Network working group L. Dunbar Internet Draft Huawei Intended status: Informational I. Smith; S. Majee Expires: January 2014 F5 Networks N. So Tata Communications Donald Eastlake Huawei October 16, 2013 Architecture for Chaining Legacy Layer 4-7 Service Functions draft-dunbar-sfc-legacy-l4-l7-chain-architecture-00.txt Status of this Memo This Internet-Draft is submitted to IETF 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 Copyright Notice Copyright (c) 2013 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. Dunbar Expires April 16, 2014 [Page 1] Internet-Draft Architecture for Chaining Legacy L4-L7 SF Abstract This draft analyzes the issues associated with chaining existing Layer 4-7 service functions that are not aware of service encapsulation layers. This draft also examines the network architecture for chaining existing L4-L7 service functions. The intent is to identify and describe gaps that have not been addressed by other SFC drafts. Conventions used in this document 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 0. The term "traffic steering" and "traffic forwarding" are used interchangeably in this draft. Table of Contents 1. Introduction.................................................3 2. Terminology..................................................3 3. Layer 4-7 Service Functions and Chaining.................... 4 3.1. Layer 4-7 Service Functions ............................4 3.2. Service Functions for Wireless network ................4 3.3. Proxy Node for Layer 4-7 Service Functions ...........5 4. Architecture for Chaining Legacy Layer 4-7 Service Functions.7 4.1. L4-L7 nodes connection to Service Chain Proxy Nodes ....7 4.2. Traffic Steering at Proxy Nodes.........................7 5. Challenges of Chaining L4-L7 Service Function ...............9 5.1. Challenge of Multiple Instances of a Service Function ..9 5.2. Challenges of Layer 4-7 traffic Steering ...............10 Dunbar, et al Expires Sept16, 2014 [Page 2] Internet-Draft Architecture for Chaining Legacy L4-L7 SF 5.3. Challenges of Service Chain Classification .............11 6. Challenge of Service Chain from the Layer 7 Perspective .....12 7. Conclusion and Recommendation ............................. 13 8. Manageability Considerations .............................. 13 9. Security Considerations ................................... 13 10. IANA Considerations ...................................... 13 11. Acknowledgments.......................................... 14 12. References............................................... 14 Authors' Addresses........................................... 15 Intellectual Property Statement ................................15 Disclaimer of Liability ...................................... 16 1. Introduction This draft focuses on the issues associated with chaining common Layer 4-7 Service functions that are not aware of new service encapsulation layers. Some examples of service function chaining in the mobile network environment are studied in this draft. The intent is to demonstrate gaps that haven't been addressed by other Service Function Chaining (SFC) drafts. There have been many drafts submitted on the topic of SFC. However, a number of issues associated with chaining existing Layer 4-7 service functions that don't support Service Encapsulation header have not been described well. 2. Terminology DPI Deep Packet Inspection FW Firewall Layer 4-7 Service Function: a functional module that performs certain action to the packets belonging to an end-to end flow. The action can change the behavior of the packet flow and/or the packets themselves, including the packet header and packet payload. Exemplary functional modules include Firewall, Deep Packet Inspection (DPI), Encryption, Packet De-duplication, Compression, TCP Acceleration, NAT, and etc. They are similar to the Service Functions defined in [SFC-Problem], except they are Dunbar, et al Expires Sept16, 2014 [Page 3] Internet-Draft Architecture for Chaining Legacy L4-L7 SF not aware of any new service header encapsulations. Many of existing Layer 4-7 service functions fall into this category. Layer 4-7 service functions can be instantiated on a standalone physical or virtual device, which is called "Service Node" by [SFC-Problem]. Layer 4-7 functions can also be embedded in another device, such as router/switch or other devices. 3. Layer 4-7 Service Functions and Chaining 3.1. Layer 4-7 Service Functions A Layer 4-7 service function performs certain action to the packets belonging to an end-to end flow. The implementation of such service function can be either Proxy based or Packet Based, or a hybrid of both when more than one function is performed to the same packet flow. Multiple service functions can be instantiated on a single service node as defined by [SFC-ARCH], or embedded in a L2/L3 network node. - Proxy based service functions: these service functions terminate original packets, may reassemble multiple packets, reopen a new connection, or formulate new packets based on the received packets. - Packet based service functions: these service functions maintain original packets, i.e. they don't make changes to packets traversed through except possibly to metadata or packet outer header fields. 3.2. Service Functions for Wireless network [SFC-MobileNetwork] and [SFC-use-cases] have provided examples of service chain in mobile network. In particular, the P-GW/PCEF determines the desired service treatment, i.e. desired sequence of service functions, to specific flows based on the policies from PCRF. Here are some of the issues of service chain in wireless network: - large number of permutations of service functions to be chained together Dunbar, et al Expires Sept16, 2014 [Page 4] Internet-Draft Architecture for Chaining Legacy L4-L7 SF - The sequence of services functions applied to selective flows can change. New service functions may need to be inserted; existing service functions may need to be removed or changed. - The criteria for applying service functions can take combination of application classification, packet headers, and/or other factors. For example, the factors that have direct association with the packet flow include packet source address, destination address, TCP ports. The factors that do not have association with the packet flow include user/source location, account status, time of day, network condition, and etc. | Mobile backhaul Network +-----+ | +---+---+ |PCRF | | |Network| | | < ---- > |Ctrller| +-----+ | +----+--+ | | | | +---------+ | +--------+ +----+ +---------+ -- > | P-GW | --> |LB |---| FW |--> | Web | ------> | | | | | | | | Proxy | --->| | | +--------+ +----+ +---------+ --->| | | +---------+ +----+ -- > | | --> |Video |---| FW |--> ----------- ------> | [PCEF]| | |Optimizer| | | | | | +---------+ +----+ --->| | | +--------+ +-----+ -- > | | --> |SBC |---| ACL |--> ----------- ------> | | | | | | | +---------+ | +--------+ +-----+ Figure 1: Service Chain for Mobile Network 3.3. Proxy Node for Layer 4-7 Service Functions Section 3.4 of [NSC-Header] describes a scenario that the service nodes are not aware of service encapsulation header. The term "proxy node" is introduced by [NSC-header] as a gateway to remove and insert service layer encapsulation on behalf of service nodes that are not aware service layer encapsulation. Dunbar, et al Expires Sept16, 2014 [Page 5] Internet-Draft Architecture for Chaining Legacy L4-L7 SF Even though Layer 4-7 Service nodes can be instantiated anywhere in the network, it is not uncommon to have more than one service nodes located in close vicinity, or one to two links away from the service chain's "proxy node". The following figure depicts typical network architecture for chaining those Layer 4-7 service nodes that are not aware of service layer encapsulation. |1 ----- |n |21 ---- |2m +---+---+ +---+---+ +-+---+ +--+-----+ | Ad | |Content| |Video| |Security| |Insert | | Opt | | Opt | | App | +---+---+ +---+---+ +--+--+ +--+--+--+ : : : : : : : : : : \ / \ / +--------------+ +--------+ +---------+ -- > | Chain | --> | Proxy |---------> | Proxy | ------> |classification| |Node-1 | | Node-i | +--------------+ +----+---+ +----+--+-+ |-- | | V V +---> +--------+ | Proxy | | -j |-----> +--------+ Figure 2: Chaining existing Layer 4-7 service nodes When there are more than one service functions or nodes located in the vicinity of the service chain "proxy nodes", the Proxy nodes need to steer designated traffic to the designated service functions. The service chain proxy nodes can be standalone devices, or can be embedded with routers or switches in the network. Overlay tunnels are expected to connect the "proxy nodes" together. Dunbar, et al Expires Sept16, 2014 [Page 6] Internet-Draft Architecture for Chaining Legacy L4-L7 SF 4. Architecture for Chaining Legacy Layer 4-7 Service Functions 4.1. L4-L7 nodes connection to Service Chain Proxy Nodes L4-L7 Service nodes can be connected to Service Chain proxy nodes in various ways. The topology could be bump in a wire or one armed topology. - A service function can be embedded in a Service Chain proxy node (i.e. embedded in a router or a switch). In this case, the service function doesn't need an address to receive data packets. The forwarding entity can send packets that meet the steering criteria directly to the service function regardless of the destination addresses in the packets. The Service function always sends the processed packets back to the forwarding entity regardless of the destination addresses in the packets. - A service node can be one hop away from a service chain proxy node The one hop between the Service Chain proxy node and the service node can be a physical link (e.g. Ethernet link). Under this scenario, there would be a Link Header, i.e. an outer MAC header, added to the data packets that meet the steering criteria. The one hop link can be a transparent link, i.e. no link address is added to the data packets on the link between the Service Chain proxy node and Service node. I.e. the service nodes are set to promiscuous mode that can apply treatment to data frames arrived at the ingress port regardless of the Link Destination address. This scenario is considered the same as a service function being embedded in the Service Chain proxy node. - A service node can be multiple hops away, such as when a service is deployed in an on-net or private *aaS offering. 4.2. Traffic Steering at Proxy Nodes Some service chains may require steering to Layer 4-7 functions based on Layer 2 or 3 fields of the data packets. Some service Dunbar, et al Expires Sept16, 2014 [Page 7] Internet-Draft Architecture for Chaining Legacy L4-L7 SF chains may require steering traffic to Layer 4-7 service functions based on some higher layer fields in the data packets, i.e. Layer 4 to Layer 7 fields. The policies for Proxy Nodes to steer traffic to its connected service functions or service function instances can change. Those policies can be carried by the "metadata" introduced by [SFC- ARCH], or can be dynamically updated by network controller to the proxy nodes. There are multiple types of traffic steering: - Fixed header based forwarding: traffic steering based on header fields that have fixed position in the data packets: ?Forwarding based on Layer 2-3 header fields, such as MAC or IP Destination Address, Source Addresses, MPLS label, VLAN ID, or combination of multiple Layer 2-3 header fields. ?Forwarding based on Layer 4 header (TCP or UDP). ?QoS header based forwarding. - Layer 7 based forwarding: traffic steering (or forwarding) based on the payload (L7) of data packets. Multiple data packets may carry some meaningful data, like one HTTP message. Under this scenario, multiple data packets have to be examined before meaningful data can be extracted for making Layer 7 based forwarding decision. - Metadata based steering: traffic steering (or forwarding) based on the identity of the initiating user, the UE model or type, the site name or FQDN, or network conditions (congestion, utilization, etc.). However those metadata might not necessarily be carried by each data packet due to extended bits required that can cause high probability of packet fragmentation. Those metadata can be dynamically passed down to steering nodes in some forms of steering policies from network controller(s). Dunbar, et al Expires Sept16, 2014 [Page 8] Internet-Draft Architecture for Chaining Legacy L4-L7 SF 5. Challenges of Chaining L4-L7 Service Function From user's perspective, the service chain is a sequence of service functions, such as Chain#1 {s1, s4, s6}, Chain#2{s4, s7} applied to a data flow. A flow is loosely used in this document to refer to a selective of packets that meet certain criteria, e.g. IP flows, 5 tuple based flow or a HTTP transaction. Some users might not care at which points in the network the selected flow is steered to those service functions as long as the sequence of the service functions is correct. 5.1. Challenge of Multiple Instances of a Service Function From the traffic flow perspective, a Service Chain guarantees that specific data flows go through a specific sequence of service functions' instances. For each service function, there could be multiple instances, with some in close proximity and others far apart being connected by different service chain proxy nodes. With Network Function Virtualization (NFV) initiative, more and more service functions have virtualized instances instantiated on servers or virtual machines. NFV imposes higher chance of service function instances being changed due failure or load shifting. When instances change, the management system or the Service Chain controller can update the steering policies to proxy nodes, dynamically, to steer the selected flows to different instances. Alternatively, a proxy node may employ a method for selecting a particular service instance for a flow or group of related flows. The selection could be stateful like basic round-robin, connection count etc. or stateless e.g hash based or random. Dunbar, et al Expires Sept16, 2014 [Page 9] Internet-Draft Architecture for Chaining Legacy L4-L7 SF | +---+------+ +---+---+ +--+-----+ |controller| |Service| |Service | | | |Func-1 | |Func- m | +---+------+ +----+--+ +--+--+--+ / \ \ : / / \ +-------------+ : / / \ \ : / +--------------+ +--------+ +---------+ -- > | Service | --> |Proxy |---------> | Proxy | ------> | node | |Node-1 | | Node-2 | +--------------+ +--------+ +---------+ Figure 3: Service Chain from Traffic Steering Point of View Some service functions make changes to data packets, such as NAT changing the address fields. If any of those fields are used in traffic steering along the service chain, the criteria can be different before and after those the service functions. 5.2. Challenges of Layer 4-7 traffic Steering Very often the criteria for steering flows to service functions are based on higher layer headers, such as TCP header, HTTP header, etc. Most of deployed switches/routers are very efficient in forwarding packets based on Layer 2 or Layer 3 headers, such as MAC/IP destination addresses, or VLAN/MPLS labels but have limited capacity for forwarding data packets based on higher layer header. As of today, differentiating data packets based on higher layer headers depends on ACLs (Access Control List field matching) or DPI, both of which are relatively expensive and extensive use of such facilities may limit the bandwidth of switches/routers. The Service Chain classification node introduced by [Boucadair- framework] and [SFC-ARCH] can alleviate the workload on large number of nodes in the network, including service chain proxy nodes, from steer traffic based on higher layer fields. Dunbar, et al Expires Sept16, 2014 [Page 10] Internet-Draft Architecture for Chaining Legacy L4-L7 SF |1 ----- |n |21 ---- |2m +---+---+ +---+---+ +-+---+ +--+-----+ | Ad | |Content| |Video| |Security| |Insert | | Opt | | Opt | | App | +---+---+ +---+---+ +--+--+ +--+--+--+ : : : : : : : : : : \ / \ / +--------------+ +--------+ +---------+ -- > | Chain | --> | Proxy |---------> | Proxy | ------> |classification| |Node-1 | | Node-2 | +--------------+ +--------+ +---------+ Figure 4: Service Chain Marking At Ingress A Service Chain Classification node can associate a unique Service Chain Label (e.g. Layer 2 or 3 Label) to the packets in the flow. Such a Layer 2 or 3 Label makes it easier for subsequent nodes along the flow path to steer the flow to the service functions specified by the flow's service chain. The network elements that have the Service Chain Classification Function are most likely network ingress edge nodes, such as Wireless Packet Gateway, Broadband Network Gateways, Cell Site Gateways, etc. In some situations, like service chain for wireless subscribers, many flows (i.e. subscribers) have common service chain requirements. Under those situations, the Service Chain classification Functional can mark multiple flows with the same service chain requirement using the same Layer 2 or 3 Label, which effectively aggregates those flows into one service chain. For service chains that are shared by a great number of flows, they can be pre-provisioned. For example, if VLAN ID=10 is the service chain that need to traverse "Service-1" at Proxy Node #1 and "Service-3" at Proxy Node #2, the steering policy for VLAN ID=10 can be dynamically changed by controllers. 5.3. Challenges of Service Chain Classification The policy for associating flows with their service chains can be complicated and could be dynamic due to different behavior associated with chains, balancing load among multiple instances for one service function, and instance failure. Dunbar, et al Expires Sept16, 2014 [Page 11] Internet-Draft Architecture for Chaining Legacy L4-L7 SF For a chain of {FW, Header_enrichment, smart_node, Video_opt, Parental Control}, the video optimizer really needs to work on the response path. It may also use completely different encapsulation e.g. ICAP for example. There could be Smart-Node to further classify a particular part of the flow and bypass something, say the video_opt. Therefore, the classification done by the service chain classification nodes at the network entrance can't completely dictate the exact sequence of service functions. The Service Chain Classification node can encounter flows that don't match with any policies. There is a default policy that applies all statutorily required policies to the unknown flows. Multiple flows can share one service chain. The criteria to select flows to be associated with their service chain could be different. For example, for one service chain "A" shared by Flow X, Y, Z: - Criteria for Flow X to the Service Chain "A" are TCP port - Criteria for Flow Y to the Service Chain "A" are Destination Address - Criteria for Flow Z to the Service Chain "A" are MPLS label. 6. Challenge of Service Chain from the Layer 7 Perspective From the Layer 7 perspective, the service chain can be much more complex. As shown in the figure below, the service functions to be chained can depend on the HTTP message request and reply. The service chain classification nodes may have to examine the whole HTTP message to determine the specific sequence of service functions for the flows. The HTTP message might have to be extracted from multiple data packets. Sometimes, the logic to steer traffic to chain of service functions might depend on the data retrieved from a database based on messages constructed from packets. The decision may depend on the HTTP response rather than the request, or it may depend on a particular sequence of request-response messages. The message handler may also alter the Layer 7 service chain based on hints or modification done by previous service function. HTTP based service function may insert HTTP header to add further criterion for service selection in the next round of classification. Dunbar, et al Expires Sept16, 2014 [Page 12] Internet-Draft Architecture for Chaining Legacy L4-L7 SF +----------+ Client --------->( Layer 7 )---------> Internet <---------( Message )<--------- ( Handler ) _______( )________ / +----------+ \ / / \ \ |1 |2 |3 |4 +---+---+ +---+---+ +-+---+ +--+-----+ | Ad | |Content| |Video| |Security| |Insert | | Opt | | Opt | | App | +---+---+ +---+---+ +--+--+ +--+--+--+ : : : : : : : : : : Figure 5: Layer 7 Service Chain Complexity 7. Conclusion and Recommendation There are many service functions being deployed already in the network. Many of them are not capable to adapt to new service chain encapsulation layer. This document provides architecture framework for chaining those Layer 4-7 service functions that are not aware of new service layer encapsulation. 8. Manageability Considerations There currently exists no single management methodology to control the L2-4 packet-based forwarding device, the L4-7 service delivery device, and the L7+ application server. Such unified management of configuration state is required for service function chaining to be a practical solution. 9. Security Considerations TBD. 10. IANA Considerations This document requires no IANA actions. RFC Editor: Please remove this section before publication. Dunbar, et al Expires Sept16, 2014 [Page 13] Internet-Draft Architecture for Chaining Legacy L4-L7 SF 11. Acknowledgments This draft has taken input from "Application Layer SDN" presentation given by John Giacomoni of F5 at Layer 123 conference. Thanks to Huang Shi Bi and Li Hong Yu for the valuable comments and suggestions. This document was prepared using 2-Word-v2.0.template.dot. 12. References [Boucadair-framework] M. Boucadair, et al, "Differentiated Service Function Chaining Framework", < draft- boucadair-service-chaining-framework-00>; Aug 2013 [SFC-Problem] P. Quinn, et al, "Network Service Chaining Problem statement", , Aug, 2013 [SFC-Arch] P. Quinn, et al, "Service Function Chaining (SFC) Architecture", < draft-quinn-nsc-arch-00>, Sept 2013 [NSH-Header] P. Quinn, et al, "Network Service Header", < draft-quinn-nsh-01>, July 12, 2013 [SC-MobileNetwork] W. Haeffner, N. Leymann, "Network Based Services in Mobile Network", IETF87 Berlin, July 29 2013 [Application-SDN] J. Giacomonni, "Application Layer SDN", Layer 123 ONF Presentation, Singapore, June 2013 [SC-Use-Case] Liu, et, al., "Service Chaining Use Cases", < draft-liu-service-chaining-use-cases-00>, Sept, 2013 Dunbar, et al Expires Sept16, 2014 [Page 14] Internet-Draft Architecture for Chaining Legacy L4-L7 SF Authors' Addresses Linda Dunbar Huawei Technologies 1700 Alma Drive, Suite 500 Plano, TX 75075, USA Phone: (469) 277 5840 Email: ldunbar@huawei.com Ian Smith F5 Networks Email: I.Smith@F5.com Sumandra Majee F5 Networks Email: S.Majee@F5.com Ning So Tata Communications Email: Ning.So@tatacommunications.com Donald Eastlake Huawei Technologies 155 Beaver Street Milford, MA 01757 USA Phone: 1-508-333-2270 Email: d3e3e3@gmail.com Intellectual Property Statement The IETF Trust takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in any IETF Document or the extent to which any license under such rights might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has made any independent effort to identify any such rights. Copies of Intellectual Property disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of such proprietary rights by implementers Dunbar, et al Expires Sept16, 2014 [Page 15] Internet-Draft Architecture for Chaining Legacy L4-L7 SF or users of this specification can be obtained from the IETF on- line IPR repository at http://www.ietf.org/ipr The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement any standard or specification contained in an IETF Document. Please address the information to the IETF at ietf- ipr@ietf.org. Disclaimer of Liability All IETF Documents and the information contained therein are provided on an "AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY, THE IETF TRUST AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INFORMATION THEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. Acknowledgment Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the Internet Society. Dunbar, et al Expires Sept16, 2014 [Page 16]