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

Versions: 00 01 02 03 04

Service Function Chaining                                   Guanwen Li
Internet Draft                                             Guanglei Li
Intended status: Standards Track                             Taixin Li
Expires: October 04, 2018                                        Qi Xu
                                                            Bohao Feng
                                                          Huachun Zhou
                                           Beijing Jiaotong University
                                                        April 03, 2018



                  Multi-domain Service Forwarding For NSH
                     draft-li-sfc-nsh-multi-domain-04


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), its areas, and its working groups. Note that other
   groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-Drafts.

   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."

   The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
   http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt

   The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
   http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html

   This Internet-Draft will expire on October 04, 2018.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2018 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors. All rights reserved.

   This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
   Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
   (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



Li                     Expires October 04, 2018                 [Page 1]


Internet-Draft           Multi-domain For NSH           April 03, 2018


   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.

Abstract

   This document describes the mechanism to achieve multi-domain service
   forwarding for NSH. The proposed mechanism adopts a horizontal
   deployment structure, which divides a multi-domain SFC into several
   segmental SFCs in the control plane and each domain creates its own
   SFP independently in data plane. A label is proposed to identify
   different cross-domain flows at the classifier by extending the
   metadata of the NSH encapsulation.

Table of Contents


   1. Introduction ................................................ 2
      1.1. Requirement Language ................................... 3
   2. Definition Of Terms ......................................... 4
   3. Multi-domain Service Forwarding Mechanism ................... 3
      3.1. Service Function Chaining Segmentation ................. 4
      3.2. Inter-domain Service Forwarding ........................ 5
      3.3. Classification and Intra-domain Service Forwarding ..... 5
   4. Multi-domain Service Forwarding Encapsulation ............... 5
   5. Multi-domain Service Forwarding Example ..................... 6
   6. Security Considerations ..................................... 8
   7. IANA Considerations ......................................... 8
   8. Conclusions ................................................. 8
   9. References .................................................. 8
      9.1. Normative References ................................... 8
      9.2. Informative References ................................. 9
   10. Acknowledgments ............................................ 9

1. Introduction

   Service Function Chaining (SFC) [RFC7665] is an architecture proposed
   to decouple traditional network service functions with corresponding
   physical resources. It is flexible and convenient for the network
   operator to deploy on-demand service functions and steer the traffic
   through them in sequence.

   Network Service Header (NSH) [RFC8300] is defined as a data plane
   protocol to create dynamic service function chains. According to the
   NSH encapsulation, the flow can pass along pre-defined Service
   Function Path and exchange metadata among the Service Classifier, the



Li                      Expires April 12, 2018                  [Page 2]


Internet-Draft           Multi-domain For NSH           April 03, 2018


   Service Function and the Service Function Forwarder for information
   sharing.

   Network service forwarding in SFC is based on the combination of
   Service Path Identifier (SPI) and Service index (SI), which are
   defined in [RFC8300]. [I-D.kumar-sfc-nsh-forwarding] analyzes the NSH
   forwarding shortcomings and further discusses the separation of the
   service forwarding and the service delivery. However, it focuses on
   infrastructure service forwarding for NSH in a single domain. [I-
   D.ietf-sfc-hierarchical] proposes a hierarchical way to achieve
   multi-domain forwarding for SFC, which can be regarded as a vertical
   approach. Contrast to the vertical approach, a horizontal one is easy
   to scale in and out. Besides, the horizontal approach can decrease
   the overhead of the control plane, because it maintains more service
   traffic in the data plane.

   Therefore, this document proposes a horizontal approach to achieve
   multi-domain service forwarding for NSH. The main idea is to divide a
   multi-domain SFC into several segmental SFCs according to domain
   partitions in the control plane and create corresponding SFPs in each
   domain by its classifier independently. A label is proposed to
   identify different cross-domain flows, which is encapsulated in the
   metadata.

1.1. Requirement Language

   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
   "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
   document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119].

2. Multi-domain Service Forwarding Mechanism

       +---------------------------------------------------+
       |                                                   |
       |                   Control Plane                   |
       |                                                   |
       +-----+----------------+----------------------+-----+
             |                |                      |
             |Segmental       |Segmental             |Segmental
             |SFC-1           |SFC-2                 |SFC-N
             |                |                      |
       +-----v-----+    +-----v-----+          +-----v-----+
       |           |    |           |          |           |
   ---->  Domain 1 +---->  Domain 2 +->......-->  Domain N +--->
       |           |    |           |          |           |
       +-----------+    +-----------+          +-----------+
                     Figure 1 Multi-domain SFC Divide


Li                      Expires April 12, 2018                  [Page 3]


Internet-Draft           Multi-domain For NSH           April 03, 2018


   As shown in Figure 1, according to requirements, it divides the whole
   SFC in the control plane and issues cross-domain forwarding tables to
   corresponding classifiers initially. Multi-domain service forwarding
   includes two aspects: the inter-domain service forwarding and the
   intra-domain service forwarding. The former is based on a unique
   label for each flow, and the latter is performed by the classifier.
   To achieve a unified service forwarding mechanism in multi-domain,
   this mechanism uses metadata in NSH encapsulation to carry the
   necessary forwarding information among different forwarding elements,
   such as the Service Classifier and the Service Function Forwarder.

3. Definition Of Terms

   This document uses some terms defined in SFC architecture [RFC7665]
   and NSH [RFC8300] drafts for ease of understanding and the reader is
   advised to refer to those documents for up to date and additional
   information.

   Segmental SFC: The cross-domain SFC is divided into several segmental
   SFCs according to the domain partition. Each segmental SFC is
   assigned to its corresponding domain.

   Service Label: the label used to identify different flows can help
   the classifier create the SFP by its corresponding segmental SFC,
   which is issued from SFC control plane.

   Cross-domain Forwarding Table: There are three columns in the table:
   Service Label, Next Classifier, and Segmental SFC. The table matches
   a specific flow with its Service Label. The cross-domain forwarding
   of the flow is depended on the address of Next Classifier. The Cross-
   domain Forwarding Table is maintained by SFC control plane and issued
   to the corresponding classifier according to the Segmental SFC
   partitions.

3.1. Service Function Chaining Segmentation

   At first, the control plane creates an SFC with a unique Service
   Label for the flow. Then, the SFC is divided into several segmental
   SFCs according to physical resource constraints. It is important to
   note that the control plane MUST NOT specific the SFP directly. The
   control plane is only responsible to indicate what service functions
   are required in each domain, and the corresponding SFP MUST be
   specified by the service classifier.






Li                      Expires April 12, 2018                  [Page 4]


Internet-Draft           Multi-domain For NSH           April 03, 2018


3.2. Inter-domain Service Forwarding

   The Service Label is proposed to identify different flows when
   packets need to be cross-domain forwarded. When the service
   classifier receives packets with NSH encapsulations, it checks the
   Service Label of the first packet to look up the address of the next
   classifier in its cross-domain forwarding table, which is issued by
   SFC control plane. Then the information of next classifier is written
   into the metadata and will be used by the last SFF in the Segmental
   SFC. Once the last SFF receives the packet from last SF, which
   changes the SI to zero, it forwards the packets to next classifier
   directly without any modification of their NSH encapsulations.

   The Service Label is only carried by the first packet of a certain
   flow with specific SPI. It's beneficial to decrease header cost and
   improve forwarding efficiency.

3.3. Classification and Intra-domain Service Forwarding

   The service classifier creates SFP for each flow according to the
   segmental SFC in its cross-domain forwarding table. After the control
   plane assigns segmental SFCs for different domains, the corresponding
   table is issued to the classifier in each domain. When the packet
   arrives at the classifier, its Service Label is used to find out the
   next segmental SFC. Then, the classifier creates an SFP for the flow
   according to that segmental SFC.

   In this situation, the classifier in a segmental SFC SHOULD set the
   SI to the length of the segmental SFC.

4. Multi-domain Service Forwarding Encapsulation

   In order to reduce the overhead of metadata, the context header with
   MD Type = 0x2 is chosen to support multi-domain service forwarding,
   Figure 2 shows the allocation of the metadata.

   0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |Ver|O|C|R|R|R|R|R|R|   Length  |  MD-type=0x2  | Next Protocol |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |          Service Path Identifier (SPI)        | Service Index |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |      Metadata Class=0x20      |C|   Type=0x1  |R|   Len=0x4   |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |D|R|R|R|    Service Label      |       Next Classifier         |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
           Figure 2 Multi-domain Service Forwarding Encapsulation


Li                      Expires April 12, 2018                  [Page 5]


Internet-Draft           Multi-domain For NSH           April 03, 2018


   Context Header Allocation Descriptions:

   Metadata Class: It MUST be set to 0x20 as requested in Section 7.

   C bit: It SHOULD be set indicating critical metadata exists.

   Type: It MUST be set to 0x1 for multi-domain service forwarding.

   Len: Because the length of the context header is constant, it MUST be
   set to 0x4.

   D bit: The default value is zero, which means the metadata SHOULD be
   ignored. When set to 0x1 indicates that this packet needs to be for-
   warded in multiple domains.

   Service Label: Identifies different flows with different labels. The
   service classifier decides the service forwarding path of the packet
   according to its domain label with a forwarding table issued by the
   control plane.

   Next Classifier: Indicates the identifier of the classifier in next
   domain. Because of the SFC segmentation, each classifier only works
   in the SFC domain it belongs to. When the current segmental SFC is
   terminated, the last SFF will query the next segmental domain by this
   identifier.

   All other flag fields are reserved for future use. Reserved bits MUST
   be set to zero and MUST be ignored upon receipt.

5. Multi-domain Service Forwarding Example

                +----------+ +----------+              +----------+
                |          | |          |              |          |
       Domain1  |   SF-a   | |   SF-b   |     Domain2  |   SF-c   |
                |          | |          |              |          |
                +---^--+---+ +---^--+---+              +---^--+---+
                    |  |         |  |                      |  |
      +-------+ +---+--v---+ +---+--v---+    +-------+ +---+--v---+
      |       | |          | |          |    |       | |          |
   --->  CF1  +->  SFF1-1  +->  SFF1-2  +---->  CF2  +->  SFF2-1  +--->
      |       | |          | |          |    |       | |          |
      +-------+ +----------+ +----------+    +-------+ +----------+
              Figure 3 Multi-domain Service Forwarding Example

   This section describes the scenario shown in Figure 3, a packet flow
   pass through three service functions deployed in two domains. The



Li                      Expires April 12, 2018                  [Page 6]


Internet-Draft           Multi-domain For NSH           April 03, 2018


   Domain1 is consist of CF1, SFF1-1, SFF1-2, SF-a and SF-b; the Domain2
   is consist of CF2, SFF2-1 and SF-c. The workflow is as follow:

   1.SFC control plane creates the SFC with a Service Label for the
   specific flow and divides the whole SFC into several segmental SFCs.

   2.The cross-domain forwarding table is issued to its corresponding
   classifier with specific Service Label, Next Classifier and Segmental
   SFC.

   3.CF1(the classifier in domain1) creates the SFP and the NSH
   encapsulation for the first packet of a certain flow according to its
   segmental SFC in domain1. It sets 'D' flag to 1 and fills in the
   Service Label, and Next Classifier. The SI is set to the length of
   this segmental SFC.

   4.CF1 forwards the packet to SFF1-1.

   5.SFF1-1 determines SF-a as the next hop and forwards the packet.

   6.After SF-a processes the packet, the packet is forwarded back to
   SFF with decremented SI.

   7.SFF1-1 forwards the received packet to SFF1-2.

   8.SFF1-2 determines SF-a as the next hop and forwards the packet.

   9.Similar to SF-a, SF-b forwards the packet to SFF1-2 and decrements
   SI to zero.

   10.When SFF1-2 receives the packet, it finds out that the segmental
   SFC is terminate in this domain because of the SI, and then SFF1-2
   forwards the packet to next classifier without modification of the
   NSH encapsulation. The following packets of this flow (in the same
   SPI in this domain) are forwarded with the same routing information.

   11.When CF2(the classifier in domain2) receives the first packet with
   an NSH encapsulation, CF2 will check its Service Label.

   12.According to the Service Label, CF2 looks up segmental SFC in the
   cross-domain forwarding table and creates the corresponding SFP and
   the NSH encapsulation.

   13.CF2 sets the 'D' flag to zero and forwards the packet to SFF2-1.
   The action of its following packets is similar.

   13.SFF2-1 determines SF-c as the next hop and forwards the packet.


Li                      Expires April 12, 2018                  [Page 7]


Internet-Draft           Multi-domain For NSH           April 03, 2018


   14.SFC processes the packet and forwards it back to SFF2-1 with
   decremented SI.

   15.SFF2-1 finds out that the SFP is terminate and forwards the packet
   to the final Receiver.

6. Security Considerations

   As with many other protocols, metadata of the NSH encapsulation can
   be spoofed or otherwise modified. It is important to protect the
   cross-domain packet from malicious modification because the metadata
   contains sensitive information about the user and environment.
   Therefore, it is significate to ensure the integrity of the metadata
   and provide the protection of the user privacy.

7. IANA Considerations

   IANA is requested to allocate a new class from the TLV Class defined
   in [RFC8300].

   0x20 Multi-domain Forwarding Type

   IANA is requested to set up a registry of "NSH Multi-domain Service
   Forwarding TLV Types".  These are 7-bit values.  Registry entries
   are assigned by using the "IETF Review" policy defined in [RFC8126].

   IANA is requested to allocate two new types as follows:

   o Type = 0x00 Reserved

   o Type = 0x01 Multi-domain Service Forwarding

8. Conclusions

   This document proposes a mechanism for multi-domain service forward-
   ing based on a unique label. In order to relieve the pressure of the
   control plane, the multi-domain SFC is divided into segmental SFC
   according to the domain partitions, and the SFP in each domain is
   created independently.

9. References

9.1. Normative References

   [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
             Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.



Li                      Expires April 12, 2018                  [Page 8]


Internet-Draft           Multi-domain For NSH           April 03, 2018


   [RFC8300] P. Quinn, Ed., U. Elzur, Ed. and C. Pignataro, Ed. "Network
             Service Header (NSH)", January 2018.

9.2. Informative References

   [RFC8126] M. Cotton, B. Leiba and T. Narten, "Guidelines for Writing
             an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 8126,
             June 2017.

   [RFC7665] J. Halpern, Ed. and C. Pignataro, Ed. "Service Function
             Chaining (SFC) Architecture", October 2015.

   [I-D.ietf-sfc-hierarchical]

            D. Dolson, S. Homma, D. Lopez, et al. "Hierarchical Service
             Function Chaining", draft-ietf-sfc-hierarchical-07 (work in
             progress), February 2018.

   [I-D.kumar-sfc-nsh-forwarding]

            S. Kumar, K. Leung, P. Bosch, et al. "Infrastructure
             Service Forwarding For NSH", draft-kumar-sfc-nsh-
             forwarding-01, August 2016.

10. Acknowledgments

   This work in this document was supported by National High Technology
   of China ("863 program") under Grant No.2015AA015702.




















Li                      Expires April 12, 2018                  [Page 9]


Internet-Draft           Multi-domain For NSH           April 03, 2018


Authors' Addresses

   Guanwen Li
   Beijing Jiaotong University
   Beijing 100044, P.R. China

   Email: 16111011@bjtu.edu.cn


   Guanglei Li
   Beijing Jiaotong University
   Beijing 100044, P.R. China

   Email: 15111035@bjtu.edu.cn


   Taixin Li
   Beijing Jiaotong University
   Beijing 100044, P.R. China

   Email: 14111040@bjtu.edu.cn


   Qi Xu
   Beijing Jiaotong University
   Beijing 100044, P.R. China

   Email: 15111046@bjtu.edu.cn

   Bohao Feng
   Beijing Jiaotong University
   Beijing 100044, P.R. China

   Email: bhfeng@bjtu.edu.cn


   Huachun Zhou
   Beijing Jiaotong University
   Beijing 100044, P.R. China

   Email: hchzhou@bjtu.edu.cn








Li                      Expires April 12, 2018                 [Page 10]


Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.127, available from https://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/