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

Versions: 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 draft-ietf-sfc-multi-layer-oam

SFC WG                                                           C. Wang
Internet-Draft                                                   W. Meng
Intended status: Standards Track                         ZTE Corporation
Expires: June 23, 2016                                     B. Khasnabish
                                                            ZTE TX, Inc.
                                                       December 21, 2015


            Multi-Layering OAM for Service function Chaining
                   draft-wang-sfc-multi-layer-oam-03

Abstract

   This document tries to discuss some problems in SFC OAM framework
   document and proposes the SFC OAM multi-layering requirements in SFC
   domain to improve the troubleshooting efficiency.

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 June 23, 2016.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2015 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.



Wang, et al.              Expires June 23, 2016                 [Page 1]


Internet-Draft           Multi-Layer OAM for SFC           December 2015


Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3
   2.  Convention and Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
   3.  SFC Layering model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
   4.  Requirements for SFC OAM multi-layering model  . . . . . . . .  6
   5.  SFC OAM multi-layering model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8
   6.  Gap analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
   7.  Security Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
   8.  IANA Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
   9.  References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
     9.1.  Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
     9.2.  Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
   Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13





































Wang, et al.              Expires June 23, 2016                 [Page 2]


Internet-Draft           Multi-Layer OAM for SFC           December 2015


1.  Introduction

   In [SFC-arch], it defines several requisite components to implement
   SFC, including classifier, which performs classification for incoming
   packets, and Service Function Forwarder/SFF, which is responsible for
   forwarding traffic to one or more connected service functions
   according to the information carried in the SFC encapsulation, as
   well as handling traffic coming back from the SF and transporting
   traffic to another SFF and terminating the SFP.  And what!_s more,
   another significant component is Service Function/SF, which is
   responsible for specific treatment of received packets.

   Based on these SFC components, there are different notions for
   differentiated level of service chains, such as fully abstract notion
   named SFC, which defines an ordered set of service functions that
   must be applied to packets selected as a result of classification.
   But, SFC doesn!_t define the exactly SFFs/SFs.  And another notion is
   half-fully abstraction notion named SFP, which is the instantiation
   of a SFC in the network and provides a level of indirection between
   the fully abstract SFC and a fully specified RSP.  The mean is that
   SFP defines some SFFs/SFs, not every SFFs/SFs.  As well, there is a
   fully specific notion named RSP, which defines exactly which SFFs/SFs
   the packet will visit when it actually traverses the network.  The
   main difference between SFP and RSP is that whether delegate the
   SFF/SF selection authority to the network or not.

   This document tries to discuss some problems in basic SFC OAM
   framework document and proposes the SFC OAM multi-layering
   requirements to improve the troubleshooting efficiency.






















Wang, et al.              Expires June 23, 2016                 [Page 3]


Internet-Draft           Multi-Layer OAM for SFC           December 2015


2.  Convention and Terminology

   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 [RFC2119].

   The terms are all defined in [RFC7665].












































Wang, et al.              Expires June 23, 2016                 [Page 4]


Internet-Draft           Multi-Layer OAM for SFC           December 2015


3.  SFC Layering model

   As described in [I-D.ietf-sfc-oam-framework], multiple layers come
   into play for implementing the SFC, including the Service layer at
   SFC layer and the underlying Network layer, Transport layer, as well
   as Link layer, which are depicted in Figure 1.

   As for the Service layer in Figure 1, it consists of classifiers
   and/or service functions/SFs.

   Concerning Network layer and Transport Layer in Figure 1, it
   leverages various overlay network technologies interconnecting
   service functions and allows establishing of service function paths.

   As for the Link layer in Figure 1, it is dependent on the physical
   technology used.  Such as, Ethernet, POS etc..)


      +-----------+   +---+   +---+   +---+   +---+   +---+
      |Classifier |---|SF1|---|SF2|---|SF3|---|SF4|---|SF5|
      +-----------+   +---+   +---+   +---+   +---+   +---+
          0------------SFC Service layer OAM------------0
          0----------------0--------------0-------------0  Network layer
          0-------------0-------0-------0--------0------0  Link Layer


                       Figure 1: SFC Layering model
























Wang, et al.              Expires June 23, 2016                 [Page 5]


Internet-Draft           Multi-Layer OAM for SFC           December 2015


4.  Requirements for SFC OAM multi-layering model

   In fact, besides the Link layer OAM, the Network layer and/or the
   Transport layer OAM for implementing SFC OAM must detect the network
   forwarders/NFs which the service function forwarders/SFFs connecting
   to directly along the service function paths.  As for how to steer
   detection messages along these NFs is determined by the service
   function paths information in the Network Service Header.

   As for the SFC service layer OAM, except the service layer defined in
   Figure 1 which focuses on the SFC OAM between classifier and/or SFs,
   here tries to propose the SFC OAM between classifier and/or SFFs, to
   improve the efficiency when diagnosing.

   With regard to how to diagnose efficiently, here is an example
   illustrated as follow.

   Currently, according to the latest SFC architecture, we know that
   there are several components defined in the SFC architecture, such as
   NF, SFF, SF, etc, and the relationship between them like this:
   several SFs may share the same SFF, and furthermore, several SFFs may
   share the same NF(e.g, different SFFs belong to different VPNs may
   residence in one network forwarder).  As a result of that, multiple
   RSPs, such as RSP1(SF1--SF3--SF5) and RSP2(SF2--SF4--SF6) in Figure
   2, not share the same transmitting path, but they may share the same
   SFFs path.


                    +---+  +---+     +---+  +---+     +---+  +---+
                    |SF1|  |SF2|     |SF3|  |SF4|     |SF5|  |SF6|
                    +---+  +---+     +---+  +---+     +---+  +---+
                       \   /            \  /             \  /
      +-----------+   +----+           +----+           +----+
      |Classifier |---|SFF1|-----------|SFF2|-----------|SFF3|
      +-----------+   +----+           +----+           +----+


             Figure 2: different RSPs share the same SFFs path

   And also, multiple SFPs, such as SFP1(SFF1--SFF3--SFF5)(e.g, VPN1)
   and SFP2(SFF2--SFF4--SFF6)(e.g, VPN2) in Figure 3,not share the same
   SFFs, but they may share the same NFs path.









Wang, et al.              Expires June 23, 2016                 [Page 6]


Internet-Draft           Multi-Layer OAM for SFC           December 2015


                   +----+   +----+    +----+  +----+     +----+  +----+
                   |SFF1|   |SFF2|    |SFF3|  |SFF4|     |SFF5|  |SFF6|
                   +----+   +----+    +----+  +----+     +----+  +----+
                        \   /             \  /               \  /
       +-----------+   +----+            +----+             +----+
       |Classifier |---|NF1 |------------|NF2 |-------------|NF3 |
       +-----------+   +----+            +----+             +----+


             Figure 3: different SFPs share the same NFs path

   As for users who want to diagnose, troubleshoot a set of RSPs which
   may transmit the same SFFs, or a set of SFPs which may transmit the
   same NFs because of similar service type , there is an aggregative
   method which can aggregate this set of RSPs into one SFFs path or
   this set of SFPs into one NFs path, then, users only need to
   diagnose, troubleshoot the aggregative one, rather than the separated
   one by one.

   And also, for example, if users are willing to or have to diagnose
   and troubleshoot every one, once the connectivity between different
   SFs is not OK, users can detect the connectivity between different
   SFFs where the SFs connecting to instead to narrow the failure
   coverage.  In other words, if the connectivity between the detected
   SFFs is not OK, then the connectivity problem is located.  If the
   connectivity between the detected SFFs is OK, then the connectivity
   problem should be between the detected SFs and the detected SFFs,
   which can help to improve the efficiency remarkably of target
   location.






















Wang, et al.              Expires June 23, 2016                 [Page 7]


Internet-Draft           Multi-Layer OAM for SFC           December 2015


5.  SFC OAM multi-layering model

   Figure 4 is a possible architecture for SFC OAM multi-layering model.
   In this figure, it tries to figure out three possible layers
   information.  The layer 1 sketches the NFs path along the service
   function paths.  The layer 2 outlines the SFFs path along the service
   function paths.  The layer 3 outlines the SFs path along the service
   function paths.  When trying to do SFC OAM, classifier or service
   nodes select and confirm which SFC OAM layering they plan to do, then
   encapsulate the layering information in the SFC OAM packets, and send
   the SFC OAM packets along the service function paths to the
   destination.  When receiving the SFC OAM packets, service nodes
   analyze the layering information and then decide whether send these
   packets to NFs or SFFs or SFs to process and response.


               +---+  +---+  +----+  +----+    +-----+  +-----+  +------+  +------+
               |SF1|..|SFn|  |SF1'|..|SFn'|    |SF1''|..|SFn''|  |SF1'''|..|SFn'''|
               +---+  +---+  +----+  +----+    +-----+  +-----+  +------+  +------+
                 \   /        \   /    |           \     /           \    /   |
                +----+       +----+    |           +-----+          +-----+   |
                |SFF1|  ...  |SFFn|    |           |SFF1'|   ...    |SFFn'|   |
                +----+       +----+    |           +-----+          +-----+   |
                    \       /   |      |                  \        /    |     |
 +-----------+      +-------+   |      |                  +-------+     |     |
 |Classifier |------|  NF1  |---|------|------------------|  NFn  |     |     |
 +-----------+      +-------+   |      |                  +-------+     |     |
                         |      |      |                       |        |     |
                         |------|------|-Layer 1---------------|        |     |
                                |      |                                |     |
                                |------|--------Layer 2-----------------|     |
                                       |                                      |
                                       |--------------Layer 3-----------------|
                                       |                                      |


                  Figure 4: SFC OAM multi-layering model














Wang, et al.              Expires June 23, 2016                 [Page 8]


Internet-Draft           Multi-Layer OAM for SFC           December 2015


6.  Gap analysis

   This document tries to complement the SFC OAM framework and all the
   SFC OAM functions are the same with the SFC OAM framework.















































Wang, et al.              Expires June 23, 2016                 [Page 9]


Internet-Draft           Multi-Layer OAM for SFC           December 2015


7.  Security Considerations

   It will be considered in a future revision.
















































Wang, et al.              Expires June 23, 2016                [Page 10]


Internet-Draft           Multi-Layer OAM for SFC           December 2015


8.  IANA Considerations

   It will be considered in a future revision.
















































Wang, et al.              Expires June 23, 2016                [Page 11]


Internet-Draft           Multi-Layer OAM for SFC           December 2015


9.  References

9.1.  Normative References

   [RFC2119]  Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
              Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, DOI 10.17487/
              RFC2119, March 1997,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.

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

   [RFC7665]  Halpern, J., Ed. and C. Pignataro, Ed., "Service Function
              Chaining (SFC) Architecture", RFC 7665, DOI 10.17487/
              RFC7665, October 2015,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7665>.

9.2.  Informative References

   [I-D.boucadair-sfc-requirements]
              Boucadair, M., Jacquenet, C., Jiang, Y., Parker, R., and
              K. Kengo, "Requirements for Service Function Chaining
              (SFC)", draft-boucadair-sfc-requirements-06 (work in
              progress), February 2015.

   [I-D.ietf-sfc-oam-framework]
              Aldrin, S., Krishnan, R., Akiya, N., Pignataro, C., and A.
              Ghanwani, "Service Function Chaining Operation,
              Administration and Maintenance Framework",
              draft-ietf-sfc-oam-framework-00 (work in progress),
              August 2015.


















Wang, et al.              Expires June 23, 2016                [Page 12]


Internet-Draft           Multi-Layer OAM for SFC           December 2015


Authors' Addresses

   Cui Wang
   ZTE Corporation
   No.50 Software Avenue, Yuhuatai District
   Nanjing
   China

   Email: wang.cui1@zte.com.cn


   Wei Meng
   ZTE Corporation
   No.50 Software Avenue, Yuhuatai District
   Nanjing
   China

   Email: meng.wei2@zte.com.cn,vally.meng@gmail.com


   Bhumip Khasnabish
   ZTE TX, Inc.
   55 Madison Avenue, Suite 160
   Morristown, New Jersey  07960
   USA

   Email: bhumip.khasnabish@ztetx.com
























Wang, et al.              Expires June 23, 2016                [Page 13]


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