diff options
Diffstat (limited to 'doc/rfc/rfc8166.txt')
| -rw-r--r-- | doc/rfc/rfc8166.txt | 3083 |
1 files changed, 3083 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/doc/rfc/rfc8166.txt b/doc/rfc/rfc8166.txt new file mode 100644 index 0000000..d2c8584 --- /dev/null +++ b/doc/rfc/rfc8166.txt @@ -0,0 +1,3083 @@ + + + + + + +Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) C. Lever, Ed. +Request for Comments: 8166 Oracle +Obsoletes: 5666 W. Simpson +Category: Standards Track Red Hat +ISSN: 2070-1721 T. Talpey + Microsoft + June 2017 + + + Remote Direct Memory Access Transport for + Remote Procedure Call Version 1 + +Abstract + + This document specifies a protocol for conveying Remote Procedure + Call (RPC) messages on physical transports capable of Remote Direct + Memory Access (RDMA). This protocol is referred to as the RPC-over- + RDMA version 1 protocol in this document. It requires no revision to + application RPC protocols or the RPC protocol itself. This document + obsoletes RFC 5666. + +Status of This Memo + + This is an Internet Standards Track document. + + This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force + (IETF). It represents the consensus of the IETF community. It has + received public review and has been approved for publication by the + Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG). Further information on + Internet Standards is available in Section 2 of RFC 7841. + + Information about the current status of this document, any errata, + and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at + http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8166. + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +Lever, et al. Standards Track [Page 1] + +RFC 8166 RPC-over-RDMA Version 1 June 2017 + + +Copyright Notice + + Copyright (c) 2017 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the + document authors. All rights reserved. + + This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal + Provisions Relating to IETF Documents + (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of + publication of this document. Please review these documents + carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect + to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must + include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of + the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as + described in the Simplified BSD License. + + This document may contain material from IETF Documents or IETF + Contributions published or made publicly available before November + 10, 2008. The person(s) controlling the copyright in some of this + material may not have granted the IETF Trust the right to allow + modifications of such material outside the IETF Standards Process. + Without obtaining an adequate license from the person(s) controlling + the copyright in such materials, this document may not be modified + outside the IETF Standards Process, and derivative works of it may + not be created outside the IETF Standards Process, except to format + it for publication as an RFC or to translate it into languages other + than English. + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +Lever, et al. Standards Track [Page 2] + +RFC 8166 RPC-over-RDMA Version 1 June 2017 + + +Table of Contents + + 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 + 1.1. RPCs on RDMA Transports . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 + 2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 + 2.1. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 + 2.2. RPCs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 + 2.3. RDMA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 + 3. RPC-over-RDMA Protocol Framework . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 + 3.1. Transfer Models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 + 3.2. Message Framing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 + 3.3. Managing Receiver Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 + 3.4. XDR Encoding with Chunks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 + 3.5. Message Size . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 + 4. RPC-over-RDMA in Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 + 4.1. XDR Protocol Definition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 + 4.2. Fixed Header Fields . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 + 4.3. Chunk Lists . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 + 4.4. Memory Registration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 + 4.5. Error Handling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 + 4.6. Protocol Elements No Longer Supported . . . . . . . . . . 37 + 4.7. XDR Examples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 + 5. RPC Bind Parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 + 6. ULB Specifications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 + 6.1. DDP-Eligibility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 + 6.2. Maximum Reply Size . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 + 6.3. Additional Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 + 6.4. ULP Extensions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 + 7. Protocol Extensibility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 + 7.1. Conventional Extensions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 + 8. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 + 8.1. Memory Protection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 + 8.2. RPC Message Security . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46 + 9. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49 + 10. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50 + 10.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50 + 10.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51 + Appendix A. Changes from RFC 5666 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53 + A.1. Changes to the Specification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53 + A.2. Changes to the Protocol . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53 + Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54 + Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55 + + + + + + + + + +Lever, et al. Standards Track [Page 3] + +RFC 8166 RPC-over-RDMA Version 1 June 2017 + + +1. Introduction + + This document specifies the RPC-over-RDMA version 1 protocol, based + on existing implementations of RFC 5666 and experience gained through + deployment. This document obsoletes RFC 5666. + + This specification clarifies text that was subject to multiple + interpretations and removes support for unimplemented RPC-over-RDMA + version 1 protocol elements. It clarifies the role of Upper-Layer + Bindings (ULBs) and describes what they are to contain. + + In addition, this document describes current practice using + RPCSEC_GSS [RFC7861] on RDMA transports. + + The protocol version number has not been changed because the protocol + specified in this document fully interoperates with implementations + of the RPC-over-RDMA version 1 protocol specified in [RFC5666]. + +1.1. RPCs on RDMA Transports + + RDMA [RFC5040] [RFC5041] [IBARCH] is a technique for moving data + efficiently between end nodes. By directing data into destination + buffers as it is sent on a network, and placing it via direct memory + access by hardware, the benefits of faster transfers and reduced host + overhead are obtained. + + Open Network Computing Remote Procedure Call (ONC RPC, often + shortened in NFSv4 documents to RPC) [RFC5531] is a remote procedure + call protocol that runs over a variety of transports. Most RPC + implementations today use UDP [RFC768] or TCP [RFC793]. On UDP, RPC + messages are encapsulated inside datagrams, while on a TCP byte + stream, RPC messages are delineated by a record marking protocol. An + RDMA transport also conveys RPC messages in a specific fashion that + must be fully described if RPC implementations are to interoperate. + + RDMA transports present semantics that differ from either UDP or TCP. + They retain message delineations like UDP but provide reliable and + sequenced data transfer like TCP. They also provide an offloaded + bulk transfer service not provided by UDP or TCP. RDMA transports + are therefore appropriately viewed as a new transport type by RPC. + + In this context, the Network File System (NFS) protocols, as + described in [RFC1094], [RFC1813], [RFC7530], [RFC5661], and future + NFSv4 minor versions, are all obvious beneficiaries of RDMA + transports. A complete problem statement is presented in [RFC5532]. + Many other RPC-based protocols can also benefit. + + + + + +Lever, et al. Standards Track [Page 4] + +RFC 8166 RPC-over-RDMA Version 1 June 2017 + + + Although the RDMA transport described herein can provide relatively + transparent support for any RPC application, this document also + describes mechanisms that can optimize data transfer even further, + when RPC applications are willing to exploit awareness of RDMA as the + transport. + +2. Terminology + +2.1. Requirements Language + + The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", + "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and + "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP + 14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all + capitals, as shown here. + +2.2. RPCs + + This section highlights key elements of the RPC [RFC5531] and + External Data Representation (XDR) [RFC4506] protocols, upon which + RPC-over-RDMA version 1 is constructed. Strong grounding with these + protocols is recommended before reading this document. + +2.2.1. Upper-Layer Protocols + + RPCs are an abstraction used to implement the operations of an Upper- + Layer Protocol (ULP). "ULP" refers to an RPC Program and Version + tuple, which is a versioned set of procedure calls that comprise a + single well-defined API. One example of a ULP is the Network File + System Version 4.0 [RFC7530]. + + In this document, the term "RPC consumer" refers to an implementation + of a ULP running on an RPC client endpoint. + +2.2.2. Requesters and Responders + + Like a local procedure call, every RPC procedure has a set of + "arguments" and a set of "results". A calling context invokes a + procedure, passing arguments to it, and the procedure subsequently + returns a set of results. Unlike a local procedure call, the called + procedure is executed remotely rather than in the local application's + execution context. + + The RPC protocol as described in [RFC5531] is fundamentally a + message-passing protocol between one or more clients (where RPC + consumers are running) and a server (where a remote execution context + is available to process RPC transactions on behalf of those + consumers). + + + +Lever, et al. Standards Track [Page 5] + +RFC 8166 RPC-over-RDMA Version 1 June 2017 + + + ONC RPC transactions are made up of two types of messages: + + CALL + An "RPC Call message" requests that work be done. This type of + message is designated by the value zero (0) in the message's + msg_type field. An arbitrary unique value is placed in the + message's XID field in order to match this RPC Call message to a + corresponding RPC Reply message. + + REPLY + An "RPC Reply message" reports the results of work requested by an + RPC Call message. An RPC Reply message is designated by the value + one (1) in the message's msg_type field. The value contained in + an RPC Reply message's XID field is copied from the RPC Call + message whose results are being reported. + + The RPC client endpoint acts as a "Requester". It serializes the + procedure's arguments and conveys them to a server endpoint via an + RPC Call message. This message contains an RPC protocol header, a + header describing the requested upper-layer operation, and all + arguments. + + The RPC server endpoint acts as a "Responder". It deserializes the + arguments and processes the requested operation. It then serializes + the operation's results into another byte stream. This byte stream + is conveyed back to the Requester via an RPC Reply message. This + message contains an RPC protocol header, a header describing the + upper-layer reply, and all results. + + The Requester deserializes the results and allows the original caller + to proceed. At this point, the RPC transaction designated by the XID + in the RPC Call message is complete, and the XID is retired. + + In summary, RPC Call messages are sent by Requesters to Responders to + initiate RPC transactions. RPC Reply messages are sent by Responders + to Requesters to complete the processing on an RPC transaction. + +2.2.3. RPC Transports + + The role of an "RPC transport" is to mediate the exchange of RPC + messages between Requesters and Responders. An RPC transport bridges + the gap between the RPC message abstraction and the native operations + of a particular network transport. + + RPC-over-RDMA is a connection-oriented RPC transport. When a + connection-oriented transport is used, clients initiate transport + connections, while servers wait passively for incoming connection + requests. + + + +Lever, et al. Standards Track [Page 6] + +RFC 8166 RPC-over-RDMA Version 1 June 2017 + + +2.2.4. External Data Representation + + One cannot assume that all Requesters and Responders represent data + objects the same way internally. RPC uses External Data + Representation (XDR) to translate native data types and serialize + arguments and results [RFC4506]. + + The XDR protocol encodes data independently of the endianness or size + of host-native data types, allowing unambiguous decoding of data on + the receiving end. RPC Programs are specified by writing an XDR + definition of their procedures, argument data types, and result data + types. + + XDR assumes that the number of bits in a byte (octet) and their order + are the same on both endpoints and on the physical network. The + smallest indivisible unit of XDR encoding is a group of four octets. + XDR also flattens lists, arrays, and other complex data types so they + can be conveyed as a stream of bytes. + + A serialized stream of bytes that is the result of XDR encoding is + referred to as an "XDR stream". A sending endpoint encodes native + data into an XDR stream and then transmits that stream to a receiver. + A receiving endpoint decodes incoming XDR byte streams into its + native data representation format. + +2.2.4.1. XDR Opaque Data + + Sometimes, a data item must be transferred as is: without encoding or + decoding. The contents of such a data item are referred to as + "opaque data". XDR encoding places the content of opaque data items + directly into an XDR stream without altering it in any way. ULPs or + applications perform any needed data translation in this case. + Examples of opaque data items include the content of files or generic + byte strings. + +2.2.4.2. XDR Roundup + + The number of octets in a variable-length data item precedes that + item in an XDR stream. If the size of an encoded data item is not a + multiple of four octets, octets containing zero are added after the + end of the item; this is the case so that the next encoded data item + in the XDR stream starts on a four-octet boundary. The encoded size + of the item is not changed by the addition of the extra octets. + These extra octets are never exposed to ULPs. + + This technique is referred to as "XDR roundup", and the extra octets + are referred to as "XDR roundup padding". + + + + +Lever, et al. Standards Track [Page 7] + +RFC 8166 RPC-over-RDMA Version 1 June 2017 + + +2.3. RDMA + + RPC Requesters and Responders can be made more efficient if large RPC + messages are transferred by a third party, such as intelligent + network-interface hardware (data movement offload), and placed in the + receiver's memory so that no additional adjustment of data alignment + has to be made (direct data placement or "DDP"). RDMA transports + enable both optimizations. + +2.3.1. DDP + + Typically, RPC implementations copy the contents of RPC messages into + a buffer before being sent. An efficient RPC implementation sends + bulk data without copying it into a separate send buffer first. + + However, socket-based RPC implementations are often unable to receive + data directly into its final place in memory. Receivers often need + to copy incoming data to finish an RPC operation: sometimes, only to + adjust data alignment. + + In this document, "RDMA" refers to the physical mechanism an RDMA + transport utilizes when moving data. Although this may not be + efficient, before an RDMA transfer, a sender may copy data into an + intermediate buffer. After an RDMA transfer, a receiver may copy + that data again to its final destination. + + In this document, the term "DDP" refers to any optimized data + transfer where it is unnecessary for a receiving host's CPU to copy + transferred data to another location after it has been received. + + Just as [RFC5666] did, this document focuses on the use of RDMA Read + and Write operations to achieve both data movement offload and DDP. + However, not all RDMA-based data transfer qualifies as DDP, and DDP + can be achieved using non-RDMA mechanisms. + +2.3.2. RDMA Transport Requirements + + To achieve good performance during receive operations, RDMA + transports require that RDMA consumers provision resources in advance + to receive incoming messages. + + An RDMA consumer might provide Receive buffers in advance by posting + an RDMA Receive Work Request for every expected RDMA Send from a + remote peer. These buffers are provided before the remote peer posts + RDMA Send Work Requests; thus, this is often referred to as "pre- + posting" buffers. + + + + + +Lever, et al. Standards Track [Page 8] + +RFC 8166 RPC-over-RDMA Version 1 June 2017 + + + An RDMA Receive Work Request remains outstanding until hardware + matches it to an inbound Send operation. The resources associated + with that Receive must be retained in host memory, or "pinned", until + the Receive completes. + + Given these basic tenets of RDMA transport operation, the RPC-over- + RDMA version 1 protocol assumes each transport provides the following + abstract operations. A more complete discussion of these operations + is found in [RFC5040]. + + Registered Memory + Registered memory is a region of memory that is assigned a + steering tag that temporarily permits access by the RDMA provider + to perform data-transfer operations. The RPC-over-RDMA version 1 + protocol assumes that each region of registered memory MUST be + identified with a steering tag of no more than 32 bits and memory + addresses of up to 64 bits in length. + + RDMA Send + The RDMA provider supports an RDMA Send operation, with completion + signaled on the receiving peer after data has been placed in a + pre-posted buffer. Sends complete at the receiver in the order + they were issued at the sender. The amount of data transferred by + a single RDMA Send operation is limited by the size of the remote + peer's pre-posted buffers. + + RDMA Receive + The RDMA provider supports an RDMA Receive operation to receive + data conveyed by incoming RDMA Send operations. To reduce the + amount of memory that must remain pinned awaiting incoming Sends, + the amount of pre-posted memory is limited. Flow control to + prevent overrunning receiver resources is provided by the RDMA + consumer (in this case, the RPC-over-RDMA version 1 protocol). + + RDMA Write + The RDMA provider supports an RDMA Write operation to place data + directly into a remote memory region. The local host initiates an + RDMA Write, and completion is signaled there. No completion is + signaled on the remote peer. The local host provides a steering + tag, memory address, and length of the remote peer's memory + region. + + RDMA Writes are not ordered with respect to one another, but are + ordered with respect to RDMA Sends. A subsequent RDMA Send + completion obtained at the write initiator guarantees that prior + RDMA Write data has been successfully placed in the remote peer's + memory. + + + + +Lever, et al. Standards Track [Page 9] + +RFC 8166 RPC-over-RDMA Version 1 June 2017 + + + RDMA Read + The RDMA provider supports an RDMA Read operation to place peer + source data directly into the read initiator's memory. The local + host initiates an RDMA Read, and completion is signaled there. No + completion is signaled on the remote peer. The local host + provides steering tags, memory addresses, and a length for the + remote source and local destination memory region. + + The local host signals Read completion to the remote peer as part + of a subsequent RDMA Send message. The remote peer can then + release steering tags and subsequently free associated source + memory regions. + + The RPC-over-RDMA version 1 protocol is designed to be carried over + RDMA transports that support the above abstract operations. This + protocol conveys information sufficient for an RPC peer to direct an + RDMA provider to perform transfers containing RPC data and to + communicate their result(s). + +3. RPC-over-RDMA Protocol Framework + +3.1. Transfer Models + + A "transfer model" designates which endpoint exposes its memory and + which is responsible for initiating the transfer of data. To enable + RDMA Read and Write operations, for example, an endpoint first + exposes regions of its memory to a remote endpoint, which initiates + these operations against the exposed memory. + + Read-Read + Requesters expose their memory to the Responder, and the Responder + exposes its memory to Requesters. The Responder reads, or pulls, + RPC arguments or whole RPC calls from each Requester. Requesters + pull RPC results or whole RPC relies from the Responder. + + Write-Write + Requesters expose their memory to the Responder, and the Responder + exposes its memory to Requesters. Requesters write, or push, RPC + arguments or whole RPC calls to the Responder. The Responder + pushes RPC results or whole RPC relies to each Requester. + + Read-Write + Requesters expose their memory to the Responder, but the Responder + does not expose its memory. The Responder pulls RPC arguments or + whole RPC calls from each Requester. The Responder pushes RPC + results or whole RPC relies to each Requester. + + + + + +Lever, et al. Standards Track [Page 10] + +RFC 8166 RPC-over-RDMA Version 1 June 2017 + + + Write-Read + The Responder exposes its memory to Requesters, but Requesters do + not expose their memory. Requesters push RPC arguments or whole + RPC calls to the Responder. Requesters pull RPC results or whole + RPC relies from the Responder. + +3.2. Message Framing + + On an RPC-over-RDMA transport, each RPC message is encapsulated by an + RPC-over-RDMA message. An RPC-over-RDMA message consists of two XDR + streams. + + RPC Payload Stream + The "Payload stream" contains the encapsulated RPC message being + transferred by this RPC-over-RDMA message. This stream always + begins with the Transaction ID (XID) field of the encapsulated RPC + message. + + Transport Stream + The "Transport stream" contains a header that describes and + controls the transfer of the Payload stream in this RPC-over-RDMA + message. This header is analogous to the record marking used for + RPC on TCP sockets but is more extensive, since RDMA transports + support several modes of data transfer. + + In its simplest form, an RPC-over-RDMA message consists of a + Transport stream followed immediately by a Payload stream conveyed + together in a single RDMA Send. To transmit large RPC messages, a + combination of one RDMA Send operation and one or more other RDMA + operations is employed. + + RPC-over-RDMA framing replaces all other RPC framing (such as TCP + record marking) when used atop an RPC-over-RDMA association, even + when the underlying RDMA protocol may itself be layered atop a + transport with a defined RPC framing (such as TCP). + + However, it is possible for RPC-over-RDMA to be dynamically enabled + in the course of negotiating the use of RDMA via a ULP exchange. + Because RPC framing delimits an entire RPC request or reply, the + resulting shift in framing must occur between distinct RPC messages, + and in concert with the underlying transport. + +3.3. Managing Receiver Resources + + It is critical to provide RDMA Send flow control for an RDMA + connection. If any pre-posted Receive buffer on the connection is + not large enough to accept an incoming RDMA Send, or if a pre-posted + Receive buffer is not available to accept an incoming RDMA Send, the + + + +Lever, et al. Standards Track [Page 11] + +RFC 8166 RPC-over-RDMA Version 1 June 2017 + + + RDMA connection can be terminated. This is different than + conventional TCP/IP networking, in which buffers are allocated + dynamically as messages are received. + + The longevity of an RDMA connection mandates that sending endpoints + respect the resource limits of peer receivers. To ensure messages + can be sent and received reliably, there are two operational + parameters for each connection. + +3.3.1. RPC-over-RDMA Credits + + Flow control for RDMA Send operations directed to the Responder is + implemented as a simple request/grant protocol in the RPC-over-RDMA + header associated with each RPC message. + + An RPC-over-RDMA version 1 credit is the capability to handle one + RPC-over-RDMA transaction. Each RPC-over-RDMA message sent from + Requester to Responder requests a number of credits from the + Responder. Each RPC-over-RDMA message sent from Responder to + Requester informs the Requester how many credits the Responder has + granted. The requested and granted values are carried in each RPC- + over-RDMA message's rdma_credit field (see Section 4.2.3). + + Practically speaking, the critical value is the granted value. A + Requester MUST NOT send unacknowledged requests in excess of the + Responder's granted credit limit. If the granted value is exceeded, + the RDMA layer may signal an error, possibly terminating the + connection. The granted value MUST NOT be zero, since such a value + would result in deadlock. + + RPC calls complete in any order, but the current granted credit limit + at the Responder is known to the Requester from RDMA Send ordering + properties. The number of allowed new requests the Requester may + send is then the lower of the current requested and granted credit + values, minus the number of requests in flight. Advertised credit + values are not altered when individual RPCs are started or completed. + + The requested and granted credit values MAY be adjusted to match the + needs or policies in effect on either peer. For instance, a + Responder may reduce the granted credit value to accommodate the + available resources in a Shared Receive Queue. The Responder MUST + ensure that an increase in receive resources is effected before the + next RPC Reply message is sent. + + A Requester MUST maintain enough receive resources to accommodate + expected replies. Responders have to be prepared for there to be no + receive resources available on Requesters with no pending RPC + transactions. + + + +Lever, et al. Standards Track [Page 12] + +RFC 8166 RPC-over-RDMA Version 1 June 2017 + + + Certain RDMA implementations may impose additional flow-control + restrictions, such as limits on RDMA Read operations in progress at + the Responder. Accommodation of such restrictions is considered the + responsibility of each RPC-over-RDMA version 1 implementation. + +3.3.2. Inline Threshold + + An "inline threshold" value is the largest message size (in octets) + that can be conveyed in one direction between peer implementations + using RDMA Send and Receive. The inline threshold value is the + smaller of the largest number of bytes the sender can post via a + single RDMA Send operation and the largest number of bytes the + receiver can accept via a single RDMA Receive operation. Each + connection has two inline threshold values: one for messages flowing + from Requester-to-Responder (referred to as the "call inline + threshold") and one for messages flowing from Responder-to-Requester + (referred to as the "reply inline threshold"). + + Unlike credit limits, inline threshold values are not advertised to + peers via the RPC-over-RDMA version 1 protocol, and there is no + provision for inline threshold values to change during the lifetime + of an RPC-over-RDMA version 1 connection. + +3.3.3. Initial Connection State + + When a connection is first established, peers might not know how many + receive resources the other has, nor how large the other peer's + inline thresholds are. + + As a basis for an initial exchange of RPC requests, each RPC-over- + RDMA version 1 connection provides the ability to exchange at least + one RPC message at a time, whose RPC Call and Reply messages are no + more than 1024 bytes in size. A Responder MAY exceed this basic + level of configuration, but a Requester MUST NOT assume more than one + credit is available and MUST receive a valid reply from the Responder + carrying the actual number of available credits, prior to sending its + next request. + + Receiver implementations MUST support inline thresholds of 1024 bytes + but MAY support larger inline thresholds values. An independent + mechanism for discovering a peer's inline thresholds before a + connection is established may be used to optimize the use of RDMA + Send and Receive operations. In the absence of such a mechanism, + senders and receives MUST assume the inline thresholds are 1024 + bytes. + + + + + + +Lever, et al. Standards Track [Page 13] + +RFC 8166 RPC-over-RDMA Version 1 June 2017 + + +3.4. XDR Encoding with Chunks + + When a DDP capability is available, the transport places the contents + of one or more XDR data items directly into the receiver's memory, + separately from the transfer of other parts of the containing XDR + stream. + +3.4.1. Reducing an XDR Stream + + RPC-over-RDMA version 1 provides a mechanism for moving part of an + RPC message via a data transfer distinct from an RDMA Send/Receive + pair. The sender removes one or more XDR data items from the Payload + stream. They are conveyed via other mechanisms, such as one or more + RDMA Read or Write operations. As the receiver decodes an incoming + message, it skips over directly placed data items. + + The portion of an XDR stream that is split out and moved separately + is referred to as a "chunk". In some contexts, data in an RPC-over- + RDMA header that describes these split out regions of memory may also + be referred to as a "chunk". + + A Payload stream after chunks have been removed is referred to as a + "reduced" Payload stream. Likewise, a data item that has been + removed from a Payload stream to be transferred separately is + referred to as a "reduced" data item. + +3.4.2. DDP-Eligibility + + Not all XDR data items benefit from DDP. For example, small data + items or data items that require XDR unmarshaling by the receiver do + not benefit from DDP. In addition, it is impractical for receivers + to prepare for every possible XDR data item in a protocol to be + transferred in a chunk. + + To maintain interoperability on an RPC-over-RDMA transport, a + determination must be made of which few XDR data items in each ULP + are allowed to use DDP. + + This is done by additional specifications that describe how ULPs + employ DDP. A "ULB specification" identifies which specific + individual XDR data items in a ULP MAY be transferred via DDP. Such + data items are referred to as "DDP-eligible". All other XDR data + items MUST NOT be reduced. + + Detailed requirements for ULBs are provided in Section 6. + + + + + + +Lever, et al. Standards Track [Page 14] + +RFC 8166 RPC-over-RDMA Version 1 June 2017 + + +3.4.3. RDMA Segments + + When encoding a Payload stream that contains a DDP-eligible data + item, a sender may choose to reduce that data item. When it chooses + to do so, the sender does not place the item into the Payload stream. + Instead, the sender records in the RPC-over-RDMA header the location + and size of the memory region containing that data item. + + The Requester provides location information for DDP-eligible data + items in both RPC Call and Reply messages. The Responder uses this + information to retrieve arguments contained in the specified region + of the Requester's memory or place results in that memory region. + + An "RDMA segment", or "plain segment", is an RPC-over-RDMA Transport + header data object that contains the precise coordinates of a + contiguous memory region that is to be conveyed separately from the + Payload stream. Plain segments contain the following information: + + Handle + Steering tag (STag) or R_key generated by registering this memory + with the RDMA provider. + + Length + The length of the RDMA segment's memory region, in octets. An + "empty segment" is an RDMA segment with the value zero (0) in its + length field. + + Offset + The offset or beginning memory address of the RDMA segment's + memory region. + + See [RFC5040] for further discussion. + +3.4.4. Chunks + + In RPC-over-RDMA version 1, a "chunk" refers to a portion of the + Payload stream that is moved independently of the RPC-over-RDMA + Transport header and Payload stream. Chunk data is removed from the + sender's Payload stream, transferred via separate operations, and + then reinserted into the receiver's Payload stream to form a complete + RPC message. + + Each chunk is comprised of RDMA segments. Each RDMA segment + represents a single contiguous piece of that chunk. A Requester MAY + divide a chunk into RDMA segments using any boundaries that are + convenient. The length of a chunk is the sum of the lengths of the + RDMA segments that comprise it. + + + + +Lever, et al. Standards Track [Page 15] + +RFC 8166 RPC-over-RDMA Version 1 June 2017 + + + The RPC-over-RDMA version 1 transport protocol does not place a limit + on chunk size. However, each ULP may cap the amount of data that can + be transferred by a single RPC (for example, NFS has "rsize" and + "wsize", which restrict the payload size of NFS READ and WRITE + operations). The Responder can use such limits to sanity check chunk + sizes before using them in RDMA operations. + +3.4.4.1. Counted Arrays + + If a chunk contains a counted array data type, the count of array + elements MUST remain in the Payload stream, while the array elements + MUST be moved to the chunk. For example, when encoding an opaque + byte array as a chunk, the count of bytes stays in the Payload + stream, while the bytes in the array are removed from the Payload + stream and transferred within the chunk. + + Individual array elements appear in a chunk in their entirety. For + example, when encoding an array of arrays as a chunk, the count of + items in the enclosing array stays in the Payload stream, but each + enclosed array, including its item count, is transferred as part of + the chunk. + +3.4.4.2. Optional-Data + + If a chunk contains an optional-data data type, the "is present" + field MUST remain in the Payload stream, while the data, if present, + MUST be moved to the chunk. + +3.4.4.3. XDR Unions + + A union data type MUST NOT be made DDP-eligible, but one or more of + its arms MAY be DDP-eligible, subject to the other requirements in + this section. + +3.4.4.4. Chunk Roundup + + Except in special cases (covered in Section 3.5.3), a chunk MUST + contain exactly one XDR data item. This makes it straightforward to + reduce variable-length data items without affecting the XDR alignment + of data items in the Payload stream. + + When a variable-length XDR data item is reduced, the sender MUST + remove XDR roundup padding for that data item from the Payload stream + so that data items remaining in the Payload stream begin on four-byte + alignment. + + + + + + +Lever, et al. Standards Track [Page 16] + +RFC 8166 RPC-over-RDMA Version 1 June 2017 + + +3.4.5. Read Chunks + + A "Read chunk" represents an XDR data item that is to be pulled from + the Requester to the Responder. + + A Read chunk is a list of one or more RDMA read segments. An RDMA + read segment consists of a Position field followed by a plain + segment. See Section 4.1.2 for details. + + Position + The byte offset in the unreduced Payload stream where the receiver + reinserts the data item conveyed in a chunk. The Position value + MUST be computed from the beginning of the unreduced Payload + stream, which begins at Position zero. All RDMA read segments + belonging to the same Read chunk have the same value in their + Position field. + + While constructing an RPC Call message, a Requester registers memory + regions that contain data to be transferred via RDMA Read operations. + It advertises the coordinates of these regions in the RPC-over-RDMA + Transport header of the RPC Call message. + + After receiving an RPC Call message sent via an RDMA Send operation, + a Responder transfers the chunk data from the Requester using RDMA + Read operations. The Responder reconstructs the transferred chunk + data by concatenating the contents of each RDMA segment, in list + order, into the received Payload stream at the Position value + recorded in that RDMA segment. + + Put another way, the Responder inserts the first RDMA segment in a + Read chunk into the Payload stream at the byte offset indicated by + its Position field. RDMA segments whose Position field value match + this offset are concatenated afterwards, until there are no more RDMA + segments at that Position value. + + The Position field in a read segment indicates where the containing + Read chunk starts in the Payload stream. The value in this field + MUST be a multiple of four. All segments in the same Read chunk + share the same Position value, even if one or more of the RDMA + segments have a non-four-byte-aligned length. + + + + + + + + + + + +Lever, et al. Standards Track [Page 17] + +RFC 8166 RPC-over-RDMA Version 1 June 2017 + + +3.4.5.1. Decoding Read Chunks + + While decoding a received Payload stream, whenever the XDR offset in + the Payload stream matches that of a Read chunk, the Responder + initiates an RDMA Read to pull the chunk's data content into + registered local memory. + + The Responder acknowledges its completion of use of Read chunk source + buffers when it sends an RPC Reply message to the Requester. The + Requester may then release Read chunks advertised in the request. + +3.4.5.2. Read Chunk Roundup + + When reducing a variable-length argument data item, the Requester + SHOULD NOT include the data item's XDR roundup padding in the chunk. + The length of a Read chunk is determined as follows: + + o If the Requester chooses to include roundup padding in a Read + chunk, the chunk's total length MUST be the sum of the encoded + length of the data item and the length of the roundup padding. + The length of the data item that was encoded into the Payload + stream remains unchanged. + + The sender can increase the length of the chunk by adding another + RDMA segment containing only the roundup padding, or it can do so + by extending the final RDMA segment in the chunk. + + o If the sender chooses not to include roundup padding in the chunk, + the chunk's total length MUST be the same as the encoded length of + the data item. + +3.4.6. Write Chunks + + While constructing an RPC Call message, a Requester prepares memory + regions in which to receive DDP-eligible result data items. A "Write + chunk" represents an XDR data item that is to be pushed from a + Responder to a Requester. It is made up of an array of zero or more + plain segments. + + Write chunks are provisioned by a Requester long before the Responder + has prepared the reply Payload stream. A Requester often does not + know the actual length of the result data items to be returned, since + the result does not yet exist. Thus, it MUST register Write chunks + long enough to accommodate the maximum possible size of each returned + data item. + + + + + + +Lever, et al. Standards Track [Page 18] + +RFC 8166 RPC-over-RDMA Version 1 June 2017 + + + In addition, the XDR position of DDP-eligible data items in the + reply's Payload stream is not predictable when a Requester constructs + an RPC Call message. Therefore, RDMA segments in a Write chunk do + not have a Position field. + + For each Write chunk provided by a Requester, the Responder pushes + one data item to the Requester, filling the chunk contiguously and in + segment array order until that data item has been completely written + to the Requester. The Responder MUST copy the segment count and all + segments from the Requester-provided Write chunk into the RPC Reply + message's Transport header. As it does so, the Responder updates + each segment length field to reflect the actual amount of data that + is being returned in that segment. The Responder then sends the RPC + Reply message via an RDMA Send operation. + + An "empty Write chunk" is a Write chunk with a zero segment count. + By definition, the length of an empty Write chunk is zero. An + "unused Write chunk" has a non-zero segment count, but all of its + segments are empty segments. + +3.4.6.1. Decoding Write Chunks + + After receiving the RPC Reply message, the Requester reconstructs the + transferred data by concatenating the contents of each segment, in + array order, into the RPC Reply message's XDR stream at the known XDR + position of the associated DDP-eligible result data item. + +3.4.6.2. Write Chunk Roundup + + When provisioning a Write chunk for a variable-length result data + item, the Requester SHOULD NOT include additional space for XDR + roundup padding. A Responder MUST NOT write XDR roundup padding into + a Write chunk, even if the Requester made space available for it. + Therefore, when returning a single variable-length result data item, + a returned Write chunk's total length MUST be the same as the encoded + length of the result data item. + +3.5. Message Size + + A receiver of RDMA Send operations is required by RDMA to have + previously posted one or more adequately sized buffers. Memory + savings are achieved on both Requesters and Responders by posting + small Receive buffers. However, not all RPC messages are small. + RPC-over-RDMA version 1 provides several mechanisms that allow + messages of any size to be conveyed efficiently. + + + + + + +Lever, et al. Standards Track [Page 19] + +RFC 8166 RPC-over-RDMA Version 1 June 2017 + + +3.5.1. Short Messages + + RPC messages are frequently smaller than typical inline thresholds. + For example, the NFS version 3 GETATTR operation is only 56 bytes: 20 + bytes of RPC header, a 32-byte file handle argument, and 4 bytes for + its length. The reply to this common request is about 100 bytes. + + Since all RPC messages conveyed via RPC-over-RDMA require an RDMA + Send operation, the most efficient way to send an RPC message that is + smaller than the inline threshold is to append the Payload stream + directly to the Transport stream. An RPC-over-RDMA header with a + small RPC Call or Reply message immediately following is transferred + using a single RDMA Send operation. No other operations are needed. + + An RPC-over-RDMA transaction using Short Messages: + + Requester Responder + | RDMA Send (RDMA_MSG) | + Call | ------------------------------> | + | | + | | Processing + | | + | RDMA Send (RDMA_MSG) | + | <------------------------------ | Reply + +3.5.2. Chunked Messages + + If DDP-eligible data items are present in a Payload stream, a sender + MAY reduce some or all of these items by removing them from the + Payload stream. The sender uses a separate mechanism to transfer the + reduced data items. The Transport stream with the reduced Payload + stream immediately following is then transferred using a single RDMA + Send operation. + + After receiving the Transport and Payload streams of an RPC Call + message accompanied by Read chunks, the Responder uses RDMA Read + operations to move reduced data items in Read chunks. Before sending + the Transport and Payload streams of an RPC Reply message containing + Write chunks, the Responder uses RDMA Write operations to move + reduced data items in Write and Reply chunks. + + + + + + + + + + + +Lever, et al. Standards Track [Page 20] + +RFC 8166 RPC-over-RDMA Version 1 June 2017 + + + An RPC-over-RDMA transaction with a Read chunk: + + Requester Responder + | RDMA Send (RDMA_MSG) | + Call | ------------------------------> | + | RDMA Read | + | <------------------------------ | + | RDMA Response (arg data) | + | ------------------------------> | + | | + | | Processing + | | + | RDMA Send (RDMA_MSG) | + | <------------------------------ | Reply + + An RPC-over-RDMA transaction with a Write chunk: + + Requester Responder + | RDMA Send (RDMA_MSG) | + Call | ------------------------------> | + | | + | | Processing + | | + | RDMA Write (result data) | + | <------------------------------ | + | RDMA Send (RDMA_MSG) | + | <------------------------------ | Reply + +3.5.3. Long Messages + + When a Payload stream is larger than the receiver's inline threshold, + the Payload stream is reduced by removing DDP-eligible data items and + placing them in chunks to be moved separately. If there are no DDP- + eligible data items in the Payload stream, or the Payload stream is + still too large after it has been reduced, the RDMA transport MUST + use RDMA Read or Write operations to convey the Payload stream + itself. This mechanism is referred to as a "Long Message". + + To transmit a Long Message, the sender conveys only the Transport + stream with an RDMA Send operation. The Payload stream is not + included in the Send buffer in this instance. Instead, the Requester + provides chunks that the Responder uses to move the Payload stream. + + Long Call + To send a Long Call message, the Requester provides a special Read + chunk that contains the RPC Call message's Payload stream. Every + RDMA read segment in this chunk MUST contain zero in its Position + field. Thus, this chunk is known as a "Position Zero Read chunk". + + + +Lever, et al. Standards Track [Page 21] + +RFC 8166 RPC-over-RDMA Version 1 June 2017 + + + Long Reply + To send a Long Reply, the Requester provides a single special + Write chunk in advance, known as the "Reply chunk", that will + contain the RPC Reply message's Payload stream. The Requester + sizes the Reply chunk to accommodate the maximum expected reply + size for that upper-layer operation. + + Though the purpose of a Long Message is to handle large RPC messages, + Requesters MAY use a Long Message at any time to convey an RPC Call + message. + + A Responder chooses which form of reply to use based on the chunks + provided by the Requester. If Write chunks were provided and the + Responder has a DDP-eligible result, it first reduces the reply + Payload stream. If a Reply chunk was provided and the reduced + Payload stream is larger than the reply inline threshold, the + Responder MUST use the Requester-provided Reply chunk for the reply. + + XDR data items may appear in these special chunks without regard to + their DDP-eligibility. As these chunks contain a Payload stream, + such chunks MUST include appropriate XDR roundup padding to maintain + proper XDR alignment of their contents. + + An RPC-over-RDMA transaction using a Long Call: + + Requester Responder + | RDMA Send (RDMA_NOMSG) | + Call | ------------------------------> | + | RDMA Read | + | <------------------------------ | + | RDMA Response (RPC call) | + | ------------------------------> | + | | + | | Processing + | | + | RDMA Send (RDMA_MSG) | + | <------------------------------ | Reply + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +Lever, et al. Standards Track [Page 22] + +RFC 8166 RPC-over-RDMA Version 1 June 2017 + + + An RPC-over-RDMA transaction using a Long Reply: + + Requester Responder + | RDMA Send (RDMA_MSG) | + Call | ------------------------------> | + | | + | | Processing + | | + | RDMA Write (RPC reply) | + | <------------------------------ | + | RDMA Send (RDMA_NOMSG) | + | <------------------------------ | Reply + +4. RPC-over-RDMA in Operation + + Every RPC-over-RDMA version 1 message has a header that includes a + copy of the message's transaction ID, data for managing RDMA flow- + control credits, and lists of RDMA segments describing chunks. All + RPC-over-RDMA header content is contained in the Transport stream; + thus, it MUST be XDR encoded. + + RPC message layout is unchanged from that described in [RFC5531] + except for the possible reduction of data items that are moved by + separate operations. + + The RPC-over-RDMA protocol passes RPC messages without regard to + their type (CALL or REPLY). Apart from restrictions imposed by ULBs, + each endpoint of a connection MAY send RDMA_MSG or RDMA_NOMSG message + header types at any time (subject to credit limits). + +4.1. XDR Protocol Definition + + This section contains a description of the core features of the RPC- + over-RDMA version 1 protocol, expressed in the XDR language + [RFC4506]. + + This description is provided in a way that makes it simple to extract + into ready-to-compile form. The reader can apply the following shell + script to this document to produce a machine-readable XDR description + of the RPC-over-RDMA version 1 protocol. + + <CODE BEGINS> + + #!/bin/sh + grep '^ *///' | sed 's?^ /// ??' | sed 's?^ *///$??' + + <CODE ENDS> + + + + +Lever, et al. Standards Track [Page 23] + +RFC 8166 RPC-over-RDMA Version 1 June 2017 + + + That is, if the above script is stored in a file called "extract.sh" + and this document is in a file called "spec.txt", then the reader can + do the following to extract an XDR description file: + + <CODE BEGINS> + + sh extract.sh < spec.txt > rpcrdma_corev1.x + + <CODE ENDS> + +4.1.1. Code Component License + + Code components extracted from this document must include the + following license text. When the extracted XDR code is combined with + other complementary XDR code, which itself has an identical license, + only a single copy of the license text need be preserved. + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +Lever, et al. Standards Track [Page 24] + +RFC 8166 RPC-over-RDMA Version 1 June 2017 + + + <CODE BEGINS> + + /// /* + /// * Copyright (c) 2010-2017 IETF Trust and the persons + /// * identified as authors of the code. All rights reserved. + /// * + /// * The authors of the code are: + /// * B. Callaghan, T. Talpey, and C. Lever + /// * + /// * Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with + /// * or without modification, are permitted provided that the + /// * following conditions are met: + /// * + /// * - Redistributions of source code must retain the above + /// * copyright notice, this list of conditions and the + /// * following disclaimer. + /// * + /// * - Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above + /// * copyright notice, this list of conditions and the + /// * following disclaimer in the documentation and/or other + /// * materials provided with the distribution. + /// * + /// * - Neither the name of Internet Society, IETF or IETF + /// * Trust, nor the names of specific contributors, may be + /// * used to endorse or promote products derived from this + /// * software without specific prior written permission. + /// * + /// * THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED BY THE COPYRIGHT HOLDERS + /// * AND CONTRIBUTORS "AS IS" AND ANY EXPRESS OR IMPLIED + /// * WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE + /// * IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS + /// * FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE ARE DISCLAIMED. IN NO + /// * EVENT SHALL THE COPYRIGHT OWNER OR CONTRIBUTORS BE + /// * LIABLE FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, + /// * EXEMPLARY, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES (INCLUDING, BUT + /// * NOT LIMITED TO, PROCUREMENT OF SUBSTITUTE GOODS OR + /// * SERVICES; LOSS OF USE, DATA, OR PROFITS; OR BUSINESS + /// * INTERRUPTION) HOWEVER CAUSED AND ON ANY THEORY OF + /// * LIABILITY, WHETHER IN CONTRACT, STRICT LIABILITY, + /// * OR TORT (INCLUDING NEGLIGENCE OR OTHERWISE) ARISING + /// * IN ANY WAY OUT OF THE USE OF THIS SOFTWARE, EVEN IF + /// * ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE. + /// */ + /// + + <CODE ENDS> + + + + + +Lever, et al. Standards Track [Page 25] + +RFC 8166 RPC-over-RDMA Version 1 June 2017 + + +4.1.2. RPC-over-RDMA Version 1 XDR + + XDR data items defined in this section encodes the Transport Header + Stream in each RPC-over-RDMA version 1 message. Comments identify + items that cannot be changed in subsequent versions. + + <CODE BEGINS> + + /// /* + /// * Plain RDMA segment (Section 3.4.3) + /// */ + /// struct xdr_rdma_segment { + /// uint32 handle; /* Registered memory handle */ + /// uint32 length; /* Length of the chunk in bytes */ + /// uint64 offset; /* Chunk virtual address or offset */ + /// }; + /// + /// /* + /// * RDMA read segment (Section 3.4.5) + /// */ + /// struct xdr_read_chunk { + /// uint32 position; /* Position in XDR stream */ + /// struct xdr_rdma_segment target; + /// }; + /// + /// /* + /// * Read list (Section 4.3.1) + /// */ + /// struct xdr_read_list { + /// struct xdr_read_chunk entry; + /// struct xdr_read_list *next; + /// }; + /// + /// /* + /// * Write chunk (Section 3.4.6) + /// */ + /// struct xdr_write_chunk { + /// struct xdr_rdma_segment target<>; + /// }; + /// + /// /* + /// * Write list (Section 4.3.2) + /// */ + /// struct xdr_write_list { + /// struct xdr_write_chunk entry; + /// struct xdr_write_list *next; + /// }; + /// + + + +Lever, et al. Standards Track [Page 26] + +RFC 8166 RPC-over-RDMA Version 1 June 2017 + + + /// /* + /// * Chunk lists (Section 4.3) + /// */ + /// struct rpc_rdma_header { + /// struct xdr_read_list *rdma_reads; + /// struct xdr_write_list *rdma_writes; + /// struct xdr_write_chunk *rdma_reply; + /// /* rpc body follows */ + /// }; + /// + /// struct rpc_rdma_header_nomsg { + /// struct xdr_read_list *rdma_reads; + /// struct xdr_write_list *rdma_writes; + /// struct xdr_write_chunk *rdma_reply; + /// }; + /// + /// /* Not to be used */ + /// struct rpc_rdma_header_padded { + /// uint32 rdma_align; + /// uint32 rdma_thresh; + /// struct xdr_read_list *rdma_reads; + /// struct xdr_write_list *rdma_writes; + /// struct xdr_write_chunk *rdma_reply; + /// /* rpc body follows */ + /// }; + /// + /// /* + /// * Error handling (Section 4.5) + /// */ + /// enum rpc_rdma_errcode { + /// ERR_VERS = 1, /* Value fixed for all versions */ + /// ERR_CHUNK = 2 + /// }; + /// + /// /* Structure fixed for all versions */ + /// struct rpc_rdma_errvers { + /// uint32 rdma_vers_low; + /// uint32 rdma_vers_high; + /// }; + /// + /// union rpc_rdma_error switch (rpc_rdma_errcode err) { + /// case ERR_VERS: + /// rpc_rdma_errvers range; + /// case ERR_CHUNK: + /// void; + /// }; + /// + /// /* + + + +Lever, et al. Standards Track [Page 27] + +RFC 8166 RPC-over-RDMA Version 1 June 2017 + + + /// * Procedures (Section 4.2.4) + /// */ + /// enum rdma_proc { + /// RDMA_MSG = 0, /* Value fixed for all versions */ + /// RDMA_NOMSG = 1, /* Value fixed for all versions */ + /// RDMA_MSGP = 2, /* Not to be used */ + /// RDMA_DONE = 3, /* Not to be used */ + /// RDMA_ERROR = 4 /* Value fixed for all versions */ + /// }; + /// + /// /* The position of the proc discriminator field is + /// * fixed for all versions */ + /// union rdma_body switch (rdma_proc proc) { + /// case RDMA_MSG: + /// rpc_rdma_header rdma_msg; + /// case RDMA_NOMSG: + /// rpc_rdma_header_nomsg rdma_nomsg; + /// case RDMA_MSGP: /* Not to be used */ + /// rpc_rdma_header_padded rdma_msgp; + /// case RDMA_DONE: /* Not to be used */ + /// void; + /// case RDMA_ERROR: + /// rpc_rdma_error rdma_error; + /// }; + /// + /// /* + /// * Fixed header fields (Section 4.2) + /// */ + /// struct rdma_msg { + /// uint32 rdma_xid; /* Position fixed for all versions */ + /// uint32 rdma_vers; /* Position fixed for all versions */ + /// uint32 rdma_credit; /* Position fixed for all versions */ + /// rdma_body rdma_body; + /// }; + + <CODE ENDS> + +4.2. Fixed Header Fields + + The RPC-over-RDMA header begins with four fixed 32-bit fields that + control the RDMA interaction. + + The first three words are individual fields in the rdma_msg + structure. The fourth word is the first word of the rdma_body union, + which acts as the discriminator for the switched union. The contents + of this field are described in Section 4.2.4. + + + + + +Lever, et al. Standards Track [Page 28] + +RFC 8166 RPC-over-RDMA Version 1 June 2017 + + + These four fields must remain with the same meanings and in the same + positions in all subsequent versions of the RPC-over-RDMA protocol. + +4.2.1. Transaction ID (XID) + + The XID generated for the RPC Call and Reply messages. Having the + XID at a fixed location in the header makes it easy for the receiver + to establish context as soon as each RPC-over-RDMA message arrives. + This XID MUST be the same as the XID in the RPC message. The + receiver MAY perform its processing based solely on the XID in the + RPC-over-RDMA header, and thereby ignore the XID in the RPC message, + if it so chooses. + +4.2.2. Version Number + + For RPC-over-RDMA version 1, this field MUST contain the value one + (1). Rules regarding changes to this transport protocol version + number can be found in Section 7. + +4.2.3. Credit Value + + When sent with an RPC Call message, the requested credit value is + provided. When sent with an RPC Reply message, the granted credit + value is returned. Further discussion of how the credit value is + determined can be found in Section 3.3. + +4.2.4. Procedure Number + + RDMA_MSG = 0 indicates that chunk lists and a Payload stream + follow. The format of the chunk lists is + discussed below. + + RDMA_NOMSG = 1 indicates that after the chunk lists there is no + Payload stream. In this case, the chunk lists + provide information to allow the Responder to + transfer the Payload stream using explicit RDMA + operations. + + RDMA_MSGP = 2 is reserved. + + RDMA_DONE = 3 is reserved. + + RDMA_ERROR = 4 is used to signal an encoding error in the RPC- + over-RDMA header. + + An RDMA_MSG procedure conveys the Transport stream and the Payload + stream via an RDMA Send operation. The Transport stream contains the + four fixed fields followed by the Read and Write lists and the Reply + + + +Lever, et al. Standards Track [Page 29] + +RFC 8166 RPC-over-RDMA Version 1 June 2017 + + + chunk, though any or all three MAY be marked as not present. The + Payload stream then follows, beginning with its XID field. If a Read + or Write chunk list is present, a portion of the Payload stream has + been reduced and is conveyed via separate operations. + + An RDMA_NOMSG procedure conveys the Transport stream via an RDMA Send + operation. The Transport stream contains the four fixed fields + followed by the Read and Write chunk lists and the Reply chunk. + Though any of these MAY be marked as not present, one MUST be present + and MUST hold the Payload stream for this RPC-over-RDMA message. If + a Read or Write chunk list is present, a portion of the Payload + stream has been excised and is conveyed via separate operations. + + An RDMA_ERROR procedure conveys the Transport stream via an RDMA Send + operation. The Transport stream contains the four fixed fields + followed by formatted error information. No Payload stream is + conveyed in this type of RPC-over-RDMA message. + + A Requester MUST NOT send an RPC-over-RDMA header with the RDMA_ERROR + procedure. A Responder MUST silently discard RDMA_ERROR procedures. + + The Transport stream and Payload stream can be constructed in + separate buffers. However, the total length of the gathered buffers + cannot exceed the inline threshold. + +4.3. Chunk Lists + + The chunk lists in an RPC-over-RDMA version 1 header are three XDR + optional-data fields that follow the fixed header fields in RDMA_MSG + and RDMA_NOMSG procedures. Read Section 4.19 of [RFC4506] carefully + to understand how optional-data fields work. Examples of XDR-encoded + chunk lists are provided in Section 4.7 as an aid to understanding. + + Often, an RPC-over-RDMA message has no associated chunks. In this + case, the Read list, Write list, and Reply chunk are all marked "not + present". + +4.3.1. Read List + + Each RDMA_MSG or RDMA_NOMSG procedure has one "Read list". The Read + list is a list of zero or more RDMA read segments, provided by the + Requester, that are grouped by their Position fields into Read + chunks. Each Read chunk advertises the location of argument data the + Responder is to pull from the Requester. The Requester has reduced + the data items in these chunks from the call's Payload stream. + + + + + + +Lever, et al. Standards Track [Page 30] + +RFC 8166 RPC-over-RDMA Version 1 June 2017 + + + A Requester may transmit the Payload stream of an RPC Call message + using a Position Zero Read chunk. If the RPC Call message has no + argument data that is DDP-eligible and the Position Zero Read chunk + is not being used, the Requester leaves the Read list empty. + + Responders MUST leave the Read list empty in all replies. + +4.3.1.1. Matching Read Chunks to Arguments + + When reducing a DDP-eligible argument data item, a Requester records + the XDR stream offset of that data item in the Read chunk's Position + field. The Responder can then tell unambiguously where that chunk is + to be reinserted into the received Payload stream to form a complete + RPC Call message. + +4.3.2. Write List + + Each RDMA_MSG or RDMA_NOMSG procedure has one "Write list". The + Write list is a list of zero or more Write chunks, provided by the + Requester. Each Write chunk is an array of plain segments; thus, the + Write list is a list of counted arrays. + + If an RPC Reply message has no possible DDP-eligible result data + items, the Requester leaves the Write list empty. When a Requester + provides a Write list, the Responder MUST push data corresponding to + DDP-eligible result data items to Requester memory referenced in the + Write list. The Responder removes these data items from the reply's + Payload stream. + +4.3.2.1. Matching Write Chunks to Results + + A Requester constructs the Write list for an RPC transaction before + the Responder has formulated its reply. When there is only one DDP- + eligible result data item, the Requester inserts only a single Write + chunk in the Write list. If the returned Write chunk is not an + unused Write chunk, the Requester knows with certainty which result + data item is contained in it. + + When a Requester has provided multiple Write chunks, the Responder + fills in each Write chunk with one DDP-eligible result until there + are either no more DDP-eligible results or no more Write chunks. + + The Requester might not be able to predict in advance which DDP- + eligible data item goes in which chunk. Thus, the Requester is + responsible for allocating and registering Write chunks large enough + to accommodate the largest result data item that might be associated + with each chunk in the Write list. + + + + +Lever, et al. Standards Track [Page 31] + +RFC 8166 RPC-over-RDMA Version 1 June 2017 + + + As a Requester decodes a reply Payload stream, it is clear from the + contents of the RPC Reply message which Write chunk contains which + result data item. + +4.3.2.2. Unused Write Chunks + + There are occasions when a Requester provides a non-empty Write chunk + but the Responder is not able to use it. For example, a ULP may + define a union result where some arms of the union contain a DDP- + eligible data item while other arms do not. The Responder is + required to use Requester-provided Write chunks in this case, but if + the Responder returns a result that uses an arm of the union that has + no DDP-eligible data item, that Write chunk remains unconsumed. + + If there is a subsequent DDP-eligible result data item in the RPC + Reply message, it MUST be placed in that unconsumed Write chunk. + Therefore, the Requester MUST provision each Write chunk so it can be + filled with the largest DDP-eligible data item that can be placed in + it. + + If this is the last or only Write chunk available and it remains + unconsumed, the Responder MUST return this Write chunk as an unused + Write chunk (see Section 3.4.6). The Responder sets the segment + count to a value matching the Requester-provided Write chunk, but + returns only empty segments in that Write chunk. + + Unused Write chunks, or unused bytes in Write chunk segments, are + returned to the RPC consumer as part of RPC completion. Even if a + Responder indicates that a Write chunk is not consumed, the Responder + may have written data into one or more segments before choosing not + to return that data item. The Requester MUST NOT assume that the + memory regions backing a Write chunk have not been modified. + +4.3.2.3. Empty Write Chunks + + To force a Responder to return a DDP-eligible result inline, a + Requester employs the following mechanism: + + o When there is only one DDP-eligible result item in an RPC Reply + message, the Requester provides an empty Write list. + + o When there are multiple DDP-eligible result data items and a + Requester prefers that a data item is returned inline, the + Requester provides an empty Write chunk for that item (see + Section 3.4.6). The Responder MUST return the corresponding + result data item inline and MUST return an empty Write chunk in + that Write list position in the RPC Reply message. + + + + +Lever, et al. Standards Track [Page 32] + +RFC 8166 RPC-over-RDMA Version 1 June 2017 + + + As always, a Requester and Responder must prepare for a Long Reply to + be used if the resulting RPC Reply might be too large to be conveyed + in an RDMA Send. + +4.3.3. Reply Chunk + + Each RDMA_MSG or RDMA_NOMSG procedure has one "Reply chunk" slot. A + Requester MUST provide a Reply chunk whenever the maximum possible + size of the RPC Reply message's Transport and Payload streams is + larger than the inline threshold for messages from Responder to + Requester. Otherwise, the Requester marks the Reply chunk as not + present. + + If the Transport stream and Payload stream together are smaller than + the reply inline threshold, the Responder MAY return the RPC Reply + message as a Short message rather than using the Requester-provided + Reply chunk. + + When a Requester provides a Reply chunk in an RPC Call message, the + Responder MUST copy that chunk into the Transport header of the RPC + Reply message. As with Write chunks, the Responder modifies the + copied Reply chunk in the RPC Reply message to reflect the actual + amount of data that is being returned in the Reply chunk. + +4.4. Memory Registration + + The cost of registering and invalidating memory can be a significant + proportion of the cost of an RPC-over-RDMA transaction. Thus, an + important implementation consideration is how to minimize + registration activity without exposing system memory needlessly. + +4.4.1. Registration Longevity + + Data transferred via RDMA Read and Write can reside in a memory + allocation not in the control of the RPC-over-RDMA transport. These + memory allocations can persist outside the bounds of an RPC + transaction. They are registered and invalidated as needed, as part + of each RPC transaction. + + The Requester endpoint must ensure that memory regions associated + with each RPC transaction are protected from Responder access before + allowing upper-layer access to the data contained in them. Moreover, + the Requester must not access these memory regions while the + Responder has access to them. + + + + + + + +Lever, et al. Standards Track [Page 33] + +RFC 8166 RPC-over-RDMA Version 1 June 2017 + + + This includes memory regions that are associated with canceled RPCs. + A Responder cannot know that the Requester is no longer waiting for a + reply, and it might proceed to read or even update memory that the + Requester might have released for other use. + +4.4.2. Communicating DDP-Eligibility + + The interface by which a ULP implementation communicates the + eligibility of a data item locally to its local RPC-over-RDMA + endpoint is not described by this specification. + + Depending on the implementation and constraints imposed by ULBs, it + is possible to implement reduction transparently to upper layers. + Such implementations may lead to inefficiencies, either because they + require the RPC layer to perform expensive registration and + invalidation of memory "on the fly", or they may require using RDMA + chunks in RPC Reply messages, along with the resulting additional + handshaking with the RPC-over-RDMA peer. + + However, these issues are internal and generally confined to the + local interface between RPC and its upper layers, one in which + implementations are free to innovate. The only requirement, beyond + constraints imposed by the ULB, is that the resulting RPC-over-RDMA + protocol sent to the peer be valid for the upper layer. + +4.4.3. Registration Strategies + + The choice of which memory registration strategies to employ is left + to Requester and Responder implementers. To support the widest array + of RDMA implementations, as well as the most general steering tag + scheme, an Offset field is included in each RDMA segment. + + While zero-based offset schemes are available in many RDMA + implementations, their use by RPC requires individual registration of + each memory region. For such implementations, this can be a + significant overhead. By providing an offset in each chunk, many + pre-registration or region-based registrations can be readily + supported. + +4.5. Error Handling + + A receiver performs basic validity checks on the RPC-over-RDMA header + and chunk contents before it passes the RPC message to the RPC layer. + If an incoming RPC-over-RDMA message is not as long as a minimal size + RPC-over-RDMA header (28 bytes), the receiver cannot trust the value + of the XID field; therefore, it MUST silently discard the message + before performing any parsing. If other errors are detected in the + RPC-over-RDMA header of an RPC Call message, a Responder MUST send an + + + +Lever, et al. Standards Track [Page 34] + +RFC 8166 RPC-over-RDMA Version 1 June 2017 + + + RDMA_ERROR message back to the Requester. If errors are detected in + the RPC-over-RDMA header of an RPC Reply message, a Requester MUST + silently discard the message. + + To form an RDMA_ERROR procedure: + + o The rdma_xid field MUST contain the same XID that was in the + rdma_xid field in the failing request; + + o The rdma_vers field MUST contain the same version that was in the + rdma_vers field in the failing request; + + o The rdma_proc field MUST contain the value RDMA_ERROR; and + + o The rdma_err field contains a value that reflects the type of + error that occurred, as described below. + + An RDMA_ERROR procedure indicates a permanent error. Receipt of this + procedure completes the RPC transaction associated with XID in the + rdma_xid field. A receiver MUST silently discard an RDMA_ERROR + procedure that it cannot decode. + +4.5.1. Header Version Mismatch + + When a Responder detects an RPC-over-RDMA header version that it does + not support (currently this document defines only version 1), it MUST + reply with an RDMA_ERROR procedure and set the rdma_err value to + ERR_VERS, also providing the low and high inclusive version numbers + it does, in fact, support. + +4.5.2. XDR Errors + + A receiver might encounter an XDR parsing error that prevents it from + processing the incoming Transport stream. Examples of such errors + include an invalid value in the rdma_proc field; an RDMA_NOMSG + message where the Read list, Write list, and Reply chunk are marked + not present; or the value of the rdma_xid field does not match the + value of the XID field in the accompanying RPC message. If the + rdma_vers field contains a recognized value, but an XDR parsing error + occurs, the Responder MUST reply with an RDMA_ERROR procedure and set + the rdma_err value to ERR_CHUNK. + + When a Responder receives a valid RPC-over-RDMA header but the + Responder's ULP implementation cannot parse the RPC arguments in the + RPC Call message, the Responder SHOULD return an RPC Reply message + with status GARBAGE_ARGS, using an RDMA_MSG procedure. This type of + parsing failure might be due to mismatches between chunk sizes or + offsets and the contents of the Payload stream, for example. + + + +Lever, et al. Standards Track [Page 35] + +RFC 8166 RPC-over-RDMA Version 1 June 2017 + + +4.5.3. Responder RDMA Operational Errors + + In RPC-over-RDMA version 1, the Responder initiates RDMA Read and + Write operations that target the Requester's memory. Problems might + arise as the Responder attempts to use Requester-provided resources + for RDMA operations. For example: + + o Usually, chunks can be validated only by using their contents to + perform data transfers. If chunk contents are invalid (e.g., a + memory region is no longer registered or a chunk length exceeds + the end of the registered memory region), a Remote Access Error + occurs. + + o If a Requester's Receive buffer is too small, the Responder's Send + operation completes with a Local Length Error. + + o If the Requester-provided Reply chunk is too small to accommodate + a large RPC Reply message, a Remote Access Error occurs. A + Responder might detect this problem before attempting to write + past the end of the Reply chunk. + + RDMA operational errors are typically fatal to the connection. To + avoid a retransmission loop and repeated connection loss that + deadlocks the connection, once the Requester has re-established a + connection, the Responder should send an RDMA_ERROR reply with an + rdma_err value of ERR_CHUNK to indicate that no RPC-level reply is + possible for that XID. + +4.5.4. Other Operational Errors + + While a Requester is constructing an RPC Call message, an + unrecoverable problem might occur that prevents the Requester from + posting further RDMA Work Requests on behalf of that message. As + with other transports, if a Requester is unable to construct and + transmit an RPC Call message, the associated RPC transaction fails + immediately. + + After a Requester has received a reply, if it is unable to invalidate + a memory region due to an unrecoverable problem, the Requester MUST + close the connection to protect that memory from Responder access + before the associated RPC transaction is complete. + + While a Responder is constructing an RPC Reply message or error + message, an unrecoverable problem might occur that prevents the + Responder from posting further RDMA Work Requests on behalf of that + message. If a Responder is unable to construct and transmit an RPC + Reply or RPC-over-RDMA error message, the Responder MUST close the + connection to signal to the Requester that a reply was lost. + + + +Lever, et al. Standards Track [Page 36] + +RFC 8166 RPC-over-RDMA Version 1 June 2017 + + +4.5.5. RDMA Transport Errors + + The RDMA connection and physical link provide some degree of error + detection and retransmission. iWARP's Marker PDU Aligned (MPA) layer + (when used over TCP), the Stream Control Transmission Protocol + (SCTP), as well as the InfiniBand [IBARCH] link layer all provide + Cyclic Redundancy Check (CRC) protection of the RDMA payload, and + CRC-class protection is a general attribute of such transports. + + Additionally, the RPC layer itself can accept errors from the + transport and recover via retransmission. RPC recovery can handle + complete loss and re-establishment of a transport connection. + + The details of reporting and recovery from RDMA link-layer errors are + described in specific link-layer APIs and operational specifications + and are outside the scope of this protocol specification. See + Section 8 for further discussion of the use of RPC-level integrity + schemes to detect errors. + +4.6. Protocol Elements No Longer Supported + + The following protocol elements are no longer supported in RPC-over- + RDMA version 1. Related enum values and structure definitions remain + in the RPC-over-RDMA version 1 protocol for backwards compatibility. + +4.6.1. RDMA_MSGP + + The specification of RDMA_MSGP in Section 3.9 of [RFC5666] is + incomplete. To fully specify RDMA_MSGP would require: + + o Updating the definition of DDP-eligibility to include data items + that may be transferred, with padding, via RDMA_MSGP procedures + + o Adding full operational descriptions of the alignment and + threshold fields + + o Discussing how alignment preferences are communicated between two + peers without using CCP + + o Describing the treatment of RDMA_MSGP procedures that convey Read + or Write chunks + + The RDMA_MSGP message type is beneficial only when the padded data + payload is at the end of an RPC message's argument or result list. + This is not typical for NFSv4 COMPOUND RPCs, which often include a + GETATTR operation as the final element of the compound operation + array. + + + + +Lever, et al. Standards Track [Page 37] + +RFC 8166 RPC-over-RDMA Version 1 June 2017 + + + Without a full specification of RDMA_MSGP, there has been no fully + implemented prototype of it. Without a complete prototype of + RDMA_MSGP support, it is difficult to assess whether this protocol + element has benefit or can even be made to work interoperably. + + Therefore, senders MUST NOT send RDMA_MSGP procedures. When + receiving an RDMA_MSGP procedure, Responders SHOULD reply with an + RDMA_ERROR procedure, setting the rdma_err field to ERR_CHUNK; + Requesters MUST silently discard the message. + +4.6.2. RDMA_DONE + + Because no implementation of RPC-over-RDMA version 1 uses the Read- + Read transfer model, there is never a need to send an RDMA_DONE + procedure. + + Therefore, senders MUST NOT send RDMA_DONE messages. Receivers MUST + silently discard RDMA_DONE messages. + +4.7. XDR Examples + + RPC-over-RDMA chunk lists are complex data types. In this section, + illustrations are provided to help readers grasp how chunk lists are + represented inside an RPC-over-RDMA header. + + A plain segment is the simplest component, being made up of a 32-bit + handle (H), a 32-bit length (L), and 64 bits of offset (OO). Once + flattened into an XDR stream, plain segments appear as + + HLOO + + An RDMA read segment has an additional 32-bit position field (P). + RDMA read segments appear as + + PHLOO + + A Read chunk is a list of RDMA read segments. Each RDMA read segment + is preceded by a 32-bit word containing a one if a segment follows or + a zero if there are no more segments in the list. In XDR form, this + would look like + + 1 PHLOO 1 PHLOO 1 PHLOO 0 + + where P would hold the same value for each RDMA read segment + belonging to the same Read chunk. + + + + + + +Lever, et al. Standards Track [Page 38] + +RFC 8166 RPC-over-RDMA Version 1 June 2017 + + + The Read list is also a list of RDMA read segments. In XDR form, + this would look like a Read chunk, except that the P values could + vary across the list. An empty Read list is encoded as a single + 32-bit zero. + + One Write chunk is a counted array of plain segments. In XDR form, + the count would appear as the first 32-bit word, followed by an HLOO + for each element of the array. For instance, a Write chunk with + three elements would look like + + 3 HLOO HLOO HLOO + + The Write list is a list of counted arrays. In XDR form, this is a + combination of optional-data and counted arrays. To represent a + Write list containing a Write chunk with three segments and a Write + chunk with two segments, XDR would encode + + 1 3 HLOO HLOO HLOO 1 2 HLOO HLOO 0 + + An empty Write list is encoded as a single 32-bit zero. + + The Reply chunk is a Write chunk. However, since it is an optional- + data field, there is a 32-bit field in front of it that contains a + one if the Reply chunk is present or a zero if it is not. After + encoding, a Reply chunk with two segments would look like + + 1 2 HLOO HLOO + + Frequently, a Requester does not provide any chunks. In that case, + after the four fixed fields in the RPC-over-RDMA header, there are + simply three 32-bit fields that contain zero. + +5. RPC Bind Parameters + + In setting up a new RDMA connection, the first action by a Requester + is to obtain a transport address for the Responder. The means used + to obtain this address, and to open an RDMA connection, is dependent + on the type of RDMA transport and is the responsibility of each RPC + protocol binding and its local implementation. + + RPC services normally register with a portmap or rpcbind service + [RFC1833], which associates an RPC Program number with a service + address. This policy is no different with RDMA transports. However, + a different and distinct service address (port number) might + sometimes be required for ULP operation with RPC-over-RDMA. + + + + + + +Lever, et al. Standards Track [Page 39] + +RFC 8166 RPC-over-RDMA Version 1 June 2017 + + + When mapped atop the iWARP transport [RFC5040] [RFC5041], which uses + IP port addressing due to its layering on TCP and/or SCTP, port + mapping is trivial and consists merely of issuing the port in the + connection process. The NFS/RDMA protocol service address has been + assigned port 20049 by IANA, for both iWARP/TCP and iWARP/SCTP + [RFC5667]. + + When mapped atop InfiniBand [IBARCH], which uses a service endpoint + naming scheme based on a Group Identifier (GID), a translation MUST + be employed. One such translation is described in Annexes A3 + (Application Specific Identifiers), A4 (Sockets Direct Protocol + (SDP)), and A11 (RDMA IP CM Service) of [IBARCH], which is + appropriate for translating IP port addressing to the InfiniBand + network. Therefore, in this case, IP port addressing may be readily + employed by the upper layer. + + When a mapping standard or convention exists for IP ports on an RDMA + interconnect, there are several possibilities for each upper layer to + consider: + + o One possibility is to have the Responder register its mapped IP + port with the rpcbind service under the netid (or netids) defined + here. An RPC-over-RDMA-aware Requester can then resolve its + desired service to a mappable port and proceed to connect. This + is the most flexible and compatible approach, for those upper + layers that are defined to use the rpcbind service. + + o A second possibility is to have the Responder's portmapper + register itself on the RDMA interconnect at a "well-known" service + address (on UDP or TCP, this corresponds to port 111). A + Requester could connect to this service address and use the + portmap protocol to obtain a service address in response to a + program number, e.g., an iWARP port number or an InfiniBand GID. + + o Alternately, the Requester could simply connect to the mapped + well-known port for the service itself, if it is appropriately + defined. By convention, the NFS/RDMA service, when operating atop + such an InfiniBand fabric, uses the same 20049 assignment as for + iWARP. + + Historically, different RPC protocols have taken different approaches + to their port assignment. Therefore, the specific method is left to + each RPC-over-RDMA-enabled ULB and is not addressed in this document. + + + + + + + + +Lever, et al. Standards Track [Page 40] + +RFC 8166 RPC-over-RDMA Version 1 June 2017 + + + In Section 9, this specification defines two new netid values, to be + used for registration of upper layers atop iWARP [RFC5040] [RFC5041] + and (when a suitable port translation service is available) + InfiniBand [IBARCH]. Additional RDMA-capable networks MAY define + their own netids, or if they provide a port translation, they MAY + share the one defined in this document. + +6. ULB Specifications + + An ULP is typically defined independently of any particular RPC + transport. An ULB (ULB) specification provides guidance that helps + the ULP interoperate correctly and efficiently over a particular + transport. For RPC-over-RDMA version 1, a ULB may provide: + + o A taxonomy of XDR data items that are eligible for DDP + + o Constraints on which upper-layer procedures may be reduced and on + how many chunks may appear in a single RPC request + + o A method for determining the maximum size of the reply Payload + stream for all procedures in the ULP + + o An rpcbind port assignment for operation of the RPC Program and + Version on an RPC-over-RDMA transport + + Each RPC Program and Version tuple that utilizes RPC-over-RDMA + version 1 needs to have a ULB specification. + +6.1. DDP-Eligibility + + An ULB designates some XDR data items as eligible for DDP. As an + RPC-over-RDMA message is formed, DDP-eligible data items can be + removed from the Payload stream and placed directly in the receiver's + memory. + + An XDR data item should be considered for DDP-eligibility if there is + a clear benefit to moving the contents of the item directly from the + sender's memory to the receiver's memory. Criteria for DDP- + eligibility include: + + o The XDR data item is frequently sent or received, and its size is + often much larger than typical inline thresholds. + + o If the XDR data item is a result, its maximum size must be + predictable in advance by the Requester. + + + + + + +Lever, et al. Standards Track [Page 41] + +RFC 8166 RPC-over-RDMA Version 1 June 2017 + + + o Transport-level processing of the XDR data item is not needed. + For example, the data item is an opaque byte array, which requires + no XDR encoding and decoding of its content. + + o The content of the XDR data item is sensitive to address + alignment. For example, a data copy operation would be required + on the receiver to enable the message to be parsed correctly, or + to enable the data item to be accessed. + + o The XDR data item does not contain DDP-eligible data items. + + In addition to defining the set of data items that are DDP-eligible, + a ULB may also limit the use of chunks to particular upper-layer + procedures. If more than one data item in a procedure is DDP- + eligible, the ULB may also limit the number of chunks that a + Requester can provide for a particular upper-layer procedure. + + Senders MUST NOT reduce data items that are not DDP-eligible. Such + data items MAY, however, be moved as part of a Position Zero Read + chunk or a Reply chunk. + + The programming interface by which an upper-layer implementation + indicates the DDP-eligibility of a data item to the RPC transport is + not described by this specification. The only requirements are that + the receiver can re-assemble the transmitted RPC-over-RDMA message + into a valid XDR stream, and that DDP-eligibility rules specified by + the ULB are respected. + + There is no provision to express DDP-eligibility within the XDR + language. The only definitive specification of DDP-eligibility is a + ULB. + + In general, a DDP-eligibility violation occurs when: + + o A Requester reduces a non-DDP-eligible argument data item. The + Responder MUST NOT process this RPC Call message and MUST report + the violation as described in Section 4.5.2. + + o A Responder reduces a non-DDP-eligible result data item. The + Requester MUST terminate the pending RPC transaction and report an + appropriate permanent error to the RPC consumer. + + o A Responder does not reduce a DDP-eligible result data item into + an available Write chunk. The Requester MUST terminate the + pending RPC transaction and report an appropriate permanent error + to the RPC consumer. + + + + + +Lever, et al. Standards Track [Page 42] + +RFC 8166 RPC-over-RDMA Version 1 June 2017 + + +6.2. Maximum Reply Size + + A Requester provides resources for both an RPC Call message and its + matching RPC Reply message. A Requester forms the RPC Call message + itself; thus, the Requester can compute the exact resources needed. + + A Requester must allocate resources for the RPC Reply message (an + RPC-over-RDMA credit, a Receive buffer, and possibly a Write list and + Reply chunk) before the Responder has formed the actual reply. To + accommodate all possible replies for the procedure in the RPC Call + message, a Requester must allocate reply resources based on the + maximum possible size of the expected RPC Reply message. + + If there are procedures in the ULP for which there is no clear reply + size maximum, the ULB needs to specify a dependable means for + determining the maximum. + +6.3. Additional Considerations + + There may be other details provided in a ULB. + + o An ULB may recommend inline threshold values or other transport- + related parameters for RPC-over-RDMA version 1 connections bearing + that ULP. + + o An ULP may provide a means to communicate these transport-related + parameters between peers. Note that RPC-over-RDMA version 1 does + not specify any mechanism for changing any transport-related + parameter after a connection has been established. + + o Multiple ULPs may share a single RPC-over-RDMA version 1 + connection when their ULBs allow the use of RPC-over-RDMA version + 1 and the rpcbind port assignments for the Protocols allow + connection sharing. In this case, the same transport parameters + (such as inline threshold) apply to all Protocols using that + connection. + + Each ULB needs to be designed to allow correct interoperation without + regard to the transport parameters actually in use. Furthermore, + implementations of ULPs must be designed to interoperate correctly + regardless of the connection parameters in effect on a connection. + +6.4. ULP Extensions + + An RPC Program and Version tuple may be extensible. For instance, + there may be a minor versioning scheme that is not reflected in the + RPC version number, or the ULP may allow additional features to be + specified after the original RPC Program specification was ratified. + + + +Lever, et al. Standards Track [Page 43] + +RFC 8166 RPC-over-RDMA Version 1 June 2017 + + + ULBs are provided for interoperable RPC Programs and Versions by + extending existing ULBs to reflect the changes made necessary by each + addition to the existing XDR. + +7. Protocol Extensibility + + The RPC-over-RDMA header format is specified using XDR, unlike the + message header used with RPC-over-TCP. To maintain a high degree of + interoperability among implementations of RPC-over-RDMA, any change + to this XDR requires a protocol version number change. New versions + of RPC-over-RDMA may be published as separate protocol specifications + without updating this document. + + The first four fields in every RPC-over-RDMA header must remain + aligned at the same fixed offsets for all versions of the RPC-over- + RDMA protocol. The version number must be in a fixed place to enable + implementations to detect protocol version mismatches. + + For version mismatches to be reported in a fashion that all future + version implementations can reliably decode, the rdma_proc field must + remain in a fixed place, the value of ERR_VERS must always remain the + same, and the field placement in struct rpc_rdma_errvers must always + remain the same. + +7.1. Conventional Extensions + + Introducing new capabilities to RPC-over-RDMA version 1 is limited to + the adoption of conventions that make use of existing XDR (defined in + this document) and allowed abstract RDMA operations. Because no + mechanism for detecting optional features exists in RPC-over-RDMA + version 1, implementations must rely on ULPs to communicate the + existence of such extensions. + + Such extensions must be specified in a Standards Track RFC with + appropriate review by the NFSv4 Working Group and the IESG. An + example of a conventional extension to RPC-over-RDMA version 1 is the + specification of backward direction message support to enable NFSv4.1 + callback operations, described in [RFC8167]. + +8. Security Considerations + +8.1. Memory Protection + + A primary consideration is the protection of the integrity and + confidentiality of local memory by an RPC-over-RDMA transport. The + use of an RPC-over-RDMA transport protocol MUST NOT introduce + vulnerabilities to system memory contents nor to memory owned by user + processes. + + + +Lever, et al. Standards Track [Page 44] + +RFC 8166 RPC-over-RDMA Version 1 June 2017 + + + It is REQUIRED that any RDMA provider used for RPC transport be + conformant to the requirements of [RFC5042] in order to satisfy these + protections. These protections are provided by the RDMA layer + specifications, and in particular, their security models. + +8.1.1. Protection Domains + + The use of Protection Domains to limit the exposure of memory regions + to a single connection is critical. Any attempt by an endpoint not + participating in that connection to reuse memory handles needs to + result in immediate failure of that connection. Because ULP security + mechanisms rely on this aspect of Reliable Connection behavior, + strong authentication of remote endpoints is recommended. + +8.1.2. Handle Predictability + + Unpredictable memory handles should be used for any operation + requiring advertised memory regions. Advertising a continuously + registered memory region allows a remote host to read or write to + that region even when an RPC involving that memory is not under way. + Therefore, implementations should avoid advertising persistently + registered memory. + +8.1.3. Memory Protection + + Requesters should register memory regions for remote access only when + they are about to be the target of an RPC operation that involves an + RDMA Read or Write. + + Registered memory regions should be invalidated as soon as related + RPC operations are complete. Invalidation and DMA unmapping of + memory regions should be complete before message integrity checking + is done and before the RPC consumer is allowed to continue execution + and use or alter the contents of a memory region. + + An RPC transaction on a Requester might be terminated before a reply + arrives if the RPC consumer exits unexpectedly (for example, it is + signaled or a segmentation fault occurs). When an RPC terminates + abnormally, memory regions associated with that RPC should be + invalidated appropriately before the regions are released to be + reused for other purposes on the Requester. + +8.1.4. Denial of Service + + A detailed discussion of denial-of-service exposures that can result + from the use of an RDMA transport is found in Section 6.4 of + [RFC5042]. + + + + +Lever, et al. Standards Track [Page 45] + +RFC 8166 RPC-over-RDMA Version 1 June 2017 + + + A Responder is not obliged to pull Read chunks that are unreasonably + large. The Responder can use an RDMA_ERROR response to terminate + RPCs with unreadable Read chunks. If a Responder transmits more data + than a Requester is prepared to receive in a Write or Reply chunk, + the RDMA Network Interface Cards (RNICs) typically terminate the + connection. For further discussion, see Section 4.5. Such repeated + chunk errors can deny service to other users sharing the connection + from the errant Requester. + + An RPC-over-RDMA transport implementation is not responsible for + throttling the RPC request rate, other than to keep the number of + concurrent RPC transactions at or under the number of credits granted + per connection. This is explained in Section 3.3.1. A sender can + trigger a self denial of service by exceeding the credit grant + repeatedly. + + When an RPC has been canceled due to a signal or premature exit of an + application process, a Requester may invalidate the RPC's Write and + Reply chunks. Invalidation prevents the subsequent arrival of the + Responder's reply from altering the memory regions associated with + those chunks after the memory has been reused. + + On the Requester, a malfunctioning application or a malicious user + can create a situation where RPCs are continuously initiated and then + aborted, resulting in Responder replies that terminate the underlying + RPC-over-RDMA connection repeatedly. Such situations can deny + service to other users sharing the connection from that Requester. + +8.2. RPC Message Security + + ONC RPC provides cryptographic security via the RPCSEC_GSS framework + [RFC7861]. RPCSEC_GSS implements message authentication + (rpc_gss_svc_none), per-message integrity checking + (rpc_gss_svc_integrity), and per-message confidentiality + (rpc_gss_svc_privacy) in the layer above RPC-over-RDMA. The latter + two services require significant computation and movement of data on + each endpoint host. Some performance benefits enabled by RDMA + transports can be lost. + +8.2.1. RPC-over-RDMA Protection at Lower Layers + + For any RPC transport, utilizing RPCSEC_GSS integrity or privacy + services has performance implications. Protection below the RPC + transport is often more appropriate in performance-sensitive + deployments, especially if it, too, can be offloaded. Certain + configurations of IPsec can be co-located in RDMA hardware, for + example, without change to RDMA consumers and little loss of data + + + + +Lever, et al. Standards Track [Page 46] + +RFC 8166 RPC-over-RDMA Version 1 June 2017 + + + movement efficiency. Such arrangements can also provide a higher + degree of privacy by hiding endpoint identity or altering the + frequency at which messages are exchanged, at a performance cost. + + The use of protection in a lower layer MAY be negotiated through the + use of an RPCSEC_GSS security flavor defined in [RFC7861] in + conjunction with the Channel Binding mechanism [RFC5056] and IPsec + Channel Connection Latching [RFC5660]. Use of such mechanisms is + REQUIRED where integrity or confidentiality is desired and where + efficiency is required. + +8.2.2. RPCSEC_GSS on RPC-over-RDMA Transports + + Not all RDMA devices and fabrics support the above protection + mechanisms. Also, per-message authentication is still required on + NFS clients where multiple users access NFS files. In these cases, + RPCSEC_GSS can protect NFS traffic conveyed on RPC-over-RDMA + connections. + + RPCSEC_GSS extends the ONC RPC protocol [RFC5531] without changing + the format of RPC messages. By observing the conventions described + in this section, an RPC-over-RDMA transport can convey RPCSEC_GSS- + protected RPC messages interoperably. + + As part of the ONC RPC protocol, protocol elements of RPCSEC_GSS that + appear in the Payload stream of an RPC-over-RDMA message (such as + control messages exchanged as part of establishing or destroying a + security context or data items that are part of RPCSEC_GSS + authentication material) MUST NOT be reduced. + +8.2.2.1. RPCSEC_GSS Context Negotiation + + Some NFS client implementations use a separate connection to + establish a Generic Security Service (GSS) context for NFS operation. + These clients use TCP and the standard NFS port (2049) for context + establishment. To enable the use of RPCSEC_GSS with NFS/RDMA, an NFS + server MUST also provide a TCP-based NFS service on port 2049. + +8.2.2.2. RPC-over-RDMA with RPCSEC_GSS Authentication + + The RPCSEC_GSS authentication service has no impact on the DDP- + eligibility of data items in a ULP. + + However, RPCSEC_GSS authentication material appearing in an RPC + message header can be larger than, say, an AUTH_SYS authenticator. + In particular, when an RPCSEC_GSS pseudoflavor is in use, a Requester + + + + + +Lever, et al. Standards Track [Page 47] + +RFC 8166 RPC-over-RDMA Version 1 June 2017 + + + needs to accommodate a larger RPC credential when marshaling RPC Call + messages and needs to provide for a maximum size RPCSEC_GSS verifier + when allocating reply buffers and Reply chunks. + + RPC messages, and thus Payload streams, are made larger as a result. + ULP operations that fit in a Short Message when a simpler form of + authentication is in use might need to be reduced, or conveyed via a + Long Message, when RPCSEC_GSS authentication is in use. It is more + likely that a Requester provides both a Read list and a Reply chunk + in the same RPC-over-RDMA header to convey a Long Call and provision + a receptacle for a Long Reply. More frequent use of Long Messages + can impact transport efficiency. + +8.2.2.3. RPC-over-RDMA with RPCSEC_GSS Integrity or Privacy + + The RPCSEC_GSS integrity service enables endpoints to detect + modification of RPC messages in flight. The RPCSEC_GSS privacy + service prevents all but the intended recipient from viewing the + cleartext content of RPC arguments and results. RPCSEC_GSS integrity + and privacy services are end-to-end. They protect RPC arguments and + results from application to server endpoint, and back. + + The RPCSEC_GSS integrity and encryption services operate on whole RPC + messages after they have been XDR encoded for transmit, and before + they have been XDR decoded after receipt. Both sender and receiver + endpoints use intermediate buffers to prevent exposure of encrypted + data or unverified cleartext data to RPC consumers. After + verification, encryption, and message wrapping has been performed, + the transport layer MAY use RDMA data transfer between these + intermediate buffers. + + The process of reducing a DDP-eligible data item removes the data + item and its XDR padding from the encoded XDR stream. XDR padding of + a reduced data item is not transferred in an RPC-over-RDMA message. + After reduction, the Payload stream contains fewer octets than the + whole XDR stream did beforehand. XDR padding octets are often zero + bytes, but they don't have to be. Thus, reducing DDP-eligible items + affects the result of message integrity verification or encryption. + + Therefore, a sender MUST NOT reduce a Payload stream when RPCSEC_GSS + integrity or encryption services are in use. Effectively, no data + item is DDP-eligible in this situation, and Chunked Messages cannot + be used. In this mode, an RPC-over-RDMA transport operates in the + same manner as a transport that does not support DDP. + + + + + + + +Lever, et al. Standards Track [Page 48] + +RFC 8166 RPC-over-RDMA Version 1 June 2017 + + + When an RPCSEC_GSS integrity or privacy service is in use, a + Requester provides both a Read list and a Reply chunk in the same + RPC-over-RDMA header to convey a Long Call and provision a receptacle + for a Long Reply. + +8.2.2.4. Protecting RPC-over-RDMA Transport Headers + + Like the base fields in an ONC RPC message (XID, call direction, and + so on), the contents of an RPC-over-RDMA message's Transport stream + are not protected by RPCSEC_GSS. This exposes XIDs, connection + credit limits, and chunk lists (but not the content of the data items + they refer to) to malicious behavior, which could redirect data that + is transferred by the RPC-over-RDMA message, result in spurious + retransmits, or trigger connection loss. + + In particular, if an attacker alters the information contained in the + chunk lists of an RPC-over-RDMA header, data contained in those + chunks can be redirected to other registered memory regions on + Requesters. An attacker might alter the arguments of RDMA Read and + RDMA Write operations on the wire to similar effect. If such + alterations occur, the use of RPCSEC_GSS integrity or privacy + services enable a Requester to detect unexpected material in a + received RPC message. + + Encryption at lower layers, as described in Section 8.2.1, protects + the content of the Transport stream. To address attacks on RDMA + protocols themselves, RDMA transport implementations should conform + to [RFC5042]. + +9. IANA Considerations + + A set of RPC netids for resolving RPC-over-RDMA services is specified + by this document. This is unchanged from [RFC5666]. + + The RPC-over-RDMA transport has been assigned an RPC netid, which is + an rpcbind [RFC1833] string used to describe the underlying protocol + in order for RPC to select the appropriate transport framing, as well + as the format of the service addresses and ports. + + The following netid registry strings are defined for this purpose: + + NC_RDMA "rdma" + NC_RDMA6 "rdma6" + + The "rdma" netid is to be used when IPv4 addressing is employed by + the underlying transport, and "rdma6" for IPv6 addressing. The netid + assignment policy and registry are defined in [RFC5665]. + + + + +Lever, et al. Standards Track [Page 49] + +RFC 8166 RPC-over-RDMA Version 1 June 2017 + + + These netids MAY be used for any RDMA network that satisfies the + requirements of Section 2.3.2 and that is able to identify service + endpoints using IP port addressing, possibly through use of a + translation service as described in Section 5. + + The use of the RPC-over-RDMA protocol has no effect on RPC Program + numbers or existing registered port numbers. However, new port + numbers MAY be registered for use by RPC-over-RDMA-enabled services, + as appropriate to the new networks over which the services will + operate. + + For example, the NFS/RDMA service defined in [RFC5667] has been + assigned the port 20049 in the "Service Name and Transport Protocol + Port Number Registry". This is distinct from the port number defined + for NFS on TCP, which is assigned the port 2049 in the same registry. + NFS clients use the same RPC Program number for NFS (100003) when + using either transport [RFC5531] (see the "Remote Procedure Call + (RPC) Program Numbers" registry). + +10. References + +10.1. Normative References + + [RFC1833] Srinivasan, R., "Binding Protocols for ONC RPC Version 2", + RFC 1833, DOI 10.17487/RFC1833, August 1995, + <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1833>. + + [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate + Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, + DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997, + <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>. + + [RFC4506] Eisler, M., Ed., "XDR: External Data Representation + Standard", STD 67, RFC 4506, DOI 10.17487/RFC4506, May + 2006, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4506>. + + [RFC5042] Pinkerton, J. and E. Deleganes, "Direct Data Placement + Protocol (DDP) / Remote Direct Memory Access Protocol + (RDMAP) Security", RFC 5042, DOI 10.17487/RFC5042, October + 2007, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5042>. + + [RFC5056] Williams, N., "On the Use of Channel Bindings to Secure + Channels", RFC 5056, DOI 10.17487/RFC5056, November 2007, + <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5056>. + + [RFC5531] Thurlow, R., "RPC: Remote Procedure Call Protocol + Specification Version 2", RFC 5531, DOI 10.17487/RFC5531, + May 2009, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5531>. + + + +Lever, et al. Standards Track [Page 50] + +RFC 8166 RPC-over-RDMA Version 1 June 2017 + + + [RFC5660] Williams, N., "IPsec Channels: Connection Latching", + RFC 5660, DOI 10.17487/RFC5660, October 2009, + <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5660>. + + [RFC5665] Eisler, M., "IANA Considerations for Remote Procedure Call + (RPC) Network Identifiers and Universal Address Formats", + RFC 5665, DOI 10.17487/RFC5665, January 2010, + <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5665>. + + [RFC7861] Adamson, A. and N. Williams, "Remote Procedure Call (RPC) + Security Version 3", RFC 7861, DOI 10.17487/RFC7861, + November 2016, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7861>. + + [RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC + 2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174, + May 2017, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>. + +10.2. Informative References + + [IBARCH] InfiniBand Trade Association, "InfiniBand Architecture + Specification Volume 1", Release 1.3, March 2015, + <http://www.infinibandta.org/content/ + pages.php?pg=technology_download>. + + [RFC768] Postel, J., "User Datagram Protocol", STD 6, RFC 768, + DOI 10.17487/RFC0768, August 1980, + <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc768>. + + [RFC793] Postel, J., "Transmission Control Protocol", STD 7, + RFC 793, DOI 10.17487/RFC0793, September 1981, + <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc793>. + + [RFC1094] Nowicki, B., "NFS: Network File System Protocol + specification", RFC 1094, DOI 10.17487/RFC1094, March + 1989, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1094>. + + [RFC1813] Callaghan, B., Pawlowski, B., and P. Staubach, "NFS + Version 3 Protocol Specification", RFC 1813, + DOI 10.17487/RFC1813, June 1995, + <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1813>. + + [RFC5040] Recio, R., Metzler, B., Culley, P., Hilland, J., and D. + Garcia, "A Remote Direct Memory Access Protocol + Specification", RFC 5040, DOI 10.17487/RFC5040, October + 2007, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5040>. + + + + + + +Lever, et al. Standards Track [Page 51] + +RFC 8166 RPC-over-RDMA Version 1 June 2017 + + + [RFC5041] Shah, H., Pinkerton, J., Recio, R., and P. Culley, "Direct + Data Placement over Reliable Transports", RFC 5041, + DOI 10.17487/RFC5041, October 2007, + <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5041>. + + [RFC5532] Talpey, T. and C. Juszczak, "Network File System (NFS) + Remote Direct Memory Access (RDMA) Problem Statement", + RFC 5532, DOI 10.17487/RFC5532, May 2009, + <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5532>. + + [RFC5661] Shepler, S., Ed., Eisler, M., Ed., and D. Noveck, Ed., + "Network File System (NFS) Version 4 Minor Version 1 + Protocol", RFC 5661, DOI 10.17487/RFC5661, January 2010, + <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5661>. + + [RFC5662] Shepler, S., Ed., Eisler, M., Ed., and D. Noveck, Ed., + "Network File System (NFS) Version 4 Minor Version 1 + External Data Representation Standard (XDR) Description", + RFC 5662, DOI 10.17487/RFC5662, January 2010, + <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5662>. + + [RFC5666] Talpey, T. and B. Callaghan, "Remote Direct Memory Access + Transport for Remote Procedure Call", RFC 5666, + DOI 10.17487/RFC5666, January 2010, + <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5666>. + + [RFC5667] Talpey, T. and B. Callaghan, "Network File System (NFS) + Direct Data Placement", RFC 5667, DOI 10.17487/RFC5667, + January 2010, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5667>. + + [RFC7530] Haynes, T., Ed. and D. Noveck, Ed., "Network File System + (NFS) Version 4 Protocol", RFC 7530, DOI 10.17487/RFC7530, + March 2015, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7530>. + + [RFC8167] Lever, C., "Bidirectional Remote Procedure Call on RPC- + over-RDMA Transports", RFC 8167, DOI 10.17487/RFC8167, + June 2017, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8167>. + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +Lever, et al. Standards Track [Page 52] + +RFC 8166 RPC-over-RDMA Version 1 June 2017 + + +Appendix A. Changes from RFC 5666 + +A.1. Changes to the Specification + + The following alterations have been made to the RPC-over-RDMA version + 1 specification. The section numbers below refer to [RFC5666]. + + o Section 2 has been expanded to introduce and explain key RPC + [RFC5531], XDR [RFC4506], and RDMA [RFC5040] terminology. These + terms are now used consistently throughout the specification. + + o Section 3 has been reorganized and split into subsections to help + readers locate specific requirements and definitions. + + o Sections 4 and 5 have been combined to improve the organization of + this information. + + o The optional Connection Configuration Protocol has never been + implemented. The specification of CCP has been deleted from this + specification. + + o A section consolidating requirements for ULBs has been added. + + o An XDR extraction mechanism is provided, along with full + copyright, matching the approach used in [RFC5662]. + + o The "Security Considerations" section has been expanded to include + a discussion of how RPC-over-RDMA security depends on features of + the underlying RDMA transport. + + o A subsection describing the use of RPCSEC_GSS [RFC7861] with RPC- + over-RDMA version 1 has been added. + +A.2. Changes to the Protocol + + Although the protocol described herein interoperates with existing + implementations of [RFC5666], the following changes have been made + relative to the protocol described in that document: + + o Support for the Read-Read transfer model has been removed. Read- + Read is a slower transfer model than Read-Write. As a result, + implementers have chosen not to support it. Removal of Read-Read + simplifies explanatory text, and the RDMA_DONE procedure is no + longer part of the protocol. + + + + + + + +Lever, et al. Standards Track [Page 53] + +RFC 8166 RPC-over-RDMA Version 1 June 2017 + + + o The specification of RDMA_MSGP in [RFC5666] is not adequate, + although some incomplete implementations exist. Even if an + adequate specification were provided and an implementation were + produced, benefit for protocols such as NFSv4.0 [RFC7530] is + doubtful. Therefore, the RDMA_MSGP message type is no longer + supported. + + o Technical issues with regard to handling RPC-over-RDMA header + errors have been corrected. + + o Specific requirements related to implicit XDR roundup and complex + XDR data types have been added. + + o Explicit guidance is provided related to sizing Write chunks, + managing multiple chunks in the Write list, and handling unused + Write chunks. + + o Clear guidance about Send and Receive buffer sizes has been + introduced. This enables better decisions about when a Reply + chunk must be provided. + +Acknowledgments + + The editor gratefully acknowledges the work of Brent Callaghan and + Tom Talpey on the original RPC-over-RDMA Version 1 specification + [RFC5666]. + + Dave Noveck provided excellent review, constructive suggestions, and + consistent navigational guidance throughout the process of drafting + this document. Dave also contributed much of the organization and + content of Section 7 and helped the authors understand the + complexities of XDR extensibility. + + The comments and contributions of Karen Deitke, Dai Ngo, Chunli + Zhang, Dominique Martinet, and Mahesh Siddheshwar are accepted with + great thanks. The editor also wishes to thank Bill Baker, Greg + Marsden, and Matt Benjamin for their support of this work. + + The extract.sh shell script and formatting conventions were first + described by the authors of the NFSv4.1 XDR specification [RFC5662]. + + Special thanks go to Transport Area Director Spencer Dawkins, NFSV4 + Working Group Chair and Document Shepherd Spencer Shepler, and NFSV4 + Working Group Secretary Thomas Haynes for their support. + + + + + + + +Lever, et al. Standards Track [Page 54] + +RFC 8166 RPC-over-RDMA Version 1 June 2017 + + +Authors' Addresses + + Charles Lever (editor) + Oracle Corporation + 1015 Granger Avenue + Ann Arbor, MI 48104 + United States of America + + Phone: +1 248 816 6463 + Email: chuck.lever@oracle.com + + + William Allen Simpson + Red Hat + 1384 Fontaine + Madison Heights, MI 48071 + United States of America + + Email: william.allen.simpson@gmail.com + + + Tom Talpey + Microsoft Corp. + One Microsoft Way + Redmond, WA 98052 + United States of America + + Phone: +1 425 704-9945 + Email: ttalpey@microsoft.com + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +Lever, et al. Standards Track [Page 55] + |