[Docs] [txt|pdf|xml|html] [Tracker] [Email] [Diff1] [Diff2] [Nits]

Versions: 00 01 02 draft-carpenter-flow-label-balancing

V6OPS                                                       B. Carpenter
Internet-Draft                                         Univ. of Auckland
Intended status: Informational                                  S. Jiang
Expires: July 20, 2012                      Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd
                                                              W. Tarreau
                                                              Exceliance
                                                        January 17, 2012


          Using the IPv6 Flow Label for Server Load Balancing
                 draft-carpenter-v6ops-label-balance-01

Abstract

   This document describes how the IPv6 flow label can be used in
   support of layer 3/4 load distribution and balancing for large server
   farms.

Status of this Memo

   This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
   provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.

   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
   Task Force (IETF).  Note that other groups may also distribute
   working documents as Internet-Drafts.  The list of current Internet-
   Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.

   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."

   This Internet-Draft will expire on July 20, 2012.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2012 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors.  All rights reserved.

   This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
   Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
   (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
   publication of this document.  Please review these documents
   carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
   to this document.  Code Components extracted from this document must
   include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
   the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as



Carpenter, et al.         Expires July 20, 2012                 [Page 1]

Internet-Draft          Flow Label Load Balancers           January 2012


   described in the Simplified BSD License.


Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3
   2.  Role of the Flow Label . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
   3.  Possible extended role . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
   4.  Security Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
   5.  IANA Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
   6.  Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
   7.  Change log [RFC Editor: Please remove] . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
   8.  References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
     8.1.  Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
     8.2.  Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
   Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11



































Carpenter, et al.         Expires July 20, 2012                 [Page 2]

Internet-Draft          Flow Label Load Balancers           January 2012


1.  Introduction

   The IPv6 flow label has been redefined [RFC6437] and its use for load
   sharing in multipath routing has been specified [RFC6438].  Another
   scenario in which the flow label could be used is in load
   distribution for large server farms.  Load distribution is a slightly
   more general term than load balancing, but the latter is more
   commonly used.  This document starts with a brief introduction to
   load balancing techniques and then describes how the flow label might
   be used to enhance layer 3/4 flow balancers in particular.

   Load balancing for server farms is achieved by a variety of methods,
   often used in combination [Tarreau].  The flow label is not relevant
   to all of them.  The actual load balancing algorithm (the choice of
   server for a new client session) is irrelevant to this discussion.

   o  The simplest method is simply using the DNS to return different
      server addresses for a single name such as www.example.com to
      different users.  Typically this is done by rotating the order in
      which different addresses are listed by the relevant authoritative
      DNS server, assuming that the client will pick the first one.
      Routing may be configured such that the different addresses are
      handled by different ingress routers.  The flow label can have no
      impact on this method and it is not discussed further.
   o  Another method, for HTTP servers, is to operate a layer 7 reverse
      proxy in front of the server farm.  The reverse proxy will present
      a single IP address to the world, communicated to clients by a
      single AAAA record.  For each new client session (an incoming TCP
      connection and HTTP request), it will pick a particular server and
      proxy the session to it.  Hopefully the act of proxying will be
      cheap compared to the act of serving the required content.  The
      proxy must retain TCP state and proxy state for the duration of
      the session.  This TCP state could, potentially, include the
      incoming flow label value.
   o  A component of some load balancing systems is an SSL reverse proxy
      farm.  The individual SSL proxies handle all cryptographic aspects
      and exchange raw HTTP with the actual servers.  Thus, from the
      load balancing point of view, this really looks just like a server
      farm, except that it's specialised for HTTPS.  Each proxy will
      retain SSL and TCP and maybe HTTP state for the duration of the
      session, and the TCP state could potentially include the flow
      label.
   o  Finally the "front end" of many load balancing systems is a layer
      3/4 load balancer.  In this case, it is the layer 3/4 load
      balancer whose IP address is published as the primary AAAA record
      for the service.  All client sessions will pass through this
      device.  According to the precise scenario, it will spread new
      sessions across the actual application servers, across an SSL



Carpenter, et al.         Expires July 20, 2012                 [Page 3]

Internet-Draft          Flow Label Load Balancers           January 2012


      proxy farm, or across a set of layer 7 proxies.  In all cases, the
      layer 3/4 load balancer has to recognize incoming packets as
      belonging to new or existing client sessions, and choose the
      target server or proxy so as to ensure persistence.  'Persistence'
      is defined as guaranteeing that a given session will run to
      completion on a single server.  The layer 3/4 load balancer
      therefore needs to inspect each incoming packet to identify the
      session.  Typically, this depends on the source address and the
      protocol and port numbers in the packet.  Clearly, such a balancer
      could inspect and make use of the flow label value.

      Our focus is on how the balancer identifies a particular flow.
      For clarity, note that two aspects of layer 3/4 load balancers are
      not affected at all by use of the flow label to identify sessions.

      1.  Balancers use various techniques to redirect traffic to a
          specific target server.

          - All servers are configured with the same IP address, they
          are all on the same LAN, and the load balancer sends directly
          to their individual MAC addresses.
          - Each server has its own IP address, and the balancer uses an
          IP-in-IP tunnel to reach it.
          - Each server has its own IP address, and the balancer
          performs NAPT (network address and port translation) to
          deliver the client's packets to that address.

          The choice between these methods is not affected by use of the
          flow label.

      2.  A layer 3/4 balancer must correctly handle Path MTU Discovery
          by forwarding relevant ICMPv6 packets in both directions.
          This too is not affected by use of the flow label.

   The following diagram, inspired by [Tarreau], shows a maximum layout.
















Carpenter, et al.         Expires July 20, 2012                 [Page 4]

Internet-Draft          Flow Label Load Balancers           January 2012


        ___________________________________________
       (                                           )
       (          Clients in the Internet          )
       (___________________________________________)
              |                            |
         ------------                ------------
         | Ingress  |                | Ingress  |
         | router   |                | router   |
         ------------                ------------
           ___|_______DNS-based____________|___
                |     load splitting     |
                |                        |
                |                        |
           ------------             ------------
           | L3/4 ASIC|             | L3/4 ASIC|
           | balancer |             | balancer |
           ------------             ------------
                |          load          |
                |        spreading       |
      __________|________________________|___________
          |              |            |          |
    ------------   ------------   --------   --------
    |HTTP proxy|...|HTTP proxy|   | SSL  |...| SSL  |
    | balancer |   | balancer |   | proxy|   | proxy|
    ------------   ------------   --------   --------
      ____|_____________|_____________|_________|_____
        |          |          |          |          |
    --------   --------   --------   --------   --------
    |HTTP  |   |HTTP  |   |HTTP  |   |HTTP  |   |HTTP  |
    |server|   |server|   |server|   |server|   |server|
    --------   --------   --------   --------   --------

   From the previous paragraphs, we can identify several points in this
   diagram where the flow label might be relevant:

   1.  Layer 3/4 load balancers.
   2.  SSL proxies.
   3.  HTTP proxies.


2.  Role of the Flow Label

   The IPv6 flow label is a 20 bit field included in every IPv6 header
   [RFC2460] and it is defined in [RFC6437].  According to this
   definition, it should be set to a constant value for a given traffic
   flow (such as an HTTP connection), but until the standard is widely
   implemented it will often be set to the default value of zero.  Any
   device that has access to the IPv6 header has access to the flow



Carpenter, et al.         Expires July 20, 2012                 [Page 5]

Internet-Draft          Flow Label Load Balancers           January 2012


   label, and it is at a fixed position in every IPv6 packet.  In
   contrast, transport layer information, such as the port numbers, is
   not always in a fixed position, since it follows any IPv6 extension
   headers that may be present.  Therefore, within the lifetime of a
   given transport layer connection, the flow label can be a more
   convenient "handle" than the port number for identifying that
   particular connection.

   According to [RFC6437], source hosts should set the flow label, but
   if they do not (i.e. its value is zero), forwarding nodes may do so
   instead.  In both cases, the flow label value must be constant for a
   given transport session, normally identified by the IPv6 and
   Transport header 5-tuple.  The flow label should be calculated by a
   stateless algorithm.  The value should form part of a statistically
   uniform distribution, making it suitable as part of a hash function
   used for load distribution.  Because of using a stateless algorithm
   to calculate the label, there is a very low (but non-zero)
   probability that two simultaneous flows from the same source to the
   same destination have the same flow label value despite having
   different transport protocol port numbers.

   A careful reading of RFC 6437 shows that for a given source accessing
   a well-known TCP port at a given destination, the flow label is in
   effect a proxy for the source port number, found at a fixed position
   in the layer 3 header.  Thus, the suggested model for using the flow
   label in a load balancing mechanism is as follows:

   o  It is clearly better if the original source, e.g. an HTTP client,
      sets the flow label.  However, if the flow label of an incoming
      packet is zero, there are two possibilities:
      1.  The ingress router at the server site could implement the
          stateless mechanism in Section 3 of [RFC6437] to set the flow
          label value to an appropriate value.  This relieves the
          subsequent load balancers of the need to fully analyse the
          IPv6 and Transport header 5-tuple to identify the packets
          belonging to the same flow.
      2.  Load balancers will use the flow label value as described
          below if it is set, but use the transport header in the
          traditional way otherwise.
      In either case, the idea is that as the use of the flow label
      becomes more prevalent, load balancers will reap a growing
      performance benefit.
   o  The layer 3/4 load balancers can use the 2-tuple {source address,
      flow label} as the session key for whatever load distribution
      algorithm they support, instead of searching for the transport
      port number later in the header.  Note that they do not need to
      consider the destination address as it is always the same, i.e.,
      the server address.



Carpenter, et al.         Expires July 20, 2012                 [Page 6]

Internet-Draft          Flow Label Load Balancers           January 2012


      Such a load balancer may nevertheless need to inspect the payload
      of the first packet of a new session, in order to apply its load
      distribution algorithm.  However, for all subsequent packets of
      the session, it can ignore all IPv6 extension headers, which
      should lead to a performance benefit.  Whether this benefit is
      valuable will depend on engineering details of the specific load
      balancer.

      Layer 3/4 balancers that redirect the incoming packets by NAPT
      cannot obtain any saving of time by using the flow label, because
      they must in any case follow the extension header chain in order
      to locate and modify the port number and transport checksum.  The
      same would apply to balancers that perform TCP state tracking for
      any reason.
   o  Note that correct handling of ICMPv6 for Path MTU Discovery
      requires the layer 3/4 balancer to keep state for the client
      source address, independently of either the port numbers or the
      flow label.
   o  The SSL proxies may also use the 2-tuple as a session key.
      However, since they have to process the transport layer in any
      case, this might not lead to any performance benefit.

      An SSL proxy should forward the flow identifier between the
      ciphered side and the clear side.  Being able to forward data used
      for persistence is very important, as it's the only way to stack
      multiple layers of network components without losing information.
   o  The HTTP proxies may do the same.  However, since they have to
      process the transport and application layers in any case, this
      might not lead to any performance benefit.

   Note that in the unlikely event of two simultaneous flows from the
   same source having the same flow label value, the two flows would end
   up assigned to the same server, where they would be distinguished as
   normal by their port numbers.  Since this would be a statistically
   rare event, it would not damage the overall load balancing effect.
   In the case where many thousands of clients are hidden behind the
   same large-scale NAT with a single IP address, this might be an
   incorrect assumption, but this is not expected to be a factor for
   IPv6, since there is no valid reason to implement NAT [RFC4864].  The
   statistical assumption is valid for sites that implement network
   prefix translation [RFC6296], since this technique provides a
   different address for each client.


3.  Possible extended role

   A particular aspect of the session persistence issue is when multiple
   independent transport connections from the same client need to be



Carpenter, et al.         Expires July 20, 2012                 [Page 7]

Internet-Draft          Flow Label Load Balancers           January 2012


   handled by the same server instance.  This can be an extremely
   difficult task which often requires ugly tricks such as pattern
   matching within a buffered stream, cookie insertion, etc.  If the
   client application has control over the outgoing flow label, then it
   can itself assign the same label to all transport connections related
   to a single application session.

   A common example is FTP.  For a load balancer, passive-mode FTP
   requires parsing the entire control stream (port 21), in order to
   find which incoming packet will initiate a data session on a port
   chosen by the server.  This does not always work well due to the fact
   that sometimes clients don't connect, or that the session is finally
   not used (e.g., because no transfer needs to be performed).

   Using a flow label, the client could generate an initial
   unpredictable flow identifier when a file transfer is expected, and
   assign the same flow label to all data connections related to the
   same control connection.  A flow label based load balancer would then
   by definition send the data traffic to the same server as the control
   traffic, and would thus guarantee that the sessions are properly
   associated.  Such a mechanism is permitted by [RFC6437], although it
   is not the recommended default.

   The same need is even more prominent with HTTP/HTTPS : while it is
   not difficult to insert a cookie in an HTTP stream to identify the
   server the user was assigned to, it is very difficult to do that for
   HTTPS, because the stream must be deciphered first.  Deciphering the
   stream requires a huge amount of centralized power, since the load
   balancer needs to see the clear stream; this is in fact the main
   reason for SSL proxies in load balancing scenarios.  If a web client
   (browser) used the same flow label for any protocol targetting a
   given host (or domain), this could be used by load balancers to reach
   the same server for both HTTP and HTTPS, without having to open the
   stream payload at all nor to inspect anything beyond layer 3, which
   clearly is not possible today.

   An additional complication that can arise is when a single client
   inadvertently generates sessions that appear to originate from
   different IP addresses.  This can arise, for example, if an
   enterprise uses a proxy farm for outgoing traffic.  When two
   consecutive client requests pass through two distinct proxies, a
   different IP source address may be presented to the server load
   balancer, which then cannot rely on address-based persistence.  It
   would be possible in principle to use the same flow label value for
   correlated sessions from the same client, if the proxies were
   transparent to the flow label value.

   In some application scenarios, an inadvertent change in the client IP



Carpenter, et al.         Expires July 20, 2012                 [Page 8]

Internet-Draft          Flow Label Load Balancers           January 2012


   address may have only minor consequences, such as reloading
   transaction context into a new server.  In other cases it may be more
   serious and result in a transaction failure.  For this reason, a
   reliable solution in which the flow label value on its own acts as a
   load balancer session handle would be advantageous.

   Using the flow label in this way would also greatly simplify the
   logging of user sessions.  A very common task is to match logs from
   various equipments to follow a user's activity and decide whether it
   indicates a bug, user error or attack.  Logging a flow label would of
   course help because it's easier to find the beginning and end of a
   session and decide whether it's legitimate or not.

   Such extensions to the role of the flow label in load balancing are
   theoretically very attractive, but would require a major refresh of
   client software as well as of load balancers themselves.  It amounts
   to considering an entire application session, in a broad sense, as a
   single flow for the purposes of RFC 6437.


4.  Security Considerations

   Security aspects of the flow label are discussed in [RFC6437].  As
   noted there, a malicious source or man-in-the-middle could disturb
   load balancing by manipulating flow labels.

   Specifically, [RFC6437] states that "stateless classifiers should not
   use the flow label alone to control load distribution, and stateful
   classifiers should include explicit methods to detect and ignore
   suspect flow label values."  The former point is answered by also
   using the source address.  The latter point is more complex.  If the
   risk is considered serious, the ingress router mentioned above should
   verify incoming flows with non-zero flow label values.  If a flow
   from a given source address and port number does not have a constant
   flow label value, it is suspect and should be dropped.

   The suggestion in Section 3 of using the flow label on its own as a
   session handle is somewhat problematic.  It should only be used for
   applications that are otherwise protected (for example by SSL or TLS)
   and load balancers should be designed to detect and ignore traffic
   where the same flow label value is used by many different source
   addresses.

   The flow label may be of use in protecting against distributed denial
   of service (DDOS) attacks against servers.  As noted in RFC 6437, a
   source should generate flow label values that are hard to predict,
   most likely by including a secret nonce in the hash used to generate
   each label.  The attacker does not know the nonce and therefore has



Carpenter, et al.         Expires July 20, 2012                 [Page 9]

Internet-Draft          Flow Label Load Balancers           January 2012


   no way to invent flow labels which will all target the same server,
   even with knowledge of both the hash algorithm and the load balancing
   algorithm.

   New flows are assigned to a server according to any of the usual
   algorithms available on the load balancer (e.g., least connections,
   round robin, etc.).  The association between the flow label value and
   the server is stored in a table (often called stick table) so that
   future connections using the same flow label can be sent to the same
   server.  This method is more robust against a loss of server and also
   prevents an attacker from targetting a single server, because the
   association between a flow label value and a server is not known
   externally.


5.  IANA Considerations

   This document requests no action by IANA.


6.  Acknowledgements

   Valuable comments and contributions were made by Fred Baker, Lorenzo
   Colitti, Joel Jaeggli, Gurudeep Kamat, Julius Volz, and others.

   This document was produced using the xml2rfc tool [RFC2629].


7.  Change log [RFC Editor: Please remove]

   draft-carpenter-v6ops-label-balance-01: updated with community
   comments, additional author, 2012-01-17.

   draft-carpenter-v6ops-label-balance-00: original version, 2011-10-13.


8.  References

8.1.  Normative References

   [RFC2460]  Deering, S. and R. Hinden, "Internet Protocol, Version 6
              (IPv6) Specification", RFC 2460, December 1998.

   [RFC6437]  Amante, S., Carpenter, B., Jiang, S., and J. Rajahalme,
              "IPv6 Flow Label Specification", RFC 6437, November 2011.






Carpenter, et al.         Expires July 20, 2012                [Page 10]

Internet-Draft          Flow Label Load Balancers           January 2012


8.2.  Informative References

   [RFC2629]  Rose, M., "Writing I-Ds and RFCs using XML", RFC 2629,
              June 1999.

   [RFC4864]  Van de Velde, G., Hain, T., Droms, R., Carpenter, B., and
              E. Klein, "Local Network Protection for IPv6", RFC 4864,
              May 2007.

   [RFC6296]  Wasserman, M. and F. Baker, "IPv6-to-IPv6 Network Prefix
              Translation", RFC 6296, June 2011.

   [RFC6438]  Carpenter, B. and S. Amante, "Using the IPv6 Flow Label
              for Equal Cost Multipath Routing and Link Aggregation in
              Tunnels", RFC 6438, November 2011.

   [Tarreau]  Tarreau, W., "Making applications scalable with load
              balancing", 2006, <http://1wt.eu/articles/2006_lb/>.


Authors' Addresses

   Brian Carpenter
   Department of Computer Science
   University of Auckland
   PB 92019
   Auckland,   1142
   New Zealand

   Email: brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com


   Sheng Jiang
   Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd
   Q14, Huawei Campus
   No.156 Beiqing Road
   Hai-Dian District, Beijing  100095
   P.R. China

   Email: jiangsheng@huawei.com











Carpenter, et al.         Expires July 20, 2012                [Page 11]

Internet-Draft          Flow Label Load Balancers           January 2012


   Willy Tarreau
   Exceliance
   R&D Produits reseau
   3 rue du petit Robinson
   78350 Jouy-en-Josas
   France

   Email: w@1wt.eu











































Carpenter, et al.         Expires July 20, 2012                [Page 12]


Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.109, available from https://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/