分享
 
 
 

RFC2684 - Multiprotocol Encapsulation over ATM Adaptation Layer 5

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

Network Working Group D. Grossman

Request for Comments: 2684 Motorola, Inc.

Obsoletes: 1483 J. Heinanen

Category: Standards Track Telia

September 1999

Multiprotocol Encapsulation over ATM Adaptation Layer 5

Status of this Memo

This document specifies an Internet standards track protocol for the

Internet community, and requests discussion and suggestions for

improvements. Please refer to the current edition of the "Internet

Official Protocol Standards" (STD 1) for the standardization state

and status of this protocol. Distribution of this memo is unlimited.

Copyright Notice

Copyright (C) The Internet Society (1999). All Rights Reserved.

Abstract

This memo replaces RFC1483. It describes two encapsulations methods

for carrying network interconnect traffic over AAL type 5 over ATM.

The first method allows multiplexing of multiple protocols over a

single ATM virtual connection whereas the second method assumes that

each protocol is carried over a separate ATM virtual connection.

Applicability

This specification is intended to be used in implementations which

use ATM networks to carry multiprotocol traffic among hosts, routers

and bridges which are ATM end systems.

1. IntrodUCtion

Asynchronous Transfer Mode (ATM) wide area, campus and local area

networks are used to transport IP datagrams and other connectionless

traffic between hosts, routers, bridges and other networking devices.

This memo describes two methods for carrying connectionless routed

and bridged Protocol Data Units (PDUs) over an ATM network. The "LLC

Encapsulation" method allows multiplexing of multiple protocols over

a single ATM virtual connection (VC). The protocol type of each PDU

is identified by a prefixed IEEE 802.2 Logical Link Control (LLC)

header. In the "VC Multiplexing" method, each ATM VC carries PDUs of

exactly one protocol type. When multiple protocols need to be

transported, there is a separate VC for each.

The unit of transport in ATM is a 53 octet fixed length PDU called a

cell. A cell consists of a 5 octet header and a 48 byte payload.

Variable length PDUs, including those addressed in this memo, must be

segmented by the transmitter to fit into the 48 octet ATM cell

payload, and reassembled by the receiver. This memo specifies the

use of the ATM Adaptation Layer type 5 (AAL5), as defined in ITU-T

Recommendation I.363.5 [2] for this purpose. Variable length PDUs are

carried in the Payload field of the AAL5 Common Part Convergence

Sublayer (CPCS) PDU.

This memo only describes how routed and bridged PDUs are carried

directly over the AAL5 CPCS, i.e., when the Service Specific

Convergence Sublayer (SSCS) of AAL5 is absent. If Frame Relay

Service Specific Convergence Sublayer (FR-SSCS), as defined in ITU-T

Recommendation I.365.1 [3], is used over the CPCS, then routed and

bridged PDUs are carried using the NLPID multiplexing method

described in RFC2427 [4]. The RFC2427 encapsulation MUST be used in

the special case that Frame Relay Network Interworking or transparent

mode Service Interworking [9] are used, but is NOT RECOMMENDED for

other applications. Appendix A (which is for information only) shows

the format of the FR-SSCS-PDU as well as how IP and CLNP PDUs are

encapsulated over FR-SSCS according to RFC2427.

This memo also includes an optional encapsulation for use with

Virtual Private Networks that operate over an ATM subnet.

If it is desired to use the facilities which are designed for the

Point-to-Point Protocol (PPP), and there exists a point-to-point

relationship between peer systems, then RFC2364, rather than this

memo, applies.

2. Conventions

The keyWords MUST, MUST NOT, REQUIRED, SHALL, SHALL NOT, SHOULD,

SHOULD NOT, RECOMMENDED, NOT RECOMMENDED, MAY, and OPTIONAL, when

they appear in this document, are to be interpreted as described in

RFC2119 [10].

3. Selection of the Multiplexing Method

The decision as to whether to use LLC encapsulation or VC-

multiplexing depends on implementation and system requirements. In

general, LLC encapsulation tends to require fewer VCs in a

multiprotocol environment. VC multiplexing tends to reduce

fragmentation overhead (e.g., an IPV4 datagram containing a TCP

control packet with neither IP nor TCP options exactly fits into a

single cell).

When two ATM end systems wish to exchange connectionless PDUs across

an ATM Permanent Virtual Connection (PVC), selection of the

multiplexing method is done by configuration. ATM connection control

signalling procedures are used to negotiate the encapsulation method

when ATM Switched Virtual Connections (SVCs) are to be used. [5] and

[8] specify how this negotiation is done.

4. AAL5 PDU Format

For both multiplexing methods, routed and bridged PDUs MUST be

encapsulated within the Payload field of an AAL5 CPCS-PDU.

ITU-T Recomendation I.363.5 [2] provides the complete definition of

the AAL5 PDU format and procedures at the sender and receiver. The

AAL5 message mode service, in the non-assured mode of operation MUST

be used. The corrupted delivery option MUST NOT be used. A

reassembly timer MAY be used. The following description is provided

for information.

The format of the AAL5 CPCS-PDU is shown below:

AAL5 CPCS-PDU Format

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

.

.

CPCS-PDU Payload

up to 2^16 - 1 octets)

.

.

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

PAD ( 0 - 47 octets)

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

CPCS-UU (1 octet )

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

CPI (1 octet )

+-------------------------------+CPCS-PDU Trailer

Length (2 octets)

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

CRC (4 octets)

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

The Payload field contains user information up to 2^16 - 1 octets.

The PAD field pads the CPCS-PDU to fit exactly into the ATM cells

such that the last 48 octet cell payload created by the SAR sublayer

will have the CPCS-PDU Trailer right justified in the cell.

The CPCS-UU (User-to-User indication) field is used to transparently

transfer CPCS user to user information. The field is not used by the

multiprotocol ATM encapsulation described in this memo and MAY be set

to any value.

The CPI (Common Part Indicator) field aligns the CPCS-PDU trailer to

64 bits. This field MUST be coded as 0x00.

The Length field indicates the length, in octets, of the Payload

field. The maximum value for the Length field is 65535 octets. A

Length field coded as 0x00 is used for the abort function.

The CRC field is used to detect bit errors in the CPCS-PDU. A CRC-32

is used.

5. LLC Encapsulation

LLC Encapsulation is needed when more than one protocol might be

carried over the same VC. In order to allow the receiver to properly

process the incoming AAL5 CPCS-PDU, the Payload Field contains

information necessary to identify the protocol of the routed or

bridged PDU. In LLC Encapsulation, this information MUST be encoded

in an LLC header placed in front of the carried PDU.

Although this memo only deals with protocols that operate over LLC

Type 1 (unacknowledged connectionless mode) service, the same

encapsulation principle also applies to protocols operating over LLC

Type 2 (connection-mode) service. In the latter case the format and

contents of the LLC header would be as described in IEEE 802.1 and

IEEE 802.2.

5.1. LLC Encapsulation for Routed Protocols

In LLC Encapsulation, the protocol type of routed PDUs MUST be

identified by prefixing an IEEE 802.2 LLC header to each PDU. In

some cases, the LLC header MUST be followed by an IEEE 802.1a

SubNetwork Attachment Point (SNAP) header. In LLC Type 1 operation,

the LLC header MUST consist of three one octet fields:

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

DSAP SSAP Ctrl

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

In LLC Encapsulation for routed protocols, the Control field MUST be

set to 0x03, specifying a Unnumbered Information (UI) Command PDU.

The LLC header value 0xFE-FE-03 MUST be used to identify a routed PDU

in the ISO NLPID format (see [6] and Appendix B). For NLPID-formatted

routed PDUs, the content of the AAL5 CPCS-PDU Payload field MUST be

as follows:

Payload Format for Routed NLPID-formatted PDUs

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

LLC 0xFE-FE-03

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

NLPID (1 octet)

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

.

PDU

(up to 2^16 - 4 octets)

.

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

The routed protocol MUST be identified by a one octet NLPID field

that is part of Protocol Data. NLPID values are administered by ISO

and ITU-T. They are defined in ISO/IEC TR 9577 [6] and some of the

currently defined ones are listed in Appendix C.

An NLPID value of 0x00 is defined in ISO/IEC TR 9577 as the Null

Network Layer or Inactive Set. Since it has no significance within

the context of this encapsulation scheme, a NLPID value of 0x00 MUST

NOT be used.

Although there is a NLPID value (0xCC) that indicates IP, the NLPID

format MUST NOT be used for IP. Instead, IP datagrams MUST be

identified by a SNAP header, as defined below.

The presence of am IEEE 802.1a SNAP header is indicated by the LLC

header value 0xAA-AA-03. A SNAP header is of the form

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

OUI PID

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

The SNAP header consists of a three octet Organizationally Unique

Identifier (OUI) and a two octet Protocol Identifier (PID). The OUI

is administered by IEEE and identifies an organization which

administers the values which might be assigned to the PID. The SNAP

header thus uniquely identifies a routed or bridged protocol. The

OUI value 0x00-00-00 indicates that the PID is an EtherType.

The format of the AAL5 CPCS-PDU Payload field for routed non-NLPID

Formatted PDUs MUST be as follows:

Payload Format for Routed non-NLPID formatted PDUs

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

LLC 0xAA-AA-03

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

OUI 0x00-00-00

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

EtherType (2 octets)

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

.

Non-NLPID formatted PDU

(up to 2^16 - 9 octets)

.

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

In the particular case of an IPv4 PDU, the Ethertype value is 0x08-

00, and the payload format MUST be:

Payload Format for Routed IPv4 PDUs

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

LLC 0xAA-AA-03

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

OUI 0x00-00-00

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

EtherType 0x08-00

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

.

IPv4 PDU

(up to 2^16 - 9 octets)

.

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

This format is consistent with that defined in RFC1042 [7].

5.2. LLC Encapsulation for Bridged Protocols

In LLC Encapsulation, bridged PDUs are encapsulated by identifying

the type of the bridged media in the SNAP header. The presence of

the SNAP header MUST be indicated by the LLC header value 0xAA-AA-03.

The OUI value in the SNAP header MUST be the 802.1 organization code

0x00-80-C2. The type of the bridged media MUST be specified by the

two octet PID. The PID MUST also indicate whether the original Frame

Check Sequence (FCS) is preserved within the bridged PDU. Appendix B

provides a list of media type (PID) values that can be used in ATM

encapsulation.

The AAL5 CPCS-PDU Payload field carrying a bridged PDU MUST have one

of the following formats. The necessary number of padding octets

MUST be added after the PID field in order to align the

Ethernet/802.3 LLC Data field, 802.4 Data Unit field, 802.5 Info

field, FDDI Info field or 802.6 Info field (respectively) of the

bridged PDU to begin at a four octet boundary. The bit ordering of

the MAC address MUST be the same as it would be on the LAN or MAN

(e.g., in canoncial form for bridged Ethernet/IEEE 802.3 PDUs, but in

802.5/FDDI format for bridged 802.5 PDUs).

Payload Format for Bridged Ethernet/802.3 PDUs

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

LLC 0xAA-AA-03

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

OUI 0x00-80-C2

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

PID 0x00-01 or 0x00-07

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

PAD 0x00-00

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

MAC destination address

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

(remainder of MAC frame)

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

LAN FCS (if PID is 0x00-01)

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

The Ethernet/802.3 physical layer requires padding of frames to a

minimum size. A bridge that uses uses the Bridged Ethernet/802.3

encapsulation format with the preserved LAN FCS MUST include padding.

A bridge that uses the Bridged Ethernet/802.3 encapsulation format

without the preserved LAN FCS MAY either include padding, or omit it.

When a bridge receives a frame in this format without the LAN FCS, it

MUST be able to insert the necessary padding (if none is already

present) before forwarding to an Ethernet/802.3 subnetwork.

Payload Format for Bridged 802.4 PDUs

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

LLC 0xAA-AA-03

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

OUI 0x00-80-C2

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

PID 0x00-02 or 0x00-08

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

PAD 0x00-00-00

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

Frame Control (1 octet)

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

MAC destination address

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

(remainder of MAC frame)

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

LAN FCS (if PID is 0x00-02)

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

Payload Format for Bridged 802.5 PDUs

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

LLC 0xAA-AA-03

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

OUI 0x00-80-C2

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

PID 0x00-03 or 0x00-09

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

PAD 0x00-00-XX

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

Frame Control (1 octet)

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

MAC destination address

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

(remainder of MAC frame)

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

LAN FCS (if PID is 0x00-03)

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

Since the 802.5 Access Control (AC) field has no significance outside

the local 802.5 subnetwork, it is treated by this encapsulation as

the last octet of the three octet PAD field. It MAY be set to any

value by the sending bridge and MUST be ignored by the receiving

bridge.

Payload Format for Bridged FDDI PDUs

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

LLC 0xAA-AA-03

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

OUI 0x00-80-C2

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

PID 0x00-04 or 0x00-0A

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

PAD 0x00-00-00

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

Frame Control (1 octet)

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

MAC destination address

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

(remainder of MAC frame)

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

LAN FCS (if PID is 0x00-04)

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

Payload Format for Bridged 802.6 PDUs

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

LLC 0xAA-AA-03

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

OUI 0x00-80-C2

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

PID 0x00-0B

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

Reserved BEtag Common

+---------------+---------------+ PDU

BAsize Header

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

MAC destination address

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

(remainder of MAC frame)

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

Common PDU Trailer

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

In bridged 802.6 PDUs, the presence of a CRC-32 is indicated by the

CIB bit in the header of the MAC frame. Therefore, the same PID

value is used regardless of the presence or absence of the CRC-32 in

the PDU.

The Common Protocol Data Unit (PDU) Header and Trailer are conveyed

to allow pipelining at the egress bridge to an 802.6 subnetwork.

Specifically, the Common PDU Header contains the BAsize field, which

contains the length of the PDU. If this field is not available to

the egress 802.6 bridge, then that bridge cannot begin to transmit

the segmented PDU until it has received the entire PDU, calculated

the length, and inserted the length into the BAsize field. If the

field is available, the egress 802.6 bridge can extract the length

from the BAsize field of the Common PDU Header, insert it into the

corresponding field of the first segment, and immediately transmit

the segment onto the 802.6 subnetwork. Thus, the bridge can begin

transmitting the 802.6 PDU before it has received the complete PDU.

Note that the Common PDU Header and Trailer of the encapsulated frame

should not be simply copied to the outgoing 802.6 subnetwork because

the encapsulated BEtag value may conflict with the previous BEtag

value transmitted by that bridge.

An ingress 802.6 bridge can abort an AAL5 CPCS-PDU by setting its

Length field to zero. If the egress bridge has already begun

transmitting segments of the PDU to an 802.6 subnetwork and then

notices that the AAL5 CPCS-PDU has been aborted, it may immediately

generate an EOM cell that causes the 802.6 PDU to be rejected at the

receiving bridge. Such an EOM cell could, for example, contain an

invalid value in the Length field of the Common PDU Trailer.

Payload Format for BPDUs

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

LLC 0xAA-AA-03

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

OUI 0x00-80-C2

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

PID 0x00-0E

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

BPDU as defined by

802.1(d) or 802.1(g)

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

6. VC Multiplexing

VC Multiplexing creates a binding between an ATM VC and the type of

the network protocol carried on that VC. Thus, there is no need for

protocol identification information to be carried in the payload of

each AAL5 CPCS-PDU. This reduces payload overhead and can reduce

per-packet processing. VC multiplexing can improve efficiency by

reducing the number of cells needed to carry PDUs of certain lengths.

For ATM PVCs, the type of the protocol to be carried over each PVC

MUST be determined by configuration. For ATM SVCs, the negotiations

specified in RFC1755 [5] MUST be used.

6.1. VC Multiplexing of Routed Protocols

PDUs of routed protocols MUST be carried as the only content of the

Payload of the AAL5 CPCS-PDU. The format of the AAL5 CPCS-PDU

Payload field thus becomes:

Payload Format for Routed PDUs

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

.

Carried PDU

(up to 2^16 - 1 octets)

.

.

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

6.2. VC Multiplexing of Bridged Protocols

PDUs of bridged protocols MUST be carried in the Payload of the AAL5

CPCS-PDU exactly as described in section 5.2, except that only the

fields after the PID field MUST be included. The AAL5 CPCS-PDU

Payload field carrying a bridged PDU MUST, therefore, have one of the

following formats.

Payload Format for Bridged Ethernet/802.3 PDUs

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

PAD 0x00-00

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

MAC destination address

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

(remainder of MAC frame)

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

LAN FCS (VC dependent option)

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

Payload Format for Bridged 802.4/802.5/FDDI PDUs

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

PAD 0x00-00-00 or 0x00-00-XX

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

Frame Control (1 octet)

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

MAC destination address

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

(remainder of MAC frame)

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

LAN FCS (VC dependent option)

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

Note that the 802.5 Access Control (AC) field has no significance

outside the local 802.5 subnetwork. It can thus be regarded as the

last octet of the three octet PAD field, which in case of 802.5 can

be set to any value (XX).

Payload Format for Bridged 802.6 PDUs

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

Reserved BEtag Common

+---------------+---------------+ PDU

BAsize Header

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

MAC destination address

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

(remainder of MAC frame)

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

Common PDU Trailer

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

Payload Format for BPDUs

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

BPDU as defined by

802.1(d) or 802.1(g)

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

In case of Ethernet, 802.3, 802.4, 802.5, and FDDI PDUs the presense

or absence of the trailing LAN FCS shall be identified implicitly by

the VC, since the PID field is not included. PDUs with the LAN FCS

and PDUs without the LAN FCS are thus considered to belong to

different protocols even if the bridged media type would be the same.

7. Bridging in an ATM Network

A bridge with an ATM interface that serves as a link to one or more

other bridge MUST be able to flood, forward, and filter bridged PDUs.

Flooding is performed by sending the PDU to all possible appropriate

destinations. In the ATM environment this means sending the PDU

through each relevant VC. This may be accomplished by eXPlicitly

copying it to each VC or by using a point-to-multipoint VC.

To forward a PDU, a bridge MUST be able to associate a destination

MAC address with a VC. It is unreasonable and perhaps impossible to

require bridges to statically configure an association of every

possible destination MAC address with a VC. Therefore, ATM bridges

must provide enough information to allow an ATM interface to

dynamically learn about foreign destinations beyond the set of ATM

stations.

To accomplish dynamic learning, a bridged PDU MUST conform to the

encapsulation described in section 5. In this way, the receiving ATM

interface will know to look into the bridged PDU and learn the

association between foreign destination and an ATM station.

8. Virtual Private Network (VPN) identification

The encapsulation defined in this section applies only to Virtual

Private Networks (VPNs) that operate over an ATM subnet.

A mechanism for globally unique identification of Virtual Private

multiprotocol networks is defined in [11]. The 7-octet VPN-Id

consists of a 3-octet VPN-related OUI (IEEE 802-1990 Organizationally

Unique Identifier), followed by a 4-octet VPN index which is

allocated by the owner of the VPN-related OUI. Typically, the VPN-

related OUI value is assigned to a VPN service provider, which then

allocates VPN index values for its customers.

8.1 VPN Encapsulation Header

The format of the VPN encapsulation header is as follows:

VPN Encapsulation Header

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

LLC 0xAA-AA-03

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

OUI 0x00-00-5E

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

PID 0x00-08

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

PAD 0x00

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

VPN related OUI (3 octets)

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

VPN Index (4 octets)

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

(remainder of PDU)

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

When the encapsulation header is used, the remainder of the PDU MUST

be structured according to the appropiate format described in section

5 or 6 (i.e., the VPN encapsulation header is prepended to the PDU

within an AAL5 CPCS SDU).

8.2 LLC-encapsulated routed or bridged PDUs within a VPN

When a LLC-encapsulated routed or bridged PDU is sent within a VPN

using ATM over AAL5, a VPN encapsulation header MUST be prepended to

the appropriate routed or bridged PDU format defined in sections 5.1

and 5.2, respectively.

8.3 VC multiplexing of routed or bridged PDUs within a VPN

When a routed or bridged PDU is sent within a VPN using VC

multiplexing, the VPN identifier MAY either be specified a priori,

using ATM connection control signalling or adminstrative assignment

to an ATM interface, or it MAY be indicated using an encapsulation

header.

If the VPN is identified using ATM connection control signalling, all

PDUs carried by the ATM VC are associated with the same VPN. In this

case, the payload formats of routed and bridged PDUs MUST be as

defined in sections 6.1 and 6.2, respectively. If a PDU is received

containing a VPN encapsulation header when the VPN has been

identified using ATM signalling, the receiver MAY drop it and/or take

other actions which are implementation specific. Specification of

the mechanism in ATM connection control signalling for carrying VPN

identifiers is outside the scope of this Memo.

If a VPN identifier is administratively assigned to an ATM interface,

then all PDUs carried by any ATM VCs within that interface are

associated with that VPN. In this case, the payload formats of

routed and bridged PDUs MUST be as defined in sections 6.1 and 6.2,

respectively. If a PDU is received containing a VPN encapsulation

header when the VPN identifier has been administratively assigned,

the receiver MAY drop it and/or take other actions which are

implementation specific. Specification of mechanisms (such as MIBs)

for assigning VPN identifiers to ATM interfaces is outside the scope

of this memo.

If the VPN identifier is to be indicated using an encapsulation

header, then a VPN encapsulation header MUST be prepended to the

appropriate routed or bridged PDU format defined in sections 6.1 and

6.2, respectively.

9. Security Considerations

This memo defines mechanisms for multiprotocol encapsulation over

ATM. There is an element of trust in any encapsulation protocol: a

receiver must trust that the sender has correctly identified the

protocol being encapsulated. There is no way to ascertain that the

sender did use the proper protocol identification (nor would this be

desirable functionality). The encapsulation mechanisms described in

this memo are believed not to have any other properties that might be

exploited by an attacker. However, architectures and protocols

operating above the encapsulation layer may be subject to a variety

of attacks. In particular, the bridging architecture discussed in

section 7 has the same vulnerabilities as other bridging

architectures.

System security may be affected by the properties of the underlying

ATM network. The ATM Forum has published a security framework [12]

and a security specification [13] which may be relevant.

Acknowledgements

This memo replaces RFC1483, which was developed by the IP over ATM

working group, and edited by Juha Heinanen (then at Telecom Finland,

now at Telia). The update was developed in the IP-over-NBMA (ION)

working group, and Dan Grossman (Motorola) was editor and also

contributed to the work on RFC1483.

This material evolved from RFCs [1] and [4] from which much of the

material has been adopted. Thanks to their authors Terry Bradley,

Caralyn Brown, Andy Malis, Dave Piscitello, and C. Lawrence. Other

key contributors to the work included Brian Carpenter (CERN), Rao

Cherukuri (IBM), Joel Halpern (then at Network Systems), Bob Hinden

(Sun Microsystems, presently at Nokia), and Gary Kessler (MAN

Technology).

The material concerning VPNs was developed by Barbara Fox (Lucent)

and Bernhard Petri (Siemens).

References

[1] Piscitello, D. and C. Lawrence, "The Transmission of IP

Datagrams over the SMDS Service", RFC1209, March 1991.

[2] ITU-T Recommendation I.363.5, "B-ISDN ATM Adaptation Layer (AAL)

Type 5 Specification", August 1996.

[3] ITU-T Recommendation I.365.1, "Frame Relaying Service Specific

Convergence Sublayer (SSCS), November 1993.

[4] Brown, C. and A. Malis, "Multiprotocol Interconnect over Frame

Relay", RFC2427, September 1998.

[5] Perez M., Liaw, F., Mankin, E., Grossman, D. and A. Malis, "ATM

Signalling Support for IP over ATM", RFC1755, February 1995.

[6] Information technology - Telecommunications and Information

Exchange Between Systems, "Protocol Identification in the

Network Layer". ISO/IEC TR 9577, October 1990.

[7] Postel, J. and J. Reynolds, "A Standard for the Transmission of

IP Datagrams over IEEE 802 Networks", STD 43, RFC1042, February

1988.

[8] Maher, M., "IP over ATM Signalling - SIG 4.0 Update", RFC2331,

April 1998.

[9] ITU-T Recommendation I.555, "Frame Relay Bearer Service

Interworking", September 1997.

[10] Bradner, S. "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement

Levels", BCP 14, RFC2119, March 1997.

[11] Fox, B. and B. Gleeson, "Virtual Private Networks Identifier",

RFC2685, September 1999.

[12] The ATM Forum, "ATM Security Framework Version 1.0", af-sec-

0096.000, February 1998.

[13] The ATM Forum, "ATM Security Specification v1.0", af-sec-

0100.001, February 1999.

Appendix A. Multiprotocol Encapsulation over FR-SSCS

ITU-T Recommendation I.365.1 defines a Frame Relaying Specific

Convergence Sublayer (FR- SSCS) to be used on the top of the Common

Part Convergence Sublayer CPCS) of the AAL type 5 for Frame Relay/ATM

interworking. The service offered by FR-SSCS corresponds to the Core

service for Frame Relaying as described in I.233.

An FR-SSCS-PDU consists of Q.922 Address field followed by Q.922

Information field. The Q.922 flags and the FCS are omitted, since

the corresponding functions are provided by the AAL. The figure

below shows an FR-SSCS-PDU embedded in the Payload of an AAL5 CPCS-

PDU.

FR-SSCS-PDU in Payload of AAL5 CPCS-PDU

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

Q.922 Address Field FR-SSCS-PDU Header

(2-4 octets)

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

.

.

Q.922 Information field FR-SSCS-PDU Payload

.

.

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

AAL5 CPCS-PDU Trailer

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

Routed and bridged PDUs are encapsulated inside the FR-SSCS-PDU as

defined in RFC2427. The Q.922 Information field starts with a Q.922

Control field followed by an optional Pad octet that is used to align

the remainder of the frame to a convenient boundary for the sender.

The protocol of the carried PDU is then identified by prefixing the

PDU by an ISO/IEC TR 9577 Network Layer Protocol ID (NLPID).

In the particular case of an IP PDU, the NLPID is 0xCC and the FR-

SSCS-PDU has the following format:

FR-SSCS-PDU Format for Routed IP PDUs

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

Q.922 Addr Field

(2 or 4 octets)

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

0x03 (Q.922 Control)

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

NLPID 0xCC

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

.

IP PDU

(up to 2^16 - 5 octets)

.

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

Note that according to RFC2427, the Q.922 Address field MUST be

either 2 or 4 octets, i.e., a 3 octet Address field MUST NOT be used.

In the particular case of a CLNP PDU, the NLPID is 0x81 and the FR-

SSCS-PDU has the following format:

FR-SSCS-PDU Format for Routed CLNP PDUs

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

Q.922 Addr Field

(2 or 4 octets)

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

0x03 (Q.922 Control)

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

NLPID 0x81

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

.

Rest of CLNP PDU

(up to 2^16 - 5 octets)

.

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

Note that in case of ISO protocols the NLPID field forms the first

octet of the PDU itself and MUST not be repeated.

The above encapsulation applies only to those routed protocols that

have a unique NLPID assigned. For other routed protocols (and for

bridged protocols), it is necessary to provide another mechanism for

easy protocol identification. This can be achieved by using an NLPID

value 0x80 to indicate that an IEEE 802.1a SubNetwork Attachment

Point (SNAP) header follows.

See RFC2427 for more details related to multiprotocol encapsulation

over FRCS.

Appendix B. List of Locally Assigned values of OUI 00-80-C2

with preserved FCS w/o preserved FCS Media

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

0x00-01 0x00-07 802.3/Ethernet

0x00-02 0x00-08 802.4

0x00-03 0x00-09 802.5

0x00-04 0x00-0A FDDI

0x00-05 0x00-0B 802.6

0x00-0D Fragments

0x00-0E BPDUs

Appendix C. Partial List of NLPIDs

0x00 Null Network Layer or Inactive Set (not used with ATM)

0x80 SNAP

0x81 ISO CLNP

0x82 ISO ESIS

0x83 ISO ISIS

0xCC Internet IP

Appendix D. Applications of multiprotocol encapsulation

Mutiprotocol encapsulation is necessary, but generally not

sufficient, for routing and bridging over the ATM networks. Since

the publication of RFC1483 (the predecessor of this memo), several

system specifications were developed by the IETF and the ATM Forum to

address various ASPects of, or scenarios for, bridged or routed

protocols. This appendix summarizes these applications.

1) Point-to-point connection between routers and bridges --

multiprotocol encapsulation over ATM PVCs has been used to provide

a simple point-to-point link between bridges and routers across an

ATM network. Some amount of manual configuration (e.g., in lieu

of INARP) was necessary in these scenarios.

2) Classical IP over ATM -- RFC2225 (formerly RFC1577) provides an

environment where the ATM network serves as a logical IP subnet

(LIS). ATM PVCs are supported, with address resolution provided by

INARP. For ATM SVCs, a new form of ARP, ATMARP, operates over the

ATM network between a host (or router) and an ATMARP server.

Where servers are replicated to provide higher availability or

performance, a Server Synchronization Cache Protocol (SCSP)

defined in RFC2335 is used. Classical IP over ATM defaults to the

LLC/SNAP encapsulation.

3) LAN Emulation -- The ATM Forum LAN Emulation specification

provides an environment where the ATM network is enhanced by LAN

Emulation Server(s) to behave as a bridged LAN. Stations oBTain

configuration information from, and register with, a LAN Emulation

Configuration Server; they resolve MAC addresses to ATM addresses

through the services of a LAN Emulation Server; they can send

broadcast and multicast frames, and also send unicast frames for

which they have no direct VC to a Broadcast and Unicast Server.

LANE uses the VC multiplexing encapsulation foramts for Bridged

Etherent/802.3 (without LAN FCS) or Bridged 802.5 (without LAN

FCS) for the Data Direct, LE Multicast Send and Multicast Forward

VCCS. However, the initial PAD field described in this memo is

used as an LE header, and might not be set to all '0'.

4) Next Hop Resolution Protocol (NHRP) -- In some cases, the

constraint that Classical IP over ATM serve a single LIS limits

performance. NHRP, as defined in RFC2332, extends Classical to

allow 'shortcuts' over a an ATM network that supports several

LISs.

5) Multiprotocol over ATM (MPOA) -- The ATM Forum Multiprotocol over

ATM Specification integrates LANE and NHRP to provide a generic

bridging/routing environment.

6) IP Multicast -- RFC2022 extends Classical IP to support IP

multicast. A multicast address resolution server (MARS) is used

possibly in conjunction with a multicast server to provide IP

multicast behavior over ATM point-to-multipoint and/or point to

point virtual connections.

7) PPP over ATM -- RFC2364 extends multiprotocol over ATM to the

case where the encapsulated protocol is the Point-to-Point

protocols. Both the VC based multiplexing and LLC/SNAP

encapsulations are used. This approach is used when the ATM

network is used as a point-to-point link and PPP functions are

required.

Appendix E Differences from RFC1483

This memo replaces RFC1483. It was intended to remove anachronisms,

provide clarifications of ambiguities discovered by implementors or

created by changes to the base standards, and advance this work

through the IETF standards track process. A number of editorial

improvements were made, the RFC2119 [10] conventions applied, and

the current RFCboilerplate added. The following substantive changes

were made. None of them is believed to obsolete implementations of

RFC1483:

-- usage of NLPID encapsulation is clarified in terms of the RFC2119

conventions

-- a pointer to RFC2364 is added to cover the case of PPP over ATM

-- RFC1755 and RFC2331 are referenced to describe how

encapsulations are negotiated, rather than a long-obsolete CCITT

(now ITU-T) working document and references to work then in

progress

-- usage of AAL5 is now a reference to ITU-T I.363.5. Options

created in AAL5 since the publication of RFC1483 are selected.

-- formatting of routed NLPID-formatted PDUs (which are called

"routed ISO PDUs"

in RFC1483) is clarified

-- clarification is provided concerning the use of padding between

the PID and MAC destination address in bridged PDUs and the bit

ordering of the MAC address.

-- clarification is provided concerning the use of padding of

Ethernet/802.3 frames

-- a new encapuslation for VPNs is added

-- substantive security considerations were added

-- a new appendix D provides a summary of applications of

multiprotocol over ATM

Authors' Addresses

Dan Grossman

Motorola, Inc.

20 Cabot Blvd.

Mansfield, MA 02048

EMail: dan@dma.isg.mot.com

Juha Heinanen

Telia Finland

Myyrmaentie 2

01600 Vantaa, Finland

EMail: jh@telia.fi

Full Copyright Statement

Copyright (C) The Internet Society (1999). All Rights Reserved.

This document and translations of it may be copied and furnished to

others, and derivative works that comment on or otherwise explain it

or assist in its implementation may be prepared, copied, published

and distributed, in whole or in part, without restriction of any

kind, provided that the above copyright notice and this paragraph are

included on all such copies and derivative works. However, this

document itself may not be modified in any way, such as by removing

the copyright notice or references to the Internet Society or other

Internet organizations, except as needed for the purpose of

developing Internet standards in which case the procedures for

copyrights defined in the Internet Standards process must be

followed, or as required to translate it into languages other than

English.

The limited permissions granted above are perpetual and will not be

revoked by the Internet Society or its successors or assigns.

This document and the information contained herein is provided on an

"AS IS" basis and THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING

TASK FORCE DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING

BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INFORMATION

HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF

MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.

Acknowledgement

Funding for the RFCEditor function is currently provided by the

Internet Society.

 
 
 
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