home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Network Working Group D. Katz
- Request for Comments: 1103 Merit/NSFNET
- June 1989
-
- A Proposed Standard for the Transmission of
- IP Datagrams over FDDI Networks
-
-
- Status of this Memo
-
- This RFC specifies a method of encapsulating the Internet Protocol
- (IP) [1] datagrams and Address Resolution Protocol (ARP) [2] requests
- and replies on Fiber Distributed Data Interface (FDDI) Networks.
- This RFC specifies a proposed protocol standard for the Internet
- community. Comments are welcome. Distribution of this memo is
- unlimited.
-
- Acknowledgment
-
- This memo draws heavily in both concept and text from RFC 1042 [3],
- written by Jon Postel and Joyce K. Reynolds of USC/Information
- Sciences Institute.
-
- Conventions
-
- The following language conventions are used in the items of
- specification in this document:
-
- "Must" or "Mandatory"--the item is an absolute requirement of the
- specification.
-
- "Should" or "Recommended"--the item should generally be followed
- for all but exceptional circumstances.
-
- "May" or "Optional"--the item is truly optional and may be
- followed or ignored according to the needs of the implementor.
-
- Introduction
-
- The goal of this specification is to allow compatible and
- interoperable implementations for transmitting IP datagrams and ARP
- requests and replies.
-
- The Fiber Distributed Data Interface (FDDI) specifications define a
- family of standards for Local Area Networks (LANs) that provides the
- Physical Layer and Media Access Control Sublayer of the Data Link
- Layer as defined by the ISO Open System Interconnection Reference
- Model (ISO/OSI). Documents are in various stages of progression
-
-
-
- Katz [Page 1]
-
- RFC 1103 IP Datagrams over FDDI Networks June 1989
-
-
- toward International Standardization for Media Access Control (MAC)
- [4], Physical Layer Protocol (PHY) [5], Physical Layer Medium
- Dependent (PMD) [6], and Station Management (SMT) [7]. The family of
- FDDI standards corresponds to the IEEE 802 MAC layer standards [8, 9,
- 10].
-
- The remainder of the Data Link Service is provided by the IEEE 802.2
- Logical Link Control (LLC) service [11]. The resulting stack of
- services appears as follows:
-
- +-------------+
- | IP/ARP |
- +-------------+
- | 802.2 LLC |
- +-------------+
- | FDDI MAC |
- +-------------+
- | FDDI PHY |
- +-------------+
- | FDDI PMD |
- +-------------+
-
- This memo describes the use of IP and ARP in this environment. At
- this time, it is not necessary that the use of IP and ARP be
- consistent between FDDI and IEEE 802 networks, but it is the intent
- of this memo not to preclude Data Link Layer interoperability at such
- time as the standards define it.
-
- Packet Format
-
- IP datagrams and ARP requests and replies sent on FDDI networks must
- be encapsulated within the 802.2 LLC and Sub-Network Access Protocol
- (SNAP) data link layers and the FDDI MAC and physical layers. The
- SNAP must be used with an Organization Code indicating that the SNAP
- header contains the EtherType code (as listed in Assigned Numbers
- [12]).
-
- 802.2 LLC Type 1 communication (which must be implemented by all
- conforming 802.2 stations) is used exclusively. All frames must be
- transmitted in standard 802.2 LLC Type 1 Unnumbered Information
- format, with the DSAP and the SSAP fields of the 802.2 header set to
- the assigned global SAP value for SNAP [11]. The 24-bit Organization
- Code in the SNAP must be zero, and the remaining 16 bits are the
- EtherType from Assigned Numbers [12] (IP = 2048, ARP = 2054).
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Katz [Page 2]
-
- RFC 1103 IP Datagrams over FDDI Networks June 1989
-
-
- ...--------+--------+--------+
- MAC Header | FDDI MAC
- ...--------+--------+--------+
-
- +--------+--------+--------+
- | DSAP=K1| SSAP=K1| Control| 802.2 LLC
- +--------+--------+--------+
-
- +--------+--------+---------+--------+--------+
- |Protocol Id or Org Code =K2| EtherType | 802.2 SNAP
- +--------+--------+---------+--------+--------+
-
- The total length of the LLC Header and the SNAP header is 8
- octets.
-
- The K1 value is 170 (decimal).
-
- The K2 value is 0 (zero).
-
- The control value is 3 (Unnumbered Information).
-
- Address Resolution
-
- The mapping of 32-bit Internet addresses to 16-bit or 48-bit FDDI
- addresses must be done via the dynamic discovery procedure of the
- Address Resolution Protocol (ARP) [2].
-
- Internet addresses are assigned arbitrarily on Internet networks.
- Each host's implementation must know its own Internet address and
- respond to Address Resolution requests appropriately. It must also
- use ARP to translate Internet addresses to FDDI addresses when
- needed.
-
- The ARP protocol has several fields that parameterize its use in any
- specific context [2]. These fields are:
-
- hrd 16 - bits The Hardware Type Code
- pro 16 - bits The Protocol Type Code
- hln 8 - bits Octets in each hardware address
- pln 8 - bits Octets in each protocol address
- op 16 - bits Operation Code
-
- The hardware type code assigned for IEEE 802 networks is 6 [12].
- FDDI networks, although not IEEE 802 networks per se, are
- semantically equivalent and use the same type code.
-
- The protocol type code for IP is 2048 [12].
-
-
-
-
- Katz [Page 3]
-
- RFC 1103 IP Datagrams over FDDI Networks June 1989
-
-
- The hardware address length is 2 for 16-bit FDDI addresses, or 6 for
- 48-bit FDDI addresses.
-
- The protocol address length (for IP) is 4.
-
- The operation code is 1 for request and 2 for reply.
-
- Broadcast Address
-
- The broadcast Internet address (the address on that network with a
- host part of all binary ones) must be mapped to the broadcast FDDI
- address (of all binary ones) (see [13]).
-
- Trailer Formats
-
- Some versions of Unix 4.x bsd use a different encapsulation method in
- order to get better network performance with the VAX virtual memory
- architecture. Consenting systems on the same FDDI network may use
- this format between themselves. Details of the trailer encapsulation
- method may be found in [14]. However, all hosts must be able to
- communicate using the standard (non-trailer) method.
-
- Byte Order
-
- As described in Appendix B of the Internet Protocol specification
- [1], the IP datagram is transmitted over FDDI networks as a series of
- 8-bit bytes. This byte transmission order has been called "big-
- endian" [15].
-
- MAC Layer Details
-
- Packet Size
-
- The FDDI MAC specification [4] defines a maximum frame size of
- 9000 symbols (4500 octets) for all frame fields, including four
- symbols (two octets) of preamble. This gives the following MAC
- layer overhead:
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Katz [Page 4]
-
- RFC 1103 IP Datagrams over FDDI Networks June 1989
-
-
- Field Size in Octets
-
- Preamble 2
- Start Delimiter 1
- Frame Control 1
- Destination Address 6 (2)
- Source Address 6 (2)
- FCS 4
- End Delimiter/Frame Status 2
-
- Total 22 (14)
- Remaining for Data 4478 (4486)
-
- Subtracting the 8 byte LLC/SNAP header, this gives a maximum
- packet size (MTU) of 4470 (4478) octets. For compatibility
- purposes, the maximum packet size used with IP datagrams or ARP
- requests and replies must be consistent on a particular network.
-
- The overhead calculations (above) assume a standard Frame Status
- field consisting of three symbols. Additional Implementor Defined
- frame status information, although permitted by the FDDI MAC
- specification, must not be used with IP datagrams because it
- affects the maximum packet size.
-
- Gateway implementations must be prepared to accept full-length
- packets and fragment them when necessary.
-
- Host implementations should be prepared to accept full-length
- packets; however, hosts must not send datagrams longer than 576
- octets unless they have explicit knowledge that the destination is
- prepared to accept them. A host may communicate its size
- preference in TCP-based applications via the TCP Maximum Segment
- Size option [16].
-
- Datagrams on FDDI networks may be longer than the general Internet
- default maximum packet size of 576 octets. Hosts connected to an
- FDDI network should keep this in mind when sending datagrams to
- hosts that are not on the same local network. It may be
- appropriate to send smaller datagrams to avoid unnecessary
- fragmentation at intermediate gateways. Please see [16] for
- further information.
-
- There is no minimum packet size restriction on FDDI networks.
-
- Other MAC Layer Issues
-
- The FDDI MAC specification does not require that 16-bit and 48-bit
- address stations be able to interwork fully. It does, however,
-
-
-
- Katz [Page 5]
-
- RFC 1103 IP Datagrams over FDDI Networks June 1989
-
-
- require that 16-bit stations have full 48-bit functionality, and that
- both types of stations be able to receive frames sent to either size
- broadcast address. For use with IP and ARP, all communicating
- stations on a LAN must use a consistent address size.
- Implementations must discard any IP or ARP packets received with an
- unimplemented or inactive address size. 16-bit and 48-bit
- implementations may coexist on the same FDDI network; however, if
- they wish to interwork they must be considered separate IP networks
- and linked with an IP router capable of supporting 16-and 48-bit
- addresses simultaneously.
-
- Group (multicast) addresses are defined by the FDDI MAC specification
- but are not necessarily supported by existing hardware. Therefore,
- this feature must not be used by IP and ARP.
-
- The FDDI MAC specification defines two classes of frames,
- Asynchronous and Synchronous. Asynchronous frames are further
- controlled by a priority mechanism and two classes of token,
- Restricted and Unrestricted. Only the use of Unrestricted tokens and
- Asynchronous frames are required by the standard for FDDI
- interoperability. The priority mechanism is currently implemented
- locally by the transmitting station and the Priority field in
- Asynchronous frames is ignored by other stations. This field will
- likely be interpreted by Transparent Bridges once they are defined.
- There is no default value for priority called out in the MAC
- standard.
-
- Therefore, all IP and ARP frames must be transmitted as Asynchronous
- frames using Unrestricted tokens, and the Priority value is a matter
- of local convention. Implementations should make the priority a
- tunable parameter for future use. It is recommended that
- implementations provide for the reception of IP and ARP packets in
- Synchronous frames.
-
- After packet transmission, FDDI provides Frame Copied (C) and Address
- Recognized (A) indicators. There are four possible combinations of
- the indicators with the following semantics:
-
- (C) (A)
- Reset Reset The frame was not received by any station.
- Reset Set The addressed station is congested.
- Set Reset Reserved.
- Set Set The addressed station received the frame.
-
- Implementations may use these indicators to provide some amount of
- error detection and correction:
-
- If the Frame Copied bit is reset but the Address Recognized bit is
-
-
-
- Katz [Page 6]
-
- RFC 1103 IP Datagrams over FDDI Networks June 1989
-
-
- set, receiver congestion has occurred. It is recommended, though
- not mandatory, that hosts retransmit the offending packet a small
- number of times (4) or until congestion no longer occurs.
-
- If the both the Address Recognized indicator and the Frame Copied
- indicator are reset, an implementation has three options: (1)
- ignore the error and throw the packet away, (2) return an ICMP
- destination unreachable message to the source, or (3) delete the
- ARP entry which was used to send this packet and send a new ARP
- request to the destination address. The latter option is the
- preferred approach since it will allow graceful recovery from
- first hop bridge and router failures and changed hardware
- addresses.
-
- As of this writing there is a proposal within ANSI to set the
- Frame Copied indicator and reset the Address Recognized indicator
- when a frame is forwarded by a Transparent Bridge. For future
- compatibility, implementations should interpret this combination
- of indicators as if the frame were successfully delivered to the
- destination (i.e., do nothing).
-
- IEEE 802.2 Details
-
- While not necessary for supporting IP and ARP, all implementations
- must support IEEE 802.2 standard Class I service in order to be
- compliant with 802.2. This requires supporting Unnumbered
- Information (UI) Commands, eXchange IDentification (XID) Commands and
- Responses, and TEST link (TEST) Commands and Responses.
-
- When an XID or TEST command is received, a response must be returned
- with Destination and Source addresses, and DSAP and SSAP, swapped.
-
- When responding to an XID or a TEST command, the value of the Final
- bit in the response must be copied from the value of the Poll bit in
- the command.
-
- The XID command or response has an LLC control field value of 175
- (decimal) if the Poll/Final bit is off or 191 (decimal) if the
- Poll/Final bit is on.
-
- The TEST command or response has an LLC control field value of 227
- (decimal) if the Poll/Final bit is off or 243 (decimal) if the
- Poll/Final bit is on.
-
- Command frames are identified by having the high order bit of the
- SSAP address reset to zero. Response frames have the high order bit
- of the SSAP address set to one.
-
-
-
-
- Katz [Page 7]
-
- RFC 1103 IP Datagrams over FDDI Networks June 1989
-
-
- XID response frames must include an 802.2 XID Information field of
- 129.1.0 indicating Class I (connectionless) service.
-
- TEST response frames must echo the information field received in the
- corresponding TEST command frame.
-
- Appendix on Numbers
-
- The IEEE specifies numbers in bit transmission order, or bit-wise
- little-endian order. The Internet protocols are documented in byte-
- wise big-endian order. This may cause some confusion about the
- proper values to use for numbers. Here are the conversions for some
- numbers of interest.
-
- Number IEEE IEEE Internet Internet
- HEX Binary Binary Decimal
-
- UI Op Code C0 11000000 00000011 3
- SAP for SNAP 55 01010101 10101010 170
- XID F5 11110101 10101111 175
- XID FD 11111101 10111111 191
- TEST C7 11000111 11100011 227
- TEST CF 11001111 11110011 243
- Info 818000 129.1.0
-
- References
-
- [1] Postel, J., "Internet Protocol", RFC-791, USC/Information
- Sciences Institute, September 1981.
-
- [2] Plummer, D., "An Ethernet Address Resolution Protocol - or -
- Converting Network Protocol Addresses to 48.bit Ethernet Address
- for Transmission on Ethernet Hardware", RFC-826, MIT, November
- 1982.
-
- [3] Postel J., and J. Reynolds, "A Standard for the Transmission of
- IP Datagrams over IEEE 802 Networks", RFC1042, USC/Information
- Sciences Institute, February, 1988.
-
- [4] ISO, "Fiber Distributed Data Interface (FDDI) - Media Access
- Control", ISO 9314-2, 1988. See also ANSI X3.139-1987.
-
- [5] ISO, "Fiber Distributed Data Interface (FDDI) - Token Ring
- Physical Layer Protocol", ISO 9314-1, 1988. See also ANSI
- X3.148-1988.
-
- [6] ISO, "Fiber Distributed Data Interface (FDDI) - Physical Layer
- Medium Dependent", ISO DIS 9314-3, 1988. See also ANSI X3.166-
-
-
-
- Katz [Page 8]
-
- RFC 1103 IP Datagrams over FDDI Networks June 1989
-
-
- 198x.
-
- [7] ANSI, "FDDI Station Management", ANSI X3T9.5/84-49 Rev 4.0, 1988.
-
- [8] IEEE, "IEEE Standards for Local Area Networks: Carrier Sense
- Multiple Access with Collision Detection (CSMA/CD) Access Method
- and Physical Layer Specifications", IEEE, New York, New York,
- 1985.
-
- [9] IEEE, "IEEE Standards for Local Area Networks: Token-Passing Bus
- Access Method and Physical Layer Specification", IEEE, New York,
- New York, 1985.
-
- [10] IEEE, "IEEE Standards for Local Area Networks: Token Ring Access
- Method and Physical Layer Specifications", IEEE, New York, New
- York, 1985.
-
- [11] IEEE, "IEEE Standards for Local Area Networks: Logical Link
- Control", IEEE, New York, New York, 1985.
-
- [12] Reynolds, J.K., and J. Postel, "Assigned Numbers", RFC-1010,
- USC/Information Sciences Institute, May 1987.
-
- [13] Braden, R., and J. Postel, "Requirements for Internet Gateways",
- RFC-1009, USC/Information Sciences Institute, June 1987.
-
- [14] Leffler, S., and M. Karels, "Trailer Encapsulations", RFC-893,
- University of California at Berkeley, April 1984.
-
- [15] Cohen, D., "On Holy Wars and a Plea for Peace", Computer, IEEE,
- October 1981.
-
- [16] Postel, J., "The TCP Maximum Segment Size Option and Related
- Topics", RFC-879, USC/Information Sciences Institute, November
- 1983.
-
- Author's Address
-
- Dave Katz Merit/NSFNET 1075 Beal Ann Arbor, MI 48109-2112
-
- Phone: 1-800-66-MERIT
-
- Email: Dave_Katz@um.cc.umich.edu
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Katz [Page 9]
-