SFC Header Mapping for Legacy SF
draft-song-sfc-legacy-sf-mapping-03
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 "Expired".
|
|
|---|---|---|---|
| Authors | Haibin Song , Jianjie You , Lucy Yong , Yuanlong Jiang , Linda Dunbar , Nicolas Bouthors | ||
| Last updated | 2014-09-29 | ||
| 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-song-sfc-legacy-sf-mapping-03
SFC working group H. Song
Internet-Draft J. You
Intended status: Informational L. Yong
Expires: April 2, 2015 Y. Jiang
L. Dunbar
Huawei
N. Bouthors
Qosmos
September 29, 2014
SFC Header Mapping for Legacy SF
draft-song-sfc-legacy-sf-mapping-03
Abstract
A Service Function Chain (SFC) defines a set of abstract service
functions and ordering constraints that must be applied to packets
and/or frames selected as a result of classification. One assumption
of this document is that legacy service function can participate in
the service function chain, but they are not aware of the SFC header,
nor interpret it. This document provides a mechanism between an SFC
proxy and an SFC-unaware Service Function (i.e. legacy SF), to
identify the SFC header associated with a packet that is returned
from a legacy SF, without SFC header being explicitly carried in the
wired protocol between SFC Proxy and legacy SF.
Requirements Language
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119].
Status of This Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
Song, et al. Expires April 2, 2015 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft Legacy SF Mapping September 2014
This Internet-Draft will expire on April 2, 2015.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2014 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
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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3. Mechanisms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.1. For Transparent Service Functions . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.1.1. Layer 2 MAC Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.1.2. VLAN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.1.3. QinQ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3.1.4. VXLAN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
3.1.5. 5-tuple . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
3.2. For Non-transparent Service Functions . . . . . . . . . . 10
4. Operation Consideration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
5. Security considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
6. Acknowledgement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
7. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
7.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
7.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
1. Introduction
A Service Function Chain (SFC) [I-D.ietf-sfc-architecture] defines a
set of abstract service functions and ordering constraints that must
be applied to packets and/or frames selected as a result of
classification. One assumption of this document is that some service
functions are kept as legacy, and they do not have to be aware of the
SFC header, nor interpret it. This document provides a mechanism
between an SFC proxy and a legacy SF, to identify the SFC header
associated with a packet that is returned from a legacy SF, without
Song, et al. Expires April 2, 2015 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft Legacy SF Mapping September 2014
anything in the SFC header being explicitly carried in the wired
protocol between an SFC proxy and a legacy SF.
+----------------+
|SFC-unaware |
|Service Function|
+----+----+------+
^ |
| |
| |
(2)| |(3)
| |
| |
+----+----V--------+
(1) | SFC | (4)
-------->| Proxy +------->
+------------------+
Figure 1: Procedure of a packet processed by a legacy SF
The legacy service function (i.e. SFC-unaware service function in
the Figure 1) only handles packets without SFC header, because it
does not understand the SFC header. One advantage is that the
existing service functions don't need to be upgraded to support SFC.
Otherwise it may be a hindrance for the widely adoption of SFC.
Assuming that for some legacy SFs, the packet header is transparent
to them, i.e., this kind of SFs will not modify the layer 2 or layer
3 packet headers. If the payload in the SFC encapsulation is layer 3
traffic, it will be kept as it is, and a new layer 2 header will be
added before sending to the SF. However if the payload in the SFC
encapsulation is layer 2 traffic, the SFC proxy may modify the
original source MAC address and use the new source MAC address for
mapping to the stored SFC header. This will not impact the SF
processing. The SF will send the traffic back after processing. For
the current stage, we leave the legacy SFs which modify the original
packet headers as an open issue for further study.
As shown in Figure 1, there are four steps. The SFC proxy receives a
packet, and removes its SFC header, which may optionally contain
metadata, and store the SFC header locally, and then sends the
original packet to the SF. After SF processing the packet, the
traffic will be sent back to the SFC proxy. The SFC proxy retrieves
the pre- stored SFC header accordingly, and encapsulates the packet
with the SFC header, and then sends the packet to next-hop service
function. The key problem here is how to map the packet to its
original SFC header.
Song, et al. Expires April 2, 2015 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft Legacy SF Mapping September 2014
If the SFC header is not changed per flow at a certain point, e.g., a
specific SFC proxy (i.e. each flow has a specific SFC header in a SFC
proxy, but in another SFC proxy, the SFC header is different), then
the SFC proxy needs to find the original SFC header per flow. If the
SFC header is changed per packet for a specific flow at a certain
point, then the SFC proxy needs to find the original SFC header per
packet. The second case may happen if different packets in a flow
carry different metadata (e.g. the metadata can be injected to the
packet by a DPI appliance). It's also the reason why five-tuple
cannot be used for the mapping to retrieve the original SFC header.
When metadata is sent without any associated payload (congruent
metadata) and the associated service function is a legacy one, then
SFF MUST relay the metadata to the next hop SFF, without sending the
metadata to SFC proxy.
[Open Issue: Should the authors of 'SFC header' consider the issue of
having a flag on metadata specifying if it is per flow, per packet?
Only the sender of the metadata knows. ]
An expiration time can be used for each mapping entry in the SFC
proxy. If the SFC header in that entry has not been retrieved after
the expiration time, the entry will be deleted from the entry table.
2. Terminology
The terminology used in this document is defined below:
Legacy SF: A conventional service function that does not support
SFC header, i.e. SFC-unaware SF.
Transparent SF: A service function that does not change any bit of
the original service packet header (Layer 2, layer 3, and layer 4)
sent to it, but it may drop packets.
Non-transparent SF: A service function that changes some part of
the original service packet header sent to it.
Original Service Packet: The payload in a SFC encapsulation packet
or a packet constructed based on the original payload.
3. Mechanisms
The mechanisms used in this document require that each forwarding
entity and its connected service functions in a same layer 2 network.
The following are considerations mainly for transparent SFs. If the
original payload packet is a layer 2 packet, and the mapping method
used is layer 2 MAC address, then the assumption is that the SF does
Song, et al. Expires April 2, 2015 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft Legacy SF Mapping September 2014
not need to look into the layer 2 header. If it does, other
mechanisms should be used.
3.1. For Transparent Service Functions
If the service function is transparent to packet headers, the
following methods can be used for SFC header mapping.
3.1.1. Layer 2 MAC Address
The layer 2 MAC address is used to associate a SFC header between SFC
proxy and SF, i.e. each SFC header will be assigned a source MAC
address on the SFC proxy. If SFC header can be changed per packet,
then SFC proxy assigns a new source MAC address for each packet it
received, otherwise, it assigns a new MAC address for each flow it
received.
When SFC proxy received the returned packet from the SF, it retrieves
the packet's original SFC header by using the MAC address as a key.
And then it encapsulates the packet with that SFC header and sends to
the next hop.
Open issue: usually the MAC address table size in a switch is no more
than 16K. When there is a requirement that per packet metadata needs
to be restored to each packet after the packet returns from the SF
instance, it may require more MAC addresses than the MAC table size
in the switch. This may overflow the MAC table, thus the packet
cannot route back to the SFC proxy correctly.
Song, et al. Expires April 2, 2015 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft Legacy SF Mapping September 2014
0 1 2 3
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
Outer Ethernet Header:
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| SF Destination MAC Address |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| SF Destination MAC Address | SFC Proxy Source MAC Address |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| SFC Proxy Source MAC Address |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Ethertype = 0x0800 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Original IP Payload:
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Original Payload |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
3.1.2. VLAN
If the network between the SFC proxy and SF is a layer 2 network, and
in the case that an SF needs to look into the MAC address of the
packet, then VLAN can be used for the mapping between them. The SFC
proxy removes the SFC header and sends the packet to the SF, with
encapsulating a certain VLAN ID. It is a new encapsulation, this
supposes that the legacy App can be configured to accept encapsulated
packets and to send them back on the same VLAN. It is assumed that
the receiving service function host/VM can support multiple VLANs.
It locally maintains the mapping between VLAN ID and the SFC header.
When it gets the returned packet from the SF, it removes the VLAN
part from the packet and retrieves the corresponding SFC header
according to the VLAN ID, and then encapsulates SFC header into that
packet before sending to the next service function.
The VLAN ID may be used for mapping per flow, i.e. each flow will be
assigned a new VLAN ID. If SFC header could be changed per packet,
the length of VLAN ID is not enough for mapping.
[Open issue: [I-D.dolson-sfc-vlan] describes an approach for service
function chaining by using the input interface and VLAN number to
select the next output interface and new VLAN number. However the
mechanism discussed in this section is not necessary to use a pair of
VLAN IDs to identify the uplink and downlink streams respectively.
Only in the condition that the path IDs for the symmetric flows are
same, then it is necessary to assign different VLAN IDs for the
Song, et al. Expires April 2, 2015 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft Legacy SF Mapping September 2014
uplink and downlink streams respectively in order to associate the
VLAN ID with a specific service chain header.]
0 1 2 3
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
Outer Ethernet Header:
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| SFI Destination MAC Address |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| SF Destination MAC Address | SFC Proxy Source MAC Address |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| SFC Proxy Source MAC Address |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|OptnlEthtype = C-Tag 802.1Q |Outer.VLAN Tag Information |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Ethertype = 0x0800 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Original IP Payload:
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Original Payload |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
3.1.3. QinQ
If the network between the SFC proxy and SF is already a VLAN
network, and the SF needs to look into the MAC address, then QinQ is
used for the communication between SFC proxy and SF. The SFC proxy
remove the SFC header and send the original traffic to SF with a
certain outer VLAN ID. It locally maintains the mapping between
outer VLAN ID and the SFC header.
If the network between SFC proxy and SF is not a VLAN network, then
QinQ can be used for either per flow mapping or per packet mapping,
using two layer VLAN fields. Because of the increase in address
space, QinQ can be used in two-layer VLAN: outer VLAN-id per flow,
and inner VLAN-id per packet. If the network between SFC proxy and
SF is a VLAN network, then QinQ can only be used for per flow
mapping, using one VLAN field.
Song, et al. Expires April 2, 2015 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft Legacy SF Mapping September 2014
0 1 2 3
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
Outer Ethernet Header:
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| SF Destination MAC Address |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| SF Destination MAC Address | SFC Proxy Source MAC Address |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| SFC Proxy Source MAC Address |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|OptnlEthtype = S-Tag 802.1Q |Outer.VLAN Tag Information |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|Ethertype = C-Tag 802.1Q |Inner.VLAN Tag Information |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Ethertype = 0x0800 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Original IP Payload:
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Original Payload |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
3.1.4. VXLAN
If the SFC proxy and SF are already deployed in a QinQ network, then
VXLAN [I-D.mahalingam-dutt-dcops-vxlan] can be used for the mapping,
i.e. VNI can be used for the mapping between them. This tunneling
technology is only used when the original packet type is at layer 2
and the SF has to look into the layer 2 MAC header.
The drawback of this mechanism is that it requires both SFC proxy and
SF to support VXLAN.
Song, et al. Expires April 2, 2015 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft Legacy SF Mapping September 2014
0 1 2 3
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
Outer Ethernet Header:
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| SF Destination MAC Address |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|SFI Destination MAC Address | SFC Proxy Source MAC Address |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| SFC Proxy Source MAC Address |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|OptnlEthtype = C-Tag 802.1Q |Outer.VLAN Tag Information |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Ethertype = 0x0800 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Outer IP Header:
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|Version| IHL |Type of Service| Total Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Identification |Flags| Fragment Offset |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|Time to Live |Protocol=17(UDP) | Header Checksum |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Outer Source IPv4 Address |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Outer Destination IPv4 Address |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Outer UDP Header:
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Source Port = xxxx | Dest Port = VXLAN Port |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| UDP Length | UDP Checksum |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
VXLAN Header:
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|R|R|R|R|I|R|R|R| Reserved |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| VXLAN Network Identifier (VNI) | Reserved |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Song, et al. Expires April 2, 2015 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft Legacy SF Mapping September 2014
3.1.5. 5-tuple
The 5-tuple of an SFC packet can be used as a key to associate an SFC
header in the SFC proxy when the 5-tuple is not modified by the
legacy SF. The SFC proxy maintains a mapping table for the 5-tuple
and the SFC header. When the packet returns from the SF instance,
the original SFC header for this packet can be retrieved by inquiring
the mapping table using 5-tuple as the key. However, this method may
not work in multi-tenant organizations, as such unicity could be
Valid only within the scope of a single tenant. So if the SFC is
provided as a multi-tenant service, this method would fail.
3.2. For Non-transparent Service Functions
Non transparent service functions including NAT (Network Address
Translation), WOC (WAN Optimization Controller) and etc, are more
complicated, as they may change any part of the original packet sent
to them. It is better to analyze case by case, to utilize a specific
field that the SF does not change for the mapping and retrieving the
SFC header. We would like to leave it for open discussion.
The use case below is just one example that SFC proxy can learn the
behavior of the SF changing the packet. In this example, the
following method is used for SFC header mapping. The SF needs to
report its mapping rules (e.g. 5-tuple mapping rules) to the control
plane (step 1), and then the control plane can notify the SFC proxy
the mapping information (step 2). According to the mapping
information, the SFC proxy can establish a mapping table for the SFC
header, the original header, and the processed header of the packet.
After receiving the packet from the SF (step 5), the SFC proxy
retrieves the SFC header from the mapping table by using the
processed header as a key.
Song, et al. Expires April 2, 2015 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft Legacy SF Mapping September 2014
+-------------+
|Control Plane|
+--+-----+----+
^ ^
| |
| |(1) +----------------+
| +------->SFC-unaware |
(2)| |Service Function|
| +-----+---+------+
| (4)^ |(5)
+---------------+ | |
| | |
+--V---+---V-------+
(3) | SFC | (6)
--------->+ Proxy +------->
+------------------+
4. Operation Consideration
The following table shows all the methods and the conditions to use.
Song, et al. Expires April 2, 2015 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft Legacy SF Mapping September 2014
Table 1: Operation Consideration
+-----------+--------+-------------------------------+-------------------+
| |Methods | Stored Key-Value |Application |
| | | |Scenario |
+-----------+--------+-------------------------------+-------------------+
| |MAC | (Source MAC Address, SFC |L2 header won't |
|For Trans- |Address | header) |be modified by the |
|parent SF | | |SF. |
| | |e.g. assign a source MAC | |
| | |address per path ID | |
| +--------+-------------------------------+-------------------+
| |VLAN | (VLAN ID, SFC header) |L2 header won't |
| | | |be modified by the |
| | |e.g. assign a VLAN ID per path |SF. |
| | |ID | |
| +--------+-------------------------------+-------------------+
| |QinQ |(Outer VLAN ID, SFC header) |The SF is required |
| | | |to support QinQ. |
| | |e.g. assign an outer VLAN ID |L2 header won't |
| | |per path ID |be modified by |
| | | |the SF. |
| +--------+-------------------------------+-------------------+
| |VXLAN |(VNI, SFC header) |The SF is required |
| | | |to support VXLAN. |
| | |e.g. assign a VNI per path ID | |
| +--------+-------------------------------+-------------------+
| |5-tuple |(5-tuple, SFC header) |5-tuple is not |
| | | |modified by the |
| | |The SFC proxy maintains the |SF. |
| | |mapping table for 5-tuple and | |
| | |the SFC header. | |
+-----------+--------+----------------- -------------+-------------------+
| |TBD |Mapping rules: |The SFC proxy is |
|For | |e.g. 5-tuple -> 5-tuple' |configured or is |
|Non-trans- | | |able to obtain the |
|parent SF | |SFC Proxy: |mapping rules of |
| | |5-tuple -> 5-tuple' |the SF. The SF |
| | |5-tuple'-> SFC header |modifies the |
| | | |5-tuple based on |
| | | |the mapping |
| | | |rules. |
+-----------+--------+---------------------------------------------------+
Song, et al. Expires April 2, 2015 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft Legacy SF Mapping September 2014
5. Security considerations
When the layer 2 header of the original packet is modified and sent
to the SF, if the SF needs to look into the layer 2 header, it may
cause security threats. It also provides diagrams of the main
entities that the information model is comprised of.
6. Acknowledgement
The authors would like to thank Ron Parker for his comments.
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
[I-D.dolson-sfc-vlan]
Dolson, D., "VLAN Service Function Chaining", draft-
dolson-sfc-vlan-00 (work in progress), February 2014.
[I-D.ietf-sfc-architecture]
Halpern, J. and C. Pignataro, "Service Function Chaining
(SFC) Architecture", draft-ietf-sfc-architecture-02 (work
in progress), September 2014.
[I-D.mahalingam-dutt-dcops-vxlan]
Mahalingam, M., Dutt, D., Duda, K., Agarwal, P., Kreeger,
L., Sridhar, T., Bursell, M., and C. Wright, "VXLAN: A
Framework for Overlaying Virtualized Layer 2 Networks over
Layer 3 Networks", draft-mahalingam-dutt-dcops-vxlan-09
(work in progress), April 2014.
Authors' Addresses
Haibin Song
Huawei
101 Software Avenue, Yuhuatai District
Nanjing, Jiangsu 210012
China
Email: haibin.song@huawei.com
Song, et al. Expires April 2, 2015 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft Legacy SF Mapping September 2014
Jianjie You
Huawei
101 Software Avenue, Yuhuatai District
Nanjing, 210012
China
Email: youjianjie@huawei.com
Lucy Yong
Huawei
5340 Legacy Drive
Plano, TX 75025
U.S.A.
Email: lucy.yong@huawei.com
Yuanlong Jiang
Huawei
Bantian, Longgang district
Shenzhen 518129
China
Email: jiangyuanlong@huawei.com
Linda Dunbar
Huawei
1700 Alma Drive, Suite 500
Plano, TX 75075
U.S.A.
Email: ldunbar@huawei.com
Nicolas Bouthors
Qosmos
Email: nicolas.bouthors@qosmos.com
Song, et al. Expires April 2, 2015 [Page 14]