SFC R. Penno Internet-Draft C. Pignataro Intended status: Standards Track C. Yen Expires: April 7, 2016 E. Wang K. Leung Cisco Systems October 05, 2015 Packet Generation in Service Function Chains draft-penno-sfc-packet-02 Abstract Service Functions (e.g., Firewall, NAT, Proxies and Intrusion Prevention Systems) generate packets in the reverse flow direction to the source of the current in-process packet/flow. In this document we discuss and propose how to support this required functionality within the SFC framework. 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 April 7, 2016. Copyright Notice Copyright (c) 2015 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the document authors. All rights reserved. Penno, et al. Expires April 7, 2016 [Page 1] Internet-Draft SFC packet reverse October 2015 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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 2. Problem Statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 3. Definitions and Acronyms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 4. Assumptions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 5. Service Function Behavior . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 5.1. SF receives Reverse Forwarding Information . . . . . . . 6 5.2. SF requests SFF cooperation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 5.2.1. OAM Header . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 5.2.2. Service Function Forwarder Behavior . . . . . . . . . 8 5.2.3. Reserved bit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 5.3. Classifier Encodes Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 5.3.1. Symmetric Service Paths . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 5.3.2. Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 5.4. Algorithmic Reversed Path ID Generation . . . . . . . . . 14 5.4.1. Same Path-ID and Disjoint Index Spaces . . . . . . . 14 5.4.2. Flip Path-Id and Index High Order bits . . . . . . . 16 6. Asymmetric Service Paths . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 7. Metadata . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 8. Other solutions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 9. Implementation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 10. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 11. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 12. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 13. Changes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 14. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 14.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 14.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 1. Introduction Service Functions (e.g., Firewall, NAT, Proxies and Intrusion Prevention Systems) generate packets in the reverse flow direction destined to the source of the current in-process packet/flow. This is a basic intrinsic functionality and therefore needs to be supported in a service function chaining deployment. Penno, et al. Expires April 7, 2016 [Page 2] Internet-Draft SFC packet reverse October 2015 2. Problem Statement The challenge of this functionality in service chain environments is that generated packets need to traverse in the reverse order the same Service Functions traversed by original packet that triggered the packet generation. Although this might seem to be a straightforward problem, on further inspection there are a few interesting challenges that need to be solved. First and foremost a few requirements need to be met in order to allow a packet to make its way through back to its source through the service path: o A symmetric path ID needs to exist. Symmetric path is discussed in [SymmetricPaths] o The SF needs to be able encapsulate such error or proxy packets in a encapsulation transport such as VXLAN-GPE [I-D.ietf-nvo3-vxlan-gpe] + NSH header [I-D.ietf-sfc-nsh] o The SF needs to be able to determine, directly or indirectly, the symmetric path ID and associated next service-hop index or, alternatively, indicate reverse path for the service path ID in the original packet 3. Definitions and Acronyms The reader should be familiar with the terms contained in [I-D.ietf-sfc-nsh] ,[I-D.ietf-sfc-architecture] and [I-D.ietf-nvo3-vxlan-gpe] 4. Assumptions We make the following assumption throughout this document 1. An SF could be connected to more than one SFF directly. In other words, a SF can be multi-homed and each connection can use different encapsulations. 2. After forwarding a packet to an SF, the SFF always has connectivity to the next hop SFF to complete the path. This means the following scenario is not possible (SFF2 cannot complete the forward path which contains SFF3 and potentially SFs connected to SFF3 Penno, et al. Expires April 7, 2016 [Page 3] Internet-Draft SFC packet reverse October 2015 .-. .-. / \ / \ ( SF1 ) ( SF2 ) \ / \ / \ `+' `+' \ | | \ | | \ +--+---+ +--+---+ \+------+ ...---+ SFF1 +------+ SFF2 | | SFF3 +---... +------+ +--+---+ +------+ | | +-----... RSFP Forward -> SFF1 : SF1 : SFF1 : SFF2 : SF2 : SFF3 : ... 3. In the figure below, if SF2 is directly connected to SFF2A and SFF2B, there could be a case that SFF2A only has the forwarding rules for the forward path, and SFF2B only has the forwarding rules for the reverse path Penno, et al. Expires April 7, 2016 [Page 4] Internet-Draft SFC packet reverse October 2015 .-. .-. .-. / \ / \ / \ ( SF1 ) ( SF2 ) ( SF3 ) \ /\ \ /\ \ /\ `+' \ `+' \ `+' \ | \ | \ | \ | | | | | | +---+---+ | +-------+ | +---+---+ | ...---+ SFF1A +-|-----+ SFF2A +-|-----+ SFF3A +-|---... +-------+ | +-------+ | +-------+ | | | | +---+---+ +---+---+ +---+---+ ...---+ SFF1B +-------+ SFF2B +-------+ SFF3B +-----... +-------+ +-------+ +-------+ Symmetric Paths: RSFP Forward -> SFF1A : SF1 : SFF1A : SFF2A : SF2 : SFF2A : SFF3A : SF3 : SFF3A ... RSFP Reverse <- SFF1B : SF1 : SFF1B : SFF2B : SF2 : SFF2B : SFF3B : SF3 : SFF3B Asymmetric Paths (skipping SF2 on reverse): RSFP Forward -> SFF1A : SF1 : SFF1A : SFF2A : SF2 : SFF2A : SFF3A : SF3 : SFF3A ... RSFP Reverse <- SFF1B : SF1 : SFF1B : SFF2B : SFF3B : SF3 : SFF3B 4. Assumption #2 allows an SF to always bounce a packet back to the SFF that originally sent the packet. Due to #3, an SF has to determine which SFF to send the generated packet to. It cannot treat generated packet the same way as forwarded packet, as in #2. These assumptions make sense for certain implementation. However, some implementations may not have the constraints in #3, which will simplify the SF logic in handling generated traffic. The 3 assumptions can be illustrated below. The SFF "A"s only have knowledge for the forward path, and SFF "B"s only have knowledge for the reverse path. When SF2 generates a packet in the reverse direction, SF2 must determine which SFF ('A' or 'B') should receive the packet. Penno, et al. Expires April 7, 2016 [Page 5] Internet-Draft SFC packet reverse October 2015 5. Service Function Behavior When a Service Function wants to send packets to the reverse direction back to the source it needs to know the symmetric service path ID (if it exists) and associated service index. This information is not available to Service Functions since they do not need to perform a next-hop service lookup. There are four recommended approaches to solve this problem and we assume different implementations might make different choices. 1. The SF can receive service path forwarding information in the same manner a SFF does. 2. The SF can send the packet in the forward direction but set appropriate bits in the NSH header requesting a SFF to send the packet back to the source 3. The classifier can encode all information the SF needs to send a reverse packet in the metadata header 4. The controller uses a deterministic algorithm when creating the associated symmetric path ID and service index. We will discuss the ramifications of these approaches in the next sections. 5.1. SF receives Reverse Forwarding Information This solution is easy to understand but brings a change on how traditionally service functions operate. It requires SFs to receive and process a subset of the information a SFF does. When a SF wants to send a packet to the source, the SF uses information conveyed via the control plane to impose the correct NSH header values. Advantages: o Changes are restricted to SF and controller, no changes to SFF o Incremental deployment possible o No protocol between SF and SFF, which avoids interoperability issues o No performance penalty on SFF due to in or out-of-band protocol Disadvantages: Penno, et al. Expires April 7, 2016 [Page 6] Internet-Draft SFC packet reverse October 2015 o SFs need to process and understand Rendered Service Path messages from controller This solution can be characterized by putting the burden on the SF, but that brings the advantage of being self-contained (as well as providing a mechanism for other features). Also, many SFs have policy or classification function which in fact makes them a classifier and SF combination in practice. 5.2. SF requests SFF cooperation These solutions can be characterized by distributing the burden between SF and SFF. In this section we discuss two possible in-band solutions: using OAM header and using a reserved bit 'R' in the NSH header. 5.2.1. OAM Header When the SF needs to send a packet in the reverse direction it will set the OAM bit in the NSH header and use an OAM protocol [I-D.penno-sfc-trace] to request that the SFF impose a new, reverse path NSH header. Post imposition, the SFF forwards the packet correctly. SF Reverse Packet Request 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|1|C|R|R|R|R|R|R| Length | MD-type=0x1 | OAM Protocol | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | | Service Path ID | Service Index | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | | Mandatory Context Header | |S +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |F | Mandatory Context Header | |C +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | | Mandatory Context Header | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | | Mandatory Context Header | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ < |Rev. Pkt Req | Original NSH headers (optional) | |O +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |A |M / (postamble) Penno, et al. Expires April 7, 2016 [Page 7] Internet-Draft SFC packet reverse October 2015 Ver: 1 OAM Bit: 1 Length: 6 MD-Type: 1 Next Protocol: OAM Protocol Rev. Pkt Req: 1 Reverse packet request Advantages: o SF does not need to process and understand control plane path messages. o Clear division of labor between SF and SFF. o Extensible o Original NSH header could be carried inside OAM protocol which leaves metadata headers available for SF-SFF communication. Disadvantages: o SFFs need to process and understand a new OAM message type o Possible interoperability issues between SF-SFF o SFF Performance penalty 5.2.2. Service Function Forwarder Behavior In the case where the SF has all the information to send the packet back to the origin no changes are needed at the SFF. When an SF requests SFF cooperation the SFF MUST be able to process the OAM message used to signal reverse path forwarding. o Process/decode OAM message o Examine and act on any metadata present in the NSH header o Examine its forwarding tables and find the reverse path-id and index of the next service-hop The reverse path can be found in the Rendered Service Path Yang model [RSPYang] that conveyed to the SFF when a path is constructed. Penno, et al. Expires April 7, 2016 [Page 8] Internet-Draft SFC packet reverse October 2015 If a SFF does not understand the OAM message it just forwards the packet based on the original path-id and index. Since it is a special OAM packet, it tells other SFFs and SFs that they should process it differently. For example, a downstream intrusion detection SF might not associate flow state with this packet. 5.2.3. Reserved bit In this solution the SF sets a reversed bit in the NSH that carries the same semantic as in the OAM solution discussed previously. This solution is simpler from a SF perspective but requires allocating one of the reserved bits. Another issue is that the metadata in the original packet might be overwritten by SFs or SFFs in the path. When a SFF receives a NSH packet with the reversed bit set, it shall look up a preprogrammed table to map the Service Path ID and Index in the NSH packet into the reverse Service Path ID and Index. The SFF would then use the new reverse ID and Index pair to determine the SF/ SFF which is in the reverse direction. Advantages: o No protocol header overhead o Limited performance impact on SF Disadvantages: o Use of a reserved bit o SFF Performance penalty o Not extensible 5.3. Classifier Encodes Information This solution allows the Service Function to send a reverse packet without interactions with the controller or SFF, therefore it is very attractive. Also, it does not need to have the OAM bit set or use a reserved bit. The penalty is that for a MD Type-1 packet a significant amount of information (48 bits) need to be encoded in the metadata section of the packet and this data can not be overwritten. Ideally this metadata would need to be added by the classifier. The Rendered Service Path yang model [RSPYang] already provides all the necessary information that a classifier would need to add to the metadata header. An explanation of this method is better served with an examples. Penno, et al. Expires April 7, 2016 [Page 9] Internet-Draft SFC packet reverse October 2015 5.3.1. Symmetric Service Paths The figure below shows a simple SFC with symmetric service paths comprising three SFs. (preamble) .....................SFP2 Forward........................> Forward SI 253 252 251 +---+ .-. .-. .-. +---+ | | / \ / \ / \ | | | A +-------( SF1 )------( SF2 )------( SF3 )----------+ B | | | \ / \ / \ / | | +---+ `-' `-' `-' +---+ Reverse SI 253 254 255 <....................SFP3 (Reverse of SFP2)......................... SFP2 Forward -> SF1 : SF2 : SF3 SFP3 Reverse <- SF1 : SF2 : SF3 RSP2 Forward -> SF1 : SF2 : SF3 RSP3 Reverse <- SF1 : SF2 : SF3 Figure 1: SFC example with symmetric path Below we see the JSON objects of the two symmetric paths depicted above. RENDERED_SERVICE_PATH_RESP_JSON = """ { "rendered-service-paths": { "rendered-service-path": [ { "name": "SFC1-SFP1-Path-2-Reverse", "transport-type": "service-locator:vxlan-gpe", "parent-service-function-path": "SFC1-SFP1", "path-id": 3, "service-chain-name": "SFC1", "starting-index": 255, "rendered-service-path-hop": [ { "hop-number": 0, "service-index": 255, Penno, et al. Expires April 7, 2016 [Page 10] Internet-Draft SFC packet reverse October 2015 "service-function-forwarder-locator": "eth0", "service-function-name": "SF3", "service-function-forwarder": "SFF3" }, { "hop-number": 1, "service-index": 254, "service-function-forwarder-locator": "eth0", "service-function-name": "SF2", "service-function-forwarder": "SFF2" }, { "hop-number": 2, "service-index": 253, "service-function-forwarder-locator": "eth0", "service-function-name": "SF1", "service-function-forwarder": "SFF1" } ], "symmetric-path-id": 2 }, { "name": "SFC1-SFP1-Path-2", "transport-type": "service-locator:vxlan-gpe", "parent-service-function-path": "SFC1-SFP1", "path-id": 2, "service-chain-name": "SFC1", "starting-index": 253, "rendered-service-path-hop": [ { "hop-number": 0, "service-index": 253, "service-function-forwarder-locator": "eth0", "service-function-name": "SF1", "service-function-forwarder": "SFF1" }, { "hop-number": 1, "service-index": 252, "service-function-forwarder-locator": "eth0", "service-function-name": "SF2", "service-function-forwarder": "SFF2" }, { "hop-number": 2, "service-index": 251, "service-function-forwarder-locator": "eth0", "service-function-name": "SF3", Penno, et al. Expires April 7, 2016 [Page 11] Internet-Draft SFC packet reverse October 2015 "service-function-forwarder": "SFF3" } ], "symmetric-path-id": 3 } ] } }""" We will assume the classifier will encode the following information in the metadata: o symmetric path-id = 2 (24 bits) o symmetric starting index = 253 (8 bits) o symmetric number of hops = 3 (8 bits) o starting index = 255 (8 bits) In the method below we will assume SF will generate a reverse packet after decrementing the index of the current packet. We will call that current index. If SF1 wants to generate a reverse packet it can find the appropriate index by applying the following algorithm: current_index = 252 remaining_hops = symmetric_number_hops - starting_index - current_index remaining_hops = 3 - (255 - 252) = 0 reverse_service_index = symmetric_starting_index - remaining_hops - 1 reverse_service_index = next_service_hop_index = 253 - 0 - 1 = 252 The "-1" is necessary for the service index to point to the next service_hop. If SF2 wants to send reverse packet: current index = 253 remaining_hops = 3 - (255 - 253) = 1 reverse_service_index = next_service_hop_index = 253 - 1 - 1 = 251 IF SF3 wants to send reverse packet: current index = 254 remaining_hops = 3 - (255 - 254) = 2 reverse_service_index = next_service_hop_index = 253 - 2 - 1 = 250 Penno, et al. Expires April 7, 2016 [Page 12] Internet-Draft SFC packet reverse October 2015 The following tables summarize the service indexes as calculated by each SF in the forward and reverse paths respectively. (preamble) Fwd SI = forward Service Index Cur SI = Current Service Index Gen SI = Service Index for Generated packets RSFP1 Forward - Number of Hops: 3 Forward Starting Index: 253 Reverse Starting Index: 255 +-------+--------+--------+--------+ | SF | SF1 | SF2 | SF3 | +-------+--------+--------+--------+ |Fwd SI | 253 | 252 | 251 | +-------+--------+--------+--------+ |Cur SI | 252 | 251 | 250 | +-------+--------+--------+--------+ |Gen SI | 252 | 253 | 254 | +-------+--------+--------+--------+ RSFP1 Reverse - Number of Hops: 3 Reverse Starting Index: 255 Forward Starting Index: 253 +-------+--------+--------+--------+ | SF | SF1 | SF2 | SF3 | +-------+--------+--------+--------+ |Rev SI | 253 | 254 | 255 | +-------+--------+--------+--------+ |Cur SI | 252 | 253 | 254 | +-------+--------+--------+--------+ |Gen SI | 252 | 251 | 250 | +-------+--------+--------+--------+ Figure 2: Service indexes generated by each SF in the symmetric forward and reverse paths 5.3.2. Analysis Advantages: o SF does not need to request SFF cooperation or contact controller Penno, et al. Expires April 7, 2016 [Page 13] Internet-Draft SFC packet reverse October 2015 o No SFF performance impact Disadvantages: o Metadata overhead in case MD-Type 2 is used o Relies on classifier or SFF to encode metadata information o If classifier will encode information it needs to receive and process rendered service path information o SFF needs to decrement NOP associated indexes 5.4. Algorithmic Reversed Path ID Generation In these proposals no extra storage is required from the NSH and SFF does not need to know how to handle the reversed packet nor does it know about it. Reverse Path is programmed by Orchestrator and used by SF having the need to send upstream traffic. 5.4.1. Same Path-ID and Disjoint Index Spaces Instead of defining a new Service Path ID, the same Service Path ID is used. The Orchestrator must define the reverse chain of service using a different range of Service Path Index. It is also assumed that the reverse packet must go through the same number of Services as its forward path. It is proposed that Service Path Index (SPI) 1..127 and 255..129 are the exact mirror of each other. Here is an example: SF1, SF2, and SF3 are identified using Service Path Index (SPI) 8, 7 and 6 respectively. Path 100 Index 8 - SF1 Path 100 Index 7 - SF2 Path 100 Index 6 - SF3 Path 100 Index 5 - Terminate At the same time, Orchestrator programs SPI 248, 249 and 250 as SF1, SF2 and SF3. Orchestrator also programs SPI 247 as "terminate". Reverse-SPI = 256 - SPI. Path 100 Index 247 - Terminate Path 100 Index 248 (256 - 8) - SF1 Penno, et al. Expires April 7, 2016 [Page 14] Internet-Draft SFC packet reverse October 2015 Path 100 Index 249 (256 - 7) - SF2 Path 100 Index 250 (256 - 6) - SF3 If SF3 needs to send the packet in reverse direction, it calculates the new SPI as 256 - 6 (6 is the SPI of the packet) and obtained 250. It then subtract the SPI by 1 and send the packet back to SFF Subsequently, SFF received the packet and sees the SPI 249. It then diverts the packet to SF2, etc. Eventually, the packet SPI will drop to 247 and the SFF will strip off the NSH and deliver the packet. The same mechanism works even if SF1 later decided to send back another upstream packet. The packet can ping-pong between SF1 and SF3 using existing mechanism. Advantages: o No precious NSH area is consumed o SF self-contained solution o No SFF performance impact and no cooperation needed o No Special Classification required Disadvantages: o SPI range is reduced and may become incompatible with existing topology o Assumption that the reverse path Service Functions are the same as forward path, only in reverse o Reverse paths need to use Service Index = 128 for loop detection instead of SI = 0. In either case, the SF must have the knowledge through Orchestrator that the reverse path has been programmed and the method (SPI only or SPI + SPID bit) to use. The symmetrization mechanism keep reverse path symmetric as described in section 6 can be applied in this method as well. Penno, et al. Expires April 7, 2016 [Page 15] Internet-Draft SFC packet reverse October 2015 5.4.2. Flip Path-Id and Index High Order bits An alternative to reducing Service Path Index range is to make use of a different Service Path ID, e.g. the most significant bit. The bit can be flipped when the SF needs to send packet in reverse. However, the negation of the SPI is still required, e.g. SPI 6 becomes SPI 134 This approach is fully compatible with the current NSH protocol standard and provides a fully deterministic way of determining reverse paths. It the recommended approach. 6. Asymmetric Service Paths In real world the forward and reverse paths can be asymmetric, comprising different set of SFs or SFs in different orders. The following figure illustrates an example. The forward path is composed of SF1, SF2, SF4 and SF5, while the reverse path skips SF5 and has SF3 in place of SF2. Penno, et al. Expires April 7, 2016 [Page 16] Internet-Draft SFC packet reverse October 2015 .......... ......... . . . . . 249 . . 246 . . . . . . .-. .. .-. . .............. / \ / \ ....SFP1 Forward....> ( SF2 ) 247 ( SF5 ) Forward SI 250 / \ / \ / \ /\ / `-' \ / `-' \ / \ / \ +---+ .-./ `-./ \ +---+ | | / \ / \ \ | | | A +-------( SF1 )----------( SF4 )-------------+-------------+ B | | | \ / \ / | | +---+ `-'\ ,-' +---+ \ / \ .-. / Reverse SI 251 \ / \ / 254 <........... ( SF3 ) .................SFP2 Reverse..... . \ / . . `-' . . . . . . 253 . .............. SFP1 Forward -> SF1 : SF2 : SF4 : SF5 SFP2 Reverse <- SF1 : SF3 : SF4 Figure 3: SFC example with asymmetric paths An asymmetric SFC can have completely independent forward and reverse paths. An SF's location in the forward path can be different from that in the reverse path. An SF may appear only in the forward path but not reverse (and vice-versa). In order to use the same algorithm to calculate the service index generated by an SF, one design option is to insert special NOP SFs in the rendered service paths so that each SF is positioned symmetrically in the forward and reverse rendered paths. The SFP corresponding to the example above is: SFP1 Forward -> SF1 : SF2 : NOP : SF4 : SF5 SFP2 Reverse <- SF1 : NOP : SF3 : SF4 : NOP The NOP SF is assigned with a sequential service index the same way as a regular SF. The SFF receiving a packet with the service path ID and service index corresponding to a NOP SF should advance the Penno, et al. Expires April 7, 2016 [Page 17] Internet-Draft SFC packet reverse October 2015 service index till the service index points to a regular SF. Implementation can use a loopback interface or other methods on the SFF to skip the NOP SFs. Once the NOP SF is inserted in the rendered service paths, the forward and reverse paths become symmetric. The same algorithm can be applied by the SFs to generate service indexes in the opposite directional path. The following tables list the service indexes corresponding to the example above. Fwd SI = forward Service Index Cur SI = Current Service Index Gen SI = Service Index for Generated packets RSP1 Forward - Number of hops: 5 Forward Starting Index: 250 Reverse Starting Index: 255 +-------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+ | SF | SF1 | SF2 | NOP | SF4 | SF5 | +-------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+ |Fwd SI | 250 | 249 | 248 | 247 | 246 | +-------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+ |Cur SI | 249 | 248 | 247 | 246 | 245 | +-------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+ |Gen SI | 250 | 251 | N/A | 253 | 254 | +-------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+ RSP1 Reverse - Number of hops: 5 Reverse Starting Index: 255 Forward Starting Index: 250 +-------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+ | SF | SF1 | NOP | SF3 | SF4 | NOP | +-------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+ |Rev SI | 251 | 252 | 253 | 254 | 255 | +-------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+ |Cur SI | 250 | 251 | 252 | 253 | 254 | +-------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+ |Gen SI | 249 | N/A | 247 | 246 | N/A | +-------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+ This symmetrization of asymmetric paths could be performed by a controller during path creation. Penno, et al. Expires April 7, 2016 [Page 18] Internet-Draft SFC packet reverse October 2015 7. Metadata A crucial consideration when generating a packet is which metadata should be included in the context headers. In some scenarios if the metadata is not present the packet will not reach its intended destination. Although one could think of many different ways to convey this information, we believe the solution should be simple and require little or no new Service Function functionality. We assume that a Service Function normally needs to know the semantics of the context headers in order to perform its functions. But clearly knowing the semantics of the metadata is not enough. The issue is that although the SF knows the semantics of the metadata when it receives a packet, it might not be able to generate or retrieve the correct metadata values to insert in the context headers when generating a packet. It is usually the classifier that insert the metadata in the context headers. In order to solve this problem we propose the notion of service-path- invariant metadata. This is metadata that is the same for all packets traversing a certain path. For example, if all packets exiting a service-path need to be routed to a certain VPN, the VPN id would be a path-invariant metadata. Since the controller needs to send the semantics of the metadata present in the context headers to each Service Function, it is straightforward to send along the values of the path-invariant metadata. Therefore when the Service Function generates a packet in can insert the minimum required metadata for a packet to reach its destination. There is a second type of metadata that the Service Function can provide the appropriate values, the one that it would be responsible for inserting anyway as part of packet processing. Finally if the packet needs crucial metadata values that can not be supplied by the two methods above then a reclassification is needed. This reclassification would need to be done by the classifier that would normally process packets in the reverse path or a SFF that had the same rules and capabilities. Ideally the first SFF that processes the generated packet. 8. Other solutions We explored other solution that we deemed to complex or that would bring a severe performance penalty: o An out-of-band request-response protocol between SF-SFF. Given that some service functions need to be able to generate packets quite often this will would create a considerable performance Penno, et al. Expires April 7, 2016 [Page 19] Internet-Draft SFC packet reverse October 2015 penalty. Specially given the fact that path-ids (and their symmetric counterpart) might change and SF would not be notified, therefore caching benefits will be limited. o An out-of-band request-response protocol between SF-Controller. Given that admin or network conditions can trigger service path creation, update or deletions a SF would not be aware of new path attributes. The controller should be able to push new information as it becomes available to the interested parties. o SF (or SFF) punts the packet back to the controller. This solution obviously has severe scaling limitations. 9. Implementation The solutions "Reversed Path derived using Forward Path ID and Index Method" and "SF receives Reverse Forwarding Information" were implemented in Opendaylight 10. IANA Considerations TBD 11. Security Considerations 12. Acknowledgements Paul Quinn, Jim Guichard 13. Changes 14. References 14.1. 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, . [RFC2616] Fielding, R., Gettys, J., Mogul, J., Frystyk, H., Masinter, L., Leach, P., and T. Berners-Lee, "Hypertext Transfer Protocol -- HTTP/1.1", RFC 2616, DOI 10.17487/RFC2616, June 1999, . Penno, et al. Expires April 7, 2016 [Page 20] Internet-Draft SFC packet reverse October 2015 14.2. Informative References [I-D.ietf-nvo3-vxlan-gpe] Quinn, P., Manur, R., Kreeger, L., Lewis, D., Maino, F., Smith, M., Agarwal, P., Yong, L., Xu, X., Elzur, U., Garg, P., and D. Melman, "Generic Protocol Extension for VXLAN", draft-ietf-nvo3-vxlan-gpe-00 (work in progress), May 2015. [I-D.ietf-sfc-architecture] Halpern, J. and C. Pignataro, "Service Function Chaining (SFC) Architecture", draft-ietf-sfc-architecture-11 (work in progress), July 2015. [I-D.ietf-sfc-nsh] Quinn, P. and U. Elzur, "Network Service Header", draft- ietf-sfc-nsh-01 (work in progress), July 2015. [I-D.penno-sfc-trace] Penno, R., Quinn, P., Pignataro, C., and D. Zhou, "Services Function Chaining Traceroute", draft-penno-sfc- trace-03 (work in progress), September 2015. [I-D.penno-sfc-yang] Penno, R., Quinn, P., Zhou, D., and J. Li, "Yang Data Model for Service Function Chaining", draft-penno-sfc- yang-13 (work in progress), March 2015. [RSPYang] Opendaylight, , "Rendered Service Path Yang Model", February 2011, . [SymmetricPaths] IETF, , "Symmetric Paths", February 2011, . Authors' Addresses Reinaldo Penno Cisco Systems 170 West Tasman Dr San Jose CA USA Email: repenno@cisco.com Penno, et al. Expires April 7, 2016 [Page 21] Internet-Draft SFC packet reverse October 2015 Carlos Pignataro Cisco Systems 170 West Tasman Dr San Jose CA USA Email: cpignata@cisco.com Chui-Tin Yen Cisco Systems 170 West Tasman Dr San Jose CA USA Email: tin@cisco.com Eric Wang Cisco Systems 170 West Tasman Dr San Jose CA USA Email: ejwang@cisco.com Kent Leung Cisco Systems 170 West Tasman Dr San Jose CA USA Email: kleung@cisco.com Penno, et al. Expires April 7, 2016 [Page 22]