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

Versions: 00 01 02

Network Working Group                                     D. Purkayastha
Internet-Draft                                                 A. Rahman
Intended status: Informational                                D. Trossen
Expires: September 2, 2018              InterDigital Communications, LLC
                                                           Z. Despotovic
                                                              R. Khalili
                                                                  Huawei
                                                           March 1, 2018


    Alternative Handling of Dynamic Chaining and Service Indirection
              draft-purkayastha-sfc-service-indirection-02

Abstract

   Many stringent requirements are imposed on today's network, such as
   low latency, high availability and reliability in order to support
   several use cases such as IoT, Gaming, Content distribution, Robotics
   etc.  Networks need to be flexible and dynamic in terms of allocation
   of services and resources.  Network Operators should be able to
   reconfigure the composition of a service and steer users towards new
   service end points as user move or resource availability changes.
   SFC allows network operators to easily create and reconfigure service
   function chains dynamically in response to changing network
   requirements.  We discuss a use case where Service Function Chain can
   adapt or self-organize as demanded by the network condition without
   requiring SPI re-classification.  This can be achieved, for example,
   by decoupling the service consumer and service endpoint by a new
   service function proposed in this draft.  We describe few
   requirements for this service function to enable dynamic switching
   between consumer and end point.

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 September 2, 2018.



Purkayastha, et al.     Expires September 2, 2018               [Page 1]


Internet-Draft         Alternative Handling of SFC            March 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
   (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 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.  Use Case Description  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
     2.1.  Data Center . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
     2.2.  Third party cloud service provider  . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     2.3.  ETSI MEC USE CASE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
     2.4.  3GPP  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
     2.5.  Use Case Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
   3.  NSH and Re-classification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
     3.1.  Dynamic service chain creation using NSH  . . . . . . . .   9
   4.  Challenges with dynamic indirection . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
   5.  HTTP as a transport . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
   6.  Service Request Routing (SRR) Service Function  . . . . . . .  14
     6.1.  Overview  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
     6.2.  Details of SRR Function . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  16
   7.  Protocol Consideration  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  21
   8.  Next Steps  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  21
   9.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  21
   10. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  22
   11. Informative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  22
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  23

1.  Introduction

   The requirements on today's networks are very diverse, enabling
   multiple use cases such as IoT, Content Distribution, Gaming, Network
   functions such as Cloud RAN.  Every use case imposes certain
   requirements on the network.  These requirements vary from one
   extreme to other and often they are in a divergent direction.
   Network operator and service providers are pushing many functions
   towards the edge of the network in order to be closer to the users.




Purkayastha, et al.     Expires September 2, 2018               [Page 2]


Internet-Draft         Alternative Handling of SFC            March 2018


   This reduces latency and backhaul traffic, as user request can be
   processed locally.

   It becomes more challenging when network congestion, user mobility as
   well as non-deterministic availability of compute and storage
   resources are considered.  The impact is felt most in the edge of the
   network because as the users move, their point of attachment changes
   frequently, which results in (at least partially) relocating the
   service as well as the service endpoint.  Furthermore, network
   functions are pushed more and more towards the edge, where network,
   compute and storage resources are constrained and availability is
   non-deterministic.  Constrained network resources may lead into
   congestion in the network.  Also, storage resources may need to be
   moved where the user concentration is more in case of content
   delivery applications.

   We describe few use cases in the next section and derive the
   requirement for composing new services and service path in a dynamic
   edge network.  We address this dynamicity by introducing a special
   Service Function, called SRR (service request routing).  We describe
   the problems associated with today's network and Layer 3 based
   approach to handle dynamicity in the network.  We then discuss how
   such new Service Function with certain capabilities can handle the
   dynamicity better than these conventional methods.

2.  Use Case Description

2.1.  Data Center

   The data center use case draft [I-D.ietf-sfc-dc-use-cases] describes
   an East West traffic use case.  This is the predominant traffic in
   data centers today.  Server virtualization has led to the new
   paradigm where virtual machines can migrate from one server to
   another across the data center.  This explosion in east-west traffic
   is leading to newer data center network fabric architectures that
   provide consistent latencies from one point in the fabric to another.

   SFCs applied in an enterprise or service provider data center can be
   broadly categorized into two types:

   o  Access SFCs

   o  Application SFCs

   Access SFCs are focused on servicing traffic entering and leaving the
   data center while Application SFCs are focused on servicing traffic
   destined to applications.  Service providers deploy a single "Access
   SFC" and multiple "Application SFCs" for each tenant.  Enterprise



Purkayastha, et al.     Expires September 2, 2018               [Page 3]


Internet-Draft         Alternative Handling of SFC            March 2018


   data center operators on the other hand may not have a need for
   Access SFCs depending on the size and requirements of the enterprise.

   In carrier networks, operators may deploy multiple data centers
   dispersed geographically.  Each data center may host different types
   of service functions.  For example, latency sensitive or high usage
   service functions are deployed in regional data centers while other
   latency tolerant, low usage service functions are deployed in global
   or central data centers.  In such deployments, SFCs may span multiple
   data centers and enable operators to deploy services in a flexible
   and inexpensive way.

   It is clear that within the data center as well as in inter data
   center scenarios, users are serviced by multiple SFs distributed
   inside as well as outside a location.  In this scenario, it is clear
   that Service function chains should be able to reselect, redirect
   traffic very fast.  The draft identifies that Static service chains
   do not allow for modifying the SFCs as they require the ability to
   add SNs or remove SNs to scale up and down the service capacity.
   Likewise the ability to dynamically pick one among the many SN
   instance is not available.

2.2.  Third party cloud service provider

   This use case is related to an emerging business model, where
   computational resources for edge cloud service are provided by
   alternative facility providers that are non-traditional network
   operators.  This is due to the situation for many specific localized
   use cases, where network operators may not have necessary real estate
   available.  They may even not be willing to spend on CAPEX and OPEX
   for said point-of-presence, because there is no clear path for
   sustainable cost recovery [UKNIC].

   The industry is witnessing the emergence of real estate owners such
   as building asset or management companies, cell tower owners, railway
   companies or other facility owners willing to deploy edge cloud
   resources.  The facility provider, e.g. cell tower owner or building
   management company, deploys edge computing resources throughout their
   installation in the country.  They have their own operation and
   management software, which is capable of resource deployment, scale
   up or scale down resources, deploy edge applications from third party
   service providers . They are capable of offering service to more than
   one network operator at a specific location, thus acting as a
   "neutral host".  The facility provider, which owns cloud resources
   and provides application services, is referred to as "Third party
   Edge Owner (TEO)".





Purkayastha, et al.     Expires September 2, 2018               [Page 4]


Internet-Draft         Alternative Handling of SFC            March 2018


   There is more than one stakeholder in this ecosystem, E.g.  Network
   Service Provider, Real estate owner, Cloud capability (compute and
   storage resource) provider, Application/service provider.  An entity
   can assume more than one role.  From network operators point of view
   there may be "Cloud provider" or "Cloud service provider" depending
   on the roles assumed by external entity.

   "Cloud Providers" provide cloud resources (compute and storage) to
   network operators.  Network operators rent those resources and manage
   MEC host by themselves.  Network operator can set up application
   traffic rules, so that traffic can be processed, by that host.

   "Cloud Service Providers" not only make resources available to
   network operators or service providers, but also provides management
   and hosting service.  They can host edge applications on behalf of
   application service providers and sets up user plane traffic to be
   steered towards the edge application.

   Cloud Service Providers, as well as many organizations that need to
   share and analyze a quickly growing amount of data, such as
   retailers, manufacturers, telcos, financial services firms, and many
   more, are turning to localized Micro Data Centers(MDC) installed on
   the factory floor, in the telco central office, the back of a retail
   outlet, etc.  The solution applies to a broad base of applications
   that require low latency, high bandwidth, or both.

   As Micro Date centers are deployed at the edge of the network, common
   deployment options are:

   o  Micro Data Centers are deployed on L2 in the edge of the network

   o  Instead of single internet Point Of Presence (POP) deployment,
      multiple internet POP deployment is desirable to localize data

   o  Service is composed out of these multiple POP deployment of MDC,
      where data exchange and collaboration is expected among these MDCs

   o  Due to mobility, changes in network condition (e.g. congestion,
      load), service composition may change frequently to support
      promised quality of experience

2.3.  ETSI MEC USE CASE

   Take the following video orchestration service example from ETSI MEC
   Requirements document [ETSI_MEC].  The proposed use case of edge
   video orchestration suggests a scenario where visual content can be
   produced and consumed at the same location close to consumers in a
   densely populated and clearly limited area.  Such a case could be a



Purkayastha, et al.     Expires September 2, 2018               [Page 5]


Internet-Draft         Alternative Handling of SFC            March 2018


   sports event or concert where a remarkable number of consumers are
   using their handheld devices to access user select tailored content.
   The overall video experience is combined from multiple sources, such
   as local recording devices, which may be fixed as well as mobile, and
   master video from central production server.  The user is given an
   opportunity to select tailored views from a set of local video
   sources.

2.4.  3GPP

   3GPP Rel. 15 introduces the notion of the service-based interface
   (SBI) as an alternative to the traditional call pattern invocation of
   network functions.  This introduction targets the support for
   replication, e.g., driven by virtualized functions, as well as
   supporting alternative interactions, e.g., for different vertical
   market specific control planes, by making the discovery as well as
   composition of new interactions more flexible.

   We believe that SFC is a suitable framework for the interconnection
   of such network functions through the new SBI.  One of the
   aforementioned driving forces, namely the replication of functions
   aligns with our thinking in this draft in that indirections to new
   vertical instances need to be dynamic in reacting to the appearance
   of new virtual instances or to changes in policies for the selection
   of specific instances by specific calling entities.

2.5.  Use Case Analysis

   SFC allows network operators as well as service providers to compose
   new services by chaining individual service functions.

   In a dynamic network environment, like the edge of a network, the
   capability to dynamically compose new services from available
   services as well as move a service instance is desirable.  Dynamic
   composition and relocation of services may be attributed to:

   o  Congestion in the network: Due to constrained network resources,
      increase in the network load may create congestion in the network,
      resulting in a congested Service Function Path.  Service functions
      may detect congestion and reconfigure the Service Function Path to
      avoid it.

   o  In response to latency: in a dynamic network environment and with
      the need for ultra-low latency communication, instantiation of new
      service function endpoints might be the only remedy to combat the
      increase of latency caused, e.g., by increased load on a previous
      endpoint or mobility of the user and therefore increasing the
      'distance' to the service function endpoint.  Keeping the service



Purkayastha, et al.     Expires September 2, 2018               [Page 6]


Internet-Draft         Alternative Handling of SFC            March 2018


      function endpoint 'close' to the user allows for reducing latency,
      segregating communication in localized islands of service
      interaction.

   o  In response to user mobility: In a dynamic network environment
      where service functions move frequently because of user movement,
      load balancing or resource modification, service function chains
      and the service end points need to be created and recreated
      frequently

   o  Resource availability.: Availability of compute and storage
      resources varies with network load, number and type of
      applications running etc.  In the edge of the network, due to
      sudden increase of users, compute load may increase.  In this
      situation applications, running on the compute resources may be
      moved to another location where more resources are available.

   In SFC, there is a notion of logical chaining of SFs and chaining of
   actual physical locations, known as Rendered Service Path (RSP).  RSP
   provides a static binding of SFs to their physical location.  In
   order to create a chain in dynamic fashion, late binding of SFs and
   physical location may be desired.  SFC is capable of modifying the
   service chain to certain extent in response to network conditions,
   but not a complete solution has been described

   In order to route the service requests to service end points in a
   dynamic manner, we identify the following desirable features in a
   service function chain:

   o  Capability to trigger service chain reconfiguration based on
      network information such as congestion indication, mobility,
      degradation of user experience etc.  Service Functions should be
      able to process such network information, identify which section
      of the chain needs to be reconfigured and take action

   o  Fast switching from one service instance to another by not relying
      on the DNS for service location resolution.  Instead of DNS, the
      function should be able to identify the path, which will allow to
      reach the service end point.

   o  Direct path mobility, where the path between the requester and the
      responding service can be determined as being optimal (e.g.,
      shortest path or direct path to a selected instance), is needed to
      avoid the use of anchor points and further reduce service-level
      latency






Purkayastha, et al.     Expires September 2, 2018               [Page 7]


Internet-Draft         Alternative Handling of SFC            March 2018


   o  Indirect service requests at the network level, transparent to the
      requesting client and without the involvement of the DNS.  End
      user is not aware of the decision made by the SF.

   o  New methods for forwarding, such as path-based forwarding, direct
      path routing in mobility cases, path pinning for traffic steering
      and simplified service-specific peering towards the Internet.

3.  NSH and Re-classification

   [RFC7498] captures the problems associated with existing service
   deployments that are problematic.  The problems are described below
   at a high level:

   o  Network topology: Network service deployment is tightly coupled
      with network topology thus reducing the flexibility in service
      delivery.  It adds complexity in deploying network service when
      certain traffic types may need some service and other traffic
      types do not need the same service.

   o  Configuration complexity is the direct result of dependency on
      network topology.

   o  Limited availability of services

   o  Altering the order of a deployed chain is complex and cumbersome

   o  Coupling of service functions to topology may require service
      functions to support many transport encapsulations or for a
      transport gateway function to be present.

   o  In a dynamic environment like the Edge of a network service
      delivery, routing changes fast.  It may be difficult to deliver
      service dynamically due to the risk and complexity of VLANs and/or
      routing modifications.

   These factors provide motivation for a simplified and flexible
   service insertion model that addresses many of the current
   shortcomings and provides new, much needed functionality to enable
   service deployments in modern network environments.  Service chaining
   accomplishes this by considering service functions as resources, with
   associated attributes, available for scheduled consumption.
   Selective traffic, subject to policy, may then be "steered" to the
   requisite service resources, along with any "extra" information
   referred to as metadata.  This metadata is used for policy
   enforcement.





Purkayastha, et al.     Expires September 2, 2018               [Page 8]


Internet-Draft         Alternative Handling of SFC            March 2018


   A basic form of service chaining may be realized using existing
   transport encapsulations.  This method of chaining relies upon the
   tunneling of selected data between service functions.  Although this
   form of service chaining achieves some level of abstraction from the
   underlying topology, it does not truly create a service plane.  NSH
   [RFC8300] is a distinct identifiable plane that can be used across
   all transports to create a service chain and exchange metadata along
   the chain.

   Fundamentally, however, the notion of "services" in SFC is tied into
   specific service function endpoints, which lie along a well-defined
   service function path (SFP) where the path is defined through lower
   layer transport encapsulations.  If any such service function
   endpoint changes, the service chain needs to be adjusted; a procedure
   we outline in the following sub-section.

3.1.  Dynamic service chain creation using NSH

   We revisit the dynamic service chain creation capability of NSH.  NSH
   defines a new service plane protocol [RFC8300].  A Network Service
   Header (NSH) contains service path information and optionally
   metadata that are added to a packet or frame and used to create a
   service plane.  A control plane is required in order to exchange NSH
   values with participating nodes, and to provision the same nodes with
   requisite information such as service path ID to overlay mapping.

   The Network Service Header has three parts, Base header, Service Path
   Header and Context Header.  NSH Service Path Header is a 4-byte
   service path header follows the base header and defines two fields
   used to construct a service path:

   o  Service path identifier (SPI)

   o  Service index (SI)

   The following figure depicts the service path header.

     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 2
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     | Service Path ID                               | Service Index |
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+


                         Figure 1: NSH Path Header

   The service path identifier (SPI) is used to identify the service
   path that interconnects the needed service functions.  It allows
   nodes to utilize the identifier to select the appropriate network



Purkayastha, et al.     Expires September 2, 2018               [Page 9]


Internet-Draft         Alternative Handling of SFC            March 2018


   transport protocol and forwarding techniques.  The service index (SI)
   identifies the location of a packet within a service path.  As
   packets traverse a service path, the SI is decremented post-service.

   SPI represents the service path and altering the path identifier
   results in a change of a service path.  A change in SPI value is a
   result of re-classification.  It means a node in the service path
   determined, based on policy, that the initial classification was
   incorrect or incomplete.  If the updated classification results in
   the necessity of a new service path, the node updates the SPI and SI
   fields accordingly.  The new identifier is then used to select the
   appropriate overlay topology.  This allows service functions to alter
   the path of a packet without having to participate in the network
   topology and its associated control plane(s).  The method to
   determine that an existing classification is incorrect and how to
   determine the new classification is not defined.

4.  Challenges with dynamic indirection

   The emerging trend in today's network is to deploy network functions,
   services and applications at the edge of the network to support
   latency requirements, computational offload, traffic optimization
   etc.  As users are moving, application or services being used by
   users, may need to be moved closer to the user's new location.  This
   implies another instance of the service function may need to be
   instantiated close to the user's new location.  It may result in re-
   establishing service path from the newly instantiated service
   function to other service instances.  It is also possible that the
   newly instantiated service function may be redirected to a new
   service end point (e.g.  Application Server) for various reasons,
   such as incomplete content, proximity to data store, load balancing
   etc.  In another scenario, a single instance of the service function
   may not handle all users due to latency or load constraints.  A
   single service function may be instantiated more than once to balance
   user load.  As the number of instances increase and along with
   mobility, the complexity of service routing increases.  It is
   anticipated that there may be a constant action of function chaining,
   re-chaining occurring in the network.

   The challenge of dynamic indirection may be better described by
   analyzing the working of CDNs, which dynamically (re-)direct user-
   initiated requests towards the most appropriate content instance.
   This task becomes more difficult if granularity of the instance
   placement increases.  For instance, in case of a CDN being realized
   close to end users, specifically in edge of the network, the specific
   content instance might need to be selected dynamically.  After
   initial selection, the instance may change during service execution.




Purkayastha, et al.     Expires September 2, 2018              [Page 10]


Internet-Draft         Alternative Handling of SFC            March 2018


   In a conventional network, an instance of a service is found and
   selected using DNS.  The subsequent service request is then routed
   through the network between the client and the service.  If the user
   is doing a DNS lookup to access content served by a CDN then the DNS
   service will maintain a list of IP addresses that can be returned for
   a given domain name and will try to return an IP address of a node
   geographically close to the client.  Should the service provider want
   to replace an instance of their service with another one at a
   different IP address (and potentially a different physical location
   for various reasons such as load balancing, reliability etc.) then
   the DNS tables must be updated, i.e., the service needs to be
   (re-)registered quickly.  This is done by updating the local
   authoritative DNS server which then propagates the new mapping to DNS
   services across the world.  DNS propagation can take up to 48 hours
   so fast and dynamic switching from one service instance to another is
   not possible in conventional networks; even in more localized
   scenarios, the propagation of DNS updates might still be
   insufficient.  When relying on many surrogate service endpoints to
   exist in the edge network, there is a clear issue of certain
   resources not being available in one surrogate instance while
   existing in another so that changes in redirection might be
   desirable, while also changes in local load drive the need for such
   change in redirection.  With the emergence of container-based
   virtualization platforms, service function endpoints can be
   established in a matter of seconds and we therefore believe that the
   'reachability' of such said service instance, i.e., the possibility
   of route service requests to it from a client that was previously
   served elsewhere, must follow a similar timeline, i.e., a few seconds
   or even less.

   The other issue in conventional network lies with mobility management
   procedure.  These procedures use an anchor point, which terminates a
   session at the network edge.  As user moves around, traffic is
   redirected from the anchor point to the new point of attachment.
   Relying on typical mobility management approaches found in IP
   networks, usually leads to inefficient 'triangular' routing of
   requests through this common 'anchor' point.  This triangular routing
   increases the latency in reaching the new service function or service
   end points as users move.

   Traffic steering is a common procedure in managed networks,
   particularly at the edge, due to desired subscriber-centric traffic
   policies (e.g., related to pricing structures), resource requirements
   (e.g., related to using particular paths in the network) or mobility
   (e.g., users moving in a cellular network).  Today's methods for
   traffic steering include anchor-based mobility management as well as
   traffic classification, for instance, in packet gateways of cellular
   systems (using, e.g., deep packet inspection as well as port and



Purkayastha, et al.     Expires September 2, 2018              [Page 11]


Internet-Draft         Alternative Handling of SFC            March 2018


   address classification).  While the former leads to inefficient
   'triangular' traffic forwarding, the latter often requires additional
   state in the forwarders to differentiate traffic from one user to
   another.

   The analysis of CDN network shows that dynamic indirection is a
   necessary requirement, which needs to be supported by the networks.
   The goal for this indirection is to provide user applications lowest
   possible latency.  But as discussed above, relying on today's
   technique does not help in guaranteeing same latency to user
   applications.  On the other hand, there is a high possibility that
   latency may increase if we rely on Layer 3 based service redirection
   techniques.

   SFC handles indirection through the use of SPI.  A packet needs to be
   reclassified and the intermediate node changes the SPI.  Following
   are the typical steps that happens in order to implement the
   indirection.

   o  A packet arrives at a particular node

   o  The node contacts the policy manager

   o  Identifies the current classification is incorrect

   o  Reclassifies the packet, i.e. change the SPI

   o  Inserts the packet in the pipe, possibly towards the SFF

   The indirection mechanism in SFC involves certain steps to process
   policy information and change the SPI in the packet header, making it
   suitable to handle dynamic indirection requirements.  Our proposed SF
   in this document provides an additional method to handle dynamic
   indirection of service requests, not relying on the reclassification
   mechanism.  Combining these two techniques may provide flexibility
   and improvement over single method.

5.  HTTP as a transport

   With the extensive use of "web technology", "distributed services"
   and availability of heterogeneous network, HTTP has effectively
   transitioned into the common transport for name-based E2E
   communication across the web.  In the context of SFC and SF, HTTP
   requests and response are considered as the "Service Request (SR)".
   This use case describes how these SRs are directed towards correct SF
   in a fast and dynamic way.  The routing and indirection of SRs are
   abstracted at HTTP level, instead of the traditional approach where
   routing decision for a service request is made at Layer 3.



Purkayastha, et al.     Expires September 2, 2018              [Page 12]


Internet-Draft         Alternative Handling of SFC            March 2018


   If we abstract HTTP as a transport, HTTP requests, such as GET, PUT
   and POST can be routed based on the URI associated with the request,
   with the URI being simply the name of a resource or the invocation
   point for a service transaction.  Based on the name of the resource
   requested, the appropriate HTTP request can be routed to the suitable
   service endpoint.  If Service Functions (SF) could be identified
   using URI or name, HTTP requests to an SF would be routed or directed
   using name based routing.  With that, the redirection to the most
   suitable service instance is purely done based on named services with
   HTTP being a specific (application layer) transport service.

   The ongoing EU H2020 efforts like FLAME [H2020FLAME]  are driven by
   city-scale many-POP deployments of compute infrastructure, all SDN-
   connected and OpenStack managed.  Localized media use cases drive the
   need for name-based (HTTP as the main transport protocol here)
   service instances being chained with the relationship between
   specific virtual instances being controlled at the underlying
   routing/switching level.

   The notion of 'HTTP as-a transport', utilizing URLs as addressing
   scheme, can be used to create SFP as shown in Fig 2., i.e.,
   192.168.x.x -> www.example.com -> 192.168.x.x -> www.example2.com ->
   192.168.x.x -> ... -> www.exampleN.com.  It is this 'name-based'
   relationship that we see possibly realized through specific
   replicated instances, where in turn the routing towards those
   specific instances is realized by the SRR.


                                                         +--------+
                                                         |        |
            |-------------------------|------------------+  SRR   +
            |                         |                  |        |
            |                         |                  +---/|\--+
            |                         |                       |
       +---\|/--+   +---------+   +--\|/--+   +------+   +----+---+
       |        |   |         |   |       |   |      |   |        |
       + Client +-->+  SRR    +-->+ Media +-->+ SRR  +-->+ Media  +
       |        |   |         |   |  Fn1  |   |      |   |  Fn2   |
       +--------+   +---------+   +-------+   +------+   +--------+

       SFP:192.168.x.x-->www.example.com-->192.168.x.x
       -->www.example2.com-->192.168.x.x-->www.exampleN.com


            Figure 2: SFP with new HTTP-based Transport option

   In a pure SFC architectural framework, Classifier function may
   interact with SRR to obtain an SE (Service Encapsulation).  E.g. the



Purkayastha, et al.     Expires September 2, 2018              [Page 13]


Internet-Draft         Alternative Handling of SFC            March 2018


   Classifier function may look into the network locator map in Fig 2
   and determine the next SF is www.example.com.  It provides this
   information to SRR to obtain the next hop information.  SRR returns
   the SE for next hop, which can be a "bitfield" information that is
   being used in the overlay routing for this part of the SFP.  The
   Classifier function uses this SE to route the incoming packet
   directly at the transport network level.

6.  Service Request Routing (SRR) Service Function

6.1.  Overview

   The following diagram shows the application of the new proposed SRR
   service function in an example of media clients connecting to media
   servers.  There may be more than one media functions to support CDN
   like architecture, Surrogate servers to handle mobility and load
   balancing.


                                                         +--------+
                                                         |        |
            |-------------------------|------------------+  SRR   +
            |                         |                  |        |
            |                         |                  +---/|\--+
            |                         |                       |
       +---\|/--+   +---------+   +--\|/--+   +------+   +----+---+
       |        |   |         |   |       |   |      |   |        |
       + Client +-->+  IP     +-->+ Media +-->+ SRR  +-->+ Media  +
       |        |   | Routing |   |  Fn1  |   |      |   |  Fn2   |
       +--------+   +---------+   +-------+   +------+   +--------+


    Figure 3: General SFC with SRR Flexible Chaining, initiated via IP
                         Routed Client Connection

   The clients are connected to media functions through frontend routed
   network, e.g., relying on standard IP routing, while media functions
   are chained via the new proposed service request routing (SRR)
   function.  Alternatively, we also envision to utilize the SRR
   function directly between client SF and media function SF, as
   outlined in the figure below










Purkayastha, et al.     Expires September 2, 2018              [Page 14]


Internet-Draft         Alternative Handling of SFC            March 2018


                                                         +--------+
                                                         |        |
            |-------------------------|------------------+  SRR   +
            |                         |                  |        |
            |                         |                  +---/|\--+
            |                         |                       |
       +---\|/--+   +---------+   +--\|/--+   +------+   +----+---+
       |        |   |         |   |       |   |      |   |        |
       + Client +-->+  SRR    +-->+ Media +-->+ SRR  +-->+ Media  +
       |        |   |         |   |  Fn1  |   |      |   |  Fn2   |
       +--------+   +---------+   +-------+   +------+   +--------+


    Figure 4: General SFC with SRR Flexible Chaining, initiated via SRR
                              Chained Client

   For our considerations, we assume that each SF is realized by at
   least one or more service function endpoints (SFEs).  Hence, instead
   of looking at "chaining" as a concept that connects specific SFEs
   along a well-defined SFP, we propose to look at "chaining" at the
   level of "named" service functions rather than their specific
   endpoint instances.  With this in mind, the SRR service function
   lifts the relationship between the connecting SFs to the level of
   "logical" service functions rather than their specific realizing
   endpoints.  Instead of relying on dynamic re-chaining in case of any
   dynamically changing relationship between specific SFEs, the SRR
   provides the selection of suitable SFEs while maintaining the logical
   relationship between the SFs.  In Section 6.3, we will present the
   necessary extensions to the SFP concept to support this higher
   abstraction of "chaining" via "named" logical SFs.  The SRR
   introduces the flexibility in routing service requests from client to
   specific SFEs.  In the edge network, where users are moving and
   service end points may also change, having flexibility to decide and
   steer service requests directly helps in guaranteeing the same
   latency to user applications.  Clearly, that is achieved by reducing
   the switching time from SF to another.  As service end point changes,
   the routing functions makes instantaneous decision to route the
   request to the appropriate media server.

   The SRR introduces the flexibility in routing service requests from
   client to specific SFEs in response to conditions such as congestion
   in the network, user mobility etc.  In the edge network, where users
   are moving and service end points may also change, having flexibility
   to decide and steer service requests directly helps in guaranteeing
   the same latency to user applications.  The edge of the network maybe
   congested due to limited network resources.  The SRR may be able to
   determine network congestion and quickly route service requests to
   other Service End point, which is not experiencing congestion.  In



Purkayastha, et al.     Expires September 2, 2018              [Page 15]


Internet-Draft         Alternative Handling of SFC            March 2018


   addition, application-layer control functions might utilize latency
   measurements to ensure that suitable service instances are being
   created during runtime of the scenario such as to ensure that service
   function endpoints are available 'nearby' (possibly) moving so as to
   keep a desired latency under a desired value.

   Clearly, that is achieved by reducing the switching time from one SF
   endpoint to another.  As the service end point changes, the routing
   functions makes instantaneous decision to route the request to the
   appropriate media server.

   The possible improvements of using SRR within an SFC framework are
   listed below:

   o  Fast (between 10 and 20ms) switching times from one service
      instance to another by not relying on the DNS for service
      discovery and directly routing service requests at the level of
      the transport network.

   o  The capability to indirect service requests at the network level
      will help in reducing latency, when service end points change.
      E.g. when a service request is being sent to one surrogate
      instance but results in a HTTP 404 or 5xx error response, the
      original request is redirected to another alternative surrogate
      with minimal latency, i.e., right at the destination of said
      failed service request.  Nesting these operations effectively
      leads to a net-level 'search' among all available surrogate
      instances until the search is exhausted (with a negative result)
      or the resource is found.

   o  New methods for forwarding, such as path-based forwarding, will
      enable direct path routing in mobility cases, path pinning for
      traffic steering and simplified service-specific peering towards
      the Internet.  Such capability would allow for localizing traffic,
      reduce latency and costs.

6.2.  Details of SRR Function

   Assuming such introduction of an HTTP-level transport notion, the SRR
   function can be decomposed further as shown in Fig 5.











Purkayastha, et al.     Expires September 2, 2018              [Page 16]


Internet-Draft         Alternative Handling of SFC            March 2018


                                                         +--------+
                                                         |        |
            |-------------------------|------------------+  SRR   +
            |                         |                  |        |
            |                         |                  +---/|\--+
            |                         |                       |
       +---\|/--+   +---------+   +--\|/--+   +------+   +----+----+
       |        |   |         |   |       |   |      |   |         |
       + Client +-->+  SRR    +-->+Service+-->+ SRR  +-->+ Service +
       |        |   |         |   |  Fn1  |   |      |   |  Fn2    |
       +--------+   +---------+   +-------+   +------+   +---------+
                  /             \
                /                 \
              /                     \
        +--------------------------------------+
        |   +------------------+               |
        |   |  +-----+  +----+ |     +-----+   |
        |--->  | SFC |  | SR | |     | SR  |----->
        |   |  |Proxy|  |    | |     |     |   |
        |   |  +-----+  +----+ |     +-/|\-+   |
        |   |  Use Proxy if NAP|        |      |
        |   |  is not SFC      |        |      |
        |   |  enabled         |        |      |
        |   +-------/|\--------+        |      |
        |            |                  |      |
        |            |                  |      |
        |            |  +----------+    |      |
        |            |->| tSFF1    |-----      |
        |               +---/|\----+           |
        |                    |                 |
        |                    |                 |
        |     +----------+   |                 |
        |     |          |   |                 |
        |     +   PCE    +----    +-----+      |
        |     |          |--------| RT  |      |
        |     +----------+        +-----+      |
        |                                      |
        +--------------------------------------+

                        Figure 5: SRR decomposition

   Another option for the two functions routing via the SRR could be
   entirely link-local, i.e., there's another simple tSFF2 between
   client and SRR as well as SF1 and SRR that is simply a link-local
   transport.  The following figure describes this alternate option.






Purkayastha, et al.     Expires September 2, 2018              [Page 17]


Internet-Draft         Alternative Handling of SFC            March 2018


                                                         +--------+
                                                         |        |
            |-------------------------|------------------+  SRR   +
            |                         |                  |        |
            |                         |                  +---/|\--+
            |                         |                       |
       +---\|/--+   +---------+   +--\|/--+   +------+   +----+---+
       |        |   |         |   |       |   |      |   |        |
       + Client +-->+  SRR    +-->+Service+-->+ SRR  +-->+Service +
       |        |   |         |   |  Fn1  |   |      |   |  Fn2   |
       +--------+   +---------+   +-------+   +------+   +--------+
                   /              \
                  /                  \
                 /                      \
       +-----+    +---------------------------------+
       |tSFF2|--------->+----+           +-----+    | +--------+
       +-----+    |     | SR |           | SR  |----->| tSFF2  |-->
                  |     |    |           |     |    | +--------+
                  |     +----+           +-/|\-+    |
                  |       |                 |       |
                  |       |                 |       |
                  |       |                 |       |
                  |       |                 |       |
                  |       |     +-------+   |       |
                  |       |---->| tSFF1 |---        |
                  |             +--/|\--+           |
                  |                 |               |
                  |                 |               |
                  |      +-------+  |               |
                  |      |       |  |               |
                  |      + PCE   +---     +----+    |
                  |      |       |--------| RT |    |
                  |      +-------+        +----+    |
                  |                                 |
                  +---------------------------------+





       Figure 6: SRR decomposition using link-local client/function
                               communication

   The SRR function may be composed of the following functions:

   o  Service Router(SR) at the ingress, terminates on the client side
      Layer 3 and above protocols, such as TCP




Purkayastha, et al.     Expires September 2, 2018              [Page 18]


Internet-Draft         Alternative Handling of SFC            March 2018


   o  Service Router(SR) at the egress, terminates any transport
      protocol on the outgoing (server) side

   o  PCE, Path Computation Element function is responsible for
      selecting the correct next SF, also possibly realizing path policy
      enforcement.  The result of the selection is a path identifier
      which is delivered to the ingress SR upon initial path computation
      request (i.e., when sending a request to a specific URL on the SFP
      for the first time).  The path identifier is utilized for any
      future request for a given URL-based SF.  In case of another SF
      instance becoming available, indicated to the PCE through a
      registration procedure, the PCE will instruct all ingress SRs to
      invalidate path identifiers to the specific URL of the SF,
      resulting in an initial path computation request at the next SF
      request forwarding.  Through this, the newly registered SF
      instance might be utilized if the policy-governed path computation
      will select said SF instance.

   o  Reclassification Trigger Handler (RT) : Network measurement
      information, such as latency, packet loss or network congestion,
      etc. could be processed by the handler.  This may trigger
      reconfiguration of the specific service function endpoint chain
      over which the SFC is being executed.  The handler forwards the
      information about the chain reconfiguration to PCE.

   o  Transport-derived SFF (tSFF1): the communication between ingress/
      egress SRs as well as SRs to PCE is realized via a transport-
      derived SFF.  We outline here three possible tSFFs

      *  SDN-based: This option utilizes path-based forwarding through
         SDN-based wildcard matching fields, supported with
         OF1.2+[Reed2016].  It can be embedded into slicing approach of
         underlying transport infrastructure by leaving typical slicing
         fields available (e.g., VLAN tags).  The forwarding utilizes
         the Ethernet frame format at Layer 2, representing the
         topological links of a specific forwarding path in the
         transport network as unique bits in a fixed size bit array.
         For the latter, the approach utilizes the IPv6 source and
         destination fields for storing the bit array information (in a
         simple version for this forwarding, this limits the topology to
         256 links but extensions schemes are possible, which are left
         out of this document at this stage).  AS mentioned, the SDN
         forwarding decision action is a simple wildcard matching,
         supported with OF1.2+, with the wildcard representing the
         unique bit of a switch-specific output port.  With that, the
         switch needs to consider as many forwarding rules as switch
         local output ports - see [Reed2016] for more information.  Fig.
         xx illustrate this forwarding solution, including the ability



Purkayastha, et al.     Expires September 2, 2018              [Page 19]


Internet-Draft         Alternative Handling of SFC            March 2018


         to create ad-hoc multicast relations by simply ORing individual
         bitarrays representing unicast paths.

      *  Another approach is outlined in [I-D.ietf-bier-use-cases] where
         the SFF is suggested to be realized via a BIER overlay, in turn
         realized over a BIER-compliant underlay, such as MPLS.  BIER
         utilizes a similar bit array approach for representing a
         forwarding path in the overlay network but unlike [Reed2016],
         the bit fields indicate the egress BIER-compliant router that
         the packet is supposed to reach.

      *  As yet another alternative, the tSFF may utilize a flow
         aggregation approach, outlined in [Khalili2016], called edge
         switch classification (ESC).  In this approach, a path from an
         ingress to egress SR is described as a so-called edge
         classification vector (ECV), which combines information on the
         aggregated flow (following [Khalili2016]) and the switch-local
         endpoint.  The representation has similar bitarray
         characteristics as the previous two approaches

   o  NOTE: with the ingress and egress SRs terminating SF Layer 3
      connections and the utilization of bitarray-based tSFFs, the
      transmission of packets can effectively take place as an ad-hoc
      Layer multicast while the SFC itself is denoted as an n-times
      unicast SFC.  As an example, consider the chaining of a set of n
      clients to a single video server.  Each sub-SFC from an individual
      client to the video server will semantically result in a unicast
      response from the server back to the client (e.g., carrying the
      video chunk for a MPEG DASH-based video stream).  When combining
      the sub-SFCs to the single SFC with n times unicast relations to
      the server, the SRR will deliver the responses from the server via
      one or more multicast responses to one or more clients.  The size
      of the individual multicast groups will depend on the
      synchronicity of the client requests (and therefore on the
      synchronicity of the server responses).  Note that the multicast
      relations here are ad-hoc created by ORing the bitarrays
      representing the specific clients to which the responses are meant
      to be sent.  This is illustrated in the figure below.  The HTTP
      multicast use case is being presented in the BIER use case draft
      [I-D.ietf-bier-use-cases]albeit without specific a SFC relation.











Purkayastha, et al.     Expires September 2, 2018              [Page 20]


Internet-Draft         Alternative Handling of SFC            March 2018


          +---------+   +---------+
          |         |   |         |                  +--------+
          +IP only  +---+ ICN     +         00000010 | ICN    |
          |receiver |   | SR1     |         |--------| SR3    |
          |UE       |   +----|----+         |        +---||---+
          +---------+        | 10010011     |            ||
                       +-----|----+   +----------+ |-----||-----|
                       |          |   |          |  |   Cloud  |
                       |SDN Switch|---|SDN Switch|   |        |
                       |          |   |          |    |--||--|
                       +----|-----+   +----------+       ||
                            | 10100011                   ||
          +---------+   +---|-----+                 +----||----+
          |         |   |         |                 |          |
          +IP only  +---+ ICN     +                 + IP only  +
          |sender UE|   | SR2     |                 | Server   |
          +---------+   +---------+                 +----------+


       Figure 7: Illustration of Bitfield-based Forwarding using SDN

7.  Protocol Consideration

   For the operations outlined in the previous section, we foresee the
   following protocol changes are required:

   o  SR-to-SR protocol for HTTP: HTTP based message exchange between
      client and server SRs

   o  SR-PCE protocol: Used for path computation, obtaining routing
      information as well as provide path updates

   o  Registration protocol: Used to register FQDN service endpoints

8.  Next Steps

   Feedback from the SFC WG on the validity of this solution and its
   scope within the SFC WG.  If such alternative to the re-
   classification for service indirection is seen beneficial as well as
   fitting with the charter of the WG, the next steps would be to update
   the draft to outline potential protocol solutions required for the
   realization of such SRR SF.

9.  IANA Considerations

   This document requests no IANA actions.





Purkayastha, et al.     Expires September 2, 2018              [Page 21]


Internet-Draft         Alternative Handling of SFC            March 2018


10.  Security Considerations

   TBD.

11.  Informative References

   [ETSI_MEC]
              ETSI, "Mobile Edge Computing (MEC), Technical
              Requirements", GS MEC 002 1.1.1, March 2016,
              <http://www.etsi.org/deliver/etsi_gs/
              MEC/001_099/002/01.01.01_60/gs_MEC002v010101p.pdf>.

   [H2020FLAME]
              EU, "EU H2020 FLAME PROJECT",  , March 2016,
              <https://www.ict-flame.eu/>.

   [I-D.ietf-bier-use-cases]
              Kumar, N., Asati, R., Chen, M., Xu, X., Dolganow, A.,
              Przygienda, T., Gulko, A., Robinson, D., Arya, V., and C.
              Bestler, "BIER Use Cases", draft-ietf-bier-use-cases-06
              (work in progress), January 2018.

   [I-D.ietf-sfc-dc-use-cases]
              Kumar, S., Tufail, M., Majee, S., Captari, C., and S.
              Homma, "Service Function Chaining Use Cases In Data
              Centers", draft-ietf-sfc-dc-use-cases-06 (work in
              progress), February 2017.

   [Khalili2016]
              Khalili, R., Poe, W., Despotovic, Z., and A. Hecker,
              "Reducing State of SDN Switches in Mobile Core Networks by
              Flow Rule Aggregation", ICCCN, August, 2016.

   [Reed2016]
              Reed, M., Al-Naday, M., Thomas, N., Trossen, D., and S.
              Spirou, "Reducing State of SDN Switches in Mobile Core
              Networks by Flow Rule Aggregation", ICC 2016, 2016.

   [RFC7498]  Quinn, P., Ed. and T. Nadeau, Ed., "Problem Statement for
              Service Function Chaining", RFC 7498,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC7498, April 2015,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7498>.

   [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>.




Purkayastha, et al.     Expires September 2, 2018              [Page 22]


Internet-Draft         Alternative Handling of SFC            March 2018


   [UKNIC]    UK NIC, "5G Infrastructure Requirements in the UK", Final
              Report 3.0, December 2016,
              <https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/
              attachment_data/
              file/577940/5G_Infrastructure_requirements_for_the_UK_-
              _LS_Telcom_report_for_the_NIC.pdf>.

Authors' Addresses

   Debashish Purkayastha
   InterDigital Communications, LLC
   Conshohocken
   USA

   Email: Debashish.Purkayastha@InterDigital.com


   Akbar Rahman
   InterDigital Communications, LLC
   Montreal
   Canada

   Email: Akbar.Rahman@InterDigital.com


   Dirk Trossen
   InterDigital Communications, LLC
   64 Great Eastern Street, 1st Floor
   London  EC2A 3QR
   United Kingdom

   Email: Dirk.Trossen@InterDigital.com
   URI:   http://www.InterDigital.com/


   Zoran Despotovic
   Huawei

   Email: Zoran.Despotovic@huawei.com
   URI:   http://www.huawei.com/


   Ramin Khalili
   Huawei

   Email: Ramin.khalili@huawei.com
   URI:   http://www.huawei.com/




Purkayastha, et al.     Expires September 2, 2018              [Page 23]


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