. The
normal OUT has multiple instances, i.e., it is an output group.
In summary, the LFB class may define one output, multiple singleton
outputs, one or more output groups, or a combination of the latter
two. Multiple singleton outputs should be used when the LFB must
provide for forking the datapath, and at least one of the following
conditions hold:
- the number of downstream directions are inherent from the
definition of the class (and hence fixed);
- the frame type and set of metadata emitted on any of the outputs
are substantially different from what is emitted on the other
outputs (i.e., they cannot share frame-type and metadata
definitions);
An output group is appropriate when the LFB must provide for
forking the datapath, and at least one of the following conditions
hold:
- the number of downstream directions is not known when the LFB
class is defined;
- the frame type and set of metadata emitted on these outputs are
sufficiently similar or ideally identical, such they can share the
same output definition.
3.2.2. LFB Inputs
An LFB input is a conceptual port on an LFB where the LFB can
receive information from other LFBs. The information is typically
Yang, et al. Expires January 2005 [Page 16]
Internet Draft ForCES FE Model July 2004
a packet and associated metadata, although in some cases it might
consist of only metadata, i.e., with no packet data.
For LFB instances that receive packets from more than one other LFB
instance (fan-in), there are three ways to model fan-in, all
supported by the LFB model:
- Implicit multiplexing via a single input
- Explicit multiplexing via multiple singleton inputs
- Explicit multiplexing via a group of inputs (input group)
The above modes can be combined in the same LFB.
The simplest form of multiplexing uses a singleton input (Figure
4.a). Most LFBs will have only one singleton input. Multiplexing
into a single input is possible because the model allows for more
than one LFB output to connect to the same input of an LFB. This
property applies to any LFB input without any special provisions in
the LFB class. Multiplexing into a single input is applicable when
the packets from the upstream LFBs are similar (in frame-type and
accompanying metadata) and require similar processing. Note that
this model does not address how potential contention is handled
when multiple packets arrive simultaneously. If this needs to be
explicitly modeled, one of the other two modeling solutions must be
used.
The second method to model fan-in uses individually defined
singleton inputs (Figure 4.b). This model is meant for situations
where the LFB needs to handle distinct types of packet streams,
requiring input-specific handling inside the LFB, and where the
number of such distinct cases is known when the LFB class is
defined. For example, a Layer 2 Decapsulation/Encapsulation LFB
may have two inputs, one for receiving Layer 2 frames for
decapsulation, and one for receiving Layer 3 frames for
encapsulation. This LFB type expects different frames (L2 vs. L3)
at its inputs, each with different sets of metadata, and would thus
apply different processing on frames arriving at these inputs.
This model is capable of explicitly addressing packet contention,
i.e., by defining how the LFB class handles the contending packets.
Yang, et al. Expires January 2005 [Page 17]
Internet Draft ForCES FE Model July 2004
+--------------+ +------------------------+
| LFB X +---+ | |
+--------------+ | | |
| | |
+--------------+ v | |
| LFB Y +---+-->|input Meter LFB |
+--------------+ ^ | |
| | |
+--------------+ | | |
| LFB Z |---+ | |
+--------------+ +------------------------+
(a) An LFB connects with multiple upstream LFBs via a single input.
+--------------+ +------------------------+
| LFB X +---+ | |
+--------------+ +-->|layer2 |
+--------------+ | |
| LFB Y +------>|layer3 LFB |
+--------------+ +------------------------+
(b) An LFB connects with multiple upstream LFBs via two separate
singleton inputs.
+--------------+ +------------------------+
| Queue LFB #1 +---+ | |
+--------------+ | | |
| | |
+--------------+ +-->|in:0 \ |
| Queue LFB #2 +------>|in:1 | input group |
+--------------+ |... | |
+-->|in:N-1 / |
... | | |
+--------------+ | | |
| Queue LFB #N |---+ | Scheduler LFB |
+--------------+ +------------------------+
(c) A Scheduler LFB uses an input group to differentiate which
queue LFB packets are coming from.
Figure 3. Input modeling concepts (examples).
The third method to model fan-in uses the concept of an input
group. The concept is similar to the output group introduced in
the previous section, and is depicted in Figure 4.c. An input
Yang, et al. Expires January 2005 [Page 18]
Internet Draft ForCES FE Model July 2004
group consists of a number of input instances, all sharing the
properties (same frame and metadata expectations). The input
instances are numbered from 0 to N-1. From the outside, these
inputs appear as normal inputs, i.e., any compatible upstream LFB
can connect its output to one of these inputs. When a packet is
presented to the LFB at a particular input instance, the index of
the input where the packet arrived is known to the LFB and this
information may be used in the internal processing. For example,
the input index can be used as a table selector, or as an explicit
precedence selector to resolve contention. As with output groups,
the number of input instances in an input group is not defined in
the LFB class. However, the class definition may include
restrictions on the range of possible values. In addition, if an
FE supports configurable topologies, it may impose further
limitations on the number of instances for a particular port
group(s) of a particular LFB class. Within these limitations,
different instances of the same class may have a different number
of input instances. The number of actual input instances in the
group is an attribute of the LFB class, which is read-only for
static topologies, and is read-write for configurable topologies.
As an example for the input group, consider the Scheduler LFB
depicted in Figure 3.c. Such an LFB receives packets from a number
of Queue LFBs via a number of input instances, and uses the input
index information to control contention resolution and scheduling.
In summary, the LFB class may define one input, multiple singleton
inputs, one or more input groups, or a combination thereof. Any
input allows for implicit multiplexing of similar packet streams
via connecting multiple outputs to the same input. Explicit
multiple singleton inputs are useful when either the contention
handling must be handled explicitly, or when the LFB class must
receive and process a known number of distinct types of packet
streams. An input group is suitable when the contention handling
must be modeled explicitly, but the number of inputs are not
inherent from the class (and hence not known when the class is
defined), or when it is critical for LFB operation to know exactly
on which input the packet was received.
3.2.3. Packet Type
When LFB classes are defined, the input and output packet formats
(e.g., IPv4, IPv6, Ethernet, etc.) must be specified: these are the
types of packets a given LFB input is capable of receiving and
processing, or a given LFB output is capable of producing. This
requires that distinct packet types be uniquely labeled with a
symbolic name and/or ID.
Yang, et al. Expires January 2005 [Page 19]
Internet Draft ForCES FE Model July 2004
Note that each LFB has a set of packet types that it operates on,
but does not care about whether the underlying implementation is
passing a greater portion of the packets. For example, an IPv4 LFB
might only operate on IPv4 packets, but the underlying
implementation may or may not be stripping the L2 header before
handing it over -- whether that is happening or not is opaque to
the CE.
3.2.4. Metadata
Metadata is the per-packet state that is passed from one LFB to
another. The metadata is passed with the packet to assist
subsequent LFBs to process that packet. The ForCES model captures
how the per-packet state information is propagated from one LFB to
other LFBs. Practically, such metadata propagation can happen
within one FE, or cross the FE boundary between two interconnected
FEs. We believe that the same metadata model can be used for both
situations, however, our focus here is for intra-FE metadata.
3.2.4.1. Metadata Vocabulary
Metadata has historically been understood to mean "data about
data". While this definition is a start, it is inadequate to
describe the multiple forms of metadata, which may appear within a
complex network element. Our discussion here categorizes forms of
metadata by two orthogonal axes.
The first axis is "internal" versus "external", which describes
where the metadata exists in the network model or implementation.
For example, a particular vendor implementation of an IPv4
forwarder may make decisions inside of a chip that are not visible
externally. Those decisions are metadata for the packet that is
"internal" to the chip. When a packet is forwarded out of the
chip, it may be marked with a traffic management header. That
header, which is metadata for the packet, is visible outside of the
chip, and is therefore called "external" metadata.
The second axis is "implicit" versus "explicit", which describes
whether or not the metadata has a visible physical representation.
For example, the traffic management header described in the
previous paragraph may be represented as a series of bits in some
format, and that header is associated with the packet. Those bits
have physical representation, and are therefore "explicit"
metadata. In situations where the metadata is not physically
represented, it is called "implicit" metadata. This situation
occurs, for example, when a particular path through a network
Yang, et al. Expires January 2005 [Page 20]
Internet Draft ForCES FE Model July 2004
device is intended to be traversed only by particular kinds of
packets, such as an IPv4 router. An implementation may not mark
every packet along this path as being of type "IPv4", but the
intention of the designers is that every packet is of that type.
This understanding can be thought of as metadata about the packet,
which is implicitly attached to the packet through the intent of
the designers.
In the ForCES model, we do NOT discuss or represent metadata
"internal" to vendor implementations of LFBs. Our focus is solely
on metadata "external" to the LFBs, and therefore visible in the
ForCES model. The metadata discussed within this model may, or may
not, be visible outside of the particular FE implementing the LFB
model. In this regard, the scope of the metadata within ForCES is
very narrowly defined.
Note also that while we define metadata within this model, it is
only a model. There is no requirement that vendor implementations
of ForCES use the exact metadata representations described in this
document. The only implementation requirement is that vendors
implement the ForCES protocol, not the model.
3.2.4.2. Metadata lifecycle within the ForCES model
Each metadata can be conveniently modeled as a <label, value> pair,
where the label identifies the type of information, (e.g.,
"color"), and its value holds the actual information (e.g., "red").
The tag here is shown as a textual label, but it can be replaced or
associated with a unique numeric value (identifier).
The metadata life-cycle is defined in this model using three types
of events: "write", "read" and "consume". The first "write"
initializes the value of the metadata (implicitly creating and/or
initializing the metadata), and hence starts the life-cycle. The
explicit "consume" event terminates the life-cycle. Within the
life-cycle, that is, after a "write" event, but before the next
"consume" event, there can be an arbitrary number of "write" and
"read" events. These "read" and "write" events can be mixed in an
arbitrary order within the life-cycle. Outside of the life-cycle
of the metadata, that is, before the first "write" event, or
between a "consume" event and the next "write" event, the metadata
should be regarded non-existent or non-initialized. Thus, reading
a metadata outside of its life-cycle is considered an error.
To ensure inter-operability between LFBs, the LFB class
specification must define what metadata the LFB class "reads" or
"consumes" on its input(s) and what metadata it "produces" on its
Yang, et al. Expires January 2005 [Page 21]
Internet Draft ForCES FE Model July 2004
output(s). For maximum extensibility, this definition should
neither specify which LFBs the metadata is expected to come from
for a consumer LFB, nor which LFBs are expected to consume metadata
for a given producer LFB.
While it is important to define the metadata types passing between
LFBs, it is not appropriate to define the exact encoding mechanism
used by LFBs for that metadata. Different implementations are
allowed to use different encoding mechanisms for metadata. For
example, one implementation may store metadata in registers or
shared memory, while another implementation may encode metadata in-
band as a preamble in the packets.
At any link between two LFBs, the packet is marked with a finite
set of active metadata, where active means the metadata is within
its life-cycle. (i.e., the metadata has been properly initialized
and has not been consumed yet.) There are two corollaries of this
model:
1. No uninitialized metadata exists in the model.
2. No more than one occurrence of each metadata tag can be
associated with a packet at any given time.
3.2.4.3. LFB Operations on Metadata
When the packet is processed by an LFB (i.e., between the time it
is received and forwarded by the LFB), the LFB may perform read,
write and/or consume operations on any active metadata associated
with the packet. If the LFB is considered to be a black box, one
of the following operations is performed on each active metadata.
- IGNORE: ignores and forwards the metadata
- READ: reads and forwards the metadata
- READ/RE-WRITE: reads, over-writes and forwards the metadata
- WRITE: writes and forwards the metadata
(can also be used to create new metadata)
- READ-AND-CONSUME: reads and consumes the metadata
- CONSUME consumes metadata without reading
The last two operations terminate the life-cycle of the metadata,
meaning that the metadata is not forwarded with the packet when the
packet is sent to the next LFB.
In our model, a new metadata is generated by an LFB when the LFB
applies a WRITE operation into a metadata type that was not present
Yang, et al. Expires January 2005 [Page 22]
Internet Draft ForCES FE Model July 2004
when the packet was received by the LFB. Such implicit creation
may be unintentional by the LFB, that is, the LFB may apply the
WRITE operation without knowing or caring if the given metadata
existed or not. If it existed, the metadata gets over-written; if
it did not exist, the metadata is created.
For source-type LFBs (i.e., an LFB that inserts packets into the
model), WRITE is the only meaningful metadata operation.
Sink-type LFBs (i.e., an LFB that removes the packet from the
model), may either READ-AND-CONSUME (read) or CONSUME (ignore) each
active metadata associated with the packet.
3.2.4.4. Metadata Production and Consumption
For a given metadata on a given packet path, there must be at least
one producer LFB that creates that metadata and should be at least
one consumer LFB that needs the metadata. In this model, the
producer and consumer LFBs of a metadata are not required to be
adjacent. There may be multiple consumers for the same metadata
and there may be multiple producers of the same metadata. When a
packet path involves multiple producers of the same metadata, then
subsequent producers overwrite that metadata value.
The metadata that is produced by an LFB is specified by the LFB
class definition on a per output port group basis. A producer may
always generate the metadata on the port group, or may generate it
only under certain conditions. We call the former an
"unconditional" metadata, whereas the latter is a "conditional"
metadata. In the case of conditional metadata, it should be
possible to determine from the definition of the LFB when a
"conditional" metadata is produced.
The consumer behavior of an LFB, that is, the metadata that the LFB
needs for its operation, is defined in the LFB class definition on
a per input port group basis. An input port group may "require" a
given metadata, or may treat it as "optional" information. In the
latter case, the LFB class definition must explicitly define what
happens if an optional metadata is not provided. One approach is
to specify a default value for each optional metadata, and assume
that the default value is used if the metadata is not provided with
the packet.
When a consumer requires a given metadata, it has dependencies on
its up-stream LFBs. That is, the consumer LFB can only function if
there is at least one producer of that metadata and no intermediate
LFB consumes the metadata.
Yang, et al. Expires January 2005 [Page 23]
Internet Draft ForCES FE Model July 2004
The model should expose this inter-dependency. Furthermore, it
should be possible to take this inter-dependency into consideration
when constructing LFB topologies, and also that the dependency can
be verified when validating topologies.
For extensibility reasons, the LFB specification should define what
metadata the LFB requires without specifying which LFB(s) it
expects a certain metadata to come from. Similarly, LFBs should
specify what metadata they produce without specifying which LFBs
the metadata is meant for.
When specifying the metadata tags, some harmonization effort must
be made so that the producer LFB class uses the same tag as its
intended consumer(s), or vice versa.
3.2.4.5. Fixed, Variable and Configurable Tag
When the produced metadata is defined for a given LFB class, most
metadata will be specified with a fixed tag. For example, a Rate
Meter LFB will always produce the "Color" metadata.
A small subset of LFBs need to have the capability to produce one
or more of their metadata with tags that are not fixed in the LFB
class definition, but instead can be selected per LFB instance. An
example of such an LFB class is a Generic Classifier LFB. We call
this variable tag metadata production. If an LFB produces metadata
with a variable tag, a corresponding LFB attribute--called the tag
selector--specifies the tag for each such metadata. This mechanism
is to improve the versatility of certain multi-purpose LFB classes,
since it allows the same LFB class be used in different topologies,
producing the right metadata tags according to the needs of the
topology.
Depending on the capability of the FE, the tag selector can be a
read-only or a read-write attribute. In the former case, the tag
cannot be modified by the CE. In the latter case the tag can be
configured by the CE, hence we call this "configurable tag metadata
production." (Note that in this definition configurable tag
metadata production is a subset of variable tag metadata
production.)
Similar concepts can be introduced for the consumer LFBs to satisfy
the different metadata needs. Most LFB classes will specify their
metadata needs using fixed metadata tags. For example, a Next Hop
LFB may always require a "NextHopId" metadata; but the Redirector
Yang, et al. Expires January 2005 [Page 24]
Internet Draft ForCES FE Model July 2004
LFB may need to use a "ClassID" metadata in one instance, and a
"ProtocolType" metadata in another instance as a basis for
selecting the right output port. In this case, an LFB attribute is
used to provide the required metadata tag at run-time. This
metadata tag selector attribute may be read-only or read-write,
depending on the capabilities of the LFB instance and the FE.
3.2.4.6. Metadata Usage Categories
Depending on the role and usage of a metadata, various amount of
encoding information must be provided when the metadata is defined,
and some cases offer less flexibility in the value selection than
others.
There are three types of metadata related to metadata usage:
- Relational (or binding) metadata
- Enumerated metadata
- Explicit/external value metadata
The purpose of the relational metadata is to refer in one LFB
instance (producer LFB) to a "thing" in another downstream LFB
instance (consumer LFB), where the "thing" is typically an entry in
a table attribute of the consumer LFB.
For example, the Prefix Lookup LFB executes an LPM search using its
prefix table and resolves to a next-hop reference. This reference
needs to be passed as metadata by the Prefix Lookup LFB (producer)
to the Next Hop LFB (consumer), and must refer to a specific entry
in the next-hop table within the consumer.
Expressing and propagating such a binding relationship is probably
the most common usage of metadata. One or more objects in the
producer LFB are related (bound) to a specific object in the
consumer LFB. Such a relationship is established by the CE very
explicitly, i.e., by properly configuring the attributes in both
LFBs. Available methods include the following:
The binding may be expressed by tagging the involved objects in
both LFBs with the same unique (but otherwise arbitrary)
identifier. The value of the tag is explicitly configured (written
by the CE) into both LFBs, and this value is also carried by the
metadata between the LFBs.
Another way of setting up binding relations is to use a naturally
occurring unique identifier of the consumer's object (for example,
the array index of a table entry) as a reference (and as a value of
the metadata). In this case, the index is either read or inferred
Yang, et al. Expires January 2005 [Page 25]
Internet Draft ForCES FE Model July 2004
by the CE by communicating with the consumer LFB. Once the CE
obtains the index, it needs to write it into the producer LFB to
establish the binding.
Important characteristics of the binding usage of metadata are:
- The value of the metadata shows up in the CE-FE communication for
BOTH the consumer and the producer. That is, the metadata value
must be carried over the ForCES protocol. Using the tagging
technique, the value is WRITTEN to both LFBs. Using the other
technique, the value is WRITTEN to only the producer LFB and may be
READ from the consumer LFB.
- The metadata value is irrelevant to the CE, the binding is simply
expressed by using the SAME value at the consumer and producer
LFBs.
- Hence the definition of the metadata is not required to include
value assignments. The only exception is when some special
value(s) of the metadata must be reserved to convey special events.
Even though these special cases must be defined with the metadata
specification, their encoded values can be selected arbitrarily.
For example, for the Prefix Lookup LFB example, a special value may
be reserved to signal the NO-MATCH case, and the value of zero may
be assigned for this purpose.
The second class of metadata is the enumerated type. An example is
the "Color" metadata that is produced by a Meter LFB. As the name
suggests, enumerated metadata has a relatively small number of
possible values, each with a very specific meaning. All of the
possible cases must be enumerated when defining this class of
metadata. Although a value encoding must be included in the
specification, the actual values can be selected arbitrarily (e.g.,
<Red=0, Yellow=1, Green=2> and <Red=3, Yellow=2, Green 1> would be
both valid encodings, what is important is that an encoding is
specified).
The value of the enumerated metadata may or may not be conveyed via
the ForCES protocol between the CE and FE.
The third class of metadata is the explicit type. This refers to
cases where the value of the metadata is explicitly used by the
consumer LFB to change some packet header fields. In other words,
its value has a direct and explicit impact on some field and will
be visible externally when the packet leaves the NE. Examples are:
TTL increment given to a Header Modifier LFB, and DSCP value for a
Remarker LFB. For explicit metadata, the value encoding must be
Yang, et al. Expires January 2005 [Page 26]
Internet Draft ForCES FE Model July 2004
explicitly provided in the metadata definition, the values cannot
be selected arbitrarily, but rather they should conform to what is
commonly expected. For example, a TTL increment metadata should be
encoded as zero for the no increment case, one for the single
increment case, etc. A DSCP metadata should use 0 to encode
DSCP=0, 1 to encode DSCP=1, etc.
3.2.5. LFB Versioning
LFB class versioning is a method to enable incremental evolution of
LFB classes. In general, an FE is not allowed to contain an LFB
instance for more than one version of a particular class.
Inheritance (discussed next in Section 3.2.6) has special rules. If
an FE datapath model containing an LFB instance of a particular
class C also simultaneously contains an LFB instance of a class C'
inherited from class C; C could have a different version than C'.
LFB class versioning is supported by requiring a version string in
the class definition. CEs may support backwards compatibility
between multiple versions of a particular LFB class, but FEs are
not allowed to support more than one single version of a particular
class.
3.2.6. LFB Inheritance
LFB class inheritance is supported in the FE model as a method to
define new LFB classes. This also allows FE vendors to add vendor-
specific extensions to standardized LFBs. An LFB class
specification MUST specify the base class (with version number) it
inherits from (with the default being the base LFB class).
Multiple-inheritance is not allowed, though, to avoid the
unnecessary complexity.
Inheritance should be used only when there is significant reuse of
the base LFB class definition. A separate LFB class should be
defined if little or no reuse is possible between the derived and
the base LFB class.
An interesting issue related to class inheritance is backward
compatibility (between a descendant and an ancestor class).
Consider the following hypothetical scenario where a standardized
LFB class "L1" exists. Vendor A builds an FE that implements LFB
"L1" and vendor B builds a CE that can recognize and operate on LFB
"L1". Suppose that a new LFB class, "L2", is defined based on the
existing "L1" class (for example, by extending its capabilities in
some incremental way). Lets first examine the FE backward
compatibility issue by considering what would happen if vendor B
Yang, et al. Expires January 2005 [Page 27]
Internet Draft ForCES FE Model July 2004
upgrades its FE from "L1" to "L2" while vendor C's CE is not
changed. The old L1-based CE can interoperate with the new L2-
based FE if the derived LFB class "L2" is indeed backward
compatible with the base class "L1".
The reverse scenario is a much less problematic case, i.e., when CE
vendor B upgrades to the new LFB class "L2", but the FE is not
upgraded. Note that as long as the CE is capable of working with
older LFB classes, this problem does not affect the model; hence we
will use the term "backward compatibility" to refer to the first
scenario concerning FE backward compatibility.
Backward compatibility can be designed into the inheritance model
by constraining LFB inheritance to require the derived class be a
functional superset of the base class (i.e. the derived class can
only add functions to the base class, but not remove functions).
Additionally, the following mechanisms are required to support FE
backward compatibility:
1) When detecting an LFB instance of an LFB type that is
unknown to the CE, the CE MUST be able to query the base
class of such an LFB from the FE.
2) The LFB instance on the FE SHOULD support a backward
compatibility mode (meaning the LFB instance reverts itself
back to the base class instance), and the CE SHOULD be able
to configure the LFB to run in such a mode.
3.3. FE Datapath Modeling
Packets coming into the FE from ingress ports generally flow
through multiple LFBs before leaving out of the egress ports. How
an FE treats a packet depends on many factors, such as type of the
packet (e.g., IPv4, IPv6 or MPLS), actual header values, time of
arrival, etc. The result of the operation of an LFB may have an
impact on how the packet is to be treated in further (downstream)
LFBs and this differentiation of packet treatment downstream can be
conceptualized as having alternative datapaths in the FE. For
example, the result of a 6-tuple classification (performed by a
classifier LFB) could control which rate meter is applied to the
packet (by a rate meter LFB) in a later stage in the datapath.
LFB topology is a directed graph representation of the logical
datapaths within an FE, with the nodes representing the LFB
instances and the directed link the packet flow direction from one
LFB to the next. Section 3.3.1 discusses how the FE datapaths can
be modeled as LFB topology; while Section 3.3.2 focuses on issues
around LFB topology reconfiguration.
Yang, et al. Expires January 2005 [Page 28]
Internet Draft ForCES FE Model July 2004
3.3.1. Alternative Approaches for Modeling FE Datapaths
There are two basic ways to express the differentiation in packet
treatment within an FE, one represents the datapath directly and
graphically (topological approach) and the other utilizes metadata
(the encoded state approach).
. Topological Approach
Using this approach, differential packet treatment is expressed
by splitting the LFB topology into alternative paths. In other
words, if the result of an LFB must control how the packet is
further processed, then such an LFB will have separate output
ports (one for each alternative treatment) connected to separate
sub-graphs (each expressing the respective treatment
downstream).
. Encoded State Approach
An alternative way of expressing differential treatment is using
metadata. The result of the operation of an LFB can be encoded
in a metadata, which is passed along with the packet to
downstream LFBs. A downstream LFB, in turn, can use the
metadata (and its value, e.g., as an index into some table) to
decide how to treat the packet.
Theoretically, the two approaches can substitute for each other, so
one could consider using a single pure approach to describe all
datapaths in an FE. However, neither model by itself is very
useful for all practically relevant cases. For a given FE with
certain logical datapaths, applying the two different modeling
approaches result in very different looking LFB topology graphs. A
model using only the topological approach may require a very large
graph with many links (i.e., paths) and nodes (i.e., LFB instances)
to express all alternative datapaths. On the other hand, a model
using only the encoded state model would be restricted to a string
of LFBs, which makes it unintuitive to describe different datapaths
(such as MPLS and IPv4). Therefore, a mix of these two approaches
will likely be used for a practical model. In fact, as we
illustrate below, the two approaches can be mixed even within the
same LFB.
Using a simple example of a classifier with N classification
outputs followed by other LFBs, Figure 5(a) shows what the LFB
topology looks like by using the pure topological approach. Each
output from the classifier goes to one of the N LFBs where no
metadata is needed. The topological approach is simple,
Yang, et al. Expires January 2005 [Page 29]
Internet Draft ForCES FE Model July 2004
straightforward and graphically intuitive. However, if N is large
and N nodes following the classifier (LFB#1, LFB#2, ..., LFB#N) all
belong to the same LFB type (for example, meter), but each has its
own independent attributes, the encoded state approach gives a much
simpler topology representation, as shown in Figure 5(b). The
encoded state approach requires that a table of N rows of meter
attributes is provided in the Meter node itself, with each row
representing the attributes for one meter instance. A metadata M
is also needed to pass along with the packet P from the classifier
to the meter, so that the meter can use M as a look-up key (index)
to find the corresponding row of the attributes that should be used
for any particular packet P.
Now what if all the N nodes (LFB#1, LFB#2, ..., LFB#N) are not of
the same type? For example, if LFB#1 is a queue while the rest are
all meters, what is the best way to represent such datapaths?
While it is still possible to use either the pure topological
approach or the pure encoded state approach, the natural
combination of the two appears to be the best option. Figure 5(c)
depicts two different functional datapaths using the topological
approach while leaving the N-1 meter instances distinguished by
metadata only, as shown in Figure 5(c).
+----------+
P | LFB#1 |
+--------->|(Attrib-1)|
+-------------+ | +----------+
| 1|------+ P +----------+
| 2|---------------->| LFB#2 |
| classifier 3| |(Attrib-2)|
| ...|... +----------+
| N|------+ ...
+-------------+ | P +----------+
+--------->| LFB#N |
|(Attrib-N)|
+----------+
5(a) Using pure topological approach
+-------------+ +-------------+
| 1| | Meter |
| 2| (P, M) | (Attrib-1) |
| 3|---------------->| (Attrib-2) |
| ...| | ... |
| N| | (Attrib-N) |
+-------------+ +-------------+
Yang, et al. Expires January 2005 [Page 30]
Internet Draft ForCES FE Model July 2004
5(b) Using pure encoded state approach to represent the LFB
topology in 5(a), if LFB#1, LFB#2, ..., and LFB#N are of the
same type (e.g., meter).
+-------------+
+-------------+ (P, M) | queue |
| 1|------------->| (Attrib-1) |
| 2| +-------------+
| 3| (P, M) +-------------+
| ...|------------->| Meter |
| N| | (Attrib-2) |
+-------------+ | ... |
| (Attrib-N) |
+-------------+
5(c) Using a combination of the two, if LFB#1, LFB#2, ..., and
LFB#N are of different types (e.g., queue and meter).
Figure 5. An example of how to model FE datapaths
From this example, we demonstrate that each approach has distinct
advantages depending on the situation. Using the encoded state
approach, fewer connections are typically needed between a fan-out
node and its next LFB instances of the same type, because each
packet carries metadata the following nodes can interpret and hence
invoke a different packet treatment. For those cases, a pure
topological approach forces one to build elaborate graphs with many
more connections and often results in an unwieldy graph. On the
other hand, a topological approach is intuitive and most useful for
representing functionally different datapaths.
For complex topologies, a combination of the two is the most useful
and flexible. A general design guideline is provided to indicate
which approach is best used for a particular situation. The
topological approach should primarily be used when the packet
datapath forks into areas with distinct LFB classes (not just
distinct parameterizations of the same LFB class), and when the
fan-outs do not require changes (adding/removing LFB outputs) or
require only very infrequent changes. Configuration information
that needs to change frequently should be expressed by the internal
attributes of one or more LFBs (and hence using the encoded state
approach).
Yang, et al. Expires January 2005 [Page 31]
Internet Draft ForCES FE Model July 2004
+---------------------------------------------+
| |
+----------+ V +----------+ +------+ |
| | | | |if IP-in-IP| | |
---->| ingress |->+----->|classifier|---------->|Decap.|---->---+
| ports | | |----+ | |
+----------+ +----------+ |others+------+
|
V
(a) The LFB topology with a logical loop
+-------+ +-----------+ +------+ +-----------+
| | | |if IP-in-IP | | | |
--->|ingress|-->|classifier1|----------->|Decap.|-->+classifier2|->
| ports | | |----+ | | | |
+-------+ +-----------+ |others +------+ +-----------+
|
V
(b) The LFB topology without the loop utilizing two
independent classifier instances.
Figure 6. An LFB topology example.
It is important to point out that the LFB topology described here
is the logical topology, not the physical topology (e.g. how the FE
hardware is actually laid out). Nevertheless, the actual
implementation may still influence how the functionality is mapped
to the LFB topology. Figure 6 shows one simple FE example. In
this example, an IP-in-IP packet from an IPSec application like VPN
may go to the classifier first and have the classification done
based on the outer IP header; upon being classified as an IP-in-IP
packet, the packet is then sent to a decapsulator to strip off the
outer IP header, followed by a classifier again to perform
classification on the inner IP header. If the same classifier
hardware or software is used for both outer and inner IP header
classification with the same set of filtering rules, a logical loop
is naturally present in the LFB topology, as shown in Figure 6(a).
However, if the classification is implemented by two different
pieces of hardware or software with different filters (i.e., one
set of filters for outer IP header while another set for inner IP
header), then it is more natural to model them as two different
instances of classifier LFB, as shown in Figure 6(b).
To distinguish multiple instances of the same LFB class, each LFB
instance has its own LFB instance ID. One way to encode the LFB
Yang, et al. Expires January 2005 [Page 32]
Internet Draft ForCES FE Model July 2004
instance ID is to encode it as x.y where x is the LFB class ID
while y is the instance ID within each LFB class.
3.3.2. Configuring the LFB Topology
While there is little doubt that the individual LFB must be
configurable, the configurability question is more complicated for
LFB topology. Since LFB topology is really the graphic
representation of the datapaths within an FE, configuring the LFB
topology means dynamically changing the datapaths, including
changes to the LFBs along the datapaths on an FE (e.g., creating,
instantiating or deleting LFBs), setting up or deleting
interconnections between outputs of upstream LFBs to inputs of
downstream LFBs.
Why would the datapaths on an FE ever change dynamically? The
datapaths on an FE is set up by the CE to provide certain data
plane services (e.g., DiffServ, VPN, etc.) to the Network Element's
(NE) customers. The purpose of reconfiguring the datapaths is to
enable the CE to customize the services the NE is delivering at run
time. The CE needs to change the datapaths when the service
requirements change (e.g., when adding a new customer, or when an
existing customer changes their service). However, note that not
all datapath changes result in changes in the LFB topology graph.
Changes in the graph are dependent on the approach used to map the
datapaths into LFB topology. As discussed in 3.3.1, the
topological approach and encoded state approach can result in very
different looking LFB topologies for the same datapaths. In
general, an LFB topology based on a pure topological approach is
likely to experience more frequent topology reconfiguration than
one based on an encoded state approach. However, even an LFB
topology based entirely on an encoded state approach may have to
change the topology at times, for example, to bypass some LFBs or
insert new LFBs. Since a mix of these two approaches is used to
model the datapaths, LFB topology reconfiguration is considered an
important aspect of the FE model.
We want to point out that allowing a configurable LFB topology in
the FE model does not mandate that all FEs must have this
capability. Even if an FE supports configurable LFB topology, it
is expected there will be FE-specific limitations on what can
actually be configured. Performance-optimized hardware
implementations may have zero or very limited configurability,
while FE implementations running on network processors may provide
more flexibility and configurability. It is entirely up to the FE
designers to decide whether or not the FE actually implements
reconfiguration and if so, how much. Whether it is a simple
Yang, et al. Expires January 2005 [Page 33]
Internet Draft ForCES FE Model July 2004
runtime switch to enable or disable (i.e., bypass) certain LFBs, or
more flexible software reconfiguration is all implementation detail
internal to the FE and outside of the scope of FE model. In either
case, the CE(s) must be able to learn the FE's configuration
capabilities. Therefore, the FE model must provide a mechanism for
describing the LFB topology configuration capabilities of an FE.
These capabilities may include (see Section 5 for full details):
. What LFB classes can the FE instantiate
. Maximum number of instance of the same LFB class that can be
created
. Any topological limitations, For example:
o The maximum number of instances of the same class or any
class that can be created on any given branch of the
graph
o Ordering restrictions on LFBs (e.g., any instance of LFB
class A must be always downstream of any instance of LFB
class B).
Note that even when the CE is allowed to configure LFB topology for
the FE, the CE is not expected to be able to interpret an arbitrary
LFB topology and determine which specific service or application
(e.g. VPN, DiffServ, etc.) is supported by the FE. However, once
the CE understands the coarse capability of an FE, it is the
responsibility of the CE to configure the LFB topology to implement
the network service the NE is supposed to provide. Thus, the
mapping the CE has to understand is from the high level NE service
to a specific LFB topology, not the other way around. The CE is not
expected to have the ultimate intelligence to translate any high
level service policy into the configuration data for the FEs.
However, it is conceivable that within a given network service
domain (such as DiffServ), a certain amount of intelligence can be
programmed into the CE to give the CE a general understanding of
the LFBs involved to allow the translation from a high level
service policy to the low level FE configuration to be done
automatically. Note that this is considered an implementation
issue internal to the control plane and outside the scope of the FE
model. Therefore, it is not discussed any further in this draft.
Yang, et al. Expires January 2005 [Page 34]
Internet Draft ForCES FE Model July 2004
+----------+ +-----------+
---->| Ingress |---->|classifier |--------------+
| | |chip | |
+----------+ +-----------+ |
v
+-------------------------------------------+
+--------+ | Network Processor |
<----| Egress | | +------+ +------+ +-------+ |
+--------+ | |Meter | |Marker| |Dropper| |
^ | +------+ +------+ +-------+ |
| | |
+----------+-------+ |
| | |
| +---------+ +---------+ +------+ +---------+ |
| |Forwarder|<------|Scheduler|<--|Queue | |Counter | |
| +---------+ +---------+ +------+ +---------+ |
|--------------------------------------------------------------+
(a) The Capability of the FE, reported to the CE
+-----+ +-------+ +---+
| A|--->|Queue1 |--------------------->| |
------>| | +-------+ | | +---+
| | | | | |
| | +-------+ +-------+ | | | |
| B|--->|Meter1 |----->|Queue2 |------>| |->| |
| | | | +-------+ | | | |
| | | |--+ | | | |
+-----+ +-------+ | +-------+ | | +---+
classifier +-->|Dropper| | | IPv4
+-------+ +---+ Fwd.
Scheduler
(b) One LFB topology as configured by the CE and
accepted by the FE
Yang, et al. Expires January 2005 [Page 35]
Internet Draft ForCES FE Model July 2004
Queue1
+---+ +--+
| A|------------------->| |--+
+->| | | | |
| | B|--+ +--+ +--+ +--+ |
| +---+ | | | | | |
| Meter1 +->| |-->| | |
| | | | | |
| +--+ +--+ | Ipv4
| Counter1 Dropper1 Queue2| +--+ Fwd.
+---+ | +--+ +--->|A | +-+
| A|---+ | |------>|B | | |
------>| B|------------------------------>| | +--->|C |->| |->
| C|---+ +--+ | +->|D | | |
| D|-+ | | | +--+ +-+
+---+ | | +---+ Queue3| | Scheduler
Classifier1 | | | A|------------> +--+ | |
| +->| | | |--+ |
| | B|--+ +--+ +-------->| | |
| +---+ | | | | +--+ |
| Meter2 +->| |-+ |
| | | |
| +--+ Queue4 |
| Marker1 +--+ |
+---------------------------->| |----+
| |
+--+
(c) Another LFB topology as configured by the CE and
accepted by the FE
Figure 7. An example of configuring LFB topology.
Figure 7 shows an example where a QoS-enabled router has several
line cards that have a few ingress ports and egress ports, a
specialized classification chip, a network processor containing
codes for FE blocks like meter, marker, dropper, counter, queue,
scheduler and Ipv4 forwarder. Some of the LFB topology is already
fixed and has to remain static due to the physical layout of the
line cards. For example, all the ingress ports might be hard-wired
into the classification chip and so all packets must flow from the
ingress port into the classification engine. On the other hand,
the LFBs on the network processor and their execution order are
programmable. However, certain capacity limits and linkage
constraints could exist between these LFBs. Examples of the
capacity limits might be: 8 meters; 16 queues in one FE; the
scheduler can handle at most up to 16 queues; etc. The linkage
constraints might dictate that the classification engine may be
Yang, et al. Expires January 2005 [Page 36]
Internet Draft ForCES FE Model July 2004
followed by a meter, marker, dropper, counter, queue or IPv4
forwarder, but not a scheduler; queues can only be followed by a
scheduler; a scheduler must be followed by the IPv4 forwarder; the
last LFB in the datapath before going into the egress ports must be
the IPv4 forwarder, etc.
Once the FE reports these capabilities and capacity limits to the
CE, it is now up to the CE to translate the QoS policy into a
desirable configuration for the FE. Figure 7(a) depicts the FE
capability while 7(b) and 7(c) depict two different topologies that
the FE might be asked to configure to. Note that both the ingress
and egress are omitted in (b) and (c) to simplify the
representation. The topology in 7(c) is considerably more complex
than 7(b) but both are feasible within the FE capabilities, and so
the FE should accept either configuration request from the CE.
4. Model and Schema for LFB Classes
The main goal of the FE model is to provide an abstract, generic,
modular, implementation-independent representation of the FEs.
This is facilitated using the concept of LFBs, which are
instantiated from LFB classes. LFB classes and associated
definitions will be provided in a collection of XML documents. The
collection of these XML documents is called a LFB class library,
and each document is called an LFB class library document (or
library document, for short). Each of the library documents will
conform to the schema presented in this section. The root element
of the library document is the <LFBLibrary> element.
It is not expected that library documents will be exchanged between
FEs and CEs "over-the-wire". But the model will serve as an
important reference for the design and development of the CEs
(software) and FEs (mostly the software part). It will also serve
as a design input when specifying the ForCES protocol elements for
CE-FE communication.
4.1. Namespace
The LFBLibrary element and all of its sub-elements are defined in
the following namespace:
http://ietf.org/forces/1.0/lfbmodel
4.2. <LFBLibrary> Element
The <LFBLibrary> element serves as a root element of all library
documents. It contains one or more of the following main blocks:
Yang, et al. Expires January 2005 [Page 37]
Internet Draft ForCES FE Model July 2004
. <frameTypeDefs> for the frame declarations;
. <dataTypeDefs> for defining common data types;
. <metadataDefs> for defining metadata, and
. <LFBClassDefs> for defining LFB classes.
Each block is optional, that is, one library may contain only
metadata definitions, another may contain only LFB class
definitions, yet another may contain all of the above.
In addition to the above main blocks, a library document can import
other library documents if it needs to refer to definitions
contained in the included document. This concept is similar to the
"#include" directive in C. Importing is expressed by the <load>
elements, which must precede all the above elements in the
document. For unique referencing, each LFBLibrary instance
document has a unique label defined in the "provide" attribute of
the LFBLibrary element.
The <LFBLibrary> element also includes an optional <description>
element, which can be used to provide textual description about the
library.
The following is a skeleton of a library document:
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<LFBLibrary xmlns="http://ietf.org/forces/1.0/lfbmodel"
provides="this_library">
<description>
...
</description>
<!-- Loading external libraries (optional) -->
<load library="another_library"/>
...
<!-- FRAME TYPE DEFINITIONS (optional) -->
<frameTypeDefs>
...
</frameTypeDefs>
<!-- DATA TYPE DEFINITIONS (optional) -->
<dataTypeDefs>
...
</dataTypeDefs>
Yang, et al. Expires January 2005 [Page 38]
Internet Draft ForCES FE Model July 2004
<!-- METADATA DEFINITIONS (optional) -->
<metadataDefs>
...
</metadataDefs>
<!ùLFB CLASS DEFINITIONS (optional) -->
<LFBCLassDefs>
...
</LFBCLassDefs>
</LFBLibrary>
4.3. <load> Element
This element is used to refer to another LFB library document.
Similar to the "include" directive in C, this makes the objects
(metadata types, data types, etc.) defined in the referred library
available for referencing in the current document.
The load element must contain the label of the library to be
included and may contain a URL to specify where the library can be
retrieved. The load element can be repeated unlimited times.
Three examples for the <load> elements:
<load library="a_library"/>
<load library="another_library" location="another_lib.xml"/>
<load library="yetanother_library"
location="http://www.petrimeat.com/forces/1.0/lfbmodel/lpm.xml"/>
4.4. <frameDefs> Element for Frame Type Declarations
Frame names are used in the LFB definition to define the types of
frames the LFB expects at its input port(s) and emits at its output
port(s). The <frameDefs> optional element in the library document
contains one or more <frameDef> elements, each declaring one frame
type.
Each frame definition contains a unique name (NMTOKEN) and a brief
synopsis. In addition, an optional detailed description may be
provided.
Yang, et al. Expires January 2005 [Page 39]
Internet Draft ForCES FE Model July 2004
Uniqueness of frame types must be ensured among frame types defined
in the same library document and in all directly or indirectly
included library documents.
The following example defines two frame types:
<frameDefs>
<frameDef>
<name>ipv4</name>
<synopsis>IPv4 packet</synopsis>
<description>
This frame type refers to an IPv4 packet.
</description>
</frameDef>
<frameDef>
<name>ipv6</name>
<synopsis>IPv6 packet</synopsis>
<description>
This frame type refers to an IPv6 packet.
</description>
</frameDef>
...
</frameDefs>
4.5. <dataTypeDefs> Element for Data Type Definitions
The (optional) <dataTypeDefs> element can be used to define
commonly used data types. It contains one or more <dataTypeDef>
elements, each defining a data type with a unique name. Such data
types can be used in several places in the library documents,
including:
. Defining other data types
. Defining metadata
. Defining attributes of LFB classes
This is similar to the concept of having a common header file for
shared data types.
Each <dataTypeDef> element contains a unique name (NMTOKEN), a
brief synopsis, an optional longer description, and a type
definition element. The name must be unique among all data types
defined in the same library document and in any directly or
indirectly included library documents. For example:
Yang, et al. Expires January 2005 [Page 40]
Internet Draft ForCES FE Model July 2004
<dataTypeDefs>
<dataTypeDef>
<name>ieeemacaddr</name>
<synopsis>48-bit IEEE MAC address</synopsis>
... type definition ...
</dataTypeDef>
<dataTypeDef>
<name>ipv4addr</name>
<synopsis>IPv4 address</synopsis>
... type definition ...
</dataTypeDef>
...
</dataTypeDefs>
There are two kinds of data types: atomic and compound. Atomic
data types are appropriate for single-value variables (e.g.
integer, ASCII string, byte array).
The following built-in atomic data types are provided, but
additional atomic data types can be defined with the <typeRef> and
<atomic> elements:
<name> Meaning
---- -------
char 8-bit signed integer
uchar 8-bit unsigned integer
int16 16-bit signed integer
uint16 16-bit unsigned integer
int32 32-bit signed integer
uint32 32-bit unsigned integer
int64 64-bit signed integer
uint64 64-bit unisgned integer
string[N] ASCII null-terminated string with
buffer of N characters (string max
length is N-1)
byte[N] A byte array of N bytes
float16 16-bit floating point number
float32 32-bit IEEE floating point number
float64 64-bit IEEE floating point number
These built-in data types can be readily used to define metadata or
LFB attributes, but can also be used as building blocks when
defining new data types.
Yang, et al. Expires January 2005 [Page 41]
Internet Draft ForCES FE Model July 2004
Compound data types can build on atomic data types and other
compound data types. There are four ways that compound data types
can be defined. They may be defined as an array of elements of
some compound or atomic data type. They may be a structure of
named elements of compound or atomic data types (ala C structures).
They may be a union of named elements of compound or atomic data
types (ala C unions). They may also be defined as augmentations
(explained below in 4.5.6) of existing compound data types.
Given that the FORCES protocol will be getting and setting
attribute values, all atomic data types used here must be able to
be conveyed in the FORCES protocol. Further, the FORCES protocol
will need a mechanism to convey compound data types. However, the
details of such representations are for the protocol document, not
the model documents.
For the definition of the actual type in the <dataTypeDef> element,
the following elements are available: <typeRef>, <atomic>, <array>,
<struct>, and <union>.
[EDITOR: How to support augmentation is for further study.]
4.5.1. <typeRef> Element for Aliasing Existing Data Types
The <typeRef> element refers to an existing data type by its name.
The referred data type must be defined either in the same library
document, or in one of the included library documents. If the
referred data type is an atomic data type, the newly defined type
will also be regarded as atomic. If the referred data type is a
compound type, the new type will also be a compound. Some usage
examples:
<dataTypeDef>
<name>short</name>
<synopsis>Alias to int16</synopsis>
<typeRef>int16</typeRef>
</dataTypeDef>
<dataTypeDef>
<name><name>ieeemacaddr</name>
<synopsis>48-bit IEEE MAC address</synopsis>
<typeRef>byte[6]</typeRef>
</dataTypeDef>
4.5.2. <atomic> Element for Deriving New Atomic Types
Yang, et al. Expires January 2005 [Page 42]
Internet Draft ForCES FE Model July 2004
The <atomic> element allows the definition of a new atomic type
from an existing atomic type, applying range restrictions and/or
providing special enumerated values. Note that the <atomic>
element can only use atomic types as base types, and its result is
always another atomic type.
For example, the following snippet defines a new "dscp" data type:
<dataTypeDef>
<name>dscp</name>
<synopsis>Diffserv code point.</synopsis>
<atomic>
<baseType>uchar</baseType>
<rangeRestriction>
<allowedRange min="0" max="63"/>
</rangeRestriction>
<specialValues>
<specialValue value="0">
<name>DSCP-BE</name>
<synopsis>Best Effort</synopsis>
</specialValue>
...
</specialValues>
</atomic>
</dataTypeDef>
4.5.3. <array> Element to Define Arrays
The <array> element can be used to create a new compound data type
as an array of a compound or an atomic data type. The type of the
array entry can be specified either by referring to an existing
type (using the <typeRef> element) or defining an unnamed type
inside the <array> element using any of the <atomic>, <array>,
<struct>, or <union> elements.
The array can be "fixed-size" or "variable-size", which is
specified by the "type" attribute of the <array> element. The
default is "variable-size". For variable size arrays, an optional
"max-length" attribute can specify the maximum allowed length. This
attribute should be used to encode semantic limitations, and not
implementation limitations. The latter should be handled by
capability attributes of LFB classes, and should never be included
in data type definitions. If the "max-length" attribute is not
provided, the array is regarded as of unlimited-size.
Yang, et al. Expires January 2005 [Page 43]
Internet Draft ForCES FE Model July 2004
For fixed-size arrays, a "length" attribute must be provided that
specifies the constant size of the array.
The result of this construct is always a compound type, even if the
array has a fixed size of 1.
Arrays can only be subscripted by integers, and will be presumed to
start with index 0.
The following example shows the definition of a fixed size array
with pre-defined data type as array elements:
<dataTypeDef>
<name>dscp-mapping-table</name>
<synopsys>
A table of 64 DSCP values, used to re-map code space.
</synopsis>
<array type="fixed-size" length="64">
<typeRef>dscp</typeRef>
</array>
</dataTypeDef>
The following example defines a variable size array with an upper
limit on its size:
<dataTypeDef>
<name>mac-alias-table </name>
<synopsys>A table with up to 8 IEEE MAC addresses</synopsis>
<array type="variable-size" max-length="8">
<typeRef>ieeemacaddr</typeRef>
</array>
</dataTypeDef>
The following example shows the definition of an array with local
(unnamed) type definition:
<dataTypeDef>
<name>classification-table</name>
<synopsys>
A table of classification rules and result opcodes.
</synopsis>
<array type="variable-size">
<struct>
<element>
<name>rule</name>
<synopsis>The rule to match</synopsis>
<typeRef>classrule</typeRef>
Yang, et al. Expires January 2005 [Page 44]
Internet Draft ForCES FE Model July 2004
</element>
<element>
<name>opcode</name>
<synopsis>The result code</synopsis>
<typeRef>opcode</typeRef>
</element>
</struct>
</array>
</dataTypeDef>
In the above example each entry of the array is a <struct> of two
fileds ("rule" and "opcode").
4.5.4. <struct> Element to Define Structures
A structure is comprised of a collection of data elements. Each
data element has a data type (either an atomic type or an existing
compound type) and is assigned a name unique within the scope of
the compound data type being defined. These serve the same
function as "struct" in C, etc.
The actual type of the field can be defined by referring to an
existing type (using the <typeDef> element), or can be a locally
defined (unnamed) type created by any of the <atomic>, <array>,
<struct>, or <union> elements.
The result of this construct is always regarded a compound type,
even if the <struct> contains only one field.
An example:
<dataTypeDef>
<name>ipv4prefix</name>
<synopsis>
IPv4 prefix defined by an address and a prefix length
</synopsis>
<struct>
<element>
<name>address</name>
<synopsis>Address part</synopsis>
<typeRef>ipv4addr</typeRef>
</element>
<element>
<name>prefixlen</name>
<synopsis>Prefix length part</synopsis>
<atomic>
<baseType>uchar</baseType>
Yang, et al. Expires January 2005 [Page 45]
Internet Draft ForCES FE Model July 2004
<rangeRestriction>
<allowedRange min="0" max="32"/>
</rangeRestriction>
</atomic>
</element>
</struct>
</dataTypeDef>
4.5.5. <union> Element to Define Union Types
Similar to the union declaration in C, this construct allows the
definition of overlay types. Its format is identical to the
<struct> element.
The result of this construct is always regarded a compound type,
even if the union contains only one element.
4.5.6. Augmentations
Compound types can also be defined as augmentations of existing
compound types. If the existing compound type is a structure,
augmentation may add new elements to the type. The type of an
existing element can only be replaced with an augmentation derived
from the current type, an existing element cannot be deleted. If
the existing compound type is an array, augmentation means
augmentation of the array element type.
One consequence of this is that augmentations are compatible with
the compound type from which they are derived. As such,
augmentations are useful in defining attributes for LFB subclasses
with backward compatibility. In addition to adding new attributes
to a class, the data type of an existing attribute may be replaced
by an augmentation of that attribute, and still meet the
compatibility rules for subclasses.
For example, consider a simple base LFB class A that has only one
attribute (attr1) of type X. One way to derive class A1 from A can
be by simply adding a second attribute (of any type). Another way
to derive a class A2 from A can be by replacing the original
attribute (attr1) in A of type X with one of type Y, where Y is an
augmentation of X. Both classes A1 and A2 are backward compatible
with class A.
[EDITOR: How to support the concept of augmentation in the XML
schema is for further study.]
Yang, et al. Expires January 2005 [Page 46]
Internet Draft ForCES FE Model July 2004
4.6. <metadataDefs> Element for Metadata Definitions
The (optional) <metadataDefs> element in the library document
contains one or more <metadataDef> elements. Each <metadataDef>
element defines a metadata.
Each <metadataDef> element contains a unique name (NMTOKEN).
Uniqueness is defined over all metadata defined in this library
document and in all directly or indirectly included library
documents. The <metadataDef> element also contains a brief
synopsis, an optional detailed description, and a compulsory type
definition information. Only atomic data types can be used as value
types for metadata.
Two forms of type definitions are allowed. The first form uses the
<typeRef> element to refer to an existing atomic data type defined
in the <dataTypeDefs> element of the same library document or in
one of the included library documents. The usage of the <typeRef>
element is identical to how it is used in the <dataTypeDef>
elements, except here it can only refer to atomic types.
[EDITOR: The latter restriction is not yet enforced by the XML
schema.]
The second form is an explicit type definition using the <atomic>
element. This element is used here in the same way as in the
<dataTypeDef> elements.
The following example shows both usages:
<metadataDefs>
<metadataDef>
<name>NEXTHOPID</name>
<synopsis>Refers to a Next Hop entry in NH LFB</synopsis>
<typeRef>int32</typeRef>
</metadataDef>
<metadataDef>
<name>CLASSID</name>
<synopsis>
Result of classification (0 means no match).
</synopsis>
<atomic>
<baseType>int32</baseType>
<specialValues>
<specialValue value="0">
<name>NOMATCH</name>
Yang, et al. Expires January 2005 [Page 47]
Internet Draft ForCES FE Model July 2004
<synopsis>
Classification didnÆt result in match.
</synopsis>
</specialValue>
</specialValues>
</atomic>
</metadataDef>
</metadataDefs>
4.7. <LFBClassDefs> Element for LFB Class Definitions
The (optional) <LFBClassDefs> element can be used to define one or
more LFB classes using <LFBClassDef> elements. Each <LFBClassDef>
element defines an LFB class and includes the following elements:
. <name> provides the symbolic name of the LFB class. Example:
"ipv4lpm"
. <synopsis> provides a short synopsis of the LFB class.
Example: "IPv4 Longest Prefix Match Lookup LFB"
. <version> is the version indicator
. <derivedFrom> is the inheritance indicator
. <inputPorts> lists the input ports and their specifications
. <outputPorts> lists the output ports and their specifications
. <attributes> defines the operational attributes of the LFB
. <capabilities> defines the capability attributes of the LFB
. <description> contains the operational specification of the
LFB
[EDITOR: LFB class names should be unique not only among classes
defined in this document and in all included documents, but also
unique across a large collection of libraries. Obviously some
global control is needed to ensure such uniqueness. This subject
requires further study.]
Here is a skeleton of an example LFB class definition:
<LFBClassDefs>
<LFBClassDef>
<name>ipv4lpm</name>
<synopsis>IPv4 Longest Prefix Match Lookup LFB</synopsis>
<version>1.0</version>
<derivedFrom>baseclass</derivedFrom>
<inputPorts>
...
</inputPorts>
Yang, et al. Expires January 2005 [Page 48]
Internet Draft ForCES FE Model July 2004
<outputPorts>
...
</outputPorts>
<attributes>
...
</attributes>
<capabilities>
...
</capabilities>
<description>
This LFB represents the IPv4 longest prefix match lookup
operation.
The modeled behavior is as follows:
Blah-blah-blah.
</description>
</LFBClassDef>
...
</LFBClassDefs>
Note that the <name>, <synopsis>, and <version> elements, all other
elements are optional in <LFBClassDef>. However, when they are
present, they must occur in the above order.
4.7.1. <derivedFrom> Element to Express LFB Inheritance
The optional <derivedFrom> element can be used to indicate that
this class is a derivative of some other class. The content of
this element must be the unique name (<name>) of another LFB class.
The referred LFB class must be defined in the same library document
or in one of the included library documents.
[EDITOR: The <derivedFrom> element will likely need to specify the
version of the ancestor, which is not included in the schema yet.
The process and rules of class derivation are still being studied.]
It is assumed that the derived class is backwards compatible with
the base class.
4.7.2. <inputPorts> Element to Define LFB Inputs
The optional <inputPorts> element is used to define input ports.
An LFB class may have zero, one, or more inputs. If the LFB class
has no input ports, the <inputPorts> element must be omitted. The
Yang, et al. Expires January 2005 [Page 49]
Internet Draft ForCES FE Model July 2004
<inputPorts> element can contain one or more <inputPort> elements,
one for each port or port-group. We assume that most LFBs will
have exactly one input. Multiple inputs with the same input type
are modeled as one input group. Input groups are defined the same
way as input ports by the <inputPort> element, differentiated only
by an optional "group" attribute.
Multiple inputs with different input types should be avoided if
possible (see discussion in Section 3.2.1). Some special LFBs will
have no inputs at all. For example, a packet generator LFB does
not need an input.
Single input ports and input port groups are both defined by the
<inputPort> element, they are differentiated by only an optional
"group" attribute.
The <inputPort> element contains the following elements:
. <name> provides the symbolic name of the input. Example: "in".
Note that this symbolic name must be unique only within the
scope of the LFB class.
. <synopsis> contains a brief description of the input. Example:
"Normal packet input".
. <expectation> lists all allowed frame formats. Example: {"ipv4"
and "ipv6"}. Note that this list should refer to names
specified in the <frameDefs> element of the same library
document or in any included library documents. The
<expectation> element can also provide a list of required
metadata. Example: {"classid", "vifid"}. This list should
refer to names of metadata defined in the <metadataDefs> element
in the same library document or in any included library
documents. For each metadata, it must be specified whether the
metadata is required or optional. For each optional metadata, a
default value must be specified, which is used by the LFB if the
metadata is not provided with a packet.
In addition, the optional "group" attribute of the <inputPort>
element can specify if the port can behave as a port group, i.e.,
it is allowed to be instantiated. This is indicated by a "yes"
value (the default value is "no").
An example <inputPorts> element, defining two input ports, the
second one being an input port group:
<inputPorts>
<inputPort>
<name>in</name>
<synopsis>Normal input</synopsis>
Yang, et al. Expires January 2005 [Page 50]
Internet Draft ForCES FE Model July 2004
<expectation>
<frameExpected>
<ref>ipv4</ref>
<ref>ipv6</ref>
</frameExpected>
<metadataExpected>
<ref>classid</ref>
<ref>vifid</ref>
<ref dependency="optional" defaultValue="0">vrfid</ref>
</metadataExpected>
</expectation>
</inputPort>
<inputPort group="yes">
... another input port ...
</inputPort>
</inputPorts>
For each <inputPort>, the frame type expectations are defined by
the <frameExpected> element using one or more <ref> elements (see
example above). When multiple frame types are listed, it means
that "one of these" frame types are expected. A packet of any
other frame type is regarded as incompatible with this input port
of the LFB class. The above example list two frames as expected
frame types: "ipv4" and "ipv6".
Metadata expectations are specified by the <metadataExpected>
element. In its simplest form, this element can contain a list of
<ref> elements, each referring to a metadata. When multiple
instances of metadata are listed by <ref> elements, it means that
"all of these" metadata must be received with each packet (except
metadata that are marked as "optional" by the "dependency"
attribute of the corresponding <ref> element). For a metadata that
is specified "optional", a default value must be provided using the
"defaultValue" attribute. The above example lists three metadata
as expected metadata, two of which are mandatory ("classid" and
"vifid"), and one being optional ("vrfid").
[EDITOR: How to express default values for byte[N] atomic types is
yet to be defined.]
The schema also allows for more complex definitions of metadata
expectations. For example, using the <one-of> element, a list of
metadata can be specified to express that at least one of the
specified metadata must be present with any packet. For example:
<metadataExpected>
<one-of>
Yang, et al. Expires January 2005 [Page 51]
Internet Draft ForCES FE Model July 2004
<ref>prefixmask</ref>
<ref>prefixlen</ref>
</one-of>
</metadataExpected>
The above example specifies that either the "prefixmask" or the
"prefixlen" metadata must be provided with any packet.
The two forms can also be combined, as it is shown in the following
example:
<metadataExpected>
<ref>classid</ref>
<ref>vifid</ref>
<ref dependency="optional" defaultValue="0">vrfid</ref>
<one-of>
<ref>prefixmask</ref>
<ref>prefixlen</ref>
</one-of>
</metadataExpected>
Although the schema is constructed to allow even more complex
definition of metadata expectations, we do not discuss these here.
4.7.3. <outputPorts> Element to Define LFB Outputs
The optional <outputPorts> element is used to define output ports.
An LFB class may have zero, one, or more outputs. If the LFB class
has no output ports, the <outputPorts> element must be omitted.
The <outputPorts> element can contain one or more <outputPort>
elements, one for each port or port-group. If there are multiple
outputs with the same output type, we model them as an output port
group. Some special LFBs may have no outputs at all (e.g.,
Dropper).
Single output ports and output port groups are both defined by the
<outputPort> element; they are differentiated by only an optional
"group" attribute.
The <outputPort> element contains the following elements:
. <name> provides the symbolic name of the output. Example:
"out". Note that the symbolic name must be unique only within
the scope of the LFB class.
. <synopsis> contains a brief description of the output port.
Example: "Normal packet output".
Yang, et al. Expires January 2005 [Page 52]
Internet Draft ForCES FE Model July 2004
. <product> lists the allowed frame formats. Example: {"ipv4",
"ipv6"}. Note that this list should refer to symbols specified
in the <frameDefs> element in the same library document or in
any included library documents. The <product> element may also
contain the list of emitted (generated) metadata. Example:
{"classid", "color"}. This list should refer to names of
metadata specified in the <metadataDefs> element in the same
library document or in any included library documents. For each
generated metadata, it should be specified whether the metadata
is always generated or generated only in certain conditions.
This information is important when assessing compatibility
between LFBs.
In addition, the optional "group" attribute of the <outputPort>
element can specify if the port can behave as a port group, i.e.,
it is allowed to be instantiated. This is indicated by a "yes"
value (the default value is "no").
The following example specifies two output ports, the second being
an output port group:
<outputPorts>
<outputPort>
<name>out</name>
<synopsis>Normal output</synopsis>
<product>
<frameProduced>
<ref>ipv4</ref>
<ref>ipv4bis</ref>
</frameProduced>
<metadataProduced>
<ref>nhid</ref>
<ref>nhtabid</ref>
</metadataProduced>
</product>
</outputPort>
<outputPort group="yes">
<name>exc</name>
<synopsis>Exception output port group</synopsis>
<product>
<frameProduced>
<ref>ipv4</ref>
<ref>ipv4bis</ref>
</frameProduced>
<metadataProduced>
<ref availability="conditional">errorid</ref>
</metadataProduced>
Yang, et al. Expires January 2005 [Page 53]
Internet Draft ForCES FE Model July 2004
</product>
</outputPort>
</outputPorts>
The types of frames and metadata the port produces are defined
inside the <product> element in each <outputPort>. Within the
<product> element, the list of frame types the port produces is
listed in the <frameProduced> element. When more than one frame is
listed, it means that "one of" these frames will be produced.
The list of metadata that is produced with each packet is listed in
the optional <metadataProduced> element of the <product>. In its
simplest form, this element can contain a list of <ref> elements,
each referring to a metadata type. The meaning of such a list is
that "all of" these metadata are provided with each packet, except
those that are listed with the optional "availability" attribute
set to "conditional". Similar to the <metadataExpected> element of
the <inputPort>, the <metadataProduced> element supports more
complex forms, which we do not discuss here further.
4.7.4. <attributes> Element to Define LFB Operational Attributes
Operational parameters of the LFBs that must be visible to the CEs
are conceptualized in the model as the LFB attributes. These
include, for example, flags, single parameter arguments, complex
arguments, and tables. Note that the attributes here refer to only
those operational parameters of the LFBs that must be visible to
the CEs. Other variables that are internal to LFB implementation
are not regarded as LFB attributes and hence are not covered.
Some examples for LFB attributes are:
. Configurable flags and switches selecting between operational
modes of the LFB
. Number of inputs or ouputs in a port group
. Metadata CONSUME vs. PROPAGATE mode selectors
. Various configurable lookup tables, including interface
tables, prefix tables, classification tables, DSCP mapping
tables, MAC address tables, etc.
. Packet and byte counters
. Various event counters
. Number of current inputs or outputs for each input or output
group
. Metadata CONSUME/PROPAGATE mode selector
Yang, et al. Expires January 2005 [Page 54]
Internet Draft ForCES FE Model July 2004
There may be various access permission restrictions on what the CE
can do with an LFB attribute. The following categories may be
supported:
. No-access attributes. This is useful when multiple access
modes maybe defined for a given attribute to allow some
flexibility for different implementations.
. Read-only attributes.
. Read-write attributes.
. Write-only attributes. This could be any configurable data
for which read capability is not provided to the CEs. (e.g.,
the security key information)
. Read-reset attributes. The CE can read and reset this
resource, but cannot set it to an arbitrary value. Example:
Counters.
. Firing-only attributes. A write attempt to this resource will
trigger some specific actions in the LFB, but the actual value
written is ignored.
The LFB class may define more than one possible access mode for a
given attribute (for example, "write-only" and "read-write"), in
which case it is left to the actual implementation to pick one of
the modes. In such cases a corresponding capability attribute must
inform the CE about the access mode the actual LFB instance
supports (see next subsection on capability attributes).
The attributes of the LFB class are listed in the <attributes>
element. Each attribute is defined by an <attribute> element. An
<attribute> element contains the following elements:
. <name> defines the name of the attribute. This name must be
unique among the attributes of the LFB class. Example:
"version".
. <synopsis> should provide a brief description of the purpose
of the attribute.
. The data type of the attribute can be defined either via a
reference to a predefined data type or providing a local
definition of the type. The former is provided by using the
<typeRef> element, which must refer to the unique name of an
existing data type defined in the <dataTypeDefs> element in
the same library document or in any of the included library
documents. When the data type is defined locally (unnamed
type), one of the following elements can be used: <atomic>,
<array>, <struct>, and <union>. Their usage is identical to
how they are used inside <dataTypeDef> elements (see Section
4.5).
. The optional <defaultValue> element can specify a default
value for the attribute, which is applied when the LFB is
initialized or reset. [EDITOR: A convention to define default
Yang, et al. Expires January 2005 [Page 55]
Internet Draft ForCES FE Model July 2004
values for compound data types and byte[N] atomic types is yet
to be defined.]
In addition to the above elements, the <attribute> element includes
an optional "access" attribute, which can take any of the following
values or even a list of these values: "read-only", "read-write",
"write-only", "read-reset", and "trigger-only". The default access
mode is "read-write".
The following example defines two attributes for an LFB:
<attributes>
<attribute access="read-only">
<name>foo</name>
<synopsis>number of things</synopsis>
<typeRef>uint32</typeRef>
</attribute>
<attribute access="read-write write-only">
<name>bar</name>
<synopsis>number of this other thing</synopsis>
<atomic>
<baseType>uint32</baseType>
<rangeRestriction>
<allowedRange min="10" max="2000"/>
</rangeRestriction>
</atomic>
<defaultValue>10</defaultValue>
</attribute>
</attributes>
The first attribute ("foo") is a read-only 32-bit unsigned integer,
defined by referring to the built-in "uint32" atomic type. The
second attribute ("bar") is also an integer, but uses the <atomic>
element to provide additional range restrictions. This attribute
has two possible access modes, "read-write" or "write-only". A
default value of 10 is provided.
Note that not all attributes are likely to exist at all times in a
particular implementation. While the capabilities will frequently
indicate this non-existence, CEs may attempt to reference non-
existent or non-permitted attributes anyway. The FORCES protocol
mechanisms should include appropriate error indicators for this
case.
The mechanism defined above for non-supported attributes can also
apply to attempts to reference non-existent array elements or to
set read-only elements.
Yang, et al. Expires January 2005 [Page 56]
Internet Draft ForCES FE Model July 2004
4.7.5. <capabilities> Element to Define LFB Capability Attributes
The LFB class specification will provide some flexibility for the
FE implementation regarding how the LFB class is implemented. For
example, the class may define some optional features, in which case
the actual implementation may or may not provide the given feature.
In these cases the CE must be able to query the LFB instance about
the availability of the feature. In addition, the instance may
have some limitations that are not inherent from the class
definition, but rather the result of some implementation
limitations. For example, an array attribute may be defined in the
class definition as "unlimited" size, but the physical
implementation may impose a hard limit on the size of the array.
Such capability related information is expressed by the capability
attributes of the LFB class. The capability attributes are always
read-only attributes, and they are listed in a separate
<capabilities> element in the <LFBClassDef>. The <capabilities>
element contains one or more <capability> elements, each defining
one capability attribute. The format of the <capability> element
is almost the same as the <attribute> element, it differs in two
aspects: it lacks the access mode attribute (because it is always
read-only), and it lacks the <defaultValue> element (because
default value is not applicable to read-only attributes).
Some examples of capability attributes:
. The version of the LFB class that this LFB instance complies
with;
. Supported optional features of the LFB class;
. Maximum number of configurable outputs for an output group;
. Metadata pass-through limitations of the LFB;
. Maximum size of configurable attribute tables;
. Additional range restriction on operational attributes;
. Supported access modes of certain attributes (if the access
mode of an operational attribute is specified as a list of two
or mode modes).
The following example lists two capability attributes:
<capabilities>
<capability>
<name>version</name>
<synopsis>
LFB class version this instance is compliant with.
</synopsis>
Yang, et al. Expires January 2005 [Page 57]
Internet Draft ForCES FE Model July 2004
<typeRef>version</typeRef>
</capability>
<capability>
<name>limitBar</name>
<synopsis>
Maximum value of the "bar" attribute.
</synopsis>
<typeRef>uint16</typeRef>
</capability>
</capabilities>
4.7.6. <description> Element for LFB Operational Specification
The <description> element of the <LFBClass> provides unstructured
text (in XML sense) to verbally describe what the LFB does.
4.8. XML Schema for LFB Class Library Documents
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<xsd:schema xmlns:xsd="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema"
xmlns="http://ietf.org/forces/1.0/lfbmodel"
xmlns:lfb="http://ietf.org/forces/1.0/lfbmodel"
targetNamespace="http://ietf.org/forces/1.0/lfbmodel"
attributeFormDefault="unqualified"
elementFormDefault="qualified">
<xsd:annotation>
<xsd:documentation xml:lang="en">
Schema for Defining LFB Classes and associated types (frames,
data types for LFB attributes, and metadata).
</xsd:documentation>
</xsd:annotation>
<xsd:element name="description" type="xsd:string"/>
<xsd:element name="synopsis" type="xsd:string"/>
<!-- Document root element: LFBLibrary -->
<xsd:element name="LFBLibrary">
<xsd:complexType>
<xsd:sequence>
<xsd:element ref="description" minOccurs="0"/>
<xsd:element name="load" type="loadType" minOccurs="0"
maxOccurs="unbounded"/>
<xsd:element name="frameDefs" type="frameDefsType"
minOccurs="0"/>
<xsd:element name="dataTypeDefs" type="dataTypeDefsType"
minOccurs="0"/>
<xsd:element name="metadataDefs" type="metadataDefsType"
minOccurs="0"/>
<xsd:element name="LFBClassDefs" type="LFBClassDefsType"
Yang, et al. Expires January 2005 [Page 58]
Internet Draft ForCES FE Model July 2004
minOccurs="0"/>
</xsd:sequence>
<xsd:attribute name="provides" type="xsd:Name" use="required"/>
</xsd:complexType>
<!-- Uniqueness constraints -->
<xsd:key name="frame">
<xsd:selector xpath="lfb:frameDefs/lfb:frameDef"/>
<xsd:field xpath="lfb:name"/>
</xsd:key>
<xsd:key name="dataType">
<xsd:selector xpath="lfb:dataTypeDefs/lfb:dataTypeDef"/>
<xsd:field xpath="lfb:name"/>
</xsd:key>
<xsd:key name="metadataDef">
<xsd:selector xpath="lfb:metadataDefs/lfb:metadataDef"/>
<xsd:field xpath="lfb:name"/>
</xsd:key>
<xsd:key name="LFBClassDef">
<xsd:selector xpath="lfb:LFBClassDefs/lfb:LFBClassDef"/>
<xsd:field xpath="lfb:name"/>
</xsd:key>
</xsd:element>
<xsd:complexType name="loadType">
<xsd:attribute name="library" type="xsd:Name" use="required"/>
<xsd:attribute name="location" type="xsd:anyURI" use="optional"/>
</xsd:complexType>
<xsd:complexType name="frameDefsType">
<xsd:sequence>
<xsd:element name="frameDef" maxOccurs="unbounded">
<xsd:complexType>
<xsd:sequence>
<xsd:element name="name" type="xsd:NMTOKEN"/>
<xsd:element ref="synopsis"/>
<xsd:element ref="description" minOccurs="0"/>
</xsd:sequence>
</xsd:complexType>
</xsd:element>
</xsd:sequence>
</xsd:complexType>
<xsd:complexType name="dataTypeDefsType">
<xsd:sequence>
<xsd:element name="dataTypeDef" maxOccurs="unbounded">
<xsd:complexType>
<xsd:sequence>
<xsd:element name="name" type="xsd:NMTOKEN"/>
<xsd:element ref="synopsis"/>
<xsd:element ref="description" minOccurs="0"/>
Yang, et al. Expires January 2005 [Page 59]
Internet Draft ForCES FE Model July 2004
<xsd:group ref="typeDeclarationGroup"/>
</xsd:sequence>
</xsd:complexType>
</xsd:element>
</xsd:sequence>
</xsd:complexType>
<!--
Predefined (built-in) atomic data-types are:
char, uchar, int16, uint16, int32, uint32, int64, uint64,
string[N], byte[N],
float16, float32, float64
-->
<xsd:group name="typeDeclarationGroup">
<xsd:choice>
<xsd:element name="typeRef" type="typeRefNMTOKEN"/>
<xsd:element name="atomic" type="atomicType"/>
<xsd:element name="array" type="arrayType"/>
<xsd:element name="struct" type="structType"/>
<xsd:element name="union" type="structType"/>
</xsd:choice>
</xsd:group>
<xsd:simpleType name="typeRefNMTOKEN">
<xsd:restriction base="xsd:token">
<xsd:pattern value="\c+"/>
<xsd:pattern value="string\[\d+\]"/>
<xsd:pattern value="byte\[\d+\]"/>
</xsd:restriction>
</xsd:simpleType>
<xsd:complexType name="atomicType">
<xsd:sequence>
<xsd:element name="baseType" type="typeRefNMTOKEN"/>
<xsd:element name="rangeRestriction"
type="rangeRestrictionType minOccurs="0"/>
<xsd:element name="specialValues" type="specialValuesType"
minOccurs="0"/>
</xsd:sequence>
</xsd:complexType>
<xsd:complexType name="rangeRestrictionType">
<xsd:sequence>
<xsd:element name="allowedRange" maxOccurs="unbounded">
<xsd:complexType>
<xsd:attribute name="min" type="xsd:integer"
use="required"/>
<xsd:attribute name="max" type="xsd:integer"
use="required"/>
</xsd:complexType>
</xsd:element>
Yang, et al. Expires January 2005 [Page 60]
Internet Draft ForCES FE Model July 2004
</xsd:sequence>
</xsd:complexType>
<xsd:complexType name="specialValuesType">
<xsd:sequence>
<xsd:element name="specialValue" maxOccurs="unbounded">
<xsd:complexType>
<xsd:sequence>
<xsd:element name="name" type="xsd:NMTOKEN"/>
<xsd:element ref="synopsis"/>
</xsd:sequence>
<xsd:attribute name="value" type="xsd:token"/>
</xsd:complexType>
</xsd:element>
</xsd:sequence>
</xsd:complexType>
<xsd:complexType name="arrayType">
<xsd:sequence>
<xsd:group ref="typeDeclarationGroup"/>
</xsd:sequence>
<xsd:attribute name="type" use="optional"
default="variable-size">
<xsd:simpleType>
<xsd:restriction base="xsd:string">
<xsd:enumeration value="fixed-size"/>
<xsd:enumeration value="variable-size"/>
</xsd:restriction>
</xsd:simpleType>
</xsd:attribute>
<xsd:attribute name="length" type="xsd:integer" use="optional"/>
<xsd:attribute name="maxLength" type="xsd:integer"
use="optional"/>
</xsd:complexType>
<xsd:complexType name="structType">
<xsd:sequence>
<xsd:element name="element" maxOccurs="unbounded">
<xsd:complexType>
<xsd:sequence>
<xsd:element name="name" type="xsd:NMTOKEN"/>
<xsd:element ref="synopsis"/>
<xsd:group ref="typeDeclarationGroup"/>
</xsd:sequence>
</xsd:complexType>
</xsd:element>
</xsd:sequence>
</xsd:complexType>
<xsd:complexType name="metadataDefsType">
<xsd:sequence>
Yang, et al. Expires January 2005 [Page 61]
Internet Draft ForCES FE Model July 2004
<xsd:element name="metadataDef" maxOccurs="unbounded">
<xsd:complexType>
<xsd:sequence>
<xsd:element name="name" type="xsd:NMTOKEN"/>
<xsd:element ref="synopsis"/>
<xsd:element ref="description" minOccurs="0"/>
<xsd:choice>
<xsd:element name="typeRef" type="typeRefNMTOKEN"/>
<xsd:element name="atomic" type="atomicType"/>
</xsd:choice>
</xsd:sequence>
</xsd:complexType>
</xsd:element>
</xsd:sequence>
</xsd:complexType>
<xsd:complexType name="LFBClassDefsType">
<xsd:sequence>
<xsd:element name="LFBClassDef" maxOccurs="unbounded">
<xsd:complexType>
<xsd:sequence>
<xsd:element name="name" type="xsd:NMTOKEN"/>
<xsd:element ref="synopsis"/>
<xsd:element name="version" type="versionType"/>
<xsd:element name="derivedFrom" type="xsd:NMTOKEN"
minOccurs="0"/>
<xsd:element name="inputPorts" type="inputPortsType"
minOccurs="0"/>
<xsd:element name="outputPorts" type="outputPortsType"
minOccurs="0"/>
<xsd:element name="attributes" type="LFBAttributesType"
minOccurs="0"/>
<xsd:element name="capabilities"
type="LFBCapabilitiesType" minOccurs="0"/>
<xsd:element ref="description" minOccurs="0"/>
</xsd:sequence>
</xsd:complexType>
<!-- Key constraint to ensure unique attribute names within
a class:
-->
<xsd:key name="attributes">
<xsd:selector xpath="lfb:attributes/lfb:attribute"/>
<xsd:field xpath="lfb:name"/>
</xsd:key>
<xsd:key name="capabilities">
<xsd:selector xpath="lfb:capabilities/lfb:capability"/>
<xsd:field xpath="lfb:name"/>
</xsd:key>
Yang, et al. Expires January 2005 [Page 62]
Internet Draft ForCES FE Model July 2004
</xsd:element>
</xsd:sequence>
</xsd:complexType>
<xsd:simpleType name="versionType">
<xsd:restriction base="xsd:NMTOKEN">
<xsd:pattern value="[1-9][0-9]*\.([1-9][0-9]*|0)"/>
</xsd:restriction>
</xsd:simpleType>
<xsd:complexType name="inputPortsType">
<xsd:sequence>
<xsd:element name="inputPort" type="inputPortType"
maxOccurs="unbounded"/>
</xsd:sequence>
</xsd:complexType>
<xsd:complexType name="inputPortType">
<xsd:sequence>
<xsd:element name="name" type="xsd:NMTOKEN"/>
<xsd:element ref="synopsis"/>
<xsd:element name="expectation" type="portExpectationType"/>
<xsd:element ref="description" minOccurs="0"/>
</xsd:sequence>
<xsd:attribute name="group" type="booleanType" use="optional"
default="no"/>
</xsd:complexType>
<xsd:complexType name="portExpectationType">
<xsd:sequence>
<xsd:element name="frameExpected" minOccurs="0">
<xsd:complexType>
<xsd:sequence>
<!-- ref must refer to a name of a defined frame type -->
<xsd:element name="ref" type="xsd:string"
maxOccurs="unbounded"/>
</xsd:sequence>
</xsd:complexType>
</xsd:element>
<xsd:element name="metadataExpected" minOccurs="0">
<xsd:complexType>
<xsd:choice maxOccurs="unbounded">
<!-- ref must refer to a name of a defined metadata -->
<xsd:element name="ref" type="metadataInputRefType"/>
<xsd:element name="one-of"
type="metadataInputChoiceType"/>
</xsd:choice>
</xsd:complexType>
</xsd:element>
</xsd:sequence>
</xsd:complexType>
Yang, et al. Expires January 2005 [Page 63]
Internet Draft ForCES FE Model July 2004
<xsd:complexType name="metadataInputChoiceType">
<xsd:choice minOccurs="2" maxOccurs="unbounded">
<!-- ref must refer to a name of a defined metadata -->
<xsd:element name="ref" type="xsd:NMTOKEN"/>
<xsd:element name="one-of" type="metadataInputChoiceType"/>
<xsd:element name="metadataSet" type="metadataInputSetType"/>
</xsd:choice>
</xsd:complexType>
<xsd:complexType name="metadataInputSetType">
<xsd:choice minOccurs="2" maxOccurs="unbounded">
<!-- ref must refer to a name of a defined metadata -->
<xsd:element name="ref" type="metadataInputRefType"/>
<xsd:element name="one-of" type="metadataInputChoiceType"/>
</xsd:choice>
</xsd:complexType>
<xsd:complexType name="metadataInputRefType">
<xsd:simpleContent>
<xsd:extension base="xsd:NMTOKEN">
<xsd:attribute name="dependency" use="optional"
default="required">
<xsd:simpleType>
<xsd:restriction base="xsd:string">
<xsd:enumeration value="required"/>
<xsd:enumeration value="optional"/>
</xsd:restriction>
</xsd:simpleType>
</xsd:attribute>
<xsd:attribute name="defaultValue" type="xsd:token"
use="optional"/>
</xsd:extension>
</xsd:simpleContent>
</xsd:complexType>
<xsd:complexType name="outputPortsType">
<xsd:sequence>
<xsd:element name="outputPort" type="outputPortType"
maxOccurs="unbounded"/>
</xsd:sequence>
</xsd:complexType>
<xsd:complexType name="outputPortType">
<xsd:sequence>
<xsd:element name="name" type="xsd:NMTOKEN"/>
<xsd:element ref="synopsis"/>
<xsd:element name="product" type="portProductType"/>
<xsd:element ref="description" minOccurs="0"/>
</xsd:sequence>
<xsd:attribute name="group" type="booleanType" use="optional"
default="no"/>
Yang, et al. Expires January 2005 [Page 64]
Internet Draft ForCES FE Model July 2004
</xsd:complexType>
<xsd:complexType name="portProductType">
<xsd:sequence>
<xsd:element name="frameProduced">
<xsd:complexType>
<xsd:sequence>
<!-- ref must refer to a name of a defined frame type -->
<xsd:element name="ref" type="xsd:NMTOKEN"
maxOccurs="unbounded"/>
</xsd:sequence>
</xsd:complexType>
</xsd:element>
<xsd:element name="metadataProduced" minOccurs="0">
<xsd:complexType>
<xsd:choice maxOccurs="unbounded">
<!-- ref must refer to a name of a defined metadata -->
<xsd:element name="ref" type="metadataOutputRefType"/>
<xsd:element name="one-of"
type="metadataOutputChoiceType"/>
</xsd:choice>
</xsd:complexType>
</xsd:element>
</xsd:sequence>
</xsd:complexType>
<xsd:complexType name="metadataOutputChoiceType">
<xsd:choice minOccurs="2" maxOccurs="unbounded">
<!-- ref must refer to a name of a defined metadata -->
<xsd:element name="ref" type="xsd:NMTOKEN"/>
<xsd:element name="one-of" type="metadataOutputChoiceType"/>
<xsd:element name="metadataSet" type="metadataOutputSetType"/>
</xsd:choice>
</xsd:complexType>
<xsd:complexType name="metadataOutputSetType">
<xsd:choice minOccurs="2" maxOccurs="unbounded">
<!-- ref must refer to a name of a defined metadata -->
<xsd:element name="ref" type="metadataOutputRefType"/>
<xsd:element name="one-of" type="metadataOutputChoiceType"/>
</xsd:choice>
</xsd:complexType>
<xsd:complexType name="metadataOutputRefType">
<xsd:simpleContent>
<xsd:extension base="xsd:NMTOKEN">
<xsd:attribute name="availability" use="optional"
default="unconditional">
<xsd:simpleType>
<xsd:restriction base="xsd:string">
<xsd:enumeration value="unconditional"/>
Yang, et al. Expires January 2005 [Page 65]
Internet Draft ForCES FE Model July 2004
<xsd:enumeration value="conditional"/>
</xsd:restriction>
</xsd:simpleType>
</xsd:attribute>
</xsd:extension>
</xsd:simpleContent>
</xsd:complexType>
<xsd:complexType name="LFBAttributesType">
<xsd:sequence>
<xsd:element name="attribute" maxOccurs="unbounded">
<xsd:complexType>
<xsd:sequence>
<xsd:element name="name" type="xsd:NMTOKEN"/>
<xsd:element ref="synopsis"/>
<xsd:element ref="description" minOccurs="0"/>
<xsd:group ref="typeDeclarationGroup"/>
<xsd:element name="defaultValue" type="xsd:token"
minOccurs="0"/>
</xsd:sequence>
<xsd:attribute name="access" use="optional"
default="read-write">
<xsd:simpleType>
<xsd:list itemType="accessModeType"/>
</xsd:simpleType>
</xsd:attribute>
</xsd:complexType>
</xsd:element>
</xsd:sequence>
</xsd:complexType>
<xsd:simpleType name="accessModeType">
<xsd:restriction base="xsd:NMTOKEN">
<xsd:enumeration value="read-only"/>
<xsd:enumeration value="read-write"/>
<xsd:enumeration value="write-only"/>
<xsd:enumeration value="read-reset"/>
<xsd:enumeration value="trigger-only"/>
</xsd:restriction>
</xsd:simpleType>
<xsd:complexType name="LFBCapabilitiesType">
<xsd:sequence>
<xsd:element name="capability" maxOccurs="unbounded">
<xsd:complexType>
<xsd:sequence>
<xsd:element name="name" type="xsd:NMTOKEN"/>
<xsd:element ref="synopsis"/>
<xsd:element ref="description" minOccurs="0"/>
<xsd:group ref="typeDeclarationGroup"/>
Yang, et al. Expires January 2005 [Page 66]
Internet Draft ForCES FE Model July 2004
</xsd:sequence>
</xsd:complexType>
</xsd:element>
</xsd:sequence>
</xsd:complexType>
<xsd:simpleType name="booleanType">
<xsd:restriction base="xsd:string">
<xsd:enumeration value="yes"/>
<xsd:enumeration value="no"/>
</xsd:restriction>
</xsd:simpleType>
</xsd:schema>
5. FE Attributes and Capabilities
A ForCES forwarding element handles traffic on behalf of a ForCES
control element. While the standards will describe the protocol
and mechanisms for this control, different implementations and
different instances will have different capabilities. The CE needs
to be able to determine what each instance it is responsible for is
actually capable of doing. As stated previously, this is an
approximation. The CE is expected to be prepared to cope with
errors in requests and variations in detail not captured by the
capabilities information about an FE.
In addition to its capabilities, an FE will have some information
(attributes) that can be used in understanding and controlling the
forwarding operations. Some of the attributes will be read only,
while others will also be writeable.
The ForCES protocol will define the actual mechanism for getting
and setting attribute information. This model defines the starting
set of information that will be available. This definition
includes the semantics and the structuring of the information. It
also provides for extensions to this information.
In order to crisply define the attribute information and structure,
this document describes the attributes as information in an
abstract XML document. Conceptually, each FE contains such a
document. The document structure is defined by the XML Schema
contained in this model. Operationally, the ForCES protocol refers
to information contained in that document in order to read or write
FE attributes and capabilities. This document is an abstract
representation of the information. There is no requirement that
such a document actually exist in memory. Unless the ForCES
protocol calls for transfer of the information in XML, the
Yang, et al. Expires January 2005 [Page 67]
Internet Draft ForCES FE Model July 2004
information is not required to ever be represented in the FE in
XML. The XML schema serves only to identify the elements and
structure of the information.
The subsections in this part of the document provide the details on
this aspect of the FE model. 5.1 gives the XML schema for the
abstract FE attribute document. 5.2 elaborates on each of the
defined attributes of the FE, following the hierarchy of the
schema. 5.3 provides an example XML FE attribute document to
clarify the meaning of 5.1 and 5.2.
5.1. XML Schema for FE Attribute Documents
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<xsd:schema xmlns:xsd="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema">
<xsd:annotation>
<xsd:documentation xml:lang="en">
Schema for the Abstract FE Attributes and Capabilities Document
</xsd:documentation>
</xsd:annotation>
<xsd:element name="FEDocument">
<xsd:complexType>
<xsd:sequence>
<xsd:element name="FECapabilities" type="FECapabilitiesType"
minOccurs="0" maxOccurs="1"/>
<xsd:element name="FEAttributes" type="FEAttributesType"
minOccurs="0" maxOccurs="1"/>
</xsd:sequence>
</xsd:complexType>
</xsd:element>
<xsd:complexType name="FECapabilitiesType">
<xsd:sequence>
<xsd:element name="ModifiableLFBTopology" type="xsd:boolean"
minOccurs="0" maxOccurs="1"/>
<xsd:element name="SupportedLFBs" minOccurs="0" maxOccurs="1">
<xsd:complexType>
<xsd:sequence>
<xsd:element name="SupportedLFB" type="SupportedLFBType"
minOccurs="1" maxOccurs="unbounded"/>
</xsd:sequence>
</xsd:complexType>
</xsd:element>
<xsd:element name="SupportedAttributes"
type="SupportedAttributesType"
Yang, et al. Expires January 2005 [Page 68]
Internet Draft ForCES FE Model July 2004
minOccurs="0" maxOccurs="1"/>
</xsd:sequence>
</xsd:complexType>
<xsd:complexType name="SupportedLFBType">
<xsd:sequence>
<!-- the name of a supported LFB -->
<xsd:element name="LFBName" type="xsd:NMTOKEN"/>
<!-- how many of this LFB class can exist -->
<xsd:element name="LFBOccurrenceLimit"
type="xsd:nonNegativeInteger" minOccurs="0" maxOccurs="1"/>
<!-- For each port group, how many ports can exist -->
<xsd:element name="PortGroupLimits" minOccurs="0" maxOccurs="1">
<xsd:complexType>
<xsd:sequence>
<xsd:element name="PortGroupLimit" minOccurs="0"
maxOccurs="unbounded">
<xsd:complexType>
<xsd:sequence>
<xsd:element name="PortGroupName" type="xsd:NMTOKEN"/>
<xsd:element name="MinPortCount"
type="xsd:nonNegativeInteger"
minOccurs="0" maxOccurs="1"/>
<xsd:element name="MaxPortCount"
type="xsd:nonNegativeInteger"
minOccurs="0" maxOccurs="1"/>
</xsd:sequence>
</xsd:complexType>
</xsd:element>
</xsd:sequence>
</xsd:complexType>
</xsd:element>
<!-- for the named LFB Class, the LFB Classes it may follow -->
<xsd:element name="CanOccurAfters" minOccurs="0" maxOccurs="1">
<xsd:complexType>
<xsd:sequence>
<xsd:element name="CanOccurAfter"
type="LFBAdjacencyLimitType"
minOccurs="0" maxOccurs="unbounded"/>
</xsd:sequence>
</xsd:complexType>
</xsd:element>
<!-- for the named LFB Class, which LFB Classes may follow -->
<xsd:element name="CanOccurBefores" minOccurs="0" maxOccurs="1">
<xsd:complexType>
<xsd:sequence>
Yang, et al. Expires January 2005 [Page 69]
Internet Draft ForCES FE Model July 2004
<xsd:element name="CanOccurBefore"
type="LFBAdjacencyLimitType"
minOccurs="0" maxOccurs="unbounded"/>
</xsd:sequence>
</xsd:complexType>
</xsd:element>
<!-- information defined by the Class Definition -->
<xsd:element name="LFBClassCapabilities" type="xsd:anyType"
minOccurs="0" maxOccurs="1"/>
</xsd:sequence>
</xsd:complexType>
<xsd:complexType name="LFBAdjacencyLimitType">
<xsd:sequence>
<xsd:element name="NeighborLFB" type="xsd:NMTOKEN"/>
<xsd:element name="viaPort" type="xsd:NMTOKEN"
minOccurs="0" maxOccurs="unbounded"/>
</xsd:sequence>
</xsd:complexType>
<xsd:complexType name="SupportedAttributesType">
<xsd:sequence>
<xsd:element name="SupportedAttribute"
minOccurs="0" maxOccurs="unbounded">
<xsd:complexType>
<xsd:sequence>
<xsd:element name="AttributeName" type="xsd:NMTOKEN"/>
<xsd:element name="AccessModes" type="xsd:NMTOKEN"/>
</xsd:sequence>
</xsd:complexType>
</xsd:element>
</xsd:sequence>
</xsd:complexType>
<xsd:complexType name="FEAttributesType">
<xsd:sequence>
<xsd:element name="Vendor" type="xsd:string" minOccurs="0"/>
<xsd:element name="Model" type="xsd:string" minOccurs="0"/>
<xsd:element name="FEStatus" type="FEStateType" minOccurs="0"/>
<xsd:element name="LFBInstances" minOccurs="0" maxOccurs="1">
<xsd:complexType>
<xsd:sequence>
<xsd:element name="LFBInstance" minOccurs="0"
maxOccurs="unbounded">
<xsd:complexType>
<xsd:sequence>
<xsd:element name="LFBClassName" type="xsd:NMTOKEN"/>">
Yang, et al. Expires January 2005 [Page 70]
Internet Draft ForCES FE Model July 2004
<xsd:element name="LFBInstanceID" type="xsd:NMTOKEN"/>">
</xsd:sequence>
</xsd:complexType>
</xsd:element>
</xsd:sequence>
</xsd:complexType>
</xsd:element>
<xsd:element name="LFBTopology" type="LFBTopologyType"
minOccurs="0" maxOccurs="1"/>
<xsd:element name="FEConfiguredNeighbors" minOccurs="0"
maxOccurs="1">
<xsd:complexType>
<xsd:sequence>
<xsd:element name="FEConfiguredNeighbor"
type="FEConfiguredNeighborType"
minOccurs="0" maxOccurs="unbounded"/>
</xsd:sequence>
</xsd:complexType>
</xsd:element>
</xsd:sequence>
</xsd:complexType>
<xsd:complexType name="LFBTopologyType">
<xsd:sequence>
<xsd:element name="LFBLink" minOccurs="0" maxOccurs="unbounded">
<xsd:complexType>
<xsd:sequence>
<xsd:element name="FromLFBID" type="xsd:NMTOKEN"/>
<xsd:element name="FromPortGroup" type="xsd:NMTOKEN"/>
<xsd:element name="FromPortIndex"
type="xsd:nonNegativeInteger"/>
<xsd:element name="ToLFBID" type="xsd:NMTOKEN"/>
<xsd:element name="ToPortGroup" type="xsd:NMTOKEN"/>
<xsd:element name="ToPortIndex"
type="xsd:nonNegativeInteger"/>
</xsd:sequence>
</xsd:complexType>
</xsd:element>
</xsd:sequence>
</xsd:complexType>
<xsd:complexType name="FEConfiguredNeighborType">
<xsd:sequence>
<xsd:element name="NeighborID" type="xsd:anyType"/>
<xsd:element name="NeighborInterface" type="xsd:anyType"/>
<xsd:element name="NeighborNetworkAddress" type="xsd:anyType"
minOccurs="0" maxOccurs="1"/>
Yang, et al. Expires January 2005 [Page 71]
Internet Draft ForCES FE Model July 2004
<xsd:element name="NeighborMACAddress" type="xsd:anyType"
minOccurs="0" maxOccurs="1"/>
</xsd:sequence>
</xsd:complexType>
<!-- The values for the simple state attribute -->
<!-- These should probably be directly encodable in the -->
<!-- protocol so they may end up numeric instead of strings -->
<xsd:simpleType name="FEStateType">
<xsd:restriction base="xsd:NMTOKEN">
<xsd:enumeration value="AdminDisable"/>
<xsd:enumeration value="OperDisable"/>
<xsd:enumeration value="OperEnable"/>
</xsd:restriction>
</xsd:simpleType>
</xsd:schema>
5.2. FEDocument
An instance of this document captures the capabilities and FE level
attribute / state information about a given FE. Currently, two
elements are allowed in the FEDocument, FECapabilities and
FEAttributes.
At the moment, all capability and attribute information in this
abstract document is defined as optional. We may wish to mandate
support for some capability and/or attribute information.
If a protocol using binary encoding of this information is adopted
by the ForCES working group, then each relevant element defined in
the schema will have a "ProtocolEncoding" attribute added, with a
"Fixed" value providing the value that is used in the protocol for
that element, so that the XML and the on the wire protocol can be
correlated.
5.2.1. FECapabilities
This element, if it occurs, must occur only once and contains all
the capability related information about the FE. Capability
information is always considered to be read-only.
The currently defined elements allowed within the FECapabilities
element are ModifiableLFBTopology, LFBsSupported,
WriteableAttributes and ReadableAttributes.
5.2.1.1. ModifiableLFBTopology
Yang, et al. Expires January 2005 [Page 72]
Internet Draft ForCES FE Model July 2004
This element has a boolean value. This element indicates whether
the LFB topology of the FE may be changed by the CE. If the
element is absent, the default value is assumed to be true, and the
CE presumes the LFB topology may be changed. If the value is
present and set to false, the LFB topology of the FE is fixed. In
that case, the LFBs supported clause may be omitted, and the list
of supported LFBs is inferred by the CE from the LFB topology
information. If the list of supported LFBs is provided when
ModifiableLFBTopology is false, the CanOccurBefore and
CanOccurAfter information should be omitted.
5.2.1.2. SupportedLFBs and SupportedLFB
One capability that the FE should include is the list of supported
LFB classes. The SupportedLFBs element, which occurs at most once,
serves as a wrapper for the list of LFB classes supported. Each
class is described in a SupportedLFB element.
Each occurrence of the SupportedLFB element describes an LFB class
that the FE supports. In addition to indicating that the FE
supports the class, FEs with modifiable LFB topology should include
information about how LFBs of the specified class may be connected
to other LFBs. This information should describe which LFB classes
the specified LFB class may succeed or precede in the LFB topology.
The FE should include information as to which port groups may be
connected to the given adjacent LFB class. If port group
information is omitted, it is assumed that all port groups may be
used.
5.2.1.2.1. LFBName
This element has as its value the name of the LFB being described.
5.2.1.2.2. LFBOccurrenceLimit
This element, if present, indicates the largest number of instances
of this LFB class the FE can support. For FEs that do not have the
capability to create or destroy LFB instances, this can either be
omitted or be the same as the number of LFB instances of this class
contained in the LFB list attribute.
5.2.1.2.3. PortGroupLimits and PortGroupLimit
The PortGroupLimits element is the wrapper to hold information
about the port groups supported by the LFB class. It holds
multiple occurrences of the PortGroupLimit element.
Yang, et al. Expires January 2005 [Page 73]
Internet Draft ForCES FE Model July 2004
Each occurrence of the PortGroupLimit element contains the port
occurrence information for a single port group of the LFB class.
Each occurrence has the name of the port group in the PortGroupName
element, the fewest number of ports that can exist in the group in
the MinPortCount element, and the largest number of ports that can
exist in the group in the MaxPortCount element.
5.2.1.2.4.CanOccurAfters and CanOccurAfter
The CanOccurAfters element is a wrapper to hold the multiple
occurrences of the CanOccurAfter permissible placement information.
The CanOccurAfter element describes a permissible positioning of
the SupportedLFB. Specifically, it names an LFB that can
topologically precede the SupportedLFB. That is, the SupportedLFB
can have an input port connected to an output port of the LFB that
it CanOccurAfter. The LFB class that the SupportedLFB can follow
is identified by the NeighborLFB element of the CanOccurAfter
element. If this neighbor can only be connected to a specific set
of input port groups, then the viaPort element is included. This
element occurs once for each input port group of the SupportedLFB
that can be connected to an output port of the NeighborLFB.
[e.g., Within a SupportedLFB element, each CanOccurAfter element
must have a unique NeighborLFB, and within each CanOccurAfter
element each viaPort must represent a unique and valid input port
group of the SupportedLFB. The "unique" clauses for this have not
yet been added to the schema.]
5.2.1.2.5. CanOccurBefores and CanOccurBefore
The CanOccurBefores element is a wrapper to hold the multiple
occurrences of the CanOccurBefore permissible placement
information.
The CanOccurBefore element similarly lists those LFB classes that
the SupportedLFB may precede in the topology. In this element, the
viaPort element represents the output port group of the
SupportedLFB that may be connected to the NeighborLFB. As with
CanOccurAfter, viaPort may occur multiple times if multiple output
ports may legitimately connect to the given NeighborLFB class.
[And a similar set of uniqueness constraints apply to the
CanOccurBefore clauses, even though an LFB may occur both in
CanOccurAfter and CanOccurBefore.]
Yang, et al. Expires January 2005 [Page 74]
Internet Draft ForCES FE Model July 2004
5.2.1.2.6. LFBClassCapabilities
This element contains capability information about the subject LFB
class whose structure and semantics are defined by the LFB class
definition.
5.2.1.3. SupportedAttributes
This element serves as a wrapper to hold the information about
attributed related capabilities. Specifically, attributes should
be described in this element if:
a) they are optional elements in the standard and are supported
by the FE, or
b) the standard allows for a range of access permissions (for
example, read-only or read-write).
Each attribute so described is contained in the SupportedAttributes
element. That element contains an AttributeName element whose
value is the name of the element being described and an AccessModes
element, whose value is the list of permissions.
5.2.2. FEAttributes
The FEAttributes element contains the attributes of the FE that are
not considered "capabilities". Some of these attributes are
writeable, and some are read-only, which should be indicated by the
capability information. At the moment, the set of attributes is
woefully incomplete. Each attribute is identified by a unique
element tag, and the value of the element is the value of the
attribute.
5.2.2.1. FEStatus
This attribute carries the overall state of the FE. For now, it is
restricted to the strings AdminDisable, OperDisable and OperEnable.
5.2.2.2.LFBInstances and LFBInstance
The LFBInstances element serves as a wrapper to hold the multiple
occurrences of the LFBInstance information about individual LFB
instances on the FE.
Each occurrence of the LFBInstance element describes a single LFB
instance. Each element contains an LFBClassName indicating what
class this instance has, and an LFBInstanceID indicating the ID
used for referring to this instance. For now, the ID uses the
Yang, et al. Expires January 2005 [Page 75]
Internet Draft ForCES FE Model July 2004
NMTOKEN construction. Further protocol work is likely to replace
this with a range restricted integer.
5.2.2.3. LFBTopology and LFBLink
This optional element contains the information about each inter-LFB
link inside the FE. Each link is described in an LFBLink element.
This element contains sufficient information to identify precisely
the end points of a link. The FromLFBID and ToLFBID fields
indicate the LFB instances at each end of the link, and must
reference LFBs in the LFB instance table. The FromPortGroup and
ToPortGroup must identify output and input port groups defined in
the LFB classes of the LFB instances identified by the FromLFBID
and ToLFBID. The FromPortIndex and ToPortIndex fields select the
elements from the port groups that this link connects. All links
are uniquely identified by the FromLFBID, FromPortGroup, and
FromPortIndex fields. Multiple links may have the same ToLFBID,
ToPortGroup, and ToPortIndex as this model supports fan in of
inter-LFB links but not fan out.
5.2.2.4. FEConfiguredNeighbors an FEConfiguredNeighbor
The FEConfiguredNeighbors element is a wrapper to hold the
configuration information that one or more FEConfiguredNeighbor
elements convey about the configured FE topology.
The FEConfiguredNeighbor element occurs once for each configured FE
neighbor the FE knows about. It should not be filled in based on
FE level protocol operations. In general, neighbor discovery
operation on the FE should be represented and manipulated as an
LFB. However, for FEs that include neighbor discovery and do not
have such an LFB, it is permitted to fill in the information in
this table based on such protocols.
Similarly, the MAC address information in the table is intended to
be used in situations where neighbors are configured by MAC
address. Resolution of network layer to MAC address information
should be captured in ARP LFBs, not duplicated in this table. Note
that the same neighbor may be reached through multiple interfaces
or at multiple addresses. There is no uniqueness requirement of
any sort on occurrences of the FEConfiguredNeighbor element.
Information about the intended forms of exchange with a given
neighbor is not captured here, only the adjacency information is
included.
5.2.2.4.1.NeighborID
Yang, et al. Expires January 2005 [Page 76]
Internet Draft ForCES FE Model July 2004
This is the ID in some space meaningful to the CE for the neighbor.
If this table remains, we probably should add an FEID from the same
space as an attribute of the FE.
5.2.2.4.2.NeighborInterface
This identifies the interface through which the neighbor is
reached.
[Editors note: As the port structures become better defined, the
type for this should be filled in with the types necessary to
reference the various possible neighbor interfaces, include
physical interfaces, logical tunnels, virtual circuits, etc.]
5.2.2.4.3. NeighborNetworkAddress
Neighbor configuration is frequently done on the basis of a network
layer address. For neighbors configured in that fashion, this is
where that address is stored.
5.2.2.4.4.NeighborMacAddress
Neighbors are sometimes configured using MAC level addresses
(Ethernet MAC address, circuit identifiers, etc.) If such
addresses are used to configure the adjacency, then that
information is stored here. Note that over some ports such as
physical point to point links or virtual circuits considered as
individual interfaces, there is no need for either form of address.
5.3. Sample FE Attribute Document
<?xml version="1.0">
<fm:FEDocument xmlns:fm="http://www.ietf.org/...theschema...">
<fm:FECapabilities>
<fm:ModifiableLFBTopology> true </fm:ModifiableLFBTopology>
<fm:SupportedLFBs>
<fm:SupportedLFB>
<!-- A simple single-input multi-output classifier -->
<fm:LFBName> Classifier </fm:LFBName>
<fm:LFBOccurrenceLimit> 3 </fm:LFBOccurrenceLimit>
<fm:PortGroupLimits>
<fm:PortGroupLimit>
Yang, et al. Expires January 2005 [Page 77]
Internet Draft ForCES FE Model July 2004
<!-- The input port -->
<fm:PortGroupName> InputPortGroup </fm:PortGroupName>
<fm:MinPortCount> 1 </fm:MinPortCount>
<fm:MaxPortCount> 1 </fm:MaxPortCount>
</fm:PortGroupLimit>
<fm:PortGroupLimit>
<!--The normal output ports -->
<fm:PortGroupName> OutputPortGroup </fm:PortGroupName>
<fm:MinPortCount> 0 </fm:MinPortCount>
<fm:MaxPortCount> 32 </fm:MaxPortCount>
</fm:PortGroupLimit>
<fm:PortGroupLimit>
<!-- The optional error port -->
<fm:PortGroupName> ErrorPortGroup </fm:PortGroupName>
<fm:MinPortCount> 0 </fm:MinPortCount>
<fm:MaxPortCount> 1 </fm:MaxPortCount>
</fm:PortGroupLimit>
</fm:PortGroupLimits>
<fm:CanOccurAfters>
<fm:CanOccurAfter>
<fm:NeighborLFB> Port </fm:NeighborLFB>
<!-- omitted viaPort -->
</fm:CanOccurAfter>
<fm:CanOccurAfter
<fm:NeighborLFB> InternalSource </fm:NeighborLFB>
<!-- omitted viaPort -->
</fm:CanOccurAfter>
</fm:CanOccurAfters>
<fm:CanOccurBefores>
<fm:CanOccurBefore>
<fm:NeighborLFB> Marker </fm:NeighborLFB>
<!-- omitted viaPort -->
</fm:CanOccurBefore>
</fm:CanOccurBefores>
</fm:SupportedLFB>
<!-- then Supported LFB elements for Port, InternalSource -->
<!-- Marker, ... -->
</fm:SupportedLFBs>
<fm:SupportedAttributes>
<fm:SupportedAttribute>
<fm:AttributeName> FEStatus </fm:AttributeName>
<fm:AccessModes> read write </fm:AccessModes>
</fm:SupportedAttribute>
<fm:SupportedAttribute>
<fm:AttributeName> Vendor </fm:AttributeName>
<fm:AccessModes> read </fm:AccessModes>
Yang, et al. Expires January 2005 [Page 78]
Internet Draft ForCES FE Model July 2004
</fm:SupportedAttribute
<fm:SupportedAttribute>
<fm:AttributeName> Model </fm:AttributeName>
<fm:AccessModes> read </fm:AccessModes>
</fm:SupportedAttribute>
</fm:SupportedAttributes>
</fm:FECapabilities>
<fm:FEAttributes>
<fm:Vendor> World Wide Widgets </fm:Vendor>
<fm:Model> Foo Forward Model 6 </fm:Model>
<fm:FEStatus> OperEnable </fm:FEStatus>
<fm:LFBInstances>
<fm:LFBInstance>
<fm:LFBClassName> Classifier </fm:LFBClassName>
<fm:LFBInstanceID> Inst5 </fm:LFBInstanceID>
</fm:LFBInstance>
<fm:LFBInstance>
<fm:LFBClassName> Interface </fm:LFBClassName>
<fm:LFBInstanceID> Inst11 </fm:LFBInstanceID>
</fm:LFBInstance>
<fm:LFBInstance>
<fm:LFBClassName> Meter </fm:LFBClassName>
<fm:LFBInstanceID> Inst17 </fm:LFBInstanceID>
</fm:LFBInstance>
</fm:LFBIntances>
<fm:LFBTopology>
<fm:LFBLink>
<fm:FromLFBID> Inst11 </fm:fromLFBID>
<fm:FromPortGroup> IFOnwardGroup </fm:FromPortGroup>
<fm:FromPortIndex> 1 </fm:FromPortIndex>
<fm:ToLFBID> Inst5 </fm:ToLFBID>
<fm:ToPortGroup> InputPortGroup </fm:ToPortGroup>
<fm:ToPortIndex> 1 </fm:ToPortIndex>
</fm:LFBLink>
<fm:LFBLink>
<fm:FromLFBID> Inst5 </fm:fromLFBID>
<fm:FromPortGroup> OutputGroup </fm:FromPortGroup>
<fm:FromPortIndex> 1 </fm:FromPortIndex>
<fm:ToLFBID> Inst17 </fm:ToLFBID>
<fm:ToPortGroup> InMeterGroup </fm:ToPortGroup>
<fm:ToPortIndex> 1 </fm:ToPortIndex>
</fm:LFBLink>
</fm:LFBTopology>
</fm:FEAttributes>
</fm:FEDocument>
Yang, et al. Expires January 2005 [Page 79]
Internet Draft ForCES FE Model July 2004
6. LFB Class Library
A set of initial LFB classes are identified here in the LFB class
library as necessary to build common FE functions. Some of the LFB
classes described here are abstract base classes from which
specific LFB sub-classes will be derived. Hence, the base classes
may not be used directly in a particular FE's model, but the sub-
classes (yet to be defined) could be. This initial list attempts
to describe LFB classes at the expected level of granularity. This
list is neither exhaustive nor sufficiently detailed.
Several working groups in the IETF have already done some relevant
work in modeling the provisioning policy data for some of the
functions we are interested in, for example, the DiffServ
(Differentiated Services) PIB [4] and IPSec PIB [8]. Whenever
possible, we have tried to reuse the work done elsewhere.
6.1. Port LFB
A Port LFB is used to model physical I/O ports on the FE. It is
both a source of data "received" by the FE and a sink of data
"transmitted" by the FE. The Port LFB contains a number of static
attributes, which may include, but are not limited to, the
following items:
. the number of physical ports on this LFB
. physical port type
. physical port link speed (may be variable; e.g., 10/100/1000
Ethernet).
In addition, the Port LFB contains a number of configurable
attributes, including:
. physical port current status (up or down)
. physical port loopback
. physical port mapping to L2 interface.
The Port LFB can be sub-classed into technology specific LFB
classes, with additional static and configurable attributes.
Examples of possible sub-classes include:
. Ethernet
. Packet-over-SONET OC-N
. ATM-over-SONET/SDN OC-N
. T3
. E3
. T1
. E1
. CSIX-L1 switching fabric port (Fi interface)
. CE-FE port (for Fp interface).
Yang, et al. Expires January 2005 [Page 80]
Internet Draft ForCES FE Model July 2004
LFB class inheritance can be used to sub-class derived LFB classes
with additional properties, such as TDM channelization.
The Port LFB "receives" (sources) and "transmits" (sinks) frames in
technology specific formats (described in the respective LFB class
definition but not otherwise modeled) into/out of the FE. Packets
"received" from a physical port are sourced on (one of) the LFB's
output port(s), while packets to be "transmitted" on a physical
port are sinked on (one of) the LFB's input port(s). The Port LFB
is unique among LFB classes in that packets accepted on a LFB input
port are not emitted back out on an LFB output port (except in the
case of physical port loopback operation).
The Port LFB transmits technology specific L2 frames to
topologically adjacent LFB instances (i.e., no frame
decapsulation/encapsulation is modeled in this LFB class). When
transmitting a frame to an adjacent downstream LFB, the Port LFB
provides two items of metadata: the frame length and the L2
interface identifier. When receiving frames from an adjacent
upstream LFB, the frame is accompanied by two items of metadata:
frame length and outgoing port identifier.
Statistics are not maintained by the Port LFB; statistics
associated with a particular port may be maintained by an L2
interface LFB (see Section 6.2).
6.2. L2 Interface LFB
The L2 Interface LFB models L2 protocol termination. The L2
Interface LFB performs two sets of functions: decapsulation and
demultiplexing as needed on the receive side of an FE, and
encapsulation and multiplexing as needed on the transmit side.
Hence the LFB has two distinct sets of inputs and outputs tailored
for these separate functions. The L2 Interface LFB is not modeled
as two separate (receive/transmit) LFBs because there are shared
attributes between the decapsulation and encapsulation functions.
On the decapsulation input(s), the LFB accepts an L2 protocol
specific frame, along with frame length and L2 interface metadata.
The LFB decapsulates the L2 frame by removing any L2
header/trailers (while simultaneously applying any checksum/CRC
functions), determines the L2 or L3 protocol type of the next-layer
packet (based on a PID or Ethertype within the L2 frame header),
adjusts the frame length metadata, and uses the L2 interface
metadata to select an L2 interface attribute. The L2 interface
attribute supports a number of additional attributes, including:
. L2 MTU
Yang, et al. Expires January 2005 [Page 81]
Internet Draft ForCES FE Model July 2004
. supported next-layer L2 or L3 protocols
. L2-specific receive counters (byte, packet)
. counting mode
. L2 or L3 interface metadata for next-layer packet
. LFB output port.
The LFB may support multiple decapsulation output ports within two
output groups; one for normal forwarding, and one for exception
packets. The LFB emits the decapsulated packet along with the
modified frame length metadata, an L2 or L3 protocol type metadata,
and an L2 or L3 interface metadata.
On the encapsulation input(s), the LFB accepts a packet along with
frame length, protocol type, and L2 interface metadata. The L2
interface metadata is used to select an L2 interface attribute,
which supports a number of additional attributes, including:
. L2-specific transmit counters (byte, packet)
. counting mode (may be taken from receive counters mode)
. L2 or L3 interface metadata for next-layer frame (we assume
that L2 protocols could be layered on top of an L3 protocol;
e.g., L2TP or PWE3), or port metadata.
. LFB output port
The LFB encapsulates the packet using the appropriate L2
header/trailer and protocol type information (calculating
checksums/CRCs as necessary), and provides the frame to the next
LFB along with incremented frame length metadata, updated protocol
type metadata, and updated interface (or port) metadata, on a
configurable LFB encapsulation output.
As in the case of the Port LFB, technology specific variants of the
L2 interface LFB will be sub-classes of the L2 Interface LFB.
Example sub-classes include:
. Ethernet/802.1Q
. PPP
. ATM AAL5.
Each sub-class will likely support static and configurable
attributes specific to the L2 technology; for example the
Ethernet/802.1Q Interface LFB will support a per-interface MAC
address attribute. Note that each technology specific sub-class
may require additional metadata. For example, the Ethernet/802.1Q
Interface LFB requires an outgoing MAC destination address to
generate an outgoing Ethernet header.
The L2 interface management function is separated into a distinct
LFB from the Port LFB because L2 encapsulations can be nested
within frames; e.g., PPP-over-Ethernet-over-ATM AAL5 (PPPoEoA).
6.3. IP interface LFB
Yang, et al. Expires January 2005 [Page 82]
Internet Draft ForCES FE Model July 2004
The IP Interface LFB models a container for IP interface-specific
attributes. These may include:
. IP protocols supported (IPv4 and/or IPv6)
. IP MTU
. interface MIB counters
. table metadata for associated forwarding tables (LPM,
multicast)
. table metadata for associated classification tables.
The IP Interface LFB also performs basic protocol-specific packet
header validation functions (e.g., IP version, IPv4 header length,
IPv4 header checksum, MTU, TTL=0, etc.). The IP Interface LFB
class supports three different L3 protocols: IPv4, IPv6, and MPLS,
although individual LFB instances might support a subset of these
protocols, configurable on each interface attribute.
As with the L2 Interface LFB, the IP Interface LFB supports two
modes of operation: one needed on the receive side of an FE, and
one on the transmit side, using separate sets of LFB inputs and
outputs. In the first mode of operation (for FE receive
processing), the IP Interface LFB accepts IP packets along with
frame length, L3 protocol type, and interface metadata (possibly
including additional metadata items such as L2-derived class
metadata). The interface metadata is used to select an interface
attribute, and the protocol type is checked against the protocols
supported for this interface. Error checks are applied, including
whether the particular protocol type is supported on this
interface, and if no errors occur, the appropriate counters are
incremented and the protocol type is used to select the outgoing
LFB output from a set dedicated to the first mode of operation.
The IP header protocol type/next header field may also be used to
select an LFB output; for example, IPv4 packets with AH header may
be directed to a particular next LFB, or IPv6 packets with Hop-by-
Hop Options. If errors do occur, the appropriate error counters
are incremented, and the error type is used to select a specific
exception LFB output.
In the second mode of operation (for FE transmit processing), the
IP Interface LFB accepts an IP packet along with frame length,
protocol type, and interface metadata. Again, the interface
metadata is used to select an interface attribute. The interface
attribute stores the outgoing L2 or IP interface (e.g., tunnel)
interface metadata. The IP MTU of the outgoing interface is
checked, along with the protocol type of the packet. If no errors
occur, the appropriate counters are incremented, and the next level
interface metadata may be used to select an IP Interface LFB output
dedicated to the second mode of operation. Otherwise, the
Yang, et al. Expires January 2005 [Page 83]
Internet Draft ForCES FE Model July 2004
appropriate error counters are incremented, and the error type is
used to select an exception output.
Because the IP Interface LFB is the repository for the interface
MIB counters, two special pairs of inputs are provided for packets
which have been selected to be discarded further downstream (one
each for the receive and transmit counters). Packets arriving on
these LFB inputs must be accompanied by frame length and L3
interface metadata. An exception output on the LFB should be
connected to a dropper LFB.
6.4. Classifier LFB
The function of classification is to logically partition packets
into one of N different classes, based on some sequence of one or
more mathematical operations applied to the packet and its
associated metadata. Various LFBs perform an intrinsic
classification function. Where this function is a well-defined
protocol operation, a separate LFB may be defined (e.g., IP
Interface LFB, which performs header verification).
Several common applications need to classify packets using a
particular mathematical operation (e.g., longest prefix match (LPM)
or ternary match) against a fixed set of fields in a packet's
header plus metadata, or an easily recognized part of the packet
payload. Two example applications are classification for
Differentiated Services or for security processing. Typically the
packet is evaluated against a potentially large set of rules
(called "filters"), which are processed in a particular order to
ensure a deterministic result. This sort of classification
functionality is modeled by the Classifier LFB.
The Classifier LFB accepts an input packet and metadata, and
produces the unmodified packet along with a class metadata, which
may be used to map the packet to a particular LFB output.
The Classifier LFB supports multiple classifier attributes. Each
classifier is parameterized by one or more filters. Classification
is performed by selecting the classifier to use on a particular
packet (e.g., by metadata lookup on a configurable metadata item),
and by evaluating the selected contents of the accepted packet
against that classifier's filters. A filter decides if the input
packet satisfies particular criteria. According to [DiffServ], "a
filter consists of a set of conditions on the component values of a
packet's classification key (the header values, contents, and
attributes relevant for classification)".
Yang, et al. Expires January 2005 [Page 84]
Internet Draft ForCES FE Model July 2004
Note that other LFBs may perform simple classification on the
packet or its metadata. The purpose of the Classifier LFB is to
model an LFB that "digests" large amounts of input data (packet,
metadata), to produce a "summary" of the classification results, in
the form of additional (or modified) metadata. Other LFBs can then
use this summary information to quickly and simply perform trivial
classification operations.
The Classifier LFB can be sub-classed into several function-
specific LFB classes which perform common classification functions.
These may include:
. Longest Prefix Match (LPM)
. IP Multicast lookup (S,G)
. Multifield Exact Match
. Multifield Ternary Match.
6.5. Next Hop LFB
The Next Hop LFB is used to resolve next hop information following
a forwarding lookup. Next Hop information normally includes the
outgoing interface (or interfaces, in the case of multicast), as
well as the outgoing IP address(es). This next hop information
associated with a forwarding prefix or classification rule is often
separated into a separate data structure in implementations to
allow the two pieces of information to be decoupled, because there
is frequently a fan-in relationship between forwarding prefix/rule
entries and next hop information, and decoupling them can permit
more efficient data structure management.
The Next Hop LFB maintains next hop attributes organized into
multiple next hop tables. The relevant table for a packet is
selected based on next hop table metadata. A set of one or more
next hop attributes is selected based on next hop index metadata.
Each next hop attribute stores the following information:
. a list of one or more outgoing interfaces
. next hop IP addresses, or, an index to a table of this
information
. that is maintained at a downstream LFB
. a list of outgoing MTUs
. TTL decrement value
The Next Hop LFB has two primary operations. The first is to map
the incoming next hop table and next hop index metadata into a
configurable next hop attribute. This mapping may be direct (one
metadata pair to one next hop attribute). If the next hop index
metadata selects a set of next hop attributes, final attribute
resolution depends on a selection algorithm that uses some
Yang, et al. Expires January 2005 [Page 85]
Internet Draft ForCES FE Model July 2004
additional metadata, or an internal classification operation, to
select among a set of possible next hop attributes. One example is
weighted next hop selection, where individual packets are mapped to
particular next hop attributes in the set according to weights and
to some flow order-preserving function (e.g., such as an address
pair hash). Another alternative is class-based next hop selection,
based on some class metadata.
The second operation is a derivative of the first. The next hop
table and next hop index metadata are used to select a set of one
or more next hop attributes. Then the outgoing interface values
stored in those attributes are compared against the incoming
interface metadata provided to the Next Hop LFB, to determine
whether the incoming interface is in the set. This operation, in
combination with a IP source address forwarding lookup (which
provides the next hop table/index metadata), can be used to perform
a reverse path forwarding (RPF) check.
The Next Hop LFB has two inputs: one for normal next hop
resolution, and one for the incoming interface metadata test (e.g.,
RPF). The LFB requires incoming interface, frame length, next hop
table, and next hop index metadata. There are two normal output
groups, one for the normal next hop resolution, and another for the
RPF check. No additional metadata is produced for the latter, but
for the former, the following metadata may be produced:
. outgoing interface(s)
. next hop IP address(es)
. TTL decrement value (if TTL decrement is not performed by the
Next Hop LFB)
An alternative mode of operation produces index metadata instead of
outgoing interface and next hop IP address metadata. This index
metadata is used to access a cache of the outgoing interface and
next hop IP address that may be stored on the egress FE (this
permits more efficient communication across the FE interface).
This index metadata can also be used as input metadata to a MPLS
Encapsulation LFB.
The Next Hop LFB supports an exception output port group.
Exception conditions include:
. RPF test failed
. No route to host
. No route to network
. Packet too big
. TTL expired
The mapping between exception conditions and exception outputs is
configurable, and an exception code metadata is produced on these
outputs.
Yang, et al. Expires January 2005 [Page 86]
Internet Draft ForCES FE Model July 2004
6.6. Rate Meter LFB
The Rate Meter LFB is used to meter the packet flow through the LFB
according to a rate- and time-dependent function. Packets are
provided to the Rate Meter LFB along with packet length metadata
(and optional color metadata) and are associated with a meter
attribute either statically (based on LFB input) or via some other
configurable metadata item. The metering algorithm of the
associated meter attribute is applied to the packet, using the
packet length and the current time as inputs, along with previous
state maintained by the attribute. A color metadata is associated
with the packet in accordance with the metering algorithm used.
The color metadata is optionally emitted with the packet, or used
to map the packet to a particular LFB output. Color-aware metering
algorithms use color metadata if provided with the packet (e.g., by
a Classifier LFB), or assume a default color value.
The Rate Meter LFB supports a number of static attributes,
including:
. supported metering algorithms
. maximum number of meter attributes
The Rate Meter LFB supports a number of configurable attributes,
including:
. number of LFB inputs
. number of LFB outputs
. mapping of LFB input to meter attribute (when mapped
statically)
. metadata item to select for mapping to meter attribute
. mapping of metadata value to meter attribute
. default meter attribute (when not mapped statically or via
correct
. metadata)
. per-attribute metering algorithm
. per-attribute metering parameters, including:
. minimum rate
. maximum rate
. burst size
. color metadata enable
. mapping of packet color to LFB output
A Rate Meter LFB can be used to implement a policing function, by
connecting a LFB output directly to a Dropper LFB, and mapping non-
conforming (e.g., "red") traffic to that output.
6.7. Redirector (de-MUX) LFB
Yang, et al. Expires January 2005 [Page 87]
Internet Draft ForCES FE Model July 2004
The Redirector LFB is used to select between alternative datapaths
based on the value of some metadata item. The Redirector LFB
accepts an input packet P, and uses associated metadata item M to
demultiplex that packet onto one of N outputs; e.g., unicast
forwarding, multicast, or broadcast. Configurable attributes
include:
. number of LFB output ports (N)
. metadata item to demultiplex on (M)
. mapping of metadata value to output port
. default output port (for un-matched input metadata values).
Note that other LFBs may include demultiplexing functionality
(i.e., if they have multiple outputs in an output group). The
Redirector LFB is especially useful for demultiplexing based on
metadata items that are not generated or modified by an immediate
upstream LFB.
6.8. Packet Header Rewriter LFB
The Packet Header Rewriter LFB is used to re-write fields in a
packet's header. Function-specific sub-classes of the Packet
Header Rewriter LFB may be specified as sub-classes of the Modifier
LFB. These may include:
. IPv4 TTL/IPv6 Hop Count
. IPv4 header checksum
. DSCP
. IPv4 NAT
The precise means by which the packet header rewriting functions
will be specified is TBD.
6.9. Counter LFB
The Counter LFB is used to maintain packet and/or byte statistics
on the packet flow through the LFB. Packets are provided to the
Counter LFB on an LFB input along with packet length metadata and
are associated with a count attribute either statically (based on
the LFB input) or via some other configurable metadata item. The
Counter LFB modifies neither the packet nor any associated
metadata.
The Counter LFB supports a number of static attributes, including:
. supported counting modes (e.g., byte, packet, both)
. supported logging modes (e.g., last recorded packet time)
. maximum number of count attributes
Yang, et al. Expires January 2005 [Page 88]
Internet Draft ForCES FE Model July 2004
The Counter LFB supports a number of configurable attributes,
including:
. number of LFB inputs
. mapping of LFB input to count attribute (when mapped
statically)
. metadata item to select for mapping to count attribute
. mapping of metadata value to count attribute
. default count attribute (when not mapped statically or via
correct
. metadata)
. counting mode per-attribute
. logging mode per-attribute
The Counter LFB does not perform any time-dependent counting. The
time at which a count is made may, however, be logged as part of
the count attribute.
Other LFBs may maintain internal statistics (e.g., interface LFBs).
The Counter LFB is especially useful to maintain counts associated
with QoS policy.
6.10. Dropper LFB
A Dropper LFB has one input, and no outputs. It discards all
packets that it accepts without any modification or examination of
those packets.
The purpose of a Dropper LFB is to allow the description of "sinks"
within the model, where those sinks do not result in the packet
being sent into any object external to the model.
The Dropper LFB has no configurable attributes.
6.11. IPv4 Fragmenter LFB
The IPv4 Fragmenter LFB fragments IPv4 packets according to the MTU
of the outgoing interface. The IPv4 Fragmenter LFB accepts packets
with frame length and MTU metadata, and produces a sequence of one
or more valid IPv4 packets properly fragmented, each along with
corrected frame length metadata.
The source of the outgoing interface MTU is TBD. The IPv4
fragmentation function is not incorporated into the IP Interface
LFB because forwarding implementations may include additional
forwarding functions between fragmentation and final output
interface processing.
Yang, et al. Expires January 2005 [Page 89]
Internet Draft ForCES FE Model July 2004
6.12. L2 Address Resolution LFB
The L2 Address Resolution LFB is used to map a next hop IP address
into an L2 address. The LFB accepts packets with output L2
interface and next hop IP address metadata, and produces the packet
along with the correct L2 destination address. The L2 Address
Resolution LFB maintains multiple address resolution table
attributes accessed by the output L2 interface metadata. Each
table attribute maintains a set of configurable L2 address
attributes, accessed by the next hop IP address.
The L2 Address Resolution LFB has a normal output group, which
produces the L2 destination address metadata as well as an
exception output. This exception output can be used to divert the
packet to another LFB (e.g., an ARP/ND Protocol LFB, or a Port LFB
used to reach the CE) for address resolution.
6.13. Queue LFB
The Queue LFB is used to represent queueing points in the packet
datapath. It is always used in combination with one or more
Scheduler LFBs. The Queue LFB manages one or more FIFO packet
queues as configurable attributes. The Queue LFB provides one or
more LFB inputs, and packets are mapped from LFB inputs to queues,
either statically, or via queue metadata. Each queue attribute is
mapped one-to-one with a scheduling input on a downstream Scheduler
LFB. The Queue LFB provides one or more LFB outputs, along with
optional scheduling input metadata.
Additional per-queue configurable attributes include the following:
. maximum depth discard behavior (tail drop/head drop/Active
Queue Management (AQM))
. AQM parameters (specific to the AQM algorithm; e.g., RED)
. Explicit Congestion Notification (ECN) enable
Packets are provided to the Queue LFB along with a packet length
metadata and an optional queue metadata. Because the Queue LFB can
model sophisticated AQM mechanisms such as per-color marking
thresholds (e.g., Weighted RED), packets may also be accompanied
with color metadata.
If ECN is enabled on a queue serving IP packets, then the IP packet
header is modified if congestion is marked. A protocol type
metadata must accompany the packet to indicate the packet protocol
(e.g., IPv4, IPv6, Ethernet), so that the implementation can
determine the location of the ECN bits in the header [RFC3168]. In
the case of IPv4, if congestion is signaled, the header checksum
Yang, et al. Expires January 2005 [Page 90]
Internet Draft ForCES FE Model July 2004
must be modified. The Queue LFB supports a capability to indicate
whether it corrects the IPv4 header checksum after marking
congestion experienced. Support for the checksum fixup is not
mandatory since the checksum may be recalculated in another LFB
further downstream.
6.14. Scheduler LFB
The Scheduler LFB is used to perform packet scheduling at queueing
points in the packet datapath, and hence is always used in
combination with one or more upstream Queue or Scheduler LFBs. The
Scheduler LFB supports one or more logical scheduling inputs. A
scheduling input can be mapped one-to-one to a Scheduler LFB input,
or the scheduling input can be selected via metadata (and both
mechanisms may be used in combination).
The Scheduler LFB multiplexes its scheduling inputs onto a single
LFB output, based on its scheduling algorithm along with the per-
input scheduling configuration. The packet is not modified during
the scheduling process.
Packets are provided to the Scheduler LFB along with a packet
length metadata and an optional scheduling input metadata.
Configurable attributes include:
. number of logical scheduler inputs
. number of LFB inputs
. mapping of LFB input to scheduler input
. scheduling algorithm
. per-input scheduling parameters, including:
. priority
. minimum service rate
. maximum service rate
. burst duration (at maximum service rate)
Hierarchical scheduling configurations can be created by cascading
two or more Scheduler LFBs.
6.15. MPLS ILM/Decapsulation LFB
The MPLS Incoming Label Map (ILM)/Decapsulation LFB accepts MPLS-
encapsulated packets, examines (and possibly removes) the top-most
label, and emits the packet on one output within an output group,
along with configurable index and class metadata. The configurable
metadata can be used as input for an IP Interface LFB, a Next Hop
LFB, or the same (or another) MPLS ILM/Decapsulation LFB. This
allows the FE to terminate, forward, or "pop and lookup" on the
Yang, et al. Expires January 2005 [Page 91]
Internet Draft ForCES FE Model July 2004
value of the top-most label. The LFB maintains a set of ILM table
attributes indexed by incoming IP interface metadata. Each ILM
table entry is an attribute specifying whether to remove the label,
and which output port to emit the packet on. An exception output
is provided for packets with expired TTL.
6.16. MPLS Encapsulation LFB
The MPLS Encapsulation LFB accepts IP or MPLS-encapsulated packets
and appends an MPLS label stack, which is selected by output
interface and configurable index metadata. The TTL of the accepted
packet is copied from the outermost header into the labels in the
label stack, and the S bit is set on the bottom label if the
accepted packet is IP. The MPLS EXP bits are copied (or mapped)
according to per-stack attributes.
The MPLS Encapsulation LFB maintains multiple stack table
attributes indexed by output interface metadata. Entry attributes
within a table are indexed by configurable index metadata. Each
entry attribute maintains a label stack, along with a configurable
attribute for EXP bit handling, and possibly class and/or queue
metadata to emit with the packet.
MPLS ILM/decapsulation and encapsulation functions are modeled in
separate LFBs because some implementations split these operations
across FEs.
6.17. Tunnel Encapsulation/Decapsulation LFB
The Tunnel Encapsulation/Decapsulation LFB models tunnel header
encapsulation and decapsulation/demultiplexing. The LFB maintains
separate encapsulation and decapsulation input and output groups.
The encapsulation input group accepts packets with tunnel metadata,
appends a tunnel header that is stored in a configurable attribute
indexed by the tunnel metadata, and emits the packet on an
encapsulation output. The decapsulation input group accepts
packets encapsulated with a tunnel header along with tunnel
metadata, removes the tunnel header (performing any tunnel-
protocol-specific classification) according to attributes
configured on a per-tunnel basis and accessed via the tunnel
metadata, and emits the packet along with configurable metadata.
For example, the configurable metadata that is output may be used
as input interface metadata by a downstream IP or L2 Interface LFB.
A decapsulation exception output is available and is used in the
event that decapsulation fails.
Yang, et al. Expires January 2005 [Page 92]
Internet Draft ForCES FE Model July 2004
The Tunnel Encapsulation/Decapsulation LFB may be sub-classed into
tunnel-protocol-specific LFBs, including:
. IP-IP
. GRE
. L2TP
. Generic IPv6 Tunnels
6.18. Replicator LFB
The Replicator LFB is used to replicate accepted packets and emit
them on one or more outputs in an output group. Packets are
accepted along with replicator index metadata. The LFB maintains
an attribute table indexed by this metadata. Each table entry
attribute specifies the number of times the packet must be
replicated, the outputs (within the output group) that each
replicated packet should be emitted on, and configurable metadata
to be associated with each replicated packet.
The Replicator LFB can be used for multicast replication, or for
transparent packet interception.
7. Satisfying the Requirements on FE Model
This section describes how the proposed FE model meets the
requirements outlined in Section 5 of RFC 3654 [1]. The
requirements can be separated into general requirements (Sections
5, 5.1 - 5.4) and the specification of the minimal set of logical
functions that the FE model must support (Section 5.5).
The general requirement on the FE model is that it be able to
express the logical packet processing capability of the FE,
through both a capability and a state model. In addition, the FE
model is expected to allow flexible implementations and be
extensible to allow defining new logical functions.
A major component of the proposed FE model is the Logical Function
Block (LFB) model. Each distinct logical function in an FE is
modeled as an LFB. Operational parameters of the LFB that must be
visible to the CE are conceptualized as LFB attributes. These
attributes support flexible implementations by allowing an FE to
specify supported optional features and to indicate which
attributes are configurable by the CE for an LFB class (e.g.,
express the capability of the FE). Configurable attributes also
provide the CE some flexibility in specifying the behavior of an
LFB. When multiple LFBs belonging to the same LFB class are
instantiated on an FE, each of those LFBs could be configured with
Yang, et al. Expires January 2005 [Page 93]
Internet Draft ForCES FE Model July 2004
different attribute settings. By querying the settings of the
attributes for an instantiated LFB, one can determine the state of
that LFB.
Instantiated LFBs are interconnected in a directed graph that
describes the ordering of the functions within an FE. This
directed graph is described by the topology model. The
combination of the attributes of the instantiated LFBs and the
topology describe the packet processing functions available on the
FE (current state).
Another key component of the FE model is the FE attributes. The FE
attributes are used mainly to describe the capabilities of the FE,
but they also convey information about the FE state.
The FE model also includes a definition of the minimal set of LFBs
that is required by Section 5.5 of [1]. The sections that follow
provide more detail on the specifics of each of those LFBs.
7.1. Port Functions
The FE model can be used to define a Port LFB class and its
technology-specific subclasses (see Section 6.1) to map the
physical port of the device to the LFB model with both static and
configurable attributes. The static attributes model the type of
port, link speed, etc. The configurable attributes model the
addressing, administrative status etc.
7.2. Forwarding Functions
Because forwarding function is one of the most common and important
functions in the forwarding plane, it requires special attention in
modeling to allow design flexibility, implementation efficiency,
modeling accuracy and configuration simplicity. Toward that end,
it is recommended that the core forwarding function being modeled
by the combination of two LFBs -- Longest Prefix Match (LPM)
classifier LFB (see Section 6.4) and Next Hop LFB (see Section
6.5). Special header writer LFB (see Section 6.8) is also needed
to take care of TTL decrement and checksum etc.
7.3. QoS Functions
The LFB class library already includes descriptions of the Meter
(Section 6.6.), Queue (Section 6.13), Scheduler (Section 6.14),
Counter (Section 6.9) and Dropper (Section 6.10) LFBs to support
the QoS functions in the forwarding path. The FE model can also be
used to define other useful QoS functions as needed. These LFBs
Yang, et al. Expires January 2005 [Page 94]
Internet Draft ForCES FE Model July 2004
allow the CE to manipulate the attributes to model IntServ or
DiffServ functions.
7.4. Generic Filtering Functions
Various combinations of Classifier (Section 6.4), Redirector
(Section 6.7), Meter (Section 6.6.) and Dropper (Section 6.10) LFBs
can model a complex set of filtering functions.
7.5. Vendor Specific Functions
New LFB classes can be defined according to the LFB model as
described in Section 4 to support vendor specific functions. A new
LFB class can also be derived from an existing LFB class through
inheritance.
7.6.High-Touch Functions
High-touch functions are those that take action on the contents or
headers of a packet based on content other than what is found in
the IP header. Examples of such functions include NAT, ALG,
firewall, tunneling and L7 content recognition. It is not
practical to include all possible high touch functions in the
initial LFB library in Section 6 due to the number and complexity.
However, the flexibility of the LFB model and the power of
interconnection in LFB topology should make it possible to model
any high-touch functions.
7.7. Security Functions
Security functions are not included in the initial LFB class
library. However, the FE model is flexible and powerful enough to
model the types of encryption and/or decryption functions that an
FE supports and the associated attributes for such functions.
The IP Security Policy (IPSP) Working Group in the IETF has started
work in defining the IPSec Policy Information Base [8]. We will
try to reuse as much of the work as possible.
7.8. Off-loaded Functions
In addition to the packet processing functions that are typical to
find on the FEs, some logical functions may also be executed
asynchronously by some FEs, according to a certain finite-state
machine, triggered not only by packet events, but by timer events
as well. Examples of such functions include finite-state machine
execution required by TCP termination or OSPF Hello processing off-
Yang, et al. Expires January 2005 [Page 95]
Internet Draft ForCES FE Model July 2004
loaded from the CE. By defining LFBs for such functions, the FE
model is capable of expressing these asynchronous functions, so
that the CE may take advantage of such off-loaded functions on the
FEs.
7.9. IPFLOW/PSAMP Functions
[9] defines architecture for IP traffic flow monitoring, measuring
and exporting. The LFB model supports statistics collection on the
LFB by including statistical attributes (Section 4.7.4) in the LFB
class definitions; in addition, special statistics collection LFBs
such as meter LFB (Section 7.2.2) and counter LFB (Section 7.2.1)
can also be used to support accounting functions in the FE.
[10] describes a framework to define a standard set of capabilities
for network elements to sample subsets of packets by statistical
and other methods. Time event generation, filter LFB, and
counter/meter LFB are the elements needed to support packet
filtering and sampling functions -- these elements can all be
supported in the FE model.
8. Using the FE model in the ForCES Protocol
The actual model of the forwarding plane in a given NE is something
the CE must learn and control by communicating with the FEs (or by
other means). Most of this communication will happen in the post-
association phase using the ForCES protocol. The following types
of information must be exchanged between CEs and FEs via the ForCES
protocol:
1) FE topology query;
2) FE capability declaration;
3) LFB topology (per FE) and configuration capabilities query;
4) LFB capability declaration;
5) State query of LFB attributes;
6) Manipulation of LFB attributes;
7) LFB topology reconfiguration.
Items 1) through 5) are query exchanges, where the main flow of
information is from the FEs to the CEs. Items 1) through 4) are
typically queried by the CE(s) in the beginning of the post-
association (PA) phase, though they may be repeatedly queried at
any time in the PA phase. Item 5) (state query) will be used at
the beginning of the PA phase, and often frequently during the PA
phase (especially for the query of statistical counters).
Items 6) and 7) are "command" types of exchanges, where the main
flow of information is from the CEs to the FEs. Messages in Item
Yang, et al. Expires January 2005 [Page 96]
Internet Draft ForCES FE Model July 2004
6) (the LFB re-configuration commands) are expected to be used
frequently. Item 7) (LFB topology re-configuration) is needed only
if dynamic LFB topologies are supported by the FEs and it is
expected to be used infrequently.
Among the seven types of payload information the ForCES protocol
carries between CEs and FEs, the FE model covers all of them except
item 1), which concerns the inter-FE topology. The FE model
focuses on the LFB and LFB topology within a single FE. Since the
information related to item 1) requires global knowledge about all
of the FEs and their inter-connection with each other, this
exchange is part of the ForCES base protocol instead of the FE
model.
The relationship between the FE model and the seven post-
association messages are visualized in Figure 9:
+--------+
..........-->| CE |
/----\ . +--------+
\____/ FE Model . ^ |
| |................ (1),2 | | 6, 7
| | (off-line) . 3, 4, 5 | |
\____/ . | v
. +--------+
e.g. RFCs ..........-->| FE |
+--------+
Figure 9. Relationship between the FE model and the ForCES protocol
messages, where (1) is part of the ForCES base protocol, and the
rest are defined by the FE model.
The actual encoding of these messages is defined by the ForCES
protocol and beyond the scope of the FE model. Their discussion is
nevertheless important here for the following reasons:
. These PA model components have considerable impact on the FE
model. For example, some of the above information can be
represented as attributes of the LFBs, in which case such
attributes must be defined in the LFB classes.
. The understanding of the type of information that must be
exchanged between the FEs and CEs can help to select the
appropriate protocol format and the actual encoding method (such as
XML, TLVs).
. Understanding the frequency of these types of messages should
influence the selection of the protocol format (efficiency
considerations).
Yang, et al. Expires January 2005 [Page 97]
Internet Draft ForCES FE Model July 2004
An important part of the FE model is the port the FE uses for its
message exchanges to and from the CE. In the case that a dedicated
port is used for CE-FE communication, we propose to use a special
port LFB, called the CE-FE Port LFB (a subclass of the general Port
LFB in Section 6.1), to model this dedicated CE-FE port. The CE-FE
Port LFB acts as both a source and sink for the traffic from and to
the CE. Sometimes the CE-FE traffic does not have its own
dedicated port, instead the data fabric is shared for the data
plane traffic and the CE-FE traffic. A special processing LFB can
be used to model the ForCES packet encapsulation and decapsulation
in such cases.
The remaining sub-sections of this section address each of the
seven message types.
8.1. FE Topology Query
An FE may contain zero, one or more external ingress ports.
Similarly, an FE may contain zero, one or more external egress
ports. In other words, not every FE has to contain any external
ingress or egress interfaces. For example, Figure 10 shows two
cascading FEs. FE #1 contains one external ingress interface but
no external egress interface, while FE #2 contains one external
egress interface but no ingress interface. It is possible to
connect these two FEs together via their internal interfaces to
achieve the complete ingress-to-egress packet processing function.
This provides the flexibility to spread the functions across
multiple FEs and interconnect them together later for certain
applications.
While the inter-FE communication protocol is out of scope for
ForCES, it is up to the CE to query and understand how multiple FEs
are inter-connected to perform a complete ingress-egress packet
processing function, such as the one described in Figure 10. The
inter-FE topology information may be provided by FEs, may be hard-
coded into CE, or may be provided by some other entity (e.g., a bus
manager) independent of the FEs. So while the ForCES protocol
supports FE topology query from FEs, it is optional for the CE to
use it, assuming the CE has other means to gather such topology
information.
Yang, et al. Expires January 2005 [Page 98]
Internet Draft ForCES FE Model July 2004
+-----------------------------------------------------+
| +---------+ +------------+ +---------+ |
input| | | | | | output |
---+->| Ingress |-->|Header |-->|IPv4 |---------+--->+
| | port | |Decompressor| |Forwarder| FE | |
| +---------+ +------------+ +---------+ #1 | |
+-----------------------------------------------------+ V
|
+-----------------------<-----------------------------+
|
| +----------------------------------------+
V | +------------+ +----------+ |
| input | | | | output |
+->--+->|Header |-->| Egress |---------+-->
| |Compressor | | port | FE |
| +------------+ +----------+ #2 |
+----------------------------------------+
Figure 10. An example of two FEs connected together.
Once the inter-FE topology is discovered by the CE after this
query, it is assumed that the inter-FE topology remains static.
However, it is possible that an FE may go down during the NE
operation, or a board may be inserted and a new FE activated, so
the inter-FE topology will be affected. It is up to the ForCES
protocol to provide a mechanism for the CE to detect such events
and deal with the change in FE topology. FE topology is outside
the scope of the FE model.
8.2. FE Capability Declarations
FEs will have many types of limitations. Some of the limitations
must be expressed to the CEs as part of the capability model. The
CEs must be able to query these capabilities on a per-FE basis.
Examples:
. Metadata passing capabilities of the FE. Understanding these
capabilities will help the CE to evaluate the feasibility of
LFB topologies, and hence to determine the availability of
certain services.
. Global resource query limitations (applicable to all LFBs of
the FE).
. LFB supported by the FE.
. LFB class instantiation limit.
. LFB topological limitations (linkage constraint, ordering
etc.)
8.3. LFB Topology and Topology Configurability Query
Yang, et al. Expires January 2005 [Page 99]
Internet Draft ForCES FE Model July 2004
The ForCES protocol must provide the means for the CEs to discover
the current set of LFB instances in an FE and the interconnections
between the LFBs within the FE. In addition, sufficient
information should be available to determine whether the FE
supports any CE-initiated (dynamic) changes to the LFB topology,
and if so, determine the allowed topologies. Topology
configurability can also be considered as part of the FE capability
query as described in Section 9.3.
8.4. LFB Capability Declarations
LFB class specifications define a generic set of capabilities.
When an LFB instance is implemented (instantiated) on a vendor's
FE, some additional limitations may be introduced. Note that we
discuss only those limitations that are within the flexibility of
the LFB class specification. That is, the LFB instance will remain
compliant with the LFB class specification despite these
limitations. For example, certain features of an LFB class may be
optional, in which case it must be possible for the CE to determine
if an optional feature is supported by a given LFB instance or not.
Also, the LFB class definitions will probably contain very few
quantitative limits (e.g., size of tables), since these limits are
typically imposed by the implementation. Therefore, quantitative
limitations should always be expressed by capability arguments.
LFB instances in the model of a particular FE implementation will
possess limitations on the capabilities defined in the
corresponding LFB class. The LFB class specifications must define
a set of capability arguments, and the CE must be able to query the
actual capabilities of the LFB instance via querying the value of
such arguments. The capability query will typically happen when
the LFB is first detected by the CE. Capabilities need not be re-
queried in case of static limitations. In some cases, however,
some capabilities may change in time (e.g., as a result of
adding/removing other LFBs, or configuring certain attributes of
some other LFB when the LFBs share physical resources), in which
case additional mechanisms must be implemented to inform the CE
about the changes.
The following two broad types of limitations will exist:
. Qualitative restrictions. For example, a standardized multi-
field classifier LFB class may define a large number of
classification fields, but a given FE may support only a
subset of those fields.
. Quantitative restrictions, such as the maximum size of tables,
etc.
Yang, et al. Expires January 2005 [Page 100]
Internet Draft ForCES FE Model July 2004
The capability parameters that can be queried on a given LFB class
will be part of the LFB class specification. The capability
parameters should be regarded as special attributes of the LFB.
The actual values of these arguments may be, therefore, obtained
using the same attribute query mechanisms as used for other LFB
attributes.
Capability attributes will typically be read-only arguments, but in
certain cases they may be configurable. For example, the size of a
lookup table may be limited by the hardware (read-only), in other
cases it may be configurable (read-write, within some hard limits).
Assuming that capabilities will not change frequently, the
efficiency of the protocol/schema/encoding is of secondary concern.
8.5. State Query of LFB Attributes
This feature must be provided by all FEs. The ForCES protocol and
the data schema/encoding conveyed by the protocol must together
satisfy the following requirements to facilitate state query of the
LFB attributes:
. Must permit FE selection. This is primarily to refer to a
single FE, but referring to a group of (or all) FEs may
optional be supported.
. Must permit LFB instance selection. This is primarily to
refer to a single LFB instance of an FE, but optionally
addressing of a group of LFBs (or all) may be supported.
. Must support addressing of individual attribute of an LFB.
. Must provide efficient encoding and decoding of the addressing
info and the configured data.
. Must provide efficient data transmission of the attribute
state over the wire (to minimize communication load on the CE-
FE link).
8.6. LFB Attribute Manipulation
This is a place-holder for all operations that the CE will use to
populate, manipulate, and delete attributes of the LFB instances on
the FEs. This is how the CE configures an individual LFB instance.
The same set of requirements as described in Section 9.5 for
attribute query applies here for attribute manipulation as well.
Support for various levels of feedback from the FE to the CE (e.g.,
Yang, et al. Expires January 2005 [Page 101]
Internet Draft ForCES FE Model July 2004
request received, configuration completed), as well as multi-
attribute configuration transactions with atomic commit and
rollback, may be necessary in some circumstances.
(Editor's note: It remains an open issue as to whether or not other
methods are needed in addition to "get attribute" and "set
attribute" (such as multi-attribute transactions). If the answer
to that question is yes, it is not clear whether such methods
should be supported by the FE model itself or the ForCES protocol.)
8.7. LFB Topology Re-configuration
Operations that will be needed to reconfigure LFB topology:
. Create a new instance of a given LFB class on a given FE.
. Connect a given output of LFB x to the given input of LFB y.
. Disconnect: remove a link between a given output of an LFB and
a given input of another LFB.
. Delete a given LFB (automatically removing all interconnects
to/from the LFB).
9. Acknowledgments
Many of the colleagues in our companies and participants in the
ForCES mailing list have provided invaluable input into this work.
10. Security Considerations
The FE model describes the representation and organization of data
sets and attributes in the FEs. ForCES framework document [2]
provides a comprehensive security analysis for the overall ForCES
architecture. For example, the ForCES protocol entities must be
authenticated per the ForCES requirements before they can access
the information elements described in this document via ForCES.
The access to the information contained in the FE model is
accomplished via the ForCES protocol, which will be defined in
separate documents, and so the security issues will be addressed
there.
11. Normative References
[1] Khosravi, H. et al., "Requirements for Separation of IP Control
and Forwarding", RFC 3654, November 2003.
[2] Yang, L. et al., "Forwarding and Control Element Separation
(ForCES) Framework", work in progress, November 2003, <draft-ietf-
forces-framework-13.txt>.
Yang, et al. Expires January 2005 [Page 102]
Internet Draft ForCES FE Model July 2004
12. Informative References
[3] Bernet, Y. et al., "An Informal Management Model for Diffserv
Routers", RFC 3290, May 2002.
[4] Chan, K. et al., "Differentiated Services Quality of Service
Policy Information Base", RFC 3317, March 2003.
[5] Sahita, R. et al., "Framework Policy Information Base", RFC
3318, March 2003.
[6] Moore, B. et al., "Information Model for Describing Network
Device QoS Datapath Mechanisms", RFC 3670, January 2004.
[7] Snir, Y. et al., "Policy Framework QoS Information Model", RFC
3644, Nov 2003.
[8] Li, M. et al., "IPsec Policy Information Base", work in
progress, January 2003, <draft-ietf-ipsp-ipsecpib-07.txt>.
[9] Quittek, J. et Al., "Requirements for IP Flow Information
Export", work in progress, January 2004, <draft-ietf-ipfix-reqs-
15.txt>.
[10] Duffield, N., "A Framework for Passive Packet Measurement ",
work in progress, December 2003, <draft-ietf-psamp-framework-
05.txt>.
[11] Pras, A. and Schoenwaelder, J., FRC 3444 "On the Difference
between Information Models and Data Models", January 2003.
13. Authors' Addresses
L. Lily Yang
Intel Corp.
Mail Stop: JF3-206
2111 NE 25th Avenue
Hillsboro, OR 97124, USA
Phone: +1 503 264 8813
Email: lily.l.yang@intel.com
Joel M. Halpern
Megisto Systems, Inc.
20251 Century Blvd.
Germantown, MD 20874-1162, USA
Phone: +1 301 444-1783
Yang, et al. Expires January 2005 [Page 103]
Internet Draft ForCES FE Model July 2004
Email: jhalpern@megisto.com
Ram Gopal
Nokia Research Center
5, Wayside Road,
Burlington, MA 01803, USA
Phone: +1 781 993 3685
Email: ram.gopal@nokia.com
Alan DeKok
IDT Inc.
1575 Carling Ave.
Ottawa, ON K1G 0T3, Canada
Phone: +1 613 724 6004 ext. 231
Email: alan.dekok@idt.com
Zsolt Haraszti
Modular Networks
First Flight Venture Center
2 Davis Drive
PO Box 12076
Research Triangle Park, NC 27709, USA
Phone: +1 919 765 0027 x2017
Email: zsolt@modularnet.com
Steven Blake
Modular Networks
First Flight Venture Center
2 Davis Drive
PO Box 12076
Research Triangle Park, NC 27709, USA
Phone: +1 919 765 0027 x2016
Email: slblake@modularnet.com
Ellen Deleganes
Intel Corp.
Mail Stop: JF3-206
2111 NE 25th Avenue
Hillsboro, OR 97124, USA
Phone: +1 503 712 4173
Email: ellen.m.deleganes@intel.com
14. Intellectual Property Right
The authors are not aware of any intellectual property right issues
pertaining to this document.
Yang, et al. Expires January 2005 [Page 104]
Internet Draft ForCES FE Model July 2004
15. IANA consideration
A namespace is needed to uniquely identify the LFB type in the LFB
class library.
Frame type supported on input and output of LFB must also be
uniquely identified.
A set of metadata supported by the LFB model must also be uniquely
identified with names or IDs.
Yang, et al. Expires January 2005 [Page 105]