1. RFC 1932
Network Working Group                                            R. Cole
Request for Comments: 1932                                       D. Shur
Category: Informational                           AT&T Bell Laboratories
                                                           C. Villamizar
                                                              April 1996

                   IP over ATM: A Framework Document

Status of this Memo

   This memo provides information for the Internet community.  This memo
   does not specify an Internet standard of any kind.  Distribution of
   this memo is unlimited.


   The discussions of the IP over ATM working group over the last
   several years have produced a diverse set of proposals, some of which
   are no longer under active consideration.  A categorization is
   provided for the purpose of focusing discussion on the various
   proposals for IP over ATM deemed of primary interest by the IP over
   ATM working group.  The intent of this framework is to help clarify
   the differences between proposals and identify common features in
   order to promote convergence to a smaller and more mutually
   compatible set of standards.  In summary, it is hoped that this
   document, in classifying ATM approaches and issues will help to focus
   the IP over ATM working group's direction.

1.  Introduction

   The IP over ATM Working Group of the Internet Engineering Task Force
   (IETF) is chartered to develop standards for routing and forwarding
   IP packets over ATM sub-networks.  This document provides a
   classification/taxonomy of IP over ATM options and issues and then
   describes various proposals in these terms.

   The remainder of this memorandum is organized as follows:

   o Section 2 defines several terms relating to networking and

   o Section 3 discusses the parameters for a taxonomy of the
     different ATM models under discussion.

   o Section 4 discusses the options for low level encapsulation.

Cole, Shur & Villamizar      Informational                      [Page 1]
RFC 1932           IP over ATM: A Framework Document          April 1996

   o Section 5 discusses tradeoffs between connection oriented and
     connectionless approaches.

   o Section 6 discusses the various means of providing direct
     connections across IP subnet boundaries.

   o Section 7 discusses the proposal to extend IP routing to better
     accommodate direct connections across IP subnet boundaries.

   o Section 8 identifies several prominent IP over ATM proposals that
     have been discussed within the IP over ATM Working Group and
     their relationship to the framework described in this document.

   o Section 9 addresses the relationship between the documents
     developed in the IP over ATM and related working groups and the
     various models discussed.

2.  Definitions and Terminology

   We define several terms:

   A Host or End System: A host delivers/receives IP packets to/from
     other systems, but does not relay IP packets.

   A Router or Intermediate System: A router delivers/receives IP
     packets to/from other systems, and relays IP packets among

   IP Subnet: In an IP subnet, all members of the subnet are able to
      transmit packets to all other members of the subnet directly,
      without forwarding by intermediate entities.  No two subnet
      members are considered closer in the IP topology than any other.
      From an IP routing and IP forwarding standpoint a subnet is
      atomic, though there may be repeaters, hubs, bridges, or switches
      between the physical interfaces of subnet members.

   Bridged IP Subnet: A bridged IP subnet is one in which two or
      more physically disjoint media are made to appear as a single IP
      subnet.  There are two basic types of bridging, media access
      control (MAC) level, and proxy ARP (see section 6).

   A Broadcast Subnet: A broadcast network supports an arbitrary
      number of hosts and routers and additionally is capable of
      transmitting a single IP packet to all of these systems.

   A Multicast Capable Subnet: A multicast capable subnet supports
     a facility to send a packet which reaches a subset of the
     destinations on the subnet.  Multicast setup may be sender

Cole, Shur & Villamizar      Informational                      [Page 2]
RFC 1932           IP over ATM: A Framework Document          April 1996

     initiated, or leaf initiated.  ATM UNI 3.0 [4] and UNI 3.1
     support only sender initiated while IP supports leaf initiated
     join.  UNI 4.0 will support leaf initiated join.

   A Non-Broadcast Multiple Access (NBMA) Subnet: An NBMA supports
     an arbitrary number of hosts and routers but does not
     natively support a convenient multi-destination connectionless
     transmission facility, as does a broadcast or multicast capable

   An End-to-End path: An end-to-end path consists of two hosts which
      can communicate with one another over an arbitrary number of
      routers and subnets.

   An internetwork: An internetwork (small "i") is the concatenation
      of networks, often of various different media and lower level
      encapsulations, to form an integrated larger network supporting
      communication between any of the hosts on any of the component
      networks.  The Internet (big "I") is a specific well known
      global concatenation of (over 40,000 at the time of writing)
      component networks.

   IP forwarding: IP forwarding is the process of receiving a packet
      and using a very low overhead decision process determining how
      to handle the packet.  The packet may be delivered locally
      (for example, management traffic) or forwarded externally.  For
      traffic that is forwarded externally, the IP forwarding process
      also determines which interface the packet should be sent out on,
      and if necessary, either removes one media layer encapsulation
      and replaces it with another, or modifies certain fields in the
      media layer encapsulation.

   IP routing: IP routing is the exchange of information that takes
      place in order to have available the information necessary to
      make a correct IP forwarding decision.

   IP address resolution: A quasi-static mapping exists between IP
      address on the local IP subnet and media address on the local
      subnet.  This mapping is known as IP address resolution.
      An address resolution protocol (ARP) is a protocol supporting
      address resolution.

   In order to support end-to-end connectivity, two techniques are used.
   One involves allowing direct connectivity across classic IP subnet
   boundaries supported by certain NBMA media, which includes ATM.  The
   other involves IP routing and IP forwarding.  In essence, the former
   technique is extending IP address resolution beyond the boundaries of
   the IP subnet, while the latter is interconnecting IP subnets.

Cole, Shur & Villamizar      Informational                      [Page 3]
RFC 1932           IP over ATM: A Framework Document          April 1996

   Large internetworks, and in particular the Internet, are unlikely to
   be composed of a single media, or a star topology, with a single
   media at the center.  Within a large network supporting a common
   media, typically any large NBMA such as ATM, IP routing and IP
   forwarding must always be accommodated if the internetwork is larger
   than the NBMA, particularly if there are multiple points of
   interconnection with the NBMA and/or redundant, diverse

   Routing information exchange in a very large internetwork can be
   quite dynamic due to the high probability that some network elements
   are changing state.  The address resolution space consumption and
   resource consumption due to state change, or maintenance of state
   information is rarely a problem in classic IP subnets.  It can become
   a problem in large bridged networks or in proposals that attempt to
   extend address resolution beyond the IP subnet.  Scaling properties
   of address resolution and routing proposals, with respect to state
   information and state change, must be considered.

3.  Parameters Common to IP Over ATM Proposals

   In some discussion of IP over ATM distinctions have made between
   local area networks (LANs), and wide area networks (WANs) that do not
   necessarily hold.  The distinction between a LAN, MAN and WAN is a
   matter of geographic dispersion.  Geographic dispersion affects
   performance due to increased propagation delay.

   LANs are used for network interconnections at the the major Internet
   traffic interconnect sites.  Such LANs have multiple administrative
   authorities, currently exclusively support routers providing transit
   to multihomed internets, currently rely on PVCs and static address
   resolution, and rely heavily on IP routing.  Such a configuration
   differs from the typical LANs used to interconnect computers in
   corporate or campus environments, and emphasizes the point that prior
   characterization of LANs do not necessarily hold.  Similarly, WANs
   such as those under consideration by numerous large IP providers, do
   not conform to prior characterizations of ATM WANs in that they have
   a single administrative authority and a small number of nodes
   aggregating large flows of traffic onto single PVCs and rely on IP
   routers to avoid forming congestion bottlenecks within ATM.

   The following characteristics of the IP over ATM internetwork may be
   independent of geographic dispersion (LAN, MAN, or WAN).

   o The size of the IP over ATM internetwork (number of nodes).

   o The size of ATM IP subnets (LIS) in the ATM Internetwork.

Cole, Shur & Villamizar      Informational                      [Page 4]
RFC 1932           IP over ATM: A Framework Document          April 1996

   o Single IP subnet vs multiple IP subnet ATM internetworks.

   o Single or multiple administrative authority.

   o Presence of routers providing transit to multihomed internets.

   o The presence or absence of dynamic address resolution.

   o The presence or absence of an IP routing protocol.

IP over ATM should therefore be characterized by:

   o Encapsulations below the IP level.

   o Degree to which a connection oriented lower level is available
     and utilized.

   o Type of address resolution at the IP subnet level (static or

   o Degree to which address resolution is extended beyond the IP
     subnet boundary.

   o The type of routing (if any) supported above the IP level.

ATM-specific attributes of particular importance include:

   o The different types of services provided by the ATM Adaptation
     Layers (AAL).  These specify the Quality-of-Service, the
     connection-mode, etc.  The models discussed within this document
     assume an underlying connection-oriented service.

   o The type of virtual circuits used, i.e., PVCs versus SVCs.  The
     PVC environment requires the use of either static tables for
     ATM-to-IP address mapping or the use of inverse ARP, while the
     SVC environment requires ARP functionality to be provided.

   o The type of support for multicast services.  If point-to-point
     services only are available, then a server for IP multicast is
     required.  If point-to-multipoint services are available, then
     IP multicast can be supported via meshes of point-to-multipoint
     connections (although use of a server may be necessary due to
     limits on the number of multipoint VCs able to be supported or to
     maintain the leaf initiated join semantics).

   o The presence of logical link identifiers (VPI/VCIs) and the
     various information element (IE) encodings within the ATM SVC
     signaling specification, i.e., the ATM Forum UNI version 3.1.

Cole, Shur & Villamizar      Informational                      [Page 5]
RFC 1932           IP over ATM: A Framework Document          April 1996

     This allows a VC originator to specify a range of "layer"
     entities as the destination "AAL User".  The AAL specifications
     do not prohibit any particular "layer X" from attaching
     directly to a local AAL service.  Taken together these points
     imply a range of methods for encapsulation of upper layer
     protocols over ATM. For example, while LLC/SNAP encapsulation is
     one approach (the default), it is also possible to bind virtual
     circuits to higher level entities in the TCP/IP protocol stack.
     Some examples of the latter are single VC per protocol binding,
     TULIP, and TUNIC, discussed further in Section 4.

   o The number and type of ATM administrative domains/networks, and
     type of addressing used within an administrative domain/network.
     In particular, in the single domain/network case, all attached
     systems may be safely assumed to be using a single common
     addressing format, while in the multiple domain case, attached
     stations may not all be using the same common format,
     with corresponding implications on address resolution.  (See
     Appendix A for a discussion of some of the issues that arise
     when multiple ATM address formats are used in the same logical
     IP subnet (LIS).) Also security/authentication is much more of a
     concern in the multiple domain case.

   IP over ATM proposals do not universally accept that IP routing over
   an ATM network is required.  Certain proposals rely on the following

   o The widespread deployment of ATM within premises-based networks,
     private wide-area networks and public networks, and

   o The definition of interfaces, signaling and routing protocols
     among private ATM networks.

   The above assumptions amount to ubiquitous deployment of a seamless
   ATM fabric which serves as the hub of a star topology around which
   all other media is attached.  There has been a great deal of
   discussion over when, if ever, this will be a realistic assumption
   for very large internetworks, such as the Internet.  Advocates of
   such approaches point out that even if these are not relevant to very
   large internetworks such as the Internet, there may be a place for
   such models in smaller internetworks, such as corporate networks.

   The NHRP protocol (Section 8.2), not necessarily specific to ATM,
   would be particularly appropriate for the case of ubiquitous ATM
   deployment.  NHRP supports the establishment of direct connections
   across IP subnets in the ATM domain.  The use of NHRP does not
   require ubiquitous ATM deployment, but currently imposes topology
   constraints to avoid routing loops (see Section 7).  Section 8.2

Cole, Shur & Villamizar      Informational                      [Page 6]
RFC 1932           IP over ATM: A Framework Document          April 1996

   describes NHRP in greater detail.

   The Peer Model assumes that internetwork layer addresses can be
   mapped onto ATM addresses and vice versa, and that reachability
   information between ATM routing and internetwork layer routing can be
   exchanged.  This approach has limited applicability unless ubiquitous
   deployment of ATM holds.  The peer model is described in Section 8.4.

   The Integrated Model proposes a routing solution supporting an
   exchange of routing information between ATM routing and higher level
   routing.  This provides timely external routing information within
   the ATM routing and provides transit of external routing information
   through the ATM routing between external routing domains.  Such
   proposals may better support a possibly lengthy transition during
   which assumptions of ubiquitous ATM access do not hold.  The
   Integrated Model is described in Section 8.5.

   The Multiprotocol over ATM (MPOA) Sub-Working Group was formed by the
   ATM Forum to provide multiprotocol support over ATM. The MPOA effort
   is at an early stage at the time of this writing.  An MPOA baseline
   document has been drafted, which provides terminology for further
   discussion of the architecture.  This document is available from the
   FTP server ftp.atmforum.com in pub/contributions as the file atm95-
   0824.ps or atm95-0824.txt.

4.  Encapsulations and Lower Layer Identification

   Data encapsulation, and the identification of VC endpoints,
   constitute two important issues that are somewhat orthogonal to the
   issues of network topology and routing.  The relationship between
   these two issues is also a potential sources of confusion.  In
   conventional LAN technologies the 'encapsulation' wrapped around a
   packet of data typically defines the (de)multiplexing path within
   source and destination nodes (e.g.  the Ethertype field of an
   Ethernet packet).  Choice of the protocol endpoint within the
   packet's destination node is essentially carried 'in-band'.

   As the multiplexing is pushed towards ATM and away from LLC/SNAP
   mechanism, a greater burden will be placed upon the call setup and
   teardown capacity of the ATM network.  This may result in some
   questions being raised regarding the scalability of these lower level
   multiplexing options.

   With the ATM Forum UNI version 3.1 service the choice of endpoint
   within a destination node is made 'out of band' - during the Call
   Setup phase.  This is quite independent of any in-band encapsulation
   mechanisms that may be in use.  The B-LLI Information Element allows
   Layer 2 or Layer 3 entities to be specified as a VC's endpoint.  When

Cole, Shur & Villamizar      Informational                      [Page 7]
RFC 1932           IP over ATM: A Framework Document          April 1996

   faced with an incoming SETUP message the Called Party will search
   locally for an AAL User that claims to provide the service of the
   layer specified in the B-LLI.  If one is found then the VC will be
   accepted (assuming other conditions such as QoS requirements are also

   An obvious approach for IP environments is to simply specify the
   Internet Protocol layer as the VCs endpoint, and place IP packets
   into AAL--SDUs for transmission.  This is termed 'VC multiplexing' or
   'Null Encapsulation', because it involves terminating a VC (through
   an AAL instance) directly on a layer 3 endpoint.  However, this
   approach has limitations in environments that need to support
   multiple layer 3 protocols between the same two ATM level endpoints.
   Each pair of layer 3 protocol entities that wish to exchange packets
   require their own VC.

Cole, Shur & Villamizar      Informational                      [Page 8]
RFC 1932           IP over ATM: A Framework Document          April 1996

   RFC-1483 [6] notes that VC multiplexing is possible, but focuses on
   describing an alternative termed 'LLC/SNAP Encapsulation'.  This
   allows any set of protocols that may be uniquely identified by an
   LLC/SNAP header to be multiplexed onto a single VC. Figure 1 shows
   how this works for IP packets - the first 3 bytes indicate that the
   payload is a Routed Non-ISO PDU, and the Organizationally Unique
   Identifier (OUI) of 0x00-00-00 indicates that the Protocol Identifier
   (PID) is derived from the EtherType associated with IP packets
   (0x800).  ARP packets are multiplexed onto a VC by using a PID of
   0x806 instead of 0x800.
                                               :               :
                                               :   IP Packet   :
                                               :               :
                                                 :           :
                                                 :           :
                 8 byte header                   V           V
      :             :             :            :               :
      :             :             :            : Encapsulated  :
      : 0xAA-AA-03  :  0x00-00-00 :   0x08-00  :    Payload    :
      :             :             :            :               :
       :                                     :   :           :
       :   (LLC)         (OUI)         (PID) :   :           :
       V                                     V   V           V
     :                                                          :
     :                          AAL SDU                         :
     :                                                          :
            Figure 1:  IP packet encapsulated in an AAL5 SDU

Cole, Shur & Villamizar      Informational                      [Page 9]
RFC 1932           IP over ATM: A Framework Document          April 1996

      .----------.     .----------.    .---------.     .----------.
      :          :     :          :    :         :     :          :
      :    IP    :     :   ARP    :    :AppleTalk:     :   etc... :
      :          :     :          :    :         :     :          :
       ----------       ----------      ---------       ----------
         ^    :           ^    :         ^     :          ^     :
         :    :           :    :         :     :          :     :
         :    V           :    V         :     V          :     V
      :                                                           :
      :  0x800             0x806          0x809            other  :
      :                                                           :
      :         Instance of layer using LLC/SNAP header to        :
      :            perform multiplexing/demultiplexing            :
      :                                                           :
                               ^  :
                               :  :
                               :  V
                        :                  :
                        : Instance of AAL5 :
                        :    terminating   :
                        :      one VCC     :
                        :                  :

        Figure 2: LLC/SNAP encapsulation allows more than just
                           IP or ARP per VC.

   Whatever layer terminates a VC carrying LLC/SNAP encapsulated traffic
   must know how to parse the AAL--SDUs in order to retrieve the
   packets.  The recently approved signalling standards for IP over ATM
   are more explicit, noting that the default SETUP message used to
   establish IP over ATM VCs must carry a B-LLI specifying an ISO 8802/2
   Layer 2 (LLC) entity as each VCs endpoint.  More significantly, there
   is no information carried within the SETUP message about the identity
   of the layer 3 protocol that originated the request - until the
   packets begin arriving the terminating LLC entity cannot know which
   one or more higher layers are packet destinations.

   Taken together, this means that hosts require a protocol entity to
   register with the host's local UNI 3.1 management layer as being an
   LLC entity, and this same entity must know how to handle and generate
   LLC/SNAP encapsulated packets.  The LLC entity will also require
   mechanisms for attaching to higher layer protocols such as IP and
   ARP.  Figure 2 attempts to show this, and also highlights the fact
   that such an LLC entity might support many more than just IP and ARP.

Cole, Shur & Villamizar      Informational                     [Page 10]
RFC 1932           IP over ATM: A Framework Document          April 1996

   In fact the combination of RFC 1483 LLC/SNAP encapsulation, LLC
   entities terminating VCs, and suitable choice of LLC/SNAP values, can
   go a long way towards providing an integrated approach to building
   multiprotocol networks over ATM.

   The processes of actually establishing AAL Users, and identifying
   them to the local UNI 3.1 management layers, are still undefined and
   are likely to be very dependent on operating system environments.

   Two encapsulations have been discussed within the IP over ATM working
   group which differ from those given in RFC-1483 [6].  These have the
   characteristic of largely or totally eliminating IP header overhead.
   These models were discussed in the July 1993 IETF meeting in
   Amsterdam, but have not been fully defined by the working group.

   TULIP and TUNIC assume single hop reachability between IP entities.
   Following name resolution, address resolution, and SVC signaling, an
   implicit binding is established between entities in the two hosts.
   In this case full IP headers (and in particular source and
   destination addresses) are not required in each data packet.

   o The first model is "TCP and UDP over Lightweight IP" (TULIP)
     in which only the IP protocol field is carried in each packet,
     everything else being bound at call set-up time.  In this
     case the implicit binding is between the IP entities in each
     host.  Since there is no further routing problem once the binding
     is established, since AAL5 can indicate packet size, since
     fragmentation cannot occur, and since ATM signaling will handle
     exception conditions, the absence of all other IP header fields
     and of ICMP should not be an issue.  Entry to TULIP mode would
     occur as the last stage in SVC signaling, by a simple extension
     to the encapsulation negotiation described in RFC-1755 [10].

     TULIP changes nothing in the abstract architecture of the IP
     model, since each host or router still has an IP address which is
     resolved to an ATM address.  It simply uses the point-to-point
     property of VCs to allow the elimination of some per-packet
     overhead.  The use of TULIP could in principle be negotiated on a
     per-SVC basis or configured on a per-PVC basis.

   o The second model is "TCP and UDP over a Nonexistent IP
     Connection" (TUNIC). In this case no network-layer information
     is carried in each packet, everything being bound at virtual
     circuit set-up time.  The implicit binding is between two
     applications using either TCP or UDP directly over AAL5 on a
     dedicated VC.  If this can be achieved, the IP protocol field has
     no useful dynamic function.  However, in order to achieve binding
     between two applications, the use of a well-known port number

Cole, Shur & Villamizar      Informational                     [Page 11]
RFC 1932           IP over ATM: A Framework Document          April 1996

     in classical IP or in TULIP mode may be necessary during call
     set-up.  This is a subject for further study and would require
     significant extensions to the use of SVC signaling described in
     RFC-1755 [10].

    Encapsulation   In setup message            Demultiplexing
    SNAP/LLC     _ nothing                  _ source and destination
                 _                          _ address, protocol
                 _                          _ family, protocol, ports
                 _                          _
    NULL encaps  _ protocol family          _ source and destination
                 _                          _ address, protocol, ports
                 _                          _
    TULIP        _ source and destination   _ protocol, ports
                 _ address, protocol family _
                 _                          _
    TUNIC - A    _ source and destination   _ ports
                 _ address, protocol family _
                 _ protocol                 _
                 _                          _
    TUNIC - B    _ source and destination   _ nothing
                 _ address, protocol family _
                 _ protocol, ports          _

                Table 1:  Summary of Encapsulation Types

TULIP/TUNIC can be presented as being on one end of a continuum opposite
the SNAP/LLC encapsulation, with various forms of null encapsulation
somewhere in the middle.  The continuum is simply a matter of how much
is moved from in-stream demultiplexing to call setup demultiplexing.
The various encapsulation types are presented in Table 1.

Encapsulations such as TULIP and TUNIC make assumptions with regard to
the desirability to support connection oriented flow.  The tradeoffs
between connection oriented and connectionless are discussed in Section

Cole, Shur & Villamizar      Informational                     [Page 12]
RFC 1932           IP over ATM: A Framework Document          April 1996

5.  Connection Oriented and Connectionless Tradeoffs

The connection oriented and connectionless approaches each offer
advantages and disadvantages.  In the past, strong advocates of pure
connection oriented and pure connectionless architectures have argued
intensely.  IP over ATM does not need to be purely connectionless or
purely connection oriented.

    APPLICATION       Pure Connection Oriented Approach
    General         _ Always set up a VC
    Short Duration  _ Set up a VC.  Either hold the packet during VC
    UDP (DNS)       _ setup or drop it and await a retransmission.
                    _ Teardown on a timer basis.
    Short Duration  _ Set up a VC.  Either hold packet(s) during VC
    TCP (SMTP)      _ setup or drop them and await retransmission.
                    _ Teardown on detection of FIN-ACK or on a timer
                    _ basis.
    Elastic (TCP)   _ Set up a VC same as above.  No clear method to
    Bulk Transfer   _ set QoS parameters has emerged.
    Real Time       _ Set up a VC.  QoS parameters are assumed to
    (audio, video)  _ precede traffic in RSVP or be carried in some
                    _ form within the traffic itself.

      Table 2: Connection Oriented vs. Connectionless - a) a pure
                      connection oriented approach

ATM with basic AAL 5 service is connection oriented.  The IP layer
above ATM is connectionless.  On top of IP much of the traffic is
supported by TCP, a reliable end-to-end connection oriented protocol.
A fundamental question is to what degree is it beneficial to map
different flows above IP into separate connections below IP.  There is
a broad spectrum of opinion on this.

As stated in section 4, at one end of the spectrum, IP would remain
highly connectionless and set up single VCs between routers which are
adjacent on an IP subnet and for which there was active traffic flow.
All traffic between the such routers would be multiplexed on a single
ATM VC. At the other end of the spectrum, a separate ATM VC would be
created for each identifiable flow.  For every unique TCP or UDP
address and port pair encountered a new VC would be required.  Part of
the intensity of early arguments has been over failure to recognize
that there is a middle ground.

Cole, Shur & Villamizar      Informational                     [Page 13]
RFC 1932           IP over ATM: A Framework Document          April 1996

ATM offers QoS and traffic management capabilities that are well
suited for certain types of services.  It may be advantageous to use
separate ATM VC for such services.  Other IP services such as DNS, are
ill suited for connection oriented delivery, due to their normal very
short duration (typically one packet in each direction).  Short
duration transactions, even many using TCP, may also be poorly suited
for a connection oriented model due to setup and state overhead.  ATM
QoS and traffic management capabilities may be poorly suited for
elastic traffic.

    APPLICATION       Middle Ground
    General         _ Use RSVP or other indication which clearly
                    _ indicate a VC is needed and what QoS parameters
                    _ are appropriate.
    Short Duration  _ Forward hop by hop.  RSVP is unlikely to precede
    UDP (DNS)       _ this type of traffic.
    Short Duration  _ Forward hop by hop unless RSVP indicates
    TCP (SMTP)      _ otherwise.  RSVP is unlikely to precede this
                    _ type of traffic.
    Elastic (TCP)   _ By default hop by hop forwarding is used.
    Bulk Transfer   _ However, RSVP information, local configuration
                    _ about TCP port number usage, or a locally
                    _ implemented method for passing QoS information
                    _ from the application to the IP/ATM driver may
                    _ allow/suggest the establishment of direct VCs.
    Real Time       _ Forward hop by hop unless RSVP indicates
    (audio, video)  _ otherwise.  RSVP will indicate QoS requirements.
                    _ It is assumed RSVP will generally be used for
                    _ this case.  A local decision can be made as to
                    _ whether the QoS is better served by a separate
                    _ VC.

 Table 3: Connection Oriented vs.  Connectionless - b) a middle ground

Cole, Shur & Villamizar      Informational                     [Page 14]
RFC 1932           IP over ATM: A Framework Document          April 1996

    APPLICATION       Pure Connectionless Approach
    General         _ Always forward hop by hop.  Use queueing
                    _ algorithms implemented at the IP layer to
                    _ support reservations such as those specified by
                    _ RSVP.
    Short Duration  _ Forward hop by hop.
    UDP (DNS)       _
    Short Duration  _ Forward hop by hop.
    TCP (SMTP)      _
    Elastic (TCP)   _ Forward hop by hop.  Assume ability of TCP to
    Bulk Transfer   _ share bandwidth (within a VBR VC) works as well
                    _ or better than ATM traffic management.
    Real Time       _ Forward hop by hop.  Assume that queueing
    (audio, video)  _ algorithms at the IP level can be designed to
                    _ work with sufficiently good performance
                    _ (e.g., due to support for predictive
                    _ reservation).

      Table 4: Connection Oriented vs.  Connectionless - c) a pure
                        connectionless approach

   Work in progress is addressing how QoS requirements might be
   expressed and how the local decisions might be made as to whether
   those requirements are best and/or most cost effectively accomplished
   using ATM or IP capabilities.  Table 2, Table 3, and Table 4 describe
   typical treatment of various types of traffic using a pure connection
   oriented approach, middle ground approach, and pure connectionless

   The above qualitative description of connection oriented vs
   connectionless service serve only as examples to illustrate differing
   approaches.  Work in the area of an integrated service model, QoS and
   resource reservation are related to but outside the scope of the IP
   over ATM Work Group.  This work falls under the Integrated Services
   Work Group (int-serv) and Reservation Protocol Work Group (rsvp), and
   will ultimately determine when direct connections will be
   established.  The IP over ATM Work Group can make more rapid progress
   if concentrating solely on how direct connections are established.

Cole, Shur & Villamizar      Informational                     [Page 15]
RFC 1932           IP over ATM: A Framework Document          April 1996

6.  Crossing IP Subnet Boundaries

   A single IP subnet will not scale well to a large size.  Techniques
   which extend the size of an IP subnet in other media include MAC
   layer bridging, and proxy ARP bridging.

   MAC layer bridging alone does not scale well.  Protocols such as ARP
   rely on the media broadcast to exchange address resolution
   information.  Most bridges improve scaling characteristics by
   capturing ARP packets and retaining the content, and distributing the
   information among bridging peers.  The ARP information gathered from
   ARP replies is broadcast only where explicit ARP requests are made.
   This technique is known as proxy ARP.

   Proxy ARP bridging improves scaling by reducing broadcast traffic,
   but still suffers scaling problems.  If the bridged IP subnet is part
   of a larger internetwork, a routing protocol is required to indicate
   what destinations are beyond the IP subnet unless a statically
   configured default route is used.  A default route is only applicable
   to a very simple topology with respect to the larger internet and
   creates a single point of failure.  Because internets of enormous
   size create scaling problems for routing protocols, the component
   networks of such large internets are often partitioned into areas,
   autonomous systems or routing domains, and routing confederacies.

   The scaling limits of the simple IP subnet require a large network to
   be partitioned into smaller IP subnets.  For NBMA media like ATM,
   there are advantages to creating direct connections across the entire
   underlying NBMA network.  This leads to the need to create direct
   connections across IP subnet boundaries.

Cole, Shur & Villamizar      Informational                     [Page 16]
RFC 1932           IP over ATM: A Framework Document          April 1996

                       ---------<  Non-ATM :
          .-------.   /       /-<  Subnet  >-\
          :Sub-ES >--/        :  ----------  :
           -------            :              :
                              :              :
                           .--^---.       .--^---.
                           :Router:       :Router:
                            -v-v--         -v-v--
                             : :            : :
                  .--------. : : .--------. : : .--------.
      .-------.   :        >-/ \-<        >-/ \-<        :   .-------.
      :Sub-ES :---: Subnet :-----: Subnet :-----: Subnet :---:Sub-ES :
       -------    :        :     :        :     :        :    -------
                   --------       ---v----       --------
                                  :Sub-ES :

    Figure 3: A configuration with both ATM-based and non-ATM based

   For example, figure 3 shows an end-to-end configuration consisting of
   four components, three of which are ATM technology based, while the
   fourth is a standard IP subnet based on non-ATM technology.  End-
   systems (either hosts or routers) attached to the ATM-based networks
   may communicate either using the Classical IP model or directly via
   ATM (subject to policy constraints).  Such nodes may communicate
   directly at the IP level without necessarily needing an intermediate
   router, even if end-systems do not share a common IP-level network
   prefix.  Communication with end-systems on the non-ATM-based
   Classical IP subnet takes place via a router, following the Classical
   IP model (see Section 8.1 below).

   Many of the problems and issues associated with creating such direct
   connections across subnet boundaries were originally being addressed
   in the IETF's IPLPDN working group and the IP over ATM working group.
   This area is now being addressed in the Routing over Large Clouds
   working group.  Examples of work performed in the IPLPDN working
   group include short-cut routing (proposed by P. Tsuchiya) and
   directed ARP RFC-1433 [5] over SMDS networks.  The ROLC working group
   has produced the distributed ARP server architectures and the NBMA
   Address Resolution Protocol (NARP) [7].  The Next Hop Resolution
   Protocol (NHRP) is still work in progress, though the ROLC WG is
   considering advancing the current document.  Questions/issues
   specifically related to defining a capability to cross IP subnet
   boundaries include:

Cole, Shur & Villamizar      Informational                     [Page 17]
RFC 1932           IP over ATM: A Framework Document          April 1996

   o How can routing be optimized across multiple logical IP subnets
     over both a common ATM based and a non-ATM based infrastructure.
     For example, in Figure 3, there are two gateways/routers between
     the non-ATM subnet and the ATM subnets.  The optimal path
     from end-systems on any ATM-based subnet to the non ATM-based
     subnet is a function of the routing state information of the two

   o How to incorporate policy routing constraints.

   o What is the proper coupling between routing and address
     resolution particularly with respect to off-subnet communication.

   o What are the local procedures to be followed by hosts and

   o Routing between hosts not sharing a common IP-level (or L3)
     network prefix, but able to be directly connected at the NBMA
     media level.

   o Defining the details for an efficient address resolution
     architecture including defining the procedures to be followed by
     clients and servers (see RFC-1433 [5], RFC-1735 [7] and NHRP).

   o How to identify the need for and accommodate special purpose SVCs
     for control or routing and high bandwidth data transfers.

   For ATM (unlike other NBMA media), an additional complexity in
   supporting IP routing over these ATM internets lies in the
   multiplicity of address formats in UNI 3.0 [4].  NSAP modeled address
   formats only are supported on "private ATM" networks, while either 1)
   E.164 only, 2) NSAP modeled formats only, or 3) both are supported on
   "public ATM" networks.  Further, while both the E.164 and NSAP
   modeled address formats are to be considered as network points of
   attachment, it seems that E.164 only networks are to be considered as
   subordinate to "private networks", in some sense.  This leads to some
   confusion in defining an ARP mechanism in supporting all combinations
   of end-to-end scenarios (refer to the discussion in Appendix A on the
   possible scenarios to be supported by ARP).

7.  Extensions to IP Routing

   RFC-1620 [3] describes the problems and issues associated with direct
   connections across IP subnet boundaries in greater detail, as well as
   possible solution approaches.  The ROLC WG has identified persistent
   routing loop problems that can occur if protocols which lose
   information critical to path vector routing protocol loop suppression
   are used to accomplish direct connections across IP subnet

Cole, Shur & Villamizar      Informational                     [Page 18]
RFC 1932           IP over ATM: A Framework Document          April 1996


   The problems may arise when a destination network which is not on the
   NBMA network is reachable via different routers attached to the NBMA
   network.  This problem occurs with proposals that attempt to carry
   reachability information, but do not carry full path attributes (for
   path vector routing) needed for inter-AS path suppression, or full
   metrics (for distance vector or link state routing even if path
   vector routing is not used) for intra-AS routing.

   For example, the NHRP protocol may be used to support the
   establishment of direct connections across subnetwork boundaries.
   NHRP assumes that routers do run routing protocols (intra and/or
   inter domain) and/or static routing.  NHRP further assumes that
   forwarding tables constructed by these protocols result in a steady
   state loop-free forwarding.  Note that these two assumptions do not
   impose any additional requirements on routers, beyond what is
   required in the absence of NHRP.

   NHRP runs in addition to routing protocols, and provides the
   information that allows the elimination of multiple IP hops (the
   multiple IP hops result from the forwarding tables constructed by the
   routing protocols) when traversing an NBMA network.  The IPATM and
   ROLC WGs have both expended considerable effort in discussing and
   coming to understand these limitations.

   It is well-known that truncating path information in Path Vector
   protocols (e.g., BGP) or losing metric information in Distance Vector
   protocols (e.g., RIP) could result in persistent forwarding loops.
   These loops could occur without ATM and without NHRP.

   The combination of NHRP and static routing alone cannot be used in
   some topologies where some of the destinations are served by multiple
   routers on the NBMA. The combination of NHRP and an intra-AS routing
   protocol that does not carry inter-AS routing path attributes alone
   cannot be used in some topologies in which the NBMA will provide
   inter-AS transit connectivity to destinations from other AS served by
   multiple routers on the NBMA.

   Figure 4 provides an example of the routing loops that may be formed
   in these circumstances.  The example illustrates how the use of NHRP
   in the environment where forwarding loops could exist even without
   NHRP (due to either truncated path information or loss of metric
   information) would still produce forwarding loops.

   There are many potential scenarios for routing loops.  An example is
   given in Figure 4.  It is possible to produce a simpler example where
   a loop can form.  The example in Figure 4 illustrates a loop which

Cole, Shur & Villamizar      Informational                     [Page 19]
RFC 1932           IP over ATM: A Framework Document          April 1996

   will persist even if the protocol on the NBMA supports redirects or
   can invalidate any route which changes in any way, but does not
   support the communication of full metrics or path attributes.

    .----.    .----.
    : H1 >----< S1 :         Notes:
     ----      vvvv        H#n == host #n
               / : \        R#n == router #n
              /  :  \        S#n == subnet #n
      /------/   :   \
      :          :    \        S2 to R3 breaks
   .--^---.   .----. .-^--.
   :      :   : R4 : : R6 :
   : NBMA :    --v-   --v-      See the text for
   :      :      :      :       details of the
    -v--v-       =      =       looping conditions
     :   \       = SLOW =       and mechanisms
     :  .-^--.   = LINK =
     :  : R2 :   =      =
     :   --v-    :      :
     :     :  .--^-. .--^-.
   .-^--.  :  : R5 : : R7 :
   : R8 :  :   --v-   --v-
    --v-    \    :      :
      :      \  /       :
       \    .-^^-.   .--^-.
        \   : S2 :   : S4 :
         \   --v-     --v-
          \     \      /
           \     \    /
            \    .^--^.
             \   : R3 :    path before the break is
              \   -v--    H1->S1->R1->NBMA->R2->S2->R3->H2
               \  /
     .----.   .-^^-.    path after the break is
     : H2 >---< S3 :    H1->S1->R1->NBMA->R2->S2->R5->R4->S1
      ----     ----         \------<--the-loop--<-------/

      Figure 4:  A Routing Loop Due to Lost PV Routing Attributes.

   In the example in Figure 4, Host 1 is sending traffic toward Host 2.
   In practice, host routes would not be used, so the destination for
   the purpose of routing would be Subnet 3.  The traffic travels by way
   of Router 1 which establishes a "cut-through" SVC to the NBMA next-
   hop, shown here as Router 2.  Router 2 forwards traffic destined for
   Subnet 3 through Subnet 2 to Router 3.  Traffic from Host 1 would
   then reach Host 2.

Cole, Shur & Villamizar      Informational                     [Page 20]
RFC 1932           IP over ATM: A Framework Document          April 1996

   Router 1's cut-through routing implementation caches an association
   between Host 2's IP address (or more likely all of Subnet 3) and
   Router 2's NBMA address.  While the cut-through SVC is still up, Link
   1 fails.  Router 5 loses it's preferred route through Router 3 and
   must direct traffic in the other direction.  Router 2 loses a route
   through Router 3, but picks up an alternate route through Router 5.
   Router 1 is still directing traffic toward Router 2 and advertising a
   means of reaching Subnet 3 to Subnet 1.  Router 5 and Router 2 will
   see a route, creating a loop.

   This loop would not form if path information normally carried by
   interdomain routing protocols such as BGP and IDRP were retained
   across the NBMA. Router 2 would reject the initial route from Router
   5 due to the path information.  When Router 2 declares the route to
   Subnet 3 unreachable, Router 1 withdraws the route from routing at
   Subnet 1, leaving the route through Router 4, which would then reach
   Router 5, and would reach Router 2 through both Router 1 and Router
   5.  Similarly, a link state protocol would not form such a loop.

   Two proposals for breaking this form of routing loop have been
   discussed.  Redirect in this example would have no effect, since
   Router 2 still has a route, just has different path attributes.  A
   second proposal is that is that when a route changes in any way, the
   advertising NBMA cut-through router invalidates the advertisement for
   some time period.  This is similar to the notion of Poison Reverse in
   distance vector routing protocols.  In this example, Router 2 would
   eventually readvertise a route since a route through Router 6 exists.
   When Router 1 discovers this route, it will advertise it to Subnet 1
   and form the loop.  Without path information, Router 1 cannot
   distinguish between a loop and restoration of normal service through
   the link L1.

   The loop in Figure 4 can be prevented by configuring Router 4 or
   Router 5 to refuse to use the reverse path.  This would break backup
   connectivity through Router 8 if L1 and L3 failed.  The loop can also
   be broken by configuring Router 2 to refuse to use the path through
   Router 5 unless it could not reach the NBMA. Special configuration of
   Router 2 would work as long as Router 2 was not distanced from Router
   3 and Router 5 by additional subnets such that it could not determine
   which path was in use.  If Subnet 1 is in a different AS or RD than
   Subnet 2 or Subnet 4, then the decision at Router 2 could be based on
   path information.

Cole, Shur & Villamizar      Informational                     [Page 21]
RFC 1932           IP over ATM: A Framework Document          April 1996

                        .--------.    .--------.
                        : Router :    : Router :
                         --v-v---      ---v-v--
                           : :            : :
   .--------.   .--------. : : .--------. : : .--------.   .--------.
   : Sub-ES :---: Subnet :-/ \-: Subnet :-/ \-: Subnet :---: Sub-ES :
    --------     --------       --------       --------     --------

 Figure 5: The Classical IP model as a concatenation of three separate
                            ATM IP subnets.

   In order for loops to be prevented by special configuration at the
   NBMA border router, that router would need to know all paths that
   could lead back to the NBMA. The same argument that special
   configuration could overcome loss of path information was posed in
   favor of retaining the use of the EGP protocol defined in the now
   historic RFC-904 [11].  This turned out to be unmanageable, with
   routing problems occurring when topology was changed elsewhere.

8.  IP Over ATM Proposals

8.1  The Classical IP Model

   The Classical IP Model was suggested at the Spring 1993 IETF meeting
   [8] and retains the classical IP subnet architecture.  This model
   simply consists of cascading instances of IP subnets with IP-level
   (or L3) routers at IP subnet borders.  An example realization of this
   model consists of a concatenation of three IP subnets.  This is shown
   in Figure 5.  Forwarding IP packets over this Classical IP model is
   straight forward using already well established routing techniques
   and protocols.

   SVC-based ATM IP subnets are simplified in that they:

   o limit the number of hosts which must be directly connected at any
     given time to those that may actually exchange traffic.

   o The ATM network is capable of setting up connections between
     any pair of hosts.  Consistent with the standard IP routing
     algorithm [2] connectivity to the "outside" world is achieved
     only through a router, which may provide firewall functionality
     if so desired.

   o The IP subnet supports an efficient mechanism for address

   Issues addressed by the IP Over ATM Working Group, and some of the
   resolutions, for this model are:

Cole, Shur & Villamizar      Informational                     [Page 22]
RFC 1932           IP over ATM: A Framework Document          April 1996

   o Methods of encapsulation and multiplexing.  This issue is
     addressed in RFC-1483 [6], in which two methods of encapsulation
     are defined, an LLC/SNAP and a per-VC multiplexing option.

   o The definition of an address resolution server (defined in

   o Defining the default MTU size.  This issue is addressed in
     RFC-1626 [1] which proposes the use of the MTU discovery
     protocol (RFC-1191 [9]).

   o Support for IP multicasting.  In the summer of 1994, work began
     on the issue of supporting IP multicasting over the SVC LATM
     model.  The proposal for IP multicasting is currently defined by
     a set of IP over ATM WG Works in Progress, referred to collectively
     as the IPMC documents.  In order to support IP multicasting the
     ATM subnet must either support point-to- multipoint SVCs, or
     multicast servers, or both.

   o Defining interim SVC parameters, such as QoS parameters and
     time-out values.

   o Signaling and negotiations of parameters such as MTU size
     and method of encapsulation.  RFC-1755 [10] describes an
     implementation agreement for routers signaling the ATM network
     to establish SVCs initially based upon the ATM Forum's UNI
     version 3.0 specification [4], and eventually to be based
     upon the ATM Forum's UNI version 3.1 and later specifications.
     Topics addressed in RFC-1755 include (but are not limited to)
     VC management procedures, e.g., when to time-out SVCs, QOS
     parameters, service classes, explicit setup message formats for
     various encapsulation methods, node (host or router) to node
     negotiations, etc.

   RFC-1577 is also applicable to PVC-based subnets.  Full mesh PVC
   connectivity is required.

   For more information see RFC-1577 [8].

8.2 The ROLC NHRP Model

   The Next Hop Resolution Protocol (NHRP), currently a work in progress
   defined by the Routing Over Large Clouds Working Group (ROLC),
   performs address resolution to accomplish direct connections across
   IP subnet boundaries.  NHRP can supplement RFC-1577 ARP. There has
   been recent discussion of replacing RFC-1577 ARP with NHRP. NHRP can
   also perform a proxy address resolution to provide the address of the
   border router serving a destination off of the NBMA which is only

Cole, Shur & Villamizar      Informational                     [Page 23]
RFC 1932           IP over ATM: A Framework Document          April 1996

   served by a single router on the NBMA. NHRP as currently defined
   cannot be used in this way to support addresses learned from routers
   for which the same destinations may be heard at other routers,
   without the risk of creating persistent routing loops.

8.3 "Conventional" Model

   The "Conventional Model" assumes that a router can relay IP packets
   cell by cell, with the VPI/VCI identifying a flow between adjacent
   routers rather than a flow between a pair of nodes.  A latency
   advantage can be provided if cell interleaving from multiple IP
   packets is allowed.  Interleaving frames within the same VCI requires
   an ATM AAL such as AAL3/4 rather than AAL5.  Cell forwarding is
   accomplished through a higher level mapping, above the ATM VCI layer.

   The conventional model is not under consideration by the IP/ATM WG.
   The COLIP WG has been formed to develop protocols based on the
   conventional model.

8.4 The Peer Model

   The Peer Model places IP routers/gateways on an addressing peer basis
   with corresponding entities in an ATM cloud (where the ATM cloud may
   consist of a set of ATM networks, inter-connected via UNI or P-NNI
   interfaces).  ATM network entities and the attached IP hosts or
   routers exchange call routing information on a peer basis by
   algorithmically mapping IP addressing into the NSAP space.  Within
   the ATM cloud, ATM network level addressing (NSAP-style), call
   routing and packet formats are used.

   In the Peer Model no provision is made for selection of primary path
   and use of alternate paths in the event of primary path failure in
   reaching multihomed non-ATM destinations.  This will limit the
   topologies for which the peer model alone is applicable to only those
   topologies in which non-ATM networks are singly homed, or where loss
   of backup connectivity is not an issue.  The Peer Model may be used
   to avoid the need for an address resolution protocol and in a proxy-
   ARP mode for stub networks, in conjunction with other mechanisms
   suitable to handle multihomed destinations.

   During the discussions of the IP over ATM working group, it was felt
   that the problems with the end-to-end peer model were much harder
   than any other model, and had more unresolved technical issues.
   While encouraging interested individuals/companies to research this
   area, it was not an initial priority of the working group to address
   these issues.  The ATM Forum Network Layer Multiprotocol Working
   Group has reached a similar conclusion.

Cole, Shur & Villamizar      Informational                     [Page 24]
RFC 1932           IP over ATM: A Framework Document          April 1996

8.5 The PNNI and the Integrated Models

   The Integrated model (proposed and under study within the
   Multiprotocol group of ATM Forum) considers a single routing protocol
   to be used for both IP and for ATM. A single routing information
   exchange is used to distribute topological information.  The routing
   computation used to calculate routes for IP will take into account
   the topology, including link and node characteristics, of both the IP
   and ATM networks and calculates an optimal route for IP packets over
   the combined topology.

   The PNNI is a hierarchical link state routing protocol with multiple
   link metrics providing various available QoS parameters given current
   loading.  Call route selection takes into account QoS requirements.
   Hysteresis is built into link metric readvertisements in order to
   avoid computational overload and topological hierarchy serves to
   subdivide and summarize complex topologies, helping to bound
   computational requirements.

   Integrated Routing is a proposal to use PNNI routing as an IP routing
   protocol.  There are several sets of technical issues that need to be
   addressed, including the interaction of multiple routing protocols,
   adaptation of PNNI to broadcast media, support for NHRP, and others.
   These are being investigated.  However, the ATM Forum MPOA group is
   not currently performing this investigation.  Concerned individuals
   are, with an expectation of bringing the work to the ATM Forum and
   the IETF.

   PNNI has provisions for carrying uninterpreted information.  While
   not yet defined, a compatible extension of the base PNNI could be
   used to carry external routing attributes and avoid the routing loop
   problems described in Section 7.

Cole, Shur & Villamizar      Informational                     [Page 25]
RFC 1932           IP over ATM: A Framework Document          April 1996

               +   .------------.      .------------.   +
   .---------. + .-:            :-.  .-:            :-. +
   : Host or >-+-< : Single ATM : >--< : Single ATM : >-+-----\
   : Router  : + : :   Domain   : :  : :   Domain   : : +     :
    ---------  +  -:            :-    -:            :-  + .---^----.
               +    ------------        ------------    + : Router :
               +                       .------------.   +  ---v----
   .---------. +                     .-:            :-. +     :
   : Host or >-+- ...          ... --< : Single ATM : >-+-----/
   : Router  : +                     : :   Domain   : : +
    ---------  +  ATM Cloud           -:            :-  +
               +                        ------------    +

                  Note: IS within ATM cloud are ATM IS

  Figure 6: The ATM transition model assuming the presence of gateways
     or routers between the ATM networks and the ATM peer networks.

8.6 Transition Models

   Finally, it is useful to consider transition models, lying somewhere
   between the Classical IP Models and the Peer and Integrated Models.
   Some possible architectures for transition models have been suggested
   by Fong Liaw.  Others are possible, for example Figure 6 showing a
   Classical IP transition model which assumes the presence of gateways
   between ATM networks and ATM Peer networks.

   Some of the models described in the prior sections, most notably the
   Integrated Model, anticipate the need for mixed environment with
   complex routing topologies.  These inherently support transition
   (possibly with an indefinite transition period).  Models which
   provide no transition support are primarily of interest to new
   deployments which make exclusive, or near exclusive use of ATM or
   deployments capable of wholesale replacement of existing networks or
   willing to retain only non-ATM stub networks.

   For some models, most notably the Peer Model, the ability to attach
   to a large non-ATM or mixed internetwork is infeasible without
   routing support at a higher level, or at best may pose
   interconnection topology constraints (for example: single point of
   attachment and a static default route).  If a particular model
   requires routing support at a higher level a large deployment will
   need to be subdivided to provide scalability at the higher level,
   which for some models degenerates back to the Classical model.

Cole, Shur & Villamizar      Informational                     [Page 26]
RFC 1932           IP over ATM: A Framework Document          April 1996

9.  Application of the Working Group's and Related Documents

   The IP Over ATM Working Group has generated several Works in Progress
   and RFCs.  This section identifies the relationship of these and
   other related documents to the various IP Over ATM Models identified
   in this document.  The documents and RFCs produced to date are the
   following references, RFC-1483 [6], RFC-1577 [8], RFC-1626 [1], RFC-
   1755 [10] and the IPMC documents.  The ROLC WG has produced the NHRP
   document.  Table 5 gives a summary of these documents and their
   relationship to the various IP Over ATM Models.


   This memo is the direct result of the numerous discussions of the IP
   over ATM Working Group of the Internet Engineering Task Force.  The
   authors also had the benefit of several private discussions with H.
   Nguyen of AT&T Bell Laboratories.  Brian Carpenter of CERN was kind
   enough to contribute the TULIP and TUNIC sections to this memo.
   Grenville Armitage of Bellcore was kind enough to contribute the
   sections on VC binding, encapsulations and the use of B-LLI
   information elements to signal such bindings.  The text of Appendix A
   was pirated liberally from Anthony Alles' of Cisco posting on the IP
   over ATM discussion list (and modified at the authors' discretion).
   M. Ohta provided a description of the Conventional Model (again which
   the authors modified at their discretion).  This memo also has
   benefitted from numerous suggestions from John T. Amenyo of ANS, Joel
   Halpern of Newbridge, and Andy Malis of Ascom-Timplex.  Yakov Rekhter
   of Cisco provided valuable comments leading to the clarification of
   normal loop free NHRP operation and the potential for routing loop
   problems only with the improper use of NHRP.

    Documents         Summary
    RFC-1483        _ How to identify/label multiple
                    _ packet/frame-based protocols multiplexed over
                    _ ATM AAL5. Applies to any model dealing with IP
                    _ over ATM AAL5.
    RFC-1577        _ Model for transporting IP and ARP over ATM AAL5
                    _ in an IP subnet where all nodes share a common
                    _ IP network prefix.  Includes ARP server/Inv-ARP
                    _ packet formats and procedures for SVC/PVC
                    _ subnets.
    RFC-1626        _ Specifies default IP MTU size to be used with
                    _ ATM AAL5. Requires use of PATH MTU discovery.
                    _ Applies to any model dealing with IP over ATM
                    _ AAL5

Cole, Shur & Villamizar      Informational                     [Page 27]
RFC 1932           IP over ATM: A Framework Document          April 1996

    RFC-1755        _ Defines how implementations of IP over ATM
                    _ should use ATM call control signaling
                    _ procedures, and recommends values of mandatory
                    _ and optional IEs focusing particularly on the
                    _ Classical IP model.
    IPMC            _ Defines how to support IP multicast in Classical
                    _ IP model using either (or both) meshes of
                    _ point-to-multipoint ATM VCs, or multicast
                    _ server(s).  IPMC is work in progress.
    NHRP            _ Describes a protocol that can be used by hosts
                    _ and routers to determine the NBMA next hop
                    _ address of a destination in "NBMA
                    _ connectivity"
                    _ of the sending node.  If the destination is not
                    _ connected to the NBMA fabric, the IP and NBMA
                    _ addresses of preferred egress points are
                    _ returned.  NHRP is work in progress (ROLC WG).

                   Table 5:  Summary of WG Documents


   [1] Atkinson, R., "Default IP MTU for use over ATM AAL5", RFC 1626,
       Naval Research Laboratory, May 1994.

   [2] Braden, R., and J. Postel, "Requirements for Internet Gateways",
       STD 4, RFC 1009, USC/Information Sciences Institute, June 1987.

   [3] Braden, R., Postel, J., and Y. Rekhter, "Internet Architecture
       Extensions for Shared Media", RFC 1620, USC/Information Sciences
       Institute, IBM Research, May 1994.

   [4] ATM Forum, "ATM User-Network Interface Specification",  Prentice
       Hall, September 1993.

   [5] Garrett, J., Hagan, J., and J. Wong, "Directed ARP", RFC 1433,
       AT&T Bell Labs, University of Pennsylvania, March 1993.

   [6] Heinanen, J., "Multiprotocol Encapsulation over ATM Adaptation
       Layer 5", RFC 1483, Telecom Finland, July 1993.

   [7] Heinanen, J., and R. Govindan, "NBMA Address Resolution Protocol
       (NARP)", RFC 1735, Telecom Finland, USC/Information Sciences
       Institute, December 1994.

Cole, Shur & Villamizar      Informational                     [Page 28]
RFC 1932           IP over ATM: A Framework Document          April 1996

   [8] Laubach, M., "Classical IP and ARP over ATM", RFC 1577,
       Hewlett-Packard Laboratories, January 1994.

   [9] Mogul, J., and S. Deering, "Path MTU Discovery", RFC 1191,
       DECWRL, Stanford University, November 1990.

  [10] Perez, M., Liaw, F., Grossman, D., Mankin, A., and A. Hoffman,
       "ATM signalling support for IP over ATM", RFC  1755,
       USC/Information Sciences Institute, FORE Systems, Inc., Motorola
       Codex, Ascom Timeplex, Inc., January 1995.

  [11] Mills, D., "Exterior Gateway Protocol Formal Specification",
       STD 18, RFC 904, BBN, April 1984.

A Potential Interworking Scenarios to be Supported by ARP

   The architectural model of the VC routing protocol, being defined by
   the Private Network-to-Network Interface (P-NNI) working group of the
   ATM Forum, categorizes ATM networks into two types:

   o Those that participate in the VC routing protocols and use NSAP
     modeled addresses UNI 3.0 [4] (referred to as private networks,
     for short), and

   o Those that do not participate in the VC routing protocol.
     Typically, but possibly not in all cases, public ATM networks
     that use native mode E.164 addresses UNI 3.0 [4] will fall into
     this later category.

   The issue for ARP, then is to know what information must be returned
   to allow such connectivity.  Consider the following scenarios:

   o Private host to Private Host, no intervening public transit
     network(s): Clearly requires that ARP return only the NSAP
     modeled address format of the end host.

   o Private host to Private host, through intervening public
     networks: In this case, the connection setup from host A to host
     B must transit the public network(s).  This requires that at
     each ingress point to the public network that a routing decision
     be made as to which is the correct egress point from that public
     network to the next hop private ATM switch, and that the native
     E.164 address of that egress point be found (finding this is a VC
     routing problem, probably requiring configuration of the public
     network links and connectivity information).  ARP should return,
     at least, the NSAP address of the endpoint in which case the
     mapping of the NSAP addresses to the E.164 address, as specified
     in [4], is the responsibility of ingress switch to the public

Cole, Shur & Villamizar      Informational                     [Page 29]
RFC 1932           IP over ATM: A Framework Document          April 1996


   o Private Network Host to Public Network Host: To get connectivity
     between the public node and the private nodes requires the
     same kind of routing information discussed above - namely, the
     directly attached public network needs to know the (NSAP format)
     ATM address of the private station, and the native E.164 address
     of the egress point from the public network to that private
     network (or to that of an intervening transit private network
     etc.).  There is some argument, that the ARP mechanism could
     return this egress point native E.164 address, but this may
     be considered inconsistent for ARP to return what to some is
     clearly routing information, and to others is required signaling

   In the opposite direction, the private network node can use, and
   should only get, the E.164 address of the directly attached public
   node.  What format should this information be carried in?  This
   question is clearly answered, by Note 9 of Annex A of UNI 3.0 [4],

      "A call originated on a Private UNI destined for an host which
      only has a native (non-NSAP) E.164 address (i.e.  a system
      directly attached to a public network supporting the native E.164
      format) will code the Called Party number information element in
      the (NSAP) E.164 private ATM Address Format, with the RD, AREA,
      and ESI fields set to zero.  The Called Party Subaddress
      information element is not used."

   Hence, in this case, ARP should return the E.164 address of the
   public ATM station in NSAP format.  This is essentially implying an
   algorithmic resolution between the native E.164 and NSAP addresses of
   directly attached public stations.

   o Public network host to Public network host, no intervening
     private network: In this case, clearly the Q.2931 requests would
     use native E.164 address formats.

   o Public network host to Public network host, intervening private
     network: same as the case immediately above, since getting
     to and through the private network is a VC routing, not an
     addressing issue.

   So several issues arise for ARP in supporting arbitrary connections
   between hosts on private and public network.  One is how to
   distinguish between E.164 address and E.164 encoded NSAP modeled
   address.  Another is what is the information to be supplied by ARP,
   e.g., in the public to private scenario should ARP return only the

Cole, Shur & Villamizar      Informational                     [Page 30]
RFC 1932           IP over ATM: A Framework Document          April 1996

   private NSAP modeled address or both an E.164 address, for a point of
   attachment between the public and private networks, along with the
   private NSAP modeled address.

Authors' Addresses

   Robert G. Cole
   AT&T Bell Laboratories
   101 Crawfords Corner Road, Rm. 3L-533
   Holmdel, NJ 07733

   Phone: (908) 949-1950
   Fax: (908) 949-8887
   EMail: rgc@qsun.att.com

   David H. Shur
   AT&T Bell Laboratories
   101 Crawfords Corner Road, Rm. 1F-338
   Holmdel, NJ 07733

   Phone: (908) 949-6719
   Fax: (908) 949-5775
   EMail: d.shur@att.com

   Curtis Villamizar
   100 Clearbrook Road
   Elmsford, NY 10523

   EMail: curtis@ans.net

Cole, Shur & Villamizar      Informational                     [Page 31]
  1. RFC 1932