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

Versions: (draft-quinn-sfc-problem-statement) 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 RFC 7498

Network Working Group                                      P. Quinn, Ed.
Internet-Draft                                       Cisco Systems, Inc.
Intended status: Informational                            T. Nadeau, Ed.
Expires: October 19, 2014                                        Brocade
                                                          April 17, 2014


              Service Function Chaining Problem Statement
                draft-ietf-sfc-problem-statement-05.txt

Abstract

   This document provides an overview of the issues associated with the
   deployment of service functions (such as firewalls, load balancers)
   in large-scale environments.  The term service function chaining is
   used to describe the definition and instantiation of an ordered set
   of instances of such service functions, and the subsequent "steering"
   of traffic flows through those service functions.

   The set of enabled service function chains reflect operator service
   offerings and is designed in conjunction with application delivery
   and service and network policy.

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 October 19, 2014.

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



Quinn & Nadeau          Expires October 19, 2014                [Page 1]


Internet-Draft            SFC Problem Statement               April 2014


   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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3
     1.1.  Definition of Terms  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3
   2.  Problem Space  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
     2.1.  Topological Dependencies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
     2.2.  Configuration complexity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
     2.3.  Constrained High Availability  . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6
     2.4.  Consistent Ordering of Service Functions . . . . . . . . .  6
     2.5.  Application of Service Policy  . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6
     2.6.  Transport Dependence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
     2.7.  Elastic Service Delivery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
     2.8.  Traffic Selection Criteria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
     2.9.  Limited End-to-End Service Visibility  . . . . . . . . . .  7
     2.10. Per-Service (re)Classification . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
     2.11. Symmetric Traffic Flows  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8
     2.12. Multi-vendor Service Functions . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8
   3.  Service Function Chaining  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
     3.1.  Service Overlay  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
     3.2.  Control Plane  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
     3.3.  Service Classification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
     3.4.  Dataplane Metadata . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
   4.  Related IETF Work  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
   5.  Summary  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
   6.  Security Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
   7.  Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
   8.  Acknowledgments  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
   9.  Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
   Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18














Quinn & Nadeau          Expires October 19, 2014                [Page 2]


Internet-Draft            SFC Problem Statement               April 2014


1.  Introduction

   The delivery of end-to-end services often require various service
   functions including traditional network service functions (for
   example firewalls and server load balancers), as well as application-
   specific features.  Service functions may be delivered within the
   context of an isolated user group, or shared amongst many users/user
   groups.

   Current service function deployment models are relatively static in
   that they are tightly coupled to network topology and physical
   resources.  The result of that static nature of existing deployments
   greatly reduces, and in many cases, limits the ability of an operator
   to introduce new services and/or service functions.  Furthermore
   there is a cascading effect: service changes affect other services.

   This document outlines the problems encountered with existing service
   deployment models for Service Function Chaining (SFC) (often referred
   to simply as service chaining; in this document the terms will be
   used interchangeably), as well as the problems of service chain
   creation, deletion, modification/update, policy integration with
   service chains, and policy enforcement within the network
   infrastructure.

1.1.  Definition of Terms

   Classification:  Locally instantiated policy that results in matching
      of traffic flows for identification of appropriate outbound
      forwarding actions.

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

   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 one or more service
      nodes.

   Service Function:  A function that is responsible for specific
      treatment of received packets.  A Service Function can act at the
      network layer or other OSI layers.  A Service Function can be a
      virtual instance or be embedded in a physical network element.
      One of multiple Service Functions can be embedded in the same
      network element.  Multiple instances of the Service Function can
      be enabled in the same administrative domain.

      A non-exhaustive list of Service Functions includes: firewalls,



Quinn & Nadeau          Expires October 19, 2014                [Page 3]


Internet-Draft            SFC Problem Statement               April 2014


      WAN and application acceleration, Deep Packet Inspection (DPI),
      server load balancers, NAT44 [RFC3022], NAT64 [RFC6146], HOST_ID
      injection [RFC6967], HTTP Header Enrichment functions, TCP
      optimizer, etc.

      The generic term "L4-L7 services" is often used to describe many
      service functions.

   Service Function Chain (SFC):  A service Function chain defines an
      ordered set of service functions that must be applied to packets
      and/or layer-2 frames selected as a result of classification.  The
      implied order may not be a linear progression as nodes may copy to
      more than one branch.  The term service chain is often used as
      shorthand for service function chain.

   Service Function Path (SFP):  The instantiation of a service function
      chain in the network.  Packets follow a service function path from
      a classifier through the required instances of service functions
      in the network.

   Service Node (SN):  Physical or virtual element that hosts one or
      more service functions.

   Service Overlay:  An overlay network created for the purpose of
      forwarding data along a service function path.

   Service Topology:  The service overlay connectivity forms a service
      topology.























Quinn & Nadeau          Expires October 19, 2014                [Page 4]


Internet-Draft            SFC Problem Statement               April 2014


2.  Problem Space

   The following points describe aspects of existing service deployments
   that are problematic, and that the Service Function Chaining (SFC)
   working group aims to address.

2.1.  Topological Dependencies

   Network service deployments are often coupled to network topology,
   whether it be real or virtualized, or a hybrid of the two.  Such
   dependency imposes constraints on the service delivery, potentially
   inhibiting the network operator from optimally utilizing service
   resources, and reduces the flexibility.  This limits scale, capacity,
   and redundancy across network resources.

   These topologies serve only to "insert" the service function (i.e.,
   ensure that traffic traverses a service function); they are not
   required from a native packet delivery perspective.  For example,
   firewalls often require an "in" and "out" layer-2 segment and adding
   a new firewall requires changing the topology (i.e., adding new
   layer-2 segments).

   As more service functions are required - often with strict ordering -
   topology changes are needed before and after each service function
   resulting in complex network changes and device configuration.  In
   such topologies, all traffic, whether a service function needs to be
   applied or not, often passes through the same strict order.

   The topological coupling limits placement and selection of service
   functions: service functions are "fixed" in place by topology and
   therefore placement and service function selection taking into
   account network topology information is not viable.  Furthermore,
   altering the services traversed, or their order, based on flow
   direction is not possible.

   A common example is web servers using a server load balancer as the
   default gateway.  When the web service responds to non-load balanced
   traffic (e.g., administrative or backup operations) all traffic from
   the server must traverse the load balancer forcing network
   administrators to create complex routing schemes or create additional
   interfaces to provide an alternate topology.

2.2.  Configuration complexity

   A direct consequence of topological dependencies is the complexity of
   the entire configuration, specifically in deploying service function
   chains.  Simple actions such as changing the order of the service
   functions in a service function chain require changes to the



Quinn & Nadeau          Expires October 19, 2014                [Page 5]


Internet-Draft            SFC Problem Statement               April 2014


   topology.  Changes to the topology are avoided by the network
   operator once installed, configured and deployed in production
   environments fearing misconfiguration and downtime.  All of this
   leads to very static service delivery deployments.  Furthermore, the
   speed at which these topological changes can be made is not rapid or
   dynamic enough as it often requires manual intervention, or use of
   slow provisioning systems.


2.3.  Constrained High Availability

   An effect of topological dependency is constrained service function
   high availability.  Worse, when modified, inadvertent non-high
   availability or downtime can result.

   Since traffic reaches many service functions based on network
   topology, alternate, or redundant service functions must be placed in
   the same topology as the primary service.

2.4.  Consistent Ordering of Service Functions

   Service functions are typically independent; service function_1
   (SF1)...service function_n (SFn) are unrelated and there is no notion
   at the service layer that SF1 occurs before SF2.  However, to an
   administrator many service functions have a strict ordering that must
   be in place, yet the administrator has no consistent way to impose
   and verify the ordering of the service functions that are used to
   deliver a given service.

   Service function chains today are most typically built through manual
   configuration processes.  These are slow and error prone.  With the
   advent of newer service deployment models the control and policy
   planes provide not only connectivity state, but will also be
   increasingly utilized for the creation of network services.  Such
   control/management planes could be centralized, or be distributed.

2.5.  Application of Service Policy

   Service functions rely on topology information such as VLANs or
   packet (re) classification to determine service policy selection,
   i.e. the service function specific action taken.  Topology
   information is increasingly less viable due to scaling, tenancy and
   complexity reasons.  The topological information is often stale,
   providing the operator with inaccurate placement that can result in
   suboptimal resource utilization.  Furthermore topology-centric
   information often does not convey adequate information to the service
   functions, forcing functions to individually perform more granular
   classification.



Quinn & Nadeau          Expires October 19, 2014                [Page 6]


Internet-Draft            SFC Problem Statement               April 2014


2.6.  Transport Dependence

   Service functions can and will be deployed in networks with a range
   of transports, including under and overlays.  The coupling of service
   functions to topology requires service functions to support many
   transport encapsulations or for a transport gateway function to be
   present.

2.7.  Elastic Service Delivery

   Given that the current state of the art for adding/removing service
   functions largely centers around VLANs and routing changes, rapid
   changes to the service deployment can be hard to realize due to the
   risk and complexity of such changes.

2.8.  Traffic Selection Criteria

   Traffic selection is coarse, that is, all traffic on a particular
   segment traverse service functions whether the traffic requires
   service enforcement or not.  This lack of traffic selection is
   largely due to the topological nature of service deployment since the
   forwarding topology dictates how (and what) data traverses service
   function(s).  In some deployments, more granular traffic selection is
   achieved using policy routing or access control filtering.  This
   results in operationally complex configurations and is still
   relatively inflexible.

2.9.  Limited End-to-End Service Visibility

   Troubleshooting service related issues is a complex process that
   involve both network-specific and service-specific expertise.  This
   is especially the case when service function chains span multiple
   DCs, or across administrative boundaries.  Furthermore, the physical
   and virtual environments (network and service), can be highly
   divergent in terms of topology and that topological variance adds to
   these challenges.

2.10.  Per-Service (re)Classification

   Classification occurs at each service function independent from
   previously applied service functions.  More importantly, the
   classification functionality often differs per service function and
   service functions may not leverage the results from other service
   functions.







Quinn & Nadeau          Expires October 19, 2014                [Page 7]


Internet-Draft            SFC Problem Statement               April 2014


2.11.  Symmetric Traffic Flows

   Service function chains may be unidirectional or bidirectional
   depending on the state requirements of the service functions.  In a
   unidirectional chain traffic is passed through a set of service
   functions in one forwarding direction only.  Bidirectional chains
   require traffic to be passed through a set of service functions in
   both forwarding directions.  Many common service functions such as
   DPI and firewall often require bidirectional chaining in order to
   ensure flow state is consistent.

   Existing service deployment models provide a static approach to
   realizing forward and reverse service function chain association most
   often requiring complex configuration of each network device
   throughout the SFC.

2.12.  Multi-vendor Service Functions

   Deploying service functions from multiple vendors often require per-
   vendor expertise: insertion models differ, there are limited common
   attributes and inter- vendor service functions do not share
   information.





























Quinn & Nadeau          Expires October 19, 2014                [Page 8]


Internet-Draft            SFC Problem Statement               April 2014


3.  Service Function Chaining

   Service Function Chaining aims to address the aforementioned problems
   associated with service deployment.  Concretely, the SFC working
   group will investigate solutions that address the following elements:

3.1.  Service Overlay

   Service function chaining utilizes a service specific overlay that
   creates the service topology.  The service overlay provides service
   function connectivity and is built "on top" of the existing network
   topology and allows operators to use whatever overlay or underlay
   they prefer to create a path between service functions, and to locate
   service functions in the network as needed.

   Within the service topology, service functions can be viewed as
   resources for consumption and an arbitrary topology constructed to
   connect those resources in a required order.  Adding new service
   functions to the topology is easily accomplished, and no underlying
   network changes are required.

   Lastly, the service overlay can provide service specific information
   needed for troubleshooting service-related issues.

3.2.  Control Plane

   Service aware control plane(s) provide information about the
   available service functions on a network.  The information provided
   by the control plane includes service network location (for topology
   creation), service type (e.g. firewall, load balancer, etc.) and,
   optionally, administrative information about the service functions
   such as load, capacity and operating status.  The service aware
   control plane allows for the formulation of service function chains
   and exchanges requisite information needed to instantiate the service
   function chains in the network.

   Furthermore, the service aware control plane may interact with the
   topology aware control plane (if separate) to ensure optimal
   selection (and possibly placement) of service functions within a
   service function path.

3.3.  Service Classification

   Classification is used to select which traffic enters a service
   overlay.  The granularity of the classification varies based on
   device capabilities, customer requirements, and service offered.
   Initial classification determines the service function chain required
   to process the traffic.  Subsequent classification can be used within



Quinn & Nadeau          Expires October 19, 2014                [Page 9]


Internet-Draft            SFC Problem Statement               April 2014


   a given service function chain to alter the sequence of service
   functions applied.  Symmetric classification ensures that forward and
   reverse chains are in place.  Similarly, asymmetric -- relative to
   required service function -- chains can be achieved via service
   classification.

3.4.  Dataplane Metadata

   Data plane metadata provides the ability to exchange information
   between logical classification points and service functions (and vice
   versa) and between service functions.  As such metadata is not used
   as forwarding information to deliver packets along the service
   overlay.

   Metadata can include the result of antecedent classification and/or
   information from external sources.  Service functions utilize
   metadata, as required, for localized policy decisions.

   In addition to sharing of information, the use of metadata addresses
   several of the issues raised in section 2, most notably the de-
   coupling of policy from the topology, and the need for per-service
   classification (and re-classification).

   A common approach to service metadata creates a common foundation for
   interoperability between service functions, regardless of vendor.


























Quinn & Nadeau          Expires October 19, 2014               [Page 10]


Internet-Draft            SFC Problem Statement               April 2014


4.  Related IETF Work

   The following subsections discuss related IETF work and are provided
   for reference.  This section is not exhaustive, rather it provides an
   overview of the various initiatives and how they relate to network
   service chaining.

   1.  [L3VPN]: The L3VPN working group is responsible for defining,
       specifying and extending BGP/MPLS IP VPNs solutions.  Although
       BGP/MPLS IP VPNs can be used as transport for service chaining
       deployments, the SFC WG focuses on the service specific
       protocols, not the general case of VPNs.  Furthermore, BGP/MPLS
       IP VPNs do not address the requirements for service chaining.

   2.  [LISP]: LISP provides locator and ID separation.  LISP can be
       used as an L3 overlay to transport service chaining data but does
       not address the specific service chaining problems highlighted in
       this document.

   3.  [NVO3]: The NVO3 working group is chartered with creation of
       problem statement and requirements documents for multi-tenant
       network overlays.  NVO3 WG does not address service chaining
       protocols.

   4.  [ALTO]: The Application Layer Traffic Optimization Working Group
       is chartered to provide topological information at a higher
       abstraction layer, which can be based upon network policy, and
       with application-relevant service functions located in it.  The
       mechanism for ALTO obtaining the topology can vary and policy can
       apply to what is provided or abstracted.  This work could be
       leveraged and extended to address the need for services
       discovery.

   5.  [I2RS]: The Interface to the Routing System Working Group is
       chartered to investigate the rapid programming of a device's
       routing system, as well as the service of a generalized, multi-
       layered network topology.  This work could be leveraged and
       extended to address some of the needs for service chaining in the
       topology and device programming areas.

   6.  [ForCES]: The ForCES working group has created a framework,
       requirements, a solution protocol, a logical function block
       library, and other associated documents in support of Forwarding
       and Control Element Separation.  The work done by ForCES may
       provide a basis for both the separation of SFC elements, as well
       as provide protocol and design guidance for those elements.





Quinn & Nadeau          Expires October 19, 2014               [Page 11]


Internet-Draft            SFC Problem Statement               April 2014


5.  Summary

   This document highlights problems associated with network service
   deployment today and identifies several key areas that will be
   addressed by the SFC working group.  Furthermore, this document
   identifies four components that are the basis for service function
   chaining.  These components will form the areas of focus for the
   working group.











































Quinn & Nadeau          Expires October 19, 2014               [Page 12]


Internet-Draft            SFC Problem Statement               April 2014


6.  Security Considerations

   Security considerations are not addressed in this problem statement
   only document.  Given the scope of service chaining, and the
   implications on data and control planes, security considerations are
   clearly important and will be addressed in the specific protocol and
   deployment documents created by the SFC WG.












































Quinn & Nadeau          Expires October 19, 2014               [Page 13]


Internet-Draft            SFC Problem Statement               April 2014


7.  Contributors

   The following people are active contributors to this document and
   have provided review, content and concepts (listed alphabetically by
   surname):

   Puneet Agarwal
   Broadcom
   Email: pagarwal@broadcom.com

   Mohamed Boucadair
   France Telecom
   Email: mohamed.boucadair@orange.com

   Abhishek Chauhan
   Citrix
   Email: Abhishek.Chauhan@citrix.com

   Uri Elzur
   Intel
   Email: uri.elzur@intel.com

   Kevin Glavin
   Riverbed
   Email: Kevin.Glavin@riverbed.com

   Ken Gray
   Cisco Systems
   Email: kegray@cisco.com

   Jim Guichard
   Cisco Systems
   Email:jguichar@cisco.com

   Christian Jacquenet
   France Telecom
   Email: christian.jacquenet@orange.com

   Surendra Kumar
   Cisco Systems
   Email: smkumar@cisco.com

   Nic Leymann
   Deutsche Telekom
   Email: n.leymann@telekom.de

   Darrel Lewis
   Cisco Systems



Quinn & Nadeau          Expires October 19, 2014               [Page 14]


Internet-Draft            SFC Problem Statement               April 2014


   Email: darlewis@cisco.com

   Rajeev Manur
   Broadcom
   Email:rmanur@broadcom.com

   Brad McConnell
   Rackspace
   Email: bmcconne@rackspace.com

   Carlos Pignataro
   Cisco Systems
   Email: cpignata@cisco.com

   Michael Smith
   Cisco Systems
   Email: michsmit@cisco.com

   Navindra Yadav
   Cisco Systems
   Email: nyadav@cisco.com






























Quinn & Nadeau          Expires October 19, 2014               [Page 15]


Internet-Draft            SFC Problem Statement               April 2014


8.  Acknowledgments

   The authors would like to thank David Ward, Rex Fernando, David
   Mcdysan, Jamal Hadi Salim, Charles Perkins, Andre Beliveau, Joel
   Halpern and Jim French for their reviews and comments.














































Quinn & Nadeau          Expires October 19, 2014               [Page 16]


Internet-Draft            SFC Problem Statement               April 2014


9.  Informative References

   [ALTO]     "Application-Layer Traffic Optimization (alto)",
              <http://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/alto/>.

   [ForCES]   "Forwarding and Control Element Separation (forces)",
              <http://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/forces/>.

   [I2RS]     "Interface to the Routing System (i2rs)",
              <http://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/i2rs/>.

   [L3VPN]    "Layer 3 Virtual Private Networks (l3vpn)",
              <http://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/l3vpn/>.

   [LISP]     "Locator/ID Separation Protocol (lisp)",
              <http://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/lisp/>.

   [NVO3]     "Network Virtualization Overlays (nvo3)",
              <http://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/nvo3/>.

   [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.

   [RFC6967]  Boucadair, M., Touch, J., Levis, P., and R. Penno,
              "Analysis of Potential Solutions for Revealing a Host
              Identifier (HOST_ID) in Shared Address Deployments",
              RFC 6967, June 2013.



















Quinn & Nadeau          Expires October 19, 2014               [Page 17]


Internet-Draft            SFC Problem Statement               April 2014


Authors' Addresses

   Paul Quinn (editor)
   Cisco Systems, Inc.

   Email: paulq@cisco.com


   Thomas Nadeau (editor)
   Brocade

   Email: tnadeau@lucidvision.com







































Quinn & Nadeau          Expires October 19, 2014               [Page 18]


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