[Search] [txt|html|xml|pdf|bibtex] [Tracker] [Email] [Nits]

Versions: 00                                                            
dyncast                                                       C. Bormann
Internet-Draft                                    Universität Bremen TZI
Intended status: Informational                          22 February 2021
Expires: 26 August 2021


                 Providing Instance Affinity in Dyncast
                   draft-bormann-dyncast-affinity-00

Abstract

   Dyncast support in the network provides a client with a fresh optimal
   path to a service provider instance, where optimality includes both
   path and service provider characteristics.  As a service invocation
   usually takes more than one packet, dyncast needs to provide instance
   affinity for each service invocation.  Naive implementations of
   instance affinity require per-application, per service-invocation
   state in the network.

   The present short document defines a way to provide instance affinity
   that does not require, but also does not rule out per-application
   state.

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 26 August 2021.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2021 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.



Bormann                  Expires 26 August 2021                 [Page 1]


Internet-Draft          Dyncast Instance Affinity          February 2021


   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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   3.  Assumptions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   4.  Objectives  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   5.  Approach  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   6.  Discussion  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
   7.  Details . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
   8.  Legacy IP Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
   9.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
   10. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
   11. References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
     11.1.  Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
     11.2.  Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
   Author's Address  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6

1.  Introduction

   Dyncast support in the network provides a client with a fresh optimal
   path to a service provider instance, where optimality includes both
   path and service provider characteristics.  As a service invocation
   usually takes more than one packet, dyncast needs to provide instance
   affinity for each service invocation.  Naive implementations of
   instance affinity require per-application, per service-invocation
   state in the network.

   The present short document defines a way to provide instance affinity
   that does not require, but also does not rule out per-application
   state.

   [I-D.liu-dyncast-ps-usecases] lists use cases of dyncast.  The
   present document does not discuss the specifics of how the network
   provides dyncast, such as the way service instance metrics enter path
   computations.










Bormann                  Expires 26 August 2021                 [Page 2]


Internet-Draft          Dyncast Instance Affinity          February 2021


2.  Terminology

   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
   "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
   "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in
   BCP 14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all
   capitals, as shown here.

   This document uses the terminology of [I-D.liu-dyncast-ps-usecases],
   in particular _Service_ and _Service Instance_ (the latter often
   abbreviated to "Instance").  It also defines the following terms:

   Client:  The system that requests a service.

   Service invocation:  A single transaction between client and a
      service instance.  The client is interested in talking to the same
      service instance throughout one service invocation.  Subsequent
      and parallel service invocations can use different service
      instances without a problem and therefore do not require affinity.

   Instance Affinity:  The ability of the network to send all the
      packets of a service invocation to the same service instance.
      (Note that this doesn't necessarily imply path affinity -- the
      client does not care about the path, only about getting to the
      same service instance.)

   Service period:  The temporal granularity (rhythm) in which the
      network updates the optimal paths it provides for a service.

   Service stretch:  The maximum amount of time that the network plans
      to provide instance affinity for a service invocation.

3.  Assumptions

   This document makes a number of assumptions, some of which are
   fundamental to its technical approach, but some of which are only
   required for the exposition chosen in this document.  A future
   version of this document will clearly separate these two kinds of
   assumptions.

   Due to experience with overly eager load-based updates to routing
   metrics, we assume that metrics will be updated on the scale of tens
   of seconds.  To simplify exposition we therefore set the service
   period to 10 seconds (assumptions of this kind are intended to be
   possible without loss of generality, but should not be wildly off).






Bormann                  Expires 26 August 2021                 [Page 3]


Internet-Draft          Dyncast Instance Affinity          February 2021


   We assume the affinity processing for the entire network will be on a
   rhythm that is consistent with the service period.  Updates take
   effect at the start of a new service period.  The entire network is
   loosely synchronized on this rhythm.  The clients are also aware of
   this rhythm.

   We assume the service stretch will be quite limited, on the order of
   (a generous) five minutes or less.  As a result, any service
   invocation covers less than 32 service periods.  Services that do
   need longer service stretches will need to renew the service
   invocation regularly (by checking whether the service instance has
   changed upon such a renewal, any handover effort needed can be
   minimized).

   Service identifiers take the form of IPv6 addresses, or more
   precisely, IPv6 prefixes.  The client is able to complete the prefix
   with application information.  (In a pinch, the client can obtain a
   complete current address via DNS lookup.)

4.  Objectives

   Dyncast needs to provide instance affinity.  The present document
   outlines how to achieve this without creating per application, or
   worse, per invocation state in the network.

   The network does not provide any signaling to the clients beyond what
   is expected in an IPv6 environment.

   In summary, the objective of this draft is to define a stable client
   interface to the instance affinity mechanism (and to motivate why
   this interface is useful).  This interface is designed to remain
   stable even while the network support for this mechanism is evolving.

5.  Approach

   We number the service periods with a cyclic numbering system that
   wraps around about every two service stretches.  The network and the
   clients are aware of the current service period number; the
   synchronization requirement between them is that clients typically
   aren't ahead of the network.











Bormann                  Expires 26 August 2021                 [Page 4]


Internet-Draft          Dyncast Instance Affinity          February 2021


   When starting a new service invocation, the client builds an IPv6
   address out of the service identifier and its view of the current
   service period number (or it obtains this address using a DNS
   lookup), essentially filling in 6 bits (for the numbers assumed
   here).  Service requests and the resulting communication within the
   invocation are addressed to this current address.  The client stores
   the current address with the service invocation when initializing it;
   it is not ever updated for this invocation.

   The network keeps its path optimization state relative to (or indexed
   by) the current period number.  Routing updates can be processed at
   any time but do not lead to an update of the path optimization state
   for any service period.  The result is that the path chosen after a
   routing update may no longer be optimal, but that instance affinity
   is kept.  For each service, a pointer for the best service instance
   is kept for the current and the last 32 service periods.

6.  Discussion

   The approach presented provides instance affinity without requiring
   per application or per invocation state in the network.  It does
   require up to 32 copies of what are essentially host routes per
   service instance.  The state scales with the number of service
   instances, and not with the number of clients.

   The approach is based on IPv6.  It can be made to work in an IPv4
   network, if there are plentiful IPv4 addresses available (see also
   Section 8).

7.  Details

   The service period number could simply be inserted in the service
   identifier, or more complex computation could be performed to make
   the current addresses generated this way stand out in a forwarding
   engine.

   Naïve clients will start a service invocation with a DNS lookup.
   This allows the insertion of the period number to be performed in a
   specialized DNS server for the service.  Of course, this requires
   short time to live (TTL) values and clients that do not on their own
   cache the look up results.

   So the preferred variant is for the client to be aware of the current
   service period number and to do the insertion by itself on each new
   service invocation.






Bormann                  Expires 26 August 2021                 [Page 5]


Internet-Draft          Dyncast Instance Affinity          February 2021


8.  Legacy IP Considerations

   To make this work with IPv4 addresses as service identifiers, we
   would need 6 bits that can be varied over time.  This is likely too
   expensive for many applications.  An alternative approach is to use
   the port number for the 6 bits.  This would mean that the network
   would need to look up paths both on destination IP address and
   destination port number (48-bit addressing).  For IPv4, this should
   be good enough.

9.  Security Considerations

   TBD

10.  IANA Considerations

   No IANA action is required for this concept draft.

11.  References

11.1.  Normative References

   [RFC2119]  Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
              Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.

   [RFC8174]  Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
              2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,
              May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.

11.2.  Informative References

   [I-D.liu-dyncast-ps-usecases]
              Liu, P., Willis, P., and D. Trossen, "Dynamic-Anycast
              (Dyncast) Use Cases & Problem Statement", Work in
              Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-liu-dyncast-ps-usecases-
              01, 15 February 2021, <https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/
              draft-liu-dyncast-ps-usecases-01.txt>.

Author's Address

   Carsten Bormann
   Universität Bremen TZI
   Postfach 330440
   D-28359 Bremen
   Germany




Bormann                  Expires 26 August 2021                 [Page 6]


Internet-Draft          Dyncast Instance Affinity          February 2021


   Phone: +49-421-218-63921
   Email: cabo@tzi.org

















































Bormann                  Expires 26 August 2021                 [Page 7]