Name-Based Service Function Forwarder (nSFF) component within SFC framework
draft-trossen-sfc-name-based-sff-01

Document Type Active Internet-Draft (individual)
Last updated 2018-10-17
Stream (None)
Intended RFC status (None)
Formats plain text xml pdf html bibtex
Stream Stream state (No stream defined)
Consensus Boilerplate Unknown
RFC Editor Note (None)
IESG IESG state I-D Exists
Telechat date
Responsible AD (None)
Send notices to (None)
Network Working Group                                         D. Trossen
Internet-Draft                                            D. Purkayastha
Intended status: Informational                                 A. Rahman
Expires: April 20, 2019                 InterDigital Communications, LLC
                                                        October 17, 2018

   Name-Based Service Function Forwarder (nSFF) component within SFC
                               framework
                  draft-trossen-sfc-name-based-sff-01

Abstract

   Many stringent requirements are imposed on today's network, such as
   low latency, high availability and reliability in order to support
   several use cases such as IoT, Gaming, Content distribution, Robotics
   etc.  Adoption of cloud and fog technology at the edge of the network
   allows operator to deploy a single "Service Function" to multiple
   "Execution locations".  The decision to steer traffic to a specific
   location may change frequently based on load, proximity etc.  Under
   the current SFC framework, steering traffic dynamically to the
   different execution end points require a specific 're-chaining',
   i.e., a change in the service function path reflecting the different
   IP endpoints to be used for the new execution points.  In order to
   address this, we discuss separating the logical Service Function Path
   from the specific execution end points.  This can be done by
   identifying the Service Functions using a name rather than a routable
   IP endpoint (or Layer 2 address).  This draft describes the necessary
   extensions, additional functions and protocol details in SFF to
   handle name based relationships.

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 April 20, 2019.

Trossen, et al.          Expires April 20, 2019                 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft               Name Based SFF                 October 2018

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2018 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 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.  Example use case: 5G control plane services . . . . . . . . .   3
   3.  Background  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
     3.1.  Relevant part of SFC architecture . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
     3.2.  Challenges with current framework . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
   4.  Name based operation in SFF . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
     4.1.  General Idea  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
     4.2.  Name-Based Service Function Path (nSFP) . . . . . . . . .   7
     4.3.  Name Based Network Locator Map (nNLM) . . . . . . . . . .   9
     4.4.  Name-based Service Function Forwarder (nSFF)  . . . . . .  11
     4.5.  High Level Architecture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
     4.6.  Operational Steps . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
   5.  nSFF Forwarding Operations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15
     5.1.  nSFF Protocol Layers  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15
     5.2.  nSFF Operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  16
       5.2.1.  Forwarding between nSFFs and nSFF-NR  . . . . . . . .  16
       5.2.2.  SF Registration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  18
       5.2.3.  Local SF Forwarding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  19
       5.2.4.  Remote SF Forwarding  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  19
   6.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  22
   7.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  22
   8.  Informative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  22
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  23

1.  Introduction

   The requirements on today's networks are very diverse, enabling
Show full document text