Framework for DC Network Virtualization
draft-lasserre-nvo3-framework-02
The information below is for an old version of the document.
| Document | Type |
This is an older version of an Internet-Draft whose latest revision state is "Replaced".
|
|
|---|---|---|---|
| Authors | Marc Lasserre , Florin Balus , Thomas Morin , Dr. Nabil N. Bitar , Yakov Rekhter | ||
| Last updated | 2012-06-18 | ||
| Replaced by | draft-ietf-nvo3-framework, RFC 7365 | ||
| RFC stream | Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) | ||
| Formats | |||
| Additional resources | Mailing list discussion | ||
| Stream | WG state | Call For Adoption By WG Issued | |
| Document shepherd | (None) | ||
| IESG | IESG state | I-D Exists | |
| Consensus boilerplate | Unknown | ||
| Telechat date | (None) | ||
| Responsible AD | (None) | ||
| Send notices to | (None) |
draft-lasserre-nvo3-framework-02
Internet Engineering Task Force Marc Lasserre
Internet Draft Florin Balus
Intended status: Informational Alcatel-Lucent
Expires: December 2012
Thomas Morin
France Telecom Orange
Nabil Bitar
Verizon
Yakov Rekhter
Juniper
June 18, 2012
Framework for DC Network Virtualization
draft-lasserre-nvo3-framework-02.txt
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
This Internet-Draft will expire on December 18, 2012.
Lasserre, et al. Expires December 18, 2012 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft Framework for DC Network Virtualization June 2012
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2012 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.
Abstract
Several IETF drafts relate to the use of overlay networks to support
large scale virtual data centers. This draft provides a framework
for Network Virtualization over L3 (NVO3) and is intended to help
plan a set of work items in order to provide a complete solution
set. It defines a logical view of the main components with the
intention of streamlining the terminology and focusing the solution
set.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction...................................................3
1.1. Conventions used in this document.........................4
1.2. General terminology.......................................4
1.3. DC network architecture...................................6
1.4. Tenant networking view....................................8
2. Reference Models...............................................9
2.1. Generic Reference Model...................................9
2.2. NVE Reference Model......................................11
2.3. NVE Service Types........................................12
2.3.1. L2 NVE providing Ethernet LAN-like service..........13
2.3.2. L3 NVE providing IP/VRF-like service................13
3. Functional components.........................................13
3.1. Generic service virtualization components................13
3.1.1. Virtual Access Points (VAPs)........................14
3.1.2. Virtual Network Instance (VNI)......................14
3.1.3. Overlay Modules and VN Context......................15
3.1.4. Tunnel Overlays and Encapsulation options...........16
3.1.5. Control Plane Components............................16
Lasserre, et al. Expires December 15 2012 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft Framework for DC Network Virtualization June 2012
3.1.5.1. Auto-provisioning/Service discovery...............16
3.1.5.2. Address advertisement and tunnel mapping..........17
3.1.5.3. Tunnel management.................................17
3.2. Service Overlay Topologies...............................17
4. Key aspects of overlay networks...............................18
4.1. Pros & Cons..............................................18
4.2. Overlay issues to consider...............................19
4.2.1. Data plane vs Control plane driven..................19
4.2.2. Coordination between data plane and control plane...19
4.2.3. Handling Broadcast, Unknown Unicast and Multicast (BUM)
traffic....................................................20
4.2.4. Path MTU............................................20
4.2.5. NVE location trade-offs.............................21
4.2.6. Interaction between network overlays and underlays..22
5. Security Considerations.......................................22
6. IANA Considerations...........................................22
7. References....................................................23
7.1. Normative References.....................................23
7.2. Informative References...................................23
8. Acknowledgments...............................................23
1. Introduction
This document provides a framework for Data Center Network
Virtualization over L3 tunnels. This framework is intended to aid in
standardizing protocols and mechanisms to support large scale
network virtualization for data centers.
Several IETF drafts relate to the use of overlay networks for data
centers.
[NVOPS] defines the rationale for using overlay networks in order to
build large data center networks. The use of virtualization leads to
a very large number of communication domains and end systems to cope
with. Existing virtual network models used for data center networks
have known limitations, specifically in the context of multiple
tenants. These issues can be summarized as:
o Limited VLAN space
o FIB explosion due to handling of large number of MACs/IP
addresses
o Spanning Tree limitations
o Excessive ARP handling
Lasserre, et al. Expires December 15 2012 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft Framework for DC Network Virtualization June 2012
o Broadcast storms
o Inefficient Broadcast/Multicast handling
o Limited mobility/portability support
o Lack of service auto-discovery
Overlay techniques have been used in the past to address some of
these issues.
[OVCPREQ] describes the requirements for a control plane protocol
required by overlay border nodes to exchange overlay mappings.
This document provides reference models and functional components of
data center overlay networks as well as a discussion of technical
issues that have to be addressed in the design of standards and
mechanisms for large scale data centers.
1.1. 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 [RFC2119].
In this document, these words will appear with that interpretation
only when in ALL CAPS. Lower case uses of these words are not to be
interpreted as carrying RFC-2119 significance.
1.2. General terminology
This document uses the following terminology:
VN: Virtual Network. This is a virtual L2 or L3 domain that belongs
a tenant.
VNI: Virtual Network Instance. This is one instance of a virtual
overlay network. Two Virtual Networks are isolated from one another
and may use overlapping addresses.
Virtual Network Context or VN Context: Field that is part of the
overlay encapsulation header which allows the encapsulated frame to
be delivered to the appropriate virtual network endpoint by the
egress NVE. The egress NVE uses this field to determine the
appropriate virtual network context in which to process the packet.
This field MAY be an explicit, unique (to the administrative domain)
Lasserre, et al. Expires December 15 2012 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft Framework for DC Network Virtualization June 2012
virtual network identifier (VNID) or MAY express the necessary
context information in other ways (e.g. a locally significant
identifier).
VNID: Virtual Network Identifier. In the case where the VN context
has global significance, this is the ID value that is carried in
each data packet in the overlay encapsulation that identifies the
Virtual Network the packet belongs to.
NVE: Network Virtualization Edge. It is a network entity that sits
on the edge of the NVO3 network. It implements network
virtualization functions that allow for L2 and/or L3 tenant
separation and for hiding tenant addressing information (MAC and IP
addresses). An NVE could be implemented as part of a virtual switch
within a hypervisor, a physical switch or router, a Network Service
Appliance or even be embedded within an End Station.
Underlay or Underlying Network: This is the network that provides
the connectivity between NVEs. The Underlying Network can be
completely unaware of the overlay packets. Addresses within the
Underlying Network are also referred to as "outer addresses" because
they exist in the outer encapsulation. The Underlying Network can
use a completely different protocol (and address family) from that
of the overlay.
Data Center (DC): A physical complex housing physical servers,
network switches and routers, Network Service Appliances and
networked storage. The purpose of a Data Center is to provide
application and/or compute and/or storage services. One such service
is virtualized data center services, also known as Infrastructure as
a Service.
Virtual Data Center or Virtual DC: A container for virtualized
compute, storage and network services. Managed by a single tenant, a
Virtual DC can contain multiple VNs and multiple Tenant End Systems
that are connected to one or more of these VNs.
VM: Virtual Machine. Several Virtual Machines can share the
resources of a single physical computer server using the services of
a Hypervisor (see below definition).
Hypervisor: Server virtualization software running on a physical
compute server that hosts Virtual Machines. The hypervisor provides
shared compute/memory/storage and network connectivity to the VMs
that it hosts. Hypervisors often embed a Virtual Switch (see below).
Lasserre, et al. Expires December 15 2012 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft Framework for DC Network Virtualization June 2012
Virtual Switch: A function within a Hypervisor (typically
implemented in software) that provides similar services to a
physical Ethernet switch. It switches Ethernet frames between VMs'
virtual NICs within the same physical server, or between a VM and a
physical NIC card connecting the server to a physical Ethernet
switch. It also enforces network isolation between VMs that should
not communicate with each other.
Tenant: A customer who consumes virtualized data center services
offered by a cloud service provider. A single tenant may consume one
or more Virtual Data Centers hosted by the same cloud service
provider.
Tenant End System: It defines an end system of a particular tenant,
which can be for instance a virtual machine (VM), a non-virtualized
server, or a physical appliance.
ELAN: MEF ELAN, multipoint to multipoint Ethernet service
EVPN: Ethernet VPN as defined in [EVPN]
1.3. DC network architecture
A generic architecture for Data Centers is depicted in Figure 1:
Lasserre, et al. Expires December 15 2012 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft Framework for DC Network Virtualization June 2012
,---------.
,' `.
( IP/MPLS WAN )
`. ,'
`-+------+'
+--+--+ +-+---+
|DC GW|+-+|DC GW|
+-+---+ +-----+
| /
.--. .--.
( ' '.--.
.-.' Intra-DC '
( network )
( .'-'
'--'._.'. )\ \
/ / '--' \ \
/ / | | \ \
+---+--+ +-`.+--+ +--+----+
| ToR | | ToR | | ToR |
+-+--`.+ +-+-`.-+ +-+--+--+
.' \ .' \ .' `.
__/_ _i./ i./_ _\__
'--------' '--------' '--------' '--------'
: End : : End : : End : : End :
: Device : : Device : : Device : : Device :
'--------' '--------' '--------' '--------'
Figure 1 : A Generic Architecture for Data Centers
An example of multi-tier DC network architecture is presented in
this figure. It provides a view of physical components inside a DC.
A cloud network is composed of intra-Data Center (DC) networks and
network services, and, inter-DC network and network connectivity
services. Depending upon the scale, DC distribution, operations
model, Capex and Opex aspects, DC networking elements can act as
strict L2 switches and/or provide IP routing capabilities, including
also service virtualization.
In some DC architectures, it is possible that some tier layers
provide L2 and/or L3 services, are collapsed, and that Internet
connectivity, inter-DC connectivity and VPN support are handled by a
smaller number of nodes. Nevertheless, one can assume that the
functional blocks fit with the architecture above.
The following components can be present in a DC:
Lasserre, et al. Expires December 15 2012 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft Framework for DC Network Virtualization June 2012
o End Device: a DC resource to which the networking service is
provided. End Device may be a compute resource (server or
server blade), storage component or a network appliance
(firewall, load-balancer, IPsec gateway). Alternatively, the
End Device may include software based networking functions used
to interconnect multiple hosts. An example of soft networking
is the virtual switch in the server blades, used to
interconnect multiple virtual machines (VMs). End Device may be
single or multi-homed to the Top of Rack switches (ToRs).
o Top of Rack (ToR): Hardware-based Ethernet switch aggregating
all Ethernet links from the End Devices in a rack representing
the entry point in the physical DC network for the hosts. ToRs
may also provide routing functionality, virtual IP network
connectivity, or Layer2 tunneling over IP for instance. ToRs
are usually multi-homed to switches in the Intra-DC network.
Other deployment scenarios may use an intermediate Blade Switch
before the ToR or an EoR (End of Row) switch to provide similar
function as a ToR.
o Intra-DC Network: High capacity network composed of core
switches aggregating multiple ToRs. Core switches are usually
Ethernet switches but can also support routing capabilities.
o DC GW: Gateway to the outside world providing DC Interconnect
and connectivity to Internet and VPN customers. In the current
DC network model, this may be simply a Router connected to the
Internet and/or an IPVPN/L2VPN PE. Some network implementations
may dedicate DC GWs for different connectivity types (e.g., a
DC GW for Internet, and another for VPN).
1.4. Tenant networking view
The DC network architecture is used to provide L2 and/or L3 service
connectivity to each tenant. An example is depicted in Figure 2:
Lasserre, et al. Expires December 15 2012 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft Framework for DC Network Virtualization June 2012
+----- L3 Infrastructure ----+
| |
,--+-'. ;--+--.
..... Rtr1 )...... . Rtr2 )
| '-----' | '-----'
| Tenant1 |LAN12 Tenant1|
|LAN11 ....|........ |LAN13
'':'''''''':' | | '':'''''''':'
,'. ,'. ,+. ,+. ,'. ,'.
(VM ) .. (VM ) (VM ) .. (VM ) (VM ) .. (VM )
`-' `-' `-' `-' `-' `-'
Figure 2 : Logical Service connectivity for a single tenant
In this example one or more L3 contexts and one or more LANs (e.g.,
one per Application) running on DC switches are assigned for DC
tenant 1.
For a multi-tenant DC, a virtualized version of this type of service
connectivity needs to be provided for each tenant by the Network
Virtualization solution.
2. Reference Models
2.1. Generic Reference Model
The following diagram shows a DC reference model for network
virtualization using Layer3 overlays where edge devices provide a
logical interconnect between Tenant End Systems that belong to
specific tenant network.
Lasserre, et al. Expires December 15 2012 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft Framework for DC Network Virtualization June 2012
+--------+ +--------+
| Tenant | | Tenant |
| End +--+ +---| End |
| System | | | | System |
+--------+ | ................... | +--------+
| +-+--+ +--+-+ |
| | NV | | NV | |
+--|Edge| |Edge|--+
+-+--+ +--+-+
/ . L3 Overlay . \
+--------+ / . Network . \ +--------+
| Tenant +--+ . . +----| Tenant |
| End | . . | End |
| System | . +----+ . | System |
+--------+ .....| NV |........ +--------+
|Edge|
+----+
|
|
+--------+
| Tenant |
| End |
| System |
+--------+
Figure 3 : Generic reference model for DC network virtualization
over a Layer3 infrastructure
The functional components in this picture do not necessarily map
directly with the physical components described in Figure 1.
For example, an End Device can be a server blade with VMs and
virtual switch, i.e. the VM is the Tenant End System and the NVE
functions may be performed by the virtual switch and/or the
hypervisor.
Another example is the case where an End Device can be a traditional
physical server (no VMs, no virtual switch), i.e. the server is the
Tenant End System and the NVE functions may be performed by the ToR.
Other End Devices in this category are Physical Network Appliances
or Storage Systems.
Lasserre, et al. Expires December 15 2012 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft Framework for DC Network Virtualization June 2012
A Tenant End System attaches to a Network Virtualization Edge (NVE)
node, either directly or via a switched network (typically
Ethernet).
The NVE implements network virtualization functions that allow for
L2 and/or L3 tenant separation and for hiding tenant addressing
information (MAC and IP addresses), tenant-related control plane
activity and service contexts from the Routed Backbone nodes.
Core nodes utilize L3 techniques to interconnect NVE nodes in
support of the overlay network. These devices perform forwarding
based on outer L3 tunnel header, and generally do not maintain per
tenant-service state albeit some applications (e.g., multicast) may
require control plane or forwarding plane information that pertain
to a tenant, group of tenants, tenant service or a set of services
that belong to one or more tunnels. When such tenant or tenant-
service related information is maintained in the core, overlay
virtualization provides knobs to control the magnitude of that
information.
2.2. NVE Reference Model
The NVE is composed of a tenant service instance that Tenant End
Systems interface with and an overlay module that provides tunneling
overlay functions (e.g. encapsulation/decapsulation of tenant
traffic from/to the tenant forwarding instance, tenant
identification and mapping, etc), as described in figure 4:
Lasserre, et al. Expires December 15 2012 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft Framework for DC Network Virtualization June 2012
+------- L3 Network ------+
| |
| Tunnel Overlay |
+------------+---------+ +---------+------------+
| +----------+-------+ | | +---------+--------+ |
| | Overlay Module | | | | Overlay Module | |
| +---------+--------+ | | +---------+--------+ |
| |VN context| | VN context| |
| | | | | |
| +--------+-------+ | | +--------+-------+ |
| | VNI | | | | VNI | |
NVE1 | +-+------------+-+ | | +-+-----------+--+ | NVE2
| | VAPs | | | | VAPs | |
+----+------------+----+ +----+------------+----+
| | | |
-------+------------+-----------------+------------+-------
| | Tenant | |
| | Service IF | |
Tenant End Systems Tenant End Systems
Figure 4 : Generic reference model for NV Edge
Note that some NVE functions (e.g. data plane and control plane
functions) may reside in one device or may be implemented separately
in different devices.
For example, the NVE functionality could reside solely on the End
Devices, on the ToRs or on both the End Devices and the ToRs. In the
latter case we say that the the End Device NVE component acts as the
NVE Spoke, and ToRs act as NVE hubs. Tenant End Systems will
interface with the tenant service instances maintained on the NVE
spokes, and tenant service instances maintained on the NVE spokes
will interface with the tenant service instances maintained on the
NVE hubs.
2.3. NVE Service Types
NVE components may be used to provide different types of virtualized
service connectivity. This section defines the service types and
associated attributes
Lasserre, et al. Expires December 15 2012 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft Framework for DC Network Virtualization June 2012
2.3.1. L2 NVE providing Ethernet LAN-like service
L2 NVE implements Ethernet LAN emulation (ELAN), an Ethernet based
multipoint service where the Tenant End Systems appear to be
interconnected by a LAN environment over a set of L3 tunnels. It
provides per tenant virtual switching instance with MAC addressing
isolation and L3 tunnel encapsulation across the core.
2.3.2. L3 NVE providing IP/VRF-like service
Virtualized IP routing and forwarding is similar from a service
definition perspective with IETF IP VPN (e.g., BGP/MPLS IPVPN and
IPsec VPNs). It provides per tenant routing instance with addressing
isolation and L3 tunnel encapsulation across the core.
3. Functional components
This section breaks down the Network Virtualization architecture
into functional components to make it easier to discuss solution
options for different modules.
This version of the document gives an overview of generic functional
components that are shared between L2 and L3 service types. Details
specific for each service type will be added in future revisions.
3.1. Generic service virtualization components
A Network Virtualization solution is built around a number of
functional components as depicted in Figure 5:
Lasserre, et al. Expires December 15 2012 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft Framework for DC Network Virtualization June 2012
+------- L3 Network ------+
| |
| Tunnel Overlay |
+------------+--------+ +--------+------------+
| +----------+------+ | | +------+----------+ |
| | Overlay Module | | | | Overlay Module | |
| +--------+--------+ | | +--------+--------+ |
| |VN Context| | |VN Context|
| | | | | |
| +-------+-------+ | | +------+-------+ |
| | VNI | | | | VNI | |
NVE1 | +-+-----------+-+ | | +-+----------+-+ | NVE2
| | VAPs | | | | VAPs | |
+----+-----------+----+ +----+-----------+----+
| | | |
-------+-----------+-----------------+-----------+-------
| | Tenant | |
| | Service IF | |
Tenant End Systems Tenant End Systems
Figure 5 : Generic reference model for NV Edge
3.1.1. Virtual Access Points (VAPs)
Tenant End Systems are connected to the Tenant Instance through
Virtual Access Points (VAPs). The VAPs can be in reality physical
ports on a ToR or virtual ports identified through logical interface
identifiers (VLANs, internal VSwitch Interface ID leading to a VM).
3.1.2. Virtual Network Instance (VNI)
The VNI represents a set of configuration attributes defining access
and tunnel policies and (L2 and/or L3) forwarding functions.
Per tenant FIB tables and control plane protocol instances are used
to maintain separate private contexts between tenants. Hence tenants
are free to use their own addressing schemes without concerns about
address overlapping with other tenants.
Lasserre, et al. Expires December 15 2012 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft Framework for DC Network Virtualization June 2012
3.1.3. Overlay Modules and VN Context
Mechanisms for identifying each tenant service are required to allow
the simultaneous overlay of multiple tenant services over the same
underlay L3 network topology. In the data plane, each NVE, upon
sending a tenant packet, must be able to encode the VN Context for
the destination NVE in addition to the L3 tunnel source address
identifying the source NVE and the tunnel destination L3 address
identifying the destination NVE. This allows the destination NVE to
identify the tenant service instance and therefore appropriately
process and forward the tenant packet.
The Overlay module provides tunneling overlay functions: tunnel
initiation/termination, encapsulation/decapsulation of frames from
VAPs/L3 Backbone and may provide for transit forwarding of IP
traffic (e.g., transparent tunnel forwarding).
In a multi-tenant context, the tunnel aggregates frames from/to
different VNIs. Tenant identification and traffic demultiplexing are
based on the VN Context (e.g. VNID).
The following approaches can been considered:
o One VN Context per Tenant: A globally unique (on a per-DC
administrative domain) VNID is used to identify the related
Tenant instances. An example of this approach is the use of
IEEE VLAN or ISID tags to provide virtual L2 domains.
o One VN Context per VNI: A per-tenant local value is
automatically generated by the egress NVE and usually
distributed by a control plane protocol to all the related
NVEs. An example of this approach is the use of per VRF MPLS
labels in IP VPN [RFC4364].
o One VN Context per VAP: A per-VAP local value is assigned and
usually distributed by a control plane protocol. An example of
this approach is the use of per CE-PE MPLS labels in IP VPN
[RFC4364].
Note that when using one VN Context per VNI or per VAP, an
additional global identifier may be used by the control plane to
identify the Tenant context.
Lasserre, et al. Expires December 15 2012 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft Framework for DC Network Virtualization June 2012
3.1.4. Tunnel Overlays and Encapsulation options
Once the VN context is added to the frame, a L3 Tunnel encapsulation
is used to transport the frame to the destination NVE. The backbone
devices do not usually keep any per service state, simply forwarding
the frames based on the outer tunnel header.
Different IP tunneling options (GRE/L2TP/IPSec) and tunneling
options (BGP VPN, PW, VPLS) are available for both Ethernet and IP
formats.
3.1.5. Control Plane Components
Control plane components may be used to provide the following
capabilities:
. Auto-provisioning/Service discovery
. Address advertisement and tunnel mapping
. Tunnel management
A control plane component can be an on-net control protocol or a
management control entity.
3.1.5.1. Auto-provisioning/Service discovery
NVEs must be able to select the appropriate VNI for each Tenant End
System. This is based on state information that is often provided by
external entities. For example, in a VM environment, this
information is provided by compute management systems, since these
are the only entities that have visibility on which VM belongs to
which tenant.
A mechanism for communicating this information between Tenant End
Systems and the local NVE is required. As a result the VAPs are
created and mapped to the appropriate Tenant Instance.
Depending upon the implementation, this control interface can be
implemented using an auto-discovery protocol between Tenant End
Systems and their local NVE or through management entities.
When a protocol is used, appropriate security and authentication
mechanisms to verify that Tenant End System information is not
spoofed or altered are required. This is one critical aspect for
providing integrity and tenant isolation in the system.
Lasserre, et al. Expires December 15 2012 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft Framework for DC Network Virtualization June 2012
Another control plane protocol can also be used to advertize NVE
tenant service instance (tenant and service type provided to the
tenant) to other NVEs. Alternatively, management control entities
can also be used to perform these functions.
3.1.5.2. Address advertisement and tunnel mapping
As traffic reaches an ingress NVE, a lookup is performed to
determine which tunnel the packet needs to be sent to. It is then
encapsulated with a tunnel header containing the destination address
of the egress overlay node. Intermediate nodes (between the ingress
and egress NVEs) switch or route traffic based upon the outer
destination address.
One key step in this process consists of mapping a final destination
address to the proper tunnel. NVEs are responsible for maintaining
such mappings in their lookup tables. Several ways of populating
these lookup tables are possible: control plane driven, management
plane driven, or data plane driven.
When a control plane protocol is used to distribute address
advertisement and tunneling information, the auto-
provisioning/Service discovery could be accomplished by the same
protocol. In this scenario, the auto-provisioning/Service discovery
could be combined with (be inferred from) the address advertisement
and tunnel mapping. Furthermore, a control plane protocol that
carries both MAC and IP addresses eliminates the need for ARP, and
hence addresses one of the issues with explosive ARP handling.
3.1.5.3. Tunnel management
A control plane protocol may be required to exchange tunnel state
information. This may include setting up tunnels and/or providing
tunnel state information.
This applies to both unicast and multicast tunnels.
For instance, it may be necessary to provide active/standby status
information between NVEs, up/down status information,
pruning/grafting information for multicast tunnels, etc.
3.2. Service Overlay Topologies
A number of service topologies may be used to optimize the service
connectivity and to address NVE performance limitations.
Lasserre, et al. Expires December 15 2012 [Page 17]
Internet-Draft Framework for DC Network Virtualization June 2012
The topology described in Figure 3 suggests the use of a tunnel mesh
between the NVEs where each tenant instance is one hop away from a
service processing perspective. Partial mesh topologies and an NVE
hierarchy may be used where certain NVEs may act as service transit
points.
4. Key aspects of overlay networks
The intent of this section is to highlight specific issues that
proposed overlay solutions need to address.
4.1. Pros & Cons
An overlay network is a layer of virtual network topology on top of
the physical network.
Overlay networks offer the following key advantages:
o Unicast tunneling state management is handled at the edge of
the network. Intermediate transport nodes are unaware of such
state. Note that this is not the case when multicast is enabled
in the core network.
o Tunnels are used to aggregate traffic and hence offer the
advantage of minimizing the amount of forwarding state required
within the underlay network
o Decoupling of the overlay addresses (MAC and IP) used by VMs
from the underlay network. This offers a clear separation
between addresses used within the overlay and the underlay
networks and it enables the use of overlapping addresses spaces
by Tenant End Systems
o Support of a large number of virtual network identifiers
Overlay networks also create several challenges:
o Overlay networks have no controls of underlay networks and lack
critical network information
o Overlays typically probe the network to measure link
properties, such as available bandwidth or packet loss
rate. It is difficult to accurately evaluate network
properties. It might be preferable for the underlay
network to expose usage and performance information.
Lasserre, et al. Expires December 15 2012 [Page 18]
Internet-Draft Framework for DC Network Virtualization June 2012
o Miscommunication between overlay and underlay networks can lead
to an inefficient usage of network resources.
o Fairness of resource sharing and collaboration among end-nodes
in overlay networks are two critical issues
o When multiple overlays co-exist on top of a common underlay
network, the lack of coordination between overlays can lead to
performance issues.
o Overlaid traffic may not traverse firewalls and NAT devices.
o Multicast service scalability. Multicast support may be
required in the overlay network to address for each tenant
flood containment or efficient multicast handling.
o Load balancing may not be optimal as the hash algorithm may not
work well due to the limited number of combinations of tunnel
source and destination addresses
4.2. Overlay issues to consider
4.2.1. Data plane vs Control plane driven
Dynamic (data plane) learning implies that flooding of unknown
destinations be supported and hence implies that broadcast and/or
multicast be supported. Multicasting in the core network for dynamic
learning can lead to significant scalability limitations. Specific
forwarding rules must be enforced to prevent loops from happening.
This can be achieved using a spanning tree protocol or a shortest
path tree, or using a split-horizon mesh.
It should be noted that the amount of state to be distributed is a
function of the number of virtual machines. Different forms of
caching can also be utilized to minimize state distribution between
the various elements.
4.2.2. Coordination between data plane and control plane
Often a combination of data plane and control based learning is
necessary. Learning is applied towards end-user facing ports whereas
distribution is used on the tunnel ports. Coordination between the
learning engine and the control protocol is needed such that when a
new address gets learned or an old address is removed, it triggers
the local control plane to distribute this information to its peers.
Lasserre, et al. Expires December 15 2012 [Page 19]
Internet-Draft Framework for DC Network Virtualization June 2012
4.2.3. Handling Broadcast, Unknown Unicast and Multicast (BUM) traffic
There are two techniques to support packet replication needed for
broadcast, unknown unicast and multicast:
o Ingress replication
o Use of core multicast trees
There is a bandwidth vs state trade-off between the two approaches.
Depending upon the degree of replication required (i.e. the number
of hosts per group) and the amount of multicast state to maintain,
trading bandwidth for state is of consideration.
When the number of hosts per group is large, the use of core
multicast trees may be more appropriate. When the number of hosts is
small (e.g. 2-3), ingress replication may not be an issue.
Depending upon the size of the data center network and hence the
number of (S,G) entries, but also the duration of multicast flows,
the use of core multicast trees can be a challenge.
When flows are well known, it is possible to pre-provision such
multicast trees. However, it is often difficult to predict
application flows ahead of time, and hence programming of (S,G)
entries for short-lived flows could be impractical.
A possible trade-off is to use in the core shared multicast trees as
opposed to dedicated multicast trees.
4.2.4. Path MTU
When using overlay tunneling, an outer header is added to the
original frame. This can cause the MTU of the path to the egress
tunnel endpoint to be exceeded.
In this section, we will only consider the case of an IP overlay.
It is usually not desirable to rely on IP fragmentation for
performance reasons. Ideally, the interface MTU as seen by a Tenant
End System is adjusted such that no fragmentation is needed. TCP
will adjust its maximum segment size accordingly.
It is possible for the MTU to be configured manually or to be
discovered dynamically. Various Path MTU discovery techniques exist
in order to determine the proper MTU size to use:
Lasserre, et al. Expires December 15 2012 [Page 20]
Internet-Draft Framework for DC Network Virtualization June 2012
o Classical ICMP-based MTU Path Discovery [RFC1191] [RFC1981]
o Tenant End Systems rely on ICMP messages to discover the
MTU of the end-to-end path to its destination. This method
is not always possible, such as when traversing middle
boxes (e.g. firewalls) which disable ICMP for security
reasons
o Extended MTU Path Discovery techniques such as defined in
[RFC4821]
It is also possible to rely on the overlay layer to perform
segmentation and reassembly operations without relying on the Tenant
End Systems to know about the end-to-end MTU. The assumption is that
some hardware assist is available on the NVE node to perform such
SAR operations. However, fragmentation by the overlay layer can lead
to performance and congestion issues due to TCP dynamics and might
require new congestion avoidance mechanisms from then underlay
network [FLOYD].
Finally, the underlay network may be designed in such a way that the
MTU can accommodate the extra tunnel overhead.
4.2.5. NVE location trade-offs
In the case of DC traffic, traffic originated from a VM is native
Ethernet traffic. This traffic can be switched by a local VM switch
or ToR switch and then by a DC gateway. The NVE function can be
embedded within any of these elements.
There are several criteria to consider when deciding where the NVE
processing boundary happens:
o Processing and memory requirements
o Datapath (e.g. lookups, filtering,
encapsulation/decapsulation)
o Control plane processing (e.g. routing, signaling, OAM)
o FIB/RIB size
o Multicast support
o Routing protocols
Lasserre, et al. Expires December 15 2012 [Page 21]
Internet-Draft Framework for DC Network Virtualization June 2012
o Packet replication capability
o Fragmentation support
o QoS transparency
o Resiliency
4.2.6. Interaction between network overlays and underlays
When multiple overlays co-exist on top of a common underlay network,
this can cause some performance issues. These overlays have
partially overlapping paths and nodes.
Each overlay is selfish by nature in that it sends traffic so as to
optimize its own performance without considering the impact on other
overlays, unless the underlay tunnels are traffic engineered on a
per overlay basis so as to avoid sharing underlay resources.
Better visibility between overlays and underlays can be achieved by
providing mechanisms to exchange information about:
o Performance metrics (throughput, delay, loss, jitter)
o Cost metrics
5. Security Considerations
The tenant to overlay mapping function can introduce significant
security risks if appropriate protocols are not used that can
support mutual authentication.
No other new security issues are introduced beyond those described
already in the related L2VPN and L3VPN RFCs.
6. IANA Considerations
IANA does not need to take any action for this draft.
Lasserre, et al. Expires December 15 2012 [Page 22]
Internet-Draft Framework for DC Network Virtualization June 2012
7. References
7.1. Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
7.2. Informative References
[NVOPS] Narten, T. et al, "Problem Statement : Overlays for Network
Virtualization", draft-narten-nvo3-overlay-problem-
statement (work in progress)
[OVCPREQ] Kreeger, L. et al, "Network Virtualization Overlay Control
Protocol Requirements", draft-kreeger-nvo3-overlay-cp
(work in progress)
[FLOYD] Sally Floyd, Allyn Romanow, "Dynamics of TCP Traffic over
ATM Networks", IEEE JSAC, V. 13 N. 4, May 1995
[RFC4364] Rosen, E. and Y. Rekhter, "BGP/MPLS IP Virtual Private
Networks (VPNs)", RFC 4364, February 2006.
[RFC1191] Mogul, J. "Path MTU Discovery", RFC1191, November 1990
[RFC1981] McCann, J. et al, "Path MTU Discovery for IPv6", RFC1981,
August 1996
[RFC4821] Mathis, M. et al, "Packetization Layer Path MTU
Discovery", RFC4821, March 2007
8. Acknowledgments
In addition to the authors the following people have contributed to
this document:
Dimitrios Stiliadis, Rotem Salomonovitch, Alcatel-Lucent
This document was prepared using 2-Word-v2.0.template.dot.
Lasserre, et al. Expires December 15 2012 [Page 23]
Internet-Draft Framework for DC Network Virtualization June 2012
Authors' Addresses
Marc Lasserre
Alcatel-Lucent
Email: marc.lasserre@alcatel-lucent.com
Florin Balus
Alcatel-Lucent
777 E. Middlefield Road
Mountain View, CA, USA 94043
Email: florin.balus@alcatel-lucent.com
Thomas Morin
France Telecom Orange
Email: thomas.morin@orange.com
Nabil Bitar
Verizon
40 Sylvan Road
Waltham, MA 02145
Email: nabil.bitar@verizon.com
Yakov Rekhter
Juniper
Email: yakov@juniper.net
Lasserre, et al. Expires December 15 2012 [Page 24]