home
***
CD-ROM
|
disk
|
FTP
|
other
***
search
/
Internet Info 1997 December
/
Internet_Info_CD-ROM_Walnut_Creek_December_1997.iso
/
drafts
/
draft_ietf_i
/
draft-ietf-ion-nhrp-appl-01.txt
< prev
next >
Wrap
Text File
|
1997-03-24
|
20KB
|
479 lines
ION Working Group Derya H. Cansever
INTERNET DRAFT GTE Laboratories, Inc.
March 1997
Expiration Date September 1997
NHRP Protocol Applicability Statement
<draft-ietf-ion-nhrp-appl-01.txt>
Status of this Memo
This document is an Internet Draft. 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. Internet Drafts may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by
other documents at any time. It is not appropriate to use Internet
Drafts as reference material or to cite them other than as a "working
draft" or "work in progress."
Please check the 1id-abstracts.txt listing contained in the
internet-drafts Shadow Directories on nic.ddn.mil, nnsc.nsf.net,
nic.nordu.net, ftp.nisc.sri.com, or munnari.oz.au to learn the
current status of any Internet Draft.
Abstract
As required by the Routing Protocol Criteria [RFC 1264], this draft
report discusses the applicability of the Next Hop Resolution
Protocol (NHRP) in routing of IP datagrams over Non-Broadcast
Multiple Access (NBMA) networks, such as ATM, SMDS and X.25. The
final form of this draft report is a prerequisite to advancing NHRP
on the standards track.
1. Protocol Documents
The NHRP protocol description is defined in [1] in its draft form.
The NHRP MIB description is defined in [2] in its draft form.
2. Introduction
This document summarizes the key features of NHRP and discusses the
Cansever [Page 1]
NHRP Protocol Applicability Statement November 1996
environments for which the protocol is well suited. For the purposes
of description, NHRP can be considered a generalization of Classical
IP and ARP over ATM which is defined in [3] and of the Transmission
of IP Datagrams over the SMDS Service, defined in [4]. This
generalization occurs in 2 distinct directions.
Firstly, NHRP avoids the need to go through extra hops of routers
when the Source and Destination belong to different Logical Internet
Subnets (LIS). Of course, [3] and [4] specify that when the source
and destination belong to different LISs, the source station must
forward data packets to a router that is a member of multiple LISs,
even though the source and destination stations may be on the same
logical NBMA network. If the source and destination stations belong
to the same logical NBMA network, NHRP provides the source station
with an inter-LIS address resolution mechanism at the end of which
both stations can exchange packets without having to use the services
of intermediate routers. This feature is also referred to as "short-
cut" routing. If the destination station is not part of the logical
NBMA network, NHRP provides the source with the NBMA address of the
egress router towards the destination.
The second generalization is that NHRP is not specific to a
particular NBMA technology. Of course, [3] assumes an ATM network and
[4] assumes an SMDS network at their respective subnetwork layers.
NHRP is specified for resolving the destination NBMA addresses of IP
datagrams over IP subnets within a large NBMA cloud. In principle,
NHRP should also be extensible to network layer protocols other than
IP, possibly subject to other network layer protocol specific
additions.
As an important application of NHRP, the MultiProtocol Over ATM
(MPOA) Working Group of the ATM Forum has decided to adopt and to
integrate NHRP into its MPOA Protocol specification [5]. As such,
NHRP will be used in resolving the ATM addresses of MPOA packets
destined outside the originating Internetwork Address Sub-Group.
3. Key Features
NHRP is not a routing protocol, but an inter-LIS address resolution
mechanism that may make use of network layer routing in resolving the
NBMA address of the destination. This is further discussed in Section
5.
The most prominent feature of NHRP is that it avoids extra hops in an
NBMA with multiple LISs. To this goal, NHRP provides the source with
the NBMA address of the destination, if the destination is directly
attached to the NBMA. If the destination station is not attached to
Cansever [Page 2]
NHRP Protocol Applicability Statement November 1996
the NBMA, then NHRP provides the source with the NBMA address of an
exit router that has connectivity to the destination. In general,
there may be multiple exit routers that have connectivity to the
destination. If NHRP uses the services of a dynamic routing algorithm
in fulfilling its function, which is necessary for robust and
scalable operation, then the exit router identified by NHRP reflects
the selection made by the network layer dynamic routing protocol. In
general, the selection made by the routing protocol would often
reflect a desirable attribute, such as identifying the exit router
that induces the least number of hops in the original routed path.
NHRP is defined for avoiding extra hops in the delivery of IP packets
with a single destination. As such, it is not intended for direct use
in a point-to-multipoint communication setting. However, elements of
NHRP may be used in certain multicast scenarios for the purpose of
providing short cut routing. Such an effort is discussed in [6]. In
this case, NHRP would avoid intermediate routers in the multicast
path. The scalability of providing short-cut paths in a multicast
environment remains an issue.
NHRP can be used in host-host, host-router and router-host
communications. When used in router-router communication, NHRP (as
defined in [1]) can produce persistent routing loops. NHRP for
router-router communication that avoids persistent forwarding loops
will be addressed in separate document.
A special case of router-router communication where loops will not
occur is when the destination host is directly adjacent to the non-
NBMA interface of the egress router. If it is believed that the
adjacency of the destination station to the egress router is a stable
topological configuration, then NHRP can safely be used in this
router-router communication scenario. If the NHRP Request has the Q
bit set, indicating that the requesting party is a router, and if the
destination station is directly adjacent to the egress router as a
stable topological configuration, then the egress router can issue a
corresponding NHRP reply. If the destination is not adjacent to the
egress router, and if Q bit is set in the Request, then a safe mode
of operation for the egress router would be to issue a negative NHRP
Reply (NAK) for this particular request, thereby enforce data packets
to follow the routed path.
As a result of inter-LIS address resolution capability, NHRP allows
the communicating parties to exchange packets by fully utilizing the
particular features of the NBMA network. One such example is the use
of QoS guarantees when the NMBA network is ATM. Here, due to short-
cut routing, ATM provided QoS guarantees can be implemented without
having to deal with the issues of re-assembling and re-segmenting IP
packets at each network layer hop.
Cansever [Page 3]
NHRP Protocol Applicability Statement November 1996
NHRP protocol can be viewed as a client-server interaction. An NHRP
Client is the one who issues an NHRP Request. An NHRP Server is the
one who issues a reply to an NHRP request, or the one who forwards a
received NHRP request to another Server. Of course, an NHRP entity
may act both as a Client and a Server. NHRP uses network layer
routing in resolving the NBMA address of the destination. The related
routing tables can be populated using the services of network layer
dynamic routing algorithms, or they may be statically configured. If
network layer dynamic routing algorithms are used, NHRP Servers would
be implemented in a router, or in some device that participates to a
network layer dynamic routing algorithm. If static routing is used,
then NHRP Servers do not necessarily have to participate to network
layer dynamic routing algorithms. All they are required to do is to
reply to NHRP Requests using their IP to NBMA address resolution
tables, or to forward them to another Server, using some pre-
determined forwarding rules.
4. Use of NHRP
In general, issuing an NHRP request would be an application dependent
action [7]. For applications that do not have particular QoS
requirements, and that are executed within a short period of time, an
NBMA short-cut may not be a necessity. In situations where there is a
"cost" associated with NBMA short-cuts, such applications may be
better served by network layer hop-by-hop routing. Here, "cost" may
be understood in a monetary context, or as additional strain on the
equipment that implements short-cuts. Therefore, there is a trade-off
between the "cost" of a short-cut path and its utility to the user.
Reference [7] proposes that this trade-off should be addressed at the
application level. In an environment consisting of LANs and routers
that are interconnected via dedicated links, the basic routing
decision is whether to forward a packet to a router, or to broadcast
it locally. Such a decision on local vs. remote is based on the
destination address. When routing IP packets over an MBMA network,
where there is potentially a direct Source to Destination
connectivity with QoS options, the decision on local vs. remote is no
longer as fundamentally important as in the case where packets have
to traverse routers that are interconnected via dedicated links.
Then, in an NBMA network with QoS options, the basic decision becomes
the one of short-cut vs. hop-by-hop network layer routing. In this
case, the relevant criterion becomes applications' QoS requirements
[7]. NHRP is particularly applicable for environments where the
decision on local vs. remote is superseded by the decision on short-
cut vs. hop-by-hop network layer routing.
Let us assume that the trade-off is in favor of a short-cut NBMA
route. Generally, an NHRP request can be issued by a variety of NHRP
aware entities, including hosts and routers with NBMA interfaces. If
Cansever [Page 4]
NHRP Protocol Applicability Statement November 1996
an IP packet traverses multiple hops before a short-cut path has been
established, then there is a chance that multiple short-cut paths
could be formed. In order to avoid such an undesirable situation, a
useful operation rule is to authorize only the following entities to
issue an NHRP request and to perform short-cut routing.
i) The host that originates the IP packet, if the host has an NBMA
interface.
ii) The first router along the routing path of the IP packet such
that the next hop is reachable through the NBMA interface of
that particular router.
iii) A policy router within an NBMA network through which the IP
packet has to traverse.
5. Protocol Scalability
As previously indicated, NHRP is defined for the delivery of IP
packets with a single destination. Thus, this discussion is confined
to a unicast setting. The scalability of NHRP can be analyzed at
three distinct levels:
o Client level
o LIS level
o Domain level
Like in any other protocol, at the the Client level, the scalability
of NHRP is bounded by the processing and memory limitations of the
NIC that provides interface to the NBMA network. Such limitations do
not generally constitute an issue in connectionless NBMA networks.
When the NBMA network is connection oriented, such as ATM, NIC
limitations might bound the scalability of NHRP in certain cases. For
example, a server that handles hundreds of requests per second using
an ATM interface might be bounded by the performance characteristics
of the corresponding NIC. Similarly, when the NHRP Client resides at
an NBMA interface of a router, memory and processing limitations of
router's NIC might constitute a bound on the scalability of NHRP.
This is because routers deal with an aggregation of traffic from
multiple sources, which in turn creates a potentially large number of
SVCCs out of the router's NBMA interface.
At the LIS level, the main issue is to maintain and deliver a sizable
number of NBMA to Network layer address mappings within large LISs.
To this goal, NHRP implementations can use the services of the Server
Cache Synchronization Protocol (SCSP) [8] that allows multiple
synchronized NHSs within an LIS, and hence resolve the associated
scalability issue.
At the NHRP Domain level, network layer routing is used in resolving
the NBMA address of a destination outside the LIS. As such, the
Cansever [Page 5]
NHRP Protocol Applicability Statement November 1996
scalability of NHRP is closely tied to the scalability of the network
layer routing protocol used by NHRP. Dynamic network layer routing
protocols are proven to scale well. Thus, when used in conjunction
with dynamic routing algorithms, at the NHRP domain level, NHRP
should scale in the same order as the routing algorithm, subject to
the assumption that all the routers along the path are NHRP aware. If
an NHRP Request is processed by a router that does not implement
NHRP, it will be silently discarded. Then, short-cuts cannot be
implemented and connectivity will be provided on a hop-by-hop basis.
Thus, when NHRP is implemented in conjunction with dynamic network
layer routing, a scaling requirement for NHRP is that virtually all
the routers within a logical NBMA network should be NHRP aware.
One can also use static routing in conjunction with NHRP. Then, not
all the routers in the NBMA network need to be NHRP aware. That is,
since the routers that need to process NHRP control messages are
specified by static routing, routers that are not included in the
manually defined static paths do not have to be NHRP aware. Of
course, static routing does not scale, and if the destination is off
the NBMA network, then the use of static routing could result in
persistently suboptimal routes. Use of static routing also has fairly
negative failure modes.
6. Discussion
NHRP does not replace existing routing protocols. In general, routing
protocols are used to determine the proper path from a source host or
router, or intermediate router, to a particular destination. If the
routing protocol indicates that the proper path is via an interface
to an NBMA network, then NHRP may be used at the NBMA interface to
resolve the destination IP address into the corresponding NBMA
address. Of course, the use of NHRP is subject to considerations
discussed in Section 4.
Assuming that NHRP is applicable and the destination address has been
resolved, packets are forwarded using the particular data forwarding
and path determination mechanisms of the underlying NBMA network.
Here, the sequence of events are such that route determination is
performed by IP routing, independent of NHRP. Then, NHRP is used to
create a short-cut track upon the path determined by the IP routing
protocol. Therefore, NHRP "shortens" the routed path. NHRP (as
defined in [1]) is not sufficient to suppress persistent forwarding
loops when used for router-router communication [9]. Work is in
progress [10] to augment NHRP to enable its use for the router-router
communication without persistent forwarding loops.
When the routed path keeps changing on some relatively short
timescale, such as seconds, this situation will have an effect on the
Cansever [Page 6]
NHRP Protocol Applicability Statement November 1996
operation of NHRP. In router-router operation, changes in the routed
path could create persistent routing loops. In host-router, or
router-host communications, frequent changes in routed paths could
result in inefficiencies such as frequent creation of short-cut paths
which are short lived.
References
[1] NMBA Next Hop Resolution Protocol (NHRP), J. Luciani,
D. Katz, D. Piscitello and B. Cole. Work in progress.
draft-ietf-rolc-nhrp-09.txt.
[2] NHRP Management Information Base, M. Greene and J. Luciani,
Work in progress.
[3] Classical IP and ARP over ATM, Mark Laubach, RFC 1577.
[4] Transmission of IP datagrams over the SMDS service, J. Lawrance
and D. Piscitello, RFC 1209.
[5] MPOA Baseline Version 1, ATM Forum Contribution,
ATM Forum/95-0824
[6] Support for Sparse Mode PIM over ATM, Yakov Rekhter and Dino
Farinacci, Work in progress.
[7] "Local/Remote" Forwarding Decision in Switched Data Link
Subnetworks, Yakov Rekhter and Dilip Kandlur, RFC 1937.
[8] Server Cache Synchronization Protocol (SCSP) - NBMA,
J. Luciani, G. Armitage and J. Halpern,
Work in progress.
[9] IP over ATM: A Framework Document, R.G. Cole, D.H. Shur and
C. Villamizar, RFC 1932.
[10] NHRP for Destinations off the NBMA Subnetwork, Y. Rekhter,
Work in progress.
Acknowledgements
The author acknowledges valuable contributions and comments from many
participants of the ION Working Group, in particular from Joel
Halpern of Newbridge Networks, David Horton of Centre for Information
Technology Research, Andy Malis of Nexion, Yakov Rekhter of Cisco
Systems and Curtis Villamizar of ANS.
Cansever [Page 7]
NHRP Protocol Applicability Statement November 1996
Author's Address
Derya H. Cansever
GTE Laboratories Inc.
40 Sylvan Rd. MS 51
Waltham MA 02254
Phone: +1 617 466 4086
Email: dcansever@gte.com
Expiration Date May 1997
Cansever [Page 8]