Framework for DC Network Virtualization
draft-ietf-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 that was ultimately published as RFC 7365.
|
|
|---|---|---|---|
| Authors | Marc Lasserre , Florin Balus , Thomas Morin , Dr. Nabil N. Bitar , Yakov Rekhter | ||
| Last updated | 2013-02-14 (Latest revision 2013-02-04) | ||
| Replaces | draft-lasserre-nvo3-framework | ||
| RFC stream | Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) | ||
| Formats | |||
| Reviews | |||
| Additional resources | Mailing list discussion | ||
| Stream | WG state | WG Document | |
| Document shepherd | Benson Schliesser | ||
| IESG | IESG state | Became RFC 7365 (Informational) | |
| Consensus boilerplate | Unknown | ||
| Telechat date | (None) | ||
| Responsible AD | (None) | ||
| Send notices to | (None) |
draft-ietf-nvo3-framework-02
Internet Engineering Task Force Marc Lasserre
Internet Draft Florin Balus
Intended status: Informational Alcatel-Lucent
Expires: August 2013
Thomas Morin
France Telecom Orange
Nabil Bitar
Verizon
Yakov Rekhter
Juniper
February 4, 2013
Framework for DC Network Virtualization
draft-ietf-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). 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 August 4, 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
Lasserre, et al. Expires August 4, 2013 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft Framework for DC Network Virtualization February 2013
(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.
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..................................7
2. Reference Models.............................................8
2.1. Generic Reference Model.................................8
2.2. NVE Reference Model....................................10
2.3. NVE Service Types......................................11
2.3.1. L2 NVE providing Ethernet LAN-like service........12
2.3.2. L3 NVE providing IP/VRF-like service..............12
3. Functional components.......................................12
3.1. Service Virtualization Components......................12
3.1.1. Virtual Access Points (VAPs)......................12
3.1.2. Virtual Network Instance (VNI)....................12
3.1.3. Overlay Modules and VN Context....................13
3.1.4. Tunnel Overlays and Encapsulation options.........14
3.1.5. Control Plane Components..........................14
3.1.5.1. Distributed vs Centralized Control Plane........14
3.1.5.2. Auto-provisioning/Service discovery.............15
Lasserre, et al. Expires August 4, 2013 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft Framework for DC Network Virtualization February 2013
3.1.5.3. Address advertisement and tunnel mapping........15
3.1.5.4. Overlay Tunneling...............................16
3.2. Multi-homing...........................................16
3.3. VM Mobility............................................17
3.4. Service Overlay Topologies.............................18
4. Key aspects of overlay networks.............................18
4.1. Pros & Cons............................................18
4.2. Overlay issues to consider.............................20
4.2.1. Data plane vs Control plane driven................20
4.2.2. Coordination between data plane and control plane.20
4.2.3. Handling Broadcast, Unknown Unicast and Multicast (BUM)
traffic..................................................20
4.2.4. Path MTU..........................................21
4.2.5. NVE location trade-offs...........................22
4.2.6. Interaction between network overlays and underlays.23
5. Security Considerations.....................................23
6. IANA Considerations.........................................24
7. References..................................................24
7.1. Normative References...................................24
7.2. Informative References.................................24
8. Acknowledgments.............................................24
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 multi-tenant data center networks. Compute,
storage and network virtualization are often used in these large
data centers to support a large number of communication domains and
end systems. [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.
Lasserre, et al. Expires August 4, 2013 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft Framework for DC Network Virtualization February 2013
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:
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, or a network
service appliance.
VN: Virtual Network. This is a virtual L2 or L3 domain that belongs
to a tenant.
VNI: Virtual Network Instance. This is one instance of a virtual
overlay network. It refers to the state maintained for a given VN on
a given NVE. 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)
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
identifier 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.
Lasserre, et al. Expires August 4, 2013 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft Framework for DC Network Virtualization February 2013
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 sppliances and
networked storage. The purpose of a Data Center is to provide
application, compute and/or storage services. One such service is
virtualized infrastructure 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 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).
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 or router. It also enforces network isolation between VMs
that should not communicate with each other.
Tenant: In a DC, a tenant refers to a customer that could be an
organization within an enterprise, or an enterprise with a set of DC
compute, storage and network resources associated with it.
Tenant System: A physical or virtual system that can play the role
of a host, or a forwarding element such as a router, switch,
firewall, etc. It belongs to a single tenant and connects to one or
more VNs of that tenant.
Lasserre, et al. Expires August 4, 2013 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft Framework for DC Network Virtualization February 2013
End device: A physical system to which networking service is
provided. Examples include hosts (e.g. server or server blade),
storage systems (e.g., file servers, iSCSI storage systems), and
network devices (e.g., firewall, load-balancer, IPSec gateway). An
end device may include internal networking functionality that
interconnects the device's components (e.g. virtual switches that
interconnect VMs running on the same server). NVE functionality may
be implemented as part of that internal networking.
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:
,---------.
,' `.
( IP/MPLS WAN )
`. ,'
`-+------+'
+--+--+ +-+---+
|DC GW|+-+|DC GW|
+-+---+ +-----+
| /
.--. .--.
( ' '.--.
.-.' Intra-DC '
( network )
( .'-'
'--'._.'. )\ \
/ / '--' \ \
/ / | | \ \
+---+--+ +-`.+--+ +--+----+
| ToR | | ToR | | ToR |
+-+--`.+ +-+-`.-+ +-+--+--+
/ \ / \ / \
__/_ \ / \ /_ _\__
'--------' '--------' '--------' '--------'
: End : : End : : End : : End :
: Device : : Device : : Device : : Device :
'--------' '--------' '--------' '--------'
Figure 1 : A Generic Architecture for Data Centers
Lasserre, et al. Expires August 4, 2013 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft Framework for DC Network Virtualization February 2013
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
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 in the architecture above.
The following components can be present in a DC:
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).
Note that End Devices may be single or multi-homed to ToRs.
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 August 4, 2013 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft Framework for DC Network Virtualization February 2013
+----- 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 type) are assigned for DC tenant1.
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 L3 (IP/MPLS) overlays where NVEs provide a
logical interconnect between Tenant Systems that belong to a
specific tenant network.
Lasserre, et al. Expires August 4, 2013 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft Framework for DC Network Virtualization February 2013
+--------+ +--------+
| Tenant +--+ +----| Tenant |
| System | | (') | System |
+--------+ | ................... ( ) +--------+
| +-+--+ +--+-+ (_)
| | NV | | NV | |
+--|Edge| |Edge|---+
+-+--+ +--+-+
/ . .
/ . L3 Overlay +--+-++--------+
+--------+ / . Network | NV || Tenant |
| Tenant +--+ . |Edge|| System |
| System | . +----+ +--+-++--------+
+--------+ .....| NV |........
|Edge|
+----+
|
|
=====================
| |
+--------+ +--------+
| Tenant | | Tenant |
| System | | System |
+--------+ +--------+
Figure 3 : Generic reference model for DC network virtualization
over a Layer3 infrastructure
A Tenant System can be attached to a Network Virtualization Edge
(NVE) node in several ways:
- locally, by being co-located in the same device
- remotely, via a point-to-point connection or a switched network
(e.g., Ethernet)
When an NVE is local, the state of Tenant Systems can be provided
without protocol assistance. For instance, the operational status of
Lasserre, et al. Expires August 4, 2013 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft Framework for DC Network Virtualization February 2013
a VM can be communicated via a local API. When an NVE is remote, the
state of Tenant Systems needs to be exchanged via a data or control
plane protocol, or via a management entity.
The functional components in Figure 3 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 System and the NVE
functions may be performed by the virtual switch and/or the
hypervisor. In this case, the Tenant System and NVE function are co-
located.
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 System and the NVE function may be performed by the ToR.
Other End Devices in this category are physical network appliances
or storage systems.
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 underlay nodes.
Underlay 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 tenants. When such tenant or tenant-
service related information is maintained in the underlay, overlay
virtualization provides knobs to control the magnitude of that
information.
2.2. NVE Reference Model
One or more VNIs can be instantiated on an NVE. Tenant Systems
interface with a corresponding VNI via a Virtual Access Point (VAP).
An overlay module that provides tunneling overlay functions (e.g.,
encapsulation and decapsulation of tenant traffic from/to the tenant
forwarding instance, tenant identification and mapping, etc), as
described in figure 4:
Lasserre, et al. Expires August 4, 2013 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft Framework for DC Network Virtualization February 2013
+------- L3 Network ------+
| |
| Tunnel Overlay |
+------------+---------+ +---------+------------+
| +----------+-------+ | | +---------+--------+ |
| | Overlay Module | | | | Overlay Module | |
| +---------+--------+ | | +---------+--------+ |
| |VN context| | VN context| |
| | | | | |
| +--------+-------+ | | +--------+-------+ |
| | |VNI| . |VNI| | | | |VNI| . |VNI| |
NVE1 | +-+------------+-+ | | +-+-----------+--+ | NVE2
| | VAPs | | | | VAPs | |
+----+------------+----+ +----+-----------+-----+
| | | |
-------+------------+-----------------+-----------+-------
| | Tenant | |
| | Service IF | |
Tenant Systems Tenant 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, or be distributed between the End
Devices and the ToRs. In the latter case we say that the End Device
NVE component acts as the NVE Spoke, and ToRs act as NVE hubs.
Tenant Systems will interface with VNIs maintained on the NVE
spokes, and VNIs maintained on the NVE spokes will interface with
VNIs maintained on the NVE hubs.
2.3. NVE Service Types
NVE components may be used to provide different types of virtualized
network services. This section defines the service types and
associated attributes. Note that an NVE may be capable of providing
both L2 and L3 services.
Lasserre, et al. Expires August 4, 2013 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft Framework for DC Network Virtualization February 2013
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 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 (IP/MPLS) tunnel encapsulation across the underlay.
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
[RFC4364] and IPsec VPNs). It provides per tenant routing instance
with addressing isolation and L3 (IP/MPLS) tunnel encapsulation
across the underlay.
3. Functional components
This section decomposes the Network Virtualization architecture into
functional components described in Figure 4 to make it easier to
discuss solution options for these components.
3.1. Service Virtualization Components
3.1.1. Virtual Access Points (VAPs)
Tenant Systems are connected to the VNI Instance through Virtual
Access Points (VAPs).
The VAPs can be physical ports or virtual ports identified through
logical interface identifiers (e.g., VLAN ID, internal vSwitch
Interface ID coonected 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 August 4, 2013 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft Framework for DC Network Virtualization February 2013
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 information (e.g.,
source IP address identifying the source NVE and the destination IP
address identifying the destination NVE, or MPLS label). 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 identifier (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 August 4, 2013 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft Framework for DC Network Virtualization February 2013
3.1.4. Tunnel Overlays and Encapsulation options
Once the VN context identifier 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 (e.g., GRE, L2TP, IPSec) and MPLS
tunneling options (e.g., BGP VPN, VPLS) can be used.
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
implemented on the NVE or a management control entity.
3.1.5.1. Distributed vs Centralized Control Plane
A control/management plane entity can be centralized or distributed.
Both approaches have been used extensively in the past. The routing
model of the Internet is a good example of a distributed approach.
Transport networks have usually used a centralized approach to
manage transport paths.
It is also possible to combine the two approaches i.e. using a
hybrid model. A global view of network state can have many benefits
but it does not preclude the use of distributed protocols within the
network. Centralized controllers provide a facility to maintain
global state, and distribute that state to the network which in
combination with distributed protocols can aid in achieving greater
network efficiencies, and improve reliability and robustness. Domain
and/or deployment specific constraints define the balance between
centralized and distributed approaches.
On one hand, a control plane module can reside in every NVE. This is
how routing control plane modules are implemented in routers. At the
same time, an external controller can manage a group of NVEs via an
Lasserre, et al. Expires August 4, 2013 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft Framework for DC Network Virtualization February 2013
agent in each NVE. This is how an SDN controller could communicate
with the nodes it controls, via OpenFlow [OF] for instance.
In the case where a logically centralized control plane is
preferred, the controller will need to be distributed to more than
one node for redundancy and scalability in order to manage a large
number of NVEs. Hence, inter-controller communication is necessary
to synchronize state among controllers. It should be noted that
controllers may be organized in clusters. The information exchanged
between controllers of the same cluster could be different from the
information exchanged across clusters.
3.1.5.2. Auto-provisioning/Service discovery
NVEs must be able to identify the appropriate VNI for each Tenant
System. This is based on state information that is often provided by
external entities. For example, in an environment where a VM is a
Tenant System, this information is provided by compute management
systems, since these are the only entities that have visibility of
which VM belongs to which tenant.
A mechanism for communicating this information between Tenant
Systems and the corresponding NVE is required. As a result the VAPs
are created and mapped to the appropriate VNI. Depending upon the
implementation, this control interface can be implemented using an
auto-discovery protocol between Tenant Systems and their local NVE
or through management entities. In either case, appropriate security
and authentication mechanisms to verify that Tenant System
information is not spoofed or altered are required. This is one
critical aspect for providing integrity and tenant isolation in the
system.
A control plane protocol can also be used to advertize supported VNs
to other NVEs. Alternatively, management control entities can also
be used to perform these functions.
3.1.5.3. 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
information (destination IP address or MPLS label) of the egress
overlay node. Intermediate nodes (between the ingress and egress
NVEs) switch or route traffic based upon the outer destination
information.
Lasserre, et al. Expires August 4, 2013 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft Framework for DC Network Virtualization February 2013
One key step in this process consists of mapping a final destination
information to the proper tunnel. NVEs are responsible for
maintaining such mappings in their forwarding tables. Several ways
of populating these 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 associated 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.
3.1.5.4. Overlay Tunneling
For overlay tunneling, and dependent upon the tunneling technology
used for encapsulating the tenant system packets, it may be
sufficient to have one or more local NVE addresses assigned and used
in the source and destination fields of a tunneling encapsulating
header. Other information that is part of the
tunneling encapsulation header may also need to be configured. In
certain cases, local NVE configuration may be sufficient while in
other cases, some tunneling related information may need to
be shared among NVEs. The information that needs to be shared will
be technology dependent. This includes the discovery and
announcement of the tunneling technology used. In certain cases,
such as when using IP multicast in the underlay, tunnels may need to
be established, interconnecting NVEs. When tunneling information
needs to be exchanged or shared among NVEs, a control plane protocol
may be required. 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.
In addition, a control plane may be required to setup the tunnel
path for some tunneling technologies. This applies to both unicast
and multicast tunneling.
3.2. Multi-homing
Multi-homing techniques can be used to increase the reliability of
an nvo3 network. It is also important to ensure that physical
diversity in an nvo3 network is taken into account to avoid single
points of failure.
Lasserre, et al. Expires August 4, 2013 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft Framework for DC Network Virtualization February 2013
Multi-homing can be enabled in various nodes, from tenant systems
into TORs, TORs into core switches/routers, and core nodes into DC
GWs.
The nvo3 underlay nodes (i.e. from NVEs to DC GWs) rely on IP
routing as the means to re-route traffic upon failures and/or ECMP
techniques or on MPLS re-rerouting capabilities.
When a tenant system is co-located with the NVE on the same end-
system, the tenant system is single homed to the NVE via a vport
that is virtual NIC (vNIC). When the end system and the NVEs are
separated, the end system is connected to the NVE via a logical
Layer2 (L2) construct such as a VLAN. In this latter case, an end
device or vSwitch on that device could be multi-homed to various
NVEs. An NVE may provide an L2 service to the end system or a l3
service. An NVE may be multi-homed to a next layer in the DC at
Layer2 (L2) or Layer3 (L3). When an NVE provides an L2 service and
is not co-located with the end system, techniques such as Ethernet
Link Aggregation Group (LAG) or Spanning Tree Protocol (STP) can be
used to switch traffic between an end system and connected
NVEs without creating loops. Similarly, when the NVE provides L3
service, similar dual-homing techniques can be used. When the NVE
provides a L3 service to the end system, it is possible that no
dynamic routing protocol is enabled between the end system and the
NVE. The end system can be multi-homed to multiple physically-
separated L3 NVEs over multiple interfaces. When one of the
links connected to an NVE fails, the other interfaces can be used to
reach the end system.
External connectivity out of an nvo3 domain can be handled by two or
more nvo3 gateways. Each gateway is connected to a different domain
(e.g. ISP), providing access to external networks such as VPNs or
the Internet. A gateway may be connected to two nodes. When a
connection to an upstream node is lost, the alternative connection
is used and the failed route withdrawn.
3.3. VM Mobility
In DC environments utilizing VM technologies, an important feature
is that VMs can move from one server to another server in the same
or different L2 physical domains (within or across DCs) in a
seamless manner.
A VM can be moved from one server to another in stopped or suspended
state ("cold" VM mobility) or in running/active state ("hot" VM
mobility). With "hot" mobility, VM L2 and L3 addresses need to be
Lasserre, et al. Expires August 4, 2013 [Page 17]
Internet-Draft Framework for DC Network Virtualization February 2013
preserved. With "cold" mobility, it may be desired to preserve VM L3
addresses.
Solutions to maintain connectivity while a VM is moved are necessary
in the case of "hot" mobility. This implies that transport
connections among VMs are preserved and that ARP caches are updated
accordingly.
Upon VM mobility, NVE policies that define connectivity among VMs
must be maintained.
Optimal routing during VM mobility is also an important aspect to
address. It is expected that the VM's default gateway be as close as
possible to the server hosting the VM and triangular routing be
avoided.
3.4. Service Overlay Topologies
A number of service topologies may be used to optimize the service
connectivity and to address NVE performance limitations.
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 and association with tenant
systems reachability are 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.
Lasserre, et al. Expires August 4, 2013 [Page 18]
Internet-Draft Framework for DC Network Virtualization February 2013
o Tunneling is used to aggregate traffic and hide tenant
addresses from the underkay network, 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 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 or
path 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.
o Miscommunication or lack of coordination between overlay and
underlay networks can lead to an inefficient usage of network
resources.
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 underlay network to address for each tenant
flood containment or efficient multicast handling. The underlay
may be also be required to maintain multicast state on a per-
tenant basis, or even on a per-individual multicast flow of a
given tenant.
o Hash-based 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. Other
NVO3 mechanisms may use additional entropy information than
source and destination addresses.
Lasserre, et al. Expires August 4, 2013 [Page 19]
Internet-Draft Framework for DC Network Virtualization February 2013
4.2. Overlay issues to consider
4.2.1. Data plane vs Control plane driven
In the case of an L2NVE, it is possible to dynamically learn MAC
addresses against VAPs. It is also possible that such addresses be
known and controlled via management or a control protocol for both
L2NVEs and L3NVEs.
Dynamic data plane learning implies that flooding of unknown
destinations be supported and hence implies that broadcast and/or
multicast be supported or that ingress replication be used as
described in section 4.2.3. Multicasting in the underlay network for
dynamic learning may lead to significant scalability limitations.
Specific forwarding rules must be enforced to prevent loops from
happening. This can be achieved using a spanning tree, a shortest
path tree, or a split-horizon mesh.
It should be noted that the amount of state to be distributed is
dependent upon network topology and the number of virtual machines.
Different forms of caching can also be utilized to minimize state
distribution between the various elements. The control plane should
not require an NVE to maintain the locations of all the tenant
systems whose VNs are not present on the NVE. The use of a control
plane does not imply that the data plane on NVEs has to maintain all
the forwarding state in the control plane.
4.2.2. Coordination between data plane and control plane
For an L2 NVE, the NVE needs to be able to determine MAC addresses
of the end systems connected via a VAP. This can be achieved via
dataplane learning or a control plane. For an L3 NVE, the NVE needs
to be able to determine IP addresses of the end systems connected
via a VAP.
In both cases, coordination with the NVE control protocol is needed
such that when the NVE determines that the set of addresses behind a
VAP has changed, it triggers the local NVE control plane to
distribute this information to its peers.
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
Lasserre, et al. Expires August 4, 2013 [Page 20]
Internet-Draft Framework for DC Network Virtualization February 2013
o Use of underlay 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 should be considered.
When the number of hosts per group is large, the use of underlay
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 underlay 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 underlay 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
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:
o Classical ICMP-based MTU Path Discovery [RFC1191] [RFC1981]
o
Tenant 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
Lasserre, et al. Expires August 4, 2013 [Page 21]
Internet-Draft Framework for DC Network Virtualization February 2013
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
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 tunneling and possibly additional nvo3
header encapsulation 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 virtual
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
function should happen:
o Processing and memory requirements
o Datapath (e.g. lookups, filtering,
encapsulation/decapsulation)
o Control plane processing (e.g. routing, signaling, OAM) and
where specific control plane functions should be enabled
o FIB/RIB size
o Multicast support
o Routing/signaling protocols
o Packet replication capability
o Multicast FIB
o Fragmentation support
Lasserre, et al. Expires August 4, 2013 [Page 22]
Internet-Draft Framework for DC Network Virtualization February 2013
o QoS support (e.g. marking, policing, queuing)
o Resiliency
4.2.6. Interaction between network overlays and underlays
When multiple overlays co-exist on top of a common underlay network,
resources (e.g., bandwidth) should be provisioned to ensure that
traffic from overlays can be accommodated and QoS objectives can be
met. Overlays can have partially overlapping paths (nodes and
links).
Each overlay is selfish by nature. It sends traffic so as to
optimize its own performance without considering the impact on other
overlays, unless the underlay paths are traffic engineered on a per
overlay basis to avoid congestion of underlay resources.
Better visibility between overlays and underlays, or generally
coordination in placing overlay demand on an underlay network, can
be achieved by providing mechanisms to exchange performance and
liveliness information between the underlay and overlay(s) or the
use of such information by a coordination system. Such information
may include:
o Performance metrics (throughput, delay, loss, jitter)
o Cost metrics
5. Security Considerations
Nvo3 solutions must at least consider and address the following:
. Secure and authenticated communication between an NVE and an
NVE management system.
. Isolation between tenant overlay networks. The use of per-
tenant FIB tables (VNIs) on an NVE is essential.
. Security of any protocol used to carry overlay network
information.
. Avoiding packets from reaching the wrong NVI, especially during
VM moves.
Lasserre, et al. Expires August 4, 2013 [Page 23]
Internet-Draft Framework for DC Network Virtualization February 2013
6. IANA Considerations
IANA does not need to take any action for this draft.
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
Lucy Yong, Huawei
Lasserre, et al. Expires August 4, 2013 [Page 24]
Internet-Draft Framework for DC Network Virtualization February 2013
This document was prepared using 2-Word-v2.0.template.dot.
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 August 4, 2013 [Page 25]