Subject: (ION) Multiprotocol over ATM (update to RFC 1483)

From: Dan Grossman <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 28 Oct 1998 15:19:59 -0500

IP over NBMA Working Group                               Dan Grossman
Internet Draft                                           Motorola, Inc.
Expires: March 1999                                      Juha Heinanen
draft-ion-multiprotocol-atm-00.txt                       Telia
                                                         November, 1998
            Multiprotocol Encapsulation over ATM Adaptation Layer 5

Status of this Memo

   This document is an Internet-Draft.  Internet-Drafts are working
   documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), its areas,
   and its working groups.  Note that other groups may also distribute
   working documents as Internet-Drafts.

   Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
   and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
   time.  It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
   material or to cite them other than as ``work in progress.''

   To learn the current status of any Internet-Draft, please check the
   ``1id-abstracts.txt'' listing contained in the Internet-Drafts Shadow
   Directories on ftp.is.co.za (Africa), nic.nordu.net (Europe),
   munnari.oz.au (Pacific Rim), ds.internic.net (US East Coast), or
   ftp.isi.edu (US West Coast).

Abstract

   This memo describes two encapsulations methods for carrying network
   interconnect traffic over AAL type 5 over  ATM.  The first method
   allows multiplexing of multiple protocols over a single ATM virtual
   connection whereas the second method assumes that each protocol is
   carried over a separate ATM virtual connection.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (C) The Internet Society (1998).  All Rights Reserved.

Applicability

   This specification is intended to be used in implementations which
   use ATM networks to carry multiprotocol traffic among hosts, routers
   and bridges which are ATM end systems.

1.  Introduction

   Asynchronous Transfer Mode (ATM) wide area, campus and local area
   networks are used to transport IP datagrams and other connectionless
   traffic between hosts, routers, bridges and other networking devices.
   This memo describes two methods for carrying connectionless routed
   and bridged Protocol Data Units (PDUs) over an ATM network.  The "LLC
   Encapsulation" method allows multiplexing of multiple protocols over
   a single ATM virtual connection (VC).  The protocol type of each PDU
   is identified by a prefixed IEEE 802.2 Logical Link Control (LLC)
   header. In the "VC Multiplexing" method, each ATM VC carries PDUs of
   exactly one protocol type.  When multiple protocols need to be
   transported, there is a separate VC for each.

   The unit of transport in ATM is a 53 octet fixed length PDU called a
   cell.  A cell consists of a 5 octet header and a 48 byte payload.
   Variable length PDUs, including those addressed in this memo, must be
   segmented by the transmitter to fit into the 48 octet ATM cell
   payload, and reassembled by the receiver.  This memo specifies the
   use of the ATM Adaptation Layer type 5 (AAL5), as defined in ITU-T
   Recommendation I.363.5 [2] for this purpose.  Variable length PDUs
   are carried in the Payload field of the AAL5 Common Part Convergence
   Sublayer (CPCS) PDU.

   This memo only describes how routed and bridged PDUs are carried
   directly over the AAL5  CPCS, i.e., when the Service Specific
   Convergence Sublayer (SSCS) of AAL5 is absent.  If Frame Relay
   Service Specific Convergence Sublayer (FR-SSCS), as defined in ITU-T
   Recommendation I.365.1 [3], is used over the CPCS, then routed and
   bridged PDUs are carried using the NLPID multiplexing method
   described in RFC 2427 [4]. This encapsulation MUST be used in the
   special case that Frame Relay Network Interworking or transparent
   mode Service Interworking [9] are used, but is NOT RECOMMENDED for
   other applications.  Appendix A (which is for information only) shows
   the format of the FR-SSCS-PDU as well as how IP and CLNP PDUs are
   encapsulated over FR-SSCS according to RFC 2427.

   If it is desired to use the facilities which are designed for the
   Point-to-Point Protocol (PPP), and there exists a point-to-point
   relationship between peer systems, then RFC 2364, rather than this
   memo, applies.

2. Conventions

   The keywords MUST, MUST NOT, REQUIRED, SHALL, SHALL NOT, SHOULD,
   SHOULD NOT, RECOMMENDED, NOT RECOMMENDED, MAY, and OPTIONAL, when
   they appear in this document, are to be interpreted as described in
   RFC 2119 [10].

3.  Selection of the Multiplexing Method

   The decision as to whether to use LLC encapsulation or VC-
   multiplexing depends on implementation and system requirements.  In
   general, LLC encapsulation tends to require fewer VCs in a
   multiprotocol environment.  VC multiplexing tends to reduce
   fragmentation overhead (e.g., an IPV4 datagram containing a TCP
   control packet with neither IP nor TCP options exactly fits into a
   single cell).

   When two ATM end systems wish to exchange connectionless PDUs across
   an ATM Permanent Virtual Connection (PVC), selection of the
   multiplexing method is done by configuration.     ATM connection
   control signalling procedures are used to negotiate the encapsulation
   method when ATM Switched Virtual Connections (SVCs) are to be used.
   [5] and [8] specify how this negotiation is done.

4.  AAL5 PDU Format

   For both multiplexing methods, routed and bridged PDUs MUST be
   encapsulated within the Payload field of an AAL5 CPCS-PDU.

   ITU-T Recomendation I.363.5 [2] provides the complete definition of
   the AAL5 PDU format and procedures at the sender and receiver. The
   AAL5 message mode service, in the non-assured mode of operation MUST
   be used. The corrupted delivery option MUST NOT be used.  A
   reassembly timer MAY be used. The following description is provided
   for information.

   The format of the AAL5 CPCS-PDU is shown below:

                AAL5 CPCS-PDU Format
               +-------------------------------+
               |             .                 |
               |             .                 |
               |        CPCS-PDU Payload       |
               |     up to 2^16 - 1 octets)    |
               |             .                 |
               |             .                 |
               +-------------------------------+
               |      PAD ( 0 - 47 octets)     |
               +-------------------------------+ -------
               |       CPCS-UU (1 octet )      |
               +-------------------------------+
               |         CPI (1 octet )        |
               +-------------------------------+CPCS-PDU Trailer
               |        Length (2 octets)      |
               +-------------------------------|
               |         CRC (4 octets)        |
               +-------------------------------+ -------

   The Payload field contains user information up to 2^16 - 1 octets.

   The PAD field pads the CPCS-PDU to fit exactly into the ATM cells
   such that the last 48 octet cell payload created by the SAR sublayer
   will have the CPCS-PDU Trailer right justified in the cell.

   The CPCS-UU (User-to-User indication) field is used to transparently
   transfer CPCS user to user information.  The field is not used by the
   multiprotocol ATM encapsulation described in this memo and MAY be set
   to any value.

   The CPI (Common Part Indicator) field aligns the CPCS-PDU trailer to
   64 bits.  This field MUST be coded as 0x00.

   The Length field indicates the length, in octets, of the Payload
   field.  The maximum value for the Length field is 65535 octets.  A
   Length field coded as 0x00 is used for the abort function.

   The CRC field is used to detect bit errors in the CPCS-PDU.  A CRC-32
   is used.

5.  LLC Encapsulation

   LLC Encapsulation is needed when more than one protocol might be
   carried over the same VC.  In order to allow the receiver to properly
   process the incoming AAL5 CPCS-PDU, the Payload Field contains
   information necessary to identify the protocol of the routed or
   bridged PDU.  In LLC Encapsulation, this information MUST be encoded
   in an LLC header placed in front of the carried PDU.

   Although this memo only deals with protocols that operate over LLC
   Type 1 (unacknowledged connectionless mode) service, the same
   encapsulation principle also applies to protocols operating over LLC
   Type 2 (connection-mode) service.  In the latter case the format and
   contents of the LLC header would be as described in IEEE 802.1 and
   IEEE 802.2.

5.1.  LLC Encapsulation for Routed Protocols

   In LLC Encapsulation, the protocol type of routed PDUs MUST be
   identified by prefixing an IEEE 802.2 LLC header to each PDU.  In
   some cases, the LLC header MUST be followed by an IEEE 802.1a
   SubNetwork Attachment Point (SNAP) header.  In LLC Type 1 operation,
   the LLC header MUST consist of three one octet fields:

               +------+------+------+
               | DSAP | SSAP | Ctrl |
               +------+------+------+

   In LLC Encapsulation for routed protocols, the Control field MUST be
   set to 0x03, specifying a Unnumbered Information (UI) Command PDU.

   The LLC header value 0xFE-FE-03 MUST be used to identify a routed PDU
   in the ISO NLPID format (see [6] and Appendix B). For NLPID-formatted
   routed PDUs,  the content of the AAL5 CPCS-PDU Payload field MUST be
   as follows:

            Payload Format for Routed NLPID-formatted PDUs
               +-------------------------------+
               |       LLC  0xFE-FE-03         |
               +-------------------------------+
               |     NLPID (1 octet)           |
               +-------------------------------+
               |             .                 |
               |            PDU                |
               |     (up to 2^16 - 4 octets)   |
               |             .                 |
               +-------------------------------+

   The routed protocol MUST be identified by a one octet NLPID field
   that is part of Protocol Data.  NLPID values are administered by ISO
   and ITU-T.  They are defined in ISO/IEC TR 9577 [6] and some of the
   currently defined ones are listed in Appendix C.

   An NLPID value of 0x00 is defined in ISO/IEC TR 9577 as the Null
   Network Layer or Inactive Set.  Since it has no significance within
   the context of this encapsulation scheme, a NLPID value of 0x00 MUST
   not be used.

   Although there is a NLPID value (0xCC) that indicates IP, the NLPID
   format MUST NOT be used for IP.  Instead, IP datagrams MUST be
   identified by a SNAP header, as defined below.

   The presence of a SNAP header is indicated by the LLC header value
   0xAA-AA-03. A SNAP header is of the form

               +------+------+------+------+------+
               |         OUI        |     PID     |
               +------+------+------+------+------+

   The three octet Organizationally Unique Identifier (OUI) identifies
   an organization which administers the values which might be assigned
   to the two octet  Protocol Identifier (PID).  The SNAP header thus
   uniquely identifies a routed or bridged protocol.  The OUI value
   0x00-00-00 indicates that the PID is an EtherType.

   The format of the AAL5 CPCS-PDU Payload field for routed non-NLPID
   Formatted PDUs MUST be as follows:

           Payload Format for Routed non-NLPID formatted PDUs
               +-------------------------------+
               |       LLC  0xAA-AA-03         |
               +-------------------------------+
               |        OUI 0x00-00-00         |
               +-------------------------------+
               |     EtherType (2 octets)      |
               +-------------------------------+
               |             .                 |
               |    Non-NLPID formatted PDU    |
               |     (up to 2^16 - 9 octets)   |
               |             .                 |
               +-------------------------------+

   In the particular case of an IPv4 PDU, the Ethertype value is 0x08-
   00, and the payload format MUST be:

                Payload Format for Routed IPv4 PDUs
               +-------------------------------+
               |       LLC  0xAA-AA-03         |
               +-------------------------------+
               |        OUI 0x00-00-00         |
               +-------------------------------+
               |       EtherType 0x08-00       |
               +-------------------------------+
               |             .                 |
               |          IPv4 PDU             |
               |     (up to 2^16 - 9 octets)   |
               |             .                 |
               +-------------------------------+

   This format is consistent with that defined in RFC 1042 [7].

5.2.  LLC Encapsulation for Bridged Protocols

   In LLC Encapsulation, bridged PDUs are encapsulated by identifying
   the type of the bridged media in the SNAP header.  The presence of
   the SNAP header MUST be indicated by the LLC header value 0xAA-AA-03.
   The OUI value in the SNAP header MUST be the 802.1 organization code
   0x00-80-C2. The type of the bridged media MUST be specified by the
   two octet PID. The PID MUST also indicate whether the original Frame
   Check Sequence (FCS) is preserved within the bridged PDU. Appendix B
   provides a list of media type (PID) values that can be used in ATM
   encapsulation.

   The AAL5 CPCS-PDU Payload field carrying a bridged PDU MUST have one
   of the following formats.  Padding MUST be added after the PID field
   if necessary in order to align the user information field of the
   bridged PDU at a four octet boundary.

               Payload Format for Bridged Ethernet/802.3 PDUs
               +-------------------------------+
               |       LLC  0xAA-AA-03         |
               +-------------------------------+
               |        OUI 0x00-80-C2         |
               +-------------------------------+
               |    PID 0x00-01 or 0x00-07     |
               +-------------------------------+
               |         PAD 0x00-00           |
               +-------------------------------+
               |    MAC destination address    |
               +-------------------------------+
               |                               |
               |   (remainder of MAC frame)    |
               |                               |
               +-------------------------------+
               |  LAN FCS (if PID is 0x00-01)  |
               +-------------------------------+

   The Ethernet/802.3 physical layer requires padding of frames to a minimum
   size. A bridge that uses uses the Bridged Ethernet/802.3 encapsulation
   format with the preserved LAN FCS MUST include padding. A bridge that uses
   the Bridged Ethernet/802.3 encapsulation format without the preserved LAN
   FCS MAY either include padding, or omit it. When a bridge receives a frame
   in this format without the LAN FCS, it MUST be able to insert the necessary
   padding (if none is already present) before forwarding to an Ethernet/802.3
   subnetwork.

                Payload Format for Bridged 802.4 PDUs
               +-------------------------------+
               |       LLC  0xAA-AA-03         |
               +-------------------------------+
               |        OUI 0x00-80-C2         |
               +-------------------------------+
               |    PID 0x00-02 or 0x00-08     |
               +-------------------------------+
               |        PAD 0x00-00-00         |
               +-------------------------------+
               |    Frame Control (1 octet)    |
               +-------------------------------+
               |    MAC destination address    |
               +-------------------------------+
               |                               |
               |   (remainder of MAC frame)    |
               |                               |
               +-------------------------------+
               |  LAN FCS (if PID is 0x00-02)  |
               +-------------------------------+

                Payload Format for Bridged 802.5 PDUs
               +-------------------------------+
               |       LLC  0xAA-AA-03         |
               +-------------------------------+
               |        OUI 0x00-80-C2         |
               +-------------------------------+
               |    PID 0x00-03 or 0x00-09     |
               +-------------------------------+
               |        PAD 0x00-00-XX         |
               +-------------------------------+
               |    Frame Control (1 octet)    |
               +-------------------------------+
               |    MAC destination address    |
               +-------------------------------+
               |                               |
               |   (remainder of MAC frame)    |
               |                               |
               +-------------------------------+
               |  LAN FCS (if PID is 0x00-03)  |
               +-------------------------------+

   Since the 802.5 Access Control (AC) field has no significance outside
   the local 802.5 subnetwork, it is treated by this encapsulation as
   the last octet of the three octet PAD field.   It MAY be set to any
   value by the sending bridge and MUST be ignored by the receiving
   bridge.

                Payload Format for Bridged FDDI PDUs
               +-------------------------------+
               |       LLC  0xAA-AA-03         |
               +-------------------------------+
               |        OUI 0x00-80-C2         |
               +-------------------------------+
               |    PID 0x00-04 or 0x00-0A     |
               +-------------------------------+
               |        PAD 0x00-00-00         |
               +-------------------------------+
               |    Frame Control (1 octet)    |
               +-------------------------------+
               |    MAC destination address    |
               +-------------------------------+
               |                               |
               |   (remainder of MAC frame)    |
               |                               |
               +-------------------------------+
               |  LAN FCS (if PID is 0x00-04)  |
               +-------------------------------+

                Payload Format for Bridged 802.6 PDUs
               +-------------------------------+
               |       LLC  0xAA-AA-03         |
               +-------------------------------+
               |        OUI 0x00-80-C2         |
               +-------------------------------+
               |         PID 0x00-0B           |
               +---------------+---------------+ ------
               |   Reserved    |     BEtag     |  Common
               +---------------+---------------+  PDU
               |            BAsize             |  Header
               +-------------------------------+ -------
               |    MAC destination address    |
               +-------------------------------+
               |                               |
               |   (remainder of MAC frame)    |
               |                               |
               +-------------------------------+
               |                               |
               |      Common PDU Trailer       |
               |                               |
               +-------------------------------+

   In bridged 802.6 PDUs, the presence of a CRC-32 is indicated by the
   CIB bit in the header of the MAC frame.  Therefore, the same PID
   value is used regardless of the presence or absence of the CRC-32 in
   the PDU.

   The Common Protocol Data Unit (PDU) Header and Trailer are conveyed
   to allow pipelining at the egress bridge to an 802.6 subnetwork.
   Specifically, the Common PDU Header contains the BAsize field, which
   contains the length of the PDU.  If this field is not available to
   the egress 802.6 bridge, then that bridge cannot begin to transmit
   the segmented PDU until it has received the entire PDU, calculated
   the length, and inserted the length into the BAsize field.  If the
   field is available, the egress 802.6 bridge can extract the length
   from the BAsize field of the Common PDU Header, insert it into the
   corresponding field of the first segment, and immediately transmit
   the segment onto the 802.6 subnetwork.  Thus, the bridge can begin
   transmitting the 802.6 PDU before it has received the complete PDU.

   Note that the Common PDU Header and Trailer of the encapsulated frame
   should not be simply copied to the outgoing 802.6 subnetwork because
   the encapsulated BEtag value may conflict with the previous BEtag
   value transmitted by that bridge.

   An ingress 802.6 bridge can abort an AAL5 CPCS-PDU by setting its
   Length field to zero.  If the egress bridge has already begun
   transmitting segments of the PDU to an 802.6 subnetwork and then
   notices that the AAL5 CPCS-PDU has been aborted, it may immediately
   generate an EOM cell that causes the 802.6 PDU to be rejected at the
   receiving bridge.  Such an EOM cell could, for example, contain an
   invalid value in the Length field of the Common PDU Trailer.

                   Payload Format for BPDUs
               +-------------------------------+
               |       LLC  0xAA-AA-03         |
               +-------------------------------+
               |        OUI 0x00-80-C2         |
               +-------------------------------+
               |         PID 0x00-0E           |
               +-------------------------------+
               |                               |
               |      BPDU as defined by       |
               |     802.1(d) or 802.1(g)      |
               |                               |
               +-------------------------------+

6.  VC Multiplexing

   VC Multiplexing creates a binding between an ATM VC and the type of
   the network protocol carried on that VC.  Thus, there is no need for
   protocol identification information to be carried in the payload of
   each AAL5 CPCS-PDU.  This reduces payload overhead and can reduce
   per-packet processing. VC multiplexing can improve efficiency by
   reducing the number of cells needed to carry PDUs of certain lengths.

   For ATM PVCs, the type of the protocol to be carried over each PVC
   MUST be determined by configuration.  For ATM SVCs, the negotiations
   specified in RFC 1755 [5] MUST be used.

6.1.  VC Based Multiplexing of Routed Protocols

   PDUs of routed protocols MUST be carried as the only content of the
   Payload of the AAL5 CPCS-PDU.  The format of the AAL5 CPCS-PDU
   Payload field thus becomes:

               Payload Format for Routed PDUs
               +-------------------------------+
               |             .                 |
               |         Carried PDU           |
               |    (up to 2^16 - 1 octets)    |
               |             .                 |
               |             .                 |
               +-------------------------------+

6.2.  VC Based Multiplexing of Bridged Protocols

   PDUs of bridged protocols MUST be carried in the Payload of the AAL5
   CPCS-PDU exactly as described in section 5.2, except that only the
   fields after the PID field MUST be included.  The AAL5 CPCS-PDU
   Payload field carrying a bridged PDU MUST, therefore, have one of the
   following formats.

                Payload Format for Bridged Ethernet/802.3 PDUs
               +-------------------------------+
               |         PAD 0x00-00           |
               +-------------------------------+
               |    MAC destination address    |
               +-------------------------------+
               |                               |
               |   (remainder of MAC frame)    |
               |                               |
               +-------------------------------+
               | LAN FCS (VC dependent option) |
               +-------------------------------+

                Payload Format for Bridged 802.4/802.5/FDDI PDUs
               +-------------------------------+
               | PAD 0x00-00-00 or 0x00-00-XX  |
               +-------------------------------+
               |    Frame Control (1 octet)    |
               +-------------------------------+
               |    MAC destination address    |
               +-------------------------------+
               |                               |
               |   (remainder of MAC frame)    |
               |                               |
               +-------------------------------+
               | LAN FCS (VC dependent option) |
               +-------------------------------+

   Note that the 802.5 Access Control (AC) field has no significance
   outside the local 802.5 subnetwork.  It can thus be regarded as the
   last octet of the three octet PAD field, which in case of 802.5 can
   be set to any value (XX).

                Payload Format for Bridged 802.6 PDUs
               +---------------+---------------+ -------
               |   Reserved    |     BEtag     |  Common
               +---------------+---------------+  PDU
               |            BAsize             |  Header
               +-------------------------------+ -------
               |    MAC destination address    |
               +-------------------------------+
               |                               |
               |   (remainder of MAC frame)    |
               |                               |
               +-------------------------------+
               |                               |
               |     Common PDU Trailer        |
               |                               |
               +-------------------------------+

                Payload Format for BPDUs
               +-------------------------------+
               |                               |
               |      BPDU as defined by       |
               |     802.1(d) or 802.1(g)      |
               |                               |
               +-------------------------------+

   In case of Ethernet, 802.3, 802.4, 802.5, and FDDI PDUs the presense
   or absence of the trailing LAN FCS shall be identified implicitly by
   the VC, since the PID field is not included.  PDUs with the LAN FCS
   and PDUs without the LAN FCS are thus considered to belong to
   different protocols even if the bridged media type would be the same.

7.  Bridging in an ATM Network

   A bridge with an ATM interface that serves as a link to one or more
   other bridge MUST be able to flood, forward, and filter bridged PDUs.

   Flooding is performed by sending the PDU to all possible appropriate
   destinations.  In the ATM environment this means sending the PDU
   through each relevant VC.  This may be accomplished by explicitly
   copying it to each VC or by using a point-to-multipoint VC.

   To forward a PDU, a bridge MUST be able to associate a destination
   MAC address with a VC.  It is unreasonable and perhaps impossible to
   require bridges to statically configure an association of every
   possible destination MAC address with a VC.  Therefore, ATM bridges
   must provide enough information to allow an ATM interface to
   dynamically learn about foreign destinations beyond the set of ATM
   stations.

   To accomplish dynamic learning, a bridged PDU shall conform to the
   encapsulation described within section 4.  In this way, the receiving
   ATM interface will know to look into the bridged PDU and learn the
   association between foreign destination and an ATM station.

Acknowledgements

   This memo is an update of RFC 1483, which was developed by the IP
   over ATM working group, and edited by Juha Heinanen (then at Telecom
   Finland).  The update was developed in the IP-over-NBMA (ION) working
   group, and Dan Grossman (Motorola).

   This material evolved from RFCs [1] and [4] from which much of the
   material has been adopted.  Thanks to their authors T.  Bradley, C.
   Brown, A. Malis, D. Piscitello, and C. Lawrence.  Other key
   contributors to the work included Brian Carpenter of CERN, Rao
   Cherukuri of IBM, Dan Grossman of Motorola, Joel Halpern of Network
   Systems(now at Newbridge), Bob Hinden of Sun Mircosystems (now at
   Nokia), and Gary Kessler of MAN Technology.

Security Considerations

   The encapsulation mechanisms described in this memo are believed not
   to have any properties that might be exploited by an attacker.
   However, architectures and protocols operating above the
   encapsulation layer may be subject to a variety of attacks.  In
   particular, the bridging architecture discussed in section 7 has
   well-known vulnerabilities.

   System security may be affected by the properties of the underlying
   ATM network.  The ATM Forum has published a security framework [11]
   and a security specification [12].

References

   [1]  Piscitello, D. and Lawrence, C., "The Transmission of IP
        Datagrams over the SMDS Service".  RFC 1209, Bell Communications
        Research, March 1991.

   [2]  ITU-T Recommendation I.363.5, "B-ISDN ATM Adaptation Layer (AAL)
        Type 5 Specification", August, 1996.

   [3] ITU-T Recommendation I.365.1, "Frame Relaying
              Service Specific Convergence Sublayer (SSCS), November,
        1993

   [4]  Bradley, T., Brown, C., and Malis, A., "Multiprotocol
        Interconnect over Frame Relay".  RFC 2427, September 1998.

   [5]  Perez-Maher et al, "ATM Signalling Support for IP over ATM", RFC
        1755, February 1995

   [6]  Information technology - Telecommunications and Information
        Exchange Between Systems, "Protocol Identification in the
        Network Layer".  ISO/IEC TR 9577, October 1990.

   [7]  Postel, J. and Reynolds, J., "A Standard for the Transmission of
        IP Datagrams over IEEE 802 Networks".  RFC 1042, ISI, February,
        1988.

   [8] Maher, M, "IP over ATM Signalling - SIG 4.0 Update", RFC 2331,
        ISI, April 1998

   [9]  ITU-T Recommendation I.555, "Frame Relay Bearer Service
        Interworking", September, 1997.

   [10] S. Bradner., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement
           Levels", RFC-2119, USC/Information Sciences Institute, March
        1997.

   [11] The ATM Forum, "ATM Security Framework Version 1.0", af-sec-
        0096.000, February 1998

   [12] The ATM Forum, "ATM Security Specification v1.0", af-sec-
        xxxx.000, December? 1998

Appendix A.  Multiprotocol Encapsulation over FR-SSCS

   ITU-T Recommendation I.365.1 defines a Frame Relaying Specific
   Convergence Sublayer (FR- SSCS) to be used on the top of the Common
   Part Convergence Sublayer CPCS) of the AAL type 5 for Frame Relay/ATM
   interworking.  The service offered by FR-SSCS corresponds to the Core
   service for Frame Relaying as described in I.233.

   An FR-SSCS-PDU consists of Q.922 Address field followed by Q.922
   Information field.  The Q.922 flags and the FCS are omitted, since
   the corresponding functions are provided by the AAL.  The figure
   below shows an FR-SSCS-PDU embedded in the Payload of an AAL5 CPCS-
   PDU.

                FR-SSCS-PDU in Payload of AAL5 CPCS-PDU
               +-------------------------------+ -------
               |      Q.922 Address Field      | FR-SSCS-PDU Header
               |         (2-4 octets)          |
               +-------------------------------+ -------
               |             .                 |
               |             .                 |
               |    Q.922 Information field    | FR-SSCS-PDU Payload
               |             .                 |
               |             .                 |
               +-------------------------------+ -------
               |      AAL5 CPCS-PDU Trailer    |
               +-------------------------------+

   Routed and bridged PDUs are encapsulated inside the FR-SSCS-PDU as
   defined in RFC 2427.  The Q.922 Information field starts with a Q.922
   Control field followed by an optional Pad octet that is used to align
   the remainder of the frame to a convenient boundary for the sender.
   The protocol of the carried PDU is then identified by prefixing the
   PDU by an ISO/IEC TR 9577 Network Layer Protocol ID (NLPID).

   In the particular case of an IP PDU, the NLPID is 0xCC and the FR-
   SSCS-PDU has the following format:

                FR-SSCS-PDU Format for Routed IP PDUs
               +-------------------------------+
               |       Q.922 Addr Field        |
               |       (2 or 4 octets)         |
               +-------------------------------+
               |     0x03 (Q.922 Control)      |
               +-------------------------------+
               |          NLPID  0xCC          |
               +-------------------------------+
               |             .                 |
               |           IP PDU              |
               |    (up to 2^16 - 5 octets)    |
               |             .                 |
               +-------------------------------+

   Note that according to RFC 2427, the Q.922 Address field MUST be
   either 2 or 4 octets, i.e., a 3 octet Address field MUST NOT be used.

   In the particular case of a CLNP PDU, the NLPID is 0x81 and the FR-
   SSCS-PDU has the following format:

                FR-SSCS-PDU Format for Routed CLNP PDUs
               +-------------------------------+
               |       Q.922 Addr Field        |
               |       (2 or 4 octets)         |
               +-------------------------------+
               |     0x03 (Q.922 Control)      |
               +-------------------------------+
               |         NLPID  0x81           |
               +-------------------------------+
               |              .                |
               |       Rest of CLNP PDU        |
               |    (up to 2^16 - 5 octets)    |
               |              .                |
               +-------------------------------+

   Note that in case of ISO protocols the NLPID field forms the first
   octet of the PDU itself and MUST not be repeated.

   The above encapsulation applies only to those routed protocols that
   have a unique NLPID assigned.  For other routed protocols (and for
   bridged protocols), it is necessary to provide another mechanism for
   easy protocol identification.  This can be achieved by using an NLPID
   value 0x80 to indicate that an IEEE 802.1a SubNetwork Attachment
   Point (SNAP) header follows.

   See RFC 2427 for more details related to multiprotocol encapsulation
   over FRCS.

Appendix B.  List of Locally Assigned values of OUI 00-80-C2

             with preserved FCS   w/o preserved FCS    Media
            ------------------   -----------------    --------------
             0x00-01              0x00-07              802.3/Ethernet
             0x00-02              0x00-08              802.4
             0x00-03              0x00-09              802.5
             0x00-04              0x00-0A              FDDI
             0x00-05              0x00-0B              802.6
                                  0x00-0D              Fragments
                                  0x00-0E              BPDUs

Appendix C.  Partial List of NLPIDs

         0x00    Null Network Layer or Inactive Set (not used with ATM)
         0x80    SNAP
         0x81    ISO CLNP
         0x82    ISO ESIS
         0x83    ISO ISIS
         0xCC    Internet IP

Appendix D. Applications of multiprotocol encapsulation

   Mutiprotocol encapsulation is necessary, but generally sufficient,
   for routing and bridging over the ATM networks.   Since the
   publication of RFC 1483 (the predecessor of this memo), several
   system specifications were developed by the IETF and the ATM Forum to
   address various aspects of, or scenarios for, bridged or routed
   protocols.  This appendix summarizes these applications.

   1) Point-to-point connection between routers and bridges --
   multiprotocol encapsulation over ATM PVCs has been used to provide a
   simple point-to-point link between bridges and routers across an ATM
   network.  Some amount of manual configuration (e.g., in lieu of
   INARP) was necessary in these scenarios.

   2) Classical IP over ATM -- RFC 2225 (formerly RFC 1577) provides an
   environment where the ATM network serves as a logical IP subnet
   (LIS). ATM PVCs are supported, with address resolution provided by
   INARP.  For ATM SVCs, a new form of ARP, ATMARP, operates over the
   ATM network between a host (or router) and an ATMARP server.  Where
   servers are replicated to provide higher availability or performance,
   a Server Synchronization Cache Protocol (SCSP) defined in RFC 2335 is
   used.   Classical IP over ATM defaults to the LLC/SNAP encapsulation.

   3) LAN Emulation -- The ATM Forum LAN Emulation specification
   provides an environment where the ATM network is enhanced by LAN
   Emulation Server(s) to behave as a bridged LAN.  Stations obtain
   configuration information from, and register with, a LAN Emulation
   Configuration Server;  they resolve MAC addresses to ATM addresses
   through the services of a LAN Emulation Server; they can send
   broadcast and multicast frames, and also send unicast frames for
   which they have no direct VC to a Broadcast and Unicast Server.  LANE
   always uses the LLC/SNAP encapsulation.

   4) Next Hop Resolution Protocol (NHRP) -- In some cases, the
   constraint that Classical IP over ATM serve a single LIS limits
   performance.  NHRP, as defined in RFC 2332, extends Classical to
   allow 'shortcuts' over a an ATM network that supports several LISs.

   5) Multiprotocol over ATM (MPOA) -- The ATM Forum Multiprotocol over
   ATM Specification integrates LANE and NHRP to provide a generic
   bridging/routing environment.

   6) IP Multicast -- RFC 2022 extends Classical IP to support IP
   multicast.  A multicast address resolution server (MARS) is used
   possibly in conjunction with a multicast server to provide IP
   multicast behavior over ATM point-to-multipoint and/or point to point
   virtual connections.

   7) PPP over ATM -- RFC 2364 extends multiprotocol over ATM to the
   case where the encapsulated protocol is the Point-to-Point protocols.
   Both the VC based multiplexing and LLC/SNAP encapsulations are used.
   This approach is used when the ATM network is used as a point-to-
   point link and PPP functions are required.

Author's Addresses

   Dan Grossman
   Motorola, Inc.
   20 Cabot Blvd.
   Mansfield, MA 02048
   Email: [email-masked]

   Juha Heinanen
   Telia Finland
   Myyrmaentie 2
   01600 Vantaa, Finland
   Email: [email-masked]

Full Copyright Statement

      Copyright (C) The Internet Society (1998).  All Rights Reserved.

      This document and translations of it may be copied and furnished to
      others, and derivative works that comment on or otherwise explain it
      or assist in its implementation may be prepared, copied, published
      and distributed, in whole or in part, without restriction of any
      kind, provided that the above copyright notice and this paragraph are
      included on all such copies and derivative works.  However, this
      document itself may not be modified in any way, such as by removing
      the copyright notice or references to the Internet Society or other
      Internet organizations, except as needed for the purpose of
      developing Internet standards in which case the procedures for
      copyrights defined in the Internet Standards process must be
      followed, or as required to translate it into languages other than
      English.

      The limited permissions granted above are perpetual and will not be
      revoked by the Internet Society or its successors or assigns.

      This document and the information contained herein is provided on an
      "AS IS" basis and THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING
      TASK FORCE DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING
      BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INFORMATION
      HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF
      MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.

X-Info: To unsubscribe, email [email-masked]' with
X-Info: 'unsubscribe ion' in the body of the message.