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

Versions: 00

Service Function Chaining                                                 H. Yan
Internet Draft                                           Tsinghua University
Intended status: Informational                                     Y. Li
Expires: January 2018                                Tsinghua University
                                                                      H. Sun
                                                     Huawei Technologies
                                                               C. Xiong
                                                     Huawei Technologies
                                                                  D. Jin
                                                     Tsinghua University
                                                        Auguest 19, 2017





                        A Service Chain Aggregation Architecture
               draft-yanhuan-sfc-aggregation-00.txt

Abstract

        Service chains specifying the ordered sequences of network functions
        according to network policies requested, play a very important role
        in improving network performance in most networks. With the
        introduction of Software-Defined Networking (SDN) and Network
        Function Virtualization (NFV) technologies, service chains can be
        immediately deployed in more effective ways. Since different
        customers or operators would request multiple service chains in the
        same network but different administrative domains, and the multiple
        service chains may apply to the same network connection, we propose
        a service chain aggregation architecture that has ability to
        effectively aggregate them before the deployment. In this
        architecture, we determine the aggregating order of service chains
        according to different conditions verifying the aggregation
        effectiveness. The benefits of our architecture are 1) security, 2)
        network resource (e.g., flow entries in switches) savings and 3)
        scalability.

Status of this Memo

        This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
        provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.

        Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
        Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups.  Note that
        other groups may also distribute working documents as
        Internet-Drafts.

        Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six
        months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents
        at any time.  It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as
        reference material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."

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

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

Yan, et al.                Expires February 19, 2018                [Page 1]


Internet-Draft        Service Chain Aggregation Arch         August 2017

        This Internet-Draft will expire on January 28, 2009.

Copyright Notice

        Copyright (c) 2017 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
        document authors. All rights reserved.

        This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
        Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (
        http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
        publication of this document. Please review these documents
        carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with
        respect to this document. Code Components extracted from this
        document must include Simplified BSD License text as described in
        Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without
        warranty as described in the Simplified BSD License.

Table of Contents

        1. Introduction 3
        2. Design Objective     5
        3. Requirements and Terminology 5
        3.1. Requirements       5
        3.2. Definition of Terms        5
        4. The Architecture of Service Chain Aggregation        6
        4.1. Architecture Overview      6
        4.2. Aggregation Mechanism      7
        5. Examples of Service Chain Aggregation        8
        5.1. Verifying Conflicting Service Chains       8
        5.2. Only One Aggregation Order of Service Chains       8
        5.3. Multiple Aggregation Order of Service Chains       9
        6. Summary      10
        7. Security Considerations      10
        8. IANA Considerations  10
        9. Informative References       10
        10. Acknowledgments     11

1. Introduction

        Network policies can specify how network works and implement
        specific network functions. In most networks, operators usually
        manage the network via configuring the policies. For example, in LTE
        systems, the policy control and charging rules module is responsible
        for making the policy decision and operators create or update the
        policies via this module. As the demands of business scenarios
        become more diverse, customers have the need to customize the
        network services through network policies. However, it is not easy
        to meet with such ability because of the network inflexibility. For
        example, network resources (e.g., network devices) are mostly fixed
        or statically configured in the underlying networks, and thus cannot
        be flexibly controlled.

Yan, et al.                Expires February 19, 2018                [Page 2]


Internet-Draft        Service Chain Aggregation Arch         August 2017

        To address this problem, Software-Defined Networking [RFC7426] and
        Network Function Virtualization (NFV) [etsi_gs_nfv_003], as two most
        promising technologies, are introduced for future network design.
        SDN decouples the control plane from forwarding plane and enables

        the logically centralized control; while NFV utilizes the
        virtualized technologies to implement the required network functions
        in generic servers instead of the proprietary network devices. By
        combining with these two technologies, it offers an opportunity to
        open the ability that applies for required network policies on
        demand to upper-layer applications.

        Service chain is one of most important types of network policies in
        most networks [RFC 7665]. It consists of a set of ordered network
        functions (e.g., firewall, counter, deep packet inspection (DPI))
        and can implement required network services. For example, Figure 1
        shows a typical service chain in Evolved Packet Core (EPC). In this
        chain, optimizer can automatically adjust the packet format in order
        to match different mobile devices in real time, and firewall is
        provided to protect against attacks from external network. The
        deployment of this chain in the network is beneficial to improve
        user experience on the consumption of online contents via mobile
        devices.

   +-------------+   +-----------+   +----------+   +----------+
   |mobile device+---+ optimizer +---+ firewall +---+ internet |
   +-------------+   +-----------+   +----------+   +----------+
           Figure 1: A typical service chain in EPC

        With the advantages of SDN and NFV, service chains can be flexibly
        configured and deployed to the network. Importantly, it is usual to
        simultaneously request multiple chains for the same network
        connection or application. To illustrate this, we take Figure 2 for
        example. Chain 1 is defined to monitor the information of traffic
        rate; while Chain 2 specifies a DPI to inspect the packets'
        information. We can observe that Chain 1 does not influence Chain 2
        and these two chains can be deployed at the same time. However,
        there is another case that for the same connection some service
        chains may have conflicting behaviors. Thus, direct deployment may
        influence other network functions and network performance. For
        example, Figure 3 shows two conflicting service chains for the same
        connection. Chain 1 specifies a firewall that drops the packets with
        the destination address of ip1; while Chain 2 has a redirector that
        modify the destination address of packets from ip1 to ip2.
        Intuitively, these chains must occur conflict since the processing
        behaviors for the same packets are contradictory (drop vs modify).
        Especially, if more service chains are requested for the same
        connection, it becomes more difficult and complex to verify their
        behaviors. To deal with it, we need to effectively aggregate these
        service chains without influencing original network functions.
        [chaithan_pga_sigcomm] studied the composition of graph-based
        policies. However, they do not give the complete solution on how to
        determine the order of aggregations.

Yan, et al.                Expires February 19, 2018                [Page 3]


Internet-Draft        Service Chain Aggregation Arch         August 2017

                 +---------+                     +----------+
     Chain 1  +--+ monitor +--+     Chain 2   +--+   DPI    +--+
                 +---------+                     +----------+
       Figure 2: Two service chains for the same connection

                 +----------+                    +----------+
     Chain 1  +--+ firewall +--+    Chain 2   +--+redirector+--+
                 +----------+                    +----------+
       Figure 3: Two conflicting service chains for the same connection

        In this document, we propose a novel architecture to support the
        aggregation of service chains. This architecture verifies the
        effectiveness of aggregating two service chains for the same
        source-destination pair and then determines final aggregation order
        before deployment. Especially, when multiple aggregation orders are
        optional, the architecture provides customers a customized and
        flexible way to fulfill required demands.

        The advantages of the architecture are summarized as follows: 1) it
        avoids the waste of resources like flow entries. For example, two
        service chains in Figure 2 can be aggregated as the form in Figure
        4, which reduces the number of flow entries in the switch. 2) it
        enhances network security by detecting the conflicts; 3) it enables
        highly effective management for service-chain-based policies, and
        operators can easily update or add new requests.

                   +---------+   +----------+
                +--+ monitor +---+   DPI    +--+
                   +---------+   +----------+
  Figure 4: Aggregating two service chains in Figure 2 into a new one

2. Design Objective

        Our proposed architecture is to automatically and effectively
        aggregate the service chains in SDN/NFV networks. The aggregation
        can not only avoid the behavior conflicts of service chains for the
        same connection, but also optimize network resources. In future
        networks, many applications rely on deploying different service
        chains. Therefore, it is necessary to design an aggregation
        architecture to reliably and intelligently implement them.

3. Requirements and Terminology

3.1. Requirements

        The future network architecture has to support the separation of the
        control and forwarding plane. The controller in the control plane
        can globally arrange the network resources (e.g., bandwidth,
        forwarding rules, network functions or middlebox) in the forwarding
        plane.

        Meanwhile, it needs to support the NFV capability. Network functions
        can be implemented by means of the virtualized technologies used in
        the generic sever. Thus, controller can flexibly deploy required
        network functions in the underlying network.

Yan, et al.                Expires February 19, 2018                [Page 4]


Internet-Draft        Service Chain Aggregation Arch         August 2017

3.2. Definition of Terms

        Network service: This consists of one or more network functions,
        which is often provided by the operators.

        Service chain: This defines an ordered set of virtual network
        functions. For example, firewall can be seen as a virtual network
        function.

        Network function: It is responsible for processing the specific
        packets. A network function can be implemented as a virtual element
        in a generic sever or be embedded in a proprietary device.

4. The Architecture of Service Chain Aggregation

        In this section, we introduce our architecture of service chain
        aggregation and illustrate how to use it to realize the aggregation
        of service chains.

4.1. Architecture Overview

        Figure 5 shows the architecture of service chain aggregation. It
        consists of four major modules: application/management platform,
        aggregator, selector and controller.

        Application/management platform is used for customers or operators
        to submit their requests of service chains. In addition, this module
        supports to query the information of aggregated service chains in
        the network, which is beneficial of operators to effectively manage
        the network.

                                +---------------------------+
                                |   Application/Management  |
                                |   Platform                |
                                +-----+-^-----------+---^---+
                                          | |           |   |
                                +-----v-+----+   +--v---+---+
                                |            +--->          |
                                | Aggregator |   | Selector |
                                |            <---+          |
                                +------+-----+   +----------+
                                           |
                                  +----v-------------------+
                                  |       Controller       |
                                  +---------+----^---------+
                                                        |    |
                                                        v    +
                                                         .--.
                                                 __(     ')__
                                           (             ')_
                                         (      Network     ')
                                 (        Infrastructure     ')
                                         (                   )
                                           (               )
                         '--(_____)--'
     Figure 5: The architecture of service chain aggregation

Yan, et al.                Expires February 19, 2018                [Page 5]


Internet-Draft        Service Chain Aggregation Arch         August 2017

        Aggregator is a core module that aggregates the service chains. For
        service chains serving the same connection, this module analyzes the
        function of two chains and decides how to aggregate them.

        Selector is used to select an aggregation order when it receives the
        request from the aggregator. Some default rules can be defined in
        the module. These rules define the placing order of network
        functions. In addition, operator can configure new rules via
        application/management platform.

        Controller is responsible for converting the chains into the
        low-level configurations that implement specific network services.
        These configurations may be the forwarding rules that specify the
        packets to go through the prescribed forwarding elements, creating
        virtual network functions in the specific servers and so on.

4.2. Aggregation Mechanism

        The key to aggregate service chains lies in classifying the possible
        aggregation scenarios. When aggregating two service chains, we
        intuitively deduce three possible results: the aggregation failure,
        one definite order and two optional orders. Specifically, when the
        behavior of newly requested service chain conflicts with the
        deployed one, the aggregation fails. For one definite order, it
        occurs when one of two aggregate orders would influence the original
        function of each chain. Finally, we can obtain two optional
        aggregation results if any one of them is fine.

        The detailed process in aggregator is summarized as follows. The
        aggregator first checks whether the newly requested chain serves a
        new connection that has not been deployed a chain before. If this is
        the case, the new chain can be directly deployed without aggregation
        via controller. Otherwise, it will perform the aggregation process.
        During this process, it examines which condition of aggregation can
        be satisfied. If the same packets are processed by two chains but
        the corresponding behaviors conflict, the aggregator will notify the
        application/management platform the conflicting information. If no
        conflict is detected, it needs to check whether each function of two
        chains can be implemented after aggregation. We choose one order
        that can simultaneously satisfy both functions. Specifically, we
        estimate that an aggregation order is effective if it satisfies the
        following condition. The packets matched with the behavior of the
        first chain are consistent with the ones after its process, which
        are also matched with the behavior of second chain. If two
        aggregation orders are fine, the aggregator module will request the
        selector to determine one. Finally, the aggregation result will be
        stored in the database of aggregator and then sent to the controller.

Yan, et al.                Expires February 19, 2018                [Page 6]


Internet-Draft        Service Chain Aggregation Arch         August 2017

        In addition, the aggregator provides the service interface for
        application/management platform to request the information of
        aggregated service chains.

5. Examples of Service Chain Aggregation

        In this section, we give some typical examples to illustrate how
        this architecture addresses with the newly requested service chains
        and guarantees the network reliability.

5.1. Verifying Conflicting Service Chains

        Consider there are two administrative domains in the SDN/NFV-based
        network. To address with the abnormal traffic, two operators use
        different policies for the same connection. Operator 1 requests a
        service chain containing a firewall that filters the packet from
        source address ip1, but Operator 2 designs another service chain
        consisting of a remarker that remarks the same packets. We assume
        that there was no chain in this connection before. Figure 6 shows
        these two chains.

              +--------+                     +--------+
  Chain 1 +---+Firewall+--+      Chain 2 +---+Remarker+--+
              +--------+                     +--------+
              Figure 6: Two service chains in example 1

        When one of these chains is requested via application/management
        platform, it will be sent to aggregator. Since no chain exists in
        this connection, aggregator would notify the controller to deploy
        this chain. When another chain is sent to aggregator, this module
        will check that the behaviors of two chains (drop vs remark)
        conflict. Then, it immediately notifies the application/management
        platform the information of the conflict.

5.2. Only One Aggregation Order of Service Chains

        Consider an operator has deployed a service chain to count the
        number of packets with destination address of ip1 in some
        connection. When number of such packets drastically increases, the
        operator wants to request a new service chain to modify destination
        address of these packet to a new IP address. Figure 7 shows these
        two chains.

                +-------+                      +----------+
    Chain 1 +---+Counter+--+       Chain 2 +---+Redirector+--+
                +-------+                      +----------+
                          +-------+  +----------+
    Aggregated chain   +--+Counter+--+Redirector+--+
                          +-------+  +----------+
 Figure 7: Two service chains and its aggregation result in example 2

        Since Chain 1 has deployed into the underlying network, the system
        would find this information and then attempt to aggregate Chain 1
        and 2.  Specifically, when Chain 2 is forwarded to the aggregator,

Yan, et al.                Expires February 19, 2018                [Page 7]


Internet-Draft        Service Chain Aggregation Arch         August 2017

        this module would check whether their behaviors are contradictory.
        After verifying no conflict exists, the aggregator starts to
        determine its aggregation order. If Chain 1 is placed after the
        Chain 2, no packets with the destination address of ip1 are counted,
        which influences the network service of Chain 1. However, if the
        aggregation order is opposite, the network services of both chains
        can be met with. This is because that two chains process the same
        packets and the counter does not change the destination address of
        packets. Finally, the aggregation result is sent to controller for
        deployment.

5.3. Multiple Aggregation Order of Service Chains

        Consider an operator has deployed a service chain to count the
        number of packets with destination address of ip1 in some
        connection. After a short time, the operator wants to request a new
        service chain to inspect the information of the same packets. In
        addition, the rule in selector prescribes that DPI should be placed
        before Counter. Figure 8 shows these two chains.

                  +-------+                      +---+
      Chain 1 +---+Counter+--+       Chain 2 +---+DPI+--+
                  +-------+                      +---+
                           +---+  +-------+
     Aggregated chain   +--+DPI+--+Counter+--+
                           +---+  +-------+
Figure 8: Two service chains and its aggregation result in example 3

        Like the initial process in example 2, aggregator starts to
        determine the aggregation order of Chain 1 and Chain 2. Since no
        matter how the chains aggregate, their original functions can be
        fulfilled. Therefore, the aggregator sends the request to selector.
        Then, the selector determines the final order shown in Figure 8
        according to the predefined rules and returns it to the aggregator.

6. Summary

        This document proposes an architecture for service chain aggregation
        based on the SDN/NFV network. This architecture utilizes the
        analysis of possible aggregation results, thus assuring its
        effectiveness. Meanwhile, we give some typical examples to
        illustrate how this architecture works. Our architecture can not
        only meet with required network services but also assure network
        reliability. Because future Evolved Packet Core would use SDN and
        NFV technologies, this architecture is also applicable in this
        environment.

7. Security Considerations

        Security issues due to aggregating the service chains across
        different administrative domain are an aspect for further study.

Yan, et al.                Expires February 19, 2018                [Page 8]


Internet-Draft        Service Chain Aggregation Arch         August 2017

8. IANA Considerations

        This draft does not have any IANA considerations.

9. Informative References

        [etsi_gs_nfv_003]       ETSI NFV ISG, "Network Functions Virtualization
        (NFV); Terminology for Main Concepts in NFV", ETSI GS NFV 003 V1.2.1
        NFV 003, December 2014, <
        http://www.etsi.org/deliver/etsi_gs/NFV/001_099/003/01.02.01_60/gs_NFV
        003v010201p.pdf>.

        [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>.

        [RFC7426]  Haleplidis, E., Ed., Pentikousis, K., Ed., Denazis, S.,
        Hadi Salim, J., Meyer, D., and O. Koufopavlou, "Software-Defined
        Networking (SDN): Layers and Architecture Terminology", RFC 7426,
        DOI 10.17487/RFC7426, January 2015, <
        http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7426>.

        [chaithan_pga_sigcomm] Chaithan Prakash, Jeongkeun Lee, Yoshio
        Turner, Joon-Myung Kang, Aditya Akella, Sujata Banerjee, Charles
        Clark, Yadi Ma, Puneet Sharma, and Ying Zhang. 2015. PGA: Using
        Graphs to Express and Automatically Reconcile Network Policies.
        SIGCOM 2015, 29-42.

10. Acknowledgments

        This document was prepared using 2-Word-v2.0.template.dot.

Authors' Addresses

        Huan Yan
        Tsinghua University
        yanh14@mails.tsinghua.edu.cn

        Yong Li
        Tsinghua University
        liyong07@tsinghua.edu.cn

        Haiyang Sun
        Huawei Technologies
        sunhaiyang3@huawei.com

        Chunshan Xiong
        Huawei Technologies
        sam.xiongchunshan@huawei.com

        Depeng Jin
        Tsinghua University
        jindp@tsinghua.edu.cn

Yan, et al.                Expires February 19, 2018                [Page 9]

Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.126, available from https://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/