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

Versions: 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10

LISP Working Group                                             S. Barkai
Internet-Draft                                Hewlett Packard Enterprise
Intended status: Experimental                               D. Farinacci
Expires: June 11, 2017                                       lispers.net
                                                                D. Meyer
                                                                 Brocade
                                                                F. Maino
                                                              V. Ermagan
                                                      A. Rodriguez-Natal
                                                           Cisco Systems
                                                    A. Cabellos-Aparicio
                                       Technical University of Catalonia
                                                        December 8, 2016


                 LISP Based FlowMapping for Scaling NFV
                        draft-barkai-lisp-nfv-09

Abstract

   This draft describes an RFC 6830 Locator ID Separation Protocol
   (LISP) based distributed flow-mapping-fabric for dynamic scaling of
   virtualized network functions (NFV).  Network functions such as
   subscriber-management, content-optimization, security and quality of
   service, are typically delivered using proprietary hardware
   appliances embedded into the network as turn-key service-nodes or
   service-blades within routers.  Next generation network functions are
   being implemented as pure software instances running on standard
   servers - unbundled virtualized components of capacity and
   functionality.  LISP-SDN based flow-mapping, dynamically assembles
   these components to whole solutions by steering the right traffic in
   the right sequence to the right virtual function instance.

Requirements Language

   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
   "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
   document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119]

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/.



Barkai, et al.            Expires June 11, 2017                 [Page 1]


Internet-Draft                  LISP-NFV                   December 2016


   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 June 11, 2017.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2016 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors.  All rights reserved.

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

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
   2.  Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   3.  Connectivity Model  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
   4.  Flow-Mapping Elements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
   5.  Day-in-life of a Mapped Flow  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
     5.1.  XTR Flow Edge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
     5.2.  Map Resolvers-Servers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
     5.3.  XTRs-Mappers Scaling  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
   6.  Message Formats . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
   7.  QOS and Echo Measurements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
   8.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
   9.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
   10. Acknowledgements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
   11. Normative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15

1.  Introduction

   This draft describes an RFC 6830 Locator ID Separation Protocol
   (LISP) based distributed flow-mapping-fabric for dynamic scaling of
   virtualized network functions (NFV).[RFC6830]Network functions such
   as subscriber-management, content-optimization, security and quality
   of service, are typically delivered using proprietary hardware




Barkai, et al.            Expires June 11, 2017                 [Page 2]


Internet-Draft                  LISP-NFV                   December 2016


   appliances embedded into the network as turn-key service-nodes or
   service-blades within routers.

   This monolithic service delivery method increases the complexity of
   service roll-out and capacity planning, limits providers' choices,
   and slows down revenue generating service innovation.  Next
   generation network functions are being implemented as pure software
   instances running on standard servers - unbundled ("googlized")
   virtualized components of capacity and functionality.  Such a
   component based model opens up service provider networks to the
   savings of elasticity and open architecture driven innovation.
   However this model also presents the network with the new challenges
   of assembling components, developed by 3rd parties, into whole
   solutions, by forwarding the right traffic to the right function-
   block at the right sequence.

   While this is possible, to some extent, by traditional virtual
   networking - virtual bridges(vBridges) and virtual-routing-forwarding
   (VRF) - these mechanisms are relatively static and require complex
   and intensive configuration of network interfaces, while elastic
   components are not network topology bound.  Software-defined-
   networks, (SDN) flow based models are much more dynamically
   programmable but are also very centralized and hence have limited
   scale and resiliency.  By enhancing SDN models with RFC6830 overlay
   model we offer a best fit to dynamic assembly of virtualized network
   functions in the service-providers data-centers and distribution-
   centers.

2.  Terminology

   The following terms are used to describe a LISP based implementation
   of Software-Defined Flow-Mapping-Fabric for NFV:

   o  LISP-SDN - is an enhancement to the basic SDN model of (1) hop-to-
      hop (2) push-down flow-commands (3) by concentrated-controller..
      to a LISP based architecture of (1) distributed-overlay e.g.  SDN
      over IP (2) based on a pull-publish-subscribe actions from xTR-
      edges up.. (3) to a global mapping service.  A mapping service
      scaled by and connected over the IP underlay network.  LISP-SDN
      lookup operation details are covered in
      [I-D.rodrigueznatal-lisp-multi-tuple-eids].

   o  Virtualized Network Function (VNF) - is a process instance with an
      EID and RLOC that performs a defined set of inline network
      functions. a VNF can be software on a virtual-machine (VM)
      performing a function like multimedia signaling, mobility
      management, content caching or streaming, security, filtering,
      optimization, etc.  A VNF class type and VNF instance capacity,



Barkai, et al.            Expires June 11, 2017                 [Page 3]


Internet-Draft                  LISP-NFV                   December 2016


      load, and location are attributes that can be resolved by the
      LISP-SDN mapping service.

   o  Client-Flow - is a sequence of packets that corresponds to a
      specific communication thread or network conversation between a
      client application and a network service.  Client-flows are
      typically processed by various in-network functions either as the
      end service side to the network conversation, or as middle-box
      functionality.

   o  SDN-xTR - is a LISP xTR that supports the lookup defined in
      [I-D.rodrigueznatal-lisp-multi-tuple-eids].  It classifies traffic
      into application flows, maps, encapsulates, and decapsulates flows
      in order to emerge a flow-mapping solution - along with a
      collection of the SDN-xTR elements, and the LISP-SDN mapping
      service.

   o  SDN-Overlay - is the network formed by the collection of inter-
      connected SDN-xTR

   o  SDN-Underlay - is the IPvN network connecting SDN-xTRs

   o  SDN-Outerlay (interim name)- is the collection of networks and
      interfaces aggregated by the various SDN-xTRs connecting VNFs and
      Client-flows coming from access networks or the Internet.

   o  Flow-Rule - is a set of pattern tuples that match any part of a
      packet header and is used to classify packets into flows as well
      as trigger forwarding actions such as encapsulation /
      decapsulation, network address translation (NAT), etc.  We
      differentiate between exact-match rules (many) which include an
      exact set of tuple bits, and best match rules (fewer) which
      contain both tuple bits and wild-cards "*".

   o  Virtual IP (VIP) - is an IP address or EID that identifies a
      function rather then a specific destination.  For example all the
      encapsulated client-flow traffic sent from a base-station eNodeBs
      over a transport network, can have as destination a VIP which
      represents in a given LISP-SDN solution, the function mobile-
      gateway or PGW, and not any specific destination.

   o  Flow-Affinity - is the association between a client-flow and a VNF
      instance.  VNF logic will typically create long-lived (minutes) in
      memory states in order to perform its functions.  Therefore once
      an affinity is established it is best to keep it for as long as
      possible in order not to stress or break the VNF application.





Barkai, et al.            Expires June 11, 2017                 [Page 4]


Internet-Draft                  LISP-NFV                   December 2016


3.  Connectivity Model

   The basic connectivity model used to assemble VNFs into whole
   solution is the flow-mapping-fabric.  Unlike topological forwarding
   which is based on source-subnet >> routed hop by hop >> destination-
   subnet, a flow-mapping-fabric maps, forwards and "patches" flows by
   identity directly to the end systems.  The identities used for the
   flow-mapping-fabric are those associated with the client-flows e.g.
   Subscriber ID, phone number, TCP port, etc. and those associated with
   the VNF e.g. the type, location, physical address, etc. the flow-
   mapping-fabric is implemented as a LISP-SDN overlay, over in-place IP
   underlay, assembling outerlay flows into solutions.  Bellow are basic
   assumptions regarding the Underlay, Outerlay, and Overlay in the
   solution:

   o  The underlying physical network is assumed to be topology based
      and implemented using standard bridging and routing.  Conventional
      design principles are applied in order to achieve both capacity
      and availability of connectivity.  Typical examples of underlays
      include spine-leaf switching for clustering server racks, and,
      core-edge routing inter-connecting server clusters across points
      of presence.  Edge networks are also used to connect to access
      networks and Internet.

   o  The flow-mapping-fabric maps outerlay client-flows to VNFs.  This
      enables assembly, scaling, balanced high-utilization, massive
      concurrency, and hence, performance of NFVs.  By mapping each
      client-flow to the correct functional instance the system engages
      as many VNF components as are available, scaled within and across
      data-centers.  Applied recursively client-flow mapping can chain a
      sequence of VNF components to make up an end-to-end service.

   o  The overlay network is based on location-identity-separation and
      forms a virtualization indirection ring around spines and cores.
      The overlay edges aggregate outerlay client-flows and VNFs.
      Outerlay flows are classified, mapped, and encapsulated over the
      edge through the underlay interfaces and are transported to the
      right identity's locations.













Barkai, et al.            Expires June 11, 2017                 [Page 5]


Internet-Draft                  LISP-NFV                   December 2016


                                POP3    POP4
                                \ /     \ /
                               EdgeR -- EdgeRouter
                                  |      |
                    Access ...    | Core |    ... Internet
                                  |      |
                               EdgeR -- EdgeR
                                 / \
                                /   \
                     ^      Spine1 Spine2 ... Spine5
                     |       /  \  /  \    __/ / .. |
                     |       |   \/   | __/   /     |
                     P       |   /\   ||     /      |
                     O      Leaf1   Leaf2  ... Leaf300
                     P       |-PC1   |-PC1
                     1       |-PC2   |-PC2
                     |       |..     |..
                     |       |-PC40  |-PC40
                     v



                      Core-Edge Spine-Leaf Underlays





                  v <<  FunctionA   FunctionB ..  FunctionN
                  v
             Recursion Instance1..i Instance1..j Instance1..k
                  v      | | | |      | | | |      | | | |
                  v      | | | |      | | | |      | | | |
             SubsFlow1   o o o o - - -+ o o o - - -o o o o
                         | | | |      | | | |      | | | |
             SubsFlow2   o + o o - - -o o o o - - -o o o o
                         | | | |      | | | |      | | | |
                 .         ...          ...          ...
                 .         ...          ...          ...
                 .         ...          ...          ...
                         | | | |      | | | |      | | | |
             SubsFlowM   o o o o - - -o o o o - - -+ o o o
                         | | | |      | | | |      | | | |



                            Flow-Mapping-Fabric




Barkai, et al.            Expires June 11, 2017                 [Page 6]


Internet-Draft                  LISP-NFV                   December 2016


      Virtualized Network Functions: Data-Center A
         |   |   |      |   |   |       |   |   |
         OuterLay        OuterLay        OuterLay
           \ | /          \ | /           \ | /
            Mux            Mux             Mux
             |              |               |
            XTR            XTR             XTR
             ||             ||              ||
      A       ===============================
      c      ||                             ||
      c \   _||                             ||_   /
      e -XTR_ |                             | _XTR- Internetwork flows
      s /    ||            IPvN             ||    \
      s \   _||          Underlay           ||_   /
        -XTR_ |                             | _XTR- Internetwork flows
      F /    ||                             ||    \
      l      ||                             ||
      o        ===============================
      w      ||             ||              ||
      s     XTR             XTR             XTR
             |               |               |
            Mux             Mux             Mux
           / | \           / | \           / | \
         OuterLay         OuterLay        OuterLay
         |  |   |         |  |   |        |   |   |
      Virtualized Network Functions: Distribution-Center B

                NFV Outerlay, LISP-SDN Overlay, IP Underlay

4.  Flow-Mapping Elements

   In order to implement NFV Flow-Mapping-Fabric using LISP-SDN We use
   the following components and capabilities:

   1.  Flow-Switching: is a component within an SDN-xTR and contains a
       set of n-tuple flow-rules matched against each packet in order to
       separate it to (LOCALLY defined) sequences representing flows.
       Flows are either Encapsulated into the Overlay, decapsulated to
       the Outerlay, or forwarded to SDN-xTR Control Agents.

   2.  Control-Agents: are software processes running in SDN-xTRs and
       are invoked for each flow where an exact match was not present in
       the Flow-Switching.  The default "catch-all" Flow-Handler maps IP
       flows to locations and gateways based on RFC 6830.  Protocol and
       application specific handlers can be loaded into the SDN-xTR for
       handling specific mapping and AFFINITY requirements of network
       functions.  Examples of such protocols and applications can be
       SIP, GTP, S1X etc.



Barkai, et al.            Expires June 11, 2017                 [Page 7]


Internet-Draft                  LISP-NFV                   December 2016


   3.  Global-Mapping: is how GLOBALLY significant key-value mappings is
       translated to LOCALLY defines flow masks and encapsulation
       actions.  Examples of such mappings include: Map a functional
       instance ID to a function class ID; map subscriber-application ID
       to virtual function instance ID; map instance ID to location;
       instance to health, load, tenant; etc.

                Orchestration    Authorization    OSS/BSS
                   Mappings       Mappings        Mappings
                       v               v              v
                 (Class-Instance) (3A, ACL)    (Subs-Service)
                       v               v              v
                      _________________________________
                     |                                 |
                     |            LISP-MAP             |
                     |_________________________________|

                        ^            ^             ^
               Runtime Mappings(location, affinity, load)
                        ^            ^             ^
               ^     -------      -------       -------
               |    | Mapper|    | Mapper|     | Mapper|
               |    |-------|    |-------|     |-------|
               X    |Agents |    |Agents |     |Agents |
               |    |-------|    |-------|     |-------|
               v    | FlowX |    | FlowX |     | FlowX |
                     -------      -------       -------

                         Identity-Location Overlay

5.  Day-in-life of a Mapped Flow

   Let us walk through detailed steps of the use of RFC6830 and LISP
   architecture in order to perform resource virtualization and flow
   assignment to virtual function instances.

   At a high level, when a client-flow packet first arrives at a SDN-xTR
   on the edge of the LISP overlay, the SDN-xTR must decide on a VNF
   instance that is best suited to service this flow, assign this flow
   to the selected VNF, and encapsulate this flow to the RLOC of the
   selected virtual function instance.

   To select the best suited VNF instance, the SDN-xTR queries the
   Mapping System with the extracted identity parameters, both the
   client and the function EIDs, and receives the list of all VNF
   instances that represent that Function along with their RLOC and
   health-load attributes.  The SDN-xTR runs local algorithms on the
   returned set to select the best suited virtual function instance.



Barkai, et al.            Expires June 11, 2017                 [Page 8]


Internet-Draft                  LISP-NFV                   December 2016


   Once selected, the SDN-xTR stores (registers) the assignment of this
   flow to the associated VNF instance in the Mapping System.  This
   assignment is referred to as the Affinity for this flow.  The SDN-xTR
   also programs an exact match flow rule in its data-plane, so future
   packets from this flow will be mapped to the same EID-RLOC.

   In the following subsections We describe this process in more detail.

5.1.  XTR Flow Edge

   SDN-xTR locations define the boundary of the virtual network.  For
   the purpose of LISP-SDN flow-mapping-fabric We refer to the bellow
   SDN-XTR generic reference architecture.  Actual vendor
   implementations may vary, but most likely will include similar
   components and structure.  The SDN-XTR includes:

   o  Mux-DeMux: Interfaces to the Underlay and Outerlay

   o  Flow-Rules: Patterns-Actions, Exact / Best Match, Encap-Decap

   o  Control-Agents: Application specific flow-handlers registered in
      the Flow-Rules

       _______________________________________________
      |       Control Agents per Virtualized App      |
      |     O     O     O     O     O     O     O     |
      |     ___________________________________       |
      |    | 0101010*01*  action (best match)  |      |
      |    |            ... (100s)             |      |
      |    | 010100101010 action (exact match) |      |
      |    |____________... (100Ks)____________|      |
      |_______________________________________________|
         |       SDN-XTR defines the Overlay    |
     Outer-Lay                                Underlay
   VNFs and Client-Flows               Other SDN-XTR-RLOCs


                      SDN-XTR Reference Architecture

   SDN-XTR Flow Switching works as follows:

   1.  For traffic from the Outerlay of THIS xTR that has an exact match
       of all the source-dest-tags.. n-tuples, the packets are processed
       by rule actions including encapsulation to the RLOC of the xTR
       which aggregates the relevant function instance to which this
       flow is mapped to.





Barkai, et al.            Expires June 11, 2017                 [Page 9]


Internet-Draft                  LISP-NFV                   December 2016


   2.  For traffic from the Underlay that has an exact match of all the
       source-dest-tags.. n-tuples, the packets are processed by rule
       actions including decapsulation and forwarding to the Outerlay of
       THIS xTR.

   3.  Traffic from the Outer-Lay or Underlay that does NOT have an
       exact match of all the source-dest-tags.. tuples required for
       normal forwarding, packets are forwarded to the control agent
       registered in the best-matching rule.

   SDN-XTR Control Agents work as follows:

   1.  Mapping agent type and application scope is defined by the best
       match entries that point to it.  Control agents will typically
       self-register in the flow-switch.  XTR control-agents can
       register to an existing best-match rule, or instantiate a new
       one.

   2.  Typical rule-patterns are pattern-scoped by an agent
       registration, and can include: protocol or service type header
       indications; specific virtual IP addresses (VIP) that represent a
       service and not a specific destination; a specific source and
       wild-card destination; or vice versa.

   3.  Mapping agents work with the LISP-SDN mapping service in order to
       establish a global context and local considerations for mapping
       decision.  The goal of the agents' decision is ultimately to
       provision the correct exact-match rule and actions that will
       offload the flow-packets to flow-switching described above.

   The SDN-xTR control agents query the LISP-SDN Mapping System with the
   flow attributes including the destination VIP, as followes:

   Mapping System Lookup: Map-Request (Client identity, Function-EID)

   Two outcomes are possible based on whether an affinity already exists
   for this flow (flow has already been assigned to a virtual function
   instance):

   o  Outcome A:

      *  If an affinity already exists in the Mapping System, the
         Mapping System returns the locator address (RLOC) associated
         with the Function-Instance-EID that the (Client-EID, Function-
         EID) is mapped to.

      *  Map-Reply: ( (Client-EID, Function-EID) -> Function-Instance-
         RLOC )



Barkai, et al.            Expires June 11, 2017                [Page 10]


Internet-Draft                  LISP-NFV                   December 2016


      *  In this case the Mapping System also subscribes the SDN-xTR to
         the Function-Instance-EID, and to the (Client-EID, Function-
         EID) flow in order to receive updates in case of changes on
         these entries.  Examples of these changes are change of RLOC
         for the Function-Instance-EID (specially if this is a virtual
         application), or change of affinity for (Client-EID, Function-
         EID) to another Function-Instance-EID.

      *  After receiving the Map-Reply form the Mapping System, the SDN-
         xTR programs an exact match for the flow in the xTR data-plane.

   o  Outcome B:

      *  If there is no affinity previously stored, the Mapping System
         returns a list of Records, including one Record per each
         instance of the Function-EID, with their associated RLOCs and
         flags (weight, priority).

      *  Map-Reply: (client EID, Function-Instance-Record 1, Function-
         Instance-Record 2...)

      *  the SDN-xTR then selects the best suited Function-Instance-EID
         for this flow based on local algorithms, and registers the
         affinity in the Mapping System.  The Mapping System stores the
         affinity and subscribes the SDN-xTR to the affinity and to the
         Function-Instance-EID in the affinity, so that SDN-xTR would
         receive updates if any of these changes.

      *  Map-Register ( (Client-EID, Function-EID) -> Function-Instance-
         EID)

   o  Note: An SDN-xTR must be able to query for the list of App-
      Instance-Records even if an affinity already exists.  For this
      purpose a flag is required in the Map-Request to indicate whether
      xTR wants this info or not.  We can overload the M bit in Map-
      Request, or allocate a new bit for this.

5.2.  Map Resolvers-Servers

5.3.  XTRs-Mappers Scaling

6.  Message Formats

   This section specifies the packet formats used throughout the flow-
   mapping process explained above.  The lookup is based on what is
   described in [I-D.rodrigueznatal-lisp-multi-tuple-eids].





Barkai, et al.            Expires June 11, 2017                [Page 11]


Internet-Draft                  LISP-NFV                   December 2016


   A Map-Request is used with a 2-Tuple Src/Dst LCAF to query the
   Mapping System for the affinity or list of virtual function instance
   records for this flow.

       0                   1                   2                   3
       0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |Type=1 |A|M|P|S|p|s|    Reserved     |   IRC   | Record Count  |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |                         Nonce . . .                           |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |                      . . . Nonce                              |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |         Source-EID-AFI        |   Source EID Address  ...     |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |         ITR-RLOC-AFI 1        |    ITR-RLOC Address 1  ...    |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |   Reserved    | EID mask-len  | EID-prefix-AFI = 16387        |
   +->+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |  |     Rsvd1     |     Flags     |   Type = 12   |     Rsvd2     |
   |  +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |  |             4 + n             |            Reserved           |
   L  +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   C  |   Source-ML   |    Dest-ML    |              AFI = x          |
   A  +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   F  |                        Source-Prefix ...                      |
   |  +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |  |              AFI = x          |     Destination-Prefix ...    |
   +->+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+


   Where:
   Source-Prefix = Client-EID
   Destination-Prefix = App-EID

                LISP Map-Request with 2-Tuple Src/Dst LCAF

   In order to specify a 5 tuple flow, rather than just a two tuple
   source and destination, the combination of LCAF type 12 and LCAF type
   4 must be used.

   If an affinity exists in the Mapping System, meaning that the flow is
   already assigned to a virtual function instance, then the RLOC of
   that Function-Instance must be returned by the Mapping System.  A
   Map-Reply with a 2-Tuple Src/Dst Lcaf can be used for this.






Barkai, et al.            Expires June 11, 2017                [Page 12]


Internet-Draft                  LISP-NFV                   December 2016


        0                   1                   2                   3
        0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       |Type=2 |P|E|S|          Reserved               | Record Count  |
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       |                         Nonce . . .                           |
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       |                         . . . Nonce                           |
 +---->+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
 |     |                          Record TTL                           |
 R     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
 e     | Locator Count | EID mask-len  | ACT |A|      Reserved         |
 c     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
 o     | Rsvd  |  Map-Version Number   | EID-prefix-AFI = 16387        |
 r  +->+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
 d  |  |    Rsvd1      |     Flags     |   Type = 12   |     Rsvd2     |
 |  |  +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
 |  |  |             4 + n             |            Reserved           |
 |  L  +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
 |  C  |   Source-ML   |    Dest-ML    |              AFI = x          |
 |  A  +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
 |  F  |                       Source-Prefix ...                       |
 |  |  +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
 |  |  |              AFI = x          |     Destination-Prefix ...    |
 |  +->+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
 |    /|    Priority   |    Weight     |  M Priority   |   M Weight    |
 |   L +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
 |   o |        Unused Flags     |L|p|R|           Loc-AFI             |
 |   c +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
 |    \|                             Locator                           |
 +---->+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

     Map-Reply with 2-Tuple LCAF and Associated Function-Instance-RLOC

   If no affinity exists, the Mapping System returns a list of records,
   including one record per each Function-Instance for the flow's
   Function-EID.  A LISP Map-Reply can be used for this purpose with a
   2-Tuple Src/Dst LCAF as the EID prefix in each Record.

   If it is desired to return tuples of (Function-Instance-EID -> RLOC)
   per each record, a new LCAF, introduced as below, could be used.










Barkai, et al.            Expires June 11, 2017                [Page 13]


Internet-Draft                  LISP-NFV                   December 2016


        0                   1                   2                   3
        0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       |           AFI = 16387         |    Rsvd1      |     Flags     |
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       |   Type = 14   |     Rsvd2     |             4 + n             |
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       |  EID-ML   |       RSVD3       |          EID-AFI = x          |
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       |                         EID-Prefix ...                        |
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       |           RLOC-AFI = x        |       Locator Address  ...    |
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

                               EID-RLOC LCAF

   In which, for the purpose of NFV, EID prefix will be used to specify
   Function-Instance-EID, and Locator address is the RLOC associated
   with that Funstion-Instance-EID.  This LCAF can be used in place of
   the Loc-AFI in the Map-Reply Message above to include a list of
   (Function-Instance-EID,RLOC) for every (Client-EID, Function-EID) in
   the Map-Reply.

   Finally to store the affinity of the flow in the Mapping System a
   Map-Register can be used where EID AFI is filled with a LCAF type 12
   (2-Tuple Src/Dst LCAF), and Loc-AFI is filled with the AFI of the
   Function-Instance-EID, and the Locator is filled with the Function-
   Instance-EID.  This way, a query on the flow 2-Tuple returns the
   Function-Instance-EID that the flow is assigned to.

7.  QOS and Echo Measurements

8.  Security Considerations

   there are no security considerations related with this memo.

9.  IANA Considerations

   there are no IANA considerations related with this memo.

10.  Acknowledgements

11.  Normative References








Barkai, et al.            Expires June 11, 2017                [Page 14]


Internet-Draft                  LISP-NFV                   December 2016


   [I-D.rodrigueznatal-lisp-multi-tuple-eids]
              Rodriguez-Natal, A., Cabellos-Aparicio, A., Barkai, S.,
              Ermagan, V., Lewis, D., Maino, F., and D. Farinacci, "LISP
              support for Multi-Tuple EIDs", draft-rodrigueznatal-lisp-
              multi-tuple-eids-02 (work in progress), October 2016.

   [RFC2119]  Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
              Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.

   [RFC6830]  Farinacci, D., Fuller, V., Meyer, D., and D. Lewis, "The
              Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP)", RFC 6830,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC6830, January 2013,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6830>.

Authors' Addresses

   Sharon Barkai
   Hewlett Packard Enterprise
   California
   USA

   Email: sbarkai@gmail.com


   Dino Farinacci
   lispers.net
   California
   USA

   Email: farinacci@gmail.com


   David Meyer
   Brocade
   California
   USA

   Email: dmm@1-4-5.net


   Fabio Maino
   Cisco Systems
   California
   USA

   Email: fmaino@cisco.com



Barkai, et al.            Expires June 11, 2017                [Page 15]


Internet-Draft                  LISP-NFV                   December 2016


   Vina Ermagan
   Cisco Systems
   California
   USA

   Email: vermagan@cisco.com


   Alberto Rodriguez-Natal
   Cisco Systems
   California
   USA

   Email: albrodr2@cisco.com


   Albert Cabellos-Aparicio
   Technical University of Catalonia
   Barcelona
   Spain

   Email: acabello@ac.upc.edu





























Barkai, et al.            Expires June 11, 2017                [Page 16]


Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.124, available from https://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/