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

Versions: 00 01

Network Working Group                                         P. Marques
Internet-Draft                                          Contrail Systems
Intended status: Standards Track                                 L. Fang
Expires: October 01, 2012                                  Cisco Systems
                                                                  P. Pan
                                                           Infinera Corp
                                                               A. Shukla
                                                        Juniper Networks
                                                            M. Napierala
                                                               AT&T Labs
                                                              April 2012


             Traffic classification in end-system IP VPNs.
                    draft-marques-sdnp-flow-spec-01

Abstract

   When IP VPNs are used to interconnect end-systems [I-D.marques-l3vpn-
   end-system] it may be desirable to introduce traffic control rules at
   a finer level of granularity than an IP destination address.

   This document extends the end-system IP VPN specification with
   support for fine grain traffic classification, filtering and
   redirection rules.  It applies the existing BGP IP VPN flow
   specification dissemination mechanism [RFC5575] to end-system IP VPNs
   in order to provide the ability to control IP packets that match a
   specific pattern, which may include fields other than the IP
   destination address.

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 01, 2012.

Copyright Notice





Marques, et al.         Expires October 01, 2012                [Page 1]


Internet-Draft Traffic classification on end-system VPNs      April 2012

   Copyright (c) 2012 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 the Trust Legal Provisions and are
   provided without warranty as described in the Simplified BSD License.

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  2
   2.  VPN Forwarder functionality  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
   3.  XML schema . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
   4.  Signaling gateway functionality  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
   5.  Applications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
   6.  Security Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
   7.  References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8
   Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8

1.  Introduction

   When end-system IP VPNs [I-D.marques-l3vpn-end-system] are used to
   interconnect Virtual Machines or other multi-tenant applications it
   may be desirable to control the flow of traffic between sender(s) and
   receiver at a finer level of granularity than an IP destination host
   prefix.

   In the IP protocol model, ingress points map traffic into forwarding
   equivalence classes (FECs) which are then given consistent treatment
   through a transport network.  This document defines a signaling
   protocol that conveys traffic classification rules.  These rules can
   be applied by ingress points into an end-system IP VPN in order to
   define FECs that depend on both the destination IP address of the
   traffic as well as additional fiels such as the the transport
   protocol and ports.

   One example where this may be desirable is in scenarios where
   different VPNs may exchange traffic directly.  For instance, a VPN
   that provides a common service to multiple tenants.  In this case,
   the owner of the destination address may wish to inject a traffic
   rule that limits traffic to TCP packets to and from a specific port.
   Another example is an application that request specific diffserv
   [RFC2474] markings for certain types of traffic.  In other
   situations, network administrators may wish to inject specific rules
   that temporarily redirect traffic.






Marques, et al.         Expires October 01, 2012                [Page 2]


Internet-Draft Traffic classification on end-system VPNs      April 2012


   This document uses a point-to-multipoint model for traffic filtering
   rules where the traffic egress requests all the ingresses to perform
   a given traffic classification action.  The entity that advertises
   the destination address of the traffic, or a proxy in its behalf,
   injects a flow-based route advertisement into the signaling
   infrastructure.  This flow-based route is propagated according to VPN
   policies to all the ingress points of the VPN, the end-systems which
   contain VMs allowed to access the destination.

   The traffic filtering rules are then applied at all the ingress
   points of the VPN. The egress MAY also choose to apply the same rules
   in cases where they are equivalent at both locations.

   +-----+     +--------+
   | VM1 | --- | host 1 | -
   +-----+     +--------+   \
                <filter>      \+~~~~~~~~~+      +--------+    +------+
                               | network | ---- | host 3 | -- | VM 3 |
                               +~~~~~~~~~+      +--------+    +------+
                              /
   +-----+     +--------+    /
   | VM2 | --- | host 2 | - /
   +-----+     +--------+
                <filter>

   The figure above contains an example topology in which a given VM (VM
   3) provides a common infrastructure service.  VM1 and VM2 belong to
   different tenants and are in VPNs which are allowed to access the
   service in VM3.

   This specification allows VM3 to advertise a traffic filtering rule,
   as a flow-spec route, requesting the VPN Forwarders for hosts 1 and 2
   to limit any traffic flow to VM3's destination IP address such that,
   for instance, only packets for a specific TCP destination port are
   allowed.

   It is important to note that traffic filtering does not avoid the
   need for application level authorization and authentication.

   When a flow-spec route is advertised, the number of possible ingress
   points it not known in advance.  There is no mechanism to generate a
   positive or negative acknowledgement from the ingress points.  This
   is in contrast to the more traditional network management operation
   in which the management station is aware of all the agents that must
   be controlled.

   As with the base end-system IP VPN specification, the forwarding and
   signaling networks are distinct.  Flow-spec routes are advertised by
   the egress end-system or by a proxy in its behalf.  The routes are
   injected into one or more XMPP signaling gateways and propagated
   using the BGP flow-spec address family [RFC5575].



Marques, et al.         Expires October 01, 2012                [Page 3]


Internet-Draft Traffic classification on end-system VPNs      April 2012


   Using the same vrf-import and export policies that define the IP VPN,
   the flow-spec routes are then imported from BGP into a vpn-specific
   database and advertised to all the ingress end-system, which apply
   them.

   This document limits itself to "stateless" traffic classification
   rules that classify a given IP packet independently of any previous
   data traffic.

2.  VPN Forwarder functionality

   In order to implement the functionality described in this document a
   VPN Forwarder MUST support stateless traffic classification rules
   that are capable of matching the TCP/IP protocol fields defined in
   [RFC5575].

   This document assumes that this traffic filtering functionality can
   be associated with a particular Virtual Routing and Forwarding (VRF)
   table, either directly or through the virtual interfaces associated
   with the VRF. Conceptually, the traffic classification rules
   described in this document are applied at the VRF level.

   The BGP Flow Specification [RFC5575] document lists a set of TCP/IP
   packet header fields and match operations that are though to be a
   minimum common set of supported functionality among implementations.

   The defined packet header fields are:

   o  IPv4 destination address.

   o  IPv4 source address.

   o  IP protocol identifier.

   o  Transport Ports: Source, Destination or Either.

   o  ICMP Type and Code.

   o  TCP flags.

   o  Packet length.

   o  Diffserv Code Point.

   o  IPv4 fragmentation flags.

   When numeric values are specified (i.e.  fields other than IP
   addresses), the match operator can specify a list of values with






Marques, et al.         Expires October 01, 2012                [Page 4]


Internet-Draft Traffic classification on end-system VPNs      April 2012

   inequality operators.  Note that this may result in one logical rule,
   as defined by this specification to be implemented as multiple
   classification rules on the underlying implementation.

   The match operator is defined via the following BNF grammar:

   <match> ::= <terms>

   <terms> ::= <term>

      | <term> "||" <terms>

      | <term> "&&" <terms>

   <term> ::= <operator> value

   <operator> ::= "<" | "<=" | "=" | "!=" | ">=" | ">"

   As an example, a value range is expressed as: ">= begin && <= end".

   The result of a flow-spec rule is one of the following actions:

   o  allow

   o  deny

   o  rate-limit

   o  redirect

   o  copy

   o  log

   o  set-dscp

   The redirect and copy actions have as a target an FEC which should
   contain an unique UUID [RFC4122] identifier as well as information
   regarding the IP next-hop address and label used for forwarding.

   The copy action instructs the system to generate a copy of the
   original packet and forward to the specified FEC. Both copy and log
   actions have an additional parameter which controls whether all
   matching packets or a sample is subject to the specified treatment.

   The 'set-dscp' action specifies the DSCP value to be assigned to the
   outer IP header of the packet, when a packet is encapsulated.

3.  XML schema






Marques, et al.         Expires October 01, 2012                [Page 5]


Internet-Draft Traffic classification on end-system VPNs      April 2012


   In the end-system IP VPN [I-D.marques-l3vpn-end-system]
   specification, IP reachability information is encoded as XMPP "item"
   information belonging to collection nodes where each collection is
   the IP reachability information for a given VPN.  End-systems can
   publish and receive notifications for these nodes.

   This document uses the same approach.  It uses a collection with the
   name of "<vpn-customer-name>/ip4-flow-spec" to publish and receive
   updates corresponding to IPv4 flow-spec routes.  When an end-system
   published a node into such a collection it must generate a node name
   that is unique among the nodes that it publishes.  It then associates
   that node with the collection.

   XML encoding used by flow-spec items:

   <item>
     <entry xmlns='http://ietf.org/protocol/bgpvpn/ip4-flow-spec'>
       <ip4-destination>10.0.1/24</ip4-destination>
       <ip4-source>20.0.128/20</ip4-source>
       <ip4-protocol>=6 || =17</ip4-protocol>
       <port>=80</port>
       <destination-port>=80</destination-port>
       <source-port>=80</source-port>
       <icmp-type>=1</icmp-type>
       <icmp-code>=1</icmp-code>
       <tcp-flags>=(syn|rst|ack|fin)</tcp-flags>
       <ip-length>>40</ip-length>
       <dscp>=0</dscp>
       <ip4-fragment>=(df|first|more|last)</ip4-fragment>
       <action>
         <accept/>
         <deny/>
         <rate-limit rate='10pps'/>
         <redirect>
           <fec uuid='550e8400-e29b-41d4-a716-446655440000'>
         <nlri af='1'>'infrastructure-ip-address'</nlri>
         <label>1</label>
       </fec>
         </redirect>
         <copy>
           <fec>...</fec>
       <sample/>
         </copy>
         <log/>
         <set-dscp>128</set-dscp>
       </action>
     </entry>
   </item>






Marques, et al.         Expires October 01, 2012                [Page 6]


Internet-Draft Traffic classification on end-system VPNs      April 2012


   The sequence of XML elements in an item SHOULD follow the "flow
   specification" NLRI type order as the example above.  IP source and
   destination prefixes are encoded in their standard textual
   representation of <dotted notation>"/"<prefix-length>. Protocol and
   Port elements are expressed using the match operator syntax
   documented above.  "<port>" and "<destination-port>" or "<source-
   port>" SHOULD be mutually exclusive.  The icmp type and code fields
   as well as ip-length and dscp are again encoded using the value match
   operator.  The "<tcp-flags>" element uses either an equality or match
   operation of the TCP header flags.  A binary match is expressed as "m
   /(syn|rst|ack|fin)/".  The "<ip4-fragment>" element may also use a
   binary match operation.

4.  Signaling gateway functionality

   As with IP reachabilty information, signaling gateways create a
   routing database for each 'vpn-customer-name'. An XMPP client (a VPN
   Forwarder) can publish and subscribe to multiple of these databases.
   Each "virtual interface" on the end-system is associated with a
   virtual routing table on the gateway.

   From a signaling perspective, the gateway functions as a IP VPN PE as
   described in section 8 of [RFC5575].  As with IP reachability, this
   document uses the XMPP interface to delegate the forwarding
   functionality to the VPN Forwarder, separating it from the signaling
   node.

5.  Applications

   This specification provides a mechanism to distribute traffic
   classification rules to many enforcement points.  This may of
   interest in applications where it is desirable to avoid the standard
   approach of a centralized enforcement point.  Typically in situations
   where the volume of traffic or the nature of the problem make it more
   cost effective to do so.

   One such application is the enforcement of stateless traffic
   forwarding rules for infrastructure services.  An application level
   services, such as a storage server may need to support multiple data-
   center tenants.  In this scenario the storage VPN advertises a given
   address prefix, which contains both the anycast IP address of the
   load-balancers as the addresses of individual servers.  Using VPN
   import policies, the data-center management solution allows the
   tenant specific VPNs to see these routes.  The tenant VPN addresses
   must also be reachable on the storage VPN, in this example.

   This specification allows the storage service to block out traffic
   that does not match the specific transport protocols used to provide
   this service.  It also allows confirming traffic to be marked with
   the appropriate diffserv classification.  The network administrator
   case also use this mechanism for diagnostic purposes.

6.  Security Considerations

Marques, et al.         Expires October 01, 2012                [Page 7]


Internet-Draft Traffic classification on end-system VPNs      April 2012


   There are two independent areas that are worth examining when it
   comes to security.  The integrity of the control plane information
   and the forwarding actions.

   This document assumes that all signaling interactions use mutual
   authentication, where all communication channels are authenticated.

   For traffic filtering and redirection this mechanism assumes a "best-
   effort" model.  The ingress points will strive to perform the actions
   specified by the egress.  However there are no strict guarantees that
   the actions can be applied successfully on an ingress points or that
   the order of operations is such that no non-conforming traffic is
   ever presented to the egress.

   For traffic filtering rules, the egress point can choose to apply the
   rules also in order to provide stronger guarantees.

   Applications should themselves authenticate its communication peers
   my methods that do not depend on the IP addresses used at the network
   layer.

7.  References

   [I-D.marques-l3vpn-end-system]
              Marques, P., Fang, L., Pan, P., Shukla, A., Napierala, M.
              and N. Bitar, "BGP-signaled end-system IP/VPNs.",
              Internet-Draft draft-marques-l3vpn-end-system-05, March
              2012.

   [RFC2474]  Nichols, K., Blake, S., Baker, F. and D.L. Black,
              "Definition of the Differentiated Services Field (DS
              Field) in the IPv4 and IPv6 Headers", RFC 2474, December
              1998.

   [RFC4122]  Leach, P., Mealling, M. and R. Salz, "A Universally Unique
              IDentifier (UUID) URN Namespace", RFC 4122, July 2005.

   [RFC5575]  Marques, P., Sheth, N., Raszuk, R., Greene, B., Mauch, J.
              and D. McPherson, "Dissemination of Flow Specification
              Rules", RFC 5575, August 2009.

Authors' Addresses

   Pedro Marques
   Contrail Systems
   440 N Wolfe Rd
   Sunnyvale, CA 94085

   Email: roque@contrailsystems.com





Marques, et al.         Expires October 01, 2012                [Page 8]


Internet-Draft Traffic classification on end-system VPNs      April 2012


   Luyuan Fang
   Cisco Systems
   111 Wood Avenue South
   Iselin, NJ 08830

   Email: lufang@cisco.com


   Ping Pan
   Infinera Corp
   140 Caspian Ct.
   Sunnyvale, CA 94089

   Email: ppan@infinera.com


   Amit Shukla
   Juniper Networks
   1194 N. Mathilda Av.
   Sunnyvale, CA 94089

   Email: amit@juniper.net


   Maria Napierala
   AT&T Labs
   200 Laurel Avenue
   Middletown, NJ 07748

   Email: mnapierala@att.com























Marques, et al.         Expires October 01, 2012                [Page 9]


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