Network Working Group M. Laubach
Request for Comments: 1577 Hewlett-Packard Laboratories
Category: Standards Track January 1994
Classical IP and ARP over ATM
Status of this Memo
This document specifies an Internet standards track protocol for the
Internet community, and requests discussion and suggestions for
improvements. Please refer to the current edition of the "Internet
Official Protocol Standards" (STD 1) for the standardization state
and status of this protocol. Distribution of this memo is unlimited.
Abstract
This memo defines an initial application of classical IP and ARP in
an Asynchronous Transfer Mode (ATM) network environment configured as
a Logical IP Subnetwork (LIS) as described in Section 3. This memo
does not preclude the subsequent development of ATM technology into
areas other than a LIS; specifically, as single ATM networks grow to
replace many ethernet local LAN segments and as these networks become
globally connected, the application of IP and ARP will be treated
differently. This memo considers only the application of ATM as a
direct replacement for the "wires" and local LAN segments connecting
IP end-stations ("members") and routers operating in the "classical"
LAN-based paradigm. Issues raised by MAC level bridging and LAN
emulation are beyond the scope of this paper.
This memo introduces general ATM technology and nomenclature.
Readers are encouraged to review the ATM Forum and ITU-TS (formerly
CCITT) references for more detailed information about ATM
implementation agreements and standards.
Acknowledgments
This memo could not have come into being without the critical review
from Jim Forster of Cisco Systems, Drew Perkins of FORE Systems, and
Bryan Lyles, Steve Deering, and Berry Kercheval of XEROX PARC. The
concepts and models presented in [1], written by Dave Piscitello and
Joseph Lawrence, laid the structural groundwork for this work. ARP
[3] written by Dave Plummer and Inverse ARP [12] written by Terry
Bradley and Caralyn Brown are the foundation of ATMARP presented in
this memo. This document could have not been completed without the
expertise of the IP over ATM Working Group of the IETF and the ad hoc
PVC committee at the Amsterdam IETF meeting.
Laubach [Page 1]RFC 1577 Classical IP and ARP over ATM January 1993
1. Conventions
The following language conventions are used in the items of
specification in this document:
o MUST, SHALL, or MANDATORY -- the item is an absolute requirement
of the specification.
o SHOULD or RECOMMEND -- this item should generally be followed for
all but exceptional circumstances.
o MAY or OPTIONAL -- the item is truly optional and may be followed
or ignored according to the needs of the implementor.
2. Introduction
The goal of this specification is to allow compatible and
interoperable implementations for transmitting IP datagrams and ATM
Address Resolution Protocol (ATMARP) requests and replies over ATM
Adaptation Layer 5 (AAL5)[2,6].
Note: this memo defines only the operation of IP and address
resolution over ATM, and is not meant to describe the operation of
ATM networks. Any reference to virtual connections, permanent virtual
connections, or switched virtual connections applies only to virtual
channel connections used to support IP and address resolution over
ATM, and thus are assumed to be using AAL5. This memo places no
restrictions or requirements on virtual connections used for other
purposes.
Initial deployment of ATM provides a LAN segment replacement for:
1) Local area networks (e.g., Ethernets, Token Rings and FDDI).
2) Local-area backbones between existing (non-ATM) LANs.
3) Dedicated circuits or frame relay PVCs between IP routers.
Note: In 1), local IP routers with one or more ATM interfaces will be
able to connect islands of ATM networks. In 3), public or private
ATM Wide Area networks will be used to connect IP routers, which in
turn may or may not connect to local ATM networks. ATM WANs and LANs
may be interconnected.
Private ATM networks (local or wide area) will use the private ATM
address structure specified in the ATM Forum UNI specification [9].
This structure is modeled after the format of an OSI Network Service
Access Point Address. A private ATM address uniquely identifies an
Laubach [Page 2]RFC 1577 Classical IP and ARP over ATM January 1993
ATM endpoint. Public networks will use either the address structure
specified in ITU-TS recommendation E.164 or the private network ATM
address structure. An E.164 address uniquely identifies an interface
to a public network.
The characteristics and features of ATM networks are different than
those found in LANs:
o ATM provides a Virtual Connection (VC) switched environment. VC
setup may be done on either a Permanent Virtual Connection (PVC)
or dynamic Switched Virtual Connection (SVC) basis. SVC call
management signalling is performed via implementations of the
Q.93B protocol [7,9].
o Data to be passed by a VC is segmented into 53 octet quantities
called cells (5 octets of ATM header and 48 octets of data).
o The function of mapping user Protocol Data Units (PDUs) into the
information field of the ATM cell and vice versa is performed in
the ATM Adaptation Layer (AAL). When a VC is created a specific
AAL type is associated with the VC. There are four different AAL
types, which are referred to individually as "AAL1", "AAL2",
"AAL3/4", and "AAL5". (Note: this memo concerns itself with the
mapping of IP and ATMARP over AAL5 only. The other AAL types are
mentioned for introductory purposes only.) The AAL type is known
by the VC end points via the call setup mechanism and is not
carried in the ATM cell header. For PVCs the AAL type is
administratively configured at the end points when the Connection
(circuit) is set up. For SVCs, the AAL type is communicated
along the VC path via Q.93B as part of call setup establishment
and the end points use the signaled information for
configuration. ATM switches generally do not care about the AAL
type of VCs. The AAL5 format specifies a packet format with a
maximum size of (64K - 1) octets of user data. Cells for an AAL5
PDU are transmitted first to last, the last cell indicating the
end of the PDU. ATM standards guarantee that on a given VC, cell
ordering is preserved end-to-end. NOTE: AAL5 provides a non-
assured data transfer service - it is up to higher-level
protocols to provide retransmission.
o ATM Forum signalling defines point-to-point and point-to-
multipoint Connection setup [9]. Multipoint-to-multipoint VCs
are not yet specified by ITU-TS or ATM Forum.
o An ATM Forum ATM endpoint address is either encoded as an NSAP
Address (NSAPA) or is an E.164 Public-UNI address [9]. In some
cases, both an ATM endpoint address and an E.164 Public UNI
address are needed by an ATMARP client to reach another host or
Laubach [Page 3]RFC 1577 Classical IP and ARP over ATM January 1993
router. Since the use of ATM endpoint addresses and E.164 public
UNI addresses by ATMARP are analogous to the use of Ethernet
addresses, the notion of "hardware address" is extended to
encompass ATM addresses in the context of ATMARP, even though ATM
addresses need not have hardware significance. ATM Forum NSAPAs
use the same basic format as U.S. GOSIP NSAPAs [11]. Note: ATM
Forum addresses should not be construed as being U.S. GOSIP
NSAPAs. They are not, the administration is different, which
fields get filled out are different, etc.
This memo describes the initial deployment of ATM within "classical"
IP networks as a direct replacement for local area networks
(ethernets) and for IP links which interconnect routers, either
within or between administrative domains. The "classical" model here
refers to the treatment of the ATM host adapter as a networking
interface to the IP protocol stack operating in a LAN-based paradigm.
Characteristics of the classical model are:
o The same maximum transmission unit (MTU) size is used for all VCs
in a LIS [2]. (Refer to Section 5.)
o Default LLC/SNAP encapsulation of IP packets.
o End-to-end IP routing architecture stays the same.
o IP addresses are resolved to ATM addresses by use of an ATMARP
service within the LIS - ATMARPs stay within the LIS. From a
client's perspective, the ATMARP architecture stays faithful to
the basic ARP model presented in [3].
o One IP subnet is used for many hosts and routers. Each VC
directly connects two IP members within the same LIS.
Future memos will describe the operation of IP over ATM when ATM
networks become globally deployed and interconnected.
The deployment of ATM into the Internet community is just beginning
and will take many years to complete. During the early part of this
period, we expect deployment to follow traditional IP subnet
boundaries for the following reasons:
o Administrators and managers of IP subnetworks will tend to
initially follow the same models as they currently have deployed.
The mindset of the community will change slowly over time as ATM
increases its coverage and builds its credibility.
Laubach [Page 4]RFC 1577 Classical IP and ARP over ATM January 1993
o Policy administration practices rely on the security, access,
routing, and filtering capability of IP Internet gateways: i.e.,
firewalls. ATM will not be allowed to "back-door" around these
mechanisms until ATM provides better management capability than
the existing services and practices.
o Standards for global IP over ATM will take some time to complete
and deploy.
This memo details the treatment of the classical model of IP and
ATMARP over ATM. This memo does not preclude the subsequent treatment
of ATM networks within the IP framework as ATM becomes globally
deployed and interconnected; this will be the subject of future
documents. This memo does not address issues related to transparent
data link layer interoperability.
3. IP Subnetwork Configuration
In the LIS scenario, each separate administrative entity configures
its hosts and routers within a closed logical IP subnetwork. Each
LIS operates and communicates independently of other LISs on the same
ATM network. Hosts connected to ATM communicate directly to other
hosts within the same LIS. Communication to hosts outside of the
local LIS is provided via an IP router. This router is an ATM
Endpoint attached to the ATM network that is configured as a member
of one or more LISs. This configuration may result in a number of
disjoint LISs operating over the same ATM network. Hosts of differing
IP subnets MUST communicate via an intermediate IP router even though
it may be possible to open a direct VC between the two IP members
over the ATM network.
The requirements for IP members (hosts, routers) operating in an ATM
LIS configuration are:
o All members have the same IP network/subnet number and address
mask [8].
o All members within a LIS are directly connected to the ATM
network.
o All members outside of the LIS are accessed via a router.
o All members of a LIS MUST have a mechanism for resolving IP
addresses to ATM addresses via ATMARP (based on [3]) and vice
versa via InATMARP (based on [12]) when using SVCs. Refer to
Section 6 "Address Resolution" in this memo.
Laubach [Page 5]RFC 1577 Classical IP and ARP over ATM January 1993
o All members of a LIS MUST have a mechanism for resolving VCs to
IP addresses via InATMARP (based on [12]) when using PVCs. Refer
to Section 6 "Address Resolution" in this memo.
o All members within a LIS MUST be able to communicate via ATM with
all other members in the same LIS; i.e., the virtual Connection
topology underlying the intercommunication among the members is
fully meshed.
The following list identifies a set of ATM specific parameters that
MUST be implemented in each IP station connected to the ATM network:
o ATM Hardware Address (atm$ha). The ATM address of the individual
IP station.
o ATMARP Request Address (atm$arp-req). atm$arp-req is the ATM
address of an individual ATMARP server located within the LIS.
In an SVC environment, ATMARP requests are sent to this address
for the resolution of target protocol addresses to target ATM
addresses. That server MUST have authoritative responsibility
for resolving ATMARP requests of all IP members within the LIS.
Note: if the LIS is operating with PVCs only, then this parameter
may be set to null and the IP station is not required to send
ATMARP requests to the ATMARP server.
It is RECOMMENDED that routers providing LIS functionality over the
ATM network also support the ability to interconnect multiple LISs.
Routers that wish to provide interconnection of differing LISs MUST
be able to support multiple sets of these parameters (one set for
each connected LIS) and be able to associate each set of parameters
to a specific IP network/ subnet number. In addition, it is
RECOMMENDED that a router be able to provide this multiple LIS
support with a single physical ATM interface that may have one or
more individual ATM endpoint addresses. Note: this does not
necessarily mean different End System Identifiers (ESIs) when NSAPAs
are used. The last octet of an NSAPA is the NSAPA Selector (SEL)
field which can be used to differentiate up to 256 different LISs for
the same ESI. (Refer to Section 5.1.3.1, "Private Networks" in [9].)
4. Packet Format
Implementations MUST support IEEE 802.2 LLC/SNAP encapsulation as
described in [2]. LLC/SNAP encapsulation is the default packet
format for IP datagrams.
This memo recognizes that other encapsulation methods may be used
however, in the absence of other knowledge or agreement, LLC/SNAP
encapsulation is the default.
Laubach [Page 6]RFC 1577 Classical IP and ARP over ATM January 1993
This memo recognizes the future deployment of end-to-end signalling
within ATM that will allow negotiation of encapsulation method on a
per-VC basis. Signalling negotiations are beyond the scope of this
memo.
5. MTU Size
The default MTU size for IP members operating over the ATM network
SHALL be 9180 octets. The LLC/SNAP header is 8 octets, therefore the
default ATM AAL5 protocol data unit size is 9188 octets [2]. In
classical IP subnets, values other than the default can be used if
and only if all members in the LIS have been configured to use the
non-default value.
This memo recognizes the future deployment of end-to-end signalling
within ATM that will allow negotiation of MTU size on a per-VC basis.
Signalling negotiations are beyond the scope of this document.
6. Address Resolution
Address resolution within an ATM logical IP subnet SHALL make use of
the ATM Address Resolution Protocol (ATMARP) (based on [3]) and the
Inverse ATM Address Resolution Protocol (InATMARP) (based on [12]) as
defined in this memo. ATMARP is the same protocol as the ARP
protocol presented in [3] with extensions needed to support ARP in a
unicast server ATM environment. InATMARP is the same protocol as the
original InARP protocol presented in [12] but applied to ATM
networks. All IP stations MUST support these protocols as updated
and extended in this memo. Use of these protocols differs depending
on whether PVCs or SVCs are used.
6.1 Permanent Virtual Connections
An IP station MUST have a mechanism (eg. manual configuration) for
determining what PVCs it has, and in particular which PVCs are being
used with LLC/SNAP encapsulation. The details of the mechanism are
beyond the scope of this memo.
All IP members supporting PVCs are required to use the Inverse ATM
Address Resolution Protocol (InATMARP) (refer to [12]) on those VCs
using LLC/SNAP encapsulation. In a strict PVC environment, the
receiver SHALL infer the relevant VC from the VC on which the
InATMARP request (InARP_REQUEST) or response (InARP_REPLY) was
received. When the ATM source and/or target address is unknown, the
corresponding ATM address length in the InATMARP packet MUST be set
to zero (0) indicating a null length, otherwise the appropriate
address field should be filled in and the corresponding length set
appropriately. InATMARP packet format details are presented later in
Laubach [Page 7]
RFC 1577 Classical IP and ARP over ATM January 1993
this memo.
Directly from [12]: "When the requesting station receives the InARP
reply, it may complete the [ATM]ARP table entry and use the provided
address information. Note: as with [ATM]ARP, information learned via
In[ATM]ARP may be aged or invalidated under certain circumstances."
It is the responsibility of each IP station supporting PVCs to re-
validate [ATM]ARP table entries as part of the aging process. See
Section 6.5 on "ATMARP Table Aging".
6.2 Switched Virtual Connections
SVCs require support for ATMARP in the non-broadcast, non-multicast
environment that ATM networks currently provide. To meet this need a
single ATMARP Server MUST be located within the LIS. This server MUST
have authoritative responsibility for resolving the ATMARP requests
of all IP members within the LIS.
The server itself does not actively establish connections. It
depends on the clients in the LIS to initiate the ATMARP registration
procedure. An individual client connects to the ATMARP server using
a point-to-point VC. The server, upon the completion of an ATM
call/connection of a new VC specifying LLC/SNAP encapsulation, will
transmit an InATMARP request to determine the IP address of the
client. The InATMARP reply from the client contains the information
necessary for the ATMARP Server to build its ATMARP table cache. This
information is used to generate replies to the ATMARP requests it
receives.
The ATMARP Server mechanism requires that each client be
administratively configured with the ATM address of the ATMARP Server
atm$arp-req as defined earlier in this memo. There is to be one and
only one ATMARP Server operational per logical IP subnet. It is
RECOMMENDED that the ATMARP Server also be an IP station. This
station MUST be administratively configured to operate and recognize
itself as the ATMARP Server for a LIS. The ATMARP Server MUST be
configured with an IP address for each logical IP subnet it is
serving to support InATMARP requests.
This memo recognizes that a single ATMARP Server is not as robust as
multiple servers which synchronize their databases correctly. This
document is defining the client-server interaction by using a simple,
single server approach as a reference model, and does not prohibit
more robust approaches which use the same client-server interface.
Laubach [Page 8]
RFC 1577 Classical IP and ARP over ATM January 1993
6.3 ATMARP Server Operational Requirements
The ATMARP server accepts ATM calls/connections from other ATM end
points. At call setup and if the VC supports LLC/SNAP encapsulation,
the ATMARP server will transmit to the originating ATM station an
InATMARP request (InARP_REQUEST) for each logical IP subnet the
server is configured to serve. After receiving an InATMARP reply
(InARP_REPLY), the server will examine the IP address and the ATM
address. The server will add (or update) the <ATM address, IP
address> map entry and timestamp into its ATMARP table. If the
InATMARP IP address duplicates a table entry IP address and the
InATMARP ATM address does not match the table entry ATM address and
there is an open VC associated with that table entry, the InATMARP
information is discarded and no modifications to the table are made.
ATMARP table entries persist until aged or invalidated. VC call tear
down does not remove ATMARP table entries.
The ATMARP server, upon receiving an ATMARP request (ARP_REQUEST),
will generate the corresponding ATMARP reply (ARP_REPLY) if it has an
entry in its ATMARP table. Otherwise it will generate a negative
ATMARP reply (ARP_NAK). The ARP_NAK response is an extension to the
ARMARP protocol and is used to improve the robustness of the ATMARP
server mechanism. With ARP_NAK, a client can determine the
difference between a catastrophic server failure and an ATMARP table
lookup failure. The ARP_NAK packet format is the same as the
received ARP_REQUEST packet format with the operation code set to
ARP_NAK, i.e., the ARP_REQUEST packet data is merely copied for
transmission with the ARP_REQUEST operation code reset to ARP_NAK.
Updating the ATMARP table information timeout, the short form: when
the server receives an ATMARP request over a VC, where the source IP
and ATM address match the association already in the ATMARP table and
the ATM address matches that associated with the VC, the server may
update the timeout on the source ATMARP table entry: i.e., if the
client is sending ATMARP requests to the server over the same VC that
it used to register its ATMARP entry, the server should examine the
ATMARP requests and note that the client is still "alive" by updating
the timeout on the client's ATMARP table entry.
Adding robustness to the address resolution mechanism using ATMARP:
when the server receives an ARP_REQUEST over a VC, it examines the
source information. If there is no IP address associated with the VC
over which the ATMARP request was received and if the source IP
address is not associated with any other connection, then the server
will add the <ATM address, IP address> entry and timestamp into its
ATMARP table and associate the entry with this VC.
Laubach [Page 9]
RFC 1577 Classical IP and ARP over ATM January 1993
6.4 ATMARP Client Operational Requirements
The ATMARP client is responsible for contacting the ATMARP server to
register its own ATMARP information and to gain and refresh its own
ATMARP entry/information about other IP members. This means, as
noted above, that ATMARP clients MUST be configured with the ATM
address of the ATMARP server. ATMARP clients MUST:
1. Initiate the VC connection to the ATMARP server for
transmitting and receiving ATMARP and InATMARP packets.
2. Respond to ARP_REQUEST and InARP_REQUEST packets received on
any VC appropriately. (Refer to Section 7, "Protocol Operation"
in [12].)
3. Generate and transmit ARP_REQUEST packets to the ATMARP server
and to process ARP_REPLY and ARP_NAK packets from the server
appropriately. ARP_REPLY packets should be used to
build/refresh its own client ATMARP table entries.
4. Generate and transmit InARP_REQUEST packets as needed and to
process InARP_REPLY packets appropriately. InARP_REPLY packets
should be used to build/refresh its own client ATMARP table
entries. (Refer to Section 7, "Protocol Operation" in [12].)
5. Provide an ATMARP table aging function to remove its own old
client ATMARP tables entries after a convenient period of time.
Note: if the client does not maintain an open VC to the server, the
client MUST refresh its ATMARP information with the server at least
once every 20 minutes. This is done by opening a VC to the server
and exchanging the initial InATMARP packets.
6.5 ATMARP Table Aging
An ATMARP client or server MUST have knowledge of any open VCs it has
(permanent or switched), their association with an ATMARP table
entry, and in particular, which VCs support LLC/SNAP encapsulation.
Client ATMARP table entries are valid for a maximum time of 15
minutes.
Server ATMARP table entries are valid for a minimum time of 20
minutes.
Prior to aging an ATMARP table entry, an ATMARP server MUST generate
an InARP_REQUEST on any open VC associated with that entry. If an
InARP_REPLY is received, that table entry is updated and not deleted.
Laubach [Page 10]RFC 1577 Classical IP and ARP over ATM January 1993
If there is no open VC associated with the table entry, the entry is
deleted.
When an ATMARP table entry ages, an ATMARP client MUST invalidate the
table entry. If there is no open VC associated with the invalidated
entry, that entry is deleted. In the case of an invalidated entry and
an open VC, the ATMARP client must revalidate the entry prior to
transmitting any non address resolution traffic on that VC. In the
case of a PVC, the client validates the entry by transmitting an
InARP_REQUEST and updating the entry on receipt of an InARP_REPLY. In
the case of an SVC, the client validates the entry by transmitting an
ARP_REQUEST to the ATMARP Server and updating the entry on receipt of
an ARP_REPLY. If a VC with an associated invalidated ATMARP table
entry is closed, that table entry is removed.
6.6 ATMARP and InATMARP Packet Format
Internet addresses are assigned independently of ATM addresses. Each
host implementation MUST know its own IP and ATM address(es) and MUST
respond to address resolution requests appropriately. IP members
MUST also use ATMARP and InATMARP to resolve IP addresses to ATM
addresses when needed.
The ATMARP and InATMARP protocols use the same hardware type
(ar$hrd), protocol type (ar$pro), and operation code (ar$op) data
formats as the ARP and InARP protocols [3,12]. The location of these
fields within the ATMARP packet are in the same byte position as
those in ARP and InARP packets. A unique hardware type value has
been assigned for ATMARP. In addition, ATMARP makes use of an
additional operation code for ARP_NAK. The remainder of the
ATMARP/InATMARP packet format is different than the ARP/InARP packet
format.
The ATMARP and InATMARP protocols have several fields that have the
following format and values:
Data:
ar$hrd 16 bits Hardware type
ar$pro 16 bits Protocol type
ar$shtl 8 bits Type & length of source ATM number (q)
ar$sstl 8 bits Type & length of source ATM subaddress (r)
ar$op 16 bits Operation code (request, reply, or NAK)
ar$spln 8 bits Length of source protocol address (s)
ar$thtl 8 bits Type & length of target ATM number (x)
ar$tstl 8 bits Type & length of target ATM subaddress (y)
ar$tpln 8 bits Length of target protocol address (z)
ar$sha qoctets source ATM number
ar$ssa roctets source ATM subaddress
Laubach [Page 11]RFC 1577 Classical IP and ARP over ATM January 1993
ar$spa soctets source protocol address
ar$tha xoctets target ATM number
ar$tsa yoctets target ATM subaddress
ar$tpa zoctets target protocol address
Where:
ar$hrd - assigned to ATM Forum address family and is
19 decimal (0x0013) [4].
ar$pro - see Assigned Numbers for protocol type number for
the protocol using ATMARP. (IP is 0x0800).
ar$op - The operation type value (decimal):
ARP_REQUEST = 1
ARP_REPLY = 2
InARP_REQUEST = 8
InARP_REPLY = 9
ARP_NAK = 10
ar$spln - length in octets of the source protocol address. For
IP ar$spln is 4.
ar$tpln - length in octets of the target protocol address. For
IP ar$tpln is 4.
ar$sha - source ATM number (E.164 or ATM Forum NSAPA)
ar$ssa - source ATM subaddress (ATM Forum NSAPA)
ar$spa - source protocol address
ar$tha - target ATM number (E.164 or ATM Forum NSAPA)
ar$tsa - target ATM subaddress (ATM Forum NSAPA)
ar$tpa - target protocol address
Laubach [Page 12]RFC 1577 Classical IP and ARP over ATM January 1993
The encoding of the 8-bit type and length value for ar$shtl,
ar$sstl, ar$thtl, and ar$tstl is as follows:
MSB 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 LSB
+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+
| 0 | 1/0 | Octet length of address |
+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+
Where:
bit.8 (reserved) = 0 (for future use)
bit.7 (type) = 0 ATM Forum NSAPA format
= 1 E.164 format
bit.6-1 (length) = 6 bit unsigned octet length of address
(MSB = bit.6, LSB = bit.1)
ATM addresses in Q.93B (as defined by the ATM Forum UNI 3.0
signalling specification [9]) include a "Calling Party Number
Information Element" and a "Calling Party Subaddress Information
Element". These Information Elements (IEs) SHOULD map to
ATMARP/InATMARP source ATM number and source ATM subaddress
respectively. Furthermore, ATM Forum defines a "Called Party Number
Information Element" and a "Called Party Subaddress Information
Element". These IEs map to ATMARP/InATMARP target ATM number and
target ATM subaddress respectively.
The ATM Forum defines three structures for the combined use of number
and subaddress [9]:
ATM Number ATM Subaddress
-------------- --------------
Structure 1 ATM Forum NSAPA null
Structure 2 E.164 null
Structure 3 E.164 ATM Forum NSAPA
IP members MUST register their ATM endpoint address with their ATMARP
server using the ATM address structure appropriate for their ATM
network connection: i.e., LISs implemented over ATM LANs following
ATM Forum UNI 3.0 should register using Structure 1; LISs implemented
over an E.164 "public" ATM network should register using Structure 2.
A LIS implemented over a combination of ATM LANs and public ATM
networks may need to register using Structure 3. Implementations
based on this memo MUST support all three ATM address structures.
ATMARP and InATMARP requests and replies for ATM address structures 1
and 2 MUST indicate a null ATM subaddress; i.e., ar$sstl.type = 1 and
Laubach [Page 13]RFC 1577 Classical IP and ARP over ATM January 1993
ar$sstl.length = 0 and ar$tstl.type = 1 and ar$tstl.length = 0. When
ar$sstl.length and ar$tstl.length =0, the ar$tsa and ar$ssa fields
are not present.
Note: the ATMARP packet format presented in this memo is general in
nature in that the ATM number and ATM subaddress fields SHOULD map
directly to the corresponding Q.93B fields used for ATM
call/connection setup signalling messages. The IP over ATM Working
Group expects ATM Forum NSAPA numbers (Structure 1) to predominate
over E.164 numbers (Structure 2) as ATM endpoint identifiers within
ATM LANs. The ATM Forum's VC Routing specification is not complete
at this time and therefore its impact on the operational use of ATM
Address Structure 3 is undefined. The ATM Forum will be defining this
relationship in the future. It is for this reason that IP members
need to support all three ATM address structures.
6.7 ATMARP/InATMARP Packet Encapsulation
ATMARP and InATMARP packets are to be encoded in AAL5 PDUs using
LLC/SNAP encapsulation. The format of the AAL5 CPCS-SDU payload field
for ATMARP/InATMARP PDUs is:
Payload Format for ATMARP/InATMARP PDUs:
+------------------------------+
| LLC 0xAA-AA-03 |
+------------------------------+
| OUI 0x00-00-00 |
+------------------------------+
| Ethertype 0x08-06 |
+------------------------------+
| |
| ATMARP/InATMARP Packet |
| |
+------------------------------+
The LLC value of 0xAA-AA-03 (3 octets) indicates the presence of a
SNAP header.
The OUI value of 0x00-00-00 (3 octets) indicates that the following
two-bytes is an ethertype.
The Ethertype value of 0x08-06 (2 octets) indicates ARP [4].
The total size of the LLC/SNAP header is fixed at 8-octets. This
aligns the start of the ATMARP packet on a 64-bit boundary relative
to the start of the AAL5 CPCS-SDU.
Laubach [Page 14]RFC 1577 Classical IP and ARP over ATM January 1993
The LLC/SNAP encapsulation for ATMARP/InATMARP presented here is
consistent with the treatment of multiprotocol encapsulation of IP
over ATM AAL5 as specified in [2] and in the format of ATMARP over
IEEE 802 networks as specified in [5].
Traditionally, address resolution requests are broadcast to all
directly connected IP members within a LIS. It is conceivable in the
future that larger scaled ATM networks may handle ATMARP requests to
destinations outside the originating LIS, perhaps even globally;
issues raised by ATMARP'ing outside the LIS or by a global ATMARP
mechanism are beyond the scope of this memo.
7. IP Broadcast Address
ATM does not support broadcast addressing, therefore there are no
mappings available from IP broadcast addresses to ATM broadcast
services. Note: this lack of mapping does not restrict members from
transmitting or receiving IP datagrams specifying any of the four
standard IP broadcast address forms as described in [8]. Members,
upon receiving an IP broadcast or IP subnet broadcast for their LIS,
MUST process the packet as if addressed to that station.
8. IP Multicast Address
ATM does not support multicast address services, therefore there are
no mappings available from IP multicast addresses to ATM multicast
services. Current IP multicast implementations (i.e., MBONE and IP
tunneling, see [10]) will continue to operate over ATM based logical
IP subnets if operated in the WAN configuration.
This memo recognizes the future development of ATM multicast service
addressing by the ATM Forum. When available and widely implemented,
the roll-over from the current IP multicast architecture to this new
ATM architecture will be straightforward.
9. Security
Not all of the security issues relating to IP over ATM are clearly
understood at this time, due to the fluid state of ATM
specifications, newness of the technology, and other factors.
It is believed that ATM and IP facilities for authenticated call
management, authenticated end-to-end communications, and data
encryption will be needed in globally connected ATM networks. Such
future security facilities and their use by IP networks are beyond
the scope of this memo.
Laubach [Page 15]
RFC 1577 Classical IP and ARP over ATM January 1993
There are known security issues relating to host impersonation via
the address resolution protocols used in the Internet [13]. No
special security mechanisms have been added to the address resolution
mechanism defined here for use with networks using IP over ATM.
10. Open Issues
o Interim Local Management Interface (ILMI) services will not be
generally implemented initially by some providers and vendors and
will not be used to obtain the ATM address network prefix from
the network [9]. Meta-signalling does provide some of this
functionality and in the future we need to document the options.
o Well known ATM address(es) for ATMARP servers? It would be very
handy if a mechanism were available for determining the "well
known" ATM address(es) for the client's ATMARP server in the LIS.
o There are many VC management issues which have not yet been
addressed by this specification and which await the unwary
implementor. For example, one problem that has not yet been
resolved is how two IP members decide which of duplicate VCs can
be released without causing VC thrashing. If two IP stations
simultaneously established VCs to each other, it is tempting to
allow only one of these VCs to be established, or to release one
of these VCs immediately after it is established. If both IP
stations simultaneously decide to release opposite VCs, a
thrashing effect can be created where VCs are repeatedly
established and immediately released. For the time being, the
safest strategy is to allow duplicate VCs to be established and
simply age them like any other VCs.
References
[1] Piscitello, D., and J. Lawrence, "IP and ARP over the SMDS
Service", RFC 1209, Bell Communications Research, March 1991.
[2] Heinanen, J., "Multiprotocol Encapsulation over ATM Adaptation
Layer 5", RFC 1483, Telecom Finland, July 1993.
[3] Plummer, D., "An Ethernet Address Resolution Protocol - or -
Converting Network Addresses to 48.bit Ethernet Address for
Transmission on Ethernet Hardware", STD 37, RFC 826, MIT,
November 1982.
[4] Reynolds, J., and J. Postel, "Assigned Numbers", STD 2, RFC 1340,
USC/Information Sciences Institute, July 1992.
Laubach [Page 16]RFC 1577 Classical IP and ARP over ATM January 1993
[5] Postel, J., and J. Reynolds, "A Standard for the Transmission of
IP Datagrams over IEEE 802 Networks", STD 43, RFC 1042,
USC/Information Sciences Institute, February 1988.
[6] CCITT, "Draft Recommendation I.363", CCITT Study Group XVIII,
Geneva, 19-29 January 1993.
[7] CCITT, "Draft text for Q.93B", CCITT Study Group XI, 23 September
- 2 October 1992.
[8] Braden, R., "Requirements for Internet Hosts -- Communication
Layers", STD 3, RFC 1122, USC/Information Sciences Institute,
October 1989.
[9] ATM Forum, "ATM User-Network Interface Specification Version
3.0.", ATM Forum, 480 San Antonio Road, Suite 100, Mountain View,
CA 94040, June 1993.
[10] Deering, S., "Host Extensions for IP Multicasting", STD 5, RFC
1112, Stanford University, August 1989.
[11] Colella, R., and Gardner, E., and R. Callon, "Guidelines for OSI
NSAP Allocation in the Internet", RFC 1237, NIST, Mitre, DEC,
July 1991.
[12] Bradely, T., and C. Brown, "Inverse Address Resolution Protocol",
RFC 1293, Wellfleet Communications, Inc., January 1992.
[13] Bellovin, S., "Security Problems in the TCP/IP Protocol Suite",
ACM Computer Communications Review, Vol. 19, Issue 2, pp. 32-48,
1989.
Security Considerations
Security issues are discussed in Section 9.
Author's Address
Mark Laubach
Hewlett-Packard Laboratories
1501 Page Mill Road
Palo Alto, CA 94304
Phone: 415-857-3513
Fax: 415-857-8526
EMail: laubach@hpl.hp.com
Laubach [Page 17]
