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

Versions: (draft-fm-bess-service-chaining) 00 01 02 03 04 05 06

Network Working Group                                        R. Fernando
Internet-Draft                                             Cisco Systems
Intended status: Standards Track                               S. Mackie
Expires: June 7, 2019                                   Juniper Networks
                                                                  D. Rao
                                                           Cisco Systems
                                                              B. Rijsman

                                                            M. Napierala
                                                                ATT Labs
                                                                T. Morin
                                                                  Orange
                                                        December 4, 2018


     Service Function Chaining using Virtual Networks with BGP VPNs
                  draft-ietf-bess-service-chaining-06

Abstract

   This document describes how service function chains (SFC) can be
   applied to traffic flows using routing in a virtual (overlay) network
   to steer traffic between service nodes.  Chains can include services
   running in routers, on physical appliances or in virtual machines.
   Service chains have applicability at the subscriber edge, business
   edge and in multi-tenant datacenters.  The routing function into SFCs
   and between service functions within an SFC can be performed by
   physical devices (routers), be virtualized inside hypervisors, or run
   as part of a host OS.

   A BGP control plane for route distribution is used to create virtual
   networks implemented using IP MPLS, VXLAN or other suitable
   encapsulation, where the routes within the virtual networks cause
   traffic to flow through a sequence of service nodes that apply packet
   processing functions to the flows.

   Two techniques are described: in one the service chain is implemented
   as a sequence of distinct VPNs between sets of service nodes that
   apply each service function; in the other, the routes within a VPN
   are modified through the use of special route targets and modified
   next-hop resolution to achieve the desired result.

   In both techniques, service chains can be created by manual
   configuration of routes and route targets in routing systems, or
   through the use of a controller which contains a topological model of
   the desired service chains.





Fernando, et al.          Expires June 7, 2019                  [Page 1]


Internet-Draft     SFC using Virtual Networks with BGP     December 2018


   This document also contains discussion of load balancing between
   network functions, symmetric forward and reverse paths when stateful
   services are involved, and use of classifiers to direct traffic into
   a service chain.

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 https://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 June 7, 2019.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2018 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
   (https://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  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     1.1.  Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
   2.  Service Function Chain Architecture Using Virtual Networking    7
     2.1.  High Level Architecture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
     2.2.  Service Function Chain Logical Model  . . . . . . . . . .  10
     2.3.  Service Function Implemented in a Set of SF Instances . .  11
     2.4.  SF Instance Connections to VRFs . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
       2.4.1.  SF Instance in Physical Appliance . . . . . . . . . .  13
       2.4.2.  SF Instance in a Virtualized Environment  . . . . . .  14



Fernando, et al.          Expires June 7, 2019                  [Page 2]


Internet-Draft     SFC using Virtual Networks with BGP     December 2018


     2.5.  Encapsulation Tunneling for Transport . . . . . . . . . .  15
     2.6.  SFC Creation Procedure  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15
       2.6.1.  SFC Provisioning Using Sequential VPNs  . . . . . . .  16
       2.6.2.  Modified-Route SFC Creation . . . . . . . . . . . . .  17
       2.6.3.  Common SFC provisioning considerations  . . . . . . .  19
     2.7.  Controller Function . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  20
     2.8.  Variations on Setting Prefixes in an SFC  . . . . . . . .  20
       2.8.1.  Using a Default Route . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  20
       2.8.2.  Using a Default Route and a Large Prefix  . . . . . .  21
       2.8.3.  Disaggregated Gateway Routers . . . . . . . . . . . .  21
       2.8.4.  Optimizing VRF usage  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  22
       2.8.5.  Dynamic Entry and Exit Signaling  . . . . . . . . . .  22
       2.8.6.  Dynamic Re-Advertisements in Intermediate Systems . .  23
     2.9.  Layer-2 Virtual Networks and Service Functions  . . . . .  23
     2.10. Header Transforming Service Functions . . . . . . . . . .  23
   3.  Load Balancing Along a Service Function Chain . . . . . . . .  24
     3.1.  SF Instances Connected to Separate VRFs . . . . . . . . .  24
     3.2.  SF Instances Connected to the Same VRF  . . . . . . . . .  25
     3.3.  Combination of Egress and Ingress VRF Load Balancing  . .  26
     3.4.  Forward and Reverse Flow Load Balancing . . . . . . . . .  28
       3.4.1.  Issues with Equal Cost Multi-Path Routing . . . . . .  28
       3.4.2.  Modified ECMP with Consistent Hash  . . . . . . . . .  28
       3.4.3.  ECMP with Flow Table  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  29
       3.4.4.  Dealing with Different Hash Algorithms in an SFC  . .  30
   4.  Sharing Service Functions in Different SFCs . . . . . . . . .  31
     4.1.  Shared SFs in L3 SFCs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  31
     4.2.  Shared SFs in L2 SFCs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  31
   5.  Steering into SFCs Using a Classifier . . . . . . . . . . . .  31
   6.  External Domain Co-ordination . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  33
   7.  Fine-grained steering using BGP Flow-Spec . . . . . . . . . .  34
   8.  Controller Federation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  34
   9.  Coordination Between SF Instances and Controller using BGP  .  34
   10. BGP Extended Communities  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  35
     10.1.  Route-Target Record  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  35
     10.2.  Consistent Hash Sort Order . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  36
     10.3.  Load Balance Settings  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  36
   11. Summary and Conclusion  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  37
   12. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  37
   13. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  38
   14. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  38
   15. References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  38
     15.1.  Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  38
     15.2.  Informational References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  39
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  40







Fernando, et al.          Expires June 7, 2019                  [Page 3]


Internet-Draft     SFC using Virtual Networks with BGP     December 2018


1.  Introduction

   The purpose of networks is to allow computing systems to communicate
   with each other.  Requests are usually made from the client or
   customer side of a network, and responses are generated by
   applications residing in a datacenter.  Over time, the network
   between the client and the application has become more complex, and
   traffic between the client and the application is acted on by
   intermediate systems that apply network services.  Some of these
   activities, like firewall filtering, subscriber attachment and
   network address translation are generally carried out in network
   devices along the traffic path, while others are carried out by
   dedicated appliances, such as media proxy and deep packet inspection
   (DPI).  Deployment of these in-network services is complex, time-
   consuming and costly, since they require configuration of devices
   with vendor-specific operating systems, sometimes with co-processing
   cards, or deployment of physical devices in the network, which
   requires cabling and configuration of the devices that they connect
   to.  Additionally, other devices in the network need to be configured
   to ensure that traffic is correctly steered through the systems that
   services are running on.

   The current mode of operations does not easily allow common
   operational processes to be applied to the lifecycle of services in
   the network, or for steering of traffic through them.

   The recent emergence of Network Functions Virtualization (NFV)
   [NFVE2E] to provide a standard deployment model for network services
   as software appliances, combined with Software Defined Networking
   (SDN) for more dynamic traffic steering can provide foundational
   elements that will allow network services to be deployed and managed
   far more efficiently and with more agility than is possible today.

   This document describes how the combination of several existing
   technologies can be used to create chains of functions, while
   preserving the requirements of scale, performance and reliability for
   service provider networks.  The technologies employed are:

   o  Traffic flow between service functions described by routing and
      network policies rather than by static physical or logical
      connectivity

   o  Packet header encapsulation in order to create virtual private
      networks using network overlays

   o  VRFs on both physical devices and in hypervisors to implement
      forwarding policies that are specific to each virtual network




Fernando, et al.          Expires June 7, 2019                  [Page 4]


Internet-Draft     SFC using Virtual Networks with BGP     December 2018


   o  Optional use of a controller to calculate routes to be installed
      in routing systems to form a service chain.  The controller uses a
      topological model that stores service function instance
      connectivity to network devices and intended connectivity between
      service functions.

   o  MPLS or other labeling to facilitate identification of the next
      interface to send packets to in a service function chain

   o  BGP or BGP-style signaling to distribute routes in order to create
      service function chains

   o  Distributed load balancing between service functions performed in
      the VRFs that service function instance connect to.

   Virtualized environments can be supported without necessarily running
   BGP or MPLS natively.  Messaging protocols such as NC/YANG, XMPP or
   OpenFlow may be used to signal forwarding information.  Encapsulation
   mechanisms such as VXLAN or GRE may be used for overlay transport.
   The term 'BGP-style', above, refers to this type of signaling.

   Traffic can be directed into service function chains using IP routing
   at each end of the service function chain, or be directed into the
   chain by a classifier function that can determine which service chain
   a traffic flow should pass through based on deep packet inspection
   (DPI) and/or subscriber identity.

   The techniques can support an evolution from services implemented in
   physical devices attached to physical forwarding systems (routers) to
   fully virtualized implementations as well as intermediate hybrid
   implementations.

1.1.  Terminology

   This document uses the following acronyms and terms.

          Terms  Meaning
          -----  -----------------------------------------------
          AS     Autonomous System
          ASBR   Autonomous System Border Router
          RR     Route Reflector
          RT     Route Target
          SDN    Software Defined Network
          VM     Virtual Machine
          VPN    Virtual Private Network
          VRF    VPN Routing and Forwarding table [RFC4364]

                                  Table 1



Fernando, et al.          Expires June 7, 2019                  [Page 5]


Internet-Draft     SFC using Virtual Networks with BGP     December 2018


   This document follows some of the terminology used in [RFC7665] and
   adds some new terminology:

   Network Service:  An externally visible service offered by a network
      operator; a service may consist of a single service function or a
      composite built from several service functions executed in one or
      more pre-determined sequences and delivered by software executing
      in physical or virtual devices.

   Classification:  Customer/network/service policy used to identify and
      select traffic flow(s) requiring certain outbound forwarding
      actions, in particular, to direct specific traffic flows into the
      ingress of a particular service function chain, or causing
      branching within a service function chain.

   Virtual Network:  A logical overlay network built using virtual links
      or packet encapsulation, over an existing network (the underlay).

   Service Function Chain (SFC):  A service function chain defines an
      ordered set of service functions that must be applied to packets
      and/or frames selected as a result of classification.  An SFC may
      be either a linear chain or a complex service graph with multiple
      branches.  The term 'Service Chain' is often used in place of
      'Service Function Chain'.

   SFC Set:  The pair of SFCs through which the forward and reverse
      directions of a given classified flow will pass.

   Service Function (SF):  A logical function that is applied to
      packets.  A service function can act at the network layer or other
      OSI layers.  A service function can be embedded in one or more
      physical network elements, or can be implemented in one or more
      software instances running on physical or virtual hosts.  One or
      multiple service functions can be embedded in the same network
      element or run on the same host.  Multiple instances of a service
      function can be enabled in the same administrative domain.  We
      will also refer to 'Service Function' as, simply, 'Service' for
      simplicity.

      A non-exhaustive list of services includes: firewalls, DDOS
      protection, anti-malware/ant-virus systems, WAN and application
      acceleration, Deep Packet Inspection (DPI), server load balancers,
      network address translation, HTTP Header Enrichment functions,
      video optimization, TCP optimization, etc.

   SF Instance:  An instance of software that implements the packet
      processing of a service function




Fernando, et al.          Expires June 7, 2019                  [Page 6]


Internet-Draft     SFC using Virtual Networks with BGP     December 2018


   SF Instance Set:  A group of SF instances that, in parallel,
      implement a service function in an SFC.

   Routing System:  A hardware or software system that performs layer 3
      routing and/or forwarding functions.  The term includes physical
      routers as well as hypervisor or Host OS implementations of the
      forwarding plane of a conventional router.

   Gateway:  A routing system attached to the source or destination
      network that peers with the controller, or with the routing system
      at one end of an SFC.  A source network gateway directs traffic
      from the source network into an SFC, while a destination network
      gateway distributes traffic towards destinations.  The routing
      systems at each end of an SFC can themselves act as gateways and
      in a bidirectional SF instance set, gateways can act in both
      directions VRF: A subsystem within a routing system as defined in
      [RFC4364] that contains private routing and forwarding tables and
      has physical and/or logical interfaces associated with it.  In the
      case of hypervisor/Host OS implementations, the term refers only
      to the forwarding function of a VRF, and this will be referred to
      as a 'VPN forwarder.'

   Ingress VRF:  A VRF containing an ingress interface of a SF instance

   Egress VRF:  A VRF containing an egress interface of a SF instance

      Note that in this document the terms 'ingress' and 'egress' are
      used with respect to SF instances rather than the tunnels that
      connect SF instances.  This is different usage than in VPN
      literature in general.

   Entry VRF:  A VRF through which traffic enters the SFC from the
      source network.  This VRF may be used to advertise the destination
      network's routes to the source network.  It could be placed on a
      gateway router or be collocated with the first ingress VRF.

   Exit VRF:  A VRF through which traffic exits the SFC into the
      destination network.  This VRF contains the routes from the
      destination network and could be located on a gateway router.
      Alternatively, the egress VRF attached to the last SF instance may
      also function as the exit VRF.

2.  Service Function Chain Architecture Using Virtual Networking

   The techniques described in this document use virtual networks to
   implement service function chains.  Service function chains can be
   implemented on devices that support existing MPLS VPN and BGP
   standards [RFC4364], [RFC4271], [RFC4760], as well as other



Fernando, et al.          Expires June 7, 2019                  [Page 7]


Internet-Draft     SFC using Virtual Networks with BGP     December 2018


   encapsulations, such as VXLAN [RFC7348].  Similarly, equivalent
   control plane protocols such as BGP-EVPN with type-2 and type-5 route
   types can also be used where supported [RFC8365].  The set of
   techniques described in this document represent one implementation
   approach to realize the SFC architecture described in [RFC7665].

   The following sections detail the building blocks of the SFC
   architecture, and outline the processes of route installation and
   subsequent route exchange to create an SFC.

2.1.  High Level Architecture

   Service function chains can be deployed with or without a classifier.
   Use cases where SFCs may be deployed without a classifier include
   multi-tenant data centers, private and public cloud and virtual CPE
   for business services.  Classifiers will primarily be used in mobile
   and wireline subscriber edge use cases.  Use of a classifier is
   discussed in Section 5.

   A high-level architecture diagram of an SFC without a classifier,
   where traffic is routed into and out of the SFC, is shown in
   Figure 1, below.  An optional controller is shown that contains a
   topological model of the SFC and which configures the network
   resources to implement the SFC.



























Fernando, et al.          Expires June 7, 2019                  [Page 8]


Internet-Draft     SFC using Virtual Networks with BGP     December 2018


                                        +-------------------------+
                                        |--- Data plane connection|
                                        |=== Encapsulation tunnel |
                                        | O  VRF                  |
                                        +-------------------------+


   Control       +------------------------------------------------+
   Plane         |                     Controller                 |
   .......       +-+------------+----------+----------+---------+-+
                   |            |          |          |         |
   Service         |    +---+   |  +---+   |  +---+   |         |
   Plane           |    |SF1|   |  |SF2|   |  |SF3|   |         |
                   |    +---+   |  +---+   |  +---+   |         |
   .......        /      | |   /    | |   /    | |   /         /
           +-----+    +--|-|--+  +--|-|--+  +--|-|--+   +-----+
           |     |    |  | |  |  |  | |  |  |  | |  |   |     |
   Net-A-->---O==========O O========O O========O O=========O---->Net-B
           |     |    |       |  |       |  |       |   |     |
   Data    | R-A |    |  R-1  |  |  R-2  |  |  R-3  |   | R-B |
   Plane   +-----+    +-------+  +-------+  +-------+   +-----+

              ^          ^ ^                               ^
              |          | |                               |
              |    Ingress Egress                          |
              |      VRF     VRF                           |
           SFC Entry                                    SFC Exit
             VRF                                          VRF

                        High Level SFC Architecture

                                 Figure 1

   Traffic from Network-A destined for Network-B will pass through the
   SFC composed of SF instances, SF1, SF2 and SF3.  Routing system R-A
   contains a VRF (shown as 'O' symbol) that is the SFC entry point.
   This VRF will advertise a route to reach Network-B into Network-A
   causing any traffic from a source in Network-A with a destination in
   Network-B to arrive in this VRF.  The forwarding table in the VRF in
   R-A will direct traffic destined for Network-B into an encapsulation
   tunnel with destination R-1 and a label that identifies the ingress
   (left) interface of SF1 that R-1 should send the packets out on.  The
   packets are processed by service instance SF-1 and arrive in the
   egress (right) VRF in R-1.  The forwarding entries in the egress VRF
   direct traffic to the next ingress VRF using encapsulation tunneling.
   The process is repeated for each service instance in the SFC until
   packets arrive at the SFC exit VRF (in R-B).  This VRF is peered with
   Network-B and routes packets towards their destinations in the user



Fernando, et al.          Expires June 7, 2019                  [Page 9]


Internet-Draft     SFC using Virtual Networks with BGP     December 2018


   data plane.  In this example, routing systems R-A and R-B are gateway
   routing systems.

   In the example, each pair of ingress and egress VRFs are configured
   in separate routing systems, but such pairs could be collocated in
   the same routing system, and it is possible for the ingress and
   egress VRFs for a given SF instance to be in different routing
   systems.  The SFC entry and exit VRFs can be collocated in the same
   routing system, and the service instances can be local or remote from
   either or both of the routing systems containing the entry and exit
   VRFs, and from each other.  It is also possible that the ingress and
   egress VRFs are implemented using alternative mechanisms.

   The controller is responsible for configuring the VRFs in each
   routing system, installing the routes in each of the VRFs to
   implement the SFC, and, in the case of virtualized services, may
   instantiate the service instances.

   The controller is not responsible for configuring the SFs themselves.
   It is assumed that there is a separate system that performs that
   function e.g the VNF Manager functional component in [NFVE2E].  Note
   that coordination may be required between a controller and and VNF
   manager, for instance to ensure that installed firewall filters in a
   SF align with the subnets whose packets will pass through it.  At
   this time, there are no standard ways to address this, and custom
   pair-wise integrations between controllers and VNF managers would be
   required.

2.2.  Service Function Chain Logical Model

   A service function chain is a set of logically connected service
   functions through which traffic can flow.  Each egress interface of
   one service function is logically connected to an ingress interface
   of the next service function.

                    +------+   +------+   +------+
        Network-A-->| SF-1 |-->| SF-2 |-->| SF-3 |-->Network-B
                    +------+   +------+   +------+

                     A Chain of Service Functions

                                 Figure 2

   In Figure 2, above, a service function chain has been created that
   connects Network-A to Network-B, such that traffic from a host in
   Network-A to a host in Network-B will traverse the service function
   chain.




Fernando, et al.          Expires June 7, 2019                 [Page 10]


Internet-Draft     SFC using Virtual Networks with BGP     December 2018


   As defined in [RFC7665], a service function chain can be uni-
   directional or bi-directional.  In this document, in order to allow
   for the possibility that the forward and reverse paths may not be
   symmetrical, SFCs are defined as uni-directional, and the term 'SFC
   set' is used to refer to a pair of forward and reverse direction SFCs
   for some set of routed or classified traffic.

2.3.  Service Function Implemented in a Set of SF Instances

   A service function instance is a software system that acts on packets
   that arrive on an ingress interface of that software system.  Service
   function instances may run on a physical appliance or in a virtual
   machine.  A service function instance may be transparent at layer 2
   and/or layer 3, and may support branching across multiple egress
   interfaces and may support aggregation across ingress interfaces.
   For simplicity, the examples in this document have a single ingress
   and a single egress interface.

   Each service function in a chain can be implemented by a single
   service function instance, or by a set of instances in order to
   provide scale and resilience.






























Fernando, et al.          Expires June 7, 2019                 [Page 11]


Internet-Draft     SFC using Virtual Networks with BGP     December 2018


   +------------------------------------------------------------------+
   | Logical Service Functions Connected in a Chain                   |
   |                                                                  |
   |                +--------+            +--------+                  |
   |       Net-A--->|  SF-1  |----------->|  SF-2  |--->Net-B         |
   |                +--------+            +--------+                  |
   |                                                                  |
   +------------------------------------------------------------------+
   | Service Function Instances Connected by Virtual Networks         |
   |       ......                ......                               |
   |      :      :   +------+   :      :                              |
   |      :      :-->|SFI-11|-->:      :               ......         |
   |      :      :   +------+   :      :   +------+   :      :        |
   |      :      :              :      :-->|SFI-21|-->:      :        |
   |      :      :   +------+   :      :   +------+   :      :        |
   |   A->: VN-1 :-->|SFI-12|-->: VN-2 :              : VN-3 :-->B    |
   |      :      :   +------+   :      :   +------+   :      :        |
   |      :      :              :      :-->|SFI-22|-->:      :        |
   |      :      :   +------+   :      :   +------+   :      :        |
   |      :      :-->|SFI-13|-->:      :               ''''''         |
   |      :      :   +------+   :      :                              |
   |       ''''''                ''''''                               |
   +------------------------------------------------------------------+

               Service Functions Are Composed of SF Instances
                      Connected Via Virtual Networks

                                 Figure 3

   In Figure 3, service function SF-1 is implemented in three service
   function instances, SFI-11, SFI-12, and SFI-13.  Service function SF-
   2 is implemented in two SF instances.  The service function instances
   are connected to the next service function in the chain using a
   virtual network, VN-2.  Additionally, a virtual network (VN-1) is
   used to enter the SFC and another (VN-3) is used at the exit.

   The logical connection between two service functions is implemented
   using a virtual network that contains egress interfaces for instances
   of one service function, and ingress interfaces of instances of the
   next service function.  Traffic is directed across the virtual
   network between the two sets of service function instances using
   layer 3 forwarding (e.g. an MPLS VPN) or layer 2 forwarding (e.g. a
   VXLAN).

   The virtual networks could be described as "directed half-mesh", in
   that the egress interface of each SF instance of one service function
   can reach any ingress interface of the SF instances of the connected
   service function.



Fernando, et al.          Expires June 7, 2019                 [Page 12]


Internet-Draft     SFC using Virtual Networks with BGP     December 2018


   Details on how routing across virtual networks is achieved, and
   requirements on load balancing across ingress interfaces are
   discussed in later sections of this document.

2.4.  SF Instance Connections to VRFs

   SF instances can be deployed as software running on physical
   appliances, or in virtual machines running on a hypervisor.  These
   two types are described in more detail in the following sections.

2.4.1.  SF Instance in Physical Appliance

   The case of a SF instance running on a physical appliance is shown in
   Figure 4, below.

                 +---------------------------------+
                 |                                 |
                 | +-----------------------------+ |
                 | | Service Function Instance   | |
                 | +-------^-------------|-------+ |
                 |         |   Host      |         |
                 +---------|-------------|---------+
                           |             |
                   +------ |-------------|-------+
                   |       |             |       |
                   |  +----|----+  +-----v----+  |
             ---------+ Ingress |  | Egress   +---------
             --------->   VRF   |  |   VRF    ---------->
             ---------+         |  |          +---------
                   |  +---------+  +----------+  |
                   |        Routing System       |
                   +-----------------------------+

          Ingress and Egress VRFs for a Physical Routing System
                       and Physical SF Instance

                                 Figure 4

   The routing system is a physical device and the service function
   instance is implemented as software running in a physical appliance
   (host) connected to it.  The connection between the physical device
   and the routing system may use physical or logical interfaces.
   Transport between VRFs on different routing systems that are
   connected to other SF instances in an SFC is via encapsulation
   tunnels, such as MPLS over GRE, or VXLAN.






Fernando, et al.          Expires June 7, 2019                 [Page 13]


Internet-Draft     SFC using Virtual Networks with BGP     December 2018


2.4.2.  SF Instance in a Virtualized Environment

   In virtualized environments, a routing system with VRFs that act as
   VPN forwarders is resident in the hypervisor/Host OS, and is co-
   resident in the host with one or more SF instances that run in
   virtual machines.  The egress VPN forwarder performs tunnel
   encapsulation to send packets to other physical or virtual routing
   systems with attached SF instances to form an SFC.  The tunneled
   packets are sent through the physical interfaces of the host to the
   other hosts or physical routers.  This is illustrated in Figure 5,
   below.

                +-------------------------------------+
                |   +-----------------------------+   |
                |   | Service Function Instance   |   |
                |   +-------^-------------|-------+   |
                |           |             |           |
                | +---------|-------------|---------+ |
                | | +-------|-------------|-------+ | |
                | | |       |             |       | | |
                | | |  +----|----+  +-----v----+  | | |
           ------------+ Ingress |  |  Egress  +-----------
           ------------>   VRF   |  |   VRF    ------------>
           ------------+         |  |          +-----------
                | | |  +---------+  +----------+  | | |
                | | |       Routing System        | | |
                | | +-----------------------------+ | |
                | |      Hypervisor or Host OS      | |
                | +---------------------------------+ |
                |                Host                 |
                +-------------------------------------+

          Ingress and Egress VRFs for a Virtual Routing System
                     and Virtualized SF Instance

                                 Figure 5

   When more than one instance of an SF is running on a hypervisor, they
   can be connected to the same VRF for scale out of an SF within an
   SFC.

   The routing mechanisms in the VRFs into and between service function
   instances, and the encapsulation tunneling between routing systems
   are identical in the physical and virtual implementations of SFCs and
   routing systems described in this document.  Physical and virtual
   service functions can be mixed as needed with different combinations
   of physical and virtual routing systems, within a single service
   chain.



Fernando, et al.          Expires June 7, 2019                 [Page 14]


Internet-Draft     SFC using Virtual Networks with BGP     December 2018


   The SF instances are attached to the routing systems via physical,
   virtual or logical (e.g, 802.1q) interfaces, and are assumed to
   perform basic L3 or L2 forwarding.

   A single SF instance can be part of multiple service chains.  In this
   case, the SF instance will have dedicated interfaces (typically
   logical) and forwarding contexts associated with each service chain.

2.5.  Encapsulation Tunneling for Transport

   Encapsulation tunneling is used to transport packets between SF
   instances in the chain and, when a classifier is not used, from the
   originating network into the SFC and from the SFC into the
   destination network.

   The tunnels can be MPLS over GRE [RFC4023], MPLS over UDP [RFC7510],
   MPLS over MPLS [RFC3031], VXLAN [RFC7348][RFC7348], or another
   suitable encapsulation method.

   Tunneling capabilities may be enabled in each routing system as part
   of a base configuration or may be configured by the controller.
   Tunnel encapsulations may be programmed by the controller or signaled
   using BGP.  The encapsulation to be used for a given route is
   signaled in BGP using the procedures described in
   [idr-tunnel-encaps], i.e. typically relying on the BGP Tunnel
   Encapsulation Extended Community.

2.6.  SFC Creation Procedure

   This section describes how service chains are created using two
   methods:

   o  Sequential VPNs - where a conventional VPN is created between each
      set of SF instances to create the links in the SFC

   o  Route Modification - where each routing system modifies advertised
      routes that it receives, to realize the links in an SFC on the
      basis of a special service topology RT and a route- policy that
      describes the service chain logical topology

   In both cases the controller, when present, is responsible for
   creating ingress and egress VRFs, configuring the interfaces
   connected to SF instances in each VRF, and allocating and configuring
   import and export RTs for each VRF.  Additionally, in the second
   method, the controller also sends the route-policy containing the
   service chain logical topology to each routing system.  If a
   controller is not used, these procedures will require to be performed
   manually or through scripting, for instance.



Fernando, et al.          Expires June 7, 2019                 [Page 15]


Internet-Draft     SFC using Virtual Networks with BGP     December 2018


   The source and destination networks' prefixes can be configured in
   the controller, or may be automatically learned through peering
   between the controller and each network's gateway.  This is further
   described in Section 2.8.5 and Section 6.

   The following sub-sections describe how RT configuration, local route
   installation and route distribution occur in each of the methods.

   It should be noted that depending on the capabilities of the routing
   systems, a controller can use one or more techniques to realize
   forwarding along the service chain, ranging from fully centralized to
   fully distributed.  The goal of describing the following two methods
   is to illustrate the broad approaches and as a base for various
   optimization options.

   Interoperability between a controller implementing one method and a
   controller implementing a different method is achieved by relying on
   the techniques described in section 5 and section 8, that describe
   the use of BGP-style service chaining within domains that are
   interconnected using standard BGP VPN route exchanges.

2.6.1.  SFC Provisioning Using Sequential VPNs

   The task of the controller in this method of SFC provisioning is to
   create a set of VPNs that carry traffic to the destination network
   through instances of each service function in turn.  This is achieved
   by allocating and configuring RTs such that the egress VRFs of one
   set of SF instances import an RT that is an export RT for the ingress
   VRFs of the next, logically connected, set of SF instances.

   The process of SFC creation is as follows:

   1.  Controller creates a VRF in each routing system that is connected
       to a service instance that will be used in the SFC

   2.  Controller configures each VRF to contain the logical interface
       that connects to a SF instance.

   3.  Controller implements route target import and export policies in
       the VRFs using the same route targets for the egress VRFs of a
       service function and the ingress VRFs of the next logically
       connected service function in the SFC.

   4.  Controller installs a static route in each ingress VRF whose next
       hop is the interface that a SF instance is connected to.  The
       prefix for the route is the destination network to be reached by
       passing through the SFC.  The following sections describe
       variations that can be used.



Fernando, et al.          Expires June 7, 2019                 [Page 16]


Internet-Draft     SFC using Virtual Networks with BGP     December 2018


   5.  Routing systems advertise the static routes via BGP as VPN routes
       with next hop being the IP address of the router, with an
       encapsulation specified and a label that identifies the service
       instance interface.

   6.  Routing systems containing VRFs with matching route targets
       receive the updates.

   7.  Routes are installed in egress VRFs with matching import targets.
       The egress VRFs of each SF instance will now contain VPN routes
       to one or more routers containing ingress VRFs for SF instances
       of the next service function in the SFC.

   Routes to the destination network via the first set of SF instances
   are advertised into the source network, and the egress VRFs of the
   last SF instance set have routes into the destination network.

   As discussed further in Section 3, egress VRFs can load balance
   across the multiple next hops advertised from the next set of ingress
   VRFs.

2.6.2.  Modified-Route SFC Creation

   In this method of SFC configuration, all the VRFs connected to SF
   instances for a given SFC are configured with same import and export
   RT, so they form a VPN-connected mesh between the SF instance
   interfaces.  This is termed the 'Service VPN'.  A route is configured
   or learnt in each VRF with destination being the IP address of a
   connected SF instance via an interface configured in the VRF.  The
   interface may be a physical or logical interface.  The routing system
   that hosts such a VRF advertises a VPN route for each locally
   connected SF instance, with a forwarding label that enables it to
   forward incoming traffic from other routing systems to the connected
   SF instance.  The VPN routes may be advertised via an RR or the
   controller, which sends these updates to all the other routing
   systems that have VRFs with the service VPN RT.  At this point all
   the VRFs have a route to reach every SF instance.  The same virtual
   IP address may be used for each SF instance in a set, enabling load-
   balancing among multiple SF instances in the set.

   The controller builds a route-policy for the routing systems in the
   VPN, that describes the logical topology of each service chain that
   it belongs to.  The route-policy contains entries in the form of a
   tuple for each service chain:

   {Service-topology-name, Service-topology-RT, Service-node- sequence}





Fernando, et al.          Expires June 7, 2019                 [Page 17]


Internet-Draft     SFC using Virtual Networks with BGP     December 2018


   where Service-node-sequence is simply an ordered list of the service
   function interface IP addresses that are in the chain.

   Every service function chain has a single unique service-topology-RT
   that is allocated and provisioned on all participating routing
   systems in the relevant VRFs.

   The VRF in the routing system that connects to the destination
   network (i.e. the exit VRF) is configured to attach the Service-
   topology-RT to exported routes, and the VRF connected to the source
   network (i.e. the entry VRF) will import routes using the Service-
   topology-RT.  The controller may also be used to originate the
   Service-topology-RT attached routes.

   The route-policy may be described in a variety of formats and
   installed on the routing system using a suitable mechanism.  For
   instance, the policy may be defined in YANG and provisioned using
   Netconf [RFC6241].

   Using Figure 1 for reference, when the gateway R-B advertises a VPN
   route to Network-B, it attaches the Service-topology-RT.  BGP route
   updates are sent to all the routing systems in the service VPN.  The
   routing systems perform a modified set of actions for next-hop
   resolution and route installation in the ingress VRFs compared to
   normal BGP VPN behavior in routing systems, but no changes are
   required in the operation of the BGP protocol itself.  The
   modification of behavior in the routing systems allows the automatic
   and constrained flow of traffic through the service chain.

   Each routing system in the service VPN will process the VPN route to
   Network-B via R-B as follows:

   1.  If the routing system contains VRFs that import the Service-
       topology-RT, continue, otherwise ignore the route.

   2.  The routing system identifies the position and role (ingress/
       egress) of each of its VRFs in the SFC by comparing the IP
       address of the route in the VRF to the connected SF instance with
       those in the Service-node- sequence in the route-policy.
       Alternatively, the controller may provision the specific service
       node IP to be used as the next-hop in each VRF, in the route-
       policy for the VRF.

   3.  The routing system modifies the next-hop of the imported route
       with the Service-topology-RT, to select the appropriate next-hop
       as per the route-policy.  It ignores the next-hop and label in
       the received route.  It resolves the selected next-hop in the
       local VRF routing table.



Fernando, et al.          Expires June 7, 2019                 [Page 18]


Internet-Draft     SFC using Virtual Networks with BGP     December 2018


   4.

       a.  The imported route to Network-B in the ingress VRF is
           modified to have a next-hop of the IP address of the
           logically connected SF instance.

       b.  The imported route to Network-B in the egress VRF is modified
           to have a next hop of the IP address of the next SF instance
           in the SFC.

   5.  The egress VRFs for the last service function install the VPN
       route via the gateway R-B unmodified.

   Note that the modified routes are not re-advertised into the VPN by
   the various intermediate routing systems in the SFC.

2.6.3.  Common SFC provisioning considerations

   In both the methods, for physical routers, the creation and
   configuration of VRFs, interfaces and local static routes can be
   performed programmatically using Netconf; and BGP route distribution
   can use a route reflector (which may be part of the controller).  In
   the virtualized case, where a VPN forwarder is present, creation and
   configuration of VRFs, interfaces and installation of routes may
   instead be performed using a single protocol like XMPP, NC/YANG or an
   equivalent programmatic interface.

   Also in the virtualized case, the actual forwarding table entries to
   be installed in the ingress and egress VRFs may be calculated by the
   controller based on its internal knowledge of the required SFC
   topology and the connectivity of SF instances to routing systems.  In
   this case, the routes may be directly installed in the forwarders
   using the programmatic interface and no BGP route advertisement is
   necessary, except when coordination with external domains (Section 6)
   or federation between controller domains is employed (Section 8).
   Note however that this is just one typical model for a virtual
   forwarding based system.  In general, physical and virtual routing
   systems can be treated exactly the same if they have the same
   capabilities.

   In both the methods, the SF instance may also need to be set up
   appropriately to forward traffic between it's input and output
   interfaces, either via static, dynamic or policy-based routing.  If
   the service function is a transparent L2 service, then the static
   route installed in the ingress VRF will have a next-hop of the IP
   address of the routing system interface that the service instance is
   attached to on its other interface.




Fernando, et al.          Expires June 7, 2019                 [Page 19]


Internet-Draft     SFC using Virtual Networks with BGP     December 2018


2.7.  Controller Function

   The purpose of the controller is to manage instantiation of SFCs in
   networks and datacenters.  When an SFC is to be instantiated, a model
   of the desired topology (service functions, number of instances,
   connectivity) is built in the controller either via an API or GUI.
   The controller then selects resources in the infrastructure that will
   support the SFC and configures them.  This can involve instantiation
   of SF instances to implement each service function, the instantiation
   of VRFs that will form virtual networks between SF instances, and
   installation of routes to cause traffic to flow into and between SF
   instances.  It can also include provisioning the necessary static,
   dynamic or policy based forwarding on the service function instance
   to enable it to forward traffic.

   For simplicity, in this document, the controller is assumed to
   contain all the required features for management of SFCs.  In actual
   implementations, these features may be distributed among multiple
   inter-connected systems.  E.g.  An overarching orchestrator might
   manage the overall SFC model, sending instructions to a separate
   virtual machine manager to instantiate service function instances,
   and to a virtual network manager to set up the service chain
   connections between them.

   The controller can also perform necessary BGP signaling and route
   distribution actions as described throughout this document.

2.8.  Variations on Setting Prefixes in an SFC

   The SFC Creation section above described the basic procedures for a
   couple of SFC creation methods.  This section describes some
   techniques that can extend and provide optimizations on top of the
   basic procedures.

2.8.1.  Using a Default Route

   In the methods described above, it can be noted that only the gateway
   routing systems need the specific network prefixes to steer traffic
   in and out of the SFC.  The intermediate systems can direct traffic
   in the ingress and egress VRFs by using only a default route.  Hence,
   it is possible to avoid installing the network prefixes in the
   intermediate systems.  This can be done by splitting the SFC into two
   sections - one linking the entry and exit VRFs and the other
   including the intermediate systems.  For instance, this may be
   achieved by using two different Service-topology-RTs in the second
   method.





Fernando, et al.          Expires June 7, 2019                 [Page 20]


Internet-Draft     SFC using Virtual Networks with BGP     December 2018


2.8.2.  Using a Default Route and a Large Prefix

   In the configuration methods described above, the network prefixes
   for each network (Network-A and Network-B in the example above)
   connected to the SFC are used in the routes that direct traffic
   through the SFC.  This creates an operational linkage between the
   implementation of the SFC and the insertion of the SFC into a
   network.

   For instance, subscriber network prefixes will normally be segmented
   across subscriber attachment points such as broadband or mobile
   gateways.  This means that each SFC would have to be configured with
   the subscriber network prefixes whose traffic it is handling.

   In a variation of the SFC configuration method described above, the
   prefixes used in each direction can be such that they include all
   possible addresses at each side of the SFC.  For example, in
   Figure 1, the prefix for Network-A could include all subscriber IP
   addresses and the prefix for Network-B could be the default route,
   0/0.

   Using this technique, the same routes can be installed in all
   instances of an SFC that serve different groups of subscribers in
   different geographic locations.

   The routes forwarding traffic into a SF instance and to the next SF
   instance are installed when an SFC is initially built, and each time
   a SF instance is connected into the SFC, but there is no requirement
   for VRFs to be reconfigured when traffic from different networks pass
   through the service chain, so long as their prefix is included in the
   prefixes in the VRFs along the SFC.

   In this variation, it is assumed that no subscriber-originated
   traffic will enter the SFC destined for an IP address also in the
   subscriber network address range.  This will not be a restriction in
   many cases.

2.8.3.  Disaggregated Gateway Routers

   As a slight variation of the above, a network prefix may be
   disaggregated and spread out among various gateway routers, for
   instance, in the case of virtual machines in a data-center.  In order
   to reduce the scaling requirements on the routing systems along the
   SFC, the SFC can again be split into two sections as described above.
   In addition, the last egress VRF may act as the exit VRF and install
   the destination network's disaggregated routes.  If the destination
   network's prefixes can be aggregated, for instance into a subnet




Fernando, et al.          Expires June 7, 2019                 [Page 21]


Internet-Draft     SFC using Virtual Networks with BGP     December 2018


   prefix, then the aggregate prefix may be advertised and installed in
   the entry VRF.

2.8.4.  Optimizing VRF usage

   It may be desirable to avoid using distinct ingress and egress VRFs
   for the service instances in order to make more efficient use of VRF
   resources, especially on physical routing systems.  The ingress VRF
   and egress VRF may be treated as conceptual entities and the
   forwarding realized using one or more options described in this
   section, combined with the methods described earlier.

   For instance, the next-hop forwarding label described earlier serves
   the purpose of directing traffic received from other routing systems
   directly towards an attached service instance.  On the other hand, if
   the encapsulation mechanism or the device in use requires an IP
   lookup for incoming packets from other routing systems, then the
   specific network prefixes may be installed in the intermediate
   service VRFs to direct traffic towards the attached service
   instances.

   Similarly, a per-interface policy-based-routing rule applied to an
   access interface can serve to direct traffic coming in from attached
   service instances towards the next SF set.

2.8.5.  Dynamic Entry and Exit Signaling

   When either of the methods of the previous sections are employed, the
   prefixes of the attached networks at each end of an SFC can be
   signaled into the corresponding VRFs dynamically.  This requires that
   a BGP session is configured either from the network device at each
   end of the SFC into each network or from the controller.

   If dynamic signaling is performed, and a bidirectional SFC set is
   configured, and the gateways to the networks connected via the SFC
   exchange routes, steps must be taken to ensure that routes to both
   networks do not get advertised from both ends of the SFC set by re-
   origination.  This can be achieved if a new BGP Extended Community
   [RFC4360] is implemented to control re-origination.  When a route is
   re- originated, the RTs of the re-originated routes are appended to
   the new RT-Record Extended Community, and if the RT for the route
   already exists in the Extended Community, the route is not re-
   originated (see Section 10.1).








Fernando, et al.          Expires June 7, 2019                 [Page 22]


Internet-Draft     SFC using Virtual Networks with BGP     December 2018


2.8.6.  Dynamic Re-Advertisements in Intermediate Systems

   The intermediate routing systems attached to the service instances
   may also use the dynamic signaling technique from the previous
   section to re-advertise received routes up the chain.  In this case,
   the ingress and egress VRFs are combined into one; and a local route-
   policy ensures the re-advertised routes are associated with labels
   that direct incoming traffic directly to the attached service
   instances on that routing system.

2.9.  Layer-2 Virtual Networks and Service Functions

   There are SFs that operate at layer-2, in a transparent mode, and
   forward traffic based on the MAC DA.  When such a SF is present in
   the SFC, the procedures at the routing system are modified slightly.
   The L3 routes are the same as the L3 SF case, but now an L2 header
   has to be supplied for each packet passing through an SF.  A
   convenient destination MAC address to use is the one that each VRF
   uses for the default gateway of its network.  This can be the same
   for all VRFs in routing systems in the domain of a controller.  The
   VRF at the egress of the last SF will rewrite the gateway MAC address
   with the MAC address of the actual destination before encapsulating
   and forwarding.

   A SFC may be also be set up between end systems or network segments
   within the same Layer-2 bridged network.  In this case, applying the
   procedures described earlier, the segments or groups of end systems
   are placed in distinct Layer-2 virtual networks, which are then then
   inter-connected via a sequence of intermediate Layer-2 virtual
   networks that form the links in the SFC.  Each virtual network maps
   to a pair of ingress and egress MAC VRFs on the routing systems to
   which the SF instances are attached.  The routing systems at the ends
   of the SFC will advertise the locally learnt or installed MAC entries
   using BGP-EVPN type-2 routes, which will get installed in the MAC
   VRFs at the other end.  The intermediate systems may use default MAC
   routes installed in the ingress and egress MAC VRFs, or the other
   variations described earlier in this document.

2.10.  Header Transforming Service Functions

   If a service function performs an action that changes the source
   address in the packet header (e.g., NAT), the routes that were
   installed as described above may not support reverse flow traffic.

   The solution to this is for the controller modify the routes in the
   reverse direction to direct traffic into instances of the
   transforming service function.  The original routes with a source
   prefix (Network-A in Figure 2) are replaced with a route that has a



Fernando, et al.          Expires June 7, 2019                 [Page 23]


Internet-Draft     SFC using Virtual Networks with BGP     December 2018


   prefix that includes all the possible addresses that the source
   address could be mapped to.  In the case of network address
   translation, this would correspond to the NAT pool.

3.  Load Balancing Along a Service Function Chain

   One of the key concepts driving NFV [NFVE2E]is the idea that each
   service function along an SFC can be separately scaled by changing
   the number of service function instances that implement it.  This
   requires that load balancing be performed before entry into each
   service function.  In this architecture, load balancing is performed
   in either or both of egress and ingress VRFs depending on the type of
   load balancing being performed, and if more than one service instance
   is connected to the same ingress VRF.

3.1.  SF Instances Connected to Separate VRFs

   If SF instances implementing a service in an SFC are each connected
   to separate VRFs(e.g. instances are connected to different routers or
   are running on different hosts), load balancing is performed in the
   egress VRFs of the previous service, or in the VRF that is the entry
   to the SFC.  The controller distributes BGP multi-path routes to the
   egress VRFs.  The destination prefix of each route is the ultimate
   destination network, or its representative aggregate or default.  The
   next-hops in the ECMP set are BGP next-hops of the service instances
   attached to ingress VRFs of the next service in the SFC.  The load
   balancing corresponds to BGP Multipath, which requires that the route
   distinguishers for each route are distinct in order to recognize that
   distinct paths should be used.  Hence, each VRF in a distributed, SFC
   environment should have a unique route distinguisher.





















Fernando, et al.          Expires June 7, 2019                 [Page 24]


Internet-Draft     SFC using Virtual Networks with BGP     December 2018


                     +------+            +-------------------------+
                O----|SFI-11|---O        |--- Data plane connection|
               //    +------+   \\       |=== Encapsulation tunnel |
              //                 \\      | O  VRF                  |
             //                   \\     | *  Load balancer        |
            //                     \\    +-------------------------+
           //        +------+       \\
   Net-A-->O*====O---|SFI-12|---O====O-->Net-B
           \\        +------+       //
            \\                     //
             \\                   //
              \\                 //
               \\    +------+   //
                O----|SFI-13|---O
                     +------+

   Egress VRF Load Balancing across SF Instances
            Connected to Different VRFs

                                 Figure 6

   In the diagram, above, a service function is implemented in three
   service instances each connected to separate VRFs.  Traffic from
   Network-A arrives at VRF at the start of the SFC, and is load
   balanced across the service instances using a set of ECMP routes with
   next hops being the addresses of the routing systems containing the
   ingress VRFs and with labels that identify the ingress interfaces of
   the service instances.

   In the case that the bandwidth of the links between the load balancer
   and the ingress VRFs are unequal, or that the bandwidth capacity of
   the service function instances are unequal, this can be signalled in
   the routes for each ingress VRF using the extended community
   described in [draft-ietf-idr-link-bandwidth] and procedures from
   [draft-malhotra-bess-evpn-unequal-lb] could be followed.

3.2.  SF Instances Connected to the Same VRF

   When SF instances implementing a service in an SFC are connected to
   the same ingress VRF, load balancing is performed in the ingress VRF
   across the service instances connected to it.  The controller will
   install routes in the ingress VRF to the destination network with the
   interfaces connected to each service instance as next hops.  The
   ingress VRF will then use ECMP to load balance across the service
   instances.






Fernando, et al.          Expires June 7, 2019                 [Page 25]


Internet-Draft     SFC using Virtual Networks with BGP     December 2018


                     +------+           +-------------------------+
                     |SFI-11|           |--- Data plane connection|
                     +------+           |=== Encapsulation tunnel |
                    /        \          | O  VRF                  |
                   /          \         | *  Load balancer        |
                  /            \        +-------------------------+
                 /   +------+   \
   Net-A-->O====O*---|SFI-12|----O====O-->Net-B
                 \   +------+   /
                  \            /
                   \          /
                    \        /
                     +------+
                     |SFI-13|
                     +------+

   Ingress VRF Load Balancing across SF Instances
             Connected to the Same VRF

                                 Figure 7

   In the diagram, above, a service is implemented by three service
   instances that are connected to the same ingress and egress VRFs.
   The ingress VRF load balances across the ingress interfaces using
   ECMP, and the egress traffic is aggregated in the egress VRF.

   If forwarding labels that identify each SFI ingress interface are
   used, and if the routes to each SF instance are advertised with
   different route distinguishers, then it is possible to perform ECMP
   load balancing at the routing instance at the beginning of the
   encapsulation tunnel (which could be the egress VRF of the previous
   SF in the SFC).

3.3.  Combination of Egress and Ingress VRF Load Balancing

   In Figure 8, below, an example SFC is shown where load balancing is
   performed in both ingress and egress VRFs.














Fernando, et al.          Expires June 7, 2019                 [Page 26]


Internet-Draft     SFC using Virtual Networks with BGP     December 2018


                                           +-------------------------+
                                           |--- Data plane connection|
                          +------+         |=== Encapsulation tunnel |
                          |SFI-11|         | O  VRF                  |
                          +------+         | *  Load balancer        |
                         /        \        +-------------------------+
                        /          \
                       /  +------+  \          +------+
                     O*---|SFI-12|---O*====O---|SFI-21|---O
                    //    +------+    \\  //   +------+   \\
                   //                  \\//                \\
                  //                    \\                  \\
                 //                    //\\                  \\
                //        +------+    //  \\   +------+       \\
       Net-A-->O*====O----|SFI-13|---O*====O---|SFI-22|---O====O-->Net-B
                          +------+             +------+
              ^      ^               ^     ^              ^    ^
              |      |               |     |              |    |
              |    Ingress         Egress  |              |    |
              |                          Ingress        Egress |
           SFC Entry                                        SFC Exit

                     Load Balancing across SF Instances

                                 Figure 8

   In Figure 8, above, an SFC is composed of two services implemented by
   three service instances and two service instances, respectively.  The
   service instances SFI-11 and SFI-12 are connected to the same ingress
   and egress VRFs, and all the other service instances are connected to
   separate VRFs.

   Traffic entering the SFC from Network-A is load balanced across the
   ingress VRFs of the first service function by the chain entry VRF,
   and then load balanced again across the ingress interfaces of SFI-11
   and SFI-12 by the shared ingress VRF.  Note that use of standard ECMP
   will lead to an uneven distribution of traffic between the three
   service instances (25% to SFI-11, 25% to SFI-12, and 50% to SFI-13).
   This issue can be mitigated through the use of BGP link bandwidth
   extended community [draft-ietf-idr-link-bandwidth] and use of
   procedures described in [draft-malhotra-bess-evpn-unequal-lb].  As
   described in the previous section, if a next-hop forwarding label is
   used, another way to mitigate this effect would be to advertise
   routes to each SF instance connected to a VRF with a different route
   distinguisher.

   After traffic passes through the first set of service instances, it
   is load balanced in each of the egress VRFs of the first set of



Fernando, et al.          Expires June 7, 2019                 [Page 27]


Internet-Draft     SFC using Virtual Networks with BGP     December 2018


   service instances across the ingress VRFs of the next set of service
   instances.

3.4.  Forward and Reverse Flow Load Balancing

   This section discusses requirements in load balancing for forward and
   reverse paths when stateful service functions are deployed.

3.4.1.  Issues with Equal Cost Multi-Path Routing

   As discussed in the previous sections, load balancing in the forward
   SFC in the above example can automatically occur with standard BGP,
   if multiple equal cost routes to Network-B are installed into all the
   ingress VRFs, and each route directs traffic through a different
   service function instance in the next set.  The multiple BGP routes
   in the routing table will translate to Equal Cost Multi-Path in the
   forwarding table.  The hash used in the load balancing algorithm (per
   packet, per flow or per prefix) is implementation specific.

   If a service function is stateful, it is required that forward flows
   and reverse flows always pass through the same service function
   instance.  Standard ECMP does not provide this capability, since the
   hash calculation will see different input data for the same flow in
   the forward and reverse directions (since the source and destination
   fields are reversed).

   Additionally, if the number of SF instances changes, either
   increasing to expand capacity, or decreases (planned, or due to a SF
   instance failure), the hash table in ECMP is recalculated, and most
   flows will be directed to a different SF instance and user sessions
   will be disrupted.

   There are a number of ways to satisfy the requirements of symmetric
   forward/reverse paths for flows and minimal disruption when SF
   instances are added to or removed from a set.  Two techniques that
   can be employed are described in the following sections.

3.4.2.  Modified ECMP with Consistent Hash

   Symmetric forwarding into each side of an SF instance set can be
   achieved with a small modification to ECMP if the packet headers are
   preserved after passing through the SF instance set and assuming that
   the same hash function, same hash salt and same ordering association
   of hash buckets to ECMP routes is used in both directions.  Each
   packet's 5-tuple data is used to calculate which hash bucket, and
   therefore which service instance, that the packet will be sent to,
   but the source and destination IP address and port information are
   swapped in the calculation in the reverse direction.  This method



Fernando, et al.          Expires June 7, 2019                 [Page 28]


Internet-Draft     SFC using Virtual Networks with BGP     December 2018


   only requires that the list of available service function instances
   is consistently maintained in load balance tables in all the routing
   systems rather than maintaining flow tables.  This requirement can be
   met by the use of a distinct VPN route for each instance.

   In the SFC architecture described in this document, when SF instances
   are added or removed, the controller is required to install (or
   remove) routes to the SF instances.  The controller could configure
   the load balancing function in VRFs that connect to each added (or
   removed) SF instance as part of the same network transaction as route
   updates to ensure that the load balancer configuration is
   synchronized with the set of SF instances.

   The consistent ordering among ECMP routes in the routing systems
   could be achieved through configuration of the routing systems by the
   controller using, for instance, Netconf; or when the routes are
   signaled using BGP by the controller or a routing system, the order
   for a given instance can be sent in a new 'Consistent Hash Sort
   Order' BGP Extended Community (defined in Section 10.2).

   The effect of rehashing when SF instances are added or removed can be
   minimized, or even eliminated using variations of the technique of
   consistent hashing [consistent-hash].  Details are outside the scope
   of this document.

3.4.3.  ECMP with Flow Table

   A second refinement that can ensure forward/reverse flow consistency,
   and also provides stability when the number of SF instances changes
   ('flow-stickiness'), is the use of dynamically configured IP flow
   tables in the VRFs.  In this technique, flow tables are used to
   ensure that existing flows are unaffected if the number of ECMP
   routes changes, and that forward and reverse traffic passes through
   the same SF instance in each set of SF instances implementing a
   service function.

   The flow tables are set up as follows:

   1.  User traffic with a new 5-tuple enters an egress VRF from a
       connected SF instance.

   2.  The VRF calculates the ECMP hash across available routes (i.e.,
       ECMP group) to the ingress interfaces of the SF instances in the
       next SF instance set.  The consistent hash technique described in
       section 3.4.2 must be used here and in subsequent steps.

   3.  The VRF creates a new flow entry for the 5-tuple of the new
       traffic with the next-hop being the chosen downstream ECMP group



Fernando, et al.          Expires June 7, 2019                 [Page 29]


Internet-Draft     SFC using Virtual Networks with BGP     December 2018


       member (determined in the step 2. above).  All subsequent packets
       for the same flow will be forwarded using flow lookup and, hence,
       will use the same next-hop.

   4.  The encapsulated packet arrives in the routing system that hosts
       the ingress VRF for the selected SF instance.

   5.  The ingress VRF of the next service instance determines if the
       packet came from a routing system that is in an ECMP group in the
       reverse direction(i.e., from this ingress VRF back to the
       previous set of SF instances).

   6.  If an ECMP group is found, the ingress VRF creates a flow entry
       for the reversed 5-tuple with next-hop of the tunnel on which
       traffic arrived.  This is for the traffic in the reverse
       direction.

   7.  If multiple SF instances are connected to the ingress VRF, the
       ECMP consistent hash is used to choose which one to send the
       traffic into.

   8.  A forward flow table entry is created for the traffic's 5-tuple
       with next hop of the interface of the SF instance chosen in the
       previous step.

   9.  The packet is sent into the selected SF instance.

   The above method ensures that forward and reverse flows pass through
   the same SF instances, and that if the number of ECMP routes changes
   when SF instances are added or removed, all existing flows will
   continue to flow through the same SF instances, but new flows will
   use the new ECMP hash.  The only flows affected will be those that
   were passing through an SF instance that was removed, and those will
   be spread among the remaining SF instances using the updated ECMP
   hash.

   If the consistent hash algorithm is used in both directions, then
   only the forwarding flow entries would be required, and would be
   built independently in each direction.  If distinct VPN routes with
   next-hop forwarding labels are used, then only the flow table in step
   3 is sufficient to provide flow stickiness.

3.4.4.  Dealing with Different Hash Algorithms in an SFC

   In some cases, there will be two or more hash algorithms in
   forwarders along an SFC.  E.g. when a physical router is at the entry
   and exit of the chain, and virtual forwarders are used within the
   chain.  Forward and reverse flows will mostly not pass through the



Fernando, et al.          Expires June 7, 2019                 [Page 30]


Internet-Draft     SFC using Virtual Networks with BGP     December 2018


   same SF instances of the first SF, and the SFC will not operate as
   intended if the first SF is stateful.  It may be impractical, or
   prohibitively expensive to implement the flow table-based methods
   described above to achieve flow stability and symmetry.  This issue
   can be mitigated by ensuring that the first SF is not stateful, or by
   placing a null SF between the physical router and the first actual SF
   in the SFC.  This ensures that the hash method on both sides of
   stateful service instances is the same, and the SFC will operate with
   flow stability and symmetry if the methods described above are
   employed.

4.  Sharing Service Functions in Different SFCs

4.1.  Shared SFs in L3 SFCs

   Sharing SFs among multiple SFCs requires that packets emerging from
   an SF can be mapped to the correct next SF.  This can be achieved by
   configuring an SF to accept packets from multiple subnets on each
   interface, configuring addresses from each of these subnets on SFs
   and by using next-table policies to direct traffic between subnet-
   specific VRFs to and from SF interfaces.  However, in mobility and
   wireline applications, which are the most common ones where sharing
   is desired, classification is on the basis of subscriber id and
   traffic type, so discrimination on the basis of subnets is too
   coarse-grained.  Using host routes along SFC paths could achieve the
   desired result of SF sharing, but will not scale appropriately.

4.2.  Shared SFs in L2 SFCs

   Layer 2 transparent SFs can be shared among multiple service chains
   by using a different VLAN for each chain as packets pass through each
   SF.  Forwarding into different VLANs can be accomplished by using
   different labels in the encapsulation of packets arriving at an
   ingress VRF.  Egress VRFs can have next hops into different SFs based
   on the VLAN of each egressing packet.  The service chains sharing an
   SF might have different networks from each other at each end, or
   might be selected on the basis of 5-tuple filtering from one network.

5.  Steering into SFCs Using a Classifier

   In many applications of SFCs, a classifier will be used to direct
   traffic into SFCs.  The classifier inspects the first or first few
   packets in a flow to determine which SFC the flow should be sent
   into.  The decision criteria can be based on just the IP 5-tuple of
   the header (i.e filter-based forwarding), or could involve analysis
   of the payload of packets using deep packet inspection.  Integration
   with a subscriber management system such as PCRF or AAA may be




Fernando, et al.          Expires June 7, 2019                 [Page 31]


Internet-Draft     SFC using Virtual Networks with BGP     December 2018


   required in order to identify which SFC to send traffic to based on
   subscriber policy.

   An example logical architecture is shown in Figure 9, below where a
   classifier is external to a physical router that is hosting the VRFs
   that form the ends of two SFC sets.  In the case of filter-based
   forwarding, classification could occur in a VRF on the router.

                      +----------+
                      | PCRF/AAA |
                      +-----+----+
                            :
                            :
      Subscriber      +-----+------+
         Traffic----->| Classifier |
                      +------------+
                          |   |
                  +-------|---|------------------------+
                  |       |   |             Router     |
                  |       |   |                        |
                  |       O   O                  X--------->Internet
                  |       |   |                 / \    |
                  |       |   |                O   O   |
                  +-------|---|----------------|---|---+
                          |   |  +---+   +---+ |   |
                          |   +--+ U +---+ V +-+   |
                          |      +---+   +---+     |
                          |                        |
                          |  +---+   +---+   +---+ |
                          +--+ X +---+ Y +---+ Z +-+
                             +---+   +---+   +---+

   Subscriber/Application-Aware Steering with a Classifier

                                 Figure 9

   In the diagram, the classifier receives subscriber traffic and sends
   the traffic out of one of two logical interfaces, depending on
   classification criteria.  The logical interfaces of the classifier
   are connected to VRFs in a router that are entries to two SFCs (shown
   as O in the diagram).

   In this scenario, the entry VRF for each chain does not advertise the
   destination network prefixes and the modified method of setting
   prefixes, described in Section 2.8.2 can be employed.  Also, the exit
   VRF for each SFC does not peer with a gateway or proxy node in the
   destination network and packets are forwarded using IP lookup in the
   main routing table or in a VRF that the exit traffic from the SFCs is



Fernando, et al.          Expires June 7, 2019                 [Page 32]


Internet-Draft     SFC using Virtual Networks with BGP     December 2018


   directed into (shown as X in the diagram).  A flow table may be
   required to ensure that reverse traffic is sent into the correct SFC.

   An alternative would be where the classifier is itself a distributed,
   virtualized service function, but with multiple egress interfaces.
   In that case, each virtual classifier instance could be attached to a
   set of VRFs that connect to different SFCs.  Each chain

   entry VRF would load balance across the first SF instance set in its
   SFC.  The reverse flow table mechanism described in Section 3.4.3
   could be employed to ensure that flows return to the originating
   classifier instance which may maintain subscriber context and perform
   charging and accounting.

6.  External Domain Co-ordination

   It is likely that SFCs will be managed as a separate administrative
   domain from the networks that they receive traffic from, and send
   traffic to.  If the connected networks use BGP for route
   distribution, the controller in the SFC domain can join the network
   domains by creating BGP peering sessions with routing systems or
   route reflectors in those network domains to exchange VPN routes, or
   with local border routers that peer with the external domains.  While
   a controller can modify route targets for the VRFs within its SFC
   domain, it is likely to not have any control over the external
   networks with which it is peering.  Hence, the design does not assume
   that the RTs of external network domains can be modified by the
   controller.  It may however learn those RTs and use them in it's
   modified route advertisements.

   In order to steer traffic from external network domains into an SFC,
   the controller will advertise a destination network's prefixes into
   the peering source network domain with a BGP next-hop and label
   associated with the SFC entry point that may be on a routing system
   attached to the first SF instance.  This advertisement may be over
   regular MP-BGP/VPN peering which assumes existing standard VPN
   routing/forwarding behavior on the network domain's routers (PEs/
   ASBRs).  The controller can learn routes to networks in external
   domains at the egress of an SFC and advertise routes to those network
   into other external domains using the first ingress routing instance
   as the next hop thus allowing dynamic steering through re-
   origination of routes.

   An operational benefit of this approach is that the SFC topology
   within a domain need not be exposed to other domains.  Additionally,
   using non-specific routes inside an SFC, as described in
   Section 2.8.1, means that new networks can be attached to a SFC
   without needing to configure prefixes inside the chain.



Fernando, et al.          Expires June 7, 2019                 [Page 33]


Internet-Draft     SFC using Virtual Networks with BGP     December 2018


   The controller will typically remove the destination network's RTs
   and replace them with the RTs of the source network while advertising
   the modified routes.  Alternatively, an external domain may be
   provisioned with an additional export-only RT and an import- only RT
   that the controller can use.

7.  Fine-grained steering using BGP Flow-Spec

   When steering traffic from an external network domain into an SFC
   based on attributes of the packet flow, BGP Flow-spec can be used as
   a signaling option.

   In this case, the controller can advertise one or more flow-spec
   routes into the entry VRF with the appropriate Service-topology-RT
   for the SFC.  Alternatively, it can use the procedures described in
   [RFC5575] or [flowspec-redirect-ip] on the gateway router to redirect
   traffic towards the first SF.

   If it is desired to steer specific flows from a network domain's
   existing routers, the controller can advertise the above flow-spec
   routes to the network domain's border routers or route reflectors.

8.  Controller Federation

   When SFCs are distributed geographically, or in very large-scale
   environments, there may be multiple SFC controllers present and they
   may variously employ both of the SFC creation methods described in
   Section 2.6.  If there is a requirement for SFCs to span controller
   domains there may be a requirement to exchange information between
   controllers.  Again, a BGP session between controllers can be used to
   exchange route information as described in the previous sections and
   allow such domain spanning SFCs to be created.

9.  Coordination Between SF Instances and Controller using BGP

   In many cases, the configuration of SF instance determines its
   network behavior.  E.g. when NAT pools are set up, or when an SSL
   gateway is configured with a set of enterprise IP addresses to use.
   In these cases, the addresses that will be used by the SFs need to be
   known in the networks connecting to them in order that traffic can be
   properly routed.  When SFCs are involved, this means that the
   controller has to be notified when such configuration changes are
   made in SF instances.  Sometimes, the changes will be made by end-
   customers and it is desirable the controller adjust the SFC routing
   configuration automatically when the change is made, and without
   customers needing to notify the service provider via a portal, for
   instance, or requiring development of integration modules linking the
   SF instances and the controller.



Fernando, et al.          Expires June 7, 2019                 [Page 34]


Internet-Draft     SFC using Virtual Networks with BGP     December 2018


   One option for automatic notification for SFs that support BGP is for
   the connected forwarding system (physical or virtual SFF) to also
   support BGP, and for SF instances to be configured to peer with the
   SFF.  When changes are made to the configuration of a SF instance,
   that for example, the SF will accept packets from a particular
   network prefix on one of its interfaces, the SF instance will send a
   BGP route update to the SFF it is connected to and which it has a BGP
   session with.  The controller can then adjust the routes along SFCs
   to ensure that packets with destinations in the new prefix reach the
   reconfigured SF instance.

   BGP could also be used to signal from the controller to a SF instance
   that certain traffic should be sent out from a particular interface.
   This could be used to direct suspect traffic to a security scrubbing
   center,for example.

   Note that the SFF need not support a BGP stack itself; it can proxy
   BGP messages to the controller which will support such a stack.

10.  BGP Extended Communities

10.1.  Route-Target Record

   Route-Target Record (RT-Record)is defined as a transitive BGP
   Extended Community, that contains an Route-Target value representing
   one of the RTs that the route has been attached with previously, and
   which may no longer be attached to the route on subsequent re-
   advertisements (see Section 2.8.5).

   A Sub-Type code 0x13 is assigned in the three BGP Extended Community
   types - Two-Octet AS-Specific 0x00, IPv4-Address-Specific 0x01 and
   Four-Octet AS-Specific 0x02.  A Sub-Type code 0x0013 is also assigned
   in the BGP Transitive IPv6 Address-Specific Extended Community.

   The Extended Community is encoded as follows:

   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
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   | 0x00,0x01,0x02| Sub-Type=0x13 |    Route-Target Value         |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                 Route-Target Value contd.                     |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

   The Type field of the BGP Route-Target Extended Community is copied
   into the Type field of the RT Record Extended Community.





Fernando, et al.          Expires June 7, 2019                 [Page 35]


Internet-Draft     SFC using Virtual Networks with BGP     December 2018


   The Value field (Global Administrator and Local Administrator) of the
   Route-Target Extended Community is copied into the Route-Target Value
   field of the RT Record Extended Community.

   When comparing a RT-Record to a Route-Target, only the Type and the
   Route-Target value fields are used in the comparison.  The sub-type
   field is masked out.

   When a speaker re-originates a route that contains one or more RTs,
   it must add each of these RTs as RT Record extended communities in
   the re-originated route.

   A speaker must not re-originate a route with an RT, if this RT is
   already present as an RT Record extended community.

10.2.  Consistent Hash Sort Order

   Consistent Hash Sort Order is an optional transitive Opaque BGP
   Extended Community of type 0x14, defined as follows:

   Type Field :  The value of the high-order octet is 0x03 (transitive
                 opaque).  The value of the low-order octet is assigned
                 as 0x14 by IANA from the Transitive Opaque Extended
                 Community Sub-Types registry.

   Value Field : The value field contains a Sort Order sub-field that
                 indicates the relative order of this route among the
                 ECMP set for the prefix, to be sorted in increasing
                 order.  It is a 32-bit unsigned integer.  The field is
                 encoded as shown below:

      +------------------------------+
      | Sort Order (4 octets)        |
      +------------------------------+
      | Reserved (2 octets)          |
      +------------------------------+

10.3.  Load Balance Settings

   Consistent Hash Sort Order is an optional transitive Opaque BGP
   Extended Community of type 0x14, defined as follows:

   Type Field :  The value of the high-order octet is 0x03 (transitive
                 opaque).  The value of the low-order octet is assigned
                 as 0xaa by IANA from the Transitive Opaque Extended
                 Community Sub-Types registry.





Fernando, et al.          Expires June 7, 2019                 [Page 36]


Internet-Draft     SFC using Virtual Networks with BGP     December 2018


   Value Field : The value field contains flags that indicate which
                 values in an IP packet's 5-tuple should be used as
                 inputs to the ECMP hash algorithm.  The field is
                 encoded as shown below:

    *  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  0x03    | Sub-Type 0xaa |s d c p P R R R|R R R R R R R R|
    * +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
    * | Reserved      |B R R R R R R R| Reserved      | Reserved      |
    * +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
    *
    * Type: 0x03 Opaque
    * SubType: 0xAA LoadBalance attribute information (TBA)
    * s: Use l3_source_address ECMP Load-balancing
    * d: Use l3_destination_address ECMP Load-balancing
    * c: Use l4_protocol ECMP Load-balancing
    * p: Use l4_source_port ECMP Load-balancing
    * P: Use l4_destination_port ECMP Load-balancing
    * B: Use source_bias (instead of ECMP load-balancing)
    * R: Reserved

11.  Summary and Conclusion

   The architecture for service function chains described in this
   document uses virtual networks implemented as overlays in order to
   create service function chains.  The virtual networks use standards-
   based encapsulation tunneling, such as MPLS over GRE/UDP or VXLAN, to
   transport packets into an SFC and between service function instances
   without routing in the user address space.  Two methods of installing
   routes to form service chains are described.

   In environments with physical routers, a controller may operate in
   tandem with existing BGP route reflectors, and would contain the SFC
   topology model, and the ability to install the local static interface
   routes to SF instances.  In a virtualized environment, the controller
   can emulate route refection internally and simply install required
   routes directly without advertisements occurring.

12.  Security Considerations

   The security considerations for SFCs are broadly similar to those
   concerning the data, control and management planes of any device
   placed in a network.  Details are out of scope for this document.






Fernando, et al.          Expires June 7, 2019                 [Page 37]


Internet-Draft     SFC using Virtual Networks with BGP     December 2018


13.  IANA Considerations

   The new BGP Extended Communities in are assigned types as defined
   above in the IANA registry for extended communities.

14.  Acknowledgments

   The authors would like to thank D.  Daino, D.R.  Lopez, D.  Bernier,
   W.  Haeffner, A.  Farrel, L.  Fang, and N.  So, for their
   contributions to the earlier drafts.  The authors would also like to
   thank the following individuals for their review and feedback on the
   original proposals: E.  Rosen, J.  Guchard, P.  Quinn, P.  Bosch, D.
   Ward, A.  Ganesan, N.  Seth, G.  Pildush and N.  Bitar.  The authors
   also thank Wim Henderickx for his useful suggestions on several
   aspects of the draft.

15.  References

15.1.  Normative References

   [RFC3031]  Rosen, E., Viswanathan, A., and R. Callon, "Multiprotocol
              Label Switching Architecture", RFC 3031,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC3031, January 2001,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3031>.

   [RFC4023]  Worster, T., Rekhter, Y., and E. Rosen, Ed.,
              "Encapsulating MPLS in IP or Generic Routing Encapsulation
              (GRE)", RFC 4023, DOI 10.17487/RFC4023, March 2005,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4023>.

   [RFC4271]  Rekhter, Y., Ed., Li, T., Ed., and S. Hares, Ed., "A
              Border Gateway Protocol 4 (BGP-4)", RFC 4271,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC4271, January 2006,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4271>.

   [RFC4360]  Sangli, S., Tappan, D., and Y. Rekhter, "BGP Extended
              Communities Attribute", RFC 4360, DOI 10.17487/RFC4360,
              February 2006, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4360>.

   [RFC4364]  Rosen, E. and Y. Rekhter, "BGP/MPLS IP Virtual Private
              Networks (VPNs)", RFC 4364, DOI 10.17487/RFC4364, February
              2006, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4364>.

   [RFC4760]  Bates, T., Chandra, R., Katz, D., and Y. Rekhter,
              "Multiprotocol Extensions for BGP-4", RFC 4760,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC4760, January 2007,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4760>.




Fernando, et al.          Expires June 7, 2019                 [Page 38]


Internet-Draft     SFC using Virtual Networks with BGP     December 2018


   [RFC5575]  Marques, P., Sheth, N., Raszuk, R., Greene, B., Mauch, J.,
              and D. McPherson, "Dissemination of Flow Specification
              Rules", RFC 5575, DOI 10.17487/RFC5575, August 2009,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5575>.

   [RFC6241]  Enns, R., Ed., Bjorklund, M., Ed., Schoenwaelder, J., Ed.,
              and A. Bierman, Ed., "Network Configuration Protocol
              (NETCONF)", RFC 6241, DOI 10.17487/RFC6241, June 2011,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6241>.

   [RFC7348]  Mahalingam, M., Dutt, D., Duda, K., Agarwal, P., Kreeger,
              L., Sridhar, T., Bursell, M., and C. Wright, "Virtual
              eXtensible Local Area Network (VXLAN): A Framework for
              Overlaying Virtualized Layer 2 Networks over Layer 3
              Networks", RFC 7348, DOI 10.17487/RFC7348, August 2014,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7348>.

   [RFC7510]  Xu, X., Sheth, N., Yong, L., Callon, R., and D. Black,
              "Encapsulating MPLS in UDP", RFC 7510,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC7510, April 2015,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7510>.

   [RFC7665]  Halpern, J., Ed. and C. Pignataro, Ed., "Service Function
              Chaining (SFC) Architecture", RFC 7665,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC7665, October 2015,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7665>.

   [RFC8365]  Sajassi, A., Ed., Drake, J., Ed., Bitar, N., Shekhar, R.,
              Uttaro, J., and W. Henderickx, "A Network Virtualization
              Overlay Solution Using Ethernet VPN (EVPN)", RFC 8365,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC8365, March 2018,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8365>.

15.2.  Informational References

   [consistent-hash]
              Karger, D., Lehman, E., Leighton, T., Panigrahy, R.,
              Levine, M., and D. Lewin, ""Consistent Hashing and Random
              Trees: Distributed Caching Protocols for Relieving Hot
              Spots on the World Wide Web"", 1997, <Proceedings of the
              Twenty-ninth Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing.
              ACM Press New York, NY, USA. pp. 654--663>.

   [draft-ietf-idr-link-bandwidth]
              Mohapatra, P. and R. Fernando, ""BGP Link Bandwidth
              Extended Community"", March 2018.





Fernando, et al.          Expires June 7, 2019                 [Page 39]


Internet-Draft     SFC using Virtual Networks with BGP     December 2018


   [draft-malhotra-bess-evpn-unequal-lb]
              Malhotra, N., Sajassi, A., Rabadan, J., Drake, J.,
              Lingala, A., and S. Thoria, ""Weighted Multi-Path
              Procedures for EVPN All-Active Multi-Homing"", June 2018.

   [flowspec-redirect-ip]
              Uttaro, J., Haas, J., Texier, M., Karch, A., Sreekanth,
              A., Ray, S., Simpson, A., and W. Henderickx, ""BGP Flow-
              Spec Redirect to IP Action"", February 2015.

   [idr-tunnel-encaps]
              Rosen, E., Patel, K., and G. van de Velde, ""The BGP
              Tunnel Encapsulation Attribute"", February 2018.

   [NFVE2E]   ETSI, ""Network Functions Virtualisation (NFV):
              Architectural Framework"", 2013.

Authors' Addresses

   Rex Fernando
   Cisco Systems
   170 W. Tasman Drive
   San Jose, CA  95134

   Email: rex@cisco.com


   Stuart Mackie
   Juniper Networks
   1133 Innovation Way
   Sunnyvale, CA  94089

   Email: wsmackie@juniper.net


   Dhananjaya Rao
   Cisco Systems
   170 W. Tasman Drive
   San Jose, CA  95134

   Email: dhrao@cisco.com


   Bruno Rijsman

   Email: brunorijsman@gmail.com





Fernando, et al.          Expires June 7, 2019                 [Page 40]


Internet-Draft     SFC using Virtual Networks with BGP     December 2018


   Maria Napierala
   ATT Labs
   200 Laurel Avenue
   Middletown, NJ  07748

   Email: mnapierala@att.com


   Thomas Morin
   Orange
   2, Avenue Pierre Marzin
   Lannion, France  22307

   Email: thomas.morin@orange.com





































Fernando, et al.          Expires June 7, 2019                 [Page 41]


Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.129b, available from https://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/