Service Chaining Use Cases
draft-liu-service-chaining-use-cases-00
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 | Will (Shucheng) LIU , Hongyu Li , Oliver Huang | ||
| Last updated | 2013-06-27 | ||
| Replaced by | draft-liu-sfc-use-cases, draft-liu-sfc-use-cases, draft-liu-sfc-use-cases | ||
| RFC stream | (None) | ||
| Formats | |||
| Stream | Stream state | (No stream defined) | |
| Consensus boilerplate | Unknown | ||
| RFC Editor Note | (None) | ||
| IESG | IESG state | I-D Exists | |
| Telechat date | (None) | ||
| Responsible AD | (None) | ||
| Send notices to | (None) |
draft-liu-service-chaining-use-cases-00
Network Working Group W. Liu
Internet-Draft H. Li
Intended status: Informational O. Huang
Expires: December 29, 2013 Huawei Technologies
June 27, 2013
Service Chaining Use Cases
draft-liu-service-chaining-use-cases-00
Abstract
For some network services, traffic is forwarded through a sequence of
network functions, which usually have dedicated capabilities other
than forwarding, e.g. firewall. Forwarding of traffic along a
sequence of service processing functions is usually based on service
characteristics, but not destination addresses. We call such way of
forwarding as service chaining. This memo describes use cases of
service chaining.
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 December 29, 2013.
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. Code Components extracted from this document must
Liu, et al. Expires December 29, 2013 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft Service Chaining Use Cases June 2013
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. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. Use Cases of Service Chaining . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3.1. Use case for service chain with NAT function . . . . . . 3
3.2. Use Case For Multiple Underlay Networks . . . . . . . . . 4
3.3. Use case of service path forking . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.4. Use case of multiple service paths share one network
service function . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
5. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
6. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
1. Introduction
Service flow traffic is fowarded through some network middle boxes
for specific purposes, for example:
a) Direct some kinds of traffic to a domain border gateway for
monitoring and charging.
b) Before sending traffic to DC servers, steer the traffic to go
through a load balancer to distribute performance pressure.
c) Mobile network operators split mobile broadband traffic and
steer them along an offloading path.
d) Use firewall for filtering traffic for IDS(Intrusion Detection
System)/IPS(Intrusion Protection System).
e) Use security gateway to encrypt/decrypt traffic.
f) When traffic has to traverse different network technology
segements, for example IPv4/IPv6, direct the traffic to CGNAT.
Cloud computing technology has been more mature in recent years and
triggers an idea that moves above service processing functions from
purpose-designed hardware box into general computing servers. This
idea can greatly save operators' cost for buying/maintaining the
network middle boxes and give a big chance to operators on value
added services.
Liu, et al. Expires December 29, 2013 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft Service Chaining Use Cases June 2013
We call the mechanism of steering traffic to service processing
functions/service nodes before the traffic arrive their destination
as Service chaining.
This document describes some use cases of service chaining.
2. Terminology
The following terms are used in this document:
Service Processing Function: a logical entity which can provide one
or more service processing functions for packets/frames such as
firewall, DPI (Deep Packet Inspection), LI (Lawful Intercept) and
etc. Usually these processing functions are computation
intensive.
Service Chain: one or more service processing functions in a
specific order which are chained to provide a composite service,
and packets/frames from one or more service flow should follow.
Service Chaining: a mechanism of building service chains and
forwarding packets/frames of service flows through them.
Service Path: a path that traffic flows are forwarded through in a
service chain. There might be multiple paths in a service chain.
Service Flow: packets/frames with specific service characteristics
(e.g., packets matching a specific tuple of fields in Ethernet,
IP, TCP, HTTP headers and etc.) or determined by some service
policies (such as access port and etc.)
3. Use Cases of Service Chaining
3.1. Use case for service chain with NAT function
Due to IPv4 address exhaustion, more and more operators have deployed
or are about to deploy IPv6 transition technologies such as NAT. The
traffic traversing a NAT function may go through different types of
IP address domain. One key feature of this scenario is that
characteristics of packets before and after processed by the service
processing function are different, e.g., from IPv4 to IPv6. The
unpredictability of processed packets, due to the algorithm in the
service processing function, brings difficulties in steering the
traffic.
Liu, et al. Expires December 29, 2013 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft Service Chaining Use Cases June 2013
+---------+ +----------+ +----------+
| | | | | |
---->+ SPF C +------->+ SPF NAT +------->+ SPF E +-->
| | | | | |
+---------+ +----------+ +----------+
Figure 1: service chain with NAT function
Figure 1 shows a specific example of service chain with NAT function.
Service flow1 is processed by service processing function C, (NAT)
and E sequentially. In this example, the service processing
function(NAT) performs a NAT46 operation onto the flow. As a result,
packets after processing by the service processing function(NAT) are
in IPv6, which is a different version of IP header from the packets
before processing. Service chaining in this scenario should be able
to identify the flow even if it is changed after processed by service
processing functions.
3.2. Use Case For Multiple Underlay Networks
Operators may need to deploy their networks with various types of
underlay technologies. Therefore, service chaining needs to support
different types of underlay networks.
+---------+ +----------+ +----------+
| | | | | |
-->+ SPF A | | SPF B | | SPF C +-->
| | | | | |
+----+----+ +---+-+----+ +-----+----+
| ^ | ^
| ------ | | ------ |
| // \\ | | // \\ |
| | Ethernet | | v | | |
+->+ network +->+ +->+ IP network +->+
| | | |
\\ // \\ //
------ ------
Figure 2: multiple underlay networks: Ethernet and IP
Figure 2 illustrates an example of Ethernet and IP network, very
common and easy for deployment based on existing network status, as
underlay networks. Service processing functions A, B and C locate in
Ethernet and IP networks respectively. To build a service chain of
SPF A, B and C, service chaining needs to support steering traffic
across Ethernet and IP underlay networks.
Liu, et al. Expires December 29, 2013 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft Service Chaining Use Cases June 2013
3.3. Use case of service path forking
To enable service or content awareness, operators need DPI functions
to look into packets. When a DPI function is part of a service
chain, packets processed by the DPI function may be directed to
different paths according to result of DPI processing. That means a
forking service path.
+---------+ +----------+ +----------+
| | | | | |
---->| Firewall+------->+ DPI +------->+anti-virus|--->
| | | | | |
+---------+ +-----+----+ +----------+
|
|
V
+-----+----+
| |
| Parental |
| control |
+-----+----+
|
|
V
Figure 3: a forking service path
Figure 3 shows the use case of a forking service path. Traffic first
goes through a firewall and then arrives at DPI function which
discerns virus risk. If a certain preconfigured pattern is matched,
the traffic is directed to an anti-virus function.
Such DPI function may fork out more than one path.
3.4. Use case of multiple service paths share one network service
function
Some carrier grade hardware box or service processing functions
runing on high performance servers can be shared to support multiple
service chains. Following is an example.
Liu, et al. Expires December 29, 2013 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft Service Chaining Use Cases June 2013
SC1 +---------+ +--------+
------->+---------+------->+--------+--->
SC2 |Firewall | |Video |
------->+-->+ | |Optimise|
+---|-----+ +--------+
|
v
+---+-----+
| | |
|Parental |
|Control |
+---+-----+
|
v
Figure 4: two service chains share one service processing function
In Figure 4, there are three service processing functions, firewall,
VideoOpt and Parental Control, and two service chains SC1 and SC2.
SC1 serves broadband user group1 which subscribes to secure web
surfing and internet video optimization, while SC2 serves broadband
user group2 which subscribes to secure web surfing with parental
control. SFP Firewall is shared by both service chains.
4. Security Considerations
N/A.
5. Acknowledgements
N/A.
6. Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
Authors' Addresses
Will(Shucheng) Liu
Huawei Technologies
Bantian, Longgang District
Shenzhen 518129
P.R. China
Email: liushucheng@huawei.com
Liu, et al. Expires December 29, 2013 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft Service Chaining Use Cases June 2013
Hongyu Li
Huawei Technologies
Bantian, Longgang District
Shenzhen 518129
P.R. China
Email: hongyu.li@huawei.com
Oliver Huang
Huawei Technologies
Bantian, Longgang District
Shenzhen 518129
P.R. China
Email: oliver.huang@huawei.com
Liu, et al. Expires December 29, 2013 [Page 7]