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

Versions: 00 01 02 03

Network Working Group                                    B. E. Carpenter
Internet-Draft                                         Univ. of Auckland
Intended status: Informational                                  S. Jiang
Expires: 16 November 2020                   Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd
                                                                   G. Li
                                                     Huawei Technologies
                                                             15 May 2020


                   Service Oriented Internet Protocol
                   draft-jiang-service-oriented-ip-03

Abstract

   This document proposes a new, backwards-compatible, approach to
   packet forwarding, where the service required rather than the IP
   address required acts as the vector for routing packets at the edge
   of the network.  Deeper in the network, the mechanism can interface
   to conventional and future methods of service or application aware
   networking.

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 16 November 2020.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2020 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



Carpenter, et al.       Expires 16 November 2020                [Page 1]


Internet-Draft             Service Oriented IP                  May 2020


   extracted from this document must include Simplified BSD License text
   as described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are
   provided without warranty as described in the Simplified BSD License.

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
   2.  Proposed Solution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   3.  Coexistence Issues  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
   4.  Some Usage Examples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
   5.  Continuity with the Existing Internet . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
   6.  Interface with Service and Application Domains  . . . . . . .   9
   7.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
   8.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
   9.  References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
   Appendix A.  Possible TLV and CBOR Encodings  . . . . . . . . . .  11
     A.1.  TLV Mapping . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
     A.2.  CBOR Mapping  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
   Appendix B.  Change log [RFC Editor: Please remove] . . . . . . .  13
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14

1.  Introduction

   An important aspect of the Internet today is that it is no longer a
   uniform space with uniform requirements.  For both technical and
   economic reasons, we see an emerging trend of usage scenarios that
   are confined to some form of limited domain, and which inevitably
   lead to applications and protocols that are only suitable within a
   given scope [I-D.carpenter-limited-domains].  In particular, various
   techniques have emerged for packet treatments that are specific to a
   type of application or service.  This trend collides immediately with
   two factors: the original design concept of an Internet with end to
   end IP transparency (such that any locally defined protocol running
   over IP is almost certain to escape the local network), and with the
   increasing presence of middleboxes.  In this emerging context, where
   end to end IP service is no longer a safe assumption, and where there
   is increasing demand for specific services, this document proposes a
   new, backwards-compatible, approach to packet forwarding, where the
   service required rather than the IP address required acts as the
   vector for routing packets at the edge of the network, close to the
   host requiring a particular service or application.  This form of
   service based packet forwarding is referred to as Service Oriented IP
   (SOIP).

   We propose an addition to the existing core function of the network,
   which is reachability over IPv6 or IPv4.  Today, IP is focussed on
   reachability, using best effort forwarding both to find a route and
   to automatically share transmission resources in a simple and low-



Carpenter, et al.       Expires 16 November 2020                [Page 2]


Internet-Draft             Service Oriented IP                  May 2020


   cost way.  As a result, transport protocols such as TCP and UDP learn
   little or nothing about the network, beyond congestion or loss
   signals.  Several ISPs may lie on the path between a user and a
   server, but they are largely ignorant about the services a user
   requires.  Typical services could be streamed content, regular
   content, user posting, storage access, or calculation, but this list
   is not exclusive.

   Both service providers and users will benefit if a packet stream can
   be identified intrinsically as requiring a certain kind of service.
   This is particularly applicable for edge networks, such as those
   supported by 5G technology, where there is an emphasis on upper layer
   service provision.  Whatever the business model - for example the ISP
   operates all types of service, or the ISP operates no user services
   at all and has contracts with specific service providers, or the ISP
   is agnostic about user services - SOIP will allow for optimised
   packet delivery.  The ISP will have the choice to provide some or all
   services.  The user will have the choice to use ISP services or
   bypass them.  Traffic that leaves the domain where SOIP is in use
   will be perfectly normal IPv6 or IPv4 traffic, sent by an exit node
   acting as a proxy (not an IP-layer translator) for the user.
   Additionally, IPv6 and IPv4 will be modelled as services available to
   the user, thereby giving continuity of access to everything the user
   has today.  This is a logical extension of a principle already
   adopted to model IPv4 as a service available via IPv6 [RFC8585].

   As new service and application oriented features are deployed in the
   network, SOIP will provide a seamless interface to both existing and
   future mechanisms.  Effectively it will make client hosts future-
   proof as the network evolves.

2.  Proposed Solution

   NOTE: This is a preliminary draft expected to stimulate discussion,
   so many details are not yet defined.

   The approach is to make the service be the central component of the
   network, from the end user's point of view.  Conceptually, the user's
   packets will be directed at a service, not at an IP host.  The first
   hop SOIP router will either forward the packets to an upstream SOIP
   router, or immediately dispatch the session to a suitable service.
   At least one SOIP router in a domain must be capable of acting as a
   dispatcher.  The dispatched traffic may either remain in SOIP format,
   or be transformed by a proxy mechanism into a conventional IP-based
   format.  Figure 1 gives an overview, and Section 5 and Section 6
   discuss this further.





Carpenter, et al.       Expires 16 November 2020                [Page 3]


Internet-Draft             Service Oriented IP                  May 2020


   -----------         -----------
   |End-user | <-----> |  SOIP   |
   |  Host   |         | router  |
   -----------         -----------
                            ^
                            |
                            v
      --------------   -----------    -----------------
      | SOIP-based |   | SOIP     |   | Unknown       |
      | services   |---| router + |---| future        |
      |            |   |dispatcher|   | services      |
      --------------   ------------   -----------------
                        |    |   |
      --------------    |    |   |    -----------------
      |Traditional |____/    |   \____|Segment Routing|
      |IP services |         |        |services       |
      --------------   ------------   -----------------
                       |   SDN    |
                       | services |
                       ------------

                                  Figure 1

   The service actions that the network can provide are abstracted into
   a number of classes called Service Action Types (SATs).  While there
   needs to be flexibility and extensibility, the number of service
   action types will be limited.  They will not be numerous like IP
   protocol numbers or well-known TCP or UDP port numbers.  Along with
   the SAT, a source IPv6 address is used to identify the client system.
   As will be seen below, the destination IPv6 address becomes optional.
   A consequence is that the IP header and some aspects of the protocol
   stack have to be redesigned.  We will show below how this can be done
   without disturbing most of the running network.  Another consequence
   is that the first step in processing a packet is to process the SAT,
   not the destination address (if there is one).

   Traditional reachability, when required, is provided by classical
   IPv6, or by IPv4 as-a-service.

   When an SOIP packet enters a router, it is classified at line speed
   according to the SAT.  Routing to upstream SOIP routers will be based
   on the SAT, not on a destination IP address.  Routing from a
   dispatcher may be based on the SAT if the service required is based
   on SOIP, or on a conventional IP address otherwise.  A preliminary
   list of SATs is shown in Figure 2, with brief descriptions:






Carpenter, et al.       Expires 16 November 2020                [Page 4]


Internet-Draft             Service Oriented IP                  May 2020


   ------------------------------------------------------------------
   | SATs             | Direction | Description                     |
   |----------------------------------------------------------------|
   | IPv4 reachability| Request   | IPv4 destination host           |
   |                  |___________|                                 |
   |                  | Response  | IPv4 source host                |
   |----------------------------------------------------------------|
   | IPv6 reachability| Request   | IPv6 destination host           |
   |                  |___________|                                 |
   |                  | Response  | IPv6 source host                |
   |----------------------------------------------------------------|
   | Discovery Service| Request   | Discover network services, e.g. |
   |                  |___________| DNS, CDN. May map to IP Anycast |
   |                  | Response  | Content ID, service ID.         |
   |                  |           | Or "service not available" error|
   |----------------------------------------------------------------|
   | Multicast Service| Request   | Join multicast service for some |
   |                  |___________| content, e.g. video stream      |
   |                  | Response  | Multicast directory answers     |
   |                  |           | request, provides m/c source.   |
   |----------------------------------------------------------------|
   | Computation      | Request   | Submit task to network, with    |
   | Service          |           | computation type, task          |
   |                  |___________| descriptor and requester ID     |
   |                  | Response  | Computation resource ID, or     |
   |                  |           | direct result of task.          |
   |                  |           | Or "service not available" error|
   |----------------------------------------------------------------|
   | Storage Service  | Request   | Submit/retrieve data to/from    |
   |                  |           | network storage, with data      |
   |                  |___________| description and/or data ID      |
   |                  | Response  | Storage locator, data ID.       |
   |                  |           | Or "service not available" error|
   |----------------------------------------------------------------|
   | App Server       | Request   | To submit source code or deploy |
   | Service          |           | package to application platform,|
   |                  |___________| with necessary configurations.  |
   |                  | Response  | Answer with service ID.         |
   |                  |           | Or "service not available" error|
   ------------------------------------------------------------------

                                  Figure 2









Carpenter, et al.       Expires 16 November 2020                [Page 5]


Internet-Draft             Service Oriented IP                  May 2020


   For each request there will be a corresponding response.  The details
   remain to be worked out - probably a generic response message
   including the SAT.  To allow multiple overlapping sessions, each
   request/response sequence should have a unique ID, which will be used
   by the SOIP dispatcher to match service responses to the appropriate
   user session.

   For IPv6-only networks, is expected that IPv4 reachability will be
   provided by a solution such as 464XLAT.  Also, no separate SAT is
   needed for IPv6 to IPv4 translation.  For example, if a host requests
   IPv4 reachability but supplies an IPv6 address as its own locator,
   NAT64 [RFC6146] is implied.

   For the moment codes for the SATs are undefined, but they are assumed
   to be small integers.  There are two possible approaches to the
   packet format.  One is to use a traditional Type-Length-Value (TLV)
   layout.  Another is to use a more flexible encoding at the lowest
   level, taking advantage of some form of network processor in the
   routers.  An obvious choice would be Concise Binary Object
   Representation (CBOR) [RFC7049], which combines flexibility with
   efficiency.  In either case we could require that the first four bits
   of the wire format are a new IP version number other than 4 or 6.  An
   alternative, at least for early experimentation, is to run SOIP over
   UDP and IPv6.

   Examples of both encoding choices are described below.  In either
   case, the essential content of a packet header is as follows:

   *  The SAT code (small integer)

   *  Flag bits

   *  Traffic class (as for IPv6)

   *  Session Identifier (so that sessions can be tracked regardless of
      IP address)

   *  Hop limit (small integer)

   *  User locator (IP address or identifier)

   *  Service data length (not needed in CBOR version)

   *  Service data (length depends on SAT)

   *  Payload length (not needed in CBOR version)

   *  Payload



Carpenter, et al.       Expires 16 November 2020                [Page 6]


Internet-Draft             Service Oriented IP                  May 2020


   Experience with IPv4 options, and IPv6 extension headers and options,
   has shown that new ones are very hard to deploy on an operational
   network, and that the ones defined during the initial design are not
   always useful.  Therefore we propose that all options and extensions
   are defined as part of the service data and are not visible as part
   of the basic packet header, giving good flexibility.

   We propose to include the exact equivalent of the IPv6 Traffic Class
   [RFC8200], which can work exactly as for IPv6.  In contrast, one
   defect in the IPv6 flow label [RFC6437] is that it is different in
   the two directions of a flow.  Instead we propose a session ID that
   is the same in both directions, which has various advantages by
   allowing immediate session identification.

   The flag bits provide useful indications to the routing system, if
   set:

   *  Mobile - set if the user system is mobile

   *  Flow size (3 bits)

      -  000 means a single packet, no flow/congestion state needed

      -  other values TBD indicate type of flow/congestion state

   *  Authenticated - set if packet authenticated (details TBD)

   *  Encrypted - set if encryption applied (details TBD)

   Note that fragmentation is not supported.  Fragmentation, and the
   related mechanisms of MTU discovery, are a significant operational
   problem in the current Internet [I-D.ietf-intarea-frag-fragile].  We
   simply abolish this problem area in SOIP, which is designed for use
   in managed networks where a single size of maximum transmission unit
   (MTU) is available everywhere.  An SOIP network will have a globally
   defined MTU.  Of course, IPv4 and IPv6 reachability services via the
   open Internet will have to support PMTUD and fragmentation as best
   they can, but this concerns the embedded IP packets, not the SOIP
   packets, and will be invisible locally.

   Appendix A outlines possible TLV and CBOR encodings of the SOIP
   protocol.









Carpenter, et al.       Expires 16 November 2020                [Page 7]


Internet-Draft             Service Oriented IP                  May 2020


3.  Coexistence Issues

   SOIP is expected to coexist with IPv6; in a sense it is a low-level
   method of orchestrating IPv6 connections.  We assume that each SOIP
   client host has at least one IPv6 address, and that SOIP routers will
   announce themselves using a suitable IPv6 Router Advertisement
   extension [I-D.troan-6man-universal-ra-option].  Normally, the first-
   hop SOIP router will be the same as the IPv6 first-hop router.

   As a result of this, all standard management mechanisms such as
   NETCONF may be used without further specification.  Also, when a data
   connection of any kind is established after a SOIP request/response
   exchange, all standard transport mechanisms are available over IPv6.
   As noted above, they are subject to the locally defined MTU as long
   as they remain within the SOIP domain.

   We do not define how SOIP would operate in an IPv4-only network.

4.  Some Usage Examples

   *  Storage request (upload content):

      -  Service data identifies storage requirement (temporary/
         permanent, private/public, encryption, etc.)

      -  Payload identifies data (path/name.format, etc.)

   *  Storage request (download content):

      -  Service data identifies transmission requirement (streamed,
         block, etc.  and the specific transport protocol - UDP, TCP,
         QUIC, etc. - if needed)

      -  Payload identifies data (path/name.format, etc.)

   *  Computation request

      -  Service data identifies computing requirement

      -  Payload identifies computing application

   *  Reachability request

      -  Service data gives destination IP address (or DNS name)

      -  Indication of transport protocol required (details TBD)





Carpenter, et al.       Expires 16 November 2020                [Page 8]


Internet-Draft             Service Oriented IP                  May 2020


      -  Indication of options or extension headers required (details
         TBD)

5.  Continuity with the Existing Internet

   Continuity is provided in two ways:

   1.  A user node can simply use IP completely in parallel with SOIP.
       The network stack in the user node will simply encode the IP
       packets as SOIP packets with the SAT for IP reachability, and a
       SOIP dispatcher will send and receive IP packets at the SOIP
       domain boundary.

   2.  If a service in the SOIP domain needs service from elsewhere in
       the IP Internet to respond to a user request, it will use a
       similar dispatcher function to do so.This could also be described
       as a proxy mechanism.  (Of course, services in interconnected
       SOIP domains may talk to each other directly.)

6.  Interface with Service and Application Domains

   Various techniques are emerging for service or application specific
   networking within operators' networks.  An overview of the
   motivations is given in [I-D.li-apn6-problem-statement-usecases], and
   specific techniques have been defined such as Network Service Headers
   [RFC8300] and Segment Routing [RFC8402], as well as Software-Defined
   Networking in general [RFC7426].  A SOIP dispatcher that is aware of
   such techniques may convert SOIP traffic into one of these
   mechanisms, for example by encapsulation or proxying.  Furthermore,
   the model is future-proof.  The dispatcher could be upgraded to
   support unknown future service or application oriented networking
   mechanisms, without requiring changes to SOIP clients or routers.

7.  Security Considerations

   It is intended that both authentication and encryption should be
   available for all SOIP packets.  However, this requires further work,
   especially to determine whether existing mechanisms for key
   management can be used.

   Since clients are identified by an IPv6 address, existing layer 3
   privacy considerations for IPv6 addresses will apply to SOIP
   [RFC7721].  Upper layer privacy considerations will depend on the
   service concerned.







Carpenter, et al.       Expires 16 November 2020                [Page 9]


Internet-Draft             Service Oriented IP                  May 2020


8.  IANA Considerations

   This document makes no request of the IANA.


9.  References

   [I-D.carpenter-limited-domains]
              Carpenter, B. and B. Liu, "Limited Domains and Internet
              Protocols", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-
              carpenter-limited-domains-13, 2 February 2020,
              <https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-carpenter-limited-
              domains-13>.

   [I-D.ietf-intarea-frag-fragile]
              Bonica, R., Baker, F., Huston, G., Hinden, R., Troan, O.,
              and F. Gont, "IP Fragmentation Considered Fragile", Work
              in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-intarea-frag-
              fragile-17, 30 September 2019,
              <https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-intarea-frag-
              fragile-17>.

   [I-D.li-apn6-problem-statement-usecases]
              Li, Z., Peng, S., Voyer, D., Xie, C., Liu, P., Liu, C.,
              Ebisawa, K., Previdi, S., and J. Guichard, "Problem
              Statement and Use Cases of Application-aware IPv6
              Networking (APN6)", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft,
              draft-li-apn6-problem-statement-usecases-01, 3 November
              2019, <https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-li-apn6-problem-
              statement-usecases-01>.

   [I-D.troan-6man-universal-ra-option]
              Troan, O., "The Universal IPv6 Configuration Option
              (experiment)", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-
              troan-6man-universal-ra-option-02, 2 April 2020,
              <https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-troan-6man-universal-
              ra-option-02>.

   [RFC6146]  Bagnulo, M., Matthews, P., and I. van Beijnum, "Stateful
              NAT64: Network Address and Protocol Translation from IPv6
              Clients to IPv4 Servers", RFC 6146, DOI 10.17487/RFC6146,
              April 2011, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6146>.

   [RFC6437]  Amante, S., Carpenter, B., Jiang, S., and J. Rajahalme,
              "IPv6 Flow Label Specification", RFC 6437,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC6437, November 2011,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6437>.




Carpenter, et al.       Expires 16 November 2020               [Page 10]


Internet-Draft             Service Oriented IP                  May 2020


   [RFC7049]  Bormann, C. and P. Hoffman, "Concise Binary Object
              Representation (CBOR)", RFC 7049, DOI 10.17487/RFC7049,
              October 2013, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7049>.

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

   [RFC7721]  Cooper, A., Gont, F., and D. Thaler, "Security and Privacy
              Considerations for IPv6 Address Generation Mechanisms",
              RFC 7721, DOI 10.17487/RFC7721, March 2016,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7721>.

   [RFC8200]  Deering, S. and R. Hinden, "Internet Protocol, Version 6
              (IPv6) Specification", STD 86, RFC 8200,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC8200, July 2017,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8200>.

   [RFC8300]  Quinn, P., Ed., Elzur, U., Ed., and C. Pignataro, Ed.,
              "Network Service Header (NSH)", RFC 8300,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC8300, January 2018,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8300>.

   [RFC8402]  Filsfils, C., Ed., Previdi, S., Ed., Ginsberg, L.,
              Decraene, B., Litkowski, S., and R. Shakir, "Segment
              Routing Architecture", RFC 8402, DOI 10.17487/RFC8402,
              July 2018, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8402>.

   [RFC8585]  Palet Martinez, J., Liu, H. M.-H., and M. Kawashima,
              "Requirements for IPv6 Customer Edge Routers to Support
              IPv4-as-a-Service", RFC 8585, DOI 10.17487/RFC8585, May
              2019, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8585>.

   [RFC8610]  Birkholz, H., Vigano, C., and C. Bormann, "Concise Data
              Definition Language (CDDL): A Notational Convention to
              Express Concise Binary Object Representation (CBOR) and
              JSON Data Structures", RFC 8610, DOI 10.17487/RFC8610,
              June 2019, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8610>.

Appendix A.  Possible TLV and CBOR Encodings

A.1.  TLV Mapping

   Figure 3 shows a possible type-length-value packet format.





Carpenter, et al.       Expires 16 November 2020               [Page 11]


Internet-Draft             Service Oriented IP                  May 2020


      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |Version|R R R R|      SAT      |M F F F A E R R| Traffic Class |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |              Session Identifier  (32 bits)                    |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |   Hop Limit   |                                               |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+                                               +
      |                                                               |
      +                                                               +
      |              Client Locator / Identifier  (128 bits)          |
      +                                                               +
      |                                                               |
      +               +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |               | SD length     |                               |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+                               +
      |                                                               |
      +              Service Data (variable length)                   +
      ...                                                           ...
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |        Payload Length         |                               |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-|                               +
      |                                                               |
      +              Payload Data (variable length)                   +
      ...                                                           ...
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

                                  Figure 3

   Version - IP version number TBD (not needed over UDP)

   R - Reserved, must be zero (not needed over UDP)

   SAT - Service Action Type code

   M - Mobile flag

   FFF - Flow type flags (FFF = 000 for single-packet flows; other
   values for longer flows)

   A - Authentication flag

   E - Privacy (encryption) flag

   Traffic class, exactly as for IPv6

   Session identifier, 32-bit pseudo random number

   Client Locator / Identifier - globally unique IPv6 address



Carpenter, et al.       Expires 16 November 2020               [Page 12]


Internet-Draft             Service Oriented IP                  May 2020


A.2.  CBOR Mapping

   The packet consists of a CBOR byte string preceded by a single byte
   (Figure 4).  For example, for version 7, this byte would be 0x70.
   This byte is not decoded as CBOR, and is not needed over UDP.

      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |Version|R R R R|
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

                                  Figure 4

   The CBOR bytes then obey the CDDL [RFC8610] specification in
   Figure 5.

   sat-packet = [sat, flags, traffic-class, session-id, hop-limit,
                 source, service-data, ?payload]

   sat = 0..255
   flags = bytes .size 1
   traffic-class = 0..255
   session-id = 0..4294967295 ;up to 32 bits
   hop-limit = 0..255
   client = ipv6-address
   service-data = any
   payload = any

   ipv6-address = bytes .size 16

                                  Figure 5

   The syntax of the various service-data formats can be defined in
   separate documents for each SAT value.

   We assume that routers capable of handling a CBOR-based layer 3
   protocol will exist, and will use some form of programmable network
   processor rather than traditional ASIC or FPGA designs.  This allows
   great flexibility and software-friendly extensibility, especially of
   the service data formats.  Further investigation is needed whether
   this is realistic.

Appendix B.  Change log [RFC Editor: Please remove]

   *  draft-jiang-service-oriented-ip-00, 2019-05-07:

      -  Initial version

   *  draft-jiang-service-oriented-ip-01, 2019-06-21:



Carpenter, et al.       Expires 16 November 2020               [Page 13]


Internet-Draft             Service Oriented IP                  May 2020


      -  Editorial corrections

   *  draft-jiang-service-oriented-ip-02, 2019-10-29:

      -  Added overview diagram

      -  Added discussion of dispatcher function

      -  Clarifications and editorial corrections

   *  draft-jiang-service-oriented-ip-03, 2020-05-15:

      -  Editorial corrections

      -  Converted to xml2rfc v3

Authors' Addresses

   Brian Carpenter
   The University of Auckland
   School of Computer Science
   University of Auckland
   PB 92019
   Auckland 1142
   New Zealand

   Email: brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com


   Sheng Jiang
   Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd
   Q14, Huawei Campus, No.156 Beiqing Road
   Hai-Dian District, Beijing, 100095
   P.R. China

   Email: jiangsheng@huawei.com


   Guangpeng Li
   Huawei Technologies
   Q14, Huawei Campus
   No.156 Beiqing Road
   Hai-Dian District, Beijing
   100095
   P.R. China

   Email: liguangpeng@huawei.com




Carpenter, et al.       Expires 16 November 2020               [Page 14]


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