Routing on Service Addresses
draft-trossen-rtgwg-rosa-00
The information below is for an old version of the document.
| Document | Type |
This is an older version of an Internet-Draft whose latest revision state is "Replaced".
|
|
|---|---|---|---|
| Authors | Dirk Trossen , Luis M. Contreras | ||
| Last updated | 2022-10-24 | ||
| Replaced by | draft-mendes-rtgwg-rosa-use-cases, draft-trossen-rtgwg-rosa-arch, draft-contreras-rtgwg-rosa-gaar | ||
| 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-trossen-rtgwg-rosa-00
Network Working Group D. Trossen
Internet-Draft Huawei Technologies
Intended status: Standards Track LM. Contreras
Expires: 27 April 2023 Telefonica
24 October 2022
Routing on Service Addresses
draft-trossen-rtgwg-rosa-00
Abstract
This document proposes a novel communication approach which reasons
about WHAT is being communicated (and invoked) instead of WHO is
communicating. Such approach is meant to transition away from
locator-based addressing (and thus routing and forwarding) to an
addressing scheme where the address semantics relate to services
being invoked (e.g., for computational processes, and their generated
information requests and responses).
The document introduces Routing on Service Addresses (ROSA), as a
realization of what is referred to as 'service-based routing' (SBR).
Such routing is designed to be constrained by service-specific
parameters that go beyond load and latency, as in today's best effort
or traffic engineering based routing, leading to an approach to steer
traffic in a service-specific constraint-based manner.
Particularly, this document outlines sample ROSA use case scenarios,
requirements for its design, and the ROSA system design itself.
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 27 April 2023.
Trossen & Contreras Expires 27 April 2023 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft ROSA October 2022
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2022 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 (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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3. Deployment and Use Case Scenarios . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.1. CDN Interconnect and Distribution . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.2. Distributed user planes for mobile and fixed access
providing reachability to edge computing facilities . . . 6
3.3. Multi-homed and multi-domain services . . . . . . . . . . 7
3.4. Observations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4. Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
5. ROSA Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
5.1. System Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
5.2. Message Types . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
5.3. SAR Forwarding Engine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
5.4. Changes to Clients to Support ROSA . . . . . . . . . . . 19
5.5. Traffic Steering . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
5.5.1. Ingress Request Scheduling . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
5.5.2. Routing Across Multiple SARs . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
5.6. Interconnection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
6. Open Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
7. Relation to IETF/IRTF Efforts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
8. Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
9. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
10. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
11. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
12. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
Trossen & Contreras Expires 27 April 2023 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft ROSA October 2022
1. Introduction
The centralization of Internet services has been well observed, not
just in IETF discussions
[Huston2021][I-D.nottingham-avoiding-internet-centralization], but
also in other efforts that aim to quantify the centralization, using
methods such as the Herfindahl-Hirschman Index [HHI] or the Gini
coefficient [Gini]. Dashboards of the Internet Society [ISOC2022]
confirm the dominant role of CDNs in service delivery beyond just
streaming services, both in centralization as well as resulting
market inequality, which has been compounded through the global CV19
pandemic [CV19].
This centralization impacts the global Internet, as argued in
[Huston2021], through largely replacing Internet transit with global
private networks, providing optimized last mile access to services
through an economy of scale that only data centres (point-of-
presence) can provide. But it also runs counter the original
Internet design as a peer-to-peer communication system, having
replaced the destination end host through an intermediary, usually
deployed in the nearest PoP.
The impact on routing can be seen in, e.g., [TIES2021], which goes as
far as centralizing service requests into a single IP address behind
which DC-internal mechanisms take over.
There is an inherent risk in such trend, not just at the economic
level (in terms of market centralization and inequality) but also at
the technological one since economic dominance may likely lead to
skewing the technological enablers towards cementing the status quo
that the current market represents. With it comes the danger that
new use cases may be prevented in the light of the optimizations
towards a centralized service provisioning capability.
Providing the backdrop to the design proposed in this document,
[EI2021] proposes an Extensible Internet (EI) framework for
architectural evolution atop today's Internet. Novel network
services are realised within interconnected service nodes (SNs),
thereby taking IP for granted, while deploying SNs within last mile
providers (LMPs) or cloud providers (CPs).
The concept of limited domains [RFC8799] argues for a model of
Internet technology development based on domain-specific behaviours
and requirements, relying on the Internet for interconnection. The
authors in [LDCU2021] show that this model has been driving
innovation in the Internet since its very beginning, with well-known
technologies resulting from it. ROSA aligns with the EI view of an
architectural evolution through a shim layer atop IPv6. This
Trossen & Contreras Expires 27 April 2023 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft ROSA October 2022
positions ROSA as an architecture for peer-to-peer service
communication in limited domains, with market opportunities for LMPs
or CPs, while interconnecting via the Internet for wider
reachability.
Evolving the IPv6 network layer has been part of its design from the
very start. Key enabler here are Extension headers (EHs), which are
part of the IPv6 specifications [RFC8200], with some observed
problems, e.g., firewall traversal, in real-world deployments
[SHIM2014]. Recent solutions, such as Segment routing (SR)
[RFC8402], specifically SRv6 [RFC8986] build on this capability by
establishing a shim layer overlay (of SR-enabled routers), utilizing
an extension header to carry needed information for realizing the
source routing capabilities.
In remainder of this document, we first introduce in Section 2 a
terminology that provides the common language used throughout the
remainder of the document. We then introduce use cases in Section 3
that drive the need for a routing on service address solution. We
then outline in Section 4 the requirements for such solution before
introducing its design in Section 5.
2. Terminology
The following terminology is used throughout the remainder of this
document:
Service: A monolithic functionality that is provided according to
the specification for said service. A composite service can be
built by orchestrating a combination of monolithic services.
Service Instance: A running environment (e.g., a node, a virtual
instance) that provides the expected service. One service can
involve several instances running within the same network at
different network locations, thus providing service equivalence
between those instances.
Service Address: An identifier for a specific service.
Service Transaction: A sequence of higher-layer requests for a
specific service, consisting of at least one service request,
addressed to the service address, and zero or more affinity
requests.
Service Request: A request for a specific service, addressed to a
specific service address, which is directed to at least one of
possibly many service instances.
Trossen & Contreras Expires 27 April 2023 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft ROSA October 2022
Affinity Request: A request to a specific service, following an
initial service request, requiring steering to the same service
instance chosen for the initial service request.
ROSA Provider: Realizing the ROSA-based traffic steering
capabilities over at least one infrastructure provider.
ROSA Domain: Domain of reachability for services supported by a
single ROSA provider.
ROSA Endpoint: A node accessing or providing one or more services
through one or more ROSA providers.
ROSA Client: A ROSA endpoint accessing one or more services through
one or more ROSA providers, thus issuing services requests
directed to one of possible many service instances that have
previously announced the service address provided by the ROSA
client in the service request.
Service Address Router (SAR): A node supporting the operations for
steering service requests to one of possibly many service
instances, following the procedures outlined in Section 5.5.
Service Address Gateway (SAG): A node supporting the operations for
steering service requests to service addresses not previously
announced to SARs of the same ROSA domain to suitable endpoints in
the Internet.
3. Deployment and Use Case Scenarios
Reid et al [Namespaces2022] outline insights into the aspects and
pain points experienced when deploying existing intra-DC service
platforms in multi-site settings, i.e., networked over the Internet.
The main takeaway in [Namespaces2022] is the lacking protocol support
for routing requests of microservices that would allow for mapping
application onto network address spaces without the need for
explicitly managed mapping and gateway services. While this results
in management overhead and thus costs, efficiency of such additional
mapping and gateway services is also seen as a hinderance in
scenarios with highly dynamic relationships between distributed
microservices, an observation aligned with the findings in
[OnOff2022].
In the following, we outline examples for use cases that exhibit the
degrees of distribution in which relationship management (through
explicit mapping and/or gatewaying) may become complex and a possible
hinderance for service performance.
Trossen & Contreras Expires 27 April 2023 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft ROSA October 2022
3.1. CDN Interconnect and Distribution
Video streaming has been revealed nowadays as the main contributing
service to the traffic observed in operators' networks. Multiple
stakeholders, including operators and third party content providers,
have been deploying Content Distribution Networks (CDNs), formed by a
number of cache nodes spread across the network with the purpose of
serving certain regions or coverage areas. In such a deployment,
protection schemas are defined in order to ensure the delivery
continuity even in the case of outages or starvation in cache nodes.
In addition to that, novel schemes of CDN interconnection [RFC6770]
[SVA] are being defined allowing a given CDN to leverage the
installed base of another CDN to complement its overall footprint.
As result, several caches are deployed in different Points of
Presence in the network. Then for a given content requested by an
end user, several of those caches could be candidate nodes for
delivery. Currently, the choice of the cache node to serve the
customer relies solely on the content provider logic, considering
only a limited set of conditions to apply.
The performance can be improved by the consideration of further
conditions in the decision on what cache node to be selected. Thus,
the decision can depend of course on the requested content and the
operational conditions of the cache itself, but also on the network
status or any other valuable, often service-specific, semantic for
reaching those nodes.
Furthermore, those decision points may be dynamic and could even
change during the lifetime of the overall service, thus requiring to
revisit decisions and therefore assignments to the most appropriate
CDN node.
3.2. Distributed user planes for mobile and fixed access providing
reachability to edge computing facilities
5G networks natively facilitate the decoupling of control and user
plane. The User Plane Function (UPF) in 5G networks terminates the
tunnels set carrying end user traffic permitting to route the end
user traffic in the network towards its destination.
Several UPFs can be deployed in a distributed manner, not only for
covering different access areas, but UPFs can also be distributed
with the attempt of providing access to different services, linked
with the idea of network slicing as means for tailored service
differentiation. For instance, some UPFs could be deployed very
close to the access for services requiring either low latency or very
Trossen & Contreras Expires 27 April 2023 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft ROSA October 2022
high bandwidth, while others could be deployed in a more centralized
manner for requiring less service flows. Furthermore, multiple
instances can be deployed for scaling purposes depending on the
demand in a specific moment.
Similarly, to what happens in mobile access, fixed access solutions
are proposing schemas of separation of control and user plane for BNG
elements [I-D.wadhwa-rtgwg-bng-cups] [BBF]. From the deployment
point of view, different instances can be deployed based on the
coverage, the temporary demand, etc, as before.
As a complement to both mobile and fixed access scenarios, edge
computing capabilities are expected to complement the deployments for
hosting service and applications of different purposes, for both
services internal to the operator or hosting of services from third
parties.
In this situation, either for both selection of the specific user
plane termination instance, or from that point on, selection of the
service endpoint after the user plane function, it makes sense the
introduction of mechanisms enabling selection choices based on
service-specific semantics.
3.3. Multi-homed and multi-domain services
Corporate services usually present exact requirements in terms of
availability and resiliency. This is why multi-homing is common in
order to diversify the access to services external to the premises of
the corporation, or for providing interconnectivity of corporate
sites (and access to internal services such as databases, etc).
The diversity of providers implies to consider service situations in
a multi-domain environment, because of the interaction with multiple
administrative domains.
From the service perspective, it seems necessary to ensure a common
understanding of the service expectations and objectives
independently of the domain traversed or the domain providing such a
service. Common semantics can facilitate the assurance of the
service delivery and a quick adaptation to changing conditions in the
internal of a domain, or even across different domains.
3.4. Observations
Several observations can be drawn from the use case examples in this
section:
Trossen & Contreras Expires 27 April 2023 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft ROSA October 2022
1 Service instances for a specific service may exist in more than
one network location, e.g., for replication purposes to serve
localized demand.
2 While the deployment of service instances may follow a longer term
planning cycle, e.g., based on demand/supply patterns of content
usage, it may also have an ephemeral nature, e.g., scaling in and
out dynamically to cope with temporary load situations.
3 Decisions to utilize a specific service instance may be service-
specific, realizing a specific service level agreement (with an
underlying decision policy) that is tailored to the service and
agreed upon between the service platform provider and the
communication service provider.
4 Decision points for selecting the 'right' or 'best' service
instance may be dynamic under the given service-specific decision
policy. Thus, traffic following a specific network path from a
client to one service instance, may need to follow another network
path or even utilize an entirely different service instance as a
result of re-applying the decision policy.
There exist a number of L4 through L7 based solutions to realize the
aforementioned use cases, with [I-D.liu-can-gap-reqs] providing an
initial overview into the gaps that those solutions experience in the
light of the observations above.
A key takeaway from this analysis is that the explicit indirection
for service discovery, realized for instance through DNS, GSLB or
other solutions, poses a challenge to the dynamicity also observed in
our use cases here due to the additional latency incurred but also
due to the relatively static mapping of service name onto network
locator that is maintained in most of those solutions. The work in
[OnOff2022] investigates the impact of such off-path vs possible on-
path decision making onto service performance and user experience.
In the next section, we outline requirements for a solution that
would realize those use cases and address some of the gaps outlined
in [I-D.liu-can-gap-reqs], with Section 5 presenting our initial
design on how to address those requirements through a shim layer atop
IPv6.
4. Requirements
The following requirements for a routing on service addresses (ROSA)
solution (referred to as 'solution' for short) have been identified
from our use cases in the previous section:
Trossen & Contreras Expires 27 April 2023 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft ROSA October 2022
REQ1: Solution MUST provide means to associate services with a
single service address.
(a) Solution MUST provide secure association of service
address to service owner.
(b) Solution SHOULD provide means to obfuscate the purpose
of communication to intermediary network elements.
(c) Solution MAY provide means to obfuscate the constraint
parameters used for selecting specific service
instances.
REQ2: Solution MUST provide means to announce route(s) to specific
instances realizing a specific service address, thus enabling
service equivalence for this set of service instances.
(a) Solution MUST provide scalable means for route
announcements.
(b) Solution MUST announce routes within a ROSA domain.
(c) Solution SHOULD provide means to delegate route
announcement.
(d) Solution SHOULD provide means to announce routes at
other than the network attachment point realizing the
announced service address.
REQ3: Solution MUST provide means to interconnect ROSA islands.
(a) Solution MUST allow for announcing services across ROSA
domains.
(b) Solution MUST allow for announcing computational
processes outside ROSA domains.
REQ4: Solution MUST provide constraint-based routing capability.
(a) Solution MUST provide means to announce routing
constraints associated with specific service instances.
(b) Solution SHOULD allow for providing operation for
constraint matching in announcement.
(c) Solution MUST at least provide exact constraint match
during request routing.
Trossen & Contreras Expires 27 April 2023 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft ROSA October 2022
(d) Solution MUST provide first match, if more than one
match found.
(e) Solution SHOULD provide random match, if more than one
match found.
(f) Solution SHOULD provide match to all, if more than one
match found.
(g) Solution MAY provide partially ordered matches.
REQ5: Solution MUST provide scheduled instance selection at ROSA
ingress nodes.
(a) Solution MUST allow for signalling specifying selection
mechanism and necessary input parameters for selection
to the ROSA ingress nodes.
REQ6: Solution MUST support instance affinity during request
routing, i.e., a request is sent from client to one dedicated
service instance as part of an ongoing service transaction.
(a) Solution MUST adhere affinity to the service instance
chosen in the initial service request of the service
transaction.
REQ7: Solution SHOULD use IPv6 for the routing and forwarding of
service and affinity requests.
(a) Solution MAY use IPv4 for the routing and forwarding of
service affinity requests.
REQ8: Solution SHOULD support in-request mobility for a ROSA
client.
REQ9: Solution SHOULD support transaction mobility, i.e., changing
service instances during an ongoing service transaction.
REQ10: Solution SHOULD support TLS 0-RTT handshakes without the need
for pre-shared certificates.
Trossen & Contreras Expires 27 April 2023 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft ROSA October 2022
5. ROSA Design
This section outlines the design of a shim layer relying upon IPv6 to
provide routing on service addresses (ROSA). It first outlines the
system overview, before elaborating on various aspects of ROSA in
terms of shim layer interactions, forwarding operations, needed
client changes, traffic steering methods, interconnection and
security considerations.
5.1. System Overview
Figure 1 illustrates a ROSA-enabled limited domain [RFC8799],
interconnected to other ROSA-supporting domains via the public
Internet through the Service Address Gateway (SAG). Section 5.6
provides more detail on how to achieve that interconnection. ROSA is
positioned as a shim overlay atop IPv6, using Extension headers that
carry the suitable information for routing and forwarding the ROSA
service requests, unlike [I-D.eip-arch] which proposes to include
extension processing directly into the transport network. With that
in mind, a single ROSA domain may span across more than one network-
level domain, thereby allowing for the multi-AS ROSA deployments.
Trossen & Contreras Expires 27 April 2023 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft ROSA October 2022
+-----------+ +-----------+ +-------+
+service.org+ +service.org+ +foo.com|
+----+------+ +-------+---+ +----+--+
| | |
+-----------+ +----+-+ +----+-----------+--+
+service.org+---+DC Net| | DC Net |
+-----------+ +---+--+ +-------------+-----+
| |
+-+--+ +-+--+
+-----+SAR4| |SAR5|
| +-+--+ +-+--+
+------+ +-+--+ +----+ |
+Client+--------+SAR1+-------------+ +SAR6+ |
+------+ +----+ | +-+--+ |
| | |
+------+ +----+ ++-----+----+ |
+Client+--------+SAR2+------------+IPv6 Net(s)+---------+
+------+ +----+ +---+--+----+ (----)
| | ( )
+------------------+ +----+ | | +----+ ( Other )
+MyMobile.org/video+--------+SAR3+----+ +----+SAG1+----( Domains )
+------------------+ +----+ +----+ ( )
(------)
SAR: Service Address Router
SAG: Service Address Gateway
Figure 1: ROSA System Overview
ROSA endpoints start with discovering their ingress Service Address
Router (SAR), e.g., through DHCP extensions or through utilizing the
Session Management Function (SMF) in 5G networks [_3.501]. An
endpoint may discover several ingress SARs for different categories
of services, each SAR being part of, e.g., a category-specific ROSA
overlay, which in turn may be governed by different routing policies
and differ in deployment (size and capacity). The category discovery
mechanism may be subject to specific deployments of ROSA and thus is
likely outside the scope of this document.
Services are realized by service instances, possibly at different
network locations. Those instances expose their availability to
serve requests through announcing the service address of their
service to their ingress SAR.
Trossen & Contreras Expires 27 April 2023 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft ROSA October 2022
To invoke a service, a ROSA client sends an initial request,
addressed to a service, to its ingress SAR, which in turn steers the
request (possibly via other SARs) to one of possibly many service
instances. See Section 5.3 for the required SAR-local forwarding
operations and end-to-end message exchange and Section 5.4 for the
needed changes to ROSA clients.
We refer to initial requests as 'service requests'. If an overall
service transaction creates ephemeral state, the client may send
additional requests to the service instance chosen in the (preceding)
service request; we refer to those as 'affinity requests'. With
this, routing service requests (over the ROSA network) can be
positioned as on-path service discovery, contrasted against explicit,
often off-path solutions such as the DNS.
In order to support transactions across different service instances,
e.g., within a single DC, a sessionID may be used, as suggested in
[SOI2020]. Unlike [SOI2020], discovery does not include mapping
abstract service classes onto specific service addresses, avoiding
semantic knowledge to exist in the ROSA shim layer for doing so.
With the above, we can outline the following design principles that
guide the development for the solutions described next:
* Service addresses have unique meaning only in the overlay network.
* Service instance IP addresses have meaning only in the underlay
networks, over which the ROSA domain operates.
* SARs map service addresses to the IP addresses for the next hop to
send the service request to, finally directed to the service
instance IP address.
* Within the underlay network, service instance IP addresses have
both locator and identifier semantics.
* A service address within a ROSA domain carries both identifier and
locator semantics to other nodes within that domain but also other
ROSA domains (through the interconnection methods shown in
Section 5.6).
* Affinity requests directly utilize the underlay networks, based on
the relationships build during the service request handling phase.
We can recognize similarities of these principles with those outlined
for the Locator Identifier Separation Protocol (LISP) in
[I-D.ietf-lisp-introduction] albeit extended with using direct IP
communication for longer service transactions.
Trossen & Contreras Expires 27 April 2023 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft ROSA October 2022
5.2. Message Types
Apart from affinity requests, which utilize standard IPv6 packet
exchange between the client and the service instance selected through
the initial service request, ROSA introduces three new message types,
shown in Figure 2.
NOTE: more detailed IP header style notation will be added in later
versions.
+---------+-------------++---------------------------------------+
|Source | Destination | |IPv6 Destination extension header |
|Address | Address | ... |Instance=IP |
+---------+-------------+-----+Service=ID |
|Constraint=txt |
+----------------------------------+
Service Announcement
+---------+-------------++---------------------------------------+
|Source | Destination | |IPv6 Destination extension header |
|Address | Address | ... |Client=IP |
+---------+-------------+-----+Ingress=IP |
|Service=ID |
+----------------------------------+
Service Request
+---------+-------------++---------------------------------------+
|Source | Destination | |IPv6 Destination extension header |
|Address | Address | ... |Client=IP |
+---------+-------------+-----+Ingress=IP |
|Service=ID |
|Instance=IP |
+----------------------------------+
Service Response
Figure 2: ROSA message types
Trossen & Contreras Expires 27 April 2023 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft ROSA October 2022
Given the overlay nature of ROSA, clients, SARs, and service
instances are destinations in the IPv6 underlay of the network
domains that the overlay spans across. For this reason, we use the
destination option EH [RFC8200], where Figure 2 highlights only the
entries needed for the specific purpose of the message, omitting
other IPv6 packet header information for simplicity. The initial
prototype uses a TLV format for the extension header with Concise
Binary Object Representation (CBOR) [RFC8949] being studied as an
alternative. The EH entries shown are populated at the client and
service instance, while read at traversing SARs.
A service address is encoded through a hierarchical naming scheme,
e.g., using [RFC8609]. Here, service addresses consist of
components, mapping existing naming hierarchies in the Internet onto
those over which to forward packets, illustrated in the forwarding
information base (FIB) of Figure 3 as illustrative URLs. With
components treated as binary objects, the hierarchical structure
allows for prefix-based grouping of addresses, reducing routing table
size, while the explicit structure allows for efficient hash-based
lookup during forwarding operations, unlike IP addresses which
require either log(n) radix tree search software or expensive TCAM
hardware solutions.
Note that other encoding approaches could be used, such as hashing
the service name at the ROSA endpoint or assigning a service address
through a mapping system, such as the DNS, but this would require
either additional methods, e.g., for hash conflict management or
name-address mapping management, which lead to more complexity.
With the service announcement message, a service instance signals
towards its ingress SAR its ability to serve requests for a specific
service address. Section 5.5 outlines the use of this message in
routing or scheduling-based traffic steering methods.
The service request message is originally sent by a client to its
ingress SAR, which in turn uses the service address provided in the
extension header to forward the request, while the selected service
instance provides its own IP locator as an extension header entry in
the service response. The next section describes the SAR-local
forwarding operations and the end-to-end message exchange that uses
the extension header information for traversing the ROSA network,
while Section 5.6 outlines the handling of service addresses that
have not been previously announced within the client-local ROSA
domain.
Trossen & Contreras Expires 27 April 2023 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft ROSA October 2022
5.3. SAR Forwarding Engine
The SAR operations are typical for an EH-based IPv6 forwarding node:
an incoming service request or response is delivered to the SAR
forwarding engine, parsing the EH for relevant information for the
forwarding decision, followed by a lookup on previously announced
service addresses, and ending with the forwarding action.
Figure 3 shows a schematic overview of the forwarding engine with the
forwarding information base (FIB) and the next hop information base
(NHIB) as main data structures. The NHIB is managed through a
routing protocol, see Section 5.5, with entries leading to announced
services.
The FIB is dynamically populated by service announcements, with the
FIB including only one entry into the NHIB when using routing-based
methods (rows 0 to 3 in Figure 3), described in Section 5.5.2.
Scheduling-based solutions (see Section 5.5.1), however, may yield
several dynamically created entries into the NHIB (items 0, 4 and 5
in Figure 3, where SI1 and SI2 represent the IPv6 address announced
by the respective service instances) as well as additional
information needed for the scheduling decision; those dynamic NHIB
entries directly identify service instances locations (or their
egress as in item 0) and only exist at ingress SARs towards ROSA
clients.
Trossen & Contreras Expires 27 April 2023 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft ROSA October 2022
incoming service request/response
-------------------------------------|| Next Hop
\/ Information Base
Forwarding Information Base +----------+ +-+--------+----+
+------------------+--------+ |EH parsing| |#|Next Hop|Cost|
|Service address |Next Hop| +----||----+ |#| IP |Cost|
+------------------+--------+ \/ +-+--------+----+
| service.org | 4, 5, 0| +----------+ |0| SAR5 | 2 |
+------------------+--------+ | SAR | +-+--------+----+
| foo.com | 1 |-->|Forwarding| |1| SAR6 | 1 |
+------------------+--------+ | Decision | +-+--------+----+
|MyMobile.org/video| 2 | +----||----+ |2| SAR2 | 4 |
+------------------+--------+ \/ +-+--------+----+
| * | 3 | +----------+ |3| SAR1 | 2 |
+------------------+--------+ | SA/DA | +-+--------+----+
|Adjustment|<--|4| SI1 | - |
+----||----+ +-+--------+----+
\/ |5| SI2 | - |
+----------+ +-+--------+----+
|IP packet |
|forwarding| Outgoing service
| engine | request/response
+----------+------------------->
Figure 3: SAR forwarding engine model
For a service request, a hash-based service address lookup (using the
Service EH entry) is performed, leading to next hop (NH) information
for the IPv6 destination address to forward to (the final destination
address at the last hop SAR will be the instance serving the service
request).
Forwarding the response utilizes the Client and Ingress EH fields,
where the latter is used by the service instance's ingress SAR to
forward the response to the client ingress SAR, while the former is
used to eventually deliver the response to the client by the client's
ingress SAR, ensuring proper firewall traversal of the response back
to the client. We have shown in prototype realizations of ROSA that
the operations in Figure 3 can be performed using eBPF [eBPF]
extensions to Linux SW routers, while [SarNet2021] showed the
possibility a realizing a similar design using P4-based platforms.
Trossen & Contreras Expires 27 April 2023 [Page 17]
Internet-Draft ROSA October 2022
Client Ingress Service Service
SAR Instance Instance
(CIP) (SAR IP) (SI1 IP) (SI2 IP)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
ServiceRequest
(ClientIP,SAR IP)
(CIP, SAR IP, ServiceID)
--------------------->
\ Determine
/ Next Hop
ServiceRequest
(SAR IP, SI1 IP)
(CIP, SAR IP, ServiceID)
--------------------->
\ Generate
/ Response
ServiceResponse
(SI1 IP, SAR IP)
(CIP, SAR IP, ServiceID, SI1 IP)
<---------------------
ServiceResponse
(SAR IP, CIP)
(CIP, SAR IP, ServiceID, SI1 IP)
<---------------------
AffinityRequest
(CIP, SI1 IP)
------------------------------------------->
\ Generate
/ Response
<-------------------------------------------
Figure 4: ROSA message exchanges
Figure 4 shows the resulting end-to-end message exchange, using the
aforementioned SAR-local forwarding decisions. We here show the IP
source and destination addresses in the first brackets and the
extension header information in the second bracket.
We can recognize two key aspects. First, the SA/DA re-writing
happens at the SARs, using the EH-provided information on service
address, initial ingress SAR and client IP locators, as described
above. Second, the selection of the service instance is signalled
Trossen & Contreras Expires 27 April 2023 [Page 18]
Internet-Draft ROSA October 2022
back to the client through the additional Instance EH field, which is
used for sending subsequent (affinity) requests via the IPv6 network.
As noted in the figure, when using transport layer security, the
service request and response will relate to the security handshake,
thereby being rather small in size, while the likely larger HTTP
transaction is sent in affinity requests. As discussed in Section 9,
0-RTT handshakes may result in transactions being performed in
service request/response exchanges only.
5.4. Changes to Clients to Support ROSA
Within endpoints, the ROSA functionality is realized as a shim layer
atop IPv6 and below transport protocols. For this, endpoints need
the following adjustments to support ROSA:
* Adapting network layer interface: Introducing service addresses
requires changes to the current socket interface for discovering
the ingress SAR and issuing service requests as well as
maintaining affinity to a particular service instance, i.e.
mapping a service instance IP address to the initial service
address. This could be achieved through providing a new address
type (e.g., ADDR_SA) during socket creation, assigning the service
address to the returned handle, while utilizing socket options to
assign constraints to receiving sockets, utilized in the
announcement of the service address. Alternatively, supporting
service addresses could be integrated with efforts such as
[POSTSOCK2017] to redefine the transport interface towards
applications. Any OS-level client changes, as required by
introducing new sockets, could be avoided by relying on, e.g.,
UDP-based, encapsulation of client traffic to the ingress SAR.
* Transport protocol integration: We see our design aligned with
existing transport protocols, like TCP or QUIC, albeit with
changes required to utilize the aforementioned new address type.
For the application (protocol), the opening and closing of a
transport connection would then signal the affinity to a specific
instance, where the semantic of the 'connection' changes from an
IP locator to a service address associated to that specific
service instance. With this, a new service transaction is
started, akin to a fresh DNS resolution with IP-level exchange.
Trossen & Contreras Expires 27 April 2023 [Page 19]
Internet-Draft ROSA October 2022
* Changes to application protocols: The most notable change for
application protocols, like HTTP, would be in bypassing the DNS
for resolving service names, using instead the aforementioned
different (service) socket type. These adaptions are, however,
entirely internal to the protocol implementation. Given the ROSA
deployment alongside existing IP protocols, those changes to
clients can happen gradually or driven through (e.g., edge SW)
platforms.
5.5. Traffic Steering
Traffic steering in ROSA is applied to service requests for selecting
the service instance that may serve the request, while affinity
requests use existing IPv6 routing and any policies constraining
traffic steering in this part of the overall system. At receiving
service endpoints, service provisioning platforms may use additional
methods to schedule incoming service requests to suitable resources
with the ingress point to the service provisioning platform being the
service endpoint for ROSA.
In the following, we outline two approaches for traffic steering.
The first uses ingress-based scheduling decisions to steer traffic to
one of the possible service instances for a given service address.
The second follows a routing-based model, determining a single
destination for a given service address using a routing protocol.
We envision that some services may be steered through scheduling
methods, while others use routing approaches. The indication which
one to apply may be derived from the number of next hop entries for a
service address. In Figure 3, service.org uses a scheduling method
(with instances connected to SAR5 being exposed as a single instance
to ROSA, using DC-internal methods for scheduling incoming requests),
while the other services are routed via SARs.
Important here is that traffic steering is limited to a single ROSA
domain, i.e., traffic steering is not provided across instances of
the same service in different ROSA domains; traffic will always be
steered to (ROSA) domain-local instances only.
5.5.1. Ingress Request Scheduling
Traffic steering through explicit request scheduling follows an
approach similar to application- or transport-level solutions, such
as GSLB [GSLB], DNS over HTTPS [RFC8484], HTTP indirection [RFC7231]
or QUIC-LB [I-D.ietf-quic-load-balancers]: Traffic is routed to an
indirection point which directs the traffic towards one of several
possible destinations.
Trossen & Contreras Expires 27 April 2023 [Page 20]
Internet-Draft ROSA October 2022
In ROSA, this indirection point is the client's ingress SAR.
However, unlike application or transport methods, scheduling is
realized in-band when forwarding service requests in the ingress SAR,
i.e., the original request is forwarded directly (not returned with
indirection information upon which the client will act), while
adhering to the affinity of a transaction by routing subsequent
requests in a transaction using the instance's IP address.
Scheduling commences to a possibly different instance with the start
of a new transaction.
For this, the ingress SAR's NHIB needs to hold information to ALL
announced service instances for a service address. Furthermore, any
required information, e.g., capabilities or metric information, that
is used for the scheduling decision is signalled via the service
announcement, with (frequent) updates to existing announcements
possible. Announcements for services following a scheduling- rather
than a routing-based steering approach carry suitably encoded
information in the Constraint field of the announcement's EH, leading
to announcements forwarded to client-facing ingress SARs without NHIB
entries stored in intermediary SARs.
In addition, a scheduling decision needs to be realized in the SAR
forwarding decision step of Figure 3. This may require additional
information to be maintained, such as instance-specific state,
further increasing the additional NHIB data to be maintained.
Examples for scheduling decisions are:
* Random selection of one of the service instances for a given
service address, not requiring any additional state information
per service address. Announcing the service instance is required
once.
* Round robin, i.e., cycling through service instance choices with
every incoming service request, requiring to keep an internal
counter for the current position in the NHIB for the service
address. Announcing the service instance is only required once.
* Capability-based round robin: Cycle through service instances in
weighted round robin fashion with the weight (as additional
information in each NHIB entry) representing a capability, e.g.,
number of (normalized) compute resources committed to a service
instance. Announcing the service instance requires an update when
capabilities change (e.g., during re-orchestration). Weights
could be expressed as numerals, limiting the needed semantic
exposure of service provider knowledge and thereby supporting the
possible separation of service and communication network provider.
The solution in [CArDS2022] realises a compute-aware selection
through such decision.
Trossen & Contreras Expires 27 April 2023 [Page 21]
Internet-Draft ROSA October 2022
* Metric-based selection: Select service instance with lowest or
highest reported metric, such as load, requiring to keep
additional metric information per service instance entry in the
NHIB. Frequent signalling of the metric is required to keep this
information updated.
Although each method yields specific performance benefits, e.g.,
reduced latency or smooth load distribution, [OnOff2022] outlines
simulation-based insights into benefits for realising the compute-
aware solution of [CArDS2022] in ROSA.
5.5.2. Routing Across Multiple SARs
In order to send a service request to the `best' service instance
(among all announced ones) using a routing-based approach, we build
NHIB routing entries by disseminating a service instance's
announcement for a given service address S, arriving at its ingress
SAR. This distribution may be realized via a routing protocol or a
central routing controller, an option suitable for smaller scale
deployments.
If no particular constraint is given in the announcement's EH
Constraint field, shortest path will be realized as a default policy
for selecting the `best' instance, routing any client's request to S
the nearest service instance available.
Alternatively, selecting a service instance may use service-specific
policies (encoded in the Constraint field of the EH, with the
specific encoding details being left for future work). Here,
multiple constraints may be used, with [Multi2020] providing a
framework to determine optimal paths for such cases, while also
conventional traffic engineering methods may be used.
Through utilizing the work in [Multi2020], a number of multi-criteria
examples can be modelled through a dominant path model, relying on a
partial order only, as long as isotonicity is observed. Typical
examples here are widest-shortest path or shortest-widest routing
(see [Multi2020]), which allow for performance metrics such as
capacity, load, rate of requests, and others. However, metrics such
as failure rate or request completion time cannot directly be
captured and need formulation as a max metric. Furthermore, metrics
may not be isotonic, with Section 3.4 of [Multi2020] supporting those
cases through computing a set of dominant attributes according to the
largest reduction. [Multi2020] furthermore shows that non-restarting
or restarting vectoring protocols may be used to compute dominant
paths and to distribute the routing state throughout the network.
Trossen & Contreras Expires 27 April 2023 [Page 22]
Internet-Draft ROSA October 2022
However, the framework in [Multi2020] is limited to unicast vectoring
protocols, while the routing problem in ROSA requires selecting the
'best' path to the 'best' instance, i.e., as an anycast routing
problem. To capture this, [Multi2020] could be extended through
introducing a (anycast) virtual node, placed at the end of a logical
path that extends from each service instance to the virtual node.
Selecting the best path (over the announced attributes of each
service instance) to the virtual node will now select the best
service instance (over which to reach the virtual node in the
logically extended topology).
Alternatively, ROSA routing may rely on methods for anycast routing,
but formulated for service instead of anycast addresses. For
instance, AnyOpt [AnyOpt2021] uses a measurement-based approach to
predict the best (in terms of latency) anycast (i.e. service)
instance for a particular client. Alternatively, approaches using
regular expressions may be extended towards spanning a set of
destinations rather than a single one. Realizations in a routing
controller would likely improve on convergence time compared to a
distributed vector protocol; an aspect for further work to explore.
5.6. Interconnection
There are two cases for interconnection: access to (i) non-ROSA
services in the public Internet and (ii) ROSA services not domain-
locally announced but existing in other domains.
For both cases, we utilize a reserved wildcard service address '*'
that points to a default route for any service address that is not
being advertised in the local domain. This default route is the
service address gateway (see Figure 1), ultimately receiving the
service request to the locally unknown service.
Upon arriving at the SAG, it searches its local routing table for any
information. If none is found, it consults the DNS to retrieve an IP
address where the service is hosted; those mappings could be cached
for improving future requests or being pre-populated for popular
services.
For case (i), the resolution returns a server's IP address to which
the SAG sends the service request with its own IP address as source
address. The service response is routed back via the SAG, which in
turn uses the Ingress EH information to return the response to the
client via its ingress SAR.
For case (ii), the IP address would be that of the SAG of the ROSA
domain in which the service is hosted. For this, a domain-local
service instance would have exposed its service, e.g., Mobile.com/
Trossen & Contreras Expires 27 April 2023 [Page 23]
Internet-Draft ROSA October 2022
video Figure 1, by registering its domain-local SAG IP address with
the mapping service. To suitably forward the request, the SAG adds
its own IP address as the value to an additional SAG label into the
extension header. At the destination SAG, the service address
information, extracted from the extension header, is used to forward
the service request based on ROSA mechanisms. For the service
response, the destination SAG uses the SAG entry in the EH to return
the response to the originating ROSA domain's SAG, which in turn uses
the Ingress information of the EH to return the response via the
ingress to the client.
Given the EH deployment issues pointed out in [SHIM2014], a UDP-based
encapsulation may overcome the observed issues, not relying on the EH
being properly observed during the traversal over the public
Internet. Furthermore, while Figure 1 shows the SAG as an
independent component, we foresee deployments in existing PoPs. This
would allow combining provisioning through frontloaded PoP-based
services and ROSA services. Any service not explicitly announced in
the ROSA system would lead to being routed to the PoP-based SAG,
which may use any locally deployed services before forwarding the
request to the public Internet.
6. Open Issues
7. Relation to IETF/IRTF Efforts
8. Conclusions
TBD
9. Security Considerations
Aligned with security considerations in existing service provisioning
systems, we address aspects related to authenticity, i.e., preventing
fake service announcements, confidentiality, both in securing
relationship as well as payload information, and operational
integrity.
* Announcement security: A key exchange between service and network
provider may be used to secure the service announcement for
ensuring an authorized announcement of services. Self-certifying
identifiers could be used for this purpose
* Relationship security: Using service addresses at the routing
layer poses not just a privacy but possibly also a net neutrality
problem, allowing for non-ROSA elements to discriminate against
specific service addresses. Similar to
[I-D.per-app-networking-considerations], service addresses could
Trossen & Contreras Expires 27 April 2023 [Page 24]
Internet-Draft ROSA October 2022
reflect service categories, not services themselves. Service
endpoints to those category-level services can use information in
the secured payload (e.g., the URL in an HTTP-based service
invocation) to direct the traffic accordingly. The downside of
such model is a possible convergence towards a PoP-like model of
service provisioning, since exposing an entire service category
naturally requires provisioning many possible services under that
category, likely favouring large-scale providers over smaller
ones; an imbalance that ROSA intends to change, not favour. Work
on identity privacy in ILNP [ILNP2021] has shown that ephemeral
identifiers may increase the private nature of the communication
relation; a direction that needs further exploration in the
context of our work. Also, the service address in the extension
header could be encrypted, based on a key exchange during the SAR
discovery. However, the impact of such mechanism would need
further study.
* Transport-level security: Given the often sensitive nature of
service requests, payload security is key. We adopt techniques
used in TLSV1.3 [RFC8446], providing a 1-RTT handshake for
communication between formerly untrusted parties. While the
initial 'Client Hello' is sent as a service request, the
subsequent communication uses the topological address of the
responding server in an affinity request. Using pre-shared keys
may allow for communication between trusted client and service
instances, e.g., where the client is provided by the service
authority and preconfigured with a pre-shared key. This results
in a 0-RTT handshake with the 'Client Hello' including the initial
service data, encrypted with the pre-shared key. This comes with
known forward-secrecy issues and should be avoided in networks
with untrusted intermediary nodes. Alternatively, the service's
public key could encrypt the initial security handshake, akin to
the solutions proposed for Encrypted Client Hello (ECH), using the
DNS for obtaining the public key.
* Bandwidth DoS: We assume network provider level mechanisms to
restrict traffic injected both by the service provider and client,
including for the number of service advertisements in order to
control the routing traffic.
* Denying routing service: A SAR could maliciously deny forwarding
of client requests, which is no different from denying IP packet
forwarding. In both cases, we assume an existing commercial
relationship that avoids such situation.
Trossen & Contreras Expires 27 April 2023 [Page 25]
Internet-Draft ROSA October 2022
10. IANA Considerations
This draft does not request any IANA action.
11. Acknowledgements
Many thanks go to Mohamed Boucadair for his comments to the text to
clarify several aspects of the technical details of ROSA.
12. Informative References
[AnyOpt2021]
Zhang, Z., April, T., Chandrasekaran, B., Choffnes, D.,
Maggs, B. M., Shen, H., Sitaraman, R. K., Yang, X., Zhang,
X., and T. Sen, "AnyOpt: predicting and optimizing IP
Anycast performance", Paper ACM SIGCOMM, 2021.
[BBF] ""Control and User Plane Separation for a disaggregated
BNG"", Technical Report-459 Broadband Forum (BBF), 2020.
[CArDS2022]
Khandaker, K., Trossen, D., Khalili, R., Despotovic, Z.,
Hecker, A., and G. Carle, "CArDS:Dealing a New Hand in
Reducing Service Request Completion Times", Paper IFIP
Networking, 2022.
[CV19] Feldmann, A., Gasser, O., Lichtblau, F., Pujol, E., Poese,
I., Dietzel, C., Wagner, D., Wichtlhuber, M., Tapiador,
J., Vallina-Rodriguez, N., Hohlfeld, O., and G.
Smaragdakis, "A Year in Lockdown: How the Waves of
COVID-19 Impact Internet Traffic", Paper Communications of
ACM 64, 7 (2021), 101-108, 2021.
[eBPF] "What is eBPF?", Technical Report eBPF Foundation, 2022,
<https://ebpf.io/what-is-ebpf/>.
[EI2021] Cidon, I., Culler, D., Estrin, D., Katz-Bassett, E.,
Krishnamurthy, A., McCauley, M., McKeown, N., Panda, A.,
Ratnasamy, S., Rexford, J., Schapira, M., Shenker, S.,
Stoica, I., Tennenhouse, D., Vahdat, A., Zegura, E.,
Balakrishnan, H., and S. Banerjee, "Revitalizing the
public internet by making it extensible", Paper ACM
Computer Communication Review, Vol. 51. 18-24. Issue 2,
2021.
[Gini] "Gini Coefficient", Technical Report Wikipedia, 2022,
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gini_coefficient>.
Trossen & Contreras Expires 27 April 2023 [Page 26]
Internet-Draft ROSA October 2022
[GSLB] "What is GSLB?", Technical Report Efficient IP, 2022,
<https://www.efficientip.com/what-is-gslb/>.
[HHI] "Herfindahl-Hirschman index", Technical Report Wikipedia,
2022, <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herfindahl-
Hirschman_index>.
[Huston2021]
Huston, G., "Internet Centrality and its Impact on
Routing", Technical Report IETF side meeting on 'service
routing and addressing', 2021,
<https://github.com/danielkinguk/sarah/blob/main/
conferences/ietf-112/materials/Huston-
2021-11-10-centrality.pdf>.
[I-D.eip-arch]
Salsano, S., ElBakoury, H., and R. Diego Lopez,
"Extensible In-band Processing (EIP) Architecture and
Framework", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-eip-
arch-00, 15 June 2022,
<https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-eip-arch-00.txt>.
[I-D.ietf-lisp-introduction]
Cabellos, A. and D. S. (Ed.), "An Architectural
Introduction to the Locator/ID Separation Protocol
(LISP)", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-
lisp-introduction-15, 20 September 2021,
<https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-lisp-
introduction-15.txt>.
[I-D.ietf-quic-load-balancers]
Duke, M., Banks, N., and C. Huitema, "QUIC-LB: Generating
Routable QUIC Connection IDs", Work in Progress, Internet-
Draft, draft-ietf-quic-load-balancers-14, 11 July 2022,
<https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-quic-load-
balancers-14.txt>.
[I-D.liu-can-gap-reqs]
Liu, P., Jiang, T., Eardley, P., Trossen, D., Li, C., and
D. Huang, "Computing-Aware Networking (CAN) Gap Analysis
and Requirements", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft,
draft-liu-can-gap-reqs-00, 23 October 2022,
<https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-liu-can-gap-reqs-
00.txt>.
[I-D.nottingham-avoiding-internet-centralization]
Nottingham, M., "Centralization, Decentralization, and
Internet Standards", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft,
Trossen & Contreras Expires 27 April 2023 [Page 27]
Internet-Draft ROSA October 2022
draft-nottingham-avoiding-internet-centralization-05, 9
July 2022, <https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-
nottingham-avoiding-internet-centralization-05.txt>.
[I-D.per-app-networking-considerations]
Colitti, L. and T. Pauly, "Per-Application Networking
Considerations", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-
per-app-networking-considerations-00, 15 November 2020,
<https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-per-app-networking-
considerations-00.txt>.
[I-D.wadhwa-rtgwg-bng-cups]
Wadhwa, S., Shinde, R., Newton, J., Hoffman, R., Muley,
P., and S. Pani, "Architecture for Control and User Plane
Separation on BNG", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft,
draft-wadhwa-rtgwg-bng-cups-03, 11 March 2019,
<https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-wadhwa-rtgwg-bng-
cups-03.txt>.
[ILNP2021] Yanagida, R., Bhatti, S., and G. Haywood, "End-to-end
privacy for identity and location with IP", Paper 2nd
Workshop on New Internetworking Protocols, Architecture
and Algorithms, 29th IEEE International Conference on
Network Protocols, 2021.
[ISOC2022] "Internet Centralization", Technical Report ISOC
Dashboard, 2022,
<https://pulse.internetsociety.org/centralization>.
[LDCU2021] Carpenter, B., Crowcroft, C., and D. Trossen, "Limited
domains considered useful", Paper ACM Computer
Communication Review, Vol. 51. 22-28. Issue 3, 2021.
[Multi2020]
Ferreira, M. A. and J. L. Sobrinho, "Routing on Multi
Optimality Criteria", Paper ACM SIGCOMM, 2020.
[Namespaces2022]
Reid, A., Eardley, P., and D. Kutscher, "Namespaces,
Security, and Network Addresses", Paper ACM SIGCOMM
workshop on Future of Internet Routing and Addressing
(FIRA), 2022.
[OnOff2022]
Khandaker, K., Trossen, D., Yang, J., Despotovic, Z., and
G. Carle, "On-path vs Off-path Traffic Steering, That Is
The Question", Paper ACM SIGCOMM workshop on Future of
Internet Routing and Addressing (FIRA), 2022.
Trossen & Contreras Expires 27 April 2023 [Page 28]
Internet-Draft ROSA October 2022
[POSTSOCK2017]
Kuehlewind, M., Trammell, B., and C. Perkins, "Post
sockets: Towards an evolvable network transport
interface", Paper IFIP Networking Conference (IFIP
Networking) and Workshops, 2017.
[RFC6770] Bertrand, G., Ed., Stephan, E., Burbridge, T., Eardley,
P., Ma, K., and G. Watson, "Use Cases for Content Delivery
Network Interconnection", RFC 6770, DOI 10.17487/RFC6770,
November 2012, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6770>.
[RFC7231] Fielding, R., Ed. and J. Reschke, Ed., "Hypertext Transfer
Protocol (HTTP/1.1): Semantics and Content", RFC 7231,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7231, June 2014,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7231>.
[RFC8200] Deering, S. and R. Hinden, "Internet Protocol, Version 6
(IPv6) Specification", STD 86, RFC 8200,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8200, July 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8200>.
[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>.
[RFC8446] Rescorla, E., "The Transport Layer Security (TLS) Protocol
Version 1.3", RFC 8446, DOI 10.17487/RFC8446, August 2018,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8446>.
[RFC8484] Hoffman, P. and P. McManus, "DNS Queries over HTTPS
(DoH)", RFC 8484, DOI 10.17487/RFC8484, October 2018,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8484>.
[RFC8609] Mosko, M., Solis, I., and C. Wood, "Content-Centric
Networking (CCNx) Messages in TLV Format", RFC 8609,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8609, July 2019,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8609>.
[RFC8799] Carpenter, B. and B. Liu, "Limited Domains and Internet
Protocols", RFC 8799, DOI 10.17487/RFC8799, July 2020,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8799>.
[RFC8949] Bormann, C. and P. Hoffman, "Concise Binary Object
Representation (CBOR)", STD 94, RFC 8949,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8949, December 2020,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8949>.
Trossen & Contreras Expires 27 April 2023 [Page 29]
Internet-Draft ROSA October 2022
[RFC8986] Filsfils, C., Ed., Camarillo, P., Ed., Leddy, J., Voyer,
D., Matsushima, S., and Z. Li, "Segment Routing over IPv6
(SRv6) Network Programming", RFC 8986,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8986, February 2021,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8986>.
[SarNet2021]
Glebke, R., Trossen, D., Kunze, I., Lou, Z., Rueth, J.,
Stoffers, M., and K. Wehrle, "Service-based Forwarding via
Programmable Dataplanes", Paper 1st Intl Workshop on
Semantic Addressing and Routing for Future Networks, 2021.
[SHIM2014] Naderi, H. and B. Carpenter, "Putting SHIM6 into
practice", Paper 2014 Australasian Telecommunication
Networks and Applications Conference (ATNAC), 2014.
[SOI2020] Jiang, S., Li, G., and B. Carpenter, "A New Approach to a
Service Oriented Internet Protocol", Paper IEEE INFOCOM
2020 - IEEE Conference on Computer Communications
Workshops (INFOCOM WKSHPS), 2020.
[SVA] ""Optimizing Video Delivery With The Open Caching
Network"", Technical Report Streaming Video Alliance,
2018.
[TIES2021] Giotsas, V., Kerola, S., Majkowski, M., Odinstov, P.,
Sitnicki, J., Chung, T., Levin, D., Mislove, A., Wood, C.
A., Sullivan, N., Fayed, M., and L. Bauer, "The Ties that
un-Bind: Decoupling IP from web services and sockets for
robust addressing agility at CDN-scale", Paper ACM
SIGCOMM, 2021.
[_3.501] "System architecture for the 5G System (5GS); Stage 2
(Release 16)", Technical Report 3GPP TS 23.501 V16.11.0
(2021-12), 2021,
<https://portal.3gpp.org/desktopmodules/Specifications/
SpecificationDetails.aspx?specificationId=3144>.
Authors' Addresses
Dirk Trossen
Huawei Technologies
Munich
Germany
Email: dirk.trossen@huawei.com
Trossen & Contreras Expires 27 April 2023 [Page 30]
Internet-Draft ROSA October 2022
Luis M. Contreras
Telefonica
Ronda de la Comunicacion, s/n
Sur-3 building, 1st floor
28050 Madrid
Spain
Email: luismiguel.contrerasmurillo@telefonica.com
URI: http://lmcontreras.com/
Trossen & Contreras Expires 27 April 2023 [Page 31]