分享
 
 
 

RFC1538 - Advanced SNA/IP : A Simple SNA Transport Protocol

王朝other·作者佚名  2008-05-31
窄屏简体版  字體: |||超大  

Network Working Group W. Behl

Request for Comments: 1538 McDATA Corporation

Category: Informational B. Sterling

McDATA Corporation

W. Teskey

I/O Concepts

October 1993

Advanced SNA/IP : A Simple SNA Transport Protocol

Status of this Memo

This memo provides information for the Internet community. It does

not specify an Internet standard. Distribution of this memo is

unlimited.

Abstract

This RFCprovides information for the Internet community about a

method for establishing and maintaining SNA sessions over an IP

internet. While the issues discussed may not be directly relevant to

the research problems of the Internet, they may be interesting to a

number of researchers and implementors. Any questions or comments

relative to the contents of this RFCmay be sent to the following

Internet address: snaip@mcdata.com.

Table of Contents

1. IntrodUCtion.................................................. 2

2. Motivation and Rationale...................................... 2

3. SNA/IP Protocol Specification................................. 3

3.1 Glossary..................................................... 3

3.2 Conventions and Assumptions.................................. 3

3.3 The Protocol................................................. 3

3.3.1 Connection Establishment................................... 3

3.3.2 Data Transfer.............................................. 5

3.3.3 Connection Termination and Loss............................ 6

3.3.4 Session Data Flow.......................................... 7

3.3.5 State Transition Table for the Initiating Node............. 8

4. LLC to SNA/IP Conversion...................................... 8

5. Performance................................................... 8

6. VTAM Definition............................................... 9

7. Acknowledgments............................................... 9

8. References.................................................... 9

9. Security Considerations....................................... 10

10. Authors' Addresses........................................... 10

11. Disclaimer................................................... 10

1. Introduction

Advanced SNA/IP suggests a method for the transmission of SNA session

data over an IP network. This memo documents the SNA/IP protocol as

implemented in the McDATA LinkMaster(R) 6200 Network Gateway, McDATA

LinkMaster(R) 7100 Network Controller, and I/O Concepts X-Direct

TN3270 Server.

Advanced SNA/IP differs from other protocols designed to enable

routing of SNA session traffic over an IP network. SNA/IP was

originally designed for implementation in peripheral network nodes

like SNA gateways and downstream nodes (DSNs). It is the authors'

view, however, that SNA/IP could also be implemented in intermediate

network nodes like routers as the base for an LLC to IP subnet

gateway or data link switch function.

2. Motivation and Rationale

The token-ring media Access control (MAC) protocol 802.5 and logical

link control (LLC) protocol 802.2 were the first set of LAN protocols

used to provide a reliable and connection-oriented data link service

for SNA sessions in a LAN environment.

McDATA's eXPerience with transporting SNA over 802.5 networks led to

an 802.3/802.2 (Ethernet) based variation. As prospective customers

were introduced to these Ethernet products, the question of

routability arose. Network administrators, accustomed to working

with Ethernet networks and the IP-based protocols, required an IP

routable solution. McDATA's "SNA over Ethernet" products were

bridgeable, but were not routable.

SNA sessions require a reliable and connection-oriented data link.

TCP running over IP provides a reliable and connection-oriented

transport service and has the added benefit of being routable. It

seemed the UDP and TCP protocols could be used in place of 802.2 Type

I and Type II levels of service used in traditional SNA token-ring

implementations. Advanced SNA/IP was created as a result of these

observations.

3. SNA/IP Protocol Specification

3.1. Glossary

Data Link Switching (DLSw) - This is best described as a routing

protocol used for the conversion of LLC-based SNA sessions to an IP

form. The initial version of the DLSw protocol is documented in the

informational RFC1434 [1].

Downstream Node (DSN) - An SNA Physical Unit (PU) type 2.0 or 2.1

device connected to the SNA network via a LAN (802.5, 802.3, etc.) as

opposed to an SDLC, X.25, or channel connection.

SNA Gateway - A device that provides a data link control (DLC)

conversion function for SNA PU type 5 (host) devices and LAN-

attached DSNs.

Subnet SNA Gateway - A device connected to both a traditional SNA

token-ring segment and an IP network that performs local termination

of the LLC connections, a mapping function of source address to

destination IP address, and a conversion (switching) function of LLC

to IP.

3.2. Conventions and Assumptions

Frame formats are shown starting with the IP header. Other headers

will, of course, appear in the actual frames sent, but these headers,

and the numbers of them, will vary across MAC types.

It is assumed the reader is familiar with both the standard SNA

protocol (to the extent it applies to SNA Gateway and DSN functions)

and the base set of TCP/IP protocols. Where practical, the reader is

asked to refer to appropriate SNA and TCP/IP documentation.

3.3. The Protocol

Conceptually, there are three phases to the Advanced SNA/IP protocol:

the Connection Establishment phase, the Data Transfer phase, and the

Connection Termination phase.

3.3.1. Connection Establishment

Connection Establishment involves the exchange of logical XID packets

between the connecting end nodes and culminates in the establishment

of a TCP connection. This process is similar to the IBM-specified

Test, XID, SABME and UA exchange used to establish a Type II 802.2

connection for SNA traffic [2]. In place of the 802.2 Type I

messages, SNA/IP defines the following set of UDP datagrams:

Logical Null XID

Use: Sent by an initiating node (such as a DSN) when the

connection to another SNA node is desired.

The Logical Null XID communicates the sending node's

desire to negotiate connection parameters. Once those

parameters are established, the Logical Null XID

communicates the sender's TCP port to which a connection

is to be made.

Format:

------------------------------------

IP Header UDP Header 0xBF

------------------------------------

Source IP address: The IP address of the initiating

node.

Destination IP address: The IP address of the partner SNA

node.

Source UDP Port: Must match the TCP port number to be

used in the eventual TCP connection.

Destination UDP Port: A known port on the partner node

that expects SNA/IP datagrams.

XID Request

Use: Sent in response to a Logical Null XID and requests the

receiving node to send a Logical SNA XID datagram.

Format:

------------------------------------

IP Header UDP Header 0xBF

------------------------------------

The source and destination IP and UDP port numbers follow,

logically, from those provided in the Logical Null XID

datagram.

The format of the XID Request and Logical Null XID are the

same. The two types are distinguished by the roles assumed by

the two nodes. In current implementations, the DSN initiates

the XID exchange by sending the Logical Null XID. The SNA

Gateway responds with the XID request.

Logical SNA XID

Use: Sent in response to an XID Request and in the context of

SNA XID negotiation.

Format:

----------------------------------------------------

IP Header UDP Header 0xBF SNA XID data

----------------------------------------------------

For PU 2.0 nodes, the SNA XID data consists of a Format 0 XID

[3].

For PU 2.1 nodes, the SNA XID data consists of a Format 3 XID

[3].

A typical Connection Establishment data flow appears below.

Node 1 Node 2

Logical Null XID ------------------------->

<------------------------ XID Request

Logical SNA XID -------------------------->

<------------------------ TCP SYN

TCP SYN ACK ----------------------------->

<------------------------ TCP ACK

Note: The source UDP port of the Logical Null XID equals the

destination TCP port of the TCP SYN segment.

Retries of the Logical Null XID by the initiating node should occur

periodically until an XID Request is received in reply. The frequency

of the retries is left up to the implementor. The lower bound on the

retry timer should be more than the expected round trip time for a

packet on the network.

3.3.2. Data Transfer

There are no special packets defined for the Data Transfer phase.

Once the TCP connection is established, SNA Request Units (RUs) may

be exchanged between the two end nodes. The SNA session data appears

as TCP segment data. The only added SNA/IP requirement is that each

SNA message consisting of a Transmission Header (TH),

Request/Response Header (RH) and an optional Request/Response Request

Unit (RU) be preceded by a two octet length field. Examples of Data

Transfer frames are shown below.

-------------------------------------------------------

IP Header TCP Header SNA Msg 1 len SNA Msg 1

-------------------------------------------------------

----------------------------------------------

IP Header TCP Header SNA Msg 1 cont'd ->

----------------------------------------------

--------------------------------

SNA Msg 2 len SNA Msg 2

--------------------------------

The length field is passed in big endian format. 0 is a valid length

value.

The format of the SNA Message pieces are as defined by SNA [3].

Reliable and sequential delivery of data is provided by the TCP

protocol [5,6].

3.3.3. Connection Termination and Loss

Either SNA node may, at any time, terminate the logical SNA

connection by issuing a TCP-level FIN segment. Dictates of the TCP

protocol apply to this termination process [5,6].

A connection is also terminated, though not as cleanly, if a TCP

Reset segment is sent by either SNA node.

Once a connection is terminated, a new connection may be established

by the process outlined in the Connection Establishment section. For

reconnections made to the LinkMaster 6200 gateway, the same UDP

source port must be used by the initiating node. This implies that

the same TCP port is used. This requirement stems from the fact the

gateway may not always be aware that a TCP connection has been

terminated. This would happen if the DSN became disabled prior to

sending a FIN or Reset segment. Under these circumstances, SNA host

resources remain allocated and a reconnection from a DSN, which the

host believes to already be in session, is not allowed. By requiring

the DSN to use the same port when reestablishing a connection, the

LinkMaster 6200 is able to recognize when a reset of the host

connection is required.

3.3.4. Complete Session Data Flow

Node 1 Node 2

Logical Null XID ------------------------->

(UDP Datagram)

Logical Null XID ------------------------->

(UDP Datagram)

<------------------------ XID Request

(UDP Datagram)

Logical SNA XID -------------------------->

(UDP Datagram)

<------------------------ TCP SYN

(TCP Message)

TCP SYN ACK ----------------------------->

(TCP Message)

<------------------------ TCP SYN

(TCP Message)

****************** Connection Established *******************

<------------------------ SNA ACTPU

(TCP Message)

SNA ACTPU Response --------------------->

(TCP Message)

<------------------------ SNA ACTLU

(TCP Message)

SNA ACTLU Response --------------------->

(TCP Message)

.

.

.

<------------------------ TCP FIN

(TCP Message)

TCP FIN ACK ------------------------>

(TCP Message)

<------------------------ TCP ACK

(TCP Message)

******************** Connection Closed *********************

Logical Null XID ----------------------->

(UDP Datagram)

.

.

.

.

3.3.5. State Transition Table for the Initiating Node

Transition State

Given State No Conn Null XID Sent SNA XID Sent Conn Estb

------------+---------+---------------+--------------+-----------

No Internal Act.

Connection Stimulus

---> Sends

1st Null XID

------------+---------+---------------+--------------+-----------

Null XID Internal XID Request

Sent Timer Event Received

----> Resend ----> Sends

Null XID SNA XID

------------+---------+---------------+--------------+-----------

SNA XID Internal SNA XID Indication

Sent Timer Event Received that TCP

----> Resend ----> Send connection

Null XID SNA XID is estb.

------------+---------+---------------+--------------+-----------

Connection Indica- SNA

Established tion Session

that Data

TCP conn

term.

A gateway state transition table is not provided here because the

state transitions are dependent on the nature of the SNA host

interface (3172 Channel Protocol, 3174 Channel Protocol, SDLC, etc.).

4. LLC to SNA/IP Conversion

The use of Advanced SNA/IP to convert conventional token ring- based

SNA traffic to a routable form is both conceivable and practical.

While interesting, a discussion of this application falls outside the

context of this RFC. Very briefly, it can be said that an SNA/IP-

based "subnet SNA gateway" application could do many of the things

being discussed in the context of the DLSw specification [1].

5. Performance

The performance of SNA sessions running over an SNA/IP connection

will be affected by the bandwidth available on the network and by how

much traffic is on the network. SNA/IP is poised to take full

advantage of the prioritization and class of service enhancements

promised in the next generation of IP. Today, SNA/IP can take

advantage of router packet prioritization schemes based on port

number. SNA/IP also leaves intact the standard SNA class of service

prioritization protocol.

Performance measures taken at McDATA comparing the throughput of

SNA/IP and LLC across a single token-ring segment showed

approximately a 15 percent decrease in the maximum transactions per

hour (1500 bytes to the DSN, 50 bytes out to the host) for SNA/IP.

This decrease is well within the expected levels given the added

processing requirements of TCP/IP over LLC in the LinkMaster 6200 and

LinkMaster 7100 operating environments.

6. VTAM Definition

The host VTAM definition of SNA/IP downstream nodes is dependent on

the gateway implementation. Downstream nodes may appear as switched

major nodes connected to an XCA or as downstream nodes connected to a

PU 2.0 controller [4].

7. Acknowledgments

The authors wish to acknowledge that the definition of SNA/IP was a

collaborative effort involving many individuals ranging from

customers to sales and marketing personnel to engineers. Particular

thanks go to David Beal, Steve Cartwright, Tracey Floming, Audrey

McEwen, Mark Platte, Paul Schroeder, Chuck Weil, and Marty Wright,

who all played key roles in the development and testing of this

protocol and also in the editing of this RFC.

8. References

[1] Dixon, R., and D. Kushi, "Data Link Switching: Switch-to-Switch

Protocol", RFC1434, IBM, March 1993.

[2] "Token-Ring Network Architecture Reference", IBM document #SC30-

3374-02.

[3] "Systems Network Architecture Formats", IBM document #GA27-3136-

12.

[4] "VTAM Resource Definition Reference", IBM document #SC31-6438-1.

[5] Comer, D., "Internetworking with TCP/IP Volume I", Prentice Hall

1991.

[6] Postel, J., "Transmission Control Protocol - DARPA Internet

Program Protocol Specification", STD 7, RFC793, USC/Information

Sciences Institute, September 1981.

9. Security Considerations

This RFCdoes not address issues of security. SNA level security

procedures and protocols apply when SNA/IP is used as the transport.

10. Authors' Addresses

Wilfred Behl

310 Interlocken Parkway

Broomfield, Colorado 80021

Phone: 303-460-4142

Email: wil@mcdata.com

Barbara Sterling

310 Interlocken Parkway

Broomfield, Colorado 80021

Phone: 303-460-4211

Email: bjs@mcdata.com

William Teskey

2125 112th Ave. North East

Suite 303

Bellevue, WA 98004

Phone: 206-450-0650

Email: wct@ioc-sea.com

Note: Any questions or comments relative to the contents of this RFC

should be sent to snaip@mcdata.com. This address will be used to

coordinate the handling of responses.

11. Disclaimer

McDATA, the McDATA logo, and LinkMaster are registered trademarks of

McDATA Corporation. All other product names and identifications are

trademarks of their respective manufacturers, who are not affiliated

with McDATA Corporation.

 
 
 
免责声明:本文为网络用户发布,其观点仅代表作者个人观点,与本站无关,本站仅提供信息存储服务。文中陈述内容未经本站证实,其真实性、完整性、及时性本站不作任何保证或承诺,请读者仅作参考,并请自行核实相关内容。
2023年上半年GDP全球前十五强
 百态   2023-10-24
美众议院议长启动对拜登的弹劾调查
 百态   2023-09-13
上海、济南、武汉等多地出现不明坠落物
 探索   2023-09-06
印度或要将国名改为“巴拉特”
 百态   2023-09-06
男子为女友送行,买票不登机被捕
 百态   2023-08-20
手机地震预警功能怎么开?
 干货   2023-08-06
女子4年卖2套房花700多万做美容:不但没变美脸,面部还出现变形
 百态   2023-08-04
住户一楼被水淹 还冲来8头猪
 百态   2023-07-31
女子体内爬出大量瓜子状活虫
 百态   2023-07-25
地球连续35年收到神秘规律性信号,网友:不要回答!
 探索   2023-07-21
全球镓价格本周大涨27%
 探索   2023-07-09
钱都流向了那些不缺钱的人,苦都留给了能吃苦的人
 探索   2023-07-02
倩女手游刀客魅者强控制(强混乱强眩晕强睡眠)和对应控制抗性的关系
 百态   2020-08-20
美国5月9日最新疫情:美国确诊人数突破131万
 百态   2020-05-09
荷兰政府宣布将集体辞职
 干货   2020-04-30
倩女幽魂手游师徒任务情义春秋猜成语答案逍遥观:鹏程万里
 干货   2019-11-12
倩女幽魂手游师徒任务情义春秋猜成语答案神机营:射石饮羽
 干货   2019-11-12
倩女幽魂手游师徒任务情义春秋猜成语答案昆仑山:拔刀相助
 干货   2019-11-12
倩女幽魂手游师徒任务情义春秋猜成语答案天工阁:鬼斧神工
 干货   2019-11-12
倩女幽魂手游师徒任务情义春秋猜成语答案丝路古道:单枪匹马
 干货   2019-11-12
倩女幽魂手游师徒任务情义春秋猜成语答案镇郊荒野:与虎谋皮
 干货   2019-11-12
倩女幽魂手游师徒任务情义春秋猜成语答案镇郊荒野:李代桃僵
 干货   2019-11-12
倩女幽魂手游师徒任务情义春秋猜成语答案镇郊荒野:指鹿为马
 干货   2019-11-12
倩女幽魂手游师徒任务情义春秋猜成语答案金陵:小鸟依人
 干货   2019-11-12
倩女幽魂手游师徒任务情义春秋猜成语答案金陵:千金买邻
 干货   2019-11-12
 
推荐阅读
 
 
 
>>返回首頁<<
 
靜靜地坐在廢墟上,四周的荒凉一望無際,忽然覺得,淒涼也很美
© 2005- 王朝網路 版權所有