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

Versions: (draft-merged-sfc-architecture) 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 RFC 7665

Network Working Group                                    J. Halpern, Ed.
Internet-Draft                                                  Ericsson
Intended status: Standards Track                       C. Pignataro, Ed.
Expires: March 24, 2015                                            Cisco
                                                      September 20, 2014


              Service Function Chaining (SFC) Architecture
                     draft-ietf-sfc-architecture-02

Abstract

   This document describes an architecture for the specification,
   creation, and ongoing maintenance of Service Function Chains (SFC) in
   a network.  It includes architectural concepts, principles, and
   components used in the construction of composite services through
   deployment of SFCs.  This document does not propose solutions,
   protocols, or extensions to existing protocols.

Status of This Memo

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

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

   Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
   and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
   time.  It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
   material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."

   This Internet-Draft will expire on March 24, 2015.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2014 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors.  All rights reserved.

   This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
   Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
   (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
   publication of this document.  Please review these documents
   carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
   to this document.  Code Components extracted from this document must
   include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of



Halpern & Pignataro      Expires March 24, 2015                 [Page 1]


Internet-Draft              SFC Architecture              September 2014


   the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
   described in the Simplified BSD License.

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
     1.1.  Scope . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
     1.2.  Assumptions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
     1.3.  Definition of Terms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   2.  Architectural Concepts  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
     2.1.  Service Function Chains . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
     2.2.  Service Function Chain Symmetry . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
     2.3.  Service Function Paths  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
   3.  Architecture Principles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
   4.  Core SFC Architecture Components  . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
     4.1.  SFC Encapsulation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
     4.2.  Service Function (SF) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
     4.3.  Service Function Forwarder (SFF)  . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
       4.3.1.  Transport Derived SFF . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
     4.4.  SFC-Enabled Domain  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
     4.5.  Network Overlay and Network Components  . . . . . . . . .  14
     4.6.  SFC Proxy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
     4.7.  Classification  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  16
     4.8.  Re-Classification and Branching . . . . . . . . . . . . .  16
     4.9.  Shared Metadata . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  17
   5.  Additional Architectural Concepts . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  17
     5.1.  The Role of Policy  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  17
     5.2.  SFC Control Plane . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  18
     5.3.  Resource Control  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  19
     5.4.  Infinite Loop Detection and Avoidance . . . . . . . . . .  19
     5.5.  Load Balancing Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  20
     5.6.  MTU and Fragmentation Considerations  . . . . . . . . . .  21
     5.7.  SFC OAM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  21
     5.8.  Resilience and Redundancy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  22
   6.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  23
   7.  Contributors and Acknowledgments  . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  23
   8.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  25
   9.  Informative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  25
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  25

1.  Introduction

   This document describes an architecture used for the creation and
   ongoing maintenance of Service Function Chains (SFC) in a network.
   It includes architectural concepts, principles, and components.

   An overview of the issues associated with the deployment of end-to-
   end service function chains, abstract sets of service functions and



Halpern & Pignataro      Expires March 24, 2015                 [Page 2]


Internet-Draft              SFC Architecture              September 2014


   their ordering constraints that create a composite service and the
   subsequent "steering" of traffic flows through said service
   functions, is described in [I-D.ietf-sfc-problem-statement].

   This architecture presents a model addressing the problematic aspects
   of existing service deployments, including topological independence
   and configuration complexity.

   Service function chains enable composite services that are
   constructed from one or more service functions.

1.1.  Scope

   This document defines a framework to realize Service Function
   Chaining (SFC) with minimum requirements on the physical topology of
   the network.  The proposed solution relies on initial packet
   classification.  Packets initially classified for handling by a set
   of Service Functions (SFs) in the SFC-enabled domain are then
   forwarded to that set of SFs for processing.

   This document does not make any assumption on the deployment context.
   The proposed framework covers both fixed and mobile networks.

   The architecture described herein is assumed to be applicable to a
   single network administrative domain.  While it is possible for the
   architectural principles and components to be applied to inter-domain
   SFCs, these are left for future study.

1.2.  Assumptions

   The following assumptions are made:

   o  Not all SFs can be characterized with a standard definition in
      terms of technical description, detailed specification,
      configuration, etc.

   o  There is no global or standard list of SFs enabled in a given
      administrative domain.  The set of SFs varies as a function of the
      service to be provided and according to the networking
      environment.

   o  There is no global or standard SF chaining logic.  The ordered set
      of SFs that needs to be enabled to deliver a given service is
      specific to each administrative entity.

   o  The chaining of SFs and the criteria to invoke them are specific
      to each administrative entity that operates an SF-enabled domain.




Halpern & Pignataro      Expires March 24, 2015                 [Page 3]


Internet-Draft              SFC Architecture              September 2014


   o  Several SF chaining policies can be simultaneously applied within
      an administrative domain to meet various business requirements.

   o  No assumption is made on how FIBs and RIBs of involved nodes are
      populated.

   o  How to bind traffic to a given SF chain is policy-based.

1.3.  Definition of Terms

   Network Service:  An offering provided by an operator that is
        delivered using one or more service functions.  This may also be
        referred to as a composite service.  The term "service" is used
        to denote a "network service" in the context of this document.

        Note: Beyond this document, the term "service" is overloaded
        with varying definitions.  For example, to some a service is an
        offering composed of several elements within the operator's
        network, whereas for others a service, or more specifically a
        network service, is a discrete element such as a firewall.
        Traditionally, such services (in the latter sense) host a set of
        service functions and have a network locator where the service
        is hosted.

   Classification:  Locally instantiated policy and customer/network/
        service profile matching of traffic flows for identification of
        appropriate outbound forwarding actions.

   Classifier:  An element that performs Classification.

   Service Function Chain (SFC):  A service function chain defines a set
        of abstract service functions and ordering constraints that must
        be applied to packets and/or frames selected as a result of
        classification.  The implied order may not be a linear
        progression as the architecture allows for SFCs that copy to
        more than one branch, and also allows for cases where there is
        flexibility in the order in which service functions need to be
        applied.  The term service chain is often used as shorthand for
        service function chain.

   Service Function (SF):  A function that is responsible for specific
        treatment of received packets.  A Service Function can act at
        various layers of a protocol stack (e.g., at the network layer
        or other OSI layers).  As a logical component, a Service
        Function can be realized as a virtual element or be embedded in
        a physical network element.  One or multiple Service Functions
        can be embedded in the same network element.  Multiple




Halpern & Pignataro      Expires March 24, 2015                 [Page 4]


Internet-Draft              SFC Architecture              September 2014


        occurrences of the Service Function can exist in the same
        administrative domain.

        One or more Service Functions can be involved in the delivery of
        added-value services.  A non-exhaustive list of abstract Service
        Functions includes: firewalls, WAN and application acceleration,
        Deep Packet Inspection (DPI), LI (Lawful Intercept), server load
        balancing, NAT44 [RFC3022], NAT64 [RFC6146], NPTv6 [RFC6296],
        HOST_ID injection, HTTP Header Enrichment functions, TCP
        optimizer.

        An SF may be SFC encapsulation aware, that is it receives and
        acts on information in the SFC encapsulation, or unaware, in
        which case data forwarded to the SF does not contain the SFC
        encapsulation.

   Service Function Forwarder (SFF):  A service function forwarder is
        responsible for delivering traffic received from the network to
        one or more connected service functions according to information
        carried in the SFC encapsulation, as well as handling traffic
        coming back from the SF.  Additionally, a service function
        forwarder is responsible for delivering traffic to a classifier
        when needed and supported, mapping out traffic to another SFF
        (in the same or different type of overlay), and terminating the
        SFP.

   Metadata:  provides the ability to exchange context information
        between classifiers and SFs and among SFs.

   Service Function Path (SFP):  The SFP provides a level of indirection
        between the fully abstract notion of service chain as a sequence
        of abstract service functions to be delivered, and the fully
        specified notion of exactly which SFF/SFs the packet will visit
        when it actually traverses the network.  By allowing the control
        components to specify this level of indirection, the operator
        may control the degree of SFF/SF selection authority that is
        delegated to the network.

   SFC Encapsulation:  The SFC Encapsulation provides at a minimum SFP
        identification, and is used by the SFC-aware functions, such as
        the SFF and SFC-aware SFs.  The SFC Encapsulation is not used
        for network packet forwarding.  In addition to SFP
        identification, the SFC encapsulation carries data plane context
        information, also referred to as metadata.

   Rendered Service Path (RSP):  The Service Function Path is a
        constrained specification of where packets using a certain
        service chain must go.  While it may be so constrained as to



Halpern & Pignataro      Expires March 24, 2015                 [Page 5]


Internet-Draft              SFC Architecture              September 2014


        identify the exact locations, it can also be less specific.
        Packets themselves are of course transmitted from and to
        specific places in the network, visiting a specific sequence of
        SFFs and SFs.  This sequence of actual visits by a packet to
        specific SFFs and SFs in the network is known as the Rendered
        Service Path (RSP).  This definition is included here for use by
        later documents, such as when solutions may need to discuss the
        actual sequence of locations the packets visit.

   SFC-enabled Domain:  A network or region of a network that implements
        SFC.  An SFC-enabled Domain is limited to a single network
        administrative domain.

   SFC Proxy:  Removes and inserts SFC encapsulation on behalf of an
        SFC-unaware service function.  SFC proxies are logical elements.

2.  Architectural Concepts

   The following sections describe the foundational concepts of service
   function chaining and the SFC architecture.

   Service Function Chaining enables the creation of composite (network)
   services that consist of an ordered set of Service Functions (SF)
   that must be applied to packets and/or frames selected as a result of
   classification.  Each SF is referenced using an identifier that is
   unique within an SF-enabled domain.  No IANA registry is required to
   store the identity of SFs.

   Service Function Chaining is a concept that provides for more than
   just the application of an ordered set of SFs to selected traffic;
   rather, it describes a method for deploying SFs in a way that enables
   dynamic ordering and topological independence of those SFs as well as
   the exchange of metadata between participating entities.

2.1.  Service Function Chains

   In most networks, services are constructed as abstract sequences of
   SFs that represent SFCs.  At a high level, an SFC is an abstracted
   view of a service that specifies the set of required SFs as well as
   the order in which they must be executed.  Graphs, as illustrated in
   Figure 1, define an SFC, where each graph node represents the
   required existence of at least one abstract SF.  Such graph nodes
   (SFs) can be part of zero, one, or many SFCs.  A given graph node
   (SF) can appear one time or multiple times in a given SFC.

   SFCs can start from the origination point of the service function
   graph (i.e.: node 1 in Figure 1), or from any subsequent node in the
   graph.  SFs may therefore become branching nodes in the graph, with



Halpern & Pignataro      Expires March 24, 2015                 [Page 6]


Internet-Draft              SFC Architecture              September 2014


   those SFs selecting edges that move traffic to one or more branches.
   An SFC can have more than one terminus.

     ,-+-.         ,---.          ,---.          ,---.
    /     \       /     \        /     \        /     \
   (   1   )+--->(   2   )+---->(   6   )+---->(   8   )
    \     /       \     /        \     /        \     /
     `---'         `---'          `---'          `---'

     ,-+-.         ,---.          ,---.          ,---.          ,---.
    /     \       /     \        /     \        /     \        /     \
   (   1   )+--->(   2   )+---->(   3   )+---->(   7   )+---->(   9   )
    \     /       \     /        \     /        \     /        \     /
     `---'         `---'          `---'          `---'          `---'

     ,-+-.         ,---.          ,---.          ,---.          ,---.
    /     \       /     \        /     \        /     \        /     \
   (   1   )+--->(   7   )+---->(   8   )+---->(   4   )+---->(   7   )
    \     /       \     /        \     /        \     /        \     /
     `---'         `---'          `---'          `---'          `---'

                  Figure 1: Service Function Chain Graphs

2.2.  Service Function Chain Symmetry

   SFCs may be unidirectional or bidirectional.  A unidirectional SFC
   requires that traffic be forwarded through the ordered SFs in one
   direction (SF1 -> SF2 -> SF3), whereas a bidirectional SFC requires a
   symmetric path (SF1 -> SF2 -> SF3 and SF3 -> SF2 -> SF1), and in
   which the SF instances are the same in opposite directions.  A hybrid
   SFC has attributes of both unidirectional and bidirectional SFCs;
   that is to say some SFs require symmetric traffic, whereas other SFs
   do not process reverse traffic or are independent of the
   corresponding forward traffic.

   SFCs may contain cycles; that is traffic may need to traverse one or
   more SFs within an SFC more than once.  Solutions will need to ensure
   suitable disambiguation for such situations.

   The architectural allowance that is made for SFPs that delegate
   choice to the network for which SFs and/or SFFs a packet will visit
   creates potential issues here.  A solution that allows such
   delegation needs to also describe how the solution ensures that those
   service chains that require service function chain symmetry can
   achieve that.

   Further, there are state tradeoffs in symmetry.  Symmetry may be
   realized in several ways depending on the SFF and classifier



Halpern & Pignataro      Expires March 24, 2015                 [Page 7]


Internet-Draft              SFC Architecture              September 2014


   functionality.  In some cases, "mirrored" classification (i.e., from
   Source to Destination and from Destination to Source) policy may be
   deployed, whereas in others shared state between classifiers may be
   used to ensure that symmetric flows are correctly identified, then
   steered along the required SFP.  At a high level, there are various
   common cases.  In a non-exhaustive way, there can be for example: a
   single classifier (or a small number of classifiers), in which case
   both incoming and outgoing flows could be recognized at the same
   classifier, so the synchronization would be feasible by internal
   mechanisms internal to the classifier.  Another case is the one of
   stateful classifiers where several classifiers may be clustered and
   share state.  Lastly, another case entails fully distributed
   classifiers, where synchronization needs to be provided through
   unspecified means.  This is a non-comprehensive list of common cases.

2.3.  Service Function Paths

   A service function path (SFP) is a mechanism used by service chaining
   to express the result of applying more granular policy and
   operational constraints to the abstract requirements of a service
   chain (SFC).  This architecture does not mandate the degree of
   specificity of the SFP.  Architecturally, within the same SFC-enabled
   domain, some SFPs may be fully specified, selecting exactly which SFF
   and which SF are to be visited by packets using that SFP, while other
   SFPs may be quite vague, deferring to the SFF the decisions about the
   exact sequence of steps to be used to realize the SFC.  The
   specificity may be anywhere in between these extremes.

   As an example of such an intermediate specificity, there may be two
   SFPs associated with a given SFC, where one SFP says essentially that
   any order of SFF and SF may be used as long as it is within data
   center 1, and where the second SFP allows the same latitude, but only
   within data center 2.

   Thus, the policies and logic of SFP selection or creation (depending
   upon the solution) produce what may be thought of as a constrained
   version of the original SFC.  Since multiple policies may apply to
   different traffic that uses the same SFC, it also follows that there
   may be multiple SFPs may be associated with a single SFC.

   The architecture allows for the same SF to be reachable through
   multiple SFFs.  In these cases, some SFPs may constrain which SFF is
   used to reach which SF, while some SFPs may leave that decision to
   the SFF itself.

   Further, the architecture allows for two or more SFs to be attached
   to the same SFF, and possibly connected via internal means allowing
   more effective communication.  In these cases, some solutions or



Halpern & Pignataro      Expires March 24, 2015                 [Page 8]


Internet-Draft              SFC Architecture              September 2014


   deployments may choose to use some form of internal inter-process or
   inter-VM messaging (communication behind the virtual switching
   element) that is optimized for such an environment.  This must be
   coordinated with the SFF so that the service function forwarding can
   properly perform its job.  Implementation details of such mechanisms
   are considered out of scope for this document, and can include a
   spectrum of methods: for example situations including all next-hops
   explicitly, others where a list of possible next-hops is provided and
   the selection is local, or cases with just an identifier, where all
   resolution is local.

   This architecture also allows the same SF to be part of multiple
   SFPs.

3.  Architecture Principles

   Service function chaining is predicated on several key architectural
   principles:

   1.  Topological independence: no changes to the underlay network
       forwarding topology - implicit, or explicit - are needed to
       deploy and invoke SFs or SFCs.

   2.  Plane separation: dynamic realization of SFPs is separated from
       packet handling operations (e.g., packet forwarding).

   3.  Classification: traffic that satisfies classification rules is
       forwarded according to a specific SFP.  For example,
       classification can be as simple as an explicit forwarding entry
       that forwards all traffic from one address into the SFP.
       Multiple classification points are possible within an SFC (i.e.
       forming a service graph) thus enabling changes/updates to the SFC
       by SFs.

       Classification can occur at varying degrees of granularity; for
       example, classification can use a 5-tuple, a transport port or
       set of ports, part of the packet payload, or it can come from
       external systems.

   4.  Shared Metadata: Metadata/context data can be shared amongst SFs
       and classifiers, between SFs, and between external systems and
       SFs (e.g., orchestration).

       Generally speaking, metadata can be thought of as providing and
       sharing the result of classification (that occurs within the SFC-
       enabled domain, or external to it) along an SFP.  For example, an
       external repository might provide user/subscriber information to
       a service chain classifier.  This classifier could in turn impose



Halpern & Pignataro      Expires March 24, 2015                 [Page 9]


Internet-Draft              SFC Architecture              September 2014


       that information in the SFC encapsulation for delivery to the
       requisite SFs.  The SFs could in turn utilize the user/subscriber
       information for local policy decisions.

   5.  Service definition independence: The SFC architecture does not
       depend on the details of SFs themselves.  Additionally, no IANA
       registry is required to store the list of SFs.

   6.  Service function chain independence: The creation, modification,
       or deletion of an SFC has no impact on other SFCs.  The same is
       true for SFPs.

   7.  Heterogeneous control/policy points: The architecture allows SFs
       to use independent mechanisms (out of scope for this document) to
       populate and resolve local policy and (if needed) local
       classification criteria.

4.  Core SFC Architecture Components

   At a very high level, the logical architecture of an SFC-enabled
   Domain comprises:

      o . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
      .  +--------------+                  +------------------~~~
      .  |   Service    |       SFC        |  Service  +---+   +---+
      .  |Classification|  Encapsulation   | Function  |sf1|...|sfn|
   +---->|   Function   |+---------------->|   Path    +---+   +---+
      .  +--------------+                  +------------------~~~
      . SFC-enabled Domain
      o . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

               Figure 2: Service Function Chain Architecture

   The following sub-sections provide details on each logical component
   that form the basis of the SFC architecture.  A detailed overview of
   how each of these architectural components interact is provided in
   Figure 3:














Halpern & Pignataro      Expires March 24, 2015                [Page 10]


Internet-Draft              SFC Architecture              September 2014


         +----------------+                        +----------------+
         |   SFC-aware    |                        |  SFC-unaware   |
         |Service Function|                        |Service Function|
         +-------+--------+                        +-------+--------+
                 |                                         |
           SFC Encapsulation                       No SFC Encapsulation
                 |                  SFC                    |
    +---------+  +----------------+ Encapsulation     +---------+
    |SFC-Aware|-----------------+  \     +------------|SFC Proxy|
    |    SF   | ... ----------+  \  \   /             +---------+
    +---------+                \  \  \ /
                              +-------+--------+
                              |   SF Forwarder |
                              |      (SFF)     |
                              +-------+--------+
                                      |
                              SFC Encapsulation
                                      |
                          ... SFC-enabled Domain ...
                                      |
                          Network Overlay Transport
                                      |
                                  _,....._
                               ,-'        `-.
                              /              `.
                             |     Network    |
                             `.              /
                               `.__     __,-'
                                   `''''

         Figure 3: Service Function Chain Architecture Components

4.1.  SFC Encapsulation

   The SFC encapsulation enables service function path selection.  It
   also enables the sharing of metadata/context information when such
   metadata exchange is required.

   The SFC encapsulation provides explicit information used to identify
   the SFP.  However, the SFC encapsulation is not a transport
   encapsulation itself: it is not used to forward packets within the
   network fabric.  If packets need to flow between separate physical
   platforms, the SFC encapsulation therefore relies on an outer network
   transport.  Transit forwarders -- such as router and switches --
   simply forward SFC encapsulated packets based on the outer (non-SFC)
   encapsulation.





Halpern & Pignataro      Expires March 24, 2015                [Page 11]


Internet-Draft              SFC Architecture              September 2014


   One of the key architecture principles of SFC is that the SFC
   encapsulation remain transport independent.  As such any network
   transport protocol may be used to carry the SFC encapsulated traffic.

4.2.  Service Function (SF)

   The concept of an SF evolves; rather than being viewed as a bump in
   the wire, an SF becomes a resource within a specified administrative
   domain that is available for consumption as part of a composite
   service.  SFs send/receive data to/from one or more SFFs.  SFC-aware
   SFs receive this traffic with the SFC encapsulation.

   While the SFC architecture defines a new encapsulation - the SFC
   encapsulation - and several logical components for the construction
   of SFCs, existing SF implementations may not have the capabilities to
   act upon or fully integrate with the new SFC encapsulation.  In order
   to provide a mechanism for such SFs to participate in the
   architecture, an SFC proxy function is defined (see Section 4.6).
   The SFC proxy acts as a gateway between the SFC encapsulation and
   SFC-unaware SFs.  The integration of SFC-unaware service functions is
   discussed in more detail in the SFC proxy section.

   This architecture allows an SF to be part of multiple SFPs and SFCs.

4.3.  Service Function Forwarder (SFF)

   The SFF is responsible for forwarding packets and/or frames received
   from the network to one or more SFs associated with a given SFF using
   information conveyed in the SFC encapsulation.  Traffic from SFs
   eventually returns to the same SFF, which is responsible for
   injecting traffic back onto the network.

   The collection of SFFs and associated SFs creates a service plane
   overlay in which SFC-aware SFs, as well as SFC-unaware SFs reside.
   Within this service plane, the SFF component connects different SFs
   that form a service function path.

   SFFs maintain the requisite SFP forwarding information.  SFP
   forwarding information is associated with a service path identifier
   that is used to uniquely identify an SFP.  The service forwarding
   state enables an SFF to identify which SFs of a given SFP should be
   applied, and in what order, as traffic flows through the associated
   SFP.  While there may appear to the SFF to be only one available way
   to deliver the given SF, there may also be multiple choices allowed
   by the constraints of the SFP.

   If there are multiple choices, the SFF needs to preserve the property
   that all packets of a given flow are handled the same way, since the



Halpern & Pignataro      Expires March 24, 2015                [Page 12]


Internet-Draft              SFC Architecture              September 2014


   SF may well be stateful.  Additionally, the SFF may preserve the
   handling of packets based on other properties on top of a flow, such
   as a subscriber, session, or application instance identification.

   The SFF also has the information to allow it to forward packets to
   the next SFF after applying local service functions.  Again, while
   there may be only a single choice available, the architecture allows
   for multiple choices for the next SFF.  As with SFs, the solution
   needs to operate such that the behavior with regard to specific flows
   (see the Rendered Service Path) is stable.  The selection of
   available SFs and next SFFs may be interwoven when an SFF supports
   multiple distinct service functions and the same service function is
   available at multiple SFFs.  Solutions need to be clear about what is
   allowed in these cases.

   Even when the SFF supports and utilizes multiple choices, the
   decision as to whether to use flow-specific mechanisms or coarser
   grained means to ensure that the behavior of specific flows is stable
   is a matter for specific solutions and specific implementations.

   The SFF component has the following primary responsibilities:

   1.  SFP forwarding : Traffic arrives at an SFF from the network.  The
       SFF determines the appropriate SF the traffic should be forwarded
       to via information contained in the SFC encapsulation.  Post-SF,
       the traffic is returned to the SFF, and if needed forwarded to
       another SF associated with that SFF.  If there is another non-
       local (i.e., different SFF) hop in the SFP, the SFF further
       encapsulates the traffic in the appropriate network transport
       protocol and delivers it to the network for delivery to the next
       SFF along the path.  Related to this forwarding responsibility,
       an SFF should be able to interact with metadata.

   2.  Terminating SFPs : An SFC is completely executed when traffic has
       traversed all required SFs in a chain.  When traffic arrives at
       the SFF after the last SF has finished processing it, the final
       SFF knows from the service forwarding state that the SFC is
       complete.  The SFF removes the SFC encapsulation and delivers the
       packet back to the network for forwarding.

   3.  Maintaining flow state: In some cases, the SFF may be stateful.
       It creates flows and stores flow-centric information.  This state
       information may be used for a range of SFP-related tasks such as
       ensuring consistent treatment of all packets in a given flow,
       ensuring symmetry or for state-aware SFC Proxy functionality (see
       Section 4.8).





Halpern & Pignataro      Expires March 24, 2015                [Page 13]


Internet-Draft              SFC Architecture              September 2014


4.3.1.  Transport Derived SFF

   Service function forwarding, as described above, directly depends
   upon the use of the service path information contained in the SFC
   encapsulation.  However, existing implementations may not be able to
   act on the SFC encapsulation.  These platforms may opt to use
   existing transport information if it can be arranged to provide
   explicit service path information.

   This results in the same architectural behavior and meaning for
   service function forwarding and service function paths.  It is the
   responsibility of the control components to ensure that the transport
   path executed in such a case is fully aligned with the path
   identified by the information in the service chaining encapsulation.

4.4.  SFC-Enabled Domain

   Specific features may need to be enforced at the boundaries of an
   SFC-enabled domain, for example to avoid leaking SFC information.
   Using the term node to refer generically to an entity that is
   performing a set of functions, in this context, an SFC Boundary Node
   denotes a node that connects one SFC-enabled domain to a node either
   located in another SFC-enabled domain or in a domain that is SFC-
   unaware.

   An SFC Boundary node can act as egress or ingress.  An SFC Egress
   Node denotes a SFC Boundary Node that handles traffic leaving the
   SFC-enabled domain the Egress Node belongs to.  Such a node is
   required to remove any information specific to the SFC Domain,
   typically the SFC Encapsulation.  An SFC Ingress Node denotes an SFC
   Boundary Node that handles traffic entering the SFC-enabled domain.
   In most solutions and deployments this will need to include a
   classifier, and will be responsible for adding the SFC encapsulation
   to the packet.

4.5.  Network Overlay and Network Components

   Underneath the SFF there are components responsible for performing
   the transport (overlay) forwarding.  They do not consult the SFC
   encapsulation or inner payload for performing this forwarding.  They
   only consult the outer-transport encapsulation for the transport
   (overlay) forwarding.

4.6.  SFC Proxy

   In order for the SFC architecture to support SFC-unaware SFs (e.g.,
   legacy service functions) a logical SFC proxy function may be used.




Halpern & Pignataro      Expires March 24, 2015                [Page 14]


Internet-Draft              SFC Architecture              September 2014


   This function sits between an SFF and one or more SFs to which the
   SFF is directing traffic.

   The proxy accepts packets from the SFF on behalf of the SF.  It
   removes the SFC encapsulation, and then uses a local attachment
   circuit to deliver packets to SFC unaware SFs.  It also receives
   packets back from the SF, reapplies the SFC encapsulation, and
   returns them to the SFF for processing along the service function
   path.

   Thus, from the point of view of the SFF, the SFC proxy appears to be
   part of an SFC aware SF.

   Communication details between the SFF and the SFC Proxy are the same
   as those between the SFF and an SFC aware SF.  The details of that
   are not part of this architecture.  The details of the communication
   methods over the local attachment circuit between the SFC proxy and
   the SFC-unaware SF are dependent upon the specific behaviors and
   capabilities of that SFC-unaware SF, and thus are also out of scope
   for this architecture.

   Specifically, for traffic received from the SFF intended for the SF
   the proxy is representing, the SFC proxy:

   o  Removes the SFC encapsulation from SFC encapsulated packets.

   o  Identifies the required SF to be applied based on available
      information including that carried in the SFC encapsulation.

   o  Selects the appropriate outbound local attachment circuit through
      which the next SF for this SFP is reachable.  This is derived from
      the identification of the SF carried in the SFC encapsulation, and
      may include local techniques.  Examples of a local attachment
      circuit include, but are not limited to, VLAN, IP-in-IP, L2TPv3,
      GRE, VXLAN.

   o  Forwards the original payload via the selected local attachment
      circuit to the appropriate SF.

   When traffic is returned from the SF:

   o  Applies the required SFC encapsulation.  The determination of the
      encapsulation details may be inferred by the local attachment
      circuit through which the packet and/or frame was received, or via
      packet classification, or other local policy.  In some cases,
      packet ordering or modification by the SF may necessitate
      additional classification in order to re-apply the correct SFC
      encapsulation.



Halpern & Pignataro      Expires March 24, 2015                [Page 15]


Internet-Draft              SFC Architecture              September 2014


   o  Delivers the packet with the SFC Encapsulation to the SFF, as
      would happen with packets returned from an SFC-aware SF.

   Alternatively, a service provider may decide to exclude legacy
   service functions from an SFC domain.

4.7.  Classification

   Traffic from the network that satisfies classification criteria is
   directed into an SFP and forwarded to the requisite service
   function(s).  Classification is handled by a service classification
   function; initial classification occurs at the ingress to the SFC
   domain.  The granularity of the initial classification is determined
   by the capabilities of the classifier and the requirements of the SFC
   policy.  For instance, classification might be relatively coarse: all
   packets from this port are subject to SFC policy X and directed into
   SFP A, or quite granular: all packets matching this 5-tuple are
   subject to SFC policy Y and directed into SFP B.

   As a consequence of the classification decision, the appropriate SFC
   encapsulation is imposed on the data, and a suitable SFP is selected
   or created.  Classification results in attaching the traffic to a
   specific SFP.

4.8.  Re-Classification and Branching

   The SFC architecture supports re-classification (or non-initial
   classification) as well.  As packets traverse an SFP, re-
   classification may occur - typically performed by a classification
   function co-resident with a service function.  Reclassification may
   result in the selection of a new SFP, an update of the associated
   metadata, or both.  This is referred to as "branching".

   For example, an initial classification results in the selection of
   SFP A: DPI_1 --> SLB_8.  However, when the DPI service function is
   executed, attack traffic is detected at the application layer.  DPI_1
   re-classifies the traffic as attack and alters the service path to
   SFP B, to include a firewall for policy enforcement: dropping the
   traffic: DPI_1 --> FW_4.  Subsequent to FW_4, surviving traffic would
   be returned to the original SFF.  In this simple example, the DPI
   service function re-classifies the traffic based on local application
   layer classification capabilities (that were not available during the
   initial classification step).

   When traffic arrives after being steered through an SFC-unaware SF,
   the SFC Proxy must perform re-classification of traffic to determine
   the SFP.  The SFC Proxy is concerned with re-attaching information




Halpern & Pignataro      Expires March 24, 2015                [Page 16]


Internet-Draft              SFC Architecture              September 2014


   for SFC-unaware SFs, and a stateful SFC Proxy simplifies such
   classification to a flow lookup.

4.9.  Shared Metadata

   Sharing metadata allows the network to provide network-derived
   information to the SFs, SF-to-SF information exchange and the sharing
   of service-derived information to the network.  Some SFCs may not
   require metadata exchange.  SFC infrastructure enables the exchange
   of this shared data along the SFP.  The shared metadata serves
   several possible roles within the SFC architecture:

   o  Allows elements that typically operate as ships in the night to
      exchange information.

   o  Encodes information about the network and/or data for post-
      service forwarding.

   o  Creates an identifier used for policy binding by SFs.

   Context information can be derived in several ways:

   o  External sources

   o  Network node classification

   o  Service function classification

5.  Additional Architectural Concepts

   There are a number of issues which solutions need to address, and
   which the architecture informs but does not determine.  This section
   lays out some of those concepts.

5.1.  The Role of Policy

   Much of the behavior of service chains is driven by operator and per-
   customer policy.  This architecture is structured to isolate the
   policy interactions from the data plane and control logic.

   Specifically, it is assumed that the service chaining control plane
   creates the service paths.  The service chaining data plane is used
   to deliver the classified packets along the service chains to the
   intended service functions.

   Policy, in contrast, interacts with the system in other places.
   Policies and policy engines may monitor service functions to decide
   if additional (or fewer) instances of services are needed.  When



Halpern & Pignataro      Expires March 24, 2015                [Page 17]


Internet-Draft              SFC Architecture              September 2014


   applicable, those decisions may in turn result in interactions that
   direct the control logic to change the SFP placement or packet
   classification rules.

   Similarly, operator service policy, often managed by operational or
   business support systems (OSS or BSS), will frequently determine what
   service functions are available.  Operator service policies also
   determine which sequences of functions are valid and are to be used
   or made available.

   The offering of service chains to customers, and the selection of
   which service chain a customer wishes to use, are driven by a
   combination of operator and customer policies using appropriate
   portals in conjunction with the OSS and BSS tools.  These selections
   then drive the service chaining control logic, which in turn
   establishes the appropriate packet classification rules.

5.2.  SFC Control Plane

   This is part of the overall architecture but outside the scope of
   this document.

   The SFC control plane is responsible for constructing SFPs,
   translating SFCs to forwarding paths and propagating path information
   to participating nodes to achieve requisite forwarding behavior to
   construct the service overlay.  For instance, an SFC construction may
   be static; selecting exactly which SFFs and which SFs from those SFFs
   are to be used, or it may be dynamic, allowing the network to perform
   some or all of the choices of SFF or SF to use to deliver the
   selected service chain within the constraints represented by the
   service path.

   In the SFC architecture, SFs are resources; the control plane manages
   and communicates their capabilities, availability and location in
   fashions suitable for the transport and SFC operations in use.  The
   control plane is also responsible for the creation of the context
   (see below).  The control plane may be distributed (using new or
   existing control plane protocols), or be centralized, or a
   combination of the two.

   The SFC control plane provides the following functionality:

   1.  An SFC-enabled domain wide view of all available service function
       resources as well as the network locators through which they are
       reachable.

   2.  Uses SFC policy to construct service function chains, and
       associated service function paths.



Halpern & Pignataro      Expires March 24, 2015                [Page 18]


Internet-Draft              SFC Architecture              September 2014


   3.  Selection of specific SFs for a requested SFC, either statically
       (using specific SFs) or dynamically (using service explicit SFs
       at the time of delivering traffic to them).

   4.  Provides requisite SFC data plane information to the SFC
       architecture components, most notably the SFF.

   5.  Allocation of metadata associated with a given SFP and
       propagation of the metadata to relevant SFs and/or SFC
       encapsulation-proxies or their respective policy planes.

5.3.  Resource Control

   The SFC system may be responsible for managing all resources
   necessary for the SFC components to function.  This includes network
   constraints used to plan and choose network path(s) between service
   function forwarders, network communication paths between service
   function forwarders and their attached service functions,
   characteristics of the nodes themselves such as memory, number of
   virtual interfaces, routes, and instantiation, configuration, and
   deletion of SFs.

   The SFC system will also be required to reflect policy decisions
   about resource control, as expressed by other components in the
   system.

   While all of these aspects are part of the overall system, they are
   beyond the scope of this architecture.

5.4.  Infinite Loop Detection and Avoidance

   This SFC architecture is predicated on topological independence from
   the underlying forwarding topology.  Consequently, a service topology
   is created by Service Function Paths or by the local decisions of the
   Service Function Forwarders based on the constraints expressed in the
   SFP.  Due to the overlay constraints, the packet-forwarding path may
   need to visit the same SFF multiple times, and in some less common
   cases may even need to visit the same SF more than once.  The Service
   Chaining solution needs to permit these limited and policy-compliant
   loops.  At the same time, the solutions must ensure that indefinite
   and unbounded loops cannot be formed, as such would consume unbounded
   resources without delivering any value.

   In other words, this architecture prevents infinite Service Function
   Loops, even when Service Functions may be invoked multiple times in
   the same SFP.





Halpern & Pignataro      Expires March 24, 2015                [Page 19]


Internet-Draft              SFC Architecture              September 2014


5.5.  Load Balancing Considerations

   Supporting function elasticity and high-availability should not
   overly complicate SFC or lead to unnecessary scalability problems.

   In the simplest case, where there is only a single function in the
   SFP (the next hop is either the destination address of the flow or
   the appropriate next hop to that destination), one could argue that
   there may be no need for SFC.

   In the cases where the classifier is separate from the single
   function or a function at the terminal address may need sub-prefix or
   per-subscriber metadata, a single SFP exists (the metadata changes
   but the SFP does not), regardless of the number of potential terminal
   addresses for the flow.  This is the case of the simple load
   balancer.  See Figure 4.

                            +---+    +---++--->web server
                  source+-->|sff|+-->|sf1|+--->web server
                            +---+    +---++--->web server

                      Figure 4: Simple Load Balancing

   By extrapolation, in the case where intermediary functions within a
   chain had similar "elastic" behaviors, we do not need separate chains
   to account for this behavior - as long as the traffic coalesces to a
   common next-hop after the point of elasticity.

   In Figure 5, we have a chain of five service functions between the
   traffic source and its destination.

                +---+ +---+ +---+   +---+ +---+ +---+
                |sf2| |sf2| |sf3|   |sf3| |sf4| |sf4|
                +---+ +---+ +---+   +---+ +---+ +---+
                  |     |     |       |     |     |
                  +-----+-----+       +-----+-----+
                        |                   |
                        +                   +
             +---+    +---+     +---+     +---+    +---+
   source+-->|sff|+-->|sff|+--->|sff|+--->|sff|+-->|sff|+-->destination
             +---+    +---+     +---+     +---+    +---+
               +                  +                  +
               |                  |                  |
             +---+              +---+              +---+
             |sf1|              |sf3|              |sf5|
             +---+              +---+              +---+

                         Figure 5: Load Balancing



Halpern & Pignataro      Expires March 24, 2015                [Page 20]


Internet-Draft              SFC Architecture              September 2014


   This would be represented as one service function path:
   sf1->sf2->sf3->sf4->sf5.  The SFF is a logical element, which may be
   made up of one or multiple components.  In this architecture, the SFF
   may handle load distribution based on policy.

   It can also be seen in the above that the same service function may
   be reachable through multiple SFFs, as discussed earlier.  The
   selection of which SFF to use to reach SF3 may be made by the control
   logic in defining the SFP, or may be left to the SFFs themselves,
   depending upon policy, solution, and deployment constraints.  In the
   latter case, it needs to be assured that exactly one SFF takes
   responsibility to steer traffic through SF3.

5.6.  MTU and Fragmentation Considerations

   This architecture prescribes additional information being added to
   packets to identify service function paths and often to represent
   metadata.  It also envisions adding transport information to carry
   packets along service function paths, at least between service
   function forwarders.  This added information increases the size of
   the packet to be carried by service chaining.  Such additions could
   potentially increase the packet size beyond the MTU supported on some
   or all of the media used in the service chaining domain.

   Such packet size increases can thus cause operational MTU problems.
   Requiring fragmentation and reassembly in an SFF would be a major
   processing increase, and might be impossible with some transports.
   Expecting service functions to deal with packets fragmented by the
   SFC function might be onerous even when such fragmentation was
   possible.  Thus, at the very least, solutions need to pay attention
   to the size cost of their approach.  There may be alternative or
   additional means available, although any solution needs to consider
   the tradeoffs.

   These considerations apply to any generic architecture that increases
   the header size.  There are also more specific MTU considerations:
   Effects on Path MTU Discovery (PMTUD) as well as deployment
   considerations.  Deployments within a single administrative control
   or even a single Data Center complex can afford more flexibility in
   dealing with larger packets, and deploying existing mitigations that
   decrease the likelihood of fragmentation or discard.

5.7.  SFC OAM

   Operations, Administration, and Maintenance (OAM) tools are an
   integral part of the architecture.  These serve various purposes,
   including fault detection and isolation, and performance management.
   For example, there are many advantages of SFP liveness detection,



Halpern & Pignataro      Expires March 24, 2015                [Page 21]


Internet-Draft              SFC Architecture              September 2014


   including status reporting, support for resiliency operations and
   policies, and an enhanced ability to balance load.

   Service Function Paths create a services topology, and OAM performs
   various functions within this service layer.  Furthermore, SFC OAM
   follows the same architectural principles of SFC in general.  For
   example, topological independence (including the ability to run OAM
   over various overlay technologies) and classification-based policy.

   We can subdivide the SFC OAM architecture in two parts:

   o  In-band: OAM packets follow the same path and share fate with user
      packets, within the service topology.  For this, they also follow
      the architectural principle of consistent policy identifiers, and
      use the same path IDs as the service chain data packets.  Load
      balancing and SFC encapsulation with packet forwarding are
      particularly important here.

   o  Out-of-band: reporting beyond the actual data plane.  An
      additional layer beyond the data-plane OAM allows for additional
      alerting and measurements.

   This architecture prescribes end-to-end SFP OAM functions, which
   implies SFF understanding of whether an in-band packet is an OAM or
   user packet.  However, service function validation is outside of the
   scope of this architecture, and application-level OAM is not what
   this architecture prescribes.

   Some of the detailed functions performed by SFC OAM include fault
   detection and isolation in a Service Function Path or a Service
   Function, verification that connectivity using SFPs is both effective
   and directing packets to the intended service functions, service path
   tracing, diagnostic and fault isolation, alarm reporting, performance
   measurement, locking and testing of service functions, validation
   with the control plane (see Section 5.2), and also allow for vendor-
   specific as well as experimental functions.  SFC should leverage, and
   if needed extend relevant existing OAM mechanisms.

5.8.  Resilience and Redundancy

   As a practical operational requirement, any service chaining solution
   needs to be able to respond effectively, and usually very quickly, to
   failure conditions.  These may be failures of connectivity in the
   network between SFFs, failures of SFFs, or failures of SFs.  Per-SF
   state, as for example stateful-firewall state, is the responsibility
   of the SF, and not addressed by this architecture.





Halpern & Pignataro      Expires March 24, 2015                [Page 22]


Internet-Draft              SFC Architecture              September 2014


   Multiple techniques are available to address this issue.  Solutions
   can describe both what they require and what they allow to address
   failure.  Solutions can make use of flexible specificity of service
   function paths, if the SFF can be given enough information in a
   timely fashion to do this.  Solutions can also make use of MAC or IP
   level redundancy mechanisms such as VRRP.  Also, particularly for SF
   failures, load balancers co-located with the SFF or as part of the
   service function delivery mechanism can provide such robustness.

   Similarly, operational requirements imply resilience in the face of
   load changes.  While mechanisms for managing (e.g., monitoring,
   instantiating, loading images, providing configuration to service
   function chaining control, deleting, etc.) virtual machines are out
   of scope for this architecture, solutions can and are aided by
   describing how they can make use of scaling mechanisms.

6.  Security Considerations

   This document does not define a new protocol and therefore creates no
   new security issues.

   Security considerations apply to the realization of this
   architecture.  Such realization ought to provide means to protect the
   SFC-enabled domain and its borders against various forms of attacks,
   including DDoS attacks.  Further, SFC OAM Functions need to not
   negatively affect the security considerations of an SFC-enabled
   domain.  Additionally, all entities (software or hardware)
   interacting with the service chaining mechanisms need to provide
   means of security against malformed, poorly configured (deliberate or
   not) protocol constructs and loops.  These considerations are largely
   the same as those in any network, particularly an overlay network.

7.  Contributors and Acknowledgments

   The editors would like to thank Sam Aldrin, Nicolas Bouthors, Linda
   Dunbar, Alla Goldner, Ken Gray, Barry Greene, Anil Gunturu, David
   Harrington, Shunsuke Homma, Dave Hood, Nagendra Kumar, Hongyu Li,
   Andrew Malis, Guy Meador III, Kengo Naito, Ron Parker, Reinaldo
   Penno, Naiming Shen, Xiaohu Xu, and Lucy Yong for a thorough review
   and useful comments.

   The initial version of this "Service Function Chaining (SFC)
   Architecture" document is the result of merging two previous
   documents, and this section lists the aggregate of authors, editors,
   contributors and acknowledged participants, all who provided
   important ideas and text that fed into this architecture.

   [I-D.boucadair-sfc-framework]:



Halpern & Pignataro      Expires March 24, 2015                [Page 23]


Internet-Draft              SFC Architecture              September 2014


      Authors:

         Mohamed Boucadair
         Christian Jacquenet
         Ron Parker
         Diego R.  Lopez
         Jim Guichard
         Carlos Pignataro

      Contributors:

         Parviz Yegani
         Paul Quinn
         Linda Dunbar

      Acknowledgements:

         Many thanks to D.  Abgrall, D.  Minodier, Y.  Le Goff, D.
         Cheng, R.  White, and B.  Chatras for their review and
         comments.

   [I-D.quinn-sfc-arch]:

      Authors:

         Paul Quinn (editor)
         Joel Halpern (editor)

      Contributors:

         Puneet Agarwal
         Andre Beliveau
         Kevin Glavin
         Ken Gray
         Jim Guichard
         Surendra Kumar
         Darrel Lewis
         Nic Leymann
         Rajeev Manur
         Thomas Nadeau
         Carlos Pignataro
         Michael Smith
         Navindra Yadav

      Acknowledgements:






Halpern & Pignataro      Expires March 24, 2015                [Page 24]


Internet-Draft              SFC Architecture              September 2014


         The authors would like to thank David Ward, Abhijit Patra,
         Nagaraj Bagepalli, Darrel Lewis, Ron Parker, Lucy Yong and
         Christian Jacquenet for their review and comments.

8.  IANA Considerations

   [RFC Editor: please remove this section prior to publication.]

   This document has no IANA actions.

9.  Informative References

   [I-D.boucadair-sfc-framework]
              Boucadair, M., Jacquenet, C., Parker, R., Lopez, D.,
              Guichard, J., and C. Pignataro, "Service Function
              Chaining: Framework & Architecture", draft-boucadair-sfc-
              framework-02 (work in progress), February 2014.

   [I-D.ietf-sfc-problem-statement]
              Quinn, P. and T. Nadeau, "Service Function Chaining
              Problem Statement", draft-ietf-sfc-problem-statement-10
              (work in progress), August 2014.

   [I-D.quinn-sfc-arch]
              Quinn, P. and J. Halpern, "Service Function Chaining (SFC)
              Architecture", draft-quinn-sfc-arch-05 (work in progress),
              May 2014.

   [RFC3022]  Srisuresh, P. and K. Egevang, "Traditional IP Network
              Address Translator (Traditional NAT)", RFC 3022, January
              2001.

   [RFC6146]  Bagnulo, M., Matthews, P., and I. van Beijnum, "Stateful
              NAT64: Network Address and Protocol Translation from IPv6
              Clients to IPv4 Servers", RFC 6146, April 2011.

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

Authors' Addresses

   Joel Halpern (editor)
   Ericsson

   Email: jmh@joelhalpern.com






Halpern & Pignataro      Expires March 24, 2015                [Page 25]


Internet-Draft              SFC Architecture              September 2014


   Carlos Pignataro (editor)
   Cisco Systems, Inc.

   Email: cpignata@cisco.com















































Halpern & Pignataro      Expires March 24, 2015                [Page 26]


Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.121, available from https://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/