Network Working Group D. Bryant

Network Working Group D. Bryant
Request for Comments: 2166 3Com Corp
Category: Informational P. Brittain
Data Connection Ltd.
June 1997

APPN Implementer's Workshop
Closed Pages Document

DLSw v2.0 Enhancements

Status of this Memo

This memo provides information for the Internet community. This memo
does not specify an Internet standard of any kind. Distribution of
this memo is unlimited.

Abstract

This document specifies

- a set of extensions to RFC 1795 designed to improve the scalability
of DLSw
- clarifications to RFC 1795 in the light of the implementation
experience to-date.

It is assumed that the reader is familiar with DLSw and RFC 1795. No
effort has been made to explain these existing protocols or
associated terminology.

This document was developed in the DLSw Related Interest Group (RIG)
of the APPN Implementers Workshop (AIW). If you would like to
participate in future DLSw discussions, please subscribe to the DLSw
RIG mailing lists by sending a mail to [email protected]
specifying 'subscribe aiw-dlsw' as the body of the message.

Table of Contents

1. INTRODUCTION ................................................ 3
2. HALT REASON CODES............................................ 3
3. SCOPE OF SCALABILITY ENHANCEMENTS............................ 4
4. OVERVIEW OF SCALABILITY ENHANCEMENTS......................... 6
5. MULTICAST GROUPS AND ADDRESSING.............................. 7
5.1 USING MULTICAST GROUPS...................................... 8
5.2 DLSW MULTICAST ADDRESSES.................................... 8
6. DLSW MESSAGE TRANSPORTS...................................... 8
6.1 TCP/IP CONNECTIONS ON DEMAND................................ 9
6.1.1 TCP CONNECTIONS ON DEMAND RACE CONDITIONS................ 9

Bryant & Brittain Informational [Page 1]

RFC 2166 APPN Implementer's Workshop June 1997

6.2 SINGLE SESSION TCP/IP CONNECTIONS........................... 9
6.2.1 EXPEDITED SINGLE SESSION TCP/IP CONNECTIONS.............. 10
6.2.1.1 TCP PORT NUMBERS...................................... 10
6.2.1.2 TCP CONNECTION SETUP.................................. 10
6.2.1.3 SINGLE SESSION SETUP RACE CONDITIONS.................. 10
6.2.1.4 TCP CONNECTIONS WITH NON-MULTICAST CAPABLE DLSW PEERS. 11
6.3 UDP DATAGRAMS............................................... 12
6.3.1 VENDOR SPECIFIC FUNCTIONS OVER UDP....................... 12
6.3.2 UNICAST UDP DATAGRAMS.................................... 12
6.3.3 MULTICAST UDP DATAGRAMS.................................. 13
6.4 UNICAST UDP DATAGRAMS IN LIEU OF IP MULTICAST............... 13
6.5 TCP TRANSPORT............................................... 14
7. MIGRATION SUPPORT............................................ 14
7.1 CAPABILITIES EXCHANGE....................................... 14
7.2 CONNECTING TO NON-MULTICAST CAPABLE NODES................... 15
7.3 COMMUNICATING WITH MULTICAST CAPABLE NODES.................. 15
8. SNA SUPPORT.................................................. 16
8.1 ADDRESS RESOLUTION.......................................... 16
8.2 EXPLORER FRAMES............................................. 16
8.3 CIRCUIT SETUP............................................... 17
8.4 EXAMPLE SNA SSP MESSAGE SEQUENCE............................ 17
8.5 UDP RELIABILITY............................................. 19
8.5.1 RETRIES.................................................. 19
9. NETBIOS...................................................... 20
9.1 ADDRESS RESOLUTION.......................................... 21
9.2 EXPLORER FRAMES............................................. 21
9.3 CIRCUIT SETUP............................................... 21
9.4 EXAMPLE NETBIOS SSP MESSAGE SEQUENCE........................ 22
9.5 MULTICAST RELIABILITY AND RETRIES........................... 24
10. SEQUENCING.................................................. 24
11. FRAME FORMATS............................................... 25
11.1 MULTICAST CAPABILITIES CONTROL VECTOR...................... 25
11.1.1 DLSW CAPABILITIES NEGATIVE RESPONSE..................... 26
11.2 UDP PACKETS................................................ 26
11.3 VENDOR SPECIFIC UDP PACKETS................................ 27
12. COMPLIANCE STATEMENT........................................ 28
13. SECURITY CONSIDERATIONS..................................... 29
14. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS............................................ 29
15. AUTHORS' ADDRESSES.......................................... 30
16. APPENDIX - CLARIFICATIONS TO RFC 1795....................... 31

Bryant & Brittain Informational [Page 2]

RFC 2166 APPN Implementer's Workshop June 1997

1. Introduction

This document defines v2.0 of Data Link Switching (DLSw) in the form
of a set of enhancements to RFC 1795. These enhancements are designed
to be fully backward compatible with existing RFC 1795
implementations. As a compatible set of enhancements to RFC 1795,
this document does not replace or supersede RFC 1795.

The bulk of these enhancements address scalability issues in DLSw
v1.0. Reason codes have also been added to the HALT_DL and
HALT_DL_NOACK SSP messages in order to improve the diagnostic
information available.

Finally, the appendix to this document lists a number of
clarifications to RFC 1795 where the implementation experience to-
date has shown that the original RFC was ambiguous or unclear. These
clarifications should be read alongside RFC 1795 to obtain a full
specification of the base v1.0 DLSw standard.

2. HALT Reason codes

RFC 1795 provides no mechanism for a DLSw to communicate to its peer
the reason for dropping a circuit. DLSw v2.0 adds reason code fields
to the HALT_DL and HALT_DL_NOACK SSP messages to carry this
information.

The reason code is carried as 6 bytes of data after the existing SSP
header. The format of these bytes is as shown below.

Byte Description
0-1 Generic HALT reason code in byte normal format

2-5 Vendor-specific detailed reason code

The generic HALT reason code takes one of the following decimal
values (which are chosen to match the disconnect reason codes
specified in the DLSw MIB).

1 - Unknown error
2 - Received DISC from end-station
3 - Detected DLC error with end-station
4 - Circuit-level protocol error (e.g., pacing)
5 - Operator-initiated (mgt station or local console)

The vendor-specific detailed reason code may take any value.

Bryant & Brittain Informational [Page 3]

RFC 2166 APPN Implementer's Workshop June 1997

All V2.0 DLSws must include this information on all HALT_DL and
HALT_DL_NOACK messages sent to v2.0 DLSw peers. For backwards
compatibility with RFC 1795, DLSw V2.0 implementations must also
accept a HALT_DL or HALT_DL_NOACK message received from a DLSw peer
that does not carry this information (i.e. RFC 1795 format for these
SSP messages).

3. Scope of Scalability Enhancements

The DLSw Scalability group of the AIW identified a number of
scalability issues associated with existing DLSw protocols as defined
in RFC 1795:

- Administration

RFC 1795 implies the need to define the transport address of all
DLSw peers at each DLSw. In highly meshed situations (such as
those often found in NetBIOS networks), the resultant
administrative burden is undesirable.

- Address Resolution

RFC 1795 defines point to point TCP (or other reliable transport
protocol) connections between DLSw peers. When attempting to
discover the location of an unknown resource, a DLSw sends an
address resolution packet to each DLSw peer over these connections.
In highly meshed configurations, this can result in a very large
number of packets in the transport network. Although each packet
is sent individually to each DLSw peer, they are each identical in
nature. Thus the transport network is burdened with excessive
numbers of identical packets. Since the transport network is most
commonly a wide area network, where bandwidth is considered a
precious resource, this packet duplication is undesirable.

- Broadcast Packets

In addition to the address resolution packets described above, RFC
1795 also propagates NetBIOS broadcast packets into the transport
network. The UI frames of NetBIOS are sent as LAN broadcast
packets. RFC 1795 propagates these packets over the point to point
transport connections to each DLSw peer. In the same manner as
above, this creates a large number of identical packets in the
transport network, and hence is undesirable. Since NetBIOS UI
frames can be sent by applications, it is difficult to predict or
control the rate and quantity of such traffic. This compounds the
undesirability of the existing RFC 1795 propagation method for
these packets.

Bryant & Brittain Informational [Page 4]

RFC 2166 APPN Implementer's Workshop June 1997

- TCP (transport connection) Overhead

As defined in RFC 1795, each DLSw maintains a transport connection
to its DLSw peers. Each transport connection guarantees in order
packet delivery. This is accomplished using acknowledgment and
sequencing algorithms which require both CPU and memory at the DLSw
endpoints in direct proportion to the number transport connections.
The DLSw Scalability group has identified two scenarios where the
number of transport connections can become significant resulting in
excessive overhead and corresponding equipment costs (memory and
CPU). The first scenario is found in highly meshed DLSw
configurations where the number of transport connections
approximates n2 (where n is the number of DLSw peers). This is
typically found in DLSw networks supporting NetBIOS. The second
scenario is found in networks where many remote locations
communicate to few central sites. In this case, the central sites
must support n transport connections (where n is the number of
remote sites). In both scenarios the resultant transport
connection overhead is considered undesirable depending upon the
value of n.

- LLC2 overhead

RFC 1795 specifies that each DLSw provides local termination for
the LLC2 (SDLC or other SNA reliable data link protocol) sessions
traversing the SSP. Because these reliable data links provide
guaranteed in order packet delivery, the memory and CPU overhead of
maintaining these connections can also become significant. This
is particularly undesirable in the second scenario described above,
because the number of reliable connections maintained at the
central site is the aggregate of the connections maintained at each
remote site.

It is not the intent of this document to address all the undesirable
scalability issues associated with RFC 1795. This paper identifies
protocol enhancements to RFC 1795 using the inherent multicast
capabilities of the underlying transport network to improve the
scalability of RFC 1795. It is believed that the enhancements
defined, herein, address many of the issues identified above, such as
administration, address resolution, broadcast packets, and, to a
lesser extent, transport overhead. This paper does not address LLC2
overhead. Subsequent efforts by the AIW and/or DLSw Scalability
group may address the unresolved scalability issues.

Bryant & Brittain Informational [Page 5]

RFC 2166 APPN Implementer's Workshop June 1997

While it is the intent of this paper to accommodate all transport
protocols as best as is possible, it is recognized that the multicast
capabilities of many protocols is not yet well defined, understood,
or implemented. Since TCP is the most prevalent DLSw transport
protocol in use today, the DLSw Scalability group has chosen to focus
its definition around IP based multicast services. This document only
addresses the implementation detail of IP based multicast services.

This proposal does not consider the impacts of IPv6 as this was
considered too far from widespread use at the time of writing.

4. Overview of Scalability Enhancements

This paper describes the use of multicast services within the
transport network to improve the scalability of DLSw based
networking. There are only a few main components of this proposal:

- Single session TCP connections

RFC 1795 defines a negotiation protocol for DLSw peers to choose
either two unidirectional or one bi-directional TCP connection.
DLSws implementing the enhancements described in this document must
support and use(whenever required and possible)a single bi-
directional TCP connection between DLSw peers. That is to say that
the single tunnel negotiation support of RFC 1795 is a prerequisite
function to this set of enhancements. Use of two unidirectional TCP
connections is only allowed (and required)for migration purposes
when communicating with DLSw peers that do not implement these
enhancements.

This document also specifies a faster method for bringing up a
single TCP connection between two DLSw peers than the negotiation
used in RFC 1795. This faster method, detailed in section 6.2.1,
must be used where both peers are known to support DLSw v2.0.

- TCP connections on demand

Two DLSw peers using these enhancements will only establish a TCP
connection when necessary. SSP connections to DLSw peers which do
not implement these enhancements are assumed to be established by
the means defined in RFC 1795. DLSws implementing v2.0 utilize UDP
based transport services to send address resolution packets
(CANUREACH_ex, NETBIOS_NQ_ex, etc.). If a positive response is
received, then a TCP connection is only established to the
associated DLSw peer if one does not already exist.
Correspondingly, TCP connections are brought down when there are no
circuits to a DLSw peer for an implementation defined period of
time.

Bryant & Brittain Informational [Page 6]

RFC 2166 APPN Implementer's Workshop June 1997

- Address resolution through UDP

The main thrust of this paper is to utilize non-reliable transport
and the inherent efficiencies of multicast protocols whenever
possible and applicable to reduce network overhead. Accordingly,
the address resolution protocols of SNA and NetBIOS are sent over
the non-reliable transport of IP, namely UDP. In addition, IP
multicast/unicast services are used whenever address resolution
packets must be sent to multiple destinations. This avoids the need
to maintain TCP SSP connections between two DLSw peers when no
circuits are active. CANUREACH_ex and ICANREACH_ex packets can be
sent to all the appropriate DLSw peers without the need for pre-
configured peers or pre-established TCP/IP connections. In
addition, most multicast services (including TCP's MOSPF, DVMRP,
MIP, etc.) replicate and propagate messages only as necessary to
deliver to all multicast members. This avoids duplication and
excessive bandwidth consumption in the transport network.

To further optimize the use of WAN resources, address resolution
responses are sent in a directed fashion (i.e., unicast) via UDP
transport whenever possible. This avoids the need to setup or
maintain TCP connections when they are not required. It also
avoids the bandwidth costs associated with broadcasting.

Note: It is also permitted to send some address resolution traffic
over existing TCP connections. The conditions under which this is
permitted are detailed in section 7.

- NetBIOS broadcasts over UDP

In the same manner as above, NetBIOS broadcast packets are sent via
UDP (unicast and multicast) whenever possible and appropriate. This
avoids the need to establish TCP connections between DLSw peers
when there are no circuits required. In addition, bandwidth in
the transport network is conserved by utilizing the efficiencies
inherent to multicast service implementation. Details covering
identification of these packets and proper propagation methods are
described in section 10.

5. Multicast Groups and Addressing

IP multicast services provides an unreliable datagram oriented
delivery service to multiple parties. Communication is accomplished
by sending and/or listening to specific 'multicast' addresses. When
a given node sends a packet to a specific address (defined to be
within the multicast address range), the IP network (unreliably)
delivers the packet to every node listening on that address.

Bryant & Brittain Informational [Page 7]

RFC 2166 APPN Implementer's Workshop June 1997

Thus, DLSws can make use of this service by simply sending and
receiving (i.e., listening for) packets on the appropriate multicast
addresses. With careful planning and implementation, networks can be
effectively partitioned and network overhead controlled by sending
and listening on different addresses groups. It is not the intent of
this paper to define or describe the techniques by which this can be
accomplished. It is expected that the networking industry (vendors
and end users alike) will determine the most appropriate ways to make
use of the functions provided by use of DLSw multicast transport
services.

5.1 Using Multicast Groups

The multicast addressing as described above can be effectively used
to limit the amount of broadcast/multicast traffic in the network.
It is not the intent of this document to describe how individual
DLSw/SSP implementations would assign or choose group addresses. The
specifics of how this is done and exposed to the end user is an issue
for the specific implementor. In order to provide for multivendor
interoperability and simplicity of configuration, however, this paper
defines a single IP multicast address, 224.0.10.000, to be used as a
default DLSw multicast address. If a given implementation chooses to
provide a default multicast address, it is recommended this address
be used. In addition, this address should be used for both
transmitting and receiving of multicast SSP messages. Implementation
of a default multicast address is not, however, required.

5.2 DLSw Multicast Addresses

For the purpose of long term interoperability, the AIW has secured a
block of IP multicast addresses to be used with DLSw. These
addresses are listed below:

Address Range Purpose
--------------------------------------------------------------------
224.0.10.000 Default multicast address
224.0.10.001-191 User defined DLSw multicast groups
224.0.10.192-255 Reserved for future use by the DLSw RIG in DLSw
enhancements

6. DLSw Message Transports

With the introduction of DLSw Multicast Protocols, SSP messages are
now sent over two distinct transport mechanisms: TCP/IP connections
and UDP services. Furthermore, the UDP datagrams can be sent to two
different kinds of IP addresses: unique IP addresses (generally
associated with a specific DLSw), and multicast IP addresses
(generally associated with a group of DLSw peers).

Bryant & Brittain Informational [Page 8]

RFC 2166 APPN Implementer's Workshop June 1997

6.1 TCP/IP Connections on Demand

As is the case in RFC 1795, TCP/IP connections are established
between DLSw peers. Unlike RFC 1795, however, TCP/IP connections are
only established to carry reliable circuit data (i.e., LLC2 based
circuits). Accordingly, a TCP/IP connection is only established to a
given DLSw peer when the first circuit to that DLSw is required
(i.e., the origin DLSw must send a CANUREACH_CS to a target DLSw peer
and there is no existing TCP connection between the two). In
addition, the TCP/IP connection is brought down an implementation
defined amount of time after the last active (not pending) circuit
has terminated. In this way, the overhead associated with
maintaining TCP connections is minimized.

With the advent of TCP connections on demand, the activation and
deactivation of TCP connections becomes a normal occurrence as
opposed to the exception event it constitutes in RFC 1795. For this
reason, it is recommended that implementations carefully consider the
value of SNMP traps for this condition.

6.1.1 TCP Connections on Demand Race Conditions

Non-circuit based SSP packetsn (e.g.,CANUREACH_ex, etc.) may still be
sent/received over TCP connections after all circuits have been
terminated. Taking this into account implementations should still
gracefully terminate these TCP connections once the connection is no
longer supporting circuits. This may require an implementation to
retransmit request frames over UDP when no response to a TCP based
unicast request is received and the TCP connection is brought down.
This is not required in the case of multicast requests as these are
received over the multicast transport mechanism.

6.2 Single Session TCP/IP Connections

RFC 1795 defines the use of two unidirectional TCP/IP sessions
between any pair of DLSw peers using read port number 2065 and write
port number 2067. Additionally, RFC 1795 allows for implementations
to optionally use only one bi-directional TCP/IP session. Using one
TCP/IP session between DLSw peers is believed to significantly
improve the performance and scalability of DLSw protocols.
Performance is improved because TCP/IP acknowledgments are much more
likely to be piggy-backed on real data when TCP/IP sessions are used
bi-directionally. Scalability is improved because fewer TCP control
blocks, state machines, and associated message buffers are required.
For these reasons, the DLSw enhancements defined in this paper
REQUIRE the use of single session TCP/IP sessions.

Bryant & Brittain Informational [Page 9]

RFC 2166 APPN Implementer's Workshop June 1997

Accordingly, DLSws implementing these enhancements must carry the TCP
Connections Control Vector in their Capabilities Exchange. In
addition, the TCP Connections Control Vector must indicate support
for 1 connection.

6.2.1 Expedited Single Session TCP/IP Connections

In RFC 1795, single session TCP/IP connections are accomplished by
first establishing two uni-directional TCP connections, exchanging
capabilities, and then bringing down one of the connections. In
order to avoid the unnecessary flows and time delays associated with
this process, a new single session bi-directional TCP/IP connection
establishment algorithm is defined.

6.2.1.1 TCP Port Numbers

DLSws implementing these enhancements will use a TCP destination port
of 2067 (as opposed to RFC 1795 which uses 2065) for single session
TCP connections. The source port will be a random port number using
the established TCP norms which exclude the possibility of either
2065 or 2067.

6.2.1.2 TCP Connection Setup

DLSw peers implementing these enhancements will establish a single
session TCP connection whenever the associated peer is known to
support this capability. To do this, the initiating DLSw simply
sends a TCP setup request to destination port 2067. The receiving
DLSw responds accordingly and the TCP three way handshake ensues.
Once this handshake has completed, each DLSw is notified and the DLSw
capabilities exchange ensues. As in RFC 1795, no flows may take
place until the capabilities exchange completes.

6.2.1.3 Single Session Setup Race Conditions

The new expedited single session setup procedure described above
opens up the possibility of a race condition that occurs when two
DLSw peers attempt to setup single session TCP connections to each
other at the same time. To avoid the establishment of two TCP
connections, the following rules are applied when establishing
expedited single session TCP connections:

1.If an inbound TCP connect indication is received on port 2067 while
an outbound TCP connect request (on port 2067) to the same DLSw (IP
address) is in process or outstanding, the DLSw with the higher IP
address will close or reject the connection from the DLSw with the
lower IP address.

Bryant & Brittain Informational [Page 10]

RFC 2166 APPN Implementer's Workshop June 1997

2.To further expedite the process, the DLSw with the lower IP address
may choose (implementation option) to close its connection request
to the DLSw with the higher address when this condition is
detected.
3.If the DLSw with the lower IP address has already sent its
capabilities exchange request on its connection to the DLSw with
the higher IP address, it must resend its capabilities exchange
request over the remaining TCP connection from its DLSw peer (with
the higher IP address).
4.The DLSw with the higher IP address must ignore any capabilities
exchange request received over the TCP connection to be terminated
(the one from the DLSw with the lower IP address).

6.2.1.4 TCP Connections with Non-Multicast Capable DLSw peers

During periods of migration, it is possible that TCP connections
between multicast capable and non-multicast capable DLSw peers will
occur. It is also possible that multicast capable DLSws may attempt
to establish TCP connections with partners of unknown capabilities
(e.g., statically defined peers). To handle these conditions the
following additional rules apply to expedited single session TCP
connection setup:

1.If the capability of a DLSw peer is not known, an implementation
may choose to send the initial TCP connect request to either port
2067 (expedited single session setup) or port 2065 (standard RFC
1795 TCP setup).
2.If a multicast capable DLSw receives an inbound TCP connect request
on port 2065 while processing an outbound request on 2067 to the
same DLSw, the sending DLSw will terminate its 2067 request and
respond as defined in RFC 1795 with an outbound 2065 request
(standard RFC 1795 TCP setup).
3.If a multicast capable DLSw receives an indication that the DLSw
peer is not multicast capable (the port 2067 setup request times
out or a port not recognized rejection is received), it will send
another connection request using port 2065 and the standard RFC
1795 session setup protocol.

Bryant & Brittain Informational [Page 11]

RFC 2166 APPN Implementer's Workshop June 1997

6.3 UDP Datagrams

As mentioned above, UDP datagrams can be sent two different ways:
unicast (e.g., sent to a single unique IP address) or multicast
(i.e., sent to an IP multicast address). Throughout this document,
the term UDP datagram will be used to refer to SSP messages sent over
UDP, while unicast and multicast SSP messages will refer to the
specific type/method of UDP packet transport. In either case,
standard UDP services are used to transport these packets. In order
to properly parse the inbound UDP packets and deliver them to the SSP
state machines, all DLSw UDP packets will use the destination port of
2067.

In addition, the checksum function of UDP remains optional for DLSw
SSP messages. It is believed that the inherent CRC capabilities of
all data link transports will adequately protect SSP packets during
transmission. And the incremental exposure to intermediate nodal
data corruption is negligible. For further information on UDP packet
formats see the �Frame Formats� section.

6.3.1 Vendor Specific Functions over UDP

In order to accommodate vendor specific capabilities over UDP
transport, a new SSP packet format has been defined. This new packet
format is required because message traffic of this type is not
necessarily preceded by a capabilities exchange. Accordingly, DLSw's
wishing to invoke a vendor specific function may send out this new
SSP packet format over UDP.

Because this packet can be sent over TCP connections and non-
multicast capable nodes may not be able to recognize it,
implementations may only send this packet over TCP to DLSw peers
known to understand this packet format (i.e., multicast capable). To
avoid this situation in the future, DLSws implementing these
enhancements must ignore SSP packets with an unrecognized DLSw
version number in the range of x'31' to x'3F'. Further information
and the precise format for this new packet type is described below in
the �Frame Formats� section.

6.3.2 Unicast UDP Datagrams

Generically speaking, a unicast UDP datagram is utilized whenever an
SSP message (not requiring reliable transport) must be sent to a
unique set (not all) of DLSw peers. This avoids the overhead of
having to establish and maintain TCP connections when they are not
required for reliable data transport.

Bryant & Brittain Informational [Page 12]

RFC 2166 APPN Implementer's Workshop June 1997

A typical example of when unicast UDP might be used would be an
ICANREACH_ex response from a peer DLSw (with which no TCP connection
currently exists). In this case, the sending DLSw knows the IP
address of the intended receiver and can simply send the response via
unicast UDP. In addition, there are a number of NetBIOS cases where
unicast UDP is used to handle UI frames directed to a specific DLSw
(e.g., NetBIOS STATUS_RESPONSE). Further detail is provided in the
NetBIOS section of this document.

6.3.3 Multicast UDP Datagrams

In a broad sense, multicast UDP datagrams are used whenever a given
SSP message must be sent to multiple DLSw peers. In the case of SNA,
this is primarily the CANUREACH_ex packets. In the case of NetBIOS,
multicast datagrams are used to send broadcast UI frames such as
NetBIOS user datagrams and broadcast datagrams.

Note, however, it is sometimes possible to avoid broadcasting certain
NetBIOS frames that would otherwise be broadcast in the LAN
environment. This is typically accomplished using name caching
techniques not described in this paper. In cases of this type when a
single destination DLSw can be determined, unicast transport can be
used to send the 'broadcast' NetBIOS frame to a single destination.
A more detailed listing of NetBIOS SSP packets and transport methods
can be found in the NetBIOS section of this document.

6.4 Unicast UDP Datagrams in Lieu of IP Multicast

Because the use of IP multicast services is actually a function of IP
itself and not DLSw proper, it is possible for implementations to
simply make use of the UDP transport mechanisms described in this
paper without making direct use of the IP multicast function. While
this is not considered to be as efficient as using multicast
transport mechanisms, this practice is not explicitly prohibited.

Implementations which choose to make use of UDP transport in this
manner must first know the IP address of all the potential target
DLSw peers and send individual unicast packets to each. How this
information is obtained and/or maintained is outside the scope of
this paper.

As a matter of compliance, implementers need not send SSP packets
outbound over UDP as there are some conditions where this may not be
necessary or desirable. It is, however, required that implementers
provide an option to receive SSP packets over UDP.

Bryant & Brittain Informational [Page 13]

RFC 2166 APPN Implementer's Workshop June 1997

6.5 TCP Transport

Despite the addition of UDP based packet transport, TCP remains the
fundamental form of communications between DLSw peers. In
particular, TCP is still used to carry all LLC2 based circuit data.

Throughout this document wherever UDP unicast (not multicast) is
discussed, the reader should be aware that TCP may be used instead.
Moreover, it is strongly recommended that TCP be used in preference
to UDP whenever a TCP connection to the destination already exists.
Implementations, however, should be prepared to receive SSP packets
from either transport (TCP or UDP).

7. Migration Support

It is anticipated that some networks will experience a transition
stage where both RFC 1795 (referred to as 'non-multicast' DLSws) and
It will be important for these two DLSw node types to interoperate
and thus the following accommodations for non-multicast DLSws are
required:

7.1 Capabilities Exchange

In order to guarantee both backward and forward capability, DLSws
which implement these multicast enhancements will carry a �Multicast
Capabilities� Control Vector in their capabilities exchange (see RFC
1795 for an explanation of capabilities exchange protocols).
Presence of the Multicast Capabilities control vector indicates
support for the protocols defined in this document on a per DLSw peer
basis. Conversely, lack of the Multicast Capabilities control vector
indicates no support for these extensions on a per DLSw peer basis.

Additionally, nodes implementing these enhancement will carry a
modified DLSw Version control vector (x'82') indicating support for
version 2 release 0.

Lastly, presence of these control vectors mandates a TCP Connections
Control Vector indicating support for 1 TCP connection in the same
Capabilities exchange.

If a multicast capable DLSw receives a Capabilities Exchange CV that
includes the Multicast Capabilites CV but does not meet the above
criteria, it must reject the capabilities exchange by sending a
negative response as described in section 11.1.1.

Bryant & Brittain Informational [Page 14]

RFC 2166 APPN Implementer's Workshop June 1997

7.2 Connecting to Non-Multicast Capable Nodes

It is assumed that TCP connections to DLSw peers which do not support
multicast services are established by some means outside the scope of
this paper (i.e., non-multicast partner addresses are configured by
the customer). TCP connections must be established and maintained to
down level nodes in the exact same manner as RFC 1795 requires,
establishes, and maintains them. And because non-multicast DLSw
peers will not indicate support for multicast services in their
capabilities exchange, a multicast capable DLSw will know all its
non-multicast peers.

7.3 Communicating with Multicast Capable Nodes

Because non-multicast nodes will not receive SSP frames via UDP
(unicast or multicast) transmission, SSP messages to these DLSw peers
must be sent over TCP connections. Therefore, nodes which implement
the multicast protocol enhancements must keep track of which DLSw
peers do not support multicast extensions (as indicated in the
capabilities exchange). When a given packet is sent out via
multicast services, it must also be sent over multicast UDP(to reach
other multicast capable DLSw peers) and over the TCP connection to
each non-multicast node. And although the multicast service requires
periodic retransmissions (for reliability reasons), this is not the
case with TCP connections to non-multicast nodes. Therefore,
multicast capable DLSws should not resend SSP packets over TCP
transport connection but rather, rely upon TCP to recover any lost
packets. Furthermore, communications with non-multicast nodes should
be in exact compliance with RFC 1795 protocols.

When sending a unicast UDP message, it is important to know that the
destination DLSw supports multicast services. This knowledge can be
obtained from previous TCP connections/capabilities exchanges or
inferred from a previously received UDP message, but how this
information is obtained is outside the scope of this paper. In the
latter case, if the DLSw is non-multicast, then there would be a TCP
connection to it and it would be known to be non-multicast. If it is
multicast capable and a TCP connection is in existence, then its
level is known (via the prior capabilities exchange). If its
capabilities are not known and there is not an existing TCP
connection, then it can be implied to be multicast capable by virtue
of a cached entry but no active TCP connection (e.g., TCP peer on
demand support). This inference, however, could be erroneous in
cases where the TCP connection (to a non-multicast DLSw) has failed
for some reason. But normal UDP based unicast verification mechanisms
will detect no active path to the destination and circuit setup will
proceed correctly (i.e., succeed or fail in accordance with true
connectivity).

Bryant & Brittain Informational [Page 15]

RFC 2166 APPN Implementer's Workshop June 1997

8. SNA Support

Note: This paper does not attempt to address the unique issues
presented by SNA/HPR and its non-ERP data links

In SNA protocols the generalized packet sequence of interest is a
test frame exchange followed by an XID exchange. In all cases, DLSw
uses the CANUREACH_ex and ICANREACH_ex SSP packets to complete
address resolution and circuit establishment. The following table
describes how these packets are transported via UDP between two
multicast capable DLSw peers.

Transport
Message Event Action Mechanism Retry
--------------------------------------------------------------------
TEST SEND CANUREACH_ex Multicast/Unicast Yes
TEST RESPONSE SEND ICANREACH_ex Unicast No

The following paragraphs provide more detail on how UDP transport and
multicast protocol enhancements are used to establish SNA data links.

8.1 Address Resolution

When a DLSw receives an incoming test frame from an attached data
link, the assumption is that this is an exploratory frame in
preparation for an XID exchange and link activation. The DLSw must
determine a correlation between the destination LSAP (mac and sap
pairing) and some other DLSw in the transport network. This paper
generically refers to this process as �address resolution�.

8.2 Explorer frames

Address resolution messages may be sent over a TCP connection to a
multicast capable DLSw peer if such a connection already exists in
order that they take advantage of the guaranteed delivery of TCP.
This is particularly recommended for ICANREACH_ex frames.

Bryant & Brittain Informational [Page 16]

RFC 2166 APPN Implementer's Workshop June 1997

8.3 Circuit Setup

Circuit setup is accomplished in the same manner as described in RFC
1795. More specifically, CANUREACH_cs, ICANREACH_cs, REACH_ACK,
XIDFRAME, etc. are all sent over the TCP connection to the
appropriate DLSw. This, of course, assumes the existence of a TCP
connection between the DLSw peers. If the sending DLSw (sending a
CANUREACH_cs ) detects no active TCP connection to the DLSw peer,
then a TCP connection setup is initiated and the packet sent. All
other circuit setup (and takedown) related sequences are now passed
over the TCP connection.

8.4 Example SNA SSP Message Sequence

The following diagram provides an example sequence of flows
associated with an SNA LLC circuit setup. All flows and states
described below correspond precisely with those defined in RFC 1795.
The only exception is the addition of a TCP connection setup and DLSw
capabilities exchange that occurs when the origin DLSw must send a
CANUREACH_CS and no TCP connection yet exists to the target DLSw
peer.

Bryant & Brittain Informational [Page 17]

RFC 2166 APPN Implementer's Workshop June 1997

====== ___ ======
| | --------- __/ \__ --------- | |
| | __| _|_ |__ / IP \ __| _|_ |__ | |
====== | | | < Network > | | | ======
/______\ --------- \__ __/ --------- /______\
Origin Origin DLSw \___/ Target DLSw Target
Station partner partner Station

disconnected disconnected

TEST_cmd DLC_RESOLVE_C CANUREACH_ex TEST_cmd
-----------> -----------> -----------> ---------->
TEST_rsp DLC_RESOLVE_R ICANREACH_ex TEST_rsp
<--------- <----------- <----------- <----------
null XID DLC_XID
-----------> ----------->
circuit_start

TCP Connection Setup
<------------->
Capabilities Exch.
<------------->

CANUREACH_cs DLC_START_DL
-----------> ----------->
resolve_pending
ICANREACH_cs DLC_DL_STARTED
<----------- <-------------
circuit_established circuit_pending
REACH_ACK
-----------> circuit_established

XIDFRAME DLC_XID null XID
-----------> ---------> -------->
XID DLC_XID XIDFRAME DLC_XID XID
<-------- <----------- <----------- <----------- <--------
XIDs DLC_XIDs XIDFRAMEs DLC_XIDs XIDs
<----------> <----------> <------------> <------------> <--------->
SABME DLC_CONTACTED CONTACT DLC_CONTACT SABME
-----------> -----------> -----------> -----------> -------->
connect_pending contact_pending

UA DLC_CONTACT CONTACTED DLC_CONTACTED UA
<--------- <----------- <----------- <----------- <--------
connected connected
IFRAMEs DLC_INFOs IFRAMEs DLC_INFOs IFRAMEs
<----------> <-----------> <------------> <------------> <-------->

Bryant & Brittain Informational [Page 18]

RFC 2166 APPN Implementer's Workshop June 1997

8.5 UDP Reliability

It is important to note, that UDP (unicast and multicast)transport
services do not provide a reliable means of delivery. Existing RFC
1795 protocols guarantee the delivery (or failure notification) of
CANUREACH_ex and ICANREACH_ex messages. UDP will not provide the
same level of reliability. It is, therefore, possible that these
messages may be lost in the network and (CANUREACH_ex) retries will
be necessary.

8.5.1 Retries

Test Frames are generally initiated by end stations every few
seconds. Many existing RFC 1795 DLSw implementations take advantage
of the reliable SSP TCP connections and filter out end station Test
frame retries when a CANUREACH_ex is outstanding. Given the
unreliable nature of UDP transport for these messages, however, this
filtering technique may not be advisable. Neither RFC 1795 nor this
paper address this issue specifically. It is simply noted that the
UDP transport mechanism is unreliable and implementations should take
this into account when determining a scheme for Test frame filtering
and explorer retries. Accordingly, the �Retry� section in the table
above only serves as an indicator of situations where retries may be
desirable and/or necessary, but does not imply any requirement to
implement retries. Also note, that retry logic only applies to non-
response type packets. It is not appropriate to retry response type
SSP packets (i.e., ICANREACH_ex) as there is no way of knowing if the
original response was ever received (and whether retry is necessary).
So in the case of SNA, CANUREACH_ex messages may need retry logic and
ICANREACH_ex messages do not.

Bryant & Brittain Informational [Page 19]

RFC 2166 APPN Implementer's Workshop June 1997

9. NetBIOS

With the introduction of DLSw Multicast transport, all multicast
NetBIOS UI frames are carried outside the TCP connections between
DLSw peers (i.e., via UDP datagrams). The following table defines
the various NetBIOS UI frames and how they are transported via UDP
between multicast capable DLSw peers:

Transport
Message Event Action Mechanism Retry
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
ADD_GROUP_NAME_QUERY SEND DATAFRAME Multicast Yes
ADD_NAME_QUERY SEND NETBIOS_ANQ Multicast Yes
ADD_NAME_RESPONSE SEND NETBIOS_ANR Unicast1 No
NAME_IN_CONFLICT SEND DATAFRAME Multicast No
STATUS_QUERY SEND DATAFRAME Unicast/Multicast(2) Yes
STATUS_RESPONSE SEND DATAFRAME Multicast(5) No
TERMINATE_TRACE (x'07') SEND DATAFRAME Multicast No
TERMINATE_TRACE (X'13') SEND DATAFRAME Multicast No
DATAGRAM SEND DATAFRAME(3) Unicast/Multicast(2) No
DATAGRAM_BROADCAST SEND DATAFRAME Multicast No
NAME_QUERY SEND NETBIOS_NQ_ex Unicast/Multicast(2) Yes
NAME_RECOGNIZED SEND NETBIOS_NR_ex Unicast(4) No

Note 1:
Upon receipt of an ADD_NAME_RESPONSE frame, a NETBIOS_ANR SSP message
is returned via unicast UDP to the originator of the NETBIOS_ANQ
message.

Note 2:
These frames may be sent either Unicast or Multicast UDP. If the
implementation has sufficient cached information to resolve the
NetBIOS datagram destination to a single DLSw peer, then the SSP
message can and should be sent via unicast. If the cache does not
contain such information then the resultant SSP message must be sent
via multicast UDP.

Note 3:
Note that this frame is sent as either a DATAFRAME or DGRMFRAME
according to the rules as specified in RFC 1795.

Note 4:
Upon receipt of a NAME_RECOGNIZED frame, a NETBIOS_NR_ex SSP message
is returned via unicast UDP to the originator of the NETBIOS_NQ_ex
frame. Notice that although the NAME_RECOGNIZED frame is sent as an
All Routes Explorer (source routing LANs only) frame, the resultant
NETBIOS_NR_ex is sent as a unicast UDP directed response to the DLSw
originating the NETBIOS_NQ_ex. This is because there is no value in

Bryant & Brittain Informational [Page 20]

RFC 2166 APPN Implementer's Workshop June 1997

sending NETBIOS_NR_ex as a multicast packet in the transport network.
The use of ARE transmission in the LAN environment is to accomplish
some form of load sharing in the source routed LAN environment.
Since no analogous capability exists in the (TCP) transport network,
it is not necessary to emulate this function there. It is important
to note, however, that when converting a received NETBIOS_NR_ex to a
NAME_RECOGNIZED frame, the DLSw sends the NAME_RECOGNIZED frame onto
the LAN as an ARE (source routing LANs only) frame. This preserves
the source route load sharing in the LAN environments on either side
of the DLSw transport network.

Note 5:
Although RFC 1795 does not attempt to optimize STATUS_RESPONSE
processing, it is possible to send a STATUS_RESPONSE as a unicast UDP
response. To do this, DLSws receiving an incoming SSP DATAFRAME
containing a STATUS_QUERY must remember the originating DLSw's
address and STATUS_QUERY correlator. Then upon receipt of the
corresponding STATUS_RESPONSE, the DLSw responds via unicast UDP to
the originating DLSw(using the remembered originating DLSw address).
Note, however, that in order to determine whether a frame is a
STATUS_QUERY, all multicast capable DLSw implementations will need to
parse the contents of frames that would normally be sent as DATAFRAME
SSP messages.

All other multicast frames are sent into the transport network using
the appropriate multicast group address.

9.1 Address Resolution

Typical NetBIOS circuit setup using multicast services is essentially
the same as specified in RFC 1795. The only significant difference
is that NETBIOS_NQ_ex messages are sent via UDP to the appropriate
unicast/multicast IP address and the NETBIOS_NR_ex is sent via
unicast UDP to the DLSw originating the NETBIOS_NQ_ex.

9.2 Explorer Frames

Address resolution messages may be sent over a TCP connection to a
multicast capable partner if such a connection already exists in
order that they take advantage of the guaranteed delivery of TCP.
This is particularly recommended for NETBIOS_NR_ex frames.

9.3 Circuit Setup

Following successful address resolution, a NetBIOS end station
typically sends a SABME frame to initiate a formal LLC2 connection.
Receipt of this message results in normal circuit setup as described
in RFC 1795 (and the SNA case described above). That is to say that

Bryant & Brittain Informational [Page 21]

RFC 2166 APPN Implementer's Workshop June 1997

the CANUREACH_cs messages etc. are sent on a TCP connection to the
appropriate DLSw peer. If no such TCP connection exists, one is
brought up.

9.4 Example NetBIOS SSP Message Sequence

The following diagram provides an example sequence of flows
associated with a NetBIOS circuit setup. All flows and states
described below correspond precisely with those defined in RFC 1795.
The only exception is the addition of a TCP connection setup and DLSw
capabilities exchange that occurs when the origin DLSw must send a
CANUREACH_cs and no TCP connection yet exists to the target DLSw
peer.

Bryant & Brittain Informational [Page 22]

RFC 2166 APPN Implementer's Workshop June 1997

====== ___ ======
| | --------- __/ \__ --------- | |
| | __| _|_ |__ / IP \ __| _|_ |__ | |
====== | | | < Network > | | | ======
/______\ --------- \__ __/ --------- /______\
Origin Origin DLSw \___/ Target DLSw Target
Station partner partner Station

disconnected disconnected

NAME_QUERY DLC_DGRM NETBIOS_NQ_ex DLC_DGRM NAME_QUERY
-----------> -----------> -----------> -----------> --------->

NAME_RECOG DLC_DGRM NETBIOS_NR_ex DLC_DGRM NAME_RECOG
<----------- <------------ <----------- <----------- <---------

SABME DLC_CONTACTED
-----------> ----------->
circuit_start

TCP Connection Setup
<------------->
Capabilities Exch.
<------------->

CANUREACH_cs DLC_START_DL
-----------> ----------->
resolve_pending

ICANREACH_cs DLC_DL_STARTED
<----------- <-----------
circuit_established circuit_pending
REACH_ACK
-----------> circuit_established

CONTACT DLC_CONTACT SABME
-----------> -----------> --------->
connect_pending contact_pending

UA DLC_CONTACT CONTACTED DLC_CONTACTED UA
<--------- <----------- <----------- <----------- <---------
connected connected

IFRAMEs DLC_INFOs IFRAMEs DLC_INFOs IFRAMEs
<------------> <------------> <------------> <------------> <-------->

Bryant & Brittain Informational [Page 23]

RFC 2166 APPN Implementer's Workshop June 1997

9.5 Multicast Reliability and Retries

In the case of NetBIOS, many more packets are being sent via UDP than
in the SNA case. Therefore, the exposure to the unreliability of
these services is greater than that of SNA. For address resolution
frames, such as NAME_QUERY, etc., successful message delivery is an
issue. In addition, the retry interval for these types of frames is
considerably shorter than SNA with the defaults being: retry interval
= 0.5 seconds and retry count = 6. Once again, neither RFC 1795 nor
this paper attempt to address the issue of LAN frame filtering
optimizations. This issue is outside the scope of this paper. But it
is important for implementers to recognize the inherent unreliable
nature of UDP transport services for frames of this type and to
implement retry schemes that are appropriate to successful operation.
Again, it is only appropriate to consider retry of non-response type
packets. Specific NetBIOS messages where successful message delivery
is considered important (and retries possibly necessary) are
indicated in the table above with an �Yes� in the �Retry� column.

10. Sequencing

It is important to note that UDP transport services do not provide
guaranteed packet sequencing like TCP does for RFC 1795. In a steady
state network, in order packet delivery can be generally assumed.
But in the presence of network outages and topology changes, packets
may take alternate routes to the destination and arrive out of
sequence with respect to their original transmission order. For SNA
address resolution this should not be a problem given that there is
no inherent significance to the order of packets being transmitted
via UDP.

In the case of NetBIOS, in order delivery is not guaranteed in the
normal case (e.g., LANs). This is because LAN broadcasting
mechanisms suffer the same problems of packet sequencing as do WAN
multicast mechanisms. But one might argue the greater likelihood of
topology related changes in the WAN environment and thus a greater
level of concern. The vast majority of NetBIOS UI frames (being
handled via UDP and Multicast) have correlator values and do not rely
upon packet sequencing.

Bryant & Brittain Informational [Page 24]

RFC 2166 APPN Implementer's Workshop June 1997

The only NetBIOS frames of special note would be: DATAGRAM,
DATAGRAM_BROADCAST, and STATUS_RESPONSE. In the case of DATAGRAM and
DATAGRAM_BROADCAST it is generally assumed that datagrams do not
provide any guarantee of in order packet delivery. Thus applications
utilizing this NetBIOS service are assumed to have no dependency on
in order packet delivery. STATUS_RESPONSE can actually be sent as a
sequence of STATUS_RESPONSE messages. In cases where this occurs,
the STATUS_RESPONSE will be exposed to potential out of sequence
delivery.

11. Frame Formats

11.1 Multicast Capabilities Control Vector

This control vector is carried in the Capabilities Exchange Request.
When present, it must be accompanied by a TCP Connections Control
Vector indicating support for 1 TCP/IP connection and a DLSw version
CV indicating support for version 2 release 0. Like all control
vectors in this SSP message, it is an LT structure. LT structures
consist of a 1 byte length field followed by a 1 byte type field.
The length field includes itself as well as the type and data fields.

Byte Bit Description
0 0-7 Length, in binary, of the Multicast Capabilities control
vector (inclusive of this byte, always 3)

1 0-7 Type: x'8C'

2 0-7 Multicast Version Number:
A binary numerical representation of the level of
multicast services provided. The protocols as identified
in this document constitute version one. Accordingly,
x'01' is encoded in this field. Any subsequent version
must provide the services of all previous versions.

The intended use of this CV for Multicast support is to detect when
the multicast CANUREACH_ex flows will suffice between partners. If
this CV is present in a CAPEX from a partner, that partner is also
multicast capable and therefore does not need to receive CANUREACH_ex
messages over the TCP link that exists between them (and there must
be one or else the CAPEX would not have flowed) because it will
receive the multicast copies.

A DLSw includes this control vector on a peer-wise basis. That is to
say, that a DLSw implementation may support multicast services but
choose not to indicate this in its capabilities exchange to all
partners. Therefore, a DLSw may include this capabilities CV with
some DLSw peers and not with others. Not including this vector can

Bryant & Brittain Informational [Page 25]

RFC 2166 APPN Implementer's Workshop June 1997

be used to force TCP connections with other multicast capable nodes
and degrade to normal RFC 1795 operations. This capability is
allowed to provide greater network design flexibility.

When sending this capabilities exchange control vector, the following
rules apply:

Required Allowed @
ID @ Startup Length Repeatable* Runtime Order Content
==== ========= ====== ========== ======= ===== ===============
0x8C Y 0x03 N N 5+ Multicast
Capabilities

*Note: "Repeatable" means a Control Vector is repeatable within a single
message.

11.1.1 DLSw Capabilities Negative Response

DLSws that implement these enhancements must provide support for both
multicast version 1 and single TCP connections. This means that the
capabilities exchange request must contain a DLSw Version ID control
vector (x'82') indicating support for version 2 release 0, a
Multicast Capabilities control vector, and the TCP Connections
control vector indicating support for 1 TCP connection within a given
capabilities exchange. If a multicast capable DLSw receives a
capabilities exchange with a Multicast Capabilities, but either a
missing or inappropriate TCP Connections CV (i.e., connections not
equal to one)or DLSw Version control vector, then the inbound
capabilities exchange should be rejected with a DLSw capabilities
exchange negative response (see RFC 1795) using the following new
reason code:

x'000D'Inconsistent DLSw Version, Multicast Capabilities, and TCP
Connections CV received on the inbound Capabilities exchange

11.2 UDP Packets

SSP frame formats are defined in RFC 1795. Multicast protocol
enhancements do not change these formats in any way. The multicast
protocol enhancements, however, do introduce the notion of SSP packet
transport via UDP. In this case, standard UDP services and headers
are used to transport SSP packets.

Bryant & Brittain Informational [Page 26]

RFC 2166 APPN Implementer's Workshop June 1997

The following section describes the proper UDP header for DLSw SSP
packets.

Byte Description
0-1 Source Port address
In DLSw multicast protocols, this particular field is not
relevant. It may be set to any value.

2-3 Destination Port address
Always set to 2067

4-5 Length

6-7 Checksum
The standard UDP checksum value. Use of the UDP checksum
function is optional.

11.3 Vendor Specific UDP Packets

In order to accommodate the addition of vendor specific functions
over UDP transport, a new SSP packet header has been defined. As
described above, it is possible to receive these packets over both
UDP and TCP (when a TCP connection already exists).

It is important to note that the first 4 bytes of this packet match
the format of existing RFC 1795 SSP packets. This is done so that
implementations in the future can expect that the DLSw �Version
Number� is found in byte one and that the following bytes describe
the packet header and message length.

Furthermore, to assist DLSws in detecting 'out-of-sync' conditions
whereby packet or parsing errors lead to improper length
interpretations in the TCP datastream, valid DLSw version numbers
will be restricted to the range of x'31' through x'3F' inclusive.

DLSw multicast Vendor Specific frame format differs from existing RFC
1795 packets in the following ways:

1) The �Version Number� field is set to x'32' (ASCII '2') and now
represents a packet type more than a DLSw version number. More
precisely, it is permitted and expected that DLSw may send packets of
both types (x'31' and x'32').

2) The message length field is followed by a new 3 byte field that
contains the specific vendor's IEEE Organizationally Unique
Identifier (OUI).

Bryant & Brittain Informational [Page 27]

RFC 2166 APPN Implementer's Workshop June 1997

3) All fields following the new OUI field are arbitrary and defined
by implementers.

The following section defines this new packet format:

Byte Description
0 DLSw packet type, Always set to x'32'

1 Header Length
Always 7 or higher

2-3 Message Length
Number of bytes within the data field following the
header.

4-6 Vendor specific OUI
The IEEE Organizationally Unique Identifier (OUI)
associated with the vendor specific function in
question.

7-n Defined by the OUI owner

12. Compliance Statement

All DLSw v2.0 implementations must support

- Halt reason codes
- the Multicast Capabilities control vector in the DLSw
capabilities exchanges messages.

The presence of the Multicast Capabilities control vector in a
capabilities exchange message implies that the DLSw that issued the
message supports all the scalability enhancements defined in this
document. These are:

- use of multicast IP (if it is available in the underlying network)
- use of 2067 as the destination port for UDP and TCP connections
- single tunnel bring-up of TCP connections to DLSw peers
- peer-on-demand
- quiet ignore of all unrecognized vendor-specific UDP/TCP packets.

Bryant & Brittain Informational [Page 28]

RFC 2166 APPN Implementer's Workshop June 1997

13. Security Considerations

This document addresses only scalability problems in RFC 1795. No
attempt is made to define any additional security mechanisms. Note
that, as in RFC 1795, a given implementation may still choose to
refuse TCP connections from DLSw peers that have not been configured
by the user. The mechanism by which the user configures this
behavior is not specified in this document.

14. Acknowledgements

This specification was developed in the DLSw Related Interest Group
(RIG) of the APPN Implementers Workshop. This RIG is chaired by
Louise Herndon- Wells ([email protected]) and edited by Paul
Brittain ([email protected]).

Much of the work on the scalability enhancements for v2.0 was
developed by Dave Bryant (3COM).

Other significant contributors to this document include:

Frank Bordonaro (Cisco)
Jon Houghton (IBM)
Steve Klein (IBM)
Ravi Periasamy (Cisco)
Mike Redden (Proteon)
Doug Wolff (3COM)

Many thanks also to all those who participated in the DLSw RIG
sessions and mail exploder discussions.

If you would like to participate in future DLSw discussions, please
subscribe to the DLSw RIG mailing lists by sending a mail to
[email protected] specifying 'subscribe aiw-dlsw' as the body
of the message.

If you would like further information on the activities of the AIW,
please refer to the AIW web site at
http://www.raleigh.ibm.com/app/aiwhome.htm.

Bryant & Brittain Informational [Page 29]

RFC 2166 APPN Implementer's Workshop June 1997

15. Authors' Addresses

The editor of this document is:

Paul Brittain
Data Connection Ltd
Windsor House
Pepper Street
Chester
CH1 1DF
UK

tel: +44 1244 313440
email: [email protected]

Much of the work on this document was created by:

David Bryant
3Com Corporation
5400 Bayfront Plaza MS 2418
Santa Clara, CA 95052

tel: (408) 764-5272
email: [email protected]

Bryant & Brittain Informational [Page 30]

RFC 2166 APPN Implementer's Workshop June 1997

16. Appendix - Clarifications to RFC 1795

This appendix attempts to clarify the areas of RFC 1795 that have
proven to be ambiguous or hard to understand in the implementation
experience to- date. These clarifications should be read in
conjunction with RFC 1795 as this document does not reproduce the
complete text of that RFC.

The clarifications are ordered by the section number in RFC 1795 to
which they apply. Where one point applies to more than one place in
RFC 1795, it is listed below by the first relevant section.

If any implementers encounter further difficulties in understanding
RFC 1795 or these clarifications, they are encouraged to query the
DLSw mail exploder (see section 1.1) for assistance.

3. Send Port

It is not permitted for a DLSw implementation to check that the send
port used by a partner is 2067. All implementations must accept
connections from partners that do not use this port.

3 TCP Tunnel bringup

The paragraph below the figure should read as follows:

Each Data Link Switch will maintain a list of DLSw capable routers
and their status (active/inactive). Before Data Link Switching can
occur between two routers, they must establish two TCP connections
between them. These connections are treated as half duplex data
pipes. A Data Link Switch will listen for incoming connections on
its Read Port (2065), and initiate outgoing connections on its
Write Port (2067). Each Switch is responsible for initiating one
of the two TCP connections. After the TCP connections are
established, SSP messages are exchanged to establish the
capabilities of the two Data Link Switches. Once the exchange is
complete, the DLSw will employ SSP control messages to establish
end-to-end circuits over the transport connection. Within the
transport connection, DLSw SSP messages are exchanged. The
message formats and types for these SSP messages are documented in
the following sections.

Bryant & Brittain Informational [Page 31]

RFC 2166 APPN Implementer's Workshop June 1997

3.2 RII bit in SSP header MAC addresses

The RII bit in MAC addresses received from the LAN must be set to
zero before forwarding in the source or destination address field in
a SSP message header. This requirement aims to avoid ambiguity of
circuit IDs. It is also recommended that all implementations ignore
this bit in received SSP message headers.

3.3 Transport IDs

All implementations must allow for the DLSw peer varying the
Transport ID up to and including when the ICR_cs message flows, and
at all times reflect the most recent TID received from the partner in
any SSP messages sent. The TID cannot vary once the ICR_cs message
has flowed.

3.4 LF bits

LF-bits should be propagated from LAN to SSP to LAN (and back) as per
a bridge (i.e. they can only be revised downwards at each step if
required).

3.5 KEEPALIVE messages

The SSP KEEPALIVE message (x1D) uses the short ("infoframe") version
of the SSP header. All DLSw implementation must support receipt and
quiet ignore of this message, but there is not requirement to send
it. There is no response to a KEEPALIVE message.

3.5 MAC header for Netbios SSP frames

The MAC header is included in forwarded SSP Netbios frames in the
format described below:
- addresses are always in non-canonical format
- src/dest addresses are as per the LLC frame
- AC/FC bits may be reset and must be ignored
- SSAP, DSAP and command fields are included
- RII bit in src address is copied from the LLC frame
- the RIF length is not extended to include padding
- all RIFs are padded to 18 bytes so that the data is
in a consistent place.

3.5.7 Unrecognized control vectors

All implementations should quietly ignore unrecognized control
vectors in any SSP messages. In particular, unrecognized SSP frames
or unrecognized fields in a CAPEX message should be quietly ignored
without dropping the TCP connection.

Bryant & Brittain Informational [Page 32]

RFC 2166 APPN Implementer's Workshop June 1997

5.4 Use of CUR-cs/CUR-ex

The SSAP and DSAP numbers in CUR_ex messages should reflect those
actually used in the TEST (or equivalent) frame that caused the
CUR_ex message to flow. This would mean that the SAP numbers in a
'typical' CUR_ex frame for SNA traffic switched from a LAN will be a
source SAP of x04 and a destination SAP of x00.

The CUR_cs frame should only be sent when the DSAP is known.
Specifically, CUR_ex should be used when a NULL XID is received that
is targeted at DSAP zero, and CUR_cs when a XID specifying the (non-
zero) DSAP is received.

Note that this does not mean that an implementation can assume that
the DSAP on a CUR_ex will always be zero. The ICR_ex must always
reflect the SSAP and DSAP values sent on the CUR_ex. This is still
true even if an implementation always sends a TEST with DSAP = x00 on
its local LAN(s) in response to a CUR_ex to any SAP.

An example of a situation where the CUR_ex may flow with a non-zero
DSAP is when there is an APPN stack local to the DLSw node. The APPN
stack may then issue a connection request specifying the DSAP as a
non-zero value. This would then be passed on the CUR_ex message.

7.6.1 Vendor IDs

The Vendor ID field in a CAPEX may be zero. However, a zero Vendor
Context ID is not permitted, which implies that an implementation
that uses a zero ID cannot send any vendor-specific CVs (other than
those specified by other vendors that do have a non-zero ID)

7.6.3 Initial Pacing Window

The initial pacing window may be 1. There is no requirement on an
implementation to use any minimum value for the initial pacing
window.

7.6.7 TCP Tunnel bringup

The third paragraph should read:

If TCP Connections CV values agree and the number of connections
is one, then the DLSw with the higher IP address must tear down
the TCP connections on its local port 2065. This connection is
torn down after a CAPEX response has been both sent and received.
After this point, the remaining TCP connection is used to exchange
data in both directions.

Bryant & Brittain Informational [Page 33]

RFC 2166 APPN Implementer's Workshop June 1997

7.7 CAPEX negative responses

If a DLSw does not support any of the options specified on a CAPEX
received from a partner, or if it thinks the CAPEX is malformed, it
must send a CAPEX negative response to the partner. The receiver of
a CAPEX negative response is then responsible for dropping the
connection. It is not permitted to drop the link instead of sending
a CAPEX negative response.

8.2 Flow Control ACKs

The first flow-control ack (FCACK) does not have to be returned on
the REACH_ACK even if the ICR_cs carried the FCIND bit. However it
should be returned on the first SSP frame flowing for that circuit
after the REACH_ACK.

Bryant & Brittain Informational [Page 34]