Interoperation of multiple Metadata schemes in SFC
draft-vu-sfc-md-scheme-interoperation-01

Document Type Active Internet-Draft (individual)
Last updated 2017-03-11
Stream (None)
Intended RFC status (None)
Formats plain text 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)
Service Function Chaining                                      Vu Anh Vu
Internet-Draft                                              Younghan Kim
Intended status: Informational                             Kyoungjae Sun
Expires: September 12, 2017                          Soongsil University
                                                          March 11, 2017

           Interoperation of multiple Metadata schemes in SFC
                draft-vu-sfc-md-scheme-interoperation-01

Abstract

   Metadata carries SFC information shared amongst SFC components.  Each
   service function requires different metadata, therefore a common
   metadata scheme for all SFs in SFC domain is redundant and sometime
   unsecured.

   This document describes use cases for using multiple NSH Metadata
   schemes in single and multiple SFC domains and proposes a general
   architecture and method for coordinating heterogenous Metadata
   schemes in SFC.

Status of This Memo

   This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
   provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.

   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
   Task Force (IETF).  Note that other groups may also distribute
   working documents as Internet-Drafts.  The list of current Internet-
   Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.

   Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
   and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
   time.  It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
   material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."

   This Internet-Draft will expire on September 12, 2017.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2017 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

Vu Anh Vu, et al.      Expires September 12, 2017               [Page 1]
Internet-Draft          MD scheme Interoperation              March 2017

   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
     1.1.  Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
     1.2.  Problem Statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
   2.  Use cases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
     2.1.  Heterogenous SFs compatibility  . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
     2.2.  Reduce MD size  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
     2.3.  Multi-domain SFC  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   3.  MD scheme Conversion  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   4.  Acknowledgements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
   5.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
   6.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
   7.  Normative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6

1.  Introduction

1.1.  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].

1.2.  Problem Statement

   SFC Architecture document [RFC7665] has defined the purposes of
   shared Metadata in SFC.  Network Service Header (NSH) document
   [I-D.ietf-sfc-nsh] defines NSH structures, including 2 type of
   Metadata (MD), and is not repeated here.

   The NSH document [I-D.ietf-sfc-nsh] defines two types of Metadata in
   NSH: MD-type 1, which has fixed 4x4 byte length, and MD-type 2 having
   variable lengths.  Every SFs in an SFC-enabled domain MUST support
   MD-type 1 and SHOULD support MD-type 2.  However, the semantics of
   each byte in MD is up to operators to define.  Each operator has its
   own SFC configuration, hence the SFC MD is different from operator to
   operator.  Operators define MD with their SFC configuration, but
   their SFs use it, and most of the time SFs are not developed by their
   operator.  Certainly, SF developers always try to make their products
   compatible with as many environments as possible.  Letting operator
Show full document text