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

Versions: (draft-quinn-nsh) 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 draft-ietf-sfc-nsh

Network Working Group                                           P. Quinn
Internet-Draft                                               J. Guichard
Intended status: Standards Track                             R. Fernando
Expires: January 4, 2015                                        S. Kumar
                                                                M. Smith
                                                                N. Yadav
                                                     Cisco Systems, Inc.
                                                              P. Agarwal
                                                                R. Manur
                                                                Broadcom
                                                              A. Chauhan
                                                                  Citrix
                                                                U. Elzur
                                                                   Intel
                                                                 P. Garg
                                                               Microsoft
                                                            B. McConnell
                                                               Rackspace
                                                               C. Wright
                                                            Red Hat Inc.
                                                            July 3, 2014


                         Network Service Header
                       draft-quinn-sfc-nsh-03.txt

Abstract

   This draft describes a Network Service Header (NSH) inserted onto
   encapsulated packets or frames to realize service function paths.
   NSH also provides a mechanism for metadata exchange along the
   instantiated service path.



















Quinn, et al.            Expires January 4, 2015                [Page 1]


Internet-Draft           Network Service Header                July 2014


1.  Requirements 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].

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 January 4, 2015.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2014 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors.  All rights reserved.

   This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
   Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
   (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
   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.














Quinn, et al.            Expires January 4, 2015                [Page 2]


Internet-Draft           Network Service Header                July 2014


Table of Contents

   1.  Requirements Language  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  2
   2.  Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
     2.1.  Definition of Terms  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
     2.2.  Problem Space  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6
   3.  Network Service Header Overview  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8
   4.  NSH Base Header  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
   5.  Service Path Header  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
   6.  Mandatory Context Headers  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
     6.1.  Context Header Allocation Guidelines . . . . . . . . . . . 12
   7.  Optional Variable Length Metadata  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
   8.  NSH Actions  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
   9.  NSH Encapsulation  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
   10. NSH Usage  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
   11. NSH Proxy Nodes  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
   12. NSH Encapsulation Examples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
     12.1. GRE + NSH  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
     12.2. VXLAN-gpe + NSH  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
   13. Security Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
   14. Acknowledgments  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
   15. IANA Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
     15.1. NSH EtherType  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
     15.2. Network Service Header (NSH) Parameters  . . . . . . . . . 23
       15.2.1.  NSH Base Header Reserved Bits . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
       15.2.2.  MD Type Registry  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
       15.2.3.  TLV Class Registry  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
       15.2.4.  NSH Base Header Next Protocol . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
   16. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
     16.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
     16.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
   Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26



















Quinn, et al.            Expires January 4, 2015                [Page 3]


Internet-Draft           Network Service Header                July 2014


2.  Introduction

   Service functions are widely deployed and essential in many networks.
   These service functions provide a range of features such as security,
   WAN acceleration, and server load balancing.  Service functions may
   be instantiated at different points in the network infrastructure
   such as the wide area network, data center, campus, and so forth.

   The current service function deployment models are relatively static,
   and bound to topology for insertion and policy selection.
   Furthermore, they do not adapt well to elastic service environments
   enabled by virtualization.

   New data center network and cloud architectures require more flexible
   service function deployment models.  Additionally, the transition to
   virtual platforms requires an agile service insertion model that
   supports elastic service delivery; the movement of service functions
   and application workloads in the network and the ability to easily
   bind service policy to granular information such as per-subscriber
   state are necessary.

   The approach taken by NSH is composed of the following elements:

   1.  Service path identification

   2.  Mandatory fixed size, transport independent per-packet/frame
       service metadata.

   3.  Optional variable TLV metadata.

   NSH is designed to be easy to implement across a range of devices,
   both physical and virtual, including hardware platforms.

   An NSH aware control plane is outside the scope of this document.

   The SFC Architecture document [SFC-arch] provides an overview of a
   service chaining architecture that clearly defines the roles of the
   various elements and the scope of a service function chaining
   encapsulation.

2.1.  Definition of Terms

   Classification:  Locally instantiated policy and customer/network/
      service profile matching of traffic flows for identification of
      appropriate outbound forwarding actions.






Quinn, et al.            Expires January 4, 2015                [Page 4]


Internet-Draft           Network Service Header                July 2014


   SFC Network Forwarder (NF):  SFC network forwarders provide network
      connectivity for service functions forwarders and service
      functions.  SFC network forwarders participate in the network
      overlay used for service function chaining as well as in the SFC
      encapsulation.

   Service Function Forwarder (SFF):  A service function forwarder is
      responsible for delivering traffic received from the NF to one or
      more connected service functions, and from service functions to
      the NF.

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

   Service Node (SN):  Physical or virtual element that hosts one or
      more service functions and has one or more network locators
      associated with it for reachability and service delivery.

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

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

   Network Node/Element:  Device that forwards packets or frames based
      on outer header information.  In most cases is not aware of the
      presence of NSH.

   Network Overlay:  Logical network built on top of existing network
      (the underlay).  Packets are encapsulated or tunneled to create
      the overlay network topology.

   Network Service Header:  Data plane header added to frames/packets.
      The header contains information required for service chaining, as
      well as metadata added and consumed by network nodes and service
      elements.





Quinn, et al.            Expires January 4, 2015                [Page 5]


Internet-Draft           Network Service Header                July 2014


   Service Classifier:  Function that performs classification and
      imposes an NSH.  Creates a service path.  Non-initial (i.e.
      subsequent) classification can occur as needed and can alter, or
      create a new service path.

   Service Hop:  NSH aware node, akin to an IP hop but in the service
      overlay.

   Service Path Segment:  A segment of a service path overlay.

   NSH Proxy:  Acts as a gateway: removes and inserts NSH on behalf of a
      service function that is not NSH aware.

2.2.  Problem Space

   Network Service Header (NSH) addresses several limitations associated
   with service function deployments today.

   1.  Topological Dependencies: Network service deployments are often
       coupled to network topology.  Such dependency imposes constraints
       on the service delivery, potentially inhibiting the network
       operator from optimally utilizing service resources, and reduces
       the flexibility.  This limits scale, capacity, and redundancy
       across network resources.

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

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

   4.  Per-Service (re)Classification: Classification occurs at each
       service function independent from previously applied service
       functions.  More importantly, the classification functionality
       often differs per service function and service functions may not



Quinn, et al.            Expires January 4, 2015                [Page 6]


Internet-Draft           Network Service Header                July 2014


       leverage the results from other service functions.

   5.  Common Header Format: Various proprietary methods are used to
       share metadata and create service paths.  An open header provides
       a common format for all network and service devices.

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

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

   Please see the Service Function Chaining Problem Statement [SFC-PS]
   for a more detailed analysis of service function deployment problem
   areas.



























Quinn, et al.            Expires January 4, 2015                [Page 7]


Internet-Draft           Network Service Header                July 2014


3.  Network Service Header Overview

   A Network Service Header (NSH) contains metadata and service path
   information that is added to a packet or frame and used to create a
   service plane.  The packets and the NSH are then encapsulated in an
   outer header for transport.

   The service header is added by a service classification function - a
   device or application - that determines which packets require
   servicing, and correspondingly which service path to follow to apply
   the appropriate service.

   A NSH is composed of a 4-byte base header, a 4-byte service path
   header, four mandatory 4 byte context headers, and optional variable
   length context headers, as shown in figure 1 below.


    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
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                Base Header                                    |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                Service Path Header                            |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                Mandatory Context Header                       |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                Mandatory Context Header                       |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                Mandatory Context Header                       |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                Mandatory Context Header                       |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                                                               |
   ~           Optional Variable Length Context Headers            ~
   |                                                               |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

                     Figure 1: Network Service Header

   Base header: provides information about the service header and the
   payload protocol.

   Service Path Header: provide path identification and location within
   a path.

   Mandatory context headers: carry opaque metadata.

   Optional variable length context headers: carry variable length
   encoded information.



Quinn, et al.            Expires January 4, 2015                [Page 8]


Internet-Draft           Network Service Header                July 2014


4.  NSH Base 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
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     |Ver|O|C|R|R|R|R|R|R|   Length  |    MD Type    | Next Protocol |
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+


   Version: 2 bits
   Flags: 8 bits
   Length: 6 bits
   Metadata Type: 8 bits
   Next protocol (NP): 8 bits

                         Figure 2: NSH Base Header

   Base Header Field Descriptions

   Version: The version field is used to ensure backward compatibility
   going forward with future NSH updates.

   O bit: Indicates that this packet is an operations and management
   (OAM) packet.  SFF and SFs nodes MUST examine the payload and take
   appropriate action (e.g. return status information).

   OAM message specifics and handling details are outside the scope of
   this document.

   C bit: Indicates that a critical metadata TLV is present (see section
   7).  This bit acts as an indication for hardware implementers to
   decide how to handle the presence of a critical TLV without
   necessarily needing to parse all TLVs present.  The C bit MUST be set
   to 1 if one or more critical TLVs are present.

   All other flag fields are reserved.

   Length: total length, in 4 byte words, of the NSH header, including
   optional variable TLVs.  Length must be equal or greater than 6.

   MD Type: indicates the format of NSH beyond the base header and the
   type of metadata being carried.  This typing is used to describe the
   use for the metadata.  A new registry will be requested from IANA for
   the MD Type.  NSH defines one type, type = 0x1 which indicates that
   the format of the header is as per this draft.

   The format of the base header is invariant, and not described by MD



Quinn, et al.            Expires January 4, 2015                [Page 9]


Internet-Draft           Network Service Header                July 2014


   Type.

   Next Protocol: indicates the protocol type of the original packet.  A
   new IANA registry will be created for protocol type.

   This draft defines the following Next Protocol values:

   0x1 : IPv4
   0x2 : IPv6
   0x3 : Ethernet









































Quinn, et al.            Expires January 4, 2015               [Page 10]


Internet-Draft           Network Service Header                July 2014


5.  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
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     |          Service Path ID                      | Service Index |
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+


   Service path ID (SPI): 24 bits
   Service index (SI): 8 bits

                     Figure 3: NSH Service Path Header

   Service Path Identifier (SPI): identifies a service path.
   Participating nodes MUST use this identifier for path selection.  An
   administrator can use the service path value for reporting and
   troubleshooting packets along a specific path.

   Service Index (SI): provides location within the service path.
   Service index MUST be decremented by service functions or proxy nodes
   after performing required services.  MAY be used in conjunction with
   service path for path selection.  Service Index is also valuable when
   troubleshooting/reporting service paths.  In addition to location
   within a path, SI can be used for loop detection.

























Quinn, et al.            Expires January 4, 2015               [Page 11]


Internet-Draft           Network Service Header                July 2014


6.  Mandatory Context Headers

   When the base header specifies MD type 1, NSH defines four 4-byte
   context headers.  These headers must be present and the format is
   opaque as depicted in figure 4.



    0                   1                   2                   3
    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
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                     Context data                              |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+




                         Figure 4: Context Header

6.1.  Context Header Allocation Guidelines


    0                   1                   2                   3
    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
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                  Network Platform Context                     |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                  Network Shared Context                       |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                  Service Platform Context                     |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                  Service Shared Context                       |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+


                    Figure 5: Context Data Significance

   Figure 5, above, and the the following examples of context header
   allocation are guidelines that illustrate how various forms of
   information can be carried and exchanged via NSH.

   Network platform context: provides platform-specific metadata shared
   between network nodes.  Examples include (but are not limited to)
   ingress port information, forwarding context and encapsulation type.

   Network shared context: metadata relevant to any network node such as
   the result of edge classification.  For example, application
   information, identity information or tenancy information can be



Quinn, et al.            Expires January 4, 2015               [Page 12]


Internet-Draft           Network Service Header                July 2014


   shared using this context header.

   Service platform context: provides service platform specific metadata
   shared between service functions.  This context header is analogous
   to the network platform context, enabling service platforms to
   exchange platform-centric information such as an identifier used for
   load balancing decisions.

   Service shared context: metadata relevant to, and shared, between
   service functions.  As with the shared network context,
   classification information such as application type can be conveyed
   using this context.







































Quinn, et al.            Expires January 4, 2015               [Page 13]


Internet-Draft           Network Service Header                July 2014


7.  Optional Variable Length Metadata

   In addition to the required, fixed size context headers, NSH MAY also
   contain optional variable length context headers.  These header are
   formatted as TLVs.

      0                   1                   2                   3
      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
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     |          TLV Class            |      Type     |R|R|R|   Len   |
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     |                      Variable Metadata                        |
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+


                    Figure 6: Variable Context Headers

   TLV Class: describes the scope of the "Type" field.  In some cases,
   the TLV Class will identify a specific vendor, in others, the TLV
   Class will identify specific standards body allocated types.

   Type: the specific type of information being carried, within the
   scope of a given TLV Class.  Value allocation is the responsibility
   of the TLV Class owner.

   The most significant bit of the Type field indicates whether the TLV
   is mandatory for the receiver to understand/process.  This
   effectively allocates Type values 0 to 127 for non-critical options
   and Type values 128 to 255 for critical options.  Figure 7 below
   illustrates the placement of the Critical bit within the Type field.

     +-+-------+
     |C| Type  |
     +-+-------+


        Figure 7: Critical Bit Placement Within the TLV Type Field

   Encoding the criticality of the TLV within the Type field is
   consistent with IPv6 option types.

   If a receiver receives an encapsulated packet containing a TLV with
   the Critical bit set in the Type field and it does not understand how
   to process the Type, it MUST drop the packet.  Transit devices MUST
   NOT drop packets based on the setting of this bit.

   Reserved bits: three reserved bit are present for future use.  The
   reserved bits MUST be zero.



Quinn, et al.            Expires January 4, 2015               [Page 14]


Internet-Draft           Network Service Header                July 2014


   Length: Length of the variable metadata, in 4 byte words.


















































Quinn, et al.            Expires January 4, 2015               [Page 15]


Internet-Draft           Network Service Header                July 2014


8.  NSH Actions

   Service header aware nodes - service classifiers, SFF, SF and NSH
   proxies, have several possible header related actions:

   1.  Insert or remove service header: These actions can occur at the
       start and end respectively of a service path.  Packets are
       classified, and if determined to require servicing, a service
       header imposed.  The last node in a service chain, an SF, or an
       associated SFF, removes NSH.  A service classifier MUST insert a
       NSH.  At the end of a service function chain, the last node
       operating on the service header MUST remove it.

       A service function can re-classify data as required and that re-
       classification might result in a new service path.  If a SF
       performs re-classification that results in a change of service
       path, it MUST remove the existing NSH and MUST imposes a new NSH
       with the base header reflecting the new path.


   2.  Select service path: The base header provides service chain
       information and is used by SFFs to determine correct service path
       selection.  SFFs MUST use the base header for selecting the next
       service in the service path.

   3.  Update a service header: NSH aware service functions MUST
       decrement the service index.  A service index = 0 indicates that
       a packet MUST be dropped by the SFF performing NSH based
       forwarding.

       Service functions MAY update context headers if new/updated
       context is available.

       If an NSH proxy is in use (acting on behalf of a non-aware
       service function for NSH actions), then the proxy MUST update
       service index and MAY update contexts.

   4.  Service policy selection: Service function instances derive
       policy selection from the service header.  Context shared in the
       service header can provide a range of service-relevant
       information such as traffic classification.  Service functions
       SHOULD use NSH to select local service policy.









Quinn, et al.            Expires January 4, 2015               [Page 16]


Internet-Draft           Network Service Header                July 2014


9.  NSH Encapsulation

   Once NSH is added to a packet, an outer encapsulation is used to
   forward the original packet and the associated metadata to the start
   of a service chain.  The encapsulation serves two purposes:

   1.  Creates a topologically independent services plane.  Packets are
       forwarded to the required services without changing the
       underlying network topology.

   2.  Transit network nodes simply forward the encapsulated packets as
       is.

   The service header is independent of the encapsulation used and is
   encapsulated in existing transports.  The presence of NSH is
   indicated via protocol type or other indicator in the outer
   encapsulation.

   See section 12 for NSH encapsulation examples.
































Quinn, et al.            Expires January 4, 2015               [Page 17]


Internet-Draft           Network Service Header                July 2014


10.  NSH Usage

   NSH creates a dedicated service plane, that addresses many of the
   limitations highlighted in section 2.2.  More specifically, NSH
   enables:

   1.  Topological Independence: Service forwarding occurs within the
       service plane, via a network overlay, the underlying network
       topology does not require modification.  Service functions have
       one or more network locators (e.g.  IP address), to receive/send
       data within the service plane, the NSH header contains an
       identifier that is used to uniquely identify a service path and
       the services within that path.

   2.  Service Chaining: NSH contains path identification information
       needed to realize a service path.  Furthermore, NSH provides the
       ability to monitor and troubleshoot a service chain, end-to-end
       via service-specific OAM messages.  The NSH fields can be used by
       administrators (via, for example a traffic analyzer) to verify
       (account, ensure correct chaining, provide reports, etc.) the
       path specifics of packets being forwarded along a service path.

   3.  Metadata Sharing: NSH provides a mechanism to carry shared
       metadata between network devices and service function, and
       between service functions.  The semantics of the shared metadata
       is communicated via a control plane to participating nodes.
       Examples of metadata include classification information used for
       policy enforcement and network context for forwarding post
       service delivery.

   4.  Transport Agnostic: NSH is transport independent and can be used
       with overlay and underlay forwarding topologies.



















Quinn, et al.            Expires January 4, 2015               [Page 18]


Internet-Draft           Network Service Header                July 2014


11.  NSH Proxy Nodes

   In order to support NSH unaware service functions, an NSH proxy is
   used.  The proxy node removes the NSH header and delivers, to the
   service node, the original packet/frame via a local attachment
   circuit.  Examples of a local attachment circuit include, but are not
   limited to: VLANs, IP in IP, GRE, VXLAN.  When complete, the service
   function returns the packet to the NSH-proxy via the same or
   different attachment circuit.

   NSH is re-imposed on packets returned to the proxy from the non-NSH
   aware service.

   Typically, a SFF will act as a NSH-proxy when required.

   An NSH proxy MUST perform NSH actions as described in section 7.



































Quinn, et al.            Expires January 4, 2015               [Page 19]


Internet-Draft           Network Service Header                July 2014


12.  NSH Encapsulation Examples

12.1.  GRE + NSH


    IPv4 Packet:
    +----------+--------------------+--------------------+
    |L2 header | L3 header, proto=47|GRE header,PT=0x894F|
    +----------+--------------------+--------------------+
    --------------+----------------+
    NSH, PT=0x1   |original packet |
    --------------+----------------+


    L2 Frame:
    +----------+--------------------+--------------------+
    |L2 header | L3 header, proto=47|GRE header,PT=0x894F|
    +----------+--------------------+--------------------+
    ---------------+---------------+
    NSH, NP=0x3    |original frame |
    ---------------+---------------+


                            Figure 8: GRE + NSH

12.2.  VXLAN-gpe + NSH

    IPv4 Packet:
    +----------+--------------------+---------------------+
    |L2 header | UDP dst port=TBD   |VXLAN-gpe NP=0x4(NSH)|
    +----------+--------------------+---------------------+
    --------------+----------------+
    NSH, NP=0x1   |original packet |
    --------------+----------------+


    L2 Frame:
    +----------+--------------------+---------------------+
    |L2 header | UDP dst port=TBD   |VXLAN-gpe NP=0x4(NSH)|
    +----------+--------------------+---------------------+
    ---------------+---------------+
    NSH,NP=0x3     |original frame |
    ---------------+---------------+


                         Figure 9: VXLAN-gpe + NSH





Quinn, et al.            Expires January 4, 2015               [Page 20]


Internet-Draft           Network Service Header                July 2014


13.  Security Considerations

   As with many other protocols, NSH data can be spoofed or otherwise
   modified.  In many deployments, NSH will be used in a controlled
   environment, with trusted devices (e.g. a data center) thus
   mitigating the risk of unauthorized header manipulation.

   NSH is always encapsulated in a transport protocol and therefore,
   when required, existing security protocols that provide authenticity
   (e.g.  RFC 2119 [RFC6071]) can be used.

   Similarly if confidentiality is required, existing encryption
   protocols can be used in conjunction with encapsulated NSH.






































Quinn, et al.            Expires January 4, 2015               [Page 21]


Internet-Draft           Network Service Header                July 2014


14.  Acknowledgments

   The authors would like to thank Nagaraj Bagepalli, Abhijit Patra, Ron
   Parker, Peter Bosch, Tom Nadeau, Darrel Lewis, Pritesh Kothari and
   Ken Gray for their detailed review, comments and contributions.

   A special thank you goes to David Ward and Tom Edsall for their
   guidance and feedback.

   Additionally the authors would like to thank Carlos Pignataro and
   Larry Kreeger for their invaluable ideas and contributions which are
   reflected throughout this draft.







































Quinn, et al.            Expires January 4, 2015               [Page 22]


Internet-Draft           Network Service Header                July 2014


15.  IANA Considerations

15.1.  NSH EtherType

   An IEEE EtherType, 0x894F, has been allocated for NSH.

15.2.  Network Service Header (NSH) Parameters

   IANA is requested to create a new "Network Service Header (NSH)
   Parameters" registry.  The following sub-sections request new
   registries within the "Network Service Header (NSH) Parameters "
   registry.

15.2.1.  NSH Base Header Reserved Bits

   There are ten bits at the beginning of the NSH Base Header.  New bits
   are assigned via Standards Action [RFC5226].

   Bits 0-1 - Version
   Bit 2 - OAM (O bit)
   Bits 2-9 - Reserved

15.2.2.  MD Type Registry

   IANA is requested to set up a registry of "MD Types".  These are
   8-bit values.  MD Type values 0, 1, 254, and 255 are specified in
   this document.  Registry entries are assigned by using the "IETF
   Review" policy defined in RFC 5226 [RFC5226].

                +---------+--------------+---------------+
                | MD Type | Description  | Reference     |
                +---------+--------------+---------------+
                | 0       | Reserved     | This document |
                |         |              |               |
                | 1       | NSH          | This document |
                |         |              |               |
                | 2..253  | Unassigned   |               |
                |         |              |               |
                | 254     | Experiment 1 | This document |
                |         |              |               |
                | 255     | Experiment 2 | This document |
                +---------+--------------+---------------+

                                  Table 1







Quinn, et al.            Expires January 4, 2015               [Page 23]


Internet-Draft           Network Service Header                July 2014


15.2.3.  TLV Class Registry

   IANA is requested to set up a registry of "TLV Types".  These are 16-
   bit values.  Registry entries are assigned by using the "IETF Review"
   policy defined in RFC 5226 [RFC5226].

15.2.4.  NSH Base Header Next Protocol

   IANA is requested to set up a registry of "Next Protocol".  These are
   8-bit values.  Next Protocol values 0, 1, 2 and 3 are defined in this
   draft.  New values are assigned via Standards Action [RFC5226].

              +---------------+-------------+---------------+
              | Next Protocol | Description | Reference     |
              +---------------+-------------+---------------+
              | 0             | Reserved    | This document |
              |               |             |               |
              | 1             | IPv4        | This document |
              |               |             |               |
              | 2             | IPv6        | This document |
              |               |             |               |
              | 3             | Ethernet    | This document |
              |               |             |               |
              | 4..253        | Unassigned  |               |
              +---------------+-------------+---------------+

                                  Table 2
























Quinn, et al.            Expires January 4, 2015               [Page 24]


Internet-Draft           Network Service Header                July 2014


16.  References

16.1.  Normative References

   [RFC0791]  Postel, J., "Internet Protocol", STD 5, RFC 791,
              September 1981.

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

16.2.  Informative References

   [RFC2784]  Farinacci, D., Li, T., Hanks, S., Meyer, D., and P.
              Traina, "Generic Routing Encapsulation (GRE)", RFC 2784,
              March 2000.

   [RFC5226]  Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an
              IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 5226,
              May 2008.

   [RFC6071]  Frankel, S. and S. Krishnan, "IP Security (IPsec) and
              Internet Key Exchange (IKE) Document Roadmap", RFC 6071,
              February 2011.

   [SFC-PS]   Quinn, P., Ed. and T. Nadeau, Ed., "Service Function
              Chaining Problem Statement", 2014, <http://
              datatracker.ietf.org/doc/
              draft-ietf-sfc-problem-statement/>.

   [SFC-arch]
              Quinn, P., Ed. and J. Halpern, Ed., "Service Function
              Chaining (SFC) Architecture", 2014,
              <http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-quinn-sfc-arch>.

   [VXLAN-gpe]
              Dutt, D., Quinn, P., Duda, ., Agarwal, P., Kreeger, L.,
              Sridhar, T., Bursell, M., and C. Wright, "Generic Protocol
              Extension for VXLAN",
              <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-quinn-vxlan-gpe/>.












Quinn, et al.            Expires January 4, 2015               [Page 25]


Internet-Draft           Network Service Header                July 2014


Authors' Addresses

   Paul Quinn
   Cisco Systems, Inc.

   Email: paulq@cisco.com


   Jim Guichard
   Cisco Systems, Inc.

   Email: jguichar@cisco.com


   Rex Fernando
   Cisco Systems, Inc.

   Email: rex@cisco.com


   Surendra Kumar
   Cisco Systems, Inc.

   Email: smkumar@cisco.com


   Michael Smith
   Cisco Systems, Inc.

   Email: michsmit@cisco.com


   Navindra Yadav
   Cisco Systems, Inc.

   Email: nyadav@cisco.com


   Puneet Agarwal
   Broadcom

   Email: pagarwal@broadcom.com









Quinn, et al.            Expires January 4, 2015               [Page 26]


Internet-Draft           Network Service Header                July 2014


   Rajeev Manur
   Broadcom

   Email: rmanur@broadcom.com


   Abhishek Chauhan
   Citrix

   Email: Abhishek.Chauhan@citrix.com


   Uri Elzur
   Intel

   Email: uri.elzur@intel.com


   Pankaj Garg
   Microsoft

   Email: Garg.Pankaj@microsoft.com


   Brad McConnell
   Rackspace

   Email: bmcconne@rackspace.com


   Chris Wright
   Red Hat Inc.

   Email: chrisw@redhat.com

















Quinn, et al.            Expires January 4, 2015               [Page 27]


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