Next Steps in Signaling H. Schulzrinne Internet-Draft Columbia U. Expires: April 24, 2005 R. Hancock Siemens/RMR October 24, 2004 GIMPS: General Internet Messaging Protocol for Signaling draft-ietf-nsis-ntlp-04 Status of this Memo This document is an Internet-Draft and is subject to all provisions of section 3 of RFC 3667. By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she become aware will be disclosed, in accordance with RFC 3668. Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-Drafts. Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt. The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html. This Internet-Draft will expire on April 24, 2005. Copyright Notice Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2004). Abstract This document specifies protocol stacks for the routing and transport of per-flow signaling messages along the path taken by that flow through the network. The design uses existing transport and security protocols under a common messaging layer, the General Internet Messaging Protocol for Signaling (GIMPS), which provides a universal service for diverse signaling applications. GIMPS does not handle Schulzrinne & Hancock Expires April 24, 2005 [Page 1] Internet-Draft GIMPS October 2004 signaling application state itself, but manages its own internal state and the configuration of the underlying transport and security protocols to enable the transfer of messages in both directions along the flow path. The combination of GIMPS and the lower layer transport and security protocols provides a solution for the base protocol component of the "Next Steps in Signaling" framework. Table of Contents 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 1.1 Restrictions on Scope . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 2. Requirements Notation and Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . 6 3. Design Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 3.1 Overall Design Approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 3.2 Example of Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 4. GIMPS Processing Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 4.1 GIMPS Service Interface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 4.2 GIMPS State . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 4.3 Basic Message Processing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 4.4 Routing State and Messaging Association Maintenance . . . 21 5. Message Formats and Transport . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 5.1 GIMPS Messages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 5.2 Information Elements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 5.3 Datagram Mode Transport . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 5.4 Connection Mode Transport . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 5.5 Messaging Association Negotiation . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 6. Advanced Protocol Features . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 6.1 Route Changes and Local Repair . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 6.2 Policy-Based Forwarding and Flow Wildcarding . . . . . . . 43 6.3 NAT Traversal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 6.4 Interaction with IP Tunnelling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45 6.5 IPv4-IPv6 Transition and Interworking . . . . . . . . . . 46 7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48 7.1 Message Confidentiality and Integrity . . . . . . . . . . 48 7.2 Peer Node Authentication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49 7.3 Routing State Integrity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49 7.4 Denial of Service Prevention . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51 8. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53 9. Open Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55 9.1 Protocol Naming . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55 9.2 General IP Layer Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55 9.3 Encapsulation and Addressing for Datagram Mode . . . . . . 56 9.4 Intermediate Node Bypass and Router Alert Values . . . . . 57 9.5 IP TTL Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58 9.6 GIMPS Support for Message Scoping . . . . . . . . . . . . 59 9.7 Additional Discovery Mechanisms . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59 9.8 Alternative Message Routing Requirements . . . . . . . . . 60 9.9 Message Format Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61 Schulzrinne & Hancock Expires April 24, 2005 [Page 2] Internet-Draft GIMPS October 2004 9.10 Inter-Layer Security Coordination . . . . . . . . . . . 61 9.11 Protocol Design Details . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62 10. Change History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64 10.1 Changes In Version -04 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64 10.2 Changes In Version -03 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65 10.3 Changes In Version -02 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66 10.4 Changes In Version -01 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67 11. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69 11.1 Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69 11.2 Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71 A. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72 B. Example Message Routing State Table . . . . . . . . . . . . 73 C. Bit-Level Formats . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74 C.1 General NSIS Formatting Guidelines . . . . . . . . . . . . 74 C.2 The GIMPS Common Header . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75 C.3 General Object Characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75 C.4 GIMPS Specific TLV Objects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76 C.5 Generic NSIS TLV Objects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82 D. API between GIMPS and NSLP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84 D.1 SendMessage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84 D.2 RecvMessage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86 D.3 MessageDeliveryError . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87 D.4 NetworkNotification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87 D.5 SecurityProtocolAttributesRequest . . . . . . . . . . . . 87 D.6 SetStateLifetime . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88 D.7 InvalidateRoutingState . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88 Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . 89 Schulzrinne & Hancock Expires April 24, 2005 [Page 3] Internet-Draft GIMPS October 2004 1. Introduction Signaling involves the manipulation of state held in network elements. 'Manipulation' could mean setting up, modifying and tearing down state; or it could simply mean the monitoring of state which is managed by other mechanisms. This specification concentrates specifically on the case of "path-coupled" signaling, which involves network elements which are located on the path taken by a particular data flow, possibly including but not limited to the flow endpoints. Indeed, there are almost always more than two participants in a path-coupled-signaling session, although there is no need for every router on the path to participate. Path-coupled signaling thus excludes end-to-end higher-layer application signaling (except as a degenerate case) such as ISUP (telephony signaling for Signaling System #7) messages being transported by SCTP between two nodes. In the context of path-coupled signaling, examples of state management include network resource allocation (for "resource reservation"), firewall configuration, and state used in active networking; examples of state monitoring are the discovery of instantaneous path properties (such as available bandwidth, or cumulative queuing delay). Each of these different uses of path-coupled signaling is referred to as a signaling application. Every signaling application requires a set of state management rules, as well as protocol support to exchange messages along the data path. Several aspects of this support are common to all or a large number of signaling applications, and hence should be developed as a common protocol. The framework given in [20] provides a rationale for a function split between the common and application specific protocols, and gives outline requirements for the former, the 'NSIS Transport Layer Protocol' (NTLP). This specification provides a concrete solution for the NTLP. It is based on the use of existing transport and security protocols under a common messaging layer, the General Internet Messaging Protocol for Signaling (GIMPS). Different signaling applications may make use of different services provided by GIMPS, but GIMPS does not handle signaling application state itself; in that crucial respect, it differs from application signaling protocols such as the control component of FTP, SIP and RTSP. Instead, GIMPS manages its own internal state and the configuration of the underlying transport and security protocols to ensure the transfer of signaling messages on behalf of signaling applications in both directions along the flow path. Schulzrinne & Hancock Expires April 24, 2005 [Page 4] Internet-Draft GIMPS October 2004 1.1 Restrictions on Scope This section briefly lists some important restrictions on GIMPS applicability and functionality. In some cases, these are implicit consequences of the functionality split developed in the framework; in others, they are restrictions on the types of scenario in which GIMPS can operate correctly. Flow splitting: In some cases, e.g. where packet-level load sharing has been implemented, the path taken by a single flow in the network may not be well defined. If this is the case, GIMPS cannot route signaling meaningfully. (In some circumstances, GIMPS can detect this condition, but this cannot be guaranteed.) Multicast: GIMPS does not handle multicast flows. This includes 'classical' IP multicast and any of the 'small group multicast' schemes recently proposed. Schulzrinne & Hancock Expires April 24, 2005 [Page 5] Internet-Draft GIMPS October 2004 2. Requirements Notation and Terminology The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in [2]. The terminology used in this specification is fully defined in this section. The basic entities relevant at the GIMPS level are shown in Figure 1. Source GIMPS (adjacent) peer nodes Destination IP address IP addresses = Signaling IP address = Flow Source/Destination Addresses = Flow Source (depending on signaling direction) Destination Address | | Address V V +--------+ +------+ Data Flow +------+ +--------+ | Flow |-----------|------|-------------|------|-------->| Flow | | Sender | | | | | |Receiver| +--------+ |GIMPS |============>|GIMPS | +--------+ | Node |<============| Node | +------+ Signaling +------+ GN1 Flow GN2 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> = Downstream direction <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< = Upstream direction Figure 1: Basic Terminology [Data] Flow: A set of packets identified by some fixed combination of header fields. Flows are unidirectional (a bidirectional communication is considered a pair of unidirectional flows). Session: A single application layer flow of information for which some network control state information is to be manipulated or monitored. IP mobility may cause the mapping between sessions and flows to change, and IP multihoming may mean there is more than one flow for a given session. [Flow] Sender: The node in the network which is the source of the packets in a flow. Could be a host, or a router (e.g. if the flow is actually an aggregate). [Flow] Receiver: The node in the network which is the sink for the packets in a flow. Schulzrinne & Hancock Expires April 24, 2005 [Page 6] Internet-Draft GIMPS October 2004 Downstream: In the same direction as the data flow. Upstream: In the opposite direction to the data flow. GIMPS Node: Any node along the data path supporting GIMPS (regardless of what signaling applications it supports). Adjacent peer: The next GIMPS node along the data path, in the upstream or downstream direction. Whether two nodes are adjacent is determined implicitly by the GIMPS peer discovery mechanisms; it is possible for adjacencies to 'skip over' intermediate GIMPS nodes if they have no interest in the signaling messages being exchanged. Datagram mode: A mode of sending GIMPS messages between nodes without using any transport layer state or security protection. Upstream messages are sent UDP encapsulated directly to the signaling destination; downstream messages are typically sent towards the flow receiver with a router alert option. Connection mode: A mode of sending GIMPS messages directly between nodes using point to point "messaging associations" (see below). Connection mode allows the re-use of existing transport and security protocols where such functionality is required. Messaging association: A single connection between two explicitly identified GIMPS adjacent peers, i.e. between a given signaling source and destination address. A messaging association may use a specific transport protocol and known ports, If security protection is required, it may use a specific network layer security association, or use a transport layer security association internally. A messaging association is bidirectional; signaling messages can be sent over it in either direction, and can refer to flows of either direction. [Message] Transfer Attributes: A formal description of the requirements which a signaling application has for the delivery of a particular message towards its signaling application peer; for example, whether the message should be delivered reliably. See Section 4.1.2. Schulzrinne & Hancock Expires April 24, 2005 [Page 7] Internet-Draft GIMPS October 2004 3. Design Overview 3.1 Overall Design Approach The generic requirements identified in the NSIS framework [20] for transport of path-coupled signaling messages are essentially two-fold: "Routing": Determine how to reach the adjacent signaling node along the data path (the GIMPS peer); "Transport": Deliver the signaling information to that peer. To meet the routing requirement, for downstream signaling the node can either use local state information (e.g. gathered during previous signaling exchanges) to determine the identity of the GIMPS peer explicitly, or it can just send the signaling towards the flow destination address and rely on the peer to intercept it. For upstream signaling, only the first technique is possible. Once the routing decision has been made, the node has to select a mechanism for transport of the message to the peer. GIMPS divides the transport problems into two categories, the easy and the difficult ones. It handles the easy cases internally, and uses well-understood reliable transport protocols for the harder cases. Here, with details discussed later, "easy" messages are those that are sized well below the lowest MTU along a path, are infrequent enough not to cause concerns about congestion and flow control, and do not need transport or network-layer security protection or guaranteed delivery. In [20] all of these routing and transport requirements are assigned to a single notional protocol, the 'NSIS Transport Layer Protocol' (NTLP). The strategy of splitting the transport problem leads to a layered structure for the NTLP, as a specialised GIMPS 'messaging' layer running over standard transport and security protocols, as shown in Figure 2. This also shows GIMPS offering its services to upper layers at an abstract interface, the GIMPS API, further discussed in Section 4.1. Internally, GIMPS has two modes of operation: Datagram mode: for small, infrequent messages with modest delay constraints; and Connection mode: for larger data objects or where fast state setup in the face of packet loss is desirable, or where channel security is required. Schulzrinne & Hancock Expires April 24, 2005 [Page 8] Internet-Draft GIMPS October 2004 ^^ +-------------+ || | Signaling | || +------------|Application 2| || | Signaling +-------------+ NSIS |Application 1| | Signaling +-------------+ | Application | +-------------+ | Level | | Signaling | | || | |Application 3| | || | +-------------+ | VV | | | =========|==========|========|===== <-- GIMPS API | | | ^^ +------------------------------------------------+ || |+-----------------------+ +--------------+ | || || GIMPS | | GIMPS State | | || || Encapsulation |<<<>>>| Maintenance | | || |+-----------------------+ +--------------+ | || |GIMPS: Messaging Layer | || +------------------------------------------------+ NSIS | | | | Transport ............................. Level . Transport Layer Security . ("NTLP") ............................. || | | | | || +----+ +----+ +----+ +----+ || |UDP | |TCP | |SCTP| |DCCP|.... || +----+ +----+ +----+ +----+ || | | | | || ............................. || . IP Layer Security . || ............................. VV | | | | =========================|=======|=======|=======|=============== | | | | +----------------------------------------------+ | IP | +----------------------------------------------+ Figure 2: Protocol Stacks for Signaling Transport The datagram mode uses an unreliable unsecured datagram transport mechanism, with UDP as the initial choice. The connection mode can in principal use any stream or message-oriented transport protocol; this specification currently defines the use of TCP as the initial choice. It may employ specific network layer security associations (such as IPsec), or an internal transport layer security association (such as TLS). Schulzrinne & Hancock Expires April 24, 2005 [Page 9] Internet-Draft GIMPS October 2004 It is possible to mix these two modes along a chain of nodes, without coordination or manual configuration. This allows, for example, the use of datagram mode at the edges of the network and connection mode in the core of the network. Such combinations may make operation more efficient for mobile endpoints, while allowing multiplexing of signaling messages across shared security associations and transport connections between core routers. It must be understood that the routing and transport decisions made by GIMPS are not totally independent. If the message transfer has requirements that enforce the use of connection mode (e.g. the message is so large that fragmentation is required), this can only be used between explicitly identified nodes. In such cases, the GIMPS node must carry out signaling in datagram mode to identify the peer and then set up the necessary transport connection. The datagram mode option of sending the message in the direction of the flow receiver and relying on interception is not available. In any case, it must also be understood that the signaling application does not make the datagram vs. connection mode selection directly; rather, this decision is made by GIMPS on the basis of the message transfer attributes stated by the application, and the distinction between the modes is not visible at the GIMPS service interface. In general, the state associated with connection mode messaging to a particular peer (signaling destination address, protocol and port numbers, internal protocol configuration and state information) is referred to as a "messaging association". There may be any number of messaging associations between two GIMPS peers (although the usual case is 0 or 1), and they are set up and torn down by management actions within GIMPS itself. 3.2 Example of Operation This section presents an example of GIMPS usage in a relatively simple (in particular, NAT-free) signaling scenario, to illustrate its main features. Consider the case of an RSVP-like signaling application which allocates resources for a flow from sender to receiver; we will consider how GIMPS transfers messages between two adjacent peers along the path, GN1 and GN2 (see Figure 1). In this example, the end-to-end exchange is initiated by the signaling application instance in the sender; we take up the story at the point where the first message is being processed (above the GIMPS layer) by the signaling application in GN1. 1. The signaling application in GN1 determines that this message is a simple description of resources that would be appropriate for Schulzrinne & Hancock Expires April 24, 2005 [Page 10] Internet-Draft GIMPS October 2004 the flow. It determines that it has no special security or transport requirements for the message, but simply that it should be transferred to the next downstream signaling application peer on the path that the flow will take. 2. The message payload is passed to the GIMPS layer in GN1, along with a definition of the flow and description of the message transfer attributes {downstream, unsecured, unreliable}. GIMPS determines that this particular message does not require fragmentation and that it has no knowledge of the next peer for this flow and signaling application; however, it also determines that this application is likely to require secured upstream and downstream transport of large messages in the future. This determination is a function of node-local policy, and some options for how it may be communicated between NSLP and GIMPS implementations within a node are indicated in Appendix D. 3. GN1 therefore constructs a UDP datagram with the signaling application payload, and additional payloads at the GIMPS level to be used to initiate the setup of a messaging association (a "GIMPS-query"). This datagram is injected into the network, addressed towards the flow destination and with a Router Alert Option included. 4. This D-mode message passes through the network towards the flow receiver, and is seen by each router in turn. GIMPS-unaware routers will not recognise the RAO value and will forward the message unchanged; GIMPS-aware routers which do not support the signaling application in question will also forward the message basically unchanged, although they may need to process more of the message to decide this. 5. The message is intercepted at GN2. The GIMPS layer identifies the message as relevant to a local signaling application, and passes the signaling application payload and flow description upwards to it. There, the signaling application in GN2 continues to process this message as in GN1 (compare step 1), and this will eventually result in the message reaching the flow receiver. 6. In parallel, the GIMPS instance in GN2 recognises that GN1 is attempting to discover GN2 in order to set up a messaging association for future signaling for the flow. There are two possible cases (in either case the resulting message is referred to as a "GIMPS-response"): A. GN1 and GN2 already have an appropriate association. GN2 simply records the identity of GN1 as its upstream peer for that flow and signaling application, and sends a GIMPS Schulzrinne & Hancock Expires April 24, 2005 [Page 11] Internet-Draft GIMPS October 2004 message back to GN1 over the association identifying itself as the peer for this flow. B. No messaging association exists. Again, GN2 records the identity of GN1 as before, but sends an upstream D-mode message to GN1, identifying itself and agreeing to the association setup. The protocol exchanges needed to complete this will proceed in the background, controlled by GN1. 7. Eventually, another signaling application message works its way upstream from the receiver to GN2. This message contains a description of the actual resources requested, along with authorisation and other security information. The signaling application in GN2 passes this payload to the GIMPS level, along with the flow definition and transfer attributes {upstream, secured, reliable}. 8. The GIMPS layer in GN2 identifies the upstream peer for this flow and signaling application as GN1, and determines that it has a messaging association with the appropriate properties. The message is queued on the association for transmission (this may mean some delay if the negotiations begun in step 6.B have not yet completed). Further messages can be passed in each direction in the same way. The GIMPS layer in each node can in parallel carry out maintenance operations such as route change detection (this can be done by sending additional GIMPS-only datagram mode messages, see Section 6.1 for more details). Note that when GIMPS messages are carried in connection mode, they are treated just like any other traffic by intermediate routers between the GIMPS peers. Indeed, it would be impossible for intermediate routers to carry out any processing on the messages without terminating the transport and security protocols used. In connection mode, signaling messages are only ever delivered between peers established in GIMPS-query/response exchanges. Any route change is not detected until another GIMPS-query/response procedure takes place; in the meantime, signaling messages are misdelivered. GIMPS is responsible for prompt detection of route changes to minimise the period during which this can take place. It should be understood that many of these details of GIMPS operations can be varied, either by local policy or according to signaling application requirements, and they are also subject to development and refinement as the protocol design proceeds. The authoritative details are contained in the remainder of this document. Schulzrinne & Hancock Expires April 24, 2005 [Page 12] Internet-Draft GIMPS October 2004 4. GIMPS Processing Overview This section defines the basic structure and operation of GIMPS. It is divided into four parts. Section 4.1 describes the way in which GIMPS interacts with (local) signaling applications in the form of an abstract service interface. Section 4.2 describes the per-flow and per-peer state that GIMPS maintains for the purpose of transferring messages. Section 4.3 describes how messages are processed in the case where any necessary messaging associations and associated routing state already exist; this includes the simple scenario of pure datagram mode operation, where no messaging associations are necessary in the first place. Finally, Section 4.4 describes how routing state is maintained and how messaging associations are initiated and terminated. 4.1 GIMPS Service Interface This section defines the service interface that GIMPS presents to signaling applications in terms of abstract properties of the message transfer. Note that the same service interface is presented at every GIMPS node; however, applications may invoke it differently at different nodes (e.g. depending on local policy). In addition, the service interface is defined independently of any specific transport protocol, or even the distinction between datagram and connection mode. The initial version of this specification defines how to support the service interface using a connection mode based on TCP; if additional transport protocol support is added, this will support the same interface and so be invisible to applications (except as a possible performance improvement). A more detailed specification of this service interface is given in Appendix D. 4.1.1 Message Handling Fundamentally, GIMPS provides a simple message-by-message transfer service for use by signaling applications: individual messages are sent, and individual messages are received. Messages consist of an opaque payload, and control information expressing the application's requirements about how the message should be routed. Additional message transfer attributes control the specific transport and security properties that the signaling application desires for the message. The distinction between GIMPS connection and datagram modes is not visible at the service interface. In addition, the invocation of GIMPS functionality to handle fragmentation and reassembly, bundling together of small messages (for efficiency), and congestion control are not directly visible at the service interface; GIMPS will take whatever action is necessary based on other properties of the Schulzrinne & Hancock Expires April 24, 2005 [Page 13] Internet-Draft GIMPS October 2004 messages and local node state. Messages for different sessions (i.e. with different Session IDs, see Section 4.2.1) are treated entirely independently of each other by GIMPS. Messages for the same session which are to be delivered reliably (see below) to the same peer will be delivered in order. If the receiving application delays reading these messages, this will (eventually) cause a flow-control condition at the sending node. 4.1.2 Message Transfer Attributes Message transfer attributes are used to define certain performance-related aspects of message processing. The attributes available are as follows: Reliability: This attribute may be 'true' or 'false'. For the case 'true', messages will be delivered to the signaling application in the peer exactly once or not at all; if there is a chance that the message was not delivered, an error will be indicated to the local signaling application identifying the routing information for the message in question. For the case 'false', a message may be delivered, once, several times or not at all, with no error indications in any case. Security: This attribute defines the security properties that the signaling application requires for the message, including the type of protection and identity information about the peer. Details are for further study (see Section 9.10). Local Processing: An NSLP may provide hints to GIMPS to enable more efficient or appropriate processing. The NSLP may select a priority from a range of locally defined values to influence the sequence in which messages leave a node. Any priority mechanism must respect the ordering requirements for reliable messages within a session, and priority values are not carried in the protocol or available at the signaling peer or intermediate nodes. An NSLP may also indicate that reverse path routing state will not be needed for this flow, to inhibit the node requesting its downstream peer to create it. 4.2 GIMPS State 4.2.1 Message Routing State For each flow, the GIMPS layer can maintain message routing state to manage the processing of outgoing messages. This state is conceptually organised into a table with the following structure. Schulzrinne & Hancock Expires April 24, 2005 [Page 14] Internet-Draft GIMPS October 2004 The primary key (index) for the table is the combination of the information about how the message is to be routed, the session being signalled for, and the signaling application itself: Message Routing Information (MRI): This defines the method to be used to route the message, and any associated addressing information. In the simplest case, the message routing method is to follow the path that is being taken by the data flow, and the associated addressing is the flow header N-tuple (i.e. the Flow-Identifier of [20]). Signaling Application Identification (NSLPID): This is an IANA assigned identifier of the signaling application which is generating messages for this flow. The inclusion of this identifier allows the routing state to be different for different signaling applications (e.g. because of different adjacencies). Session Identification (SID): This is a cryptographically random and (probabilistically) globally unique identifier of the application layer session that is using the flow. For a given flow, different signaling applications may or may not use the same session identifier. Often there will only be one flow for a given session, but in mobility/multihoming scenarios there may be more than one and they may be differently routed. For a given MRI and NSLPID the message routing state should not be SID-dependent. The SID is included in the key to prevent upstream routing state for a given MRI being corrupted by a malicious upstream node. The state information for a given key is as follows: Upstream peer: the adjacent peer closer to the flow source. This could be an IP address and UDP port (learned from previous signaling) or a pointer to a valid messaging association. It could also be null, if this node is not storing reverse routing state or if it is the last upstream node (including the sender). Downstream peer: the adjacent peer closer to the flow destination. This could be a pointer to a valid messaging association, or it could be null, if this node is only sending downstream datagram mode messages for this flow and signaling application, or if it is the last downstream node (including the receiver). Note that both the upstream and downstream peer state may be null, and that the session identifier information is not actually required for message processing; in that case, no state information at all needs to be stored in the table. Both items of state have associated Schulzrinne & Hancock Expires April 24, 2005 [Page 15] Internet-Draft GIMPS October 2004 timers for how long the identification can be considered accurate; when these timers expire, the peer identification is purged if it has not been refreshed. Message routing state is installed and refreshed by the exchange of specific GIMPS messages as described in Section 4.4. For a given flow, a GIMPS node is responsible for scheduling the messages which refresh its own downstream peer state and allow its downstream peer to refresh its upstream peer state, and this should be done while GIMPS determines the signaling application is still active. GIMPS may opportunistically synchronise these 'internal' refresh operations with those in the signaling application if it wishes. An example of a routing state table for a simple scenario is given in Appendix B. Note also that the information is described as a table of flows, but that there is no implied constraint on how the information is stored. For example, in a network using pure destination address routing (without load sharing or any form of policy-based forwarding), the downstream peer information might be possible to store in an aggregated form in the same manner as the IP forwarding table. In addition, many of the per-flow entries may point to the same per-peer state (e.g. the same messaging association) if the flows go through the same adjacent peer. However, in general, and especially if GIMPS peers are several IP hops away, there is no way to identify the correct downstream peer for a flow and signaling application from the local forwarding table using prefix matching, and the same applies always to upstream peer state because of the possibility of asymmetric routing: per-flow routing state has to be stored, just as for RSVP [9]. 4.2.2 Messaging Association State The per-flow message routing state is not the only state stored by GIMPS. There is also the state required to manage the messaging associations. Since these associations are typically per-peer rather than per-flow, they are stored in a separate table, including the following information: o messages pending transmission while an association is being established; o an inactivity timer for how long the association has been idle. In addition, per-association state is held in the messaging association protocols themselves. However, the details of this state are not directly visible to GIMPS, and they do not affect the rest of the protocol description. +---------------------------------------------------------+ Schulzrinne & Hancock Expires April 24, 2005 [Page 16] Internet-Draft GIMPS October 2004 | >> Signaling Application Processing >> | | | +--------^---------------------------------------V--------+ ^ V ^ NSLP Payloads V ^ V +--------^---------------------------------------V--------+ | >> GIMPS >> | | ^ ^ ^ Processing V V V | +--x-----------u--d---------------------d--u-----------x--+ x u d d u x x u d>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>d u x x u d Bypass at d u x +--x-----+ +--u--d--+ GIMPS level +--d--u--+ +-----x--+ | C-mode | | D-mode | | D-mode | | C-mode | |Handling| |Handling| |Handling| |Handling| +--x-----+ +--u--d--+ +--d--u--+ +-----x--+ x u d d u x x uuuuuu d>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>d uuuuuu x x u d Bypass at d u x +--x--u--+ +-----d--+ router +--d-----+ +--u--x--+ |IP Host | | RAO | alert level | RAO | |IP Host | |Handling| |Handling| |Handling| |Handling| +--x--u--+ +-----d--+ +--d-----+ +--u--x--+ x u d d u x +--x--u-----------d--+ +--d-----------u--x--+ | IP Layer | | IP Layer | | (Receive Side) | | (Transmit Side) | +--x--u-----------d--+ +--d-----------u--x--+ x u d d u x x u d d u x x u d d u x uuuuuuuuuuuuuu = upstream datagram mode messages dddddddddddddd = downstream datagram mode messages xxxxxxxxxxxxxx = connection mode messages RAO = Router Alert Option Figure 3: Message Paths through a GIMPS Node 4.3 Basic Message Processing This section describes how signaling application messages are processed in the case where any necessary messaging associations and routing state are already in place. The description is divided into several parts. Firstly, message reception, local processing and Schulzrinne & Hancock Expires April 24, 2005 [Page 17] Internet-Draft GIMPS October 2004 message transmission are described for the case where the node handles the NSLPID in the message. Secondly, the case where the message is forwarded directly in the IP or GIMPS layer (because there is no matching signaling application on the node) is given. An overview is given in Figure 3. Note that the same messages are used for maintaining internal GIMPS state and carrying signaling application payloads. The state maintenance takes place as a result of processing specific GIMPS payloads in these messages. The processing of these payloads is the subject of Section 4.4. 4.3.1 Message Reception Messages can be received in connection or datagram mode, and from upstream or downstream peers. Reception in connection mode is simple: incoming packets undergo the security and transport treatment associated with the messaging association, and the messaging association provides complete messages to the GIMPS layer for further processing. Unless the message is protected by a query/response cookie exchange (see Section 4.4), the routing state table is checked to ensure that this messaging association is associated with the MRI/NSLPID combination. Reception in datagram mode depends on the message direction. Upstream messages (from a downstream peer) will arrive UDP encapsulated and addressed directly to the receiving signaling node. Each datagram contains a single complete message which is passed to the GIMPS layer for further processing, just as in the connection mode case. Downstream datagram mode messages are UDP encapsulated with an IP router alert option to cause interception. The signaling node will therefore 'see' all such messages. The case where the NSLPID does not match a local signaling application is considered below in Section 4.3.4; otherwise, it is passed up to the GIMPS layer for further processing as in the other cases. 4.3.2 Local Processing Once a message has been received, by any method, it is processed locally within the GIMPS layer. The GIMPS processing to be done depends on the payloads carried; most of the GIMPS-internal payloads are associated with state maintenance and are covered in Section 4.4. One GIMPS-internal payload which is carried in each message and requires processing is the GIMPS hop count. This is decremented on Schulzrinne & Hancock Expires April 24, 2005 [Page 18] Internet-Draft GIMPS October 2004 input processing, and checked to be greater than zero on output processing. The primary purpose of the GIMPS hop count is to prevent message looping. The remainder of the GIMPS message consists of an NSLP payload. This is delivered locally to the signaling application identified at the GIMPS level; the format of the NSLP payload is not constrained by GIMPS, and the content is not interpreted. Signaling applications can generate their messages for transmission, either asynchronously, or in response to an input message, and GIMPS can also generate messages autonomously. Regardless of the source, outgoing messages are passed downwards for message transmission. 4.3.3 Message Transmission When a message is available for transmission, GIMPS uses internal policy and the stored routing state to determine how to handle it. The following processing applies equally to locally generated messages and messages forwarded from within the GIMPS or signaling application levels. The main decision is whether the message must be sent in connection mode or datagram mode. Reasons for using the former could be: o NSLP requirements: for example, the signaling application has requested channel secured delivery, or reliable delivery; o protocol specification: for example, this document specifies that a message that requires fragmentation MUST be sent over a messaging association; o local GIMPS policy: for example, a node may prefer to send messages over a messaging association to benefit from congestion control. In principle, as well as determining that some messaging association must be used, GIMPS could select between a set of alternatives, e.g. for load sharing or because different messaging associations provide different transport or security attributes. If the use of a messaging association is selected, the message is queued on the association (found from the upstream or downstream peer state table), and further output processing is carried out according to the details of the protocol stack used for the association. If no appropriate association exists, the message is queued while one is created (see Section 4.4). If no association can be created, this is again an error condition, and should be indicated back to the NSLP. Schulzrinne & Hancock Expires April 24, 2005 [Page 19] Internet-Draft GIMPS October 2004 If a messaging association is not required, the message is sent in datagram mode. The processing in this case depends on whether the message is directed upstream or downstream. o If the upstream peer IP address is available from the per-flow routing table, the message is UDP encapsulated and sent directly to that address. Otherwise, the message cannot be forwarded (i.e. this is again an error condition). o In the downstream direction, messages can always be sent. They are simply UDP encapsulated and IP addressed using information from the MRI, with the appropriate router alert option. 4.3.4 Bypass Forwarding A GIMPS node may have to handle messages for which it has no signaling application corresponding to the message NSLPID. There are several possible cases depending mainly on the RAO setting (see Section 9.4 for more details): 1. A downstream datagram mode message contains an RAO value which is relevant to NSIS but not the specific node, but the IP layer is unable to recognise whether it needs to be passed to GIMPS for further processing or whether the packet should be forwarded just like a normal IP datagram. 2. A downstream datagram mode message contains an RAO value which is relevant to the node, but the specific signaling application for the actual NSLPID in the message is not processed there. 3. A message is delivered directly (e.g. in C-mode) to the node for which there is no corresponding signaling application. (According to the rules of the current specification, this should never happen. However, future versions might find a use for such a feature.) In all cases, the role of GIMPS is to forward the message essentially unchanged. However, a GIMPS implementation must ensure that the IP TTL field and GIMPS hop count are managed correctly to prevent message looping, and this should be done consistently independently of whether the processing (e.g. for case (1)) takes place on the fast path or in GIMPS-specific code. The rules are that in cases (1) and (2), the IP TTL is decremented just as if the message was a normal IP forwarded packet; in cases (2) and (3) the GIMPS hop count is decremented as in the case of normal input processing. These rules are summarised in the following table: Schulzrinne & Hancock Expires April 24, 2005 [Page 20] Internet-Draft GIMPS October 2004 +-------------+-------------+-------------------+-------------------+ | Match RAO? | Match | IP TTL Handling | GHC Handling | | | NSLPID? | | | +-------------+-------------+-------------------+-------------------+ | No | N/A (NSLPID | Decrement; | Ignore | | | not | forward message | | | | examined) | | | | | | | | | Yes | No | Decrement; | Decremented | | | | forward message | | | | | | | | Message | No | Reset | Decrement and | | directly | | | forward at GIMPS | | addressed | | | level (not | | | | | possible in | | | | | current | | | | | specification) | | | | | | | Yes, or | Yes | Locally delivered | N/A (ignored) | | message | | | | | directly | | | | | addressed | | | | +-------------+-------------+-------------------+-------------------+ 4.4 Routing State and Messaging Association Maintenance The main responsibility of the GIMPS layer is to manage the routing state and messaging associations which are used in the basic message processing described above. Routing state is installed and maintained by datagram mode messages containing specific GIMPS payloads. Messaging associations are dependent on the existence of routing state, but are actually set up by the normal procedures of the transport and security protocols that comprise them. Timers control routing state and messaging association refresh and expiration. There are two different cases for state installation and refresh: 1. Where routing state is being discovered or a new association is to be established; and 2. Where an existing association can be re-used, including the case where routing state for the association is being refreshed. These cases are now considered in turn, along with the case of general management procedures. Schulzrinne & Hancock Expires April 24, 2005 [Page 21] Internet-Draft GIMPS October 2004 4.4.1 State Setup The complete sequence of possible messages for state setup between adjacent peers is shown in Figure 4 and described in detail in the following text. The initial message in any routing state maintenance operation is a downstream datagram mode message, sent from the querying node and intercepted at the responding node. This is encapsulated and addressed just as in the normal case; in particular, it has addressing and other identifiers appropriate for the flow and signaling application that state maintenance is being done for, its own addressing information, and it is allowed to contain an NSLP payload. Processing at the querying and responding nodes is also essentially the same. However, the querying node can include additional payloads: a Query Cookie, and optionally a proposal for possible messaging association protocol stacks. This message is informally referred to as a 'GIMPS-query'. The role of the cookies in this and subsequent messages is to protect against certain denial of service attacks and to correlate the various events in the message sequence. In the responding node, the GIMPS level processing of the GIMPS-Query triggers the generation of a 'GIMPS-Response' message. This is also a normally encapsulated and addressed datagram mode message with particular payloads, this time in the upstream direction. It contains addressing information and echoes the Query Cookie, and can contain an NSLP payload (possibly a response to the NSLP payload in the initial message). In case a messaging association was requested, it must also contain a Responder Cookie and counter proposal for the stack configuration. Otherwise, it may still include a Responder Cookie if the node's routing state setup policy requires it (see below). Setup of a new messaging association begins when both downstream peer addressing information is available and a new messaging association is actually needed. The setup has to be contemporaneous with a specific GIMPS-Query/Response exchange, because the addressing information used may have a limited lifetime (either because it depends on limited lifetime NAT bindings, or because it refers to agile destination ports for the transport protocols). Setup of the messaging association always starts from the upstream node, but the association itself can be used equally in both directions. Schulzrinne & Hancock Expires April 24, 2005 [Page 22] Internet-Draft GIMPS October 2004 +----------+ +----------+ | Querying | |Responding| | Node | | Node | +----------+ +----------+ GIMPS-query ----------------------> ............. Router Alert Option . Routing . MRI/SID/NSLPID . state . Q-Node Addressing . installed . Query Cookie . at . [Q-Stack Proposal] . R-node(1) . [NSLP Payload] ............. ...................................... . The responder can use an existing . . messaging association if available . . from here onwards to short-circuit . . messaging association setup . ...................................... GIMPS-response ............. <---------------------- . Routing . MRI/SID/NSLPID . state . R-Node Addressing (D Mode only) . installed . Query cookie . at . [R-Stack Proposal] . Q-node . [Responder Cookie] ............. [NSLP Payload] .................................... . If a messaging association needs . . to be created, it is set up here . .................................... GIMPS-confirm ----------------------> MRI/SID/NSLPID Q-Node Addressing (D Mode only) Responder Cookie ............. [R-Stack Proposal] . Routing . [NSLP Payload] . state . . installed . . at . . R-node(2) . ............. Figure 4: Message Sequence at State Setup Schulzrinne & Hancock Expires April 24, 2005 [Page 23] Internet-Draft GIMPS October 2004 The GIMPS-confirm is the first message sent over the association and echoes the Responder Cookie and Stack Proposal from the GIMPS-response (the latter is to prevent certain bidding-down attacks on messaging association security); the assocation can be used in the upstream direction after it has been received. The negotiation of what protocols to use for the messaging association is controlled by the Stack Proposal and Node-Addressing information exchanged, and the processing of these objects is described in more detail in Section 5.5. The querying node installs the responder address as downstream peer state information after verifying the Query Cookie in the GIMPS-response. The responding node can install the querying address as upstream peer state information at two points in time: 1. after the receipt of the initial GIMPS-query, or 2. after a GIMPS-confirm message in the downstream direction containing the Responder Cookie. The detailed constraints on precisely when state information is installed are driven by local policy driven by security considerations on prevention of denial-of-service attacks and state poisoning attacks, which are discussed further in Section 7. 4.4.2 Association Re-use It is a general design goal of GIMPS that, so far as possible, messaging associations should be re-used for multiple flows and sessions, rather than a new association set up for each. This is to ensure that the association cost scales like the number of peers rather than the number of flows or messages, and to avoid the latency of new association setup where possible. However, association re-use requires the identification of an existing association which matches the routing state and desired properties that would be the result of a full D-mode setup exchange, and this identification must be done as reliably and securely as continuing with the full procedure. Note that this requirement is complicated by the fact that NATs may remap the node addresses in D-mode messages, and also interacts with the fact that some nodes may peer over multiple interfaces (with different addresses). Association re-use is controlled by two fields in the Node-Addressing object (NAO), which is carried in GIMPS-query and GIMPS-response messages. The NAO includes: Schulzrinne & Hancock Expires April 24, 2005 [Page 24] Internet-Draft GIMPS October 2004 Peer-Identity: For a given node, this is a stable quantity (interface independent) with opaque syntax. It should be chosen so as to have a high probability of uniqueness between peers. Note that there is no cryptographic protection of this identity (attempting to provide this would essentially duplicate the functionality in the messaging association security protocols). Interface-Address: This is an IP address associated with the interface through which the flow associated with the signaling is routed. This can be considered as a routable identifier through which the signaling node can be reached; further discussion is contained in Section 5.5. By default, a messaging association is associated with the NAO that was provided by the peer at the time the assocation was set up. There may be more than one association for a given NAO (e.g. with different properties). Association re-use is controlled by matching the NAO provided in the current GIMPS D mode message with those associated with existing associations. This can be done on receiving either the GIMPS-query or GIMPS-response message (the former is more likely): o If there is a perfect match to the NAO of an existing association, that association can be re-used (provided it has the appropriate properties in other respects). This is indicated by sending the following messages in the setup sequence over that association, omitting the NAO information. This will only fail (i.e. lead to re-use of an assocation to the 'wrong' node) if signaling nodes have colliding Peer-Identities, and one is reachable at the same Interface-Address as another. (This could be done by an on-path attacker.) o In all other cases, the usual D mode setup procedure is executed. There are in fact four cases: 1. Nothing matches: this is clearly a new peer. 2. Only the Peer-Identity matches: this may be either a new interface on an existing peer, or a changed address mapping behind a NAT, or an attacker attempting to hijack the Peer-Identity. These should be rare events, so the expense of a new assocation setup is acceptable. If the authenticated peer identities match after assocation setup, the two Interface-Addresses may be bound to the assocation. 3. Only the Interface-Address matches: this is probably a new peer behind the same NAT as an existing one. A new assocation Schulzrinne & Hancock Expires April 24, 2005 [Page 25] Internet-Draft GIMPS October 2004 setup is required. 4. The full NAO matches: this is a degenerate case, where one node recognises an existing peer, but wishes to allow the option to set up a new association in any case. 4.4.3 Background Maintenance Refresh and expiration of all types of state is controlled by timers. State in the routing table has a per-flow, per-direction timer, which expires after a routing state lifetime. It is the responsibility of the querying node to generate a GIMPS-query message before this timer expires, if it believes that the flow is still active. Receipt of the message at the responding node will refresh upstream peer addressing state, and receipt of a GIMPS-response at the querying node will refresh any downstream peer addressing state if it exists. Note that nodes do not control the refresh of upstream peer state themselves, they are dependent on their upstream peer for this. Messaging associations can be managed by either end; management consists of tearing down unneeded associations. Whether an association is needed is a local policy decision, which could take into account the cost of keeping the messaging association open, the level of past activity on the association, and the likelihood of future activity (e.g. if there are flows still in place which might generate messages that would use it). Messaging associations can always be set up on demand, and messaging association status is not made directly visible outside the GIMPS layer. Therefore, even if GIMPS tears down and later re-establishes a messaging association, signaling applications cannot distinguish this from the case where the association is kept permanently open. (To maintain the transport semantics decribed in Section 4.1, GIMPS must close transport connections carrying reliable messages gracefully or report an error condition, and must not open a new association for a given session and peer while messages on a previous association may still be outstanding.) Schulzrinne & Hancock Expires April 24, 2005 [Page 26] Internet-Draft GIMPS October 2004 5. Message Formats and Transport 5.1 GIMPS Messages All GIMPS messages begin with a common header, which includes a version number, information about message type, signaling application, and additional control information. The remainder of the message is encoded in an RSVP-style format, i.e., as a sequence of type-length-value (TLV) objects. This subsection describes the possible GIMPS messages and their contents at a high level; a more detailed description of each information element is given in Section 5.2. The following gives the syntax of GIMPS messages in ABNF [3]. GIMPS-message: A message is either a datagram mode message or a connection mode message. GIMPS can detect which by the encapsulation the message arrives over. GIMPS-message = D-message / C-message D-message: A datagram mode message may carry simply NSLP data, or may be used for control operations also, in which case the allowed objects depend on the message direction (slightly different contents are allowed); the common header contains a flag to say which. D-message = Common-Header Message-Routing-Information Session-Identification Node-Addressing NSLP-Data / D-control-ds / D-control-us D-control-ds: A downstream control message requires extra payloads for the GIMPS-query or GIMPS-confirm functions. The type can be inferred from which type of cookie is carried. A stack proposal is mandatory if the message exchange relates to setup of a messaging association. D-control-ds = Query-Cookie / Responder-Cookie [ Stack-Proposal ] [ Routing-State-Lifetime ] [ NSLP-Data ] D-control-us: An upstream control message requires extra payloads for the GIMPS-response function. A stack proposal is mandatory if the message exchange relates to setup of a messaging association, in which case a Responder cookie is also mandatory. Schulzrinne & Hancock Expires April 24, 2005 [Page 27] Internet-Draft GIMPS October 2004 D-control-us = Query-Cookie [ Responder-Cookie [ Stack-Proposal ] ] [ Routing-State-Lifetime ] [ NSLP-Data ] C-message: Again, a connection mode message may carry simply NSLP data, or may be used for control operations also. Connection mode messages do not carry node addressing, since this can be inferred from the messaging association. C-message = Common-Header Message-Routing-Information Session-Identification NSLP-Data / C-control-ds / C-control-us C-control-ds: A downstream control message requires extra payloads for the GIMPS-confirm function. A stack proposal is mandatory here. C-control-ds = Responder-Cookie Stack-Proposal [ Routing-State-Lifetime ] [ NSLP-Data ] C-control-us: An upstream control message requires extra payloads for the GIMPS-response function. In C-mode, this is short-circuiting the messaging association setup, so no additional cookies or stack proposals are needed. C-control-us = Query-Cookie [ Routing-State-Lifetime ] [ NSLP-Data ] 5.2 Information Elements This section describes the content of the various information elements that can be present in each GIMPS message, both the common header, and the individual TLVs. The format description in terms of bit patterns is provided in Appendix C. 5.2.1 The Common Header Each message begins with a fixed format common header, which contains the following information: Version: The version number of the GIMPS protocol. Schulzrinne & Hancock Expires April 24, 2005 [Page 28] Internet-Draft GIMPS October 2004 Length: The number of words in the message following the common header. Signaling application identifier (NSLPID): This describes the specific signaling application, such as resource reservation or firewall control. GIMPS hop counter: A hop counter to prevent a message from looping indefinitely. U/D flag: A bit to indicate if this message is to propagate upstream or downstream relative to the flow. 5.2.2 TLV Objects All data following the common header is encoded as a sequence of type-length-value objects. Currently, each object can occur at most once; the set of required and permitted objects is determined by the message type and further information in the common header. These items are contained in each GIMPS message: Message-Routing-Information (MRI): Information sufficient to define how the signaling message should be routed through the network. Message-Routing-Information = message-routing-method method-specific-information The format of the method-specific-information depends on the message-routing-method requested by the signaling application. In the basic path-coupled case, it is just the Flow Identifier as in [20]. Minimally, this could just be the flow destination address; however, to account for policy based forwarding and other issues a more complete set of header fields should be used (see Section 6.2 and Section 6.3 for further discussion). The MRI is essentially a read only object for GIMPS processing. It is set by the NSLP in the message sender and used by GIMPS to select the message addressing, but not otherwise modified. Flow-Identifier = network-layer-version source-address prefix-length destination-address prefix-length IP-protocol traffic-class [ flow-label ] [ ipsec-SPI / L4-ports] Schulzrinne & Hancock Expires April 24, 2005 [Page 29] Internet-Draft GIMPS October 2004 Additional control information defines whether the flow-label, SPI and port information are present, and whether the IP-protocol and traffic-class fields should be interpreted as significant. Session-Identification (SID): The GIMPS session identifier is a long, cryptographically random identifier chosen by the node which originates the signaling exchange. The length is open, but 128 bits should be more than sufficient to make the probability of collisions orders of magnitude lower than other failure reasons. The session identifier should be considered immutable end-to-end along the flow path (GIMPS never changes it, and signaling applications should propagate it unchanged on messages for the same session). The following items are optional: Node addressing: This includes an IP address and peer identity for the sending node, as well as higher layer addressing information for the negotiation of messaging association protocols. Node-Addressing = peer-identity interface-address *higher-layer-addressing The peer-identity is used for matching existing associations, as discussed in Section 4.4.2. Any technique may be used to generate it, so long as it is stable. The interface-address should be a routable address where the sending node can be reached over UDP or messaging association protocols. Where this object is used in a GIMPS-query, it should specifically be set to the address of the interface that will be used for the outbound flow, to allow its use in route change handling, see Section 6.1. The purpose and structure of the higher-layer-addressing fields is described in Section 5.5. Stack Proposal: This field contains information about which combinations of transport and security protocols are proposed for use in messaging associations, and is also discussed further in Section 5.5. Stack-Proposal = *stack-profile stack-profile = *protocol-layer Each protocol-layer field identifies a protocol with a unique tag; any address-related (mutable) information associated with the protocol will be carried in a higher-layer-addressing field in the Node-Addressing TLV (see above). Schulzrinne & Hancock Expires April 24, 2005 [Page 30] Internet-Draft GIMPS October 2004 Query-Cookie/Responder-Cookie: A query-cookie is contained in a GIMPS-query message and must be echoed in a GIMPS-response; a response-cookie is optional in a GIMPS-response message, and if present must be echoed in the following GIMPS-confirm message. Cookies are variable length (chosen by the cookie generator) and need to be designed so that a node can determine the validity of a cookie without keeping state. A future version of this specification will include references to techniques for generating such cookies. Routing-State-Lifetime: The lifetime of GIMPS routing state in the absence of refreshes, measured in seconds. Defaults to 30 seconds. NSLP-Data: The NSLP payload to be delivered to the signaling application. GIMPS does not interpret the payload content. 5.3 Datagram Mode Transport 5.3.1 Encapsulation Encapsulation in datagram mode is simple. The complete set of GIMPS payloads for a single message is concatenated together with the common header, and placed in the data field of a UDP datagram. UDP checksums should be enabled. Upstream messages are IP addressed directly to the adjacent peer. Downstream messages are IP addressed using the flow destination address from the Message-Routing-Information and encapsulated with a Router Alert Option. Open issues about alternative encapsulations, IP addressing possibilities, and router alert option value-field setting are discussed in Section 9.2, Section 9.3 and Section 9.4 respectively. For downstream messages, the source UDP port is selected by the message sender as the port at which it is prepared to receive upstream UDP messages in reply, and a destination UDP port should be allocated by IANA. Note that GIMPS may send messages addressed as {flow sender, flow receiver} which could make their way to the flow receiver even if that receiver were GIMPS-unaware. This should be rejected (with an ICMP message) rather than delivered to the user application (which would be unable to use the source address to identify it as not being part of the normal data flow). Therefore, a "well-known" port would seem to be required. Upstream messages are sent with the source and destination ports from the downstream message reversed (as for normal UDP traffic). For the case of basic path-coupled signaling where the MRI information is the Flow Identifier, it is vital that the D-mode Schulzrinne & Hancock Expires April 24, 2005 [Page 31] Internet-Draft GIMPS October 2004 message truly mimics the actual data flow, since this is the basis of how the signaling message is attached to the data path. To this end, GIMPS may set the traffic class and (for IPv6) flow label to match the values in the Flow-Identifier if this would be needed to ensure correct routing. Similar considerations may apply to other message routing methods if defined. 5.3.2 Retransmission and Rate-Control Datagram mode is built on top of UDP, and hence has no automatic reliability or congestion control capabilities. Signalling applications requiring reliability should be serviced using C-mode, which should also carry the bulk of signaling traffic. However, some form of messaging reliability is required for the GIMPS control messages themselves, as is rate control to handle retransmissions and also bursts of unreliable signaling or state setup requests from the signaling applications. GIMPS-query messages which do not receive GIMPS-responses should be retransmitted with a binary exponential backoff, with an initial timeout of T1 up to a maximum of T2 seconds. The values of T1 and T2 may be implementation defined; default values are for further study. The value of T1 may be increased on long latency links. Note that GIMPS-queries may go unanswered either because of message loss, or because there is no reachable GIMPS peer. Therefore, implementations must trade off reliability (large T2) against promptness of error feedback to applications (small T2). GIMPS-responses should always be sent promptly to avoid spurious retransmissions. Retransmitted GIMPS-queries should use different Query-Cookie values and will therefore elicit different GIMPS-responses. If either message carries NSLP data, it may be delivered multiple times to the signaling application. Other datagram mode messages are not retransmitted. In particular, GIMPS-responses do not need reliability; if they are lost, the initiating query will eventually be resent. There is an open issue on how to handle lost GIMPS-confirms, see Section 9.11. The basic rate limiting requirements for datagram mode traffic are deliberately minimal. A single rate limiter applies to all traffic (for all interfaces and message types). It applies to retransmissions as well as new messages, although an implementation may choose to prioritise one over the other. When the rate limiter is imposed, datagram mode messages are queued until transmission is re-enabled, or an error condition may be indicated back to local signaling applications. The rate limiting mechanism is implementation defined, but it is recommended that a token bucket limiter as described in [8] should be used. Schulzrinne & Hancock Expires April 24, 2005 [Page 32] Internet-Draft GIMPS October 2004 5.4 Connection Mode Transport Encapsulation in connection mode is more complex, because of the variation in available transport functionality. This issue is treated in Section 5.4.1. The actual encapsulation is given in Section 5.4.2. 5.4.1 Choice of Transport Protocol It is a general requirement of the NTLP defined in [20] that it should be able to support bundling (of small messages), fragmentation (of large messages), and message boundary delineation. Not all transport protocols natively support all these features. SCTP [6] satisfies all requirements. DCCP [7] is message based but does not provide bundling or fragmentation. Bundling can be carried out by the GIMPS layer sending multiple messages in a single datagram; because the common header includes length information (number of TLVs), the message boundaries within the datagram can be discovered during parsing. Fragmentation of GIMPS messages over multiple datagrams should be avoided, because of amplification of message loss rates that this would cause. TCP provides both bundling and fragmentation, but not message boundaries. However, the length information in the common header allows the message boundary to be discovered during parsing. The bundling together of small messages is either built into the transport protocol or can be carried out by the GIMPS layer during message construction. Either way, two approaches can be distinguished: 1. As messages arrive for transmission they are gathered into a bundle until a size limit is reached or a timeout expires (cf. the Nagle algorithm of TCP or similar optional functionality in SCTP). This provides maximal efficiency at the cost of some latency. 2. Messages awaiting transmission are gathered together while the node is not allowed to send them (e.g. because it is congestion controlled). The second type of bundling is always appropriate. For GIMPS, the first type is inappropriate for 'trigger' (i.e. state-changing) messages, but may be appropriate for refresh messages. These distinctions are known only to the signaling applications, but could Schulzrinne & Hancock Expires April 24, 2005 [Page 33] Internet-Draft GIMPS October 2004 be indicated (as an implementation issue) by setting the priority transfer attribute. It can be seen that all of these protocol options can be supported by the basic GIMPS message format already presented. GIMPS messages requiring fragmentation must be carried using a reliable transport protocol, TCP or SCTP. This specification defines only the use of TCP, but it can be seen that the other possibilities could be included without additional work on message formatting. 5.4.2 Encapsulation Format The GIMPS message, consisting of common header and TLVs, is carried directly in the transport protocol (possibly incorporating transport layer security protection). Further GIMPS messages can be carried in a continuous stream (for TCP), or up to the next transport layer message boundary (for SCTP/DCCP/UDP). This situation is shown in Figure 5; it applies to both upstream and downstream messages. +---------------------------------------------+ | L2 Header | +---------------------------------------------+ | IP Header | ^ | Source address = signaling source | ^ | Destination address = signaling destination | . +---------------------------------------------+ . | L4 Header | . ^ | (Standard TCP/SCTP/DCCP/UDP header) | . ^ +---------------------------------------------+ . . | GIMPS Message | . . ^ | (Common header and TLVs as in section 5.1) | . . ^ Scope of +---------------------------------------------+ . . . security | Additional GIMPS messages, each with its | . . . protection | own common header, either as a continuous | . . . (depending | stream, or continuing to the next L4 | . . . on channel . message boundary . . . . security . . V V V mechanism . . V V V in use) Figure 5: Connection Mode Encapsulation 5.5 Messaging Association Negotiation 5.5.1 Overview A key attribute of GIMPS is that it is flexible in its ability to use existing transport and security protocols. Different transport Schulzrinne & Hancock Expires April 24, 2005 [Page 34] Internet-Draft GIMPS October 2004 protocols may have performance attributes appropriate to different environments; different security protocols may fit appropriately with different authentication infrastructures. Even given an initial default mandatory protocol set for GIMPS, the need to support new protocols in the future cannot be ruled out, and secure protocol negotation cannot be added to an existing protocol in a backwards-compatible way. Therefore, some sort of protocol negotiation capability is required. Protocol negotiation is carried out in GIMPS-query/response messages, using Stack-Proposal and Node-Addressing objects. If a new messaging association is required it is then set up, followed by a GIMPS-confirm. Messaging association re-use is achieved by short-circuiting this exchange by sending the GIMPS-response or GIMPS-confirm messages on an existing association (Section 4.4.2); whether to do this is a matter of local policy at the querying or responding node. It is always possible for a node to restrict itself to a single messaging association between two peers. If multiple assocations exist, it is a matter of local policy how to distribute messages over them, subject to respecting the transfer attributes requested. The end result of the negotiation is a messaging assocation which is a stack of protocols. Every possible protocol has the following attributes: o A Protocol-Identifier, a 1-byte IANA assigned value. o A specification of the (non-negotiable) policies about how the protocol should be used (for example, connection open direction). o Formats for carrying the protocol addressing and other configuration information in higher-layer-addressing information elements. There are different formats depending on whether the information is being sent upstream or downstream. A Stack-Proposal object is simply a list of profiles; each profile is a sequence of Protocol-Identifiers. Stack-Proposals are generally accompanied by Node-Addressing objects; as well as a Peer-Identity and Interface-Address, this carries a higher-layer-addressing information element for every protocol listed in the Stack-Proposal. A node generating a Node-Addressing object is committed to honouring the implied protocol configuration; in particular, it must be prepared to accept incoming datagrams or connections at the Interface-Address/protocol/port combinations advertised. However, the object contents should be retained only for the duration of the query/response exchange and any following association setup and afterwards discarded. (They may become invalid because of expired Schulzrinne & Hancock Expires April 24, 2005 [Page 35] Internet-Draft GIMPS October 2004 bindings at intermediate NATs, or because the advertising node is using agile ports.) A GIMPS-query requesting association setup always contains a Stack-Proposal and Node-Addressing object, and unless re-use occurs, the GIMPS-response does so also. For a GIMPS-response, the Stack-Proposal must be invariant for the combination of outgoing interface and NSLPID (it must not depend on the GIMPS-query). Once the messaging association is set up, the querying node repeats only the responder's Stack-Proposal over it in the GIMPS-confirm. The resonding node can verify this to ensure that no bidding-down attack has occurred. 5.5.2 Protocol Definition: Forwards-TCP This defines a basic configuration for the use of TCP between peers. Support for this protocol is mandatory; associations using it can carry messages with the transfer attribute Reliable=True. The connection is opened in the forwards direction, from the querying node, towards the responder at a previously advertised port. The higher-layer-addressing formats are: o downstream: no additional data (just the Protocol-Identifier) o upstream: 2 byte port number at which the connection will be accepted. 5.5.3 Additional Protocol Options It is expected that the base GIMPS specification will define a single mandatory protocol for channel security (one of IKE/IPsec or TLS). Further protocols or configurations could be defined in the future for additional performance or flexibility. Examples are: o SCTP or DCCP as alternatives to TCP, with essentially the same configuration. o SigComp [17] for message compression. o ssh [25] or HIP/IPsec [26] for channel security. o Alternative modes of TCP operation, for example where it is set up from the responder to the querying node. Schulzrinne & Hancock Expires April 24, 2005 [Page 36] Internet-Draft GIMPS October 2004 6. Advanced Protocol Features 6.1 Route Changes and Local Repair 6.1.1 Introduction When re-routing takes place in the network, GIMPS and signaling application state needs to be updated for all flows whose paths have changed. The updates to signaling application state are usually signaling application dependent: for example, if the path characteristics have actually changed, simply moving state from the old to the new path is not sufficient. Therefore, GIMPS cannot carry out the complete path update processing. Its responsibilities are to detect the route change, update its own routing state consistently, and inform interested signaling applications at affected nodes. Route change management is complicated by the distributed nature of the problem. Consider the re-routing event shown in Figure 6. An external observer can tell that the main responsibility for controlling the updates will probably lie with nodes A and E; however, D1 is best placed to detect the event quickly at the GIMPS level, and B1 and C1 could also attempt to initiate the repair. On the assumption that NSLPs are soft-state based and operate end to end, and because GIMPS also periodically updates its picture of routing state, route changes will eventually be repaired automatically. However, especially if NSLP refresh times are extended to reduce signaling load, the duration of inconsistent state may be very long indeed. Therefore, GIMPS includes logic to deliver prompt notifications to NSLPs, to allow NSLPs to carry out local repair if possible. Schulzrinne & Hancock Expires April 24, 2005 [Page 37] Internet-Draft GIMPS October 2004 xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx x +--+ +--+ +--+ x Initial x .|B1|_.......|C1|_.......|D1| x Configuration x . +--+. .+--+. .+--+\. x x . . . . . . x >>xxxxxx . . . . . . xxxxxx>> +-+ . .. .. . +-+ .....|A|/ .. .. .|E|_.... +-+ . . . . . . +-+ . . . . . . . . . . . . . +--+ +--+ +--+ . .|B2|_.......|C2|_.......|D2|/ +--+ +--+ +--+ +--+ +--+ +--+ Configuration .|B1|........|C1|........|D1| after failure . +--+ .+--+ +--+ of D1-E link . \. . \. ./ . . . . . +-+ . .. .. +-+ .....|A|. .. .. .|E|_.... +-+\. . . . . . +-+ >>xxxxxx . . . . . . xxxxxx>> x . . . . . . x x . +--+ +--+ +--+ . x x .|B2|_.......|C2|_.......|D2|/ x x +--+ +--+ +--+ x xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ........... = physical link topology >>xxxxxxx>> = flow direction _.......... = indicates outgoing link for flow xxxxxx given by local forwarding table Figure 6: A Re-Routing Event 6.1.2 Route Change Detection There are two aspects to detecting a route change at a single node: o Detecting that the downstream path has (or may have) changed. Schulzrinne & Hancock Expires April 24, 2005 [Page 38] Internet-Draft GIMPS October 2004 o Detecting that the upstream path has (or may have) changed (in which case the node may no longer be on the path at all). At a single node, these processes are largely independent, although clearly a change in downstream path at a node corresponds to a change in upstream path at the downstream peer. Note that there are two possible aspects of route change: Interface: The interface through which a flow leaves or enters a node may change. Peer: The adjacent upstream peer or downstream peer may change. In general, a route change could include one or the other or both. (In theory it could include neither, although such changes are hard to detect and even harder to do anything useful about.) There are five mechanisms for a GIMPS node to detect that a route change has occurred, which are listed below. They apply differently depending on whether the change is in the upstream or downstream path, and these differences are summarised in the following table. Local Trigger: In trigger mode, a node finds out that the next hop has changed. This is the RSVP trigger mechanism where some form of notification mechanism from the routing table to the protocol handler is assumed. Clearly this only works if the routing change is local, not if the routing change happens somewhere a few routing hops away (including the case that the change happens at a GIMPS-unaware node). Extended Trigger: An extended trigger, where the node checks a link-state routing table to discover that the path has changed. This makes certain assumptions on consistency of route computation (but you probably need to make those to avoid routing loops) and only works within a single area for OSPF and similar link-state protocols. Where available, this offers the most accurate and expeditious indication of route changes, but requires more access to the routing internals than a typical OS may provide. GIMPS C-mode Monitoring: A node may find that C-mode packets are arriving (from upstream or downstream peer) with a different TTL or on a different interface. This provides no direct information about the new flow path, but indicates that routing has changed and that rediscovery may be required. Data Plane Monitoring: The signaling application on a node may detect a change in behaviour of the flow, such as TTL change, arrival on a different interface, or loss of the flow altogether. The Schulzrinne & Hancock Expires April 24, 2005 [Page 39] Internet-Draft GIMPS October 2004 signaling application on the node is allowed to notify this information locally to GIMPS. GIMPS D-mode Probing: In probing mode, each GIMPS node periodically repeats the discovery (GIMPS-query/GIMPS-response) operation. The querying node will discover the route change by a modification in the Node-Addressing information in the GIMPS-response. This is similar to RSVP behavior, except that there is an extra degree of freedom since not every message needs to repeat the discovery, depending on the likely stability of routes. All indications are that, leaving mobility aside, routes are stable for hours and days, so this may not be necessary on a 30-second interval, especially if the other techniques listed above are available. When these methods discover a route change in the upstream direction, this cannot be handled directly by GIMPS at the detecting node, since route discovery proceeds only in the downstream direction. Therefore, to exploit these mechanisms, it must be possible for GIMPS to send a notification message in the upstream direction to initiate this. (This would be possible for example by setting an additional flag in the Common-Header of an upstream message.) +----------------------+----------------------+---------------------+ | Method | Downstream | Upstream | +----------------------+----------------------+---------------------+ | Local Trigger | Discovers new | Not applicable | | | downstream interface | | | | (and peer if local) | | | | | | | Extended Trigger | Discovers new | May determine that | | | downstream interface | route from upstream | | | and may determine | peer will have | | | new downstream peer | changed | | | | | | C-Mode Monitoring | Provides hint that | Provides hint that | | | change has occurred | change has occurred | | | | | | Data Plane | Not applicable | NSLP informs GIMPS | | Monitoring | | that a change may | | | | have occurred | | | | | | D-Mode Probing | Discovers changed | Discovers changed | | | Node-Addressing in | Node-Addressing in | | | GIMPS-response | GIMPS-query | +----------------------+----------------------+---------------------+ Schulzrinne & Hancock Expires April 24, 2005 [Page 40] Internet-Draft GIMPS October 2004 6.1.3 Local Repair Once a node has detected that a change may have occurred, there are three possible cases: 1. Only an upstream change is indicated. There is nothing that can be done locally; GIMPS must propagate a notification to its upstream peer. 2. A downstream change has been detected and an upstream change cannot be ruled out. Although some local repair may be appropriate, it is difficult to decide what, since the path change may actually have taken place upstream of the detecting node (so that this node is no longer on the path at all). 3. A downstream change has been detected, but there is no upstream change. In this case, the detecting node is the true crossover router, i.e. the point in the network where old and new paths diverge. It is the correct node to initiate the local repair process. In case (3), i.e. at the upstream crossover node, the local repair process is initiated by the GIMPS level as follows: o GIMPS marks its downstream routing state information for this flow as 'invalid', unless the route change was actually detected by D-mode probing (in which case the new state has already been installed). o GIMPS notifies the local NSLP that local repair is necessary. It is assumed that the second step will typically trigger the NSLP to generate a downstream message, and the attempt to send it will stimulate a GIMPS-query/response. This signaling application message will propagate downstream, also discovering the new route, until it rejoins the old path; the node where this happens may also have to carry out local repair actions. A problem is that there is usually no robust technique to distinguish case (2) from case (3), because of the relative weakness of the techniques in determining that upstream change has not occurred. (They can be effective in determining that a change has occurred; however, even where they can tell that the route from the upstream peer has not changed, they cannot rule out a change beyond that peer.) There is therefore a danger that multiple nodes within the network would attempt to carry out local repair in parallel. One possible technique to address this problem is that a GIMPS node Schulzrinne & Hancock Expires April 24, 2005 [Page 41] Internet-Draft GIMPS October 2004 that detects case (3) locally, rather than initiating local repair immediately, still sends a route change notification upstream, just in case (2) actually applies. If the upstream peer locally detects no downstream route change, it can signal this to the downstream node (e.g. by setting another flag in the Common-Header of a GIMPS message). This acts to damp the possibility of a 'local repair storm', at the cost of an additional peer-peer round trip time. 6.1.4 Local Signaling Application State Removal After a route change, a signaling application may wish to remove state at another node which is no longer on the path. However, since it is no longer on the path, in principle GIMPS can no longer send messages to it. (In general, provided this state is soft, it will time out anyway; however, the timeouts involved may have been set to be very long to reduce signaling load.) The requirement to remove state in a specific peer node is identified in [23]. This requirement can be met provided that GIMPS is able to 'remember' the old path to the signaling application peer for the period while the NSLP wishes to be able to use it. Since NSLP peers are a single GIMPS hop apart, the necessary information is just the old entry in the node's routing state table for that flow. Rather than requiring the GIMPS level to maintain multiple generations of this information, it can just be provided to the signaling application in the same node (in an opaque form), which can store it if necessary and provide it back to the GIMPS layer in case it needs to be used. This information is denoted as 'SII-Handle' in the abstract API of Appendix D; however, the details are an implementation issue which do not affect the rest of the protocol. 6.1.5 Operation with Heterogeneous NSLPs A potential problem with route change detection is that the detecting GIMPS node may not implement all the signaling applications that need to be informed. Therefore, it would need to be able to send a notification back along the unchanged path to trigger the nearest signaling application aware node to take action. If multiple signaling applications are in use, it would be hard to define when to stop propagating this notification. However, given the rules on message interception and routing state maintenance in Section 4.3, Section 4.4 and Section 9.4, this situation cannot arise: all NSLP peers are exactly one GIMPS hop apart. The converse problem is that the ability of GIMPS to detect route changes by purely local monitoring of forwarding tables is more limited. (This is probably an appropriate limitation of GIMPS functionality. If we need a protocol for distributing notifications Schulzrinne & Hancock Expires April 24, 2005 [Page 42] Internet-Draft GIMPS October 2004 about local changes in forwarding table state, a flow signaling protocol is probably not the right starting point.) 6.2 Policy-Based Forwarding and Flow Wildcarding Signaling messages almost by definition need to contain address and port information to identify the flow they are signaling for. We can divide this information into two categories: Message-Routing-Information: This is the information needed to determine how a message is routed within the network. It may include a number of flow N-tuple parameters, and is carried as an object in each GIMPS message (see Section 5.1). Additional Packet Classification Information: This is any further higher layer information needed to select a subset of packets for special treatment by the signaling application. The need for this is highly signaling application specific, and so this information is invisible to GIMPS (if indeed it exists); it will be carried only in the corresponding NSLP. The correct pinning of signaling messages to the data path depends on how well the downstream messages in datagram mode can be made to be routed correctly. Two strategies are used: The messages themselves match the flow in destination address and possibly other fields (see Section 5.3 and Section 9.3 for further discussion). In many cases, this will cause the messages to be routed correctly even by GIMPS-unaware nodes. A GIMPS-aware node carrying out policy based forwarding on higher layer identifiers (in particular, the protocol and port numbers for IPv4) should take into account the entire Message-Routing-Information object in selecting the outgoing interface rather than relying on the IP layer. The current Message-Routing-Information format allows a limited degree of 'wildcarding', for example by applying a prefix length to the source or destination address, or by leaving certain fields unspecified. A GIMPS-aware node must verify that all flows matching the Message-Routing-Information would be routed identically in the downstream direction, or else reject the message with an error. 6.3 NAT Traversal As already noted, GIMPS messages must carry packet addressing and higher layer information as payload data in order to define the flow signalled for. (This applies to all GIMPS messages, regardless of Schulzrinne & Hancock Expires April 24, 2005 [Page 43] Internet-Draft GIMPS October 2004 how they are encapsulated or which direction they are travelling in.) At an addressing boundary the data flow packets will have their headers translated; if the signaling payloads are not likewise translated, the signaling messages will refer to incorrect (and probably meaningless) flows after passing through the boundary. In addition, some GIMPS messages (those used in the discovery process) carry addressing information about the GIMPS nodes themselves, and this must also be processed appropriately when traversing a NAT. The simplest solution to this problem is to require that a NAT is GIMPS-aware, and to allow it to modify datagram mode messages based on the contents of the Message-Routing-Information payload. (This is making the implicit assumption that NATs only rewrite the header fields included in this payload, and not higher layer identifiers.) Provided this is done consistently with the data flow header translation, signaling messages will be valid each side of the boundary, without requiring the NAT to be signaling application aware. An outline of the set of operations necessary on a downstream datagram mode message is as follows: 1. Verify that bindings for the data flow are actually in place. 2. Create bindings for subsequent C-mode signaling (based on the information in the Node-Addressing field). 3. Create a new Message-Routing-Information payload with fields modified according to the data flow bindings. 4. Create a new Node-Addressing payload with fields to force upstream D-mode messages through the NAT, and to allow C-mode exchanges using the C-mode signaling bindings. 5. Add a new NAT-Traversal payload, listing the objects which have been modified and including the unmodified Message-Routing-Information. 6. Forward the message with these new payloads. The original Message-Routing-Information payload is retained in the message, but encapsulated in the new TLV type. Further information can be added corresponding to the Node-Addressing payload, either the original payload itself or, in the case of a GIMPS node that wished to do topology hiding, opaque tokens (or it could be omitted altogether). In the case of a sequence of NATs, this part of the NAT-Traversal object would become a list. Note that a consequence of this approach is that the routing state tables at the actual signaling application peers (either side of the NAT) are no longer directly compatible. In particular, the values of Schulzrinne & Hancock Expires April 24, 2005 [Page 44] Internet-Draft GIMPS October 2004 Message-Routing-Information are different, which is why the unmodified MRI is propagated in the NAT-Traversal payload to allow subsequent C-mode messages to be interpreted correctly.. The case of traversing a GIMPS unaware NAT is for further study. There is a dual problem of whether the GIMPS peers either side of the boundary can work out how to address each other, and whether they can work out what translation to apply to the Message-Routing-Information from what is done to the signaling packet headers. The fundamental problem is that GIMPS messages contain 3 or 4 interdependent addresses which all have to be consistently translated, and existing generic NAT traversal techniques such as STUN [19] can process only two. 6.4 Interaction with IP Tunnelling The interaction between GIMPS and IP tunnelling is very simple. An IP packet carrying a GIMPS message is treated exactly the same as any other packet with the same source and destination addresses: in other words, it is given the tunnel encapsulation and forwarded with the other data packets. Tunnelled packets will not be identifiable as GIMPS messages until they leave the tunnel, since any router alert option and the standard GIMPS protocol encapsulation (e.g. port numbers) will be hidden behind the standard tunnel header. If signaling is needed for the tunnel itself, this has to be initiated as a separate signaling session by one of the tunnel endpoints - that is, the tunnel counts as a new flow. Because the relationship between signaling for the 'microflow' and signaling for the tunnel as a whole will depend on the signaling application in question, we are assuming that it is a signaling application responsibility to be aware of the fact that tunnelling is taking place and to carry out additional signaling if necessary; in other words, one tunnel endpoint must be signaling application aware. In some cases, it is the tunnel exit point (i.e. the node where tunnelled data and downstream signaling packets leave the tunnel) that will wish to carry out the tunnel signaling, but this node will not have knowledge or control of how the tunnel entry point is carrying out the data flow encapsulation. This information could be carried as additional data (an additional GIMPS payload) in the tunnelled signaling packets if the tunnel entry point was at least GIMPS aware. This payload would be the GIMPS equivalent of the RSVP SESSION_ASSOC object of [11]. Whether this functionality should really be part of GIMPS and if so how the payload should be handled will be considered in a later version. Schulzrinne & Hancock Expires April 24, 2005 [Page 45] Internet-Draft GIMPS October 2004 6.5 IPv4-IPv6 Transition and Interworking GIMPS itself is essentially IP version neutral (version dependencies are isolated in the formats of the Message-Routing-Information and Node-Addressing TLVs, and GIMPS also depends on the version independence of the protocols that support messaging associations). In mixed environments, GIMPS operation will be influenced by the IP transition mechanisms in use. This section provides a high level overview of how GIMPS is affected, considering only the currently predominant mechanisms. Dual Stack: (This applies both to the basic approach described in [24] as well as the dual-stack aspects of more complete architectures such as [28].) In mixed environments, GIMPS should use the same IP version as the flow it is signaling for; hosts which are dual stack for applications and routers which are dual stack for forwarding should have GIMPS implementations which can support both IP versions. In theory, for some connection mode encapsulation options, a single messaging association could carry signaling messages for flows of both IP versions, but the saving seems of limited value. The IP version used in datagram mode is closely tied to the IP version used by the data flow, so it is intrinsically impossible for a IPv4-only or IPv6-only GIMPS node to support signaling for flows using the other IP version. Applications with a choice of IP versions might select a version for which GIMPS support was available in the network, which could be established by running parallel discovery procedures. In theory, a GIMPS message related to a flow of one IP version could flag support for the other; however, given that IPv4 and IPv6 could easily be separately routed, the correct GIMPS peer for a given flow might well depend on IP version anyway, making this flagged information irrelevant. Packet Translation: (Applicable to SIIT [5] and NAT-PT [12].) Some transition mechanisms allow IPv4 and IPv6 nodes to communicate by placing packet translators between them. From the GIMPS perspective, this should be treated essentially the same way as any other NAT operation (e.g. between 'public' and 'private' addresses) as described in Section 6.3. In other words, the translating node needs to be GIMPS aware; it will run GIMPS with IPv4 on some interfaces and with IPv6 on others, and will have to translate the Message-Routing-Information payload between IPv4 and IPv6 formats for flows which cross between the two. The translation rules for the fields in the payload (including e.g. traffic class and flow label) are as defined in [5]. Schulzrinne & Hancock Expires April 24, 2005 [Page 46] Internet-Draft GIMPS October 2004 Tunnelling: (Applicable to 6to4 [13] and a whole host of other tunnelling schemes.) Many transition mechanisms handle the problem of how an end to end IPv6 (or IPv4) flow can be carried over intermediate IPv4 (or IPv6) regions by tunnelling; the methods tend to focus on minimising the tunnel administration overhead. From the GIMPS perspective, the treatment should be as similar as possible to any other IP tunnelling mechanism, as described in Section 6.4. In particular, the end to end flow signaling will pass transparently through the tunnel, and signaling for the tunnel itself will have to be managed by the tunnel endpoints. However, additional considerations may arise because of special features of the tunnel management procedures. For example, [14] is based on using an anycast address as the destination tunnel endpoint. It might be unwise to carry out signaling for the tunnel to such an address, and the GIMPS implementation there would not be able to use it as a source address for its own signaling messages (e.g. GIMPS-responses). Further analysis will be contained in a future version of this specification. Schulzrinne & Hancock Expires April 24, 2005 [Page 47] Internet-Draft GIMPS October 2004 7. Security Considerations The security requirement for the GIMPS layer is to protect the signaling plane against identified security threats. For the signaling problem as a whole, these threats have been outlined in [21]; the NSIS framework [20] assigns a subset of the responsibility to the NTLP. The main issues to be handled can be summarised as: Message Protection: Signaling message content should be protected against eavesdropping, modification, injection and replay while in transit. This applies both to GIMPS payloads, and GIMPS should also provide such protection as a service to signaling applications between adjacent peers. State Integrity Protection: It is important that signaling messages are delivered to the correct nodes, and nowhere else. Here, 'correct' is defined as 'the appropriate nodes for the signaling given the Message-Routing-Information'. In the case where the MRI is the Flow Identification for path-coupled signaling, 'appropriate' means 'the same nodes that the infrastructure will route data flow packets through'. (GIMPS has no role in deciding whether the data flow itself is being routed correctly; all it can do is ensure the signaling is routed consistently with it.) GIMPS uses internal state to decide how to route signaling messages, and this state needs to be protected against corruption. Prevention of Denial of Service Attacks: GIMPS nodes and the network have finite resources (state storage, processing power, bandwidth). The protocol should try to minimise exhaustion attacks against these resources and not allow GIMPS nodes to be used to launch attacks on other network elements. The main missing issue is handling authorisation for executing signaling operations (e.g. allocating resources). This is assumed to be done in each signaling application. In many cases, GIMPS relies on the security mechanisms available in messaging associations to handle these issues, rather than introducing new security measures. Obviously, this requires the interaction of these mechanisms with the rest of the GIMPS protocol to be understood and verified, and some aspects of this are discussed in Section 5.5. 7.1 Message Confidentiality and Integrity GIMPS can use messaging association functionality, such as TLS or IPsec, to ensure message confidentiality and integrity. In many cases, confidentiality of GIMPS information itself is not likely to Schulzrinne & Hancock Expires April 24, 2005 [Page 48] Internet-Draft GIMPS October 2004 be a prime concern, in particular since messages are often sent to parties which are unknown ahead of time, although the content visible even at the GIMPS level gives significant opportunities for traffic analysis. Signaling applications may have their own mechanism for securing content as necessary; however, they may find it convenient to rely on protection provided by messaging associations, particularly if this is provided efficiently and if it runs unbroken between signaling application peers. 7.2 Peer Node Authentication Cryptographic protection (of confidentiality or integrity) requires a security association with session keys, which can be established during an authentication and key exchange protocol run based on shared secrets, public key techniques or a combination of both. Authentication and key agreement is possible using the protocols associated with the messaging association being secured (TLS incorporates this functionality directly; IKE, IKEv2 or KINK can provide it for IPsec). GIMPS nodes rely on these protocols to authenticate the identity of the next hop, and GIMPS has no authentication capability of its own. However, with discovery, there are few effective ways to know what is the legitimate next or previous hop as opposed to an impostor. In other words, cryptographic authentication here only provides assurance that a node is 'who' it is (i.e. the legitimate owner of identity in some namespace), not 'what' it is (i.e. a node which is genuinely on the flow path and therefore can carry out signaling for a particular flow). Authentication provides only limited protection, in that a known peer is unlikely to lie about its role. Additional methods of protection against this type of attack are considered in Section 7.3 below. It is open whether peer node authentication should be made signaling application dependent; for example, whether successful authentication could be made dependent on presenting authorisation to act in a particular signaling role (e.g. signaling for QoS). The abstract API of Appendix D allows GIMPS to forward such policy and authentication decisions to the NSLP it is serving. 7.3 Routing State Integrity The internal state in a node (see Section 4.2), specifically the upstream and downstream peer identification, is used to route messages. If this state is corrupted, signaling messages may be misdirected. In the case where the message routing method is path-coupled Schulzrinne & Hancock Expires April 24, 2005 [Page 49] Internet-Draft GIMPS October 2004 signaling, the messages need to be routed identically to the data flow described by the Flow Identifier, and the routing state table is the GIMPS view of how these flows are being routed through the network in the immediate neighbourhood of the node. Routes are only weakly secured (e.g. there is usually no cryptographic binding of a flow to a route), and there is no other authoritative information about flow routes than the current state of the network itself. Therefore, consistency between GIMPS and network routing state has to be ensured by directly interacting with the routing mechanisms to ensure that the upstream and downstream signaling peers are the appropriate ones for any given flow. A good overview of security issues and techniques in this sort of context is provided in [27]. Downstream peer identification is installed and refreshed only on receiving a GIMPS-reponse message (compare Figure 4). This must echo the cookie from a previous GIMPS-query message, which will have been sent downstream along the flow path (in datagram mode, i.e. end-to-end addressed). Hence, only the true next peer or an on-path attacker will be able to generate such a message, provided freshness of the cookie can be checked at the querying node. Upstream peer identification can be installed directly on receiving a GIMPS-query message containing addressing information for the upstream peer. However, any node in the network could generate such a message (indeed, almost any node in the network could be the genuine upstream peer for a given flow). To protect against this, two strategies are possible: Filtering: the receiving node may be able to reject signaling messages which claim to be for flows with flow source addresses which would be ruled out by ingress filtering. An extension of this technique would be for the receiving node to monitor the data plane and to check explicitly that the flow packets are arriving over the same interface and if possible from the same link layer neighbour as the datagram mode signaling packets. (If they are not, it is likely that at least one of the signaling or flow packets is being spoofed.) Signaling applications should only install state on the route taken by the signaling itself. Authentication (weak or strong): the receiving node may refuse to install upstream state until it has handshaked by some means with the upstream peer. This handshaking could be as simple as requesting the upstream peer to echo the response cookie in the discover-response payload of a GIMPS-response message (to discourage nodes impersonating upstream peers from using forged source addresses); or, it could be full peer authentication within the messaging association, the reasoning being that an authenticated peer can be trusted not to pretend that it is on Schulzrinne & Hancock Expires April 24, 2005 [Page 50] Internet-Draft GIMPS October 2004 path when it is not. The second technique also plays a role in denial of service prevention, see below. In practice, a combination of both techniques may be appropriate. 7.4 Denial of Service Prevention GIMPS is designed so that each connectionless discovery message only generates at most one response, so that a GIMPS node cannot become the source of a denial of service amplification attack. However, GIMPS can still be subjected to denial-of-service attacks where an attacker using forged source addresses forces a node to establish state without return routability, causing a problem similar to TCP SYN flood attacks. In addition to vulnerabilities of a next peer discovery an unprotected path discovery procedure might introduce more denial of service attacks since a number of nodes could possibly be forced to allocate state. Furthermore, an adversary might modify or replay unprotected signaling messages. There are two types of state attacks and one computational resource attack. In the first state attack, an attacker floods a node with messages that the node has to store until it can determine the next hop. If the destination address is chosen so that there is no GIMPS-capable next hop, the node would accumulate messages for several seconds until the discovery retransmission attempt times out. The second type of state-based attack causes GIMPS state to be established by bogus messages. A related computational/network-resource attack uses unverified messages to cause a node to make AAA queries or attempt to cryptographically verify a digital signature. (RSVP is vulnerable to this type of attack.) Relying only on upper layer security, for example based on CMS, might open a larger door for denial of service attacks since the messages are often only one-shot-messages without utilizing multiple roundtrips and DoS protection mechanisms. There are at least three defenses against these attacks: 1. The responding node does not establish a session or discover its next hop on receiving the GIMPS-query message, but can wait for a setup message on a reliable channel. If the reliable channel exists, the additional delay is a one one-way delay and the total is no more than the minimal theoretically possible delay of a three-way handshake, i.e., 1.5 node-to-node round-trip times. The delay gets significantly larger if a new connection needs to be established first. 2. The response to the initial discovery message contains a cookie. Schulzrinne & Hancock Expires April 24, 2005 [Page 51] Internet-Draft GIMPS October 2004 The previous hop repeats the discovery with the cookie included. State is only established for messages that contain a valid cookie. The setup delay is also 1.5 round-trip times. (This mechanism is similar to that in SCTP [6] and other modern protocols.) 3. If there is a chance that the next-hop node shares a secret with the previous hop, the sender could include a hash of the session ID and the sender's secret. The receiver can then verify that the message was likely sent by the purported source. This does not scale well, but may work if most nodes tend to communicate with a small peer clique of nodes. (In that case, however, they might as well establish more-or-less permanent transport sessions with each other.) These techniques are complementary; we chose a combination of the first and second method. Once a node has decided to establish routing state, there may still be transport and security state to be established between peers. This state setup is also vulnerable to additional denial of service attacks. GIMPS relies on the lower layer protocols that make up messaging associations to mitigate such attacks. The current description assumes that the upstream node is always the one wishing to establish a messaging association, so it is typically the downstream node that needs to be protected. Schulzrinne & Hancock Expires April 24, 2005 [Page 52] Internet-Draft GIMPS October 2004 8. IANA Considerations This section outlines the content of a future IANA considerations section. The GIMPS specification requires the creation of TBD registries, as follows: NSLP Identifiers: Each signaling application requires one of more NSLPIDs (different NSLPIDs may be used to distinguish different classes of signaling node, for example to handle different aggregation levels or different processing subsets). An NSLPID must be associated with a unique RAO value; further considerations are discussed in Section 9.4. Object Types: There is an TBD-bit field in the generic object header (Appendix C.3.1). Distinguish different ranges for different allocation styles (standards action, expert review etc.) and different applicability scopes (experimental/private, NSLP-specific); by default, object types are public and shared between all NSLPs. When a new object type is defined, the extensibility bits (A/B, see Appendix C.3.2) must also be defined. Extensibility Flags: There are TBD reserved flag bits in the generic object header (Appendix C.3.1). These are reserved for the definition of more complex extensibility encoding schemes. Message Routing Methods: GIMPS allows the idea of multiple message routing methods (see Section 9.8). The message routing method is indicated in the leading 2 bytes of the MRI object (Appendix C.4.1). Protocol Indicators: The GIMPS design allows the set of possible protocols to be used in a messaging association to be extended, as discussed in Section 5.5. Every new mode of using a protocol is given a single byte Protocol Indicator, which is used as a tag in the Node Addressing and Stack Proposal objects (Appendix C.4.3 and Appendix C.4.4). Allocating a new protocol indicator requires defining the higher layer addressing information (if any) in the Node Addressing Object that is needed to define its configuration. Error Classes: There is a 1 byte field at the start of the Value field of the generic Error object (Appendix C.5.1). Five values for this field have already been defined. Further general classes of error could be defined. Note that the value here is primarily to aid human or management interpretation of otherwise unknown error codes. Schulzrinne & Hancock Expires April 24, 2005 [Page 53] Internet-Draft GIMPS October 2004 Error Codes: There is a 3 byte error code in the Value field of the generic Error object (Appendix C.5.1). Error codes are shared across all NSLPs. When a new error code is allocated, the Error Class and the format of any associated error-specific information must also be defined. Schulzrinne & Hancock Expires April 24, 2005 [Page 54] Internet-Draft GIMPS October 2004 9. Open Issues 9.1 Protocol Naming Alternate names: GIST: General Internet Signaling Transport GIMPS: General Internet Messaging Protocol for Signaling LUMPS: Lightweight Universal Messaging for Path associated Signaling There is a danger of some ambiguity as to whether the protocol name refers to the complete transport stack below the signaling applications, or only to the additional protocol functionality above the standard transport protocols (UDP, TCP etc.) The NSIS framework uses the term NTLP for the first, but this specification uses the GIST/variants names for the second (see Figure 2 in Section 3.1). In other words, this specification proposes to meet the requirements for NTLP functionality by layering GIMPS/... over existing standard transport protocols. It isn't clear if additional terminological surgery is needed to make this clearer. 9.2 General IP Layer Issues Some NSIS messages have to be addressed end-to-end but intercepted at intermediate routers, and this imposes some special constraints on how they can be encapsulated. RSVPv1 [9] primarily uses raw IP with a specific protocol number (46); a UDP encapsulation is also possible for hosts unable to perform raw network i/o. RSVP aggregation [15] uses an additional protocol number (134) to bypass certain interior nodes. The critical requirements for the encapsulation at this level are that routers should be able to identify signaling packets for processing, and that they should not mis-identify packets for 'normal' end-to-end user data flows as signaling packets. The current assumption is that UDP encapsulation can be used for such messages, by allocating appropriate (new) value codes for the router alert option (RAO) [1][4] to identify NSIS messages. Specific open issues about how to allocate such values are discussed in Section 9.4. An alternative approach would be to use raw IP with the RSVP protocol numbers and a new RSVP version number. Although this would provide some more commonality with existing RSVP implementations, the NAT traversal problems for such an encapsulation seem much harder to solve. Specifically, any unmodified NAT (which performed address sharing) would be unable to process any such traffic since they need to understand a higher-layer field (such as TCP or UDP port) to use as a demultiplexer. Schulzrinne & Hancock Expires April 24, 2005 [Page 55] Internet-Draft GIMPS October 2004 9.3 Encapsulation and Addressing for Datagram Mode The discussion in Section 4 essentially assumes that datagram mode messages are UDP encapsulated. This leaves open the question of whether other encapsulations are possible, and exactly how these messages should be addressed. As well as UDP/IP (and raw IP as discussed and temporarily ruled out in Section 9.2), DCCP/IP and UDP/IPsec could also be considered as 'datagram' encapsulations. However, they still require explicit addressing between GIMPS peer nodes and some per-peer state to be set up and maintained. Therefore, it seems more appropriate to consider these encapsulation options as possible messaging association types, for use where there is a need for congestion control or security protection but without reliability. This would leave UDP/IP as the single encapsulation allowed for all datagram mode messages. Addressing for upstream datagram mode messages is simple: the IP source address is the signaling source address, and the IP destination address is the signaling destination address (compare Figure 1). For downstream datagram mode messages, the IP destination address will be the flow destination address, but the IP source address could be either of the flow source address or signaling source address. Some of the relative merits of these options are as follows: o Using the flow source address makes it more likely that the message will be correctly routed through any intermediate NSIS-unaware region which is doing load sharing or policy routing on the {source, destination} address pair. If the signaling source address is used, the message will be intercepted at some node closer to the flow destination, but it may not be the same as the next node for the data flow packets. o Conversely, using the signaling source address means that ICMP error messages (specifically, unreachable port or address) will be correctly delivered to the message originator, rather than being sent back to the flow source. Without seeing these messages, it is very difficult for the querying node to recognise that it is the last NSIS node on the path. In addition, using the signaling source address may make it possible to exchange messages through GIMPS unaware NATs (although it isn't clear how useful the resulting messages will be, see Section 6.3). It is not clear which of these situations it is more important to handle correctly and hence which source addressing option to use. (RSVP uses the flow source address, although this is primarily for multicast routing reasons.) A conservative approach would be to allow Schulzrinne & Hancock Expires April 24, 2005 [Page 56] Internet-Draft GIMPS October 2004 both, possibly even in parallel (although this might open up the protocol to amplification attacks). 9.4 Intermediate Node Bypass and Router Alert Values We assume that the primary mechanism for intercepting messages is the use of the RAO. The RAO contains a 16 bit value field, within which 35 values have currently been assigned by IANA. It is open how to assign values for use by GIMPS messages to optimise protocol processing, i.e. to minimise the amount of slow-path processing that nodes have to carry out for messages they are not actually interested in the content of. There are two basic reasons why a GIMPS node might wish to ignore a message: o because it is for a signaling application that the node does not process; o because even though the signaling application is present on the node, the interface on which the message arrives is only processing signaling messages at the aggregate level and not for individual flows (compare [15]). Conversely, note that a node might wish to process a number of different signaling applications, either because it was genuinely multifunctional or because it processed several versions of the same application. (Note from Appendix C.1 that different versions are distinguished by different NSLP identifiers.) Some or all of this information could be encoded in the RAO value field, which would then allow messages to be filtered on the fast path. There is a tradeoff between two approaches here, whose evaluation depends on whether the processing node is specialised or general purpose: Fine-Grained: The signaling application (including specific version) and aggregation level are directly identified in the RAO value. A specialised node which handles only a single NSLP can efficiently ignore all other messages; a general purpose node may have to match the RAO value in a message against a long list of possible values. Coarse-Grained: IANA allocates RAO values for 'popular' applications or groups of applications (such as 'All QoS Signaling Applications'). This speeds up the processing in a general purpose node, but a specialised node may have to carry out further processing on the GIMPS common header to identify the precise Schulzrinne & Hancock Expires April 24, 2005 [Page 57] Internet-Draft GIMPS October 2004 messages it needs to consider. These considerations imply that the RAO value should not be tied directly to the NSLP id, but should be selected for the application on broader considerations of likely deployment scenarios. Note that the exact NSLP is given in the GIMPS common header, and some implementations may still be able to process it on the fast path. The semantics of the node dropping out of the signaling path are the same however the filtering is done. There is a special consideration in the case of the aggregation level. In this case, whether a message should be processed depends on the network region it is in (specifically, the link it is on). There are then two basic possibilities: 1. All routers have essentially the same algorithm for which messages they process, i.e. all messages at aggregation level 0. However, messages have their aggregation level incremented on entry to an aggregation region and decremented on exit. 2. Router interfaces are configured to process messages only above a certain aggregation level and ignore all others. The aggregation level of a message is never changed; signaling messages for end to end flows have level 0, but signaling messages for aggregates are generated with a higher level. The first technique requires aggregating/deaggregating routers to be configured with which of their interfaces lie at which aggregation level, and also requires consistent message rewriting at these boundaries. The second technique eliminates the rewriting, but requires interior routers to be configured also. It is not clear what the right trade-off between these options is. 9.5 IP TTL Management The GIMPS API contains a primitive to allow GIMPS to report what is equivalent to the number of IP hops between the receiving node and the GIMPS peer that sent a signaling message (see Appendix D.2). This could be required to emulate RSVP-like functionality in support of IntServ where the existence of non-IntServ capable hops needs to be discovered. However, the GIMPS protocol itself does not currently contain functionality to support this aspect of the API. The protocol functionality required for this is logically quite simple: a sending node inserts the IP TTL used in the GIMPS message, and the reciever compares this with the IP TTL in the received signaling message. A value > 1 indicates a non-GIMPS node between. However, there are some subtleties to make it possible to report this Schulzrinne & Hancock Expires April 24, 2005 [Page 58] Internet-Draft GIMPS October 2004 consistently to signaling applications: o The basic approach only provides a meaningful answer for downstream query messages. For upstream messages, because of asymmetric routing, it would be necessary for the sending node to insert the 'non-GIMPS-capable hop count' value it has learned directly in the message, which would be used directly at the receiver without comparing with the received TTL at the IP layer. o It is not usually possible to extract IP layer TTL information for data arriving over transport protocols such as TCP, and strictly it is not meaningful to do so. Therefore, rather than reporting a fresh value for every message, the incapable hop count would have to be calculated by GIMPS on query/response exchanges and then stored in the routing state table so it can be reported to signaling applications for each message regardless of which mode was actually used for that message. It needs to be evaluated whether this degree of protocol and implementation complexity is justified by the value of the information obtained. 9.6 GIMPS Support for Message Scoping Many signaling applications are interested in sending messages over a specific region of the network. Message scoping of this nature seems to be hard to achieve in a topologically robust way, because such region boundaries are not well defined in the network layer. It may be that the GIMPS layer can assist such scoping, by detecting and counting different types of nodes in the signaling plane. The simplest solution would be to count GIMPS nodes supporting the relevant signaling application - this is already effectively done by the GIMPS hop count. A more sophisticated approach would be to track the crossing of aggregation region boundaries, as introduced in Section 9.4. Whether this is plausible depends on the willingness of operators to configure such boundary information in their routers. 9.7 Additional Discovery Mechanisms The routing state maintenance procedures described in Section 4.4 are strongly focussed on the problem of discovering, implicitly or explicitly, the neighbouring peers on the flow path - which is the necessary functionality for path-coupled signaling. As well as the GIMPS-query/response discovery mechanism, other techniques may sometimes also be possible. For example, in many environments, a host has a single access router, i.e. the downstream Schulzrinne & Hancock Expires April 24, 2005 [Page 59] Internet-Draft GIMPS October 2004 peer (for outgoing flows) and the upstream peer (for incoming ones) are known a priori. More generally, a link state routing protocol database can be analysed to determine downstream peers in more complex topologies, and maybe upstream ones if strict ingress filtering is in effect. More radically, much of the GIMPS protocol is unchanged if we consider off-path signaling nodes, although there are significant differences in some of the security analysis (Section 7.3). However, none of these possibilities are considered further in this specification. 9.8 Alternative Message Routing Requirements The initial assumption of GIMPS is that signaling messages are to be routed identically to data flow messages. For this case of path-coupled signaling, the MRI and upstream/downstream flag (in the Common-Header) define the flow and the relationship of the signaling to it sufficiently for GIMPS to route its messages correctly. However, some additional modes of routing signaling messages have been identified: Predictive Routing: Here, the intent is to send signaling along a path that the data flow may or will follow in the future. Possible cases are pre-installation of state on the backup path that would be used in the event of a link failure; and predictive installation of state on the path that will be used after a mobile node handover. It is currently unclear whether these cases can be met using the existing GIMPS routing capabilities (and if they cannot, whether they are in the initial scope of the work). NAT Address Reservations: This applies to the case where a node behind a NAT wishes to use NSIS signaling to reserve an address from which it can be reached by a sender on the other side. This requires a message to be sent outbound from what will be the flow receiver although no reverse routing state exists. One possible solution (assumed in [22]) is to construct a message with the Flow-Routing-Information matching the possible senders and send it as though it was downstream signaling. It is not clear whether signaling for the 'wrong direction' in this way will always be treated consistently by GIMPS, especially if routing policies and encapsulations for inbound and outbound traffic are treated very differently within the rest of the network. In the current structure of the protocol definition, the way to handle these requirements (if they are needed) is to define a new message routing method which replaces the basic path-coupled version. The requirements for defining a new routing method include the following: Schulzrinne & Hancock Expires April 24, 2005 [Page 60] Internet-Draft GIMPS October 2004 o Defining the format of the MRI for the new message routing method type. o Defining how D-mode messages should be encapsulated and routed corresponding to this MRI. o Defining any filtering or other security mechanisms that should be used to validate the MRI in a D-mode message. o Defining how the MRI format is processed on passing through a NAT. 9.9 Message Format Issues NSIS message formats are defined as a set of objects (see Appendix C.1). Some aspects are left open: Ordering: Traditionally, Internet protocols require a node to be able to process a message with objects in any order. However, this has some costs in parser complexity, testing interoperability, ease of compression; there is a special issue with GIMPS that for efficiency, the NSLP-Data object (which may be large) should come last. Should object order be fixed or unspecified? NSLP Versioning: The current working assumption is that if an NSLP for a particular signaling application is changed so radically that it is no longer backwards compatible, an entirely new NSLPID will be allocated. However, this leads to a problem when a node supporting both variants needs to discover its downstream peer. If it probes for the 'early' NSLPID it will not detect the case where the downstream peer supports the later one; if it probes for the 'later' NSLPID, a downstream peer supporting only the early variant will bypass the message altogether. The implication is that a single NSLPID should be used even in this case, with demultiplexing based on a separate version number (which could be carried in the common header, or within the NSLP payload). 9.10 Inter-Layer Security Coordination GIMPS is able to provide channel security protection between adjacent signaling application peers, and it is efficient if signaling applications themselves can rely on this protection for their messages. Ideally, to enable a consistent security analysis of the signaling application, the properties and mode of use of the underlying security protocol would be analysed jointly with signaling application itself; however, for layering reasons, the operation of the security protocol itself must be largely hidden below the GIMPS Schulzrinne & Hancock Expires April 24, 2005 [Page 61] Internet-Draft GIMPS October 2004 layer. This presents a challenge, mainly for the GIMPS service interface specification (Section 4.1), which ideally would be able to expose the relevant properties of the security protocol in use to the signaling application depending on it, including allowing the application to take part in the protocol operation (e.g. selecting which identity to use and verifying the identity of the peer). Currently, the description is limited to the identification of a transfer attribute called 'Security' in Section 4.1.2; more detailed design may require this attribute to be an object with non-trivial processing capabilities, rather than simply an enumerated value. Details are for further study. 9.11 Protocol Design Details Clearly, not all details of GIMPS operation have been defined so far. This section provides a list of slightly non-trivial areas where more detail is need, where these have not been mentioned elsewhere in the text. o Receiver initiated signaling applications need to have reverse path state set up in the network, before the signaling application itself can originate any messages. Should this be done by GIMPS carrying out the discovery for the specific signaling application (which requires the flow sender to know what signaling applications are going to be used), or should the discovery attempt to find every GIMPS node and the signaling applications they support? o How should GIMPS handle a lost GIMPS-confirm? The naive approach of requiring retransmission of the GIMPS-response that requested it would impose a processing and state maintenance burden on the responding node at an early stage of the message exchange, which could lead to denial of service problems and also an amplification attack where a query is sent from a forged address. Note that the problem only arises in the case where no reliable messaging association is being set up; otherwise, GIMPS-confirm is delivered reliably in C-mode. o The GIMPS API for sending a message (Appendix D.1) allows a signaling application to generate a message as though it came from a previous node along the path from which an incoming message was received, by providing a value for the Source-SII-Handle parameter. Reasons for doing this might be to allow the node to process the message without handling path state, or to allow it to drop out of the messaging chain based on the content of NSLP-Data. A simpler way of modelling such processing would be to modify Schulzrinne & Hancock Expires April 24, 2005 [Page 62] Internet-Draft GIMPS October 2004 RecvMessage so as to allow an NSLP to request that a message be forwarded (possibly with a modified payload) rather than accepting it for local processing. However, while this is relatively easy to handle for messages that arrive in D-mode, it would violate the defined protocol behaviour for messages arriving in C-mode, where the transfer attributes set by the original sender could no longer be guaranteed. o Where messaging association protocol negotation (Section 5.5) involves stacking protocols without a built-in unambiguous service demultiplexing capability, it isn't clear how to handle cases such as TCP vs. TCP/TLS. Multiple higher-layer-addressing fields in the Node-Addressing object for different TCP configurations would lead to a more complicated message format; defining a new Protocol-Identifier for the TCP/TLS combination (with its own port number) would lead to a large number of protocol configurations; requiring the responding node to identify upper layers based on the received TCP data would require a careful case by case analysis. Schulzrinne & Hancock Expires April 24, 2005 [Page 63] Internet-Draft GIMPS October 2004 10. Change History 10.1 Changes In Version -04 Version -04 includes mainly clarifications of detail and extensions in particular technical areas, in part to support ongoing implementation work. The main details are as follows: 1. Substantially updated Section 4, in particular clarifying the rules on what messages are sent when and with what payloads during routing and messaging association setup, and also adding some further text on message transfer attributes. 2. The description of messaging association protocol negotiation including the related object formats has been centralised in a new Section 5.5, removing the old Section 6.6 and also closing old open issues 8.5 and 8.6. 3. Made a number of detailed changes in the message format definitions (Appendix C), as well as incorporating initial rules for encoding message extensibility information. Also included explicit formats for a general purpose Error object, and the objects used to negotiate messaging association protocols. Updated the corresponding open issues section (Section 9.9) with a new item on NSLP versioning. 4. Updated the GIMPS API (Appendix D), including more precision on message transfer attributes, making the NSLP hint about storing reverse path state a return value rather than a separate primitive, and adding a new primitive to allow signaling applications to invalidate GIMPS routing state. Also, added a new parameter to SendMessage to allow signaling applications to 'bypass' message statelessly, preserving the source of an input message. 5. Added an outline for the future content of an IANA considerations section (Section 8). Currently, this is restricted to identifying the registries and allocations required, without defining the allocation policies and other considerations involved. 6. Shortened the background design discussion in Section 3. 7. Made some clarifications in the terminology section relating to how the use of C-mode does and does not mandate the use of transport or security protection. 8. The ABNF for message formats in Section 5.1 has been re-written Schulzrinne & Hancock Expires April 24, 2005 [Page 64] Internet-Draft GIMPS October 2004 with a grammar structured around message purpose rather than message direction, and additional explanation added to the information element descriptions in Section 5.2. 9. The description of the datagram mode transport in Section 5.3 has been updated. The encapsulation rules (covering IP addressing and UDP port allocation) have been corrected, and a new subsection on message retransmission and rate limiting has been added, superceding the old open issue on the same subject (section 8.10). 10. A new open issue on IP TTL measurement to detect non-GIMPS capable hops has been added (Section 9.5). 10.2 Changes In Version -03 Version -03 includes a number of minor clarifications and extensions compared to version -02, including more details of the GIMPS API and messaging association setup and the node addressing object. The full list of changes is as follows: 1. Added a new section pinning down more formally the interaction between GIMPS and signaling applications (Section 4.1), in particular the message transfer attributes that signaling applications can use to control GIMPS (Section 4.1.2). 2. Added a new open issue identifying where the interaction between the security properties of GIMPS and the security requirements of signaling applications should be identified (Section 9.10). 3. Added some more text in Section 4.2.1 to clarify that GIMPS has the (sole) responsibility for generating the messages that refresh message routing state. 4. Added more clarifying text and table to GHC and IP TTL handling discussion of Section 4.3.4. 5. Split Section 4.4 into subsections for different scenarios, and added more detail on Node-Addressing object content and use to handle the case where association re-use is possible in Section 4.4.2. 6. Added strawman object formats for Node-Addressing and Stack-Proposal objects in Section 5.1 and Appendix C. 7. Added more detail on the bundling possibilities and appropriate configurations for various transport protocols in Section 5.4.1. Schulzrinne & Hancock Expires April 24, 2005 [Page 65] Internet-Draft GIMPS October 2004 8. Included some more details on NAT traversal in Section 6.3, including a new object to carry the untranslated address-bearing payloads, the NAT-Traversal object. 9. Expanded the open issue discussion in Section 9.9 to include an outline set of extensibility flags. 10.3 Changes In Version -02 Version -02 does not represent any radical change in design or structure from version -01; the emphasis has been on adding details in some specific areas and incorporation of comments, including early review comments. The full list of changes is as follows: 1. Added a new Section 1.1 which summarises restrictions on scope and applicability; some corresponding changes in terminology in Section 2. 2. Closed the open issue on including explicit GIMPS state teardown functionality. On balance, it seems that the difficulty of specifying this correctly (especially taking account of the security issues in all scenarios) is not matched by the saving of state enabled. 3. Removed the option of a special class of message transfer for reliable delivery of a single message. This can be implemented (inefficiently) as a degenerate case of C-mode if required. 4. Extended Appendix C with a general discussion of rules for message and object formats across GIMPS and other NSLPs. Some remaining open issues are noted in Section 9.9. 5. Updated the discussion of Section 9.4 to take into account the proposed message formats and rules for allocation of NSLP id, and propose considerations for allocation of RAO values. 6. Modified the description of the information used to route messages (first given in Section 4.2.1 but also throughout the document). Previously this was related directly to the flow identification and described as the Flow-Routing-Information. Now, this has been renamed Message-Routing-Information, and identifies a message routing method and any associated addressing. 7. Modified the text in Section 4.3 and elsewhere to impose sanity checks on the Message-Routing-Information carried in C-mode messages, including the case where these messages are part of a Schulzrinne & Hancock Expires April 24, 2005 [Page 66] Internet-Draft GIMPS October 2004 GIMPS-Query/Response exchange. 8. Added rules for message forwarding to prevent message looping in a new Section 4.3.4, including rules on IP TTL and GIMPS hop count processing. These take into account the new RAO considerations of Section 9.4. 9. Added an outline mechanism for messaging association protocol stack negotiation, with the details in a new Section 6.6 and other changes in Section 4.4 and the various sections on message formats. 10. Removed the open issue on whether storing reverse routing state is mandatory or optional. This is now explicit in the API (under the control of the local NSLP). 11. Added an informative annex describing an abstract API between GIMPS and NSLPs in Appendix D. 10.4 Changes In Version -01 The major change in version -01 is the elimination of 'intermediaries', i.e. imposing the constraint that signaling application peers are also GIMPS peers. This has the consequence that if a signaling application wishes to use two classes of signaling transport for a given flow, maybe reaching different subsets of nodes, it must do so by running different signaling sessions; and it also means that signaling adaptations for passing through NATs which are not signaling application aware must be carried out in datagram mode. On the other hand, it allows the elimination of significant complexity in the connection mode handling and also various other protocol features (such as general route recording). The full set of changes is as follows: 1. Added a worked example in Section 3.2. 2. Stated that nodes which do not implement the signaling application should bypass the message (Section 4.3). 3. Decoupled the state handling logic for routing state and messaging association state in Section 4.4. Also, allow messaging associations to be used immediately in both directions once they are opened. 4. Added simple ABNF for the various GIMPS message types in a new Schulzrinne & Hancock Expires April 24, 2005 [Page 67] Internet-Draft GIMPS October 2004 Section 5.1, and more details of the common header and each object in Section 5.2, including bit formats in Appendix C. The common header format means that the encapsulation is now the same for all transport types (Section 5.4.1). 5. Added some further details on datagram mode encapsulation in Section 5.3, including more explanation of why a well known port is needed. 6. Removed the possibility for fragmentation over DCCP (Section 5.4.1), mainly in the interests of simplicity and loss amplification. 7. Removed all the tunnel mode encapsulations (old sections 5.3.3 and 5.3.4). 8. Fully re-wrote the route change handling description (Section 6.1), including some additional detection mechanisms and more clearly distinguishing between upstream and downstream route changes. Included further details on GIMPS/NSLP interactions, including where notifications are delivered and how local repair storms could be avoided. Removed old discussion of propagating notifications through signaling application unaware nodes (since these are now bypassed automatically). Added discussion on how to route messages for local state removal on the old path. 9. Revised discussion of policy-based forwarding (Section 6.2) to account for actual FLow-Routing-Information definition, and also how wildcarding should be allowed and handled. 10. Removed old route recording section (old Section 6.3). 11. Extended the discussion of NAT handling (Section 6.3) with an extended outline on processing rules at a GIMPS-aware NAT and a pointer to implications for C-mode processing and state management. 12. Clarified the definition of 'correct routing' of signaling messages in Section 7 and GIMPS role in enforcing this. Also, opened the possibility that peer node authentication could be signaling application dependent. 13. Removed old open issues on Connection Mode Encapsulation (section 8.7); added new open issues on Message Routing (Section 9.8) and Datagram Mode congestion control. 14. Added this change history. Schulzrinne & Hancock Expires April 24, 2005 [Page 68] Internet-Draft GIMPS October 2004 11. References 11.1 Normative References [1] Katz, D., "IP Router Alert Option", RFC 2113, February 1997. [2] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. [3] Crocker, D. and P. Overell, "Augmented BNF for Syntax Specifications: ABNF", RFC 2234, November 1997. [4] Partridge, C. and A. Jackson, "IPv6 Router Alert Option", RFC 2711, October 1999. [5] Nordmark, E., "Stateless IP/ICMP Translation Algorithm (SIIT)", RFC 2765, February 2000. [6] Stewart, R., Xie, Q., Morneault, K., Sharp, C., Schwarzbauer, H., Taylor, T., Rytina, I., Kalla, M., Zhang, L. and V. Paxson, "Stream Control Transmission Protocol", RFC 2960, October 2000. [7] Kohler, E., "Datagram Congestion Control Protocol (DCCP)", draft-ietf-dccp-spec-07 (work in progress), July 2004. [8] Conta, A. and S. Deering, "Internet Control Message Protocol (ICMPv6)for the Internet Protocol Version 6 (IPv6) Specification", draft-ietf-ipngwg-icmp-v3-05 (work in progress), October 2004. 11.2 Informative References [9] Braden, B., Zhang, L., Berson, S., Herzog, S. and S. Jamin, "Resource ReSerVation Protocol (RSVP) -- Version 1 Functional Specification", RFC 2205, September 1997. [10] Harkins, D. and D. Carrel, "The Internet Key Exchange (IKE)", RFC 2409, November 1998. [11] Terzis, A., Krawczyk, J., Wroclawski, J. and L. Zhang, "RSVP Operation Over IP Tunnels", RFC 2746, January 2000. [12] Tsirtsis, G. and P. Srisuresh, "Network Address Translation - Protocol Translation (NAT-PT)", RFC 2766, February 2000. [13] Carpenter, B. and K. Moore, "Connection of IPv6 Domains via IPv4 Clouds", RFC 3056, February 2001. Schulzrinne & Hancock Expires April 24, 2005 [Page 69] Internet-Draft GIMPS October 2004 [14] Huitema, C., "An Anycast Prefix for 6to4 Relay Routers", RFC 3068, June 2001. [15] Baker, F., Iturralde, C., Le Faucheur, F. and B. Davie, "Aggregation of RSVP for IPv4 and IPv6 Reservations", RFC 3175, September 2001. [16] Rosenberg, J., Schulzrinne, H., Camarillo, G., Johnston, A., Peterson, J., Sparks, R., Handley, M. and E. Schooler, "SIP: Session Initiation Protocol", RFC 3261, June 2002. [17] Price, R., Bormann, C., Christoffersson, J., Hannu, H., Liu, Z. and J. Rosenberg, "Signaling Compression (SigComp)", RFC 3320, January 2003. [18] Arkko, J., Torvinen, V., Camarillo, G., Niemi, A. and T. Haukka, "Security Mechanism Agreement for the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP)", RFC 3329, January 2003. [19] Rosenberg, J., Weinberger, J., Huitema, C. and R. Mahy, "STUN - Simple Traversal of User Datagram Protocol (UDP) Through Network Address Translators (NATs)", RFC 3489, March 2003. [20] Hancock, R., "Next Steps in Signaling: Framework", draft-ietf-nsis-fw-06 (work in progress), July 2004. [21] Tschofenig, H. and D. Kroeselberg, "Security Threats for NSIS", draft-ietf-nsis-threats-05 (work in progress), June 2004. [22] Stiemerling, M., "A NAT/Firewall NSIS Signaling Layer Protocol (NSLP)", draft-ietf-nsis-nslp-natfw-03 (work in progress), July 2004. [23] Bosch, S., Karagiannis, G. and A. McDonald, "NSLP for Quality-of-Service signaling", draft-ietf-nsis-qos-nslp-04 (work in progress), July 2004. [24] Nordmark, E. and R. Gilligan, "Basic Transition Mechanisms for IPv6 Hosts and Routers", draft-ietf-v6ops-mech-v2-06 (work in progress), September 2004. [25] Ylonen, T. and C. Lonvick, "SSH Protocol Architecture", draft-ietf-secsh-architecture-16 (work in progress), June 2004. [26] Moskowitz, R., "Host Identity Protocol", draft-ietf-hip-base-00 (work in progress), June 2004. [27] Nikander, P., "Mobile IP version 6 Route Optimization Security Schulzrinne & Hancock Expires April 24, 2005 [Page 70] Internet-Draft GIMPS October 2004 Design Background", draft-ietf-mip6-ro-sec-02 (work in progress), October 2004. [28] Bound, J., "Dual Stack Transition Mechanism", draft-bound-dstm-exp-01 (work in progress), April 2004. Authors' Addresses Henning Schulzrinne Columbia University Department of Computer Science 450 Computer Science Building New York, NY 10027 US Phone: +1 212 939 7042 EMail: hgs+nsis@cs.columbia.edu URI: http://www.cs.columbia.edu Robert Hancock Siemens/Roke Manor Research Old Salisbury Lane Romsey, Hampshire SO51 0ZN UK EMail: robert.hancock@roke.co.uk URI: http://www.roke.co.uk Schulzrinne & Hancock Expires April 24, 2005 [Page 71] Internet-Draft GIMPS October 2004 Appendix A. Acknowledgements This document is based on the discussions within the IETF NSIS working group. It has been informed by prior work and formal and informal inputs from: Cedric Aoun, Attila Bader, Bob Braden, Marcus Brunner, Xiaoming Fu, Ruediger Geib, Eleanor Hepworth, Cheng Hong, Georgios Karagiannis, Chris Lang, John Loughney, Allison Mankin, Jukka Manner, Andrew McDonald, Glenn Morrow, Dave Oran, Takako Sanda, Charles Shen, Melinda Shore, Martin Stiemerling, Mike Thomas, Hannes Tschofenig, Sven van den Bosch, Michael Welzl, and Lars Westberg. In particular, Hannes Tschofenig provided a detailed set of review comments on the security section, and Andrew McDonald provided the formal description for the initial packet formats. Chris Lang's implementation work provided objective feedback on the clarity and feasibility of the specification. We look forward to inputs and comments from many more in the future. Schulzrinne & Hancock Expires April 24, 2005 [Page 72] Internet-Draft GIMPS October 2004 Appendix B. Example Message Routing State Table Figure 7 shows a signaling scenario for a single flow being managed by two signaling applications. The flow sender and receiver and one router support both, two other routers support one each. A B C D E +------+ +-----+ +-----+ +-----+ +--------+ | Flow | +-+ +-+ |NSLP1| |NSLP1| | | | Flow | |Sender|====|R|====|R|====|NSLP2|====| |====|NSLP2|====|Receiver| | | +-+ +-+ |GIMPS| |GIMPS| |GIMPS| | | +------+ +-----+ +-----+ +-----+ +--------+ ------------------------------>> Flow Direction Figure 7: A Signaling Scenario Routing state table at node B for the flow from A to E: +--------------------+----------+----------+----------+-------------+ | Message Routing | Session | NSLP ID | Upstream | Downstream | | Information | ID | | Peer | Peer | +--------------------+----------+----------+----------+-------------+ | Method = Path | 0xABCD | NSLP1 | IP-#A | (null) | | Coupled; Flow ID = | | | | | | {IP-#A, IP-#E, | | | | | | protocol, ports} | | | | | | | | | | | | Method = Path | 0x1234 | NSLP2 | IP-#A | Pointer to | | Coupled; Flow ID = | | | | B-D | | {IP-#A, IP-#E, | | | | messaging | | protocol, ports} | | | | association | +--------------------+----------+----------+----------+-------------+ The upstream state is just the same address for each application. For the downstream case, NSLP1 only requires datagram mode messages and so no explicit routing state towards C is needed. NSLP2 requires a messaging association for its messages towards node D, and node C does not process NSLP2 at all, so the downstream peer state for NSLP2 is a pointer to a messaging association that runs directly from B to D. Note that E is not visible in the state table (except implicitly in the address in the message routing information); routing state is stored only for adjacent peers. Schulzrinne & Hancock Expires April 24, 2005 [Page 73] Internet-Draft GIMPS October 2004 Appendix C. Bit-Level Formats This appendix provides initial formats for the various component parts of the GIMPS messages defined abstractly in Section 5.2. It should be noted that these formats are extremely preliminary and should be expected to change completely several times during the further development of this specification. In addition, this appendix includes some general rules for the format of messages and message objects across all protocols in the NSIS protocol suite (i.e. the current and future NSLPs as well as GIMPS itself). The intention of these common rules is to encourage commonality in implementations, ease of testing and debugging, and sharing of object definitions across different applications. C.1 General NSIS Formatting Guidelines Each NSIS message consists of a header and a sequence of objects. An NSLP message is one object within a GIMPS message. The GIMPS header has a specific format, described in more detail in Appendix C.2 below; the NSLP header format is common to all signaling applications and includes simply a message type (which may be structured into a type field and some processing flags, depending on the application). Note that GIMPS provides the message length information and signaling application identification. Note that there is no version information at the NSLP level. It is assumed that minor protocol extensions can be implemented by adding extra objects (see Appendix C.3.2); if an NSLP has to be extended so much that backwards compatibity is no longer possible, a new signaling application identifier is allocated instead. An open issue on this subject is discussed in Section 9.9. Every object has the following general format: o The overall format is Type-Length-Value (in that order). o By default, assignments for the Type field are common across all NSIS protocols (i.e. there is a single registry). This is to facilitate the sharing of common objects across different signaling applications. The allocation of control flags to define how unknown types should be handled is also common across signaling applications; this is discussed in Appendix C.3.2. o Part of the object type space can be set aside for TLVs which for some reason should only be used within a single signaling application, see Section 8. Schulzrinne & Hancock Expires April 24, 2005 [Page 74] Internet-Draft GIMPS October 2004 o Length has the units of 32 bit words, and measures the length of Value. If there is no Value, Length=0. o Value is (therefore) a whole number of 32 bit words. If there is any padding required, the length and location must be defined by the object-specific format information; objects which contain variable length (e.g. string) types may need to include additional length subfields to do so. o Any part of the object used for padding or defined as reserved must be set to 0 on transmission and must be ignored on reception. Error messages are identified by containing an error object (i.e. an object with Type='Error'). The error object format is given in Appendix C.5.1; its Value field includes an error class, an error code, and optionally additional error-specific information. Again, the error code space is common across all protocols. C.2 The GIMPS Common Header This header precedes all GIMPS messages. It has a fixed format, as shown below. Note that (unlike NSLP messages) the GIMPS header does include a version number, since allocating new lower layer identifiers to demultiplex a new GIMPS version will be significantly harder than allocating a new NSLP identifier. 0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Version | GIMPS hops | Message length | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Signalling Application ID |D| Reserved | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ Message length = the total number of words in the message after the common header itself The flag is: D - Direction (Set for "Upstream", Unset for "Downstream") C.3 General Object Characteristics C.3.1 TLV Header Each object begins with a fixed header giving the object type and object length. The bits marked 'A' and 'B' are extensibility flags which are defined below; the remaining bits marked 'r' are reserved. Schulzrinne & Hancock Expires April 24, 2005 [Page 75] Internet-Draft GIMPS October 2004 0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |A|B|r|r| Type |r|r|r|r| Length | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ C.3.2 Object Extensibility The leading two bits of the common TLV header are used to signal the desired treatment for objects whose treatment has not been defined in the protocol specification in question (i.e. whose Type field is unknown at the receiver). The following four categories of object have been identified, and are loosely described here. AB=00 ("Mandatory"): If the object is not understood, the entire message containing it must be rejected with an error indication. AB=01 ("Optional"): If the object is not understood, it should be deleted and then the rest of the message processed as usual. AB=10 ("Forward"): If the object is not understood, it should be retained unchanged in any message forwarded as a result of message processing, but not stored locally. AB=11 ("Refresh"): If the object is not understood, it should be incorporated into the locally stored signaling application state for this flow/session, forwarded in any resulting message, and also used in any refresh or repair message which is generated locally. For objects used within the NSLP-Data payload, the precise usage of these flags must be defined for each signaling application. In particular, signaling applications must define how to indicate errors, and what it means to forward or refresh 'state'; they may also restrict whether particular flag combinations can be used. C.4 GIMPS Specific TLV Objects The objects defined in this section are expected to be used mainly by GIMPS rather than signaling applications. In the following object diagrams, '//' is used to indicate a variable sized field and ':' is used to indicate a field that is optionally present. Schulzrinne & Hancock Expires April 24, 2005 [Page 76] Internet-Draft GIMPS October 2004 C.4.1 Message-Routing-Information Type: Message-Routing-Information Length: Variable (depends on message routing method) +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Message-Routing-Method | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + // Method-specific addressing information (variable) // +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ In the case of basic path-coupled routing, the addressing information takes the following format: +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |IP-Ver |P|T|F|I|S|D| Reserved | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ // Source Address // +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ // Destination Address // +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Source Prefix | Dest Prefix | Protocol | Traffic Class | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ : Reserved : Flow Label : +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ : SPI : +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ : Source Port : Destination Port : +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ The flags are: P - Protocol T - Traffic Class F - Flow Label I - SPI S - Source Port D - Destination Port I/S/D can only be set if P is set. If only one of S, D is set, both Port fields are included in the message. However, the contents of the field are only interpreted if the corresponding flag is set. If the flag is not set, Port values will be ignored as part of the flow definition; the MRI matches all packets regardless of port. If the flag is set and Port=0x0000, the MRI will apply to a specific port, whose value is not yet known. Schulzrinne & Hancock Expires April 24, 2005 [Page 77] Internet-Draft GIMPS October 2004 C.4.2 Session Identification Type: Session-Identification Length: Fixed (TBD 4 32-bit words) +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | | + + | | + Session ID + | | + + | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ C.4.3 Node Addressing Type: Node-Addressing Length: Variable (depends on length of Peer-Identity and number of higher-layer-protocol fields present) +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | PI-Length | HL-Count |IP-Ver | Reserved | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ // Peer Identity // +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ // Interface Address // +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ // Higher-Layer-Information 1 // +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ : : +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ // Higher-Layer-Information N // +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ PI-Length = the byte length of the Peer-Identity field (note that the Peer-Identity field itself is padded to a whole number of words) HL-Count = the number of higher-layer-information fields (these contain their own length information) IP-Ver = the IP version for the Interface-Address field The higher layer information fields are formatted as follows: Schulzrinne & Hancock Expires April 24, 2005 [Page 78] Internet-Draft GIMPS October 2004 o There is a 1-byte Protocol Indicator, as described in Section 5.5. o There is a 1-byte length field defining the amount of configuration data that follows after the length field. o There is a variable length of configuration data. o There are 0, 1, 2, or 3 bytes of zero padding to the next word boundary. Note that the contents of the configuration data may differ depending on whether the NAO is in a GIMPS-query or GIMPS-response. C.4.4 Stack Proposal Type: Stack-Proposal Length: Variable (depends on number of profiles and size of each profile) +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Prof-Count | Reserved | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ // Profile 1 // +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ : : +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ // Profile 2 // +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ Prof-Count = The number of profiles in the proposal Each profile is itself a sequence of protocol layers, and the profile is formatted as a list as follows: o The first byte is a count of the number of layers in the profile. o This is followed by a sequence of 1-byte Protocol Indicators as described in Section 5.5. o The profile is padded to a word boundary with 0, 1, 2 or 3 zero bytes. C.4.5 Query Cookie Schulzrinne & Hancock Expires April 24, 2005 [Page 79] Internet-Draft GIMPS October 2004 Type: Query-Cookie Length: Variable (selected by querying node) +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | | // Query Cookie // | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ Note that the querying node uses the value of the query cookie in the GIMPS-response message on an existing messaging association to match with the corresponding GIMPS-query. This imposes certain uniqueness requirements on the cookie contents. C.4.6 Responder Cookie Type: Responder-Cookie Length: Variable (selected by responding node) +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | | // Responder Cookie // | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ Note that the responding node uses the value of the responder cookie in the GIMPS-confirm message to match a new messaging association with the corresponding GIMPS-query/response exchange. This imposes certain uniqueness requirements on the cookie contents. C.4.7 Lifetime Type: Lifetime Length: Fixed - 1 32-bit word Value: Routing state lifetime in seconds +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Lifetime | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ Schulzrinne & Hancock Expires April 24, 2005 [Page 80] Internet-Draft GIMPS October 2004 C.4.8 NAT Traversal Type: NAT-Traversal Length: Variable (depends on length of contained fields) +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | MRI-Length | Type-Count | NAT-Count | Reserved | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ // Original Message-Routing-Information // +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ // List of translated objects // +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Length of opaque NAO info. | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ // // NAO information replaced by NAT #1 | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ : : +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Length of opaque NAO info. | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ // // NAO information replaced by NAT #N | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ MRI-Length = the word length of the included MRI payload Type-Count = the number of GIMPS payloads translated by the NAT; the Type numbers are included as a list (padded with 2 null bytes if necessary) NAT-Count = the number of NATs traversed by the message, and the number of opaque NAO-related payloads at the end of the object C.4.9 NSLP Data Type: NSLP-Data Length: Variable (depends on NSLP) +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | | // NSLP Data // | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ Schulzrinne & Hancock Expires April 24, 2005 [Page 81] Internet-Draft GIMPS October 2004 C.5 Generic NSIS TLV Objects The objects defined in this section are general purpose objects, which will be used by both GIMPS and signaling applications in general. C.5.1 Error Object Type: Error Length: Variable (depends on error) Value: Contains a 1 byte error class and 3 byte error code, an error source identifier and optionally variable length error-specific information. +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Error Class | Error Code | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | ESI-Length | Reserved | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ // Error Source Identifier // +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ // Optional error-specific information // +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ The first byte "Error Class" indicates the severity level. The currently defined severity levels are: Informational: response data which should not be thought of as changing the condition of the protocol state machine. Success: response data which indicates that the message being responded to has been processed successfully in some sense. Protocol-Error: the message has been rejected because of a protocol error (e.g. an error in message format). Transient-Failure: the message has been rejected because of a particular local node status which may be transient (i.e. it may be worthwhile to retry after some delay). Permanent-Failure: the message has been rejected because of local node status which will not change without additional out of band (e.g. management) operations. Additional error class values are reserved. Schulzrinne & Hancock Expires April 24, 2005 [Page 82] Internet-Draft GIMPS October 2004 The allocation of error classes to particular errors is not precise; the above descriptions are deliberately informal. Actually error processing should take into account the specific error in question; the error class may be useful supporting information (e.g. in network debugging). The Error Source Identifier can be generated in an implementation-specific manner. It is suggested that the same method is used as for the Peer Identity in the Node Addressing object. ESI-Length is given in bytes (excluding padding). The Error Source Identifier MUST be padded to make it a whole number of 32-bit words in length. The optional additional error-specific information fills the rest of the object up to the length given in the object header. The Error object may be carried either at the GIMPS level to indicate GIMPS errors, or at the NSLP level (inside the NSLP-Data object) to indicate NSLP errors. However, the format and error code assignments are common to both uses. Schulzrinne & Hancock Expires April 24, 2005 [Page 83] Internet-Draft GIMPS October 2004 Appendix D. API between GIMPS and NSLP This appendix provides an initial abstract API between GIMPS and NSLPs. This does not constrain implementors, but rather helps clarify the interface between the different layers of the NSIS protocol suite. In addition, although some of the data types carry the information from GIMPS Information Elements, this does not imply that the format of that data as sent over the API has to be the same. Conceptually the API has similarities to the UDP sockets API, particularly that for unconnected UDP sockets. An extension for an API like that for UDP connected sockets could be considered. In this case, for example, the only information needed in a SendMessage primitive would be NSLP-Data, NSLP-Data-Size, and NSLP-Message-Handle (which can be null). Other information which was persistent for a group of messages could be configured once for the socket. Such extensions may make a concrete implementation more scalable and efficient but do not change the API semantics, and so are not considered further here. D.1 SendMessage This primitive is passed from an NSLP to GIMPS. It is used whenever the NSLP wants to send a message. SendMessage ( NSLP-Data, NSLP-Data-Size, NSLP-Message-Handle, NSLP-Id, Session-ID, MRI, Direction, Source-SII-Handle, Peer-SII-Handle, Transfer-Attributes, Timeout, IP-TTL ) The following arguments are mandatory. NSLP-Data: The NSLP message itself. NSLP-Data-Size: The length of NSLP-Data. NSLP-Message-Handle: A handle for this message, that can be used later by GIMPS to reference it in error messages, etc. A NULL handle may be supplied if the NSLP is not interested in receiving MessageDeliveryError notifications for this message. NSLP-Id: An identifier indicating which NSLP this is. Session-ID: The NSIS session identifier. Note that it is assumed that the signaling application provides this to GIMPS rather than GIMPS providing a value itself; often, this will be a value Schulzrinne & Hancock Expires April 24, 2005 [Page 84] Internet-Draft GIMPS October 2004 associated with an existing session, for example received in an incoming message. In the case of an entirely new session, a GIMPS implementation might provide library functionality to generate a new, cryptographically random SID which is guaranteed not to collide with any existing session. MRI: Message routing information for use by GIMPS in determining the correct next GIMPS hop for this message. It contains, for example, the flow source/destination addresses and the type of routing to use for the signaling message. The message routing information implies the message routing method to be used. Direction: A flag indicating whether the message is to be sent in the upstream or downstream direction (in relation to the MRI). The following arguments are optional. Source-SII-Handle: A handle, previously supplied by GIMPS in RecvMessage, which indicates that the NSLP wishes to originate the message as though it came from the identified source (e.g. so responses will be returned to that source). Will cause an error if set with a large payload or non-trivial Transfer-Attributes. Peer-SII-Handle: A handle, previously supplied by GIMPS, to a data structure (identifying peer addresses and interfaces) that should be used to explicitly route the message to a particular GIMPS next hop. If supplied, GIMPS should validate that it is consistent with the MRI. Transfer-Attributes: Attributes defining how the message should be handled (see Section 4.1.2). The following attributes can be considered: Reliability: Values 'unreliable' (default) or 'reliable'. Security: Values for further refinement. Local Processing: This attribute contains hints from the NSLP about what local policy should be applied to the message; in particular, its transmission priority relative to other messages, or whether GIMPS should attempt to set up or maintain forward routing state. Timeout: Length of time GIMPS should attempt to send this message before indicating an error. Schulzrinne & Hancock Expires April 24, 2005 [Page 85] Internet-Draft GIMPS October 2004 IP-TTL: The value of the IP TTL that should be used when sending this message. D.2 RecvMessage This primitive is passed from GIMPS to an NSLP. It is used whenever GIMPS receives a message from the network. This primitive can return a value from the NSLP which indicates whether the NSLP wishes GIMPS to retain message routing state. RecvMessage ( NSLP-Data, NSLP-Data-Size, NSLP-Id, Session-ID, MRI, Direction, SII-Handle, Transfer-Attributes, IP-TTL, Original-TTL ) NSLP-Data: The NSLP message itself (may be empty). NSLP-Data-Size: The length of NSLP-Data (may be zero). NSLP-Id: An identifier indicating which NSLP this is message is for. Session-ID: The NSIS session identifier. MRI: Message routing information that was used by GIMPS in forwarding this message. It contains, for example, the flow source/destination addresses and the type of routing to used for the signaling message. Implicitly defines the message routing method that was used. Direction: A flag indicating whether the message was received going in the upstream or downstream direction (in relation to the MRI). SII-Handle: A handle to a data structure, identifying peer addresses and interfaces. Can be used to identify route changes and for explicit routing to a particular GIMPS next hop. Transfer-Attributes: The reliability and security attributes that were associated with the reception of this particular message. IP-TTL: The value of the IP TTL (or Hop Limit) associated with this message. Original-TTL: The value of the IP TTL (or Hop Limit) at the time of sending of the packet that contained this message. Schulzrinne & Hancock Expires April 24, 2005 [Page 86] Internet-Draft GIMPS October 2004 D.3 MessageDeliveryError This primitive is passed from GIMPS to an NSLP. It is used to notify the NSLP that a message that it requested to be sent has failed to be dispatched. MessageDeliveryError ( NSLP-Message-Handle, Error-Type ) NSLP-Message-Handle: A handle for the message provided by the NSLP at the time of sending. Error-Type: Indicates the type of error that occurred. For example, 'no next node found'. D.4 NetworkNotification This primitive is passed from GIMPS to an NSLP. It indicates that a network event of possible interest to the NSLP occurred. NetworkNotification ( MRI, Network-Notification-Type ) MRI: Provides the message routing information to which the network notification applies. Network-Notification-Type: Indicates the type of event that caused the notification, e.g. downstream route change, upstream route change, detection that this is the last node. D.5 SecurityProtocolAttributesRequest This primitive is passed from GIMPS to an NSLP. It is sent when GIMPS requires the NSLP to make decisions (e.g. check policy) or provide information for authentication parameters to be used when setting up a messaging association. SecurityProtocolAttributesRequest ( Peer-Info, Security-Protocol, Request-Type ) Peer-Info: Information identifying the GIMPS peer and interface Security-Protocol: A value indicating the security protocol being used (TLS, IPsec, etc). Schulzrinne & Hancock Expires April 24, 2005 [Page 87] Internet-Draft GIMPS October 2004 Request-Type: An indication of the type of information required (e.g. client certificate) D.6 SetStateLifetime This primitive is passed from an NSLP to GIMPS. It indicates the lifetime for which the NSLP would like GIMPS to retain its state. It can also give a hint that the NSLP is no longer interested in the state. SetStateLifetime ( MRI, Direction, State-Lifetime ) MRI: Provides the message routing information to which the network notification applies. Direction: A flag indicating whether this relates to state for the upstream or downstream direction (in relation to the MRI). State-Lifetime: Indicates the lifetime for which the NSLP wishes GIMPS to retain its state (may be zero, indicating that the NSLP has no further interest in the GIMPS state). D.7 InvalidateRoutingState This primitive is passed from an NSLP to GIMPS. It indicates that the NSLP has knowledge that the next signaling hop known to GIMPS may no longer be valid, either because of changes in the network routing or the processing capabilities of NSLP nodes. It is an indication to GIMPS to restart the discovery process. InvalidateRoutingState ( NSLP-Id, MRI, Direction, Urgency ) NSLP-Id: The NSLP originating the message. May be null (in which case the invalidation applies to all signaling applications). MRI: The flow for which routing state should be invalidated. Direction: A flag indicating whether this relates to state for the upstream or downstream direction (in relation to the MRI). Urgency: A hint to GIMPS as to whether rediscovery should take place immediately, or only when the next signaling message is ready to be sent. Schulzrinne & Hancock Expires April 24, 2005 [Page 88] Internet-Draft GIMPS October 2004 Intellectual Property Statement The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in this document or the extent to which any license under such rights might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has made any independent effort to identify any such rights. Information on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be found in BCP 78 and BCP 79. Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at http://www.ietf.org/ipr. The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement this standard. Please address the information to the IETF at ietf-ipr@ietf.org. Disclaimer of Validity This document and the information contained herein are provided on an "AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM 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. Copyright Statement Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2004). This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions contained in BCP 78, and except as set forth therein, the authors retain all their rights. Acknowledgment Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the Internet Society. Schulzrinne & Hancock Expires April 24, 2005 [Page 89]