1 / 15

IPv4 and ARP over Fibre Channel draft-desanti-imss-ipv4-over-fibre-channel-00.txt

IPv4 and ARP over Fibre Channel draft-desanti-imss-ipv4-over-fibre-channel-00.txt. 61 th IETF, Washington DC Claudio DeSanti cds@cisco.com. History. RFC 2625 has been evaluated for advancement to Draft Standard status

angus
Download Presentation

IPv4 and ARP over Fibre Channel draft-desanti-imss-ipv4-over-fibre-channel-00.txt

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. IPv4 and ARP over Fibre Channeldraft-desanti-imss-ipv4-over-fibre-channel-00.txt 61th IETF, Washington DC Claudio DeSanti cds@cisco.com

  2. History • RFC 2625 has been evaluated for advancement to Draft Standard status • Discovered that some implementations are not following RFC 2625 because of: • N_Port_Name format restriction • RFC 2625 allowed only NAA 1 • Use of FARP • RFC 2625 required its support for interoperability • Major problems • The new specification tries to resolve these issues

  3. ProtocolType = IPv4 Proto Len = 4 RFC 2625 ARP Format HW Type = Ethernet HW Len = 6 Opcode Sender HW Address Sender IP Address Target HW Address Target IP Address

  4. RFC 2625 IPv4 Address Resolution (1) A ARP Request: - Sender HW Address = HW(A) - Sender IP Address = IP(A) - Target HW Address = ?? - Target IP Address IP(B) C B D

  5. RFC 2625 IPv4 Address Resolution (2) A ARP Reply: - Sender HW Address = HW(B) - Sender IP Address = IP(B) - Target HW Address = HW(A) - Target IP Address IP(A) C B D

  6. RFC 2625 IPv4 Address Resolution (3) A FARP Request: - Requester N_Port_Name - Requester N_Port_ID - Responder N_Port_Name - Responder N_Port_ID = ?? C B D

  7. RFC 2625 IPv4 Address Resolution (4) A FARP Reply: - Requester N_Port_Name - Requester N_Port_ID - Responder N_Port_Name - Responder N_Port_ID C B D

  8. The Nasty FARP… • FARP is a broadcast ELS • Several (old?) disk implementation do (did?) not tolerate receiving unexpected ELSs • They may reinitialize or issue some SCSI errors • B resolving C’s IPv4 address may cause I/O errors to A! • Some vendors did not implement FARP at all! • The Switch vendors defined “broadcast zoning” in FC-SW-3 to administratively limit the scope of the FARP broadcast ELS

  9. Sender N_Port_Name Reserved Sender N_Port_ID Target N_Port_Name Reserved Target N_Port_ID New ARP Format HW Type = Fibre Channel ProtocolType = IPv4 HW Len = 12 Proto Len = 4 Opcode Sender HW Address Sender IP Address Target HW Address Target IP Address

  10. Updated IPv4 Address Resolution (1) ARP Request: - Sender HW Address = N_Port_Name(A), N_Port_ID(A) - Sender IP Address = IP(A) - Target HW Address = ?? - Target IP Address IP(B) A C B D

  11. Updated IPv4 Address Resolution (2) ARP Reply: - Sender HW Address = N_Port_Name(B), N_Port_ID(B) - Sender IP Address = IP(B) - Target HW Address = N_Port_Name(A), N_Port_ID(A) - Target IP Address IP(A) A C B D

  12. New Draft Benefits • All commonly used Name_Identifier formats are supported • Simplified ARP resolution process • No more need for FARP • Missing functionality added • IPv4 multicast support

  13. Backward Compatibility (1) • Communication between an RFC 2625 implementation and an Nx_Port with NAA ≠ 1 • If the RFC 2625 implementation strictly enforces theNAA =1 requirement, no way! • IP encapsulation issue • If the RFC 2625 implementation does not strictly enforce the NAA = 1 requirement, only address resolution does not work • Use manual mapping tables

  14. Backward Compatibility (2) • Communication between an RFC 2625 implementation and an Nx_Port with NAA = 1 • No issues with IP encapsulation • For address resolution send two ARP requests: • one according to the Fibre Channel format • one according to the Ethernet format • Use the first reply received • Reply with an Ethernet ARP reply to any received Ethernet ARP request

  15. How to move forward • There is consensus in T11 in replacing RFC 2625 • Create a combined IPv6/IPv4 document to replace both RFC 2625 and RFC 3831 • Easier for implementors to work over it • It shows that IPv6 support is straightforward • Allows “standard developers” to think to both worlds • A single Exchange for IPv4 and IPv6, or one per protocol? • The quality of the combined document is better • The new draft is getting a deeper review

More Related