APN Scope and Gap Analysis
draft-peng-apn-scope-gap-analysis-05
| Document | Type | Active Internet-Draft (individual) | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Authors | Shuping Peng , Zhenbin Li , Gyan Mishra | ||
| Last updated | 2022-09-07 | ||
| RFC stream | (None) | ||
| Intended RFC status | (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-peng-apn-scope-gap-analysis-05
Network Working Group S. Peng
Internet-Draft Z. Li
Intended status: Informational Huawei Technologies
Expires: 11 March 2023 G. Mishra
Verizon Inc.
7 September 2022
APN Scope and Gap Analysis
draft-peng-apn-scope-gap-analysis-05
Abstract
The APN work in IETF is focused on developing a framework and set of
mechanisms to derive, convey and use an attribute allowing the
implementation of fine-grain user group-level and application group-
level requirements in the network layer. APN aims to apply various
policies in different nodes along a network path onto a traffic flow
altogether, for example, at the headend to steer into corresponding
path, at the midpoint to collect corresponding performance
measurement data, and at the service function to execute particular
policies. Currently there is still no way to efficiently realize
this composite network service provisioning along the path. This
document further clarifies the scope of the APN work and describes
the solution gap analysis.
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 https://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 11 March 2023.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2022 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
Peng, et al. Expires 11 March 2023 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft APN Scope and Gap Analysis September 2022
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (https://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 Revised BSD License text as
described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are
provided without warranty as described in the Revised BSD License.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. Terminologies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
4. APN Framework and Scope . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
5. Example Use Case and Existing Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
6. Basic Solution and Benefits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
7. Solution Gap Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
7.1. IPv6/MPLS Flow Label . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
7.2. SFC ServiceID . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
7.3. IOAM Flow ID . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
7.4. Binding SID . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
7.5. FlowSpec Label . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
7.6. Group Policy ID . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
7.7. Detnet Flow Identification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
7.8. Network Slicing Resource ID . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
7.9. Service Path ID . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
7.10. Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
8. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
9. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
10. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
1. Introduction
Application-aware Networking (APN) is introduced in
[I-D.li-apn-framework] and [I-D.li-apn-problem-statement-usecases].
APN conveys an attribute along with data packets into network and
makes the network aware about data flow requirements at different
granularity levels.
Such an attribute is acquired, constructed in a structured value, and
then encapsulated in the packet. Such structured value is treated as
an opaque object in the network to which the network operator applies
policies in various nodes/service functions along the path and
provides corresponding services.
Peng, et al. Expires 11 March 2023 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft APN Scope and Gap Analysis September 2022
This structured attribute can be encapsulated in various data planes
adopted within a Network Operator controlled limited domain, e.g.
MPLS, VXLAN, SR/SRv6 and other tunnel technologies, which waits to be
further specified.
With APN, it becomes possible to apply various policies in different
nodes along a network path onto a traffic flow altogether in a more
efficient way, e.g., at the headend to steer into corresponding path,
at the midpoint to collect corresponding performance measurement
data, and at the service function to execute particular policies.
Currently there is still no way to realize this composite network
service provisioning along the path very efficiently. It may be
possible to stack those various policies in a list of TLVs at the
headend. However, this approach would introduce great complexities
and impose big challenges on the hardware processing and forwarding.
The example use-case presented in this draft further expands on the
rationale for such an attribute and how it can be derived and used in
that specific context.
This document further clarifies the scope of the APN work and
describes the solution gap analysis.
2. Requirements Language
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
"OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP
14 RFC 2119 [RFC2119] RFC 8174 [RFC8174] when, and only when, they
appear in all capitals, as shown here.
3. Terminologies
APN: Application-aware Networking
CPE: Customer Premises Equipment
DPI: Deep Packet Inspection
OS: Operating System
4. APN Framework and Scope
The APN framework is introduced in [I-D.li-apn-framework], as shown
in the Figure 1.
Peng, et al. Expires 11 March 2023 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft APN Scope and Gap Analysis September 2022
+-----+ +-----+
|App x|-\ /-|App x|
+-----+ | +-----+ +-----------------------+ +-----+ | +-----+
\-|APN- | | Application-aware | |APN- |-/
| |---| Network |---| |
/-|Edge | | Service Provisioning | |Edge |-\
+-----+ | +-----+ +-----------------------+ +-----+ | +-----+
|App y|-/ | | \-|App y|
+-----+ |<--- Network Operator Controlled --->| +-----+
Limited Domain
Figure 1. APN Framework and Scope
APN is only applied to an edge-to-edge tunnel encapsulation within a
limited trusted domain. It means that the source and destination
addresses of the packet are the endpoints of the tunnel (i.e. the
domain edges), and nothing about the payload source and destination
can be deduced, which substantially reduces the privacy concerns.
Typically, an APN domain is defined as a Network Operator controlled
limited domain (see Figure 1), in which MPLS, VXLAN, SR/SRv6 and
other tunnel technologies are adopted to provide network services.
With APN, the attribute is acquired based on the existing information
in the packet header (i.e. source and destination addresses, incoming
L2 (or) MPLS encapsulation, incoming physical/virtual port
information, the other fields of the 5-tuple if they are not
encrypted) at the edge devices of the APN domain, added to the data
packets along with the tunnel encapsulation, and delivered to the
network, wherein, according to this attribute, corresponding network
services are provisioned. When the packets leave the APN domain, the
attribute is removed together with the tunnel encapsulation header.
5. Example Use Case and Existing Issues
To be more specific and more concrete, here we use SD-WAN as an
example use case to further expand on the rationale for such
attribute and how it can be derived and used in that specific
context.
In the case of SD-WAN, an enterprise obtains WAN services from an SD-
WAN provider so that its employees have access to the applications in
the Cloud, and then the SD-WAN provider may buy WAN lines from a
Network Operator. The enterprise may know what applications will use
the SD-WAN services, but it will only provide the 5 tuples (i.e.
source IP address, source port, destination IP address, destination
port, transport protocol) of those applications to the SD-WAN
Peng, et al. Expires 11 March 2023 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft APN Scope and Gap Analysis September 2022
provider. So, the SD-WAN provider does not know what applications it
is serving, and will only provide 5 tuples to the Network Operator
and the service performance requirements for steering their
customer's traffic. In this way, the Network Operator does not know
anything else about the traffic except the 5 tuples and requirements.
Nowadays, SD-WAN is usually using 5-tuple to steer the traffic into
corresponding WAN lines across the Network Operator's network
[SD-WAN].
However, there are two main issues in the current SD-WAN deployments.
1) It is complicated to resolve the 5 tuples. Even worse, as the
traffic is encrypted, it becomes impossible to obtain any transport
layer information. Moreover, in the IPv6 data plane, with the
extension headers being added before the upper layer, in some
implementations it becomes very difficult and even impossible to
obtain transport layer information because that information is
located deep in the packet. So, there is no 5 tuples anymore, and
maybe only 2 tuples are available.
2) Currently there is still no way to apply various policies in
different nodes along the network path onto a traffic flow
altogether, that is, at the headend to steer into corresponding path,
at the midpoint to collect corresponding performance measurement
data, and at the service function to execute particular policies. It
may be possible to stack those various policies in a list of TLVs at
the headend. However, this approach would introduce great
complexities and impose big challenges on the hardware processing and
forwarding.
6. Basic Solution and Benefits
With APN, at the edge node, i.e. CPE, of the SD-WAN (see Figure 2),
the 5-tuple, plus information related to user or application group-
level requirements is constructed into a structured value, called APN
attribute. This attribute is only meaningful for the network
operators to apply various policies in different nodes/service
functions, which can be enforced from the Controllers.
Peng, et al. Expires 11 March 2023 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft APN Scope and Gap Analysis September 2022
+-----------------+
+---------|SD-WAN Controller|---------+
| +--------|--------+ |
| | |
| +-------|-------+ |
| |SDN Controller| |
| +-------|-------+ |
+-----+ | | | +-----+
|App x|-\ | | | /-|App x|
+-----+ | +--|--+ +-----------|-----------+ +--|--+ | +-----+
\-| | | Application-aware | | |-/
|CPE 1|---| Network |---|CPE 2|
/-| | | Service Provisioning | | |-\
+-----+ | +-----+ +-----------------------+ +-----+ | +-----+
|App y|-/ | | \-|App y|
+-----+ |<--- Network Operator Controlled --->| +-----+
Limited Domain
Figure 2. SD-WAN using the APN Framework
With such an attribute in the network, we can easily solve the two
issues above-mentioned. For example, when the packet is sent from
the CPE1 and the attribute is added along with the tunnel
encapsulation, then it is not necessary to resolve the 5-tuple and
perform the deep inspection in every node along the path. This
attribute is encapsulated in the network layer and can be easily read
by the routers and service functions. If the tunnel is based on the
IPv6 data plane, for example, such an attribute can be encapsulated
in an option of IPv6 hop-by-hop options header.
Since this attribute is taken as an object to the network, the
network operators will simply place the policies in the nodes/service
functions where this indicated traffic will go through, and the
corresponding node/service function will just apply policies for this
object. This can be easily done by utilizing this attribute, which
is not possible with any current existing mechanism.
Such attribute will also bring other benefits, for example,
* Improve the forwarding performance since it will only use 1 field
in the IP layer instead of resolving 5 tuples, which will also
improve the scalability.
* Very flexible policy enforcement in various nodes and service
functions along the network path.
Peng, et al. Expires 11 March 2023 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft APN Scope and Gap Analysis September 2022
Furthermore, with such attribute, more new services could be enabled,
for example,
* Even more fine-granularity performance measurement could be
achieved and the granularity to be monitored and visualized can be
controllable, which is able to relieve the processing pressure on
the controller when it is facing the massive monitoring data.
* The policy execution on the service function can be based only on
this value and not based on 5-tuple, which can eliminate the need
of deep packet inspection.
* The underlay performance guarantee could be achieved for SD-WAN
overlay services, such as explicit traffic engineering path
satisfying SLA and selective visualized accurate performance
measurement.
7. Solution Gap Analysis
There are already some solutions specified in IETF, which use
identifier to perform traffic steering and service provisioning.
However, the existing solutions are specific to a particular scenario
or data plane. None of them is the same as APN and able to achieve
the same effects.
7.1. IPv6/MPLS Flow Label
[RFC6437] specifies the IPv6 flow label which enables the IPv6 flow
classification. However, the IPv6 flow label is mainly used for
Equal Cost Multipath Routing (ECMP) and Link Aggregation [RFC6438].
Similarly, [RFC6391] describes a method of adding an additional Label
Stack Entry (LSE) at the bottom of the stack in order to facilitate
the load balancing of the flows within a pseudowire (PW) over the
available ECMPs. A similar design for general MPLS use has also been
proposed in [RFC6790] using the concept of Entropy Label.
7.2. SFC ServiceID
Subscriber Identifier and Performance Policy Identifier are specified
in [RFC8979]. These identifiers are carried only in the Network
Service Header (NSH) [RFC8300] Context Header, as shown in Figure 3,
while the APN attribute can be carried in various data plane
encapsulations.
Peng, et al. Expires 11 March 2023 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft APN Scope and Gap Analysis September 2022
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Metadata Class | Type |U| Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
~ Subscriber Identifier ~
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Metadata Class | Type |U| Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
~ Performance Policy Identifier ~
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 3. Subscriber Identifier and Performance Policy Identifier
In this draft [RFC8979], the Subscriber Identifier carries an opaque
local identifier that is assigned to a subscriber by a network
operator, and the Performance Policy Identifier represents an opaque
value pointing to specific performance policy to be enforced. In
this way, in order to apply various policies in different nodes along
the network path onto a traffic flow altogether, e.g., at the headend
to steer into corresponding path, at the midpoint to collect
corresponding performance measurement data, and at the service
function to execute particular policies, those various policies would
have to be stacked in a list of TLVs at the headend, introducing
great complexities and big challenges on the hardware processing and
forwarding.
The APN attribute is treated as an opaque object in the network, to
which the network operator applies policies in various nodes/service
functions along the path and provide corresponding services.
7.3. IOAM Flow ID
A 32-bit Flow ID is specified in [I-D.ietf-ippm-ioam-direct-export],
which is used to correlate the exported data of the same flow from
multiple nodes and from multiple packets, while the APN attribute can
serve more various purposes.
Peng, et al. Expires 11 March 2023 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft APN Scope and Gap Analysis September 2022
7.4. Binding SID
The Binding SID (BSID) [RFC8402] is bound to an SR Policy,
instantiation of which may involve a list of SIDs. Any packets
received with an active segment equal to BSID are steered onto the
bound SR Policy. A BSID may be either a local or a global SID.
While the APN attribute is not bound to SR only, and it can be
carried in various data plane encapsulations.
7.5. FlowSpec Label
The flow specification (FlowSpec) [RFC5575] is actually an n-tuple
consisting of several matching criteria that can be applied to IP
traffic, which include elements such as source and destination
address prefixes, IP protocol, and transport protocol port numbers.
In BGP VPN/MPLS networks, BGP FlowSpec can be extended to identify
and change (push/swap/pop) the label(s) for traffic that matches a
particular FlowSpec rule in [I-D.ietf-idr-flowspec-mpls-match] and
[I-D.ietf-idr-bgp-flowspec-label]. In
[I-D.liang-idr-bgp-flowspec-route], BGP is used to distribute the
FlowSpec rule bound with label(s). While the APN attribute is not
bound to MPLS only, and it can be carried in various data plane
encapsulations.
7.6. Group Policy ID
The capabilities of the VXLAN-GPE protocol can be extended by
defining next protocol "shim" headers that are used to implement new
data plane functions. For example, Group Policy ID is carried in the
Group-Based Policy (GBP) Shim header [I-D.lemon-vxlan-lisp-gpe-gbp].
GENEVE has similar ability as VXLAN-GPE to carry metadata.
7.7. Detnet Flow Identification
Identification and Specification of DetNet Flows is specified in
[RFC9016]. DetNet MPLS flows can be identified and specified by the
SLabel and the FLabelStack. The IP 6-tuple is used for DetNet IP
flow identification, which consists of SourceIpAddress,
DestinationIpAddress, Dscp, Protocol, SourcePort, and
DestinationPort. IPv6FlowLabel and IPSecSpi are additional
attributes that can be used for DetNet flow identification in
addition to the 6-tuple. Therefore, the Detnet IP Flow ID is logical
and there is no such Flow ID carried for Detnet, but only the 6-tuple
is directly used to identify the Detnet flows.
Only one exceptional case, in
[I-D.ietf-spring-sr-redundancy-protection], the 32-bit flow
identification (FID) identifies one specific Detnet flow of
Peng, et al. Expires 11 March 2023 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft APN Scope and Gap Analysis September 2022
redundancy protection. This FID is usually allocated from
centralized controller to the SR ingress node or redundancy node in
SR network.
7.8. Network Slicing Resource ID
In [I-D.dong-6man-enhanced-vpn-vtn-id], VTN Resource ID is a 4-octet
identifier which uniquely identifies the set of network resources
allocated to a VTN. For network slicing, the ID is used to indicate
the network resources to be allocated to the network slices and it is
not bound to any traffic flow.
APN is for traffic steering, while network slicing is about resource
partition [I-D.ietf-teas-rfc3272bis].
7.9. Service Path ID
In [RFC8300], Service Path Identifier (SPI) uniquely identifies a
Service Function Path (SFP). Participating nodes MUST use this
identifier for SFP selection. The initial Classifier MUST set the
appropriate SPI for a given classification result. For SFC, the ID
is used to indicate a SF path and it is not bound to any traffic
flow.
7.10. Summary
The comparison of the identifiers for the typical network services
(incl. iOAM, Detnet, Network Slicing (NS), and Service Function
Chaining (SFC)) is shown in the following Table from different
aspects (incl. ID, Identification Object, Source (for generating the
ID), Configuration (Conf.) node, and Size).
Peng, et al. Expires 11 March 2023 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft APN Scope and Gap Analysis September 2022
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| | ID | Identification Object | Source |Conf. node| Size |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| APN | APN ID | The flow that needs | 5-tuple|Controller|32bits|
| | | fine-granular services| Layer 2| |128b |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| iOAM | Flow ID | The flow that needs | - |Controller|32bits|
| | | performance monitoring| | Ingress | |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|Detnet| Flow ID | The flow that needs | - |Controller| - |
| | (6-tuple) | Detnet services | | | |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|Detnet| Flow ID | The redundant | - | Detnet |32bits|
| | | protection flow | |Controller| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| NS |Resource ID| The network resources | |Controller|32bits|
| | | that are allocated to | - | | |
| | | network slices | | | |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| SFC | SPI | The SF Path | - |Controller|24bits|
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| SFC |Performance| The performance policy| - |Controller| - |
| | Policy ID | | | | |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Table 1. Comparison of the Identifiers
As driven by ever-emerging new 5G services, fine-granularity service
provisioning becomes urgent. The existing solutions are either
specific to a particular scenario or data plane. While APN aims to
define a generalized attribute used for fine-granularity service
provisioning, and can be carried in various data plane
encapsulations.
8. IANA Considerations
There are no IANA considerations in this document.
9. Acknowledgements
The authors would like to acknowledge Martin Vigoureux, Alvaro
Retana, Barry Leiba, Stefano Previdi, Adrian Farrel, and Daniel King
for their valuable review and comments.
10. Informative References
Peng, et al. Expires 11 March 2023 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft APN Scope and Gap Analysis September 2022
[I-D.brockners-ippm-ioam-vxlan-gpe]
Brockners, F., Bhandari, S., Govindan, V. P., Pignataro,
C., Gredler, H., Leddy, J., Youell, S., Mizrahi, T., Kfir,
A., Gafni, B., Lapukhov, P., and M. Spiegel, "VXLAN-GPE
Encapsulation for In-situ OAM Data", Work in Progress,
Internet-Draft, draft-brockners-ippm-ioam-vxlan-gpe-03, 4
November 2019, <https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-
brockners-ippm-ioam-vxlan-gpe-03.txt>.
[I-D.dong-6man-enhanced-vpn-vtn-id]
Dong, J., Li, Z., Xie, C., Ma, C., and G. Mishra,
"Carrying Virtual Transport Network (VTN) Identifier in
IPv6 Extension Header", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft,
draft-dong-6man-enhanced-vpn-vtn-id-06, 24 October 2021,
<https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-dong-6man-enhanced-
vpn-vtn-id-06.txt>.
[I-D.ietf-idr-bgp-flowspec-label]
Liang, Q., Hares, S., You, J., Raszuk, R., and D. Ma,
"Carrying Label Information for BGP FlowSpec", Work in
Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-idr-bgp-flowspec-
label-01, 6 December 2016,
<https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-idr-bgp-
flowspec-label-01.txt>.
[I-D.ietf-idr-flowspec-mpls-match]
Yong, L., Hares, S., Liang, Q., and J. You, "BGP Flow
Specification Filter for MPLS Label", Work in Progress,
Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-idr-flowspec-mpls-match-01, 6
December 2016, <https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-
ietf-idr-flowspec-mpls-match-01.txt>.
[I-D.ietf-ippm-ioam-direct-export]
Song, H., Gafni, B., Brockners, F., Bhandari, S., and T.
Mizrahi, "In-situ OAM Direct Exporting", Work in Progress,
Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-ippm-ioam-direct-export-10, 18
August 2022, <https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-
ippm-ioam-direct-export-10.txt>.
[I-D.ietf-sfc-serviceid-header]
Sarikaya, B., Hugo, D. V., and M. Boucadair, "Subscriber
and Performance Policy Identifier Context Headers in the
Network Service Header (NSH)", Work in Progress, Internet-
Draft, draft-ietf-sfc-serviceid-header-14, 11 December
2020, <https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-sfc-
serviceid-header-14.txt>.
Peng, et al. Expires 11 March 2023 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft APN Scope and Gap Analysis September 2022
[I-D.ietf-spring-sr-redundancy-protection]
Geng, X., Chen, M., Yang, F., Garvia, P. C., and G.
Mishra, "SRv6 for Redundancy Protection", Work in
Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-spring-sr-redundancy-
protection-01, 15 February 2022,
<https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-spring-sr-
redundancy-protection-01.txt>.
[I-D.ietf-teas-rfc3272bis]
Farrel, A., "Overview and Principles of Internet Traffic
Engineering", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-
ietf-teas-rfc3272bis-20, 11 July 2022,
<https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-teas-
rfc3272bis-20.txt>.
[I-D.lemon-vxlan-lisp-gpe-gbp]
Lemon, J., Maino, F., Smith, M., and A. Isaac, "Group
Policy Encoding with VXLAN-GPE and LISP-GPE", Work in
Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-lemon-vxlan-lisp-gpe-gbp-
02, 30 April 2019, <https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-
lemon-vxlan-lisp-gpe-gbp-02.txt>.
[I-D.li-6man-app-aware-ipv6-network]
Li, Z., Peng, S., Li, C., Xie, C., Voyer, D., Li, X., Liu,
P., Cao, C., and K. Ebisawa, "Application-aware IPv6
Networking (APN6) Encapsulation", Work in Progress,
Internet-Draft, draft-li-6man-app-aware-ipv6-network-03,
22 February 2021, <https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-
li-6man-app-aware-ipv6-network-03.txt>.
[I-D.li-apn-framework]
Li, Z., Peng, S., Voyer, D., Li, C., Liu, P., Cao, C., and
G. Mishra, "Application-aware Networking (APN) Framework",
Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-li-apn-framework-
05, 7 March 2022, <https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-
li-apn-framework-05.txt>.
[I-D.li-apn-problem-statement-usecases]
Li, Z., Peng, S., Voyer, D., Xie, C., Liu, P., Qin, Z.,
and G. Mishra, "Problem Statement and Use Cases of
Application-aware Networking (APN)", Work in Progress,
Internet-Draft, draft-li-apn-problem-statement-usecases-
06, 7 March 2022, <https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-
li-apn-problem-statement-usecases-06.txt>.
[I-D.liang-idr-bgp-flowspec-route]
Liang, Q. and J. You, "BGP FlowSpec based Multi-
dimensional Route Distribution", Work in Progress,
Peng, et al. Expires 11 March 2023 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft APN Scope and Gap Analysis September 2022
Internet-Draft, draft-liang-idr-bgp-flowspec-route-00, 20
October 2014, <https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-
liang-idr-bgp-flowspec-route-00.txt>.
[I-D.peng-apn-security-privacy-consideration]
Peng, S., Li, Z., Voyer, D., Li, C., Liu, P., and C. Cao,
"APN Security and Privacy Considerations", Work in
Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-peng-apn-security-privacy-
consideration-02, 16 June 2021,
<https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-peng-apn-security-
privacy-consideration-02.txt>.
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[RFC5575] Marques, P., Sheth, N., Raszuk, R., Greene, B., Mauch, J.,
and D. McPherson, "Dissemination of Flow Specification
Rules", RFC 5575, DOI 10.17487/RFC5575, August 2009,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5575>.
[RFC6391] Bryant, S., Ed., Filsfils, C., Drafz, U., Kompella, V.,
Regan, J., and S. Amante, "Flow-Aware Transport of
Pseudowires over an MPLS Packet Switched Network",
RFC 6391, DOI 10.17487/RFC6391, November 2011,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6391>.
[RFC6437] Amante, S., Carpenter, B., Jiang, S., and J. Rajahalme,
"IPv6 Flow Label Specification", RFC 6437,
DOI 10.17487/RFC6437, November 2011,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6437>.
[RFC6438] Carpenter, B. and S. Amante, "Using the IPv6 Flow Label
for Equal Cost Multipath Routing and Link Aggregation in
Tunnels", RFC 6438, DOI 10.17487/RFC6438, November 2011,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6438>.
[RFC6790] Kompella, K., Drake, J., Amante, S., Henderickx, W., and
L. Yong, "The Use of Entropy Labels in MPLS Forwarding",
RFC 6790, DOI 10.17487/RFC6790, November 2012,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6790>.
[RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,
May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.
Peng, et al. Expires 11 March 2023 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft APN Scope and Gap Analysis September 2022
[RFC8300] Quinn, P., Ed., Elzur, U., Ed., and C. Pignataro, Ed.,
"Network Service Header (NSH)", RFC 8300,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8300, January 2018,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8300>.
[RFC8402] Filsfils, C., Ed., Previdi, S., Ed., Ginsberg, L.,
Decraene, B., Litkowski, S., and R. Shakir, "Segment
Routing Architecture", RFC 8402, DOI 10.17487/RFC8402,
July 2018, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8402>.
[RFC8979] Sarikaya, B., von Hugo, D., and M. Boucadair, "Subscriber
and Performance Policy Identifier Context Headers in the
Network Service Header (NSH)", RFC 8979,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8979, February 2021,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8979>.
[RFC9016] Varga, B., Farkas, J., Cummings, R., Jiang, Y., and D.
Fedyk, "Flow and Service Information Model for
Deterministic Networking (DetNet)", RFC 9016,
DOI 10.17487/RFC9016, March 2021,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9016>.
[SD-WAN] MEF 70.1 Draft (R1), available at https://www.mef.net/wp-
content/uploads/2020/08/MEF-70-1-Draft-R1.pdf/, "SD-WAN
Service Attributes and Service Framework", August 2020.
Authors' Addresses
Shuping Peng
Huawei Technologies
Beijing
China
Email: pengshuping@huawei.com
Zhenbin Li
Huawei Technologies
Beijing
China
Email: lizhenbin@huawei.com
Gyan Mishra
Verizon Inc.
United States of America
Email: gyan.s.mishra@verizon.com
Peng, et al. Expires 11 March 2023 [Page 15]