Practical Issues for Classical IP over ATM Implementation
Bill Willcox
Nexion, Inc.
Abstract
This paper discusses a number of practical issues regarding the
implementation of Classical IP over ATM, with particular regard
to required standards, data structures, network management, and
test environments.
Summary
Classical IP over ATM, specified in IETF RFC 1577, integrates IP
and ATM technologies and minimizes the changes required to
accomodate the technology in existing routers, switches, and
hosts. The end to end IP routing architecture is the same as
with legagy LAN technologies such as Ethernet. Because ATM is a
connection oriented technology, the traditional Address
Resolution Protocol (ARP) used on broadcast networks is no
longer sufficient. CLIP solves this problem by specifying an
ATMARP server which performs address resolution for network
endpoints. IP hosts establish Switched Virtual Circuits to
other IP hosts, and IP frames are delivered between hosts on
these SVC's. This paper addresses a number of issues that we
encountered while implementing CLIP. The following is a set of
acronyms used in the paper.
ARP - Address Resolution Protocol
ATM - Asynchronous Transfer Mode
CLIP - Classical IP over ATM
IETF - Internet Engineering Task Force
IP - Internet Protocol
LIS - Logical IP Subnet
MARS - Multicast Address Resolution Server
MIB - Management Information Base
RFC - Request for Comments
SVC - Switched Virtual Circuit
UNI - User Network Interface
- There are a number of RFC's related to RFC1577 which weren't
available when RFC1577 was completed and address a number of
important issues for the implementation. RFC 1755 addresses
issues related to UNI signalling with respect to CLIP. RFC 1483
specifies the supported frame encapsulation types. RFC 1626
specifies the default IP MTU to be used.
Additionally, there are draft updates to RFC's 1577 and 1755
which will soon be RFC's. These drafts contain some protocol
improvements as well as prepare for support of protocols such as
RSVP. The issues raised in these drafts must be considered so
as to reduce wasted effort.
- An implementation should be capable of SNMP management. There
is currently an IETF draft which specifies a CLIP MIB, but this
MIB is currently undergoing revision. Attempting to stay
current with each draft revision doesn't necessarily add value
to the implementation. Implementers may be best served by
choosing one of the draft revisions and waiting for the RFC
before upgrading their software.
- As mentioned above, communicating endpoints in a LIS form a
fully connected SVC mesh. The paper discusses the following
issues raised by such a topology.
- CLIP addresses only unicast IP traffic over ATM. Some other
mechanism is required for delivery of IP multicast frames over
ATM. MARS is an IETF RFC which addresses IP multicast over ATM.
Endpoint receivers register with the MARS to join IP Multicast
Groups, and endpoints senders query the MARS to determine the
endpoints which must be added as leafs in a Point-to-Multipoint
SVC. The paper briefly discusses the MARS architecture and
reference documentation.
- It is important to be able to develop protocols without
requiring switch hardware for testing. We have developed two
key pieces of technology which allowed us to do full protocol
development using only Sun workstations. We need only
re-compile to deploy the code on the target switch hardware.
The paper discusses the following components of the development
environment.
- As mentioned above, an update to CLIP will soon be available
as an RFC. Although the changes are not major, the new draft
presents a compatability problem between old ATMARP clients and
new ATMARP servers. The paper dicusses the problem and the
various alternatives implementors and users can take.
Bill Willcox
Nexion, Inc.
289 Great Rd.
Acton, MA 01720
Tel: (508) 266-4506
Fax: (508) 266-2300
willcox@acm.org