[Docs] [txt|pdf|xml] [Tracker] [Email] [Nits]

Versions: 00

Internet Research Task Force NFVRG                      G. Carrozzo, Ed.
Internet-Draft                                                 Nextworks
Intended status: Informational                             R. Szabo, Ed.
Expires: May 20, 2016                                           Ericsson
                                                     K. Pentikousis, Ed.
                                                                    EICT
                                                       November 17, 2015


   Network Function Virtualization: Resource Orchestration Challenges
             draft-caszpe-nfvrg-orchestration-challenges-00

Abstract

   Network function virtualization (NFV) promises improved operations in
   terms of flexibility, efficiency, and manageability, but
   orchestration, in general, and recursive orchestration, in
   particular, is still an item of ongoing research.  We summarize the
   current state of the art in open-source initiatives in this area and
   present current directions of research and development in terms of
   orchestration, resource decomposition and federation, policy-based
   resource management, measurement and analytics, and virtual network
   function (VNF) elasticity.

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 May 20, 2016.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2015 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



Carrozzo, et al.          Expires May 20, 2016                  [Page 1]


Internet-Draft    NFV Resource Orchestration Challenges    November 2015


   (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
     1.1.  Motivation  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
     1.2.  Scope . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
     1.3.  Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
   2.  Examples  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
     2.1.  DC - WAN - DC Example . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
     2.2.  Monitoring and AAA  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
   3.  Review of Open Orchestration Frameworks . . . . . . . . . . .  10
     3.1.  OpenStack . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
     3.2.  OpenMANO  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
     3.3.  UNIFYing Carrier Network and Cloud Resources (UNIFY)  . .  11
     3.4.  Federated Experimentation Infrastructures . . . . . . . .  12
   4.  Challenges  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
     4.1.  Resource description  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
     4.2.  Dependencies (de-composition) . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
     4.3.  Elastic VNF . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
     4.4.  Measurement and analytics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
   5.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15
   6.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15
   7.  Acknowledgements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15
   8.  Contributors  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15
   9.  Informative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  18

1.  Introduction

   To a large degree there is agreement in the network research,
   practitioner, and standardization communities that rigid network
   control limits the flexibility and manageability of service creation,
   as discussed in [NSC] and the references therein.  Today operators
   run IP networks stitched together by a plethora of highly specialized
   middleboxes that implement firewall, NAT, DPI, traffic scrubbing, and
   other functionality [middlebox].  In this environment orchestration
   is fragmented, hindering rapid service deployment.  Moreover,
   recursive orchestration for heterogeneous resources is not
   practically employed.  In this memo, we examine orchestration support
   in current open-source efforts and describe research challenges in
   this area.



Carrozzo, et al.          Expires May 20, 2016                  [Page 2]


Internet-Draft    NFV Resource Orchestration Challenges    November 2015


1.1.  Motivation

   Flexible service definition and creation start by formalizing the
   service into the concept of network function forwarding graphs, such
   as the ETSI VNF Forwarding Graph [ETSI-NFV-Arch] or the ongoing work
   in IETF [RFC7498].  These graphs represent the way in which service
   end-points (e.g., customer access) are interconnected with a set of
   selected network functionalities such as firewalls, load balancers,
   and so on, to deliver a network service.  Service graph
   representations form the input for the management and orchestration
   to instantiate and configure the requested service.  For example,
   ETSI defined a Management and Orchestration (MANO) framework in
   [ETSI-NFV-MANO].  We note that throughout such a management and
   orchestration framework different abstractions may appear for
   separation of concerns, roles or functionality, or for information
   hiding.

   In the simplest case, technology specific domains (e.g., software or
   networking) create a technology specific abstraction and control
   interfaces (e.g., Open Stack Controller or an SDN Controller), which
   are connected to an overarching orchestrator.  Figure 1 shows an NFVO
   orchestrating three NFVI PoPs: two DCs with OpenStack Controller
   (OSC) and a Wide Area Network domain by an SDN Controller.


                                +---------+
                                |  NVFO   |
                                +---------+
                              .---/  |  \---.
                             /       |       \
                        +-----+   +-----+   +-----+
                        | VIM |   | WIM |   | VIM |
                        |(OSC)|   |(SDN)|   |(OSC)|
                        +-----+   +-----+   +-----+


                                 Figure 1

   However, technology specific separation of the orchestration
   interface is not necessarily rational once the orchestrator (e.g.,
   NFVO) aggregated all the different resource types into a joint
   abstraction.  Figure 2 shows two autonomous systems with their own
   technology specific resource domains plus a resource virtualization
   between the two domains.  In Figure 2 RO denotes resource
   orchestrators, Service O denotes service lifecycle management and
   VIM/WIM denote technology specific resource managers.  Further, for
   the interworking interface between the two autonomous domains the
   resource virtualization is denoted by S (as a slice).  Control over



Carrozzo, et al.          Expires May 20, 2016                  [Page 3]


Internet-Draft    NFV Resource Orchestration Challenges    November 2015


   the virtualized resource offered by RO 1 to RO 2 is assumed to be
   exercised also by the API exposed at S.  Assume that the resource
   virtualization contains both i) networking resources (e.g., topology
   of forwarding elements) and ii) software resources capable of hosting
   VNFs.  S is interworking interface, which needs standardization for
   efficient interworking.


                             * +---------+
                             * |Service O|
                             * +---------+
                             *     |
                             * +---------+
                             * |   RO 2  |
                             * +-[aggr-]-+
                              *   | \ \
                               *  |  \ \----------.
                                * |   \----.       \
                   +---------+   *|     +--+--+   +-----+
                   |Service O|    |*    | WIM |   | VIM |
                   +---------+    | *   |(SDN)|   |(OSC)|
                            |     |  *  +-----+   +-----+
                          +------[S]+ *             AS 2
                          |   RO 1  |  ******************
                          +-[aggr-]-+               AS 1
                        .---/  |  \---.
                       /       |       \
                  +-----+   +-----+   +-----+
                  | VIM |   | WIM |   | VIM |
                  |(OSC)|   |(SDN)|   |(OSC)|
                  +-----+   +-----+   +-----+


                                 Figure 2

   As soon as resources become part of multiple administration domains;
   technology or vendor specific domains or multi-operator setup
   standardized interfaces are key for smooth interworking.  Without
   such interoperability different technologies for data center and
   network operation result in distinct technology domains even within a
   single carrier.  Multi technology/domain barriers start to emerge
   hindering the full programmability of the NFVI and limiting the
   potential for rapid service deployment.








Carrozzo, et al.          Expires May 20, 2016                  [Page 4]


Internet-Draft    NFV Resource Orchestration Challenges    November 2015


1.2.  Scope

   In this document we consider the virtualization and resource
   orchestration of heterogeneous resources and functions over multiple
   technology, vendor or administrative domains.

   Examples of application contexts for recursive orchestration include,
   but are not limited to, the following:

   o  large scale experimentation over software networks, based on
      slices of network and compute resources from different federated
      providers;

   o  operators who intend to implement their network service offer over
      virtual infrastructure in the form of virtual network and compute
      resources and functions, all procured as a service from physical
      infrastructure providers.

1.3.  Terminology

   We use the term software, compute and "compute and storage"
   interchangeably throughout the document.  Moreover, we use the
   following definitions, some of which are established in
   [ETSI-NFV-Arch] and are copied here for reader convenience.

   Network Function Virtualization (NFV)
      The principle of separating network functions from the hardware
      they run on by using virtual hardware abstraction.

   NFV Infrastructure Point of Presence (NFVI PoP)
      Any combination of virtualized compute, storage and network
      resources.

   NFV Infrastructure (NFVI)
      Collection of NFVI PoPs under one orchestrator.

   Virtual Network Function (VNF)
      One or more virtual machines running different software and
      processes on top of industry-standard high-volume servers,
      switches and storage, or cloud computing infrastructure, and
      capable of implementing network functions traditionally
      implemented via custom hardware appliances and middleboxes (e.g.
      router, NAT, firewall, load balancer, etc.)

   Virtualized Network Function Forwarding Graph (VNF     FG)
      An ordered list of VNFs creating a service chain.

   VNF Island



Carrozzo, et al.          Expires May 20, 2016                  [Page 5]


Internet-Draft    NFV Resource Orchestration Challenges    November 2015


      A set of virtualized network functions and related network and
      compute resources under the same administrative ownership/control.
      A VNF island could consist of multiple zones, each characterized
      by a specific set of control tools and interfaces.

   VNF Zone
      A set of virtual network functions grouped for homogeneity of
      technologies and/or control tools and/or interfaces (e.g.  L2
      switching zone, optical switching zone, OpenFlow controlled zone,
      other transit domain zone with a control interface).  The major
      goal of defining SDN zones is to implement appropriate policies
      for increasing availability, scalability and control of the
      different resources of the island.  Examples of zone definitions
      are available in popular cloud management systems like CloudStack
      (e.g. refer to the CloudStack Infrastructure partitioning into
      regions, zones, pods, etc., [cloudstack]) and OpenStack (e.g.
      refer to the infrastructure partitioning in availability zones and
      host aggregates [openstack]).

   Transit network domains
      Network domains can use a bandwidth-on-demand interface to expose
      automatically and on-demand control of connectivity services and,
      optionally, inter-domain topology exchange.  In order to federate
      resources of distant facilities (i.e. islands/zones) it must be
      ensured that interconnectivity is provided on-demand and with a
      specific granularity.

   Slice
      A provider-created subset of virtual networking and compute
      resources, created from physical or virtual resources available
      for the (slice) provider.

   Resource Orchestrator (RO)
      Entity responsible for domain wide global orchestration of network
      services and software resource reservations in terms of network
      functions over the physical or virtual resources the RO owns.  The
      domain an RO oversees may consist of slices of other domains.

   Resource Manager (RM)
      Entity responsible for controlling and managing different types of
      resources and/or network functions.

   Management and Orchestration (MANO)
      In the ETSI NFV framework [ETSI-NFV-MANO], MANO is the global
      entity responsible for management and orchestration of NFV
      lifecycle.

   Further, we make use of the following terms:



Carrozzo, et al.          Expires May 20, 2016                  [Page 6]


Internet-Draft    NFV Resource Orchestration Challenges    November 2015


   NF is a network function, either software-based (VNF) or appliance-
      based.

   SW is a (routing/switching) network element with a programmable
      control plane interface.

   DC is a data center network element which in addition to a
      programmable control plane interface offers a DC control
      interface.

   LS is a logical switch instance.

   CN is an element equipped with compute and/or storage resources.

   UN or universal node, is a network element that integrates and
      manages in a unified platform both compute and networking
      components.

2.  Examples

2.1.  DC - WAN - DC Example

   Assume that the set of virtual network and non-network functions is
   determined, reserved and deployed across the different islands, the
   resulting virtual network environment is ready for being used by any
   tool or application the user wants to deploy in it.  Figure 3
   illustrates a resource orchestrator (RO) as a functional entity whose
   task is to map the service graph to the infrastructure resources
   under some service constraints and taking into account the NF
   resource descriptions.





















Carrozzo, et al.          Expires May 20, 2016                  [Page 7]


Internet-Draft    NFV Resource Orchestration Challenges    November 2015


                                        |[Service Graph]
                                        V
                                +--------------------+
                                |Service Orchestrator|
                                +--------------------+
                                        |
                                        V
              ^    +--------+   +--------------------+
              |    | NF-IB  |   |Resource            |
              |C   |Resource|<->|Orchestrator (RO0)  |
              |O   | Descr. |   |                    |
              |N   +--------+   +---[aggregator]-----+
              |T                      A A A
              |R         .-----------/  |  \---------.
              |O         |              |            |
              |L       +-S-+          +-S-+        +-S-+
              |        |RO1|          |RO2|        |RO3|
              V        +---+          +---+        +---+

              ^                       +---+
              |D                   +--|SW3|--+
              |A                   |  +---+  |
              |T       +---+       |         |      +---+
              |A    1  |PoP|     +---+     +---+    |PoP|  8
              |     o--|DC1|-----|SW2|-----|SW4|----|DC2|--o
              V        +---+     +---+     +---+    +---+

                   [-  SP1  -][-       SP2      -][-  SP3  -]


    Figure 3: Resource Orchestrator: network function information base
                        (NF-IB), inputs and output

   NF resource descriptions in the NF-IB are assumed to contain
   information necessary to map NF types to a choice of instantiable VNF
   flavor or a selection of an already deployed NF appliance and
   networking demands for different operational policies.  For example,
   if energy efficiency is to be considered during the decision process
   then information related to energy consumption of different NF
   flavors under different conditions (e.g., network load) should be
   included in the resource description.

   Note that we also introduce a new service provider (SP0) which
   effectively operates on top of the virtualized infrastructure offered
   by service providers SP1, SP2 and SP3.

   In order for the RO to execute the resource mapping it needs to
   operate on the combined control plane illustrated in Figure 4.  In



Carrozzo, et al.          Expires May 20, 2016                  [Page 8]


Internet-Draft    NFV Resource Orchestration Challenges    November 2015


   this figure we mark clearly that the interfaces to the compute (DC)
   control plane and the SDN (SW) control plane are distinct and
   implemented through different interfaces/APIs.  For example, Ic1
   could be the Apache CloudStack API, while Ic2 could be a control
   plane protocol such as ForCES or OpenFlow [RFC7426].  In this case,
   the orchestrator at SP0 (top part of the figure) needs to maintain a
   tight coordination across this range of interfaces.


                               +---------+
                               |Orchestr.|
                               |   RO0   |
                          _____+---------+_____
                         /          |          \
                        /           V Ic2       \
                       |       +---------+       |
                   Ic1 V       |SDN Ctrl |       V  Ic3
              +---------+      |   RO2   |      +---------+
              |Comp Ctrl|      +---------+      |Comp Ctrl|
              |   RO1   |        /  |  \        |   RO3   |
              +---------+    +---   V   ----+   +---------+
                   |         |    +----+    |         |
                   |         |    |SW3 |    |         |
                   V         |    +----+    |         V
                  +----+     V   /      \   V     +----+
               1  |PoP |    +----+      +----+    |PoP |  8
               o--|DC1 |----|SW2 |------|SW4 |----|DC2 |--o
                  +----+    +----+      +----+    +----+

              [-   SP1  -][-        SP2       -][-  SP3   -]
              [-                    SP0                   -]


    Figure 4: The RO Control Plane view.  Control plane interfaces are
    indicated with (line) arrows.  Data plane connections are indicated
                            with simple lines.

2.2.  Monitoring and AAA

   Figure 5 illustrates Resource Orchestrators (RO) which are
   responsible for orchestrating end-to-end network services and
   resources reservations in the whole infrastructure.  Moreover, ROs
   should be able to delegate end-to-end resource and service
   provisioning in technology-agnostic way.

   ROs are connected to different types of Resource Managers (RMs),
   which are in turn used to control and manage different kinds of
   technological resources.  For example, the RM (WAN) provides



Carrozzo, et al.          Expires May 20, 2016                  [Page 9]


Internet-Draft    NFV Resource Orchestration Challenges    November 2015


   connectivity between L1/L2 network domains at the two ends.  This
   management can be achieved using frame, packet or circuit switching
   technologies and should support different protocols.

   On the other hand, for instance, the RM (LAN) manages the network
   infrastructure composed of SDN-enabled devices, e.g.  OpenFlow
   switches or routers.  In short, it can control the user traffic
   environment by updating flow tables in physical devices.

   AAA is a cross layer function facilitating authN/authZ procedures in
   federated facilities.  Similarly, monitoring allows to retrieve,
   correlate and abstract statistics from the different components of
   the physical and virtual resources.


   +---+  +------------------------------------------+  +---+
   |   |  |          Resource Orchestrator - RO      |  |   |
   |   |--|                                          |--|   |
   |   |  +------------------------------------------+  |   |
   |   |                    ...                  ...    |   |
   |   |                     |                    |     |   |
   |   |                     |                    |     |   |
   | M |  +-------------------------------+     +----+  |   |
   | O |--|            RO                 | ... | RO |--| A |
   | N |  +-------------------------------+     +----+  | A |
   | I |        |           |         |           |     | A |
   | T |        |           |         |           |     |   |
   | O |  +-----------+ +-------+ +-------+     +----+  |   |
   | R |  |  Resource | |  RM   | |  RM   |     | RM |  |   |
   | I |--|  Manager  | |       | |       |     |    |--|   |
   | N |  | (compute) | | (LAN) | | (WAN) |     |    |  |   |
   | G |  +-----------+ +-------+ +-------+     +----+  |   |
   |   |        |           |         |            |    |   |
   |   |  +-----------+ +-------+ +-------+     +----+  |   |
   |   |--| NVFI PoP  | |Network| |Network|     |NFVI|--|   |
   +---+  +-----------+ +-------+ +-------+     +----+  +---+


           Figure 5: Recursive Orchestration: Monitoring and AAA

3.  Review of Open Orchestration Frameworks

3.1.  OpenStack

   Among cloud orchestration solutions, OpenStack is the de facto common
   reference through its Heat module [os-heat].  OpenStack Heat
   implements an orchestration engine to launch multiple composite cloud
   applications based on templates in the form of text files that can be



Carrozzo, et al.          Expires May 20, 2016                 [Page 10]


Internet-Draft    NFV Resource Orchestration Challenges    November 2015


   treated like code.  Many existing CloudFormation templates can be
   launched on OpenStack.  Heat provides both an OpenStack-native REST
   API and a CloudFormation-compatible Query API.

   A Heat template describes the infrastructure for a cloud application
   in a text file.  Infrastructure resources that can be described
   include: servers, floating IPs, volumes, security groups, users, etc.
   Templates can also specify the relationships between resources (e.g.
   this volume is connected to this server).  Heat also provides an
   auto-scaling service.

   Heat primarily manages cloud infrastructure, does not support
   federation and AAA is bundled in the OpenStack framework.

3.2.  OpenMANO

   OpenMANO is an open source project which implements the reference
   architecture for Management and Orchestration under standardization
   at ETSI NFV ISG (NFV MANO) [openmano].  OpenMANO consists of two main
   SW components:

   o  NFV VIM (Virtualised Infrastructure Manager) to provide computing
      and networking capabilities and to deploy virtual machines.

   o  A reference implementation of an Network Functions Virtualisation
      Orchestrator (NFV-O), which allows the creation and deletion of
      VNF templates, VNF instances, network service templates and
      network service instances.

   OpenMANO does not support federation and AAA as of today.

3.3.  UNIFYing Carrier Network and Cloud Resources (UNIFY)

   The UNIFY project pursues full network and service virtualization to
   enable rich and flexible services and operational efficiency.  The
   main goal of the project is to unify software and network resources
   in a common framework.  The UNIFY API combines compute, storage and
   network resources into a joint programmatic reference point, allowing
   multi-level virtualization and orchestration of Network Function
   Forwarding Graph for fast and flexible service chaining.  While the
   ambition is similar to ETSI NFV, the project pursues a recurring
   control architecture, which similar to the ONF's SDN control plane
   architecture [ONF-SDN-ARCH].  The UNIFY's problem statement and
   challenges are documented in [I-D.unify-nfvrg-challenges] while the
   proposed virtualization and control API is defined in
   [I-D.unify-nfvrg-recursive-programming].





Carrozzo, et al.          Expires May 20, 2016                 [Page 11]


Internet-Draft    NFV Resource Orchestration Challenges    November 2015


3.4.  Federated Experimentation Infrastructures

   The FELIX project implements federation and integration of different
   network and compute resources controlled via SDN and Network Service
   Interface (NSI) in a multi-domain heterogeneous environment across,
   initially spanning Europe and Japan.  The FELIX architecture extends
   and advances assets previously developed (e.g. in OFELIA), by
   realizing the federation concepts defined in SFA [SFA] with a
   combination of recursive and hierarchical orchestration, request
   delegation and inter-domain dependency management.  Further details
   are available in [I-D.felix-nfvrg-recursive-orchestration] and the
   references therein.

4.  Challenges

   Orchestrating networking resources appears to have a recursive nature
   at different levels of the hierarchy.  Would a programmatic interface
   at the combined compute and network abstraction better support this
   recursive and constraint-based resource allocation?  Further, can
   such a joint compute, storage and network programmatic interface
   allow an automated resource orchestration similar to the recursive
   SDN architecture [RFC7426][ONF-SDN-ARCH]?  Below we we summarize key
   questions and challenges which arise from the recursive resource
   orchestration and management concepts.

4.1.  Resource description

   A prerequisite for joint placement decisions of compute, storage and
   network is the adequate description of available resources.  There
   have been manifold attempts to create frameworks for resource
   description, most prominently RDF of W3C, NDL, the GENI RPC and its
   concept of Aggregate Managers, ONF's TTP and many more.  Quite
   naturally, all attempts to standardize "arbitrary" resource
   descriptions lead to creating ontologies, complex graphs describing
   relations of terms to each other.

   Practical descriptions of compute resources are currently focusing on
   number of logical CPU cores, available RAM and storage, allowing,
   e.g., the OpenStack Nova scheduler to meet placement decisions.  In
   heterogeneous network and compute environments, hardware may have
   different acceleration capabilities (e.g., AES-NI or hardware random
   number generators), so the notion of logical compute cores is not
   expressive enough.  In addition, the network interfaces (and link
   load) provide important information on how fast a certain VNF can be
   executed in one node.

   This may lead to a description of resources as VNF-FGs themselves.
   Networking resource (SW) may expose the capability to forward and



Carrozzo, et al.          Expires May 20, 2016                 [Page 12]


Internet-Draft    NFV Resource Orchestration Challenges    November 2015


   process frames in, e.g., an OpenFlow TableFeatures reply.  Compute
   nodes in the VNF-FG would expose lists of capabilities like the
   presence of AES hardware acceleration, Intel DPDK support, or complex
   functions like a running web server.  An essential part of the
   compute node's capability would be the ability to run a certain VNF
   of type X within a certain QoS spec.  As the QoS is service specific,
   it can only be exposed by a control function within the instantiated
   VNF-FG.

4.2.  Dependencies (de-composition)

   Salt [SALT], Puppet [PUPPET], Chef [CHEF] and Ansible [ANSIBLE] are
   tools to manage large scale installations of virtual machines in DC
   environments.  Essentially, the decomposition of a complex function
   into its dependencies is encoded in "recipes" (Chef).

   The OASIS TOSCA [TOSCA] specification aims at describing application
   layer services to automate interoperable deployment in alternative
   cloud environments.  The TOSCA specification "provides a language to
   describe service components and their relationships using a service
   topology".

   Is there a dependency (decomposition) abstraction suitable to drive
   resource orchestration between application layer descriptions (like
   TOSCA) and cloud specific installations (like Chef recipes)?

4.3.  Elastic VNF

   In many use cases, a VNF may not be designed for scaling up/down, as
   scaling up/down may require a restart of the VNF which the state data
   may be lost.  Normally a VNF may be capable for scaling in/out only.
   Such VNF is designed running on top of a small VM and grouped as a
   pool of one VNF function.  VNF scaling may cross multiple NFVI PoPs
   (or data center)s in order to avoid limitation of the NVFI
   capability.  At cross-DC scaling, the result is that the new VNF
   instance may be placed at a remote cloud location.  At VNF scaling,
   it is a must requirement to provide the same level of Service Level
   Agreement (SLA) including performance, reliability and security.

   In general, a VNF is part of a VNF Forwarding Graph (VNF FG), meaning
   the data traffic may traverse multiple stateful and stateless VNF
   functions in sequence.  When some VNF instances of a given service
   function chain are placed / scaled out in a distant cloud execution,
   the service traffic may have to traverse multiple VNF instances which
   are located in multiple physical locations.  In the worst case, the
   data traffic may ping-pong between multiple physical locations.
   Therefore it is important to take the whole service function chain's
   performance into consideration when placing and scaling one of its



Carrozzo, et al.          Expires May 20, 2016                 [Page 13]


Internet-Draft    NFV Resource Orchestration Challenges    November 2015


   VNF instance.  Network and cloud resources need mutual
   considerations, see [I-D.zu-nfvrg-elasticity-vnf].

4.4.  Measurement and analytics

   Programmable, dynamic, and elastic VNF deployment requires that the
   Resource Orchestrator (RO) entities obtain timely information about
   the actual operational conditions between different locations where
   VNFs can be placed.  Scaling VNFs in/out/up/down, VNF execution
   migration and VNF mobility, as well as right-sizing the VNFI resource
   allocations is a research area that is expected to grow in the coming
   years as mechanisms, heuristics, and measurement and analytics
   frameworks are developed.

   For example, Veitch et al.  [IAF] point out that NFV deployment will
   "present network operators with significant implementation
   challenges".  They look into the problems arising from the lack of
   proper tools for testing and diagnostics and explore the use of
   embedded instrumentation.  They find that in certain scenarios fine-
   tuning resource allocation based on instrumentation can lead to at
   least 50% reduction in compute provisioning.  In this context, three
   categories emerge where more research is needed.

   First, in the compute domain, performance analysis will need to
   evolve significantly from the current "safety factor" mentality which
   has served well carriers in the dedicated, hardware-based appliances
   era.  In the emerging softwarized deployments, VNFI will require new
   tools for planning, testing, and reliability assurance.  Meirosu et
   al.  [I-D.unify-nfvrg-devops] describe in detail the challenges in
   this area with respect to verification, testing, troubleshooting and
   observability.

   Second, in the network domain, performance measurement and analysis
   will play a key role in determining the scope and range of VNF
   distribution across the resources available.  For example, IETF has
   worked on the standardization of IP performance metrics for years.
   The Two-Way Active Measurement Protocol (TWAMP) could be employed,
   for instance, to capture the actual operational state of the network
   prior to making RO decisions.  TWAMP management, however, still lacks
   a standardized and programmable management and configuration data
   model [I-D.cmzrjp-ippm-twamp-yang].  We expect that as VNFI
   programmability gathers interest from network carriers several IETF
   protocols will be revisited in order to bring them up to date with
   respect to the current operational requirements.  To this end, NFVRG
   can play an active role in identifying future IETF standardization
   directions.





Carrozzo, et al.          Expires May 20, 2016                 [Page 14]


Internet-Draft    NFV Resource Orchestration Challenges    November 2015


   Third, non-technical considerations which relate to business aspects
   or priorities need to be modeled and codified so that ROs can take
   intelligent decisions.  Meirosu et al.  [I-D.unify-nfvrg-devops]
   identify two aspects of this problem, namely a) how high-level
   network goals are translated into low-level configuration commands;
   and b) monitoring functions that go beyond measuring simple metrics
   such as delay or packet loss.  Energy efficiency and cost, for
   example, can steer NFV placement.  In NFVI deployments operational
   practices such as follow-the-sun will be considered as earlier
   research in the data center context implies.

5.  IANA Considerations

   No IANA considerations are applicable.

6.  Security Considerations

   This document does not have any impact on the security of the
   Internet.

7.  Acknowledgements

   This work has been partially supported and funded by the European
   Commission through the FP7 UNIFY (grant agreement no. 619609), FP7
   ICT FELIX (grant agreement no. 608638) projects and the National
   Institute of Information and Communications Technology (NICT) in
   Japan.  The views expressed here are those of the authors only.  The
   European Commission and NICT are not liable for any use that may be
   made of the information in this document.

8.  Contributors

   The editors would like to acknowledge in alphabetical order the
   following contributors from the FELIX and UNIFY projects who have
   provided text, comments, pointers, and ideas during the development
   of earlier versions of this document: Bartosz Belter, Carlos Bermudo,
   Andras Csaszar, Diego Daino, Mario Kind, Tomohiro Kudoh, Catalin
   Meirosu, Zu Qiang, Jin Tanaka, Fritz-Joachim Westphal, and Hagen
   Woesner.

9.  Informative References

   [ANSIBLE]  Ansible Inc., "Ansible Documentation", 2015,
              <http://docs.ansible.com/index.html>.

   [CHEF]     Chef Software Inc., "An Overview of Chef", 2015,
              <https://docs.chef.io/chef_overview.html>.




Carrozzo, et al.          Expires May 20, 2016                 [Page 15]


Internet-Draft    NFV Resource Orchestration Challenges    November 2015


   [cloudstack]
              "Apache CloudStack documentation. Cloud Infrastructure
              Concepts", Available online at
              http://cloudstack.apache.org/docs/en-
              US/Apache_CloudStack/4.1.0/html/Admin_Guide/
              cloud-infrastructure-concepts.html.

   [ETSI-NFV-Arch]
              ETSI, "Architectural Framework v1.1.1", Oct 2013,
              <http://www.etsi.org/deliver/etsi_gs/
              NFV/001_099/002/01.01.01_60/gs_NFV002v010101p.pdf>.

   [ETSI-NFV-MANO]
              ETSI, "Network Function Virtualization (NFV) Management
              and Orchestration V0.6.1", Jul. 2014,
              <http://docbox.etsi.org/ISG/NFV/Open/Latest_Drafts/
              NFV-MAN001v061-%20management%20and%20orchestration.pdf>.

   [FELIX-D2.1]
              R. Krzywania, W. Bogacki, B. Belter, K. Pentikousis, T.
              Rothe, G. Carrozzo, N. Ciulli, C. Bermudo, T. Kudoh, A.
              Takefusa, J. Tanaka and B. Puype, , "FELIX Deliverable
              D2.1 - Experiment Use Cases and Requirements",  Available
              online at http://www.ict-felix.eu., September 2013.

   [FELIX-D2.2]
              R. Krzywania, W. Bogacki, B. Belter, K. Pentikousis, T.
              Rothe, M. Broadbent, G. Carrozzo, N. Ciulli, R. Monno, C.
              Bermudo, A. Vico, C. Fernandez, T. Kudoh, A. Takefusa, J.
              Tanaka and B. Puype, , "FELIX Deliverable D2.2 - General
              Architecture and Functional Blocks",  Available online at
              http://www.ict-felix.eu., February 2014.

   [I-D.cmzrjp-ippm-twamp-yang]
              Civil, R., Morton, A., Zheng, L., Rahman, R.,
              Jethanandani, M., and K. Pentikousis, "Two-Way Active
              Measurement Protocol (TWAMP) Data Model", draft-cmzrjp-
              ippm-twamp-yang-02 (work in progress), October 2015.

   [I-D.felix-nfvrg-recursive-orchestration]
              Carrozzo, G. and K. Pentikousis, "Recursive orchestration
              of federated virtual network functions", draft-felix-
              nfvrg-recursive-orchestration-00 (work in progress), July
              2015.







Carrozzo, et al.          Expires May 20, 2016                 [Page 16]


Internet-Draft    NFV Resource Orchestration Challenges    November 2015


   [I-D.unify-nfvrg-challenges]
              Szabo, R., Csaszar, A., Pentikousis, K., Kind, M., Daino,
              D., Qiang, Z., and H. Woesner, "Unifying Carrier and Cloud
              Networks: Problem Statement and Challenges", draft-unify-
              nfvrg-challenges-02 (work in progress), July 2015.

   [I-D.unify-nfvrg-devops]
              Meirosu, C., Manzalini, A., Steinert, R., Marchetto, G.,
              Papafili, I., Pentikousis, K., and S. Wright, "DevOps for
              Software-Defined Telecom Infrastructures", draft-unify-
              nfvrg-devops-03 (work in progress), October 2015.

   [I-D.unify-nfvrg-recursive-programming]
              Szabo, R., Qiang, Z., and M. Kind, "Towards recursive
              virtualization and programming for network and cloud
              resources", draft-unify-nfvrg-recursive-programming-02
              (work in progress), October 2015.

   [I-D.zu-nfvrg-elasticity-vnf]
              Qiang, Z. and R. Szabo, "Elasticity VNF", draft-zu-nfvrg-
              elasticity-vnf-01 (work in progress), March 2015.

   [IAF]      Veitch, P., McGrath, M. J., and Bayon, V., "An
              Instrumentation and Analytics Framework for Optimal and
              Robust NFV Deployment", Communications Magazine, vol. 53,
              no. 2 IEEE, February 2015.

   [middlebox]
              A. Greenhalgh, F. Huici, M. Hoerdt, P. Papadimitriou, M.
              Handley, and L. Mathy, , "Flow Processing and the Rise of
              Commodity Network Hardware", ACM SIGCOMM Computer
              Communication Review Volume 39 issue 2, April 2009.

   [NSC]      John, W., Pentikousis, K., et al., "Research directions in
              network service chaining", Proc. SDN for Future Networks
              and Services (SDN4FNS), Trento, Italy IEEE, November 2013.

   [ONF-SDN-ARCH]
              ONF, "SDN architecture", Jun. 2014,
              <https://www.opennetworking.org/images/stories/downloads/
              sdn-resources/technical-reports/
              TR_SDN_ARCH_1.0_06062014.pdf>.

   [openmano]
              "OpenMANO", Available online
              at https://github.com/nfvlabs/openmano/wiki.





Carrozzo, et al.          Expires May 20, 2016                 [Page 17]


Internet-Draft    NFV Resource Orchestration Challenges    November 2015


   [openstack]
              "Scaling Openstack", Available online at
              http://docs.openstack.org/openstack-ops/content/
              scaling.html.

   [os-heat]  "OpenStack Orchestration - Heat", Available online
              at https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Heat.

   [PUPPET]   Puppet Labs., "Puppet 3.7 Reference Manual", 2015,
              <http://docs.puppetlabs.com/puppet/3.7/reference/>.

   [RFC7426]  Haleplidis, E., Ed., Pentikousis, K., Ed., Denazis, S.,
              Hadi Salim, J., Meyer, D., and O. Koufopavlou, "Software-
              Defined Networking (SDN): Layers and Architecture
              Terminology", RFC 7426, DOI 10.17487/RFC7426, January
              2015, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7426>.

   [RFC7498]  Quinn, P., Ed. and T. Nadeau, Ed., "Problem Statement for
              Service Function Chaining", RFC 7498,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC7498, April 2015,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7498>.

   [SALT]     SaltStack, "Salt (Documentation)", 2015,
              <http://docs.saltstack.com/en/latest/contents.html>.

   [SFA]      L. Peterson, R. Ricci, A. Falk and J. Chase, , "Slice-
              based Federation Architecture (SFA) v2.0",  , July 2010.

   [TOSCA]    OASIS Standard, "Topology and Orchestration Specification
              for Cloud Applications Version 1.0", November 2013,
              <http://docs.oasis-open.org/tosca/TOSCA/v1.0/os/
              TOSCA-v1.0-os.html>.

Authors' Addresses

   Gino Carrozzo (editor)
   Nextworks
   via Livornese 1027
   Pisa  56122
   Italy

   Email: g.carrozzo@nextworks.it
   URI:   http://www.nextworks.it/








Carrozzo, et al.          Expires May 20, 2016                 [Page 18]


Internet-Draft    NFV Resource Orchestration Challenges    November 2015


   Robert Szabo (editor)
   Ericsson Research, Hungary
   Irinyi Jozsef u. 4-20
   Budapest  1117
   Hungary

   Email: robert.szabo@ericsson.com
   URI:   http://www.ericsson.com/


   Kostas Pentikousis (editor)
   EICT
   Torgauer Strasse 12-15
   Berlin  10829
   Germany

   Email: k.pentikousis@eict.de
   URI:   http://www.eict.de

































Carrozzo, et al.          Expires May 20, 2016                 [Page 19]


Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.123, available from https://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/