Service Function Chaining W. Meng
Internet-Draft C. Wang
Intended status: Informational ZTE Corporation
Expires: November 14, 2014 B. Khasnabish
ZTE TX, Inc.
May 13, 2014
Service Function Chaining Use Cases in Broadband
draft-meng-sfc-broadband-usecases-01
Abstract
This document discusses about service function use cases in different
scenarios for each part of broadband network. The document provides
analysis of different solutions and also describes the suitable
scenarios that each solution may be deployed in.
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 November 14, 2014.
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
Meng, et al. Expires November 14, 2014 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft Service Function Chaining Use Cases May 2014
described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Convention and Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3. Use cases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.1. Internet Access from Homes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.1.1. Native IPv4 Network or Native IPv6 Network . . . . . . 5
3.1.2. IPv4/IPv6 Coexist Network . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.2. Internet Access from Enterprises . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
3.3. Internet Access from Campuses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
3.4. Added-value Service Access . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
3.4.1. IPTV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
3.4.2. VoIP/MoIP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
4. Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
4.1. Service Function Chain Symmetry . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
4.2. Deploying consideration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
4.2.1. Standalone mode . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
4.2.2. Directly connecting mode . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
4.3. Pool consideration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
4.4. NAT traversal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
4.5. Unify home router . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
7. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
Meng, et al. Expires November 14, 2014 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft Service Function Chaining Use Cases May 2014
1. Introduction
The object of SFC is trying to unload services from nodes in
traditional network and deal with such services through service
function chains.
As increasingly large number of customers, The possibility of
deployment SFC in broadband network seems emergency. And this
document is aimed to analyze the possible deployment of SFC in
broadband network.
Meng, et al. Expires November 14, 2014 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft Service Function Chaining Use Cases May 2014
2. Convention and Terminology
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].
The terms about CGN/DS-Lite/Lightweight 4o6/MAP/NAT64 are defined in
[RFC6888]/[RFC6333]/ [I-D.ietf-softwire-lw4over6]/
[I-D.ietf-softwire-map]/ [RFC6146].
The terms about SFC are defined in [I-D.ietf-sfc-problem-statement].
Meng, et al. Expires November 14, 2014 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft Service Function Chaining Use Cases May 2014
3. Use cases
The following sections highlight some of the most common broadband
network use case scenarios and are in no way exhaustive.
3.1. Internet Access from Homes
Figure 1 illustrates an abstract architecture of broadband network,
including CPE sitted in home network, BNAS as broadband access
network gateway,CR located in bone network and the Internet.
+---+ +------+ +-----+ +---------+
|CPE|------| BNAS |--------| CR |------| Internet|
+---+ +------+ +-----+ +---------+
Figure 1: Architecture of Broadband Network
3.1.1. Native IPv4 Network or Native IPv6 Network
---------------------------------------------------------------------------->
+--- + +-------+ +-----+ +----------+
| | |DPI/DFI| | LB/ | |URL Filter|---|
|--| UM |---| /Qos |---| FRR |---| /FW/PC | |
| +----+ | +-------+ | +-----+ | +----------+ |
+---+ +------+ | | | +-----+ +---------+
|CPE|--| BNAS-|-------|-----------|---------|-------------| CR |-----| Internet|
+---+ +------+ +-----+ +---------+
Figure 2: Native IPv4 Network or Native IPv6 Network
Figure 2 shows possible deployment of SFC in native IPv4 network or
native IPv6 network. As UM(user management) function, which is the
main funtion of BNAS in traditional network, consumes large memory
and resources, it seems reasonable to represent user management
function as a service function.
'BNAS-' means some functions have unburdened from traditional
BNAS,such as user management,Qos,Load Balance and so forth. It seems
that traditional BNAS is going to unload all the other extra
functions from themselves, although now some extra functions are
still imposed on them.
Give that SFC is applied in Broadband network, the main SNs may
cover: User Management, DPI, DFI, Qos, Load Balance, Fast Reroute,
URL Filter,Firewall,Parental Control. And the possible order is not
as strict as above. The upstream/downstream traffic may go through
different permutations and combination of these SNs. For example:
Meng, et al. Expires November 14, 2014 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft Service Function Chaining Use Cases May 2014
SFC1: UM
This SFC stands for the simplest of use case where a public broadband
subscriber has no restriction in terms of bandwidth, flow capacity,
access contents etc.
SFC2: UM--Qos
This SFC shows some bandwidth restrictions or several priority-based
schedules are applied in this subscriber. Almost each home
subscriber has an corresponding subscribed bandwidth, different
services from a home have distinctive priority as well. As a result,
this is a typical SFC used in internet access from homes.
SFC3: UM--Qos--LB
This SFC extends SFC2, which utilizes load balance to unburden one
path from overload. This is also a typical senario in broadband
network,especially in metropolitan area network.
SFC4: UM--Qos--LB--URL Filter
Based on SFC3, this SFC gives extra restrictions to the content that
the subscriber want to access.
SFC5: UM--Qos--Parental Control
This is similar to SFC4,except there is no Load Balance. Another
difference is that SFC5 offers some restrictions to downstream
traffic in terms of content. SFC5 allows some legal or appropriate
contents to flow to subscribers, while some illegal or inappropriate
contents are blocking.
3.1.2. IPv4/IPv6 Coexist Network
As showed below in figure 3, the main difference between IPv4/IPv6
native network and IPv4/IPv6 coexist network is whether there exists
a NAT funtion. Although in IPv4 native network, there maybe exist
NAT44 function as a result of limited IPv4 address, we try to put
this scenario together with other IPv6 transition scenarioes in this
section and discuss in detail.
Meng, et al. Expires November 14, 2014 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft Service Function Chaining Use Cases May 2014
---------------------------------------------------------------------------->
+--- + +--- + +-------+ +-----+ +----------+
| | | | |DPI/DFI| | LB/ | |URL Filter|---|
|--| UM |---|NAT |---| /Qos |---| FRR |---| /FW/PC | |
| +----+ | +----+ | +-------+ | +-----+ | +----------+ |
+---+ +------+ | | | | +-----+ +---------+
|CPE|--| BNAS-|------|--------|-----------|---------|-------------| CR |---| Internet|
+---+ +------+ +-----+ +---------+
Figure 3: IPv4/IPv6 Coexist Network
Where NAT is deployed is based on the Internet Server Provider. It
may be besides BNAS,which stands for distributed deployment, or
besides CR,which represents central deployment.
Above figure 3 just gives an example of a possible deployment
position in distributed deployment scenario. This section tries to
give some typical examples in IPv4/IPv6 coexist network, though there
are others which are unnumbered. Also, in the following sections,
the other SFs emphasized in section 3.1.1 are not highlighted, just
try to keep the diagram simple and suitable for the draft's
specification.
3.1.2.1. Simple NAT44
Figure 4 illustrates in a simple NAT44 scenario how SF-NAT is
deployed.
.
:
|
............... |
External realm |
ISP network--> |-------------+
| ++---|--++
| | SF-NAT |
| ++---|--++
|-------------+
++--|----+
........... | BNAS |
Internal realm ++------++
| |
ISP network--> | |
| |
++------++ ++------++
| CPE1 | | CPE2 | etc.
++------++ ++------++
Meng, et al. Expires November 14, 2014 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft Service Function Chaining Use Cases May 2014
Figure 4: Simple NAT44
In distributed broadband networks, SNs may be deployed beside BNAS.
These SNs may contain SF-NAT and other service functions such as
UM,QOS,Load Balance,etc.
Here gives an example of possible SFC in IPv4/IPv6 coexist network,
which combines NAT function with the service functions in native
IPv4/IPv6 network.
SFC6: UM--Qos--NAT--LB--URL Filter
SFC6 combines NAT function with SFC4, and represents the classical
scenario in IPv4/IPv6 coexist network. After customers have
subscribed, apply subscriber-based Qos policy, then transform private
IPv4 address into public IPv4 address, and do five-tuple load balance
for the outbound traffic.
At last, monitor the outbound traffic and decide whether to pass them
to the internet or block them.
3.1.2.2. DS-Lite
Figure 5 describes a scenario of DS-lite.
Meng, et al. Expires November 14, 2014 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft Service Function Chaining Use Cases May 2014
+-----------+
| Host |
+-----+-----+
|
+---------|---------+
| CPE |
+---------|---------+
+-----------------+
| +-----|------+
| | SF-SOFTWIRE|
| +-----|------+
+-----------------+
|||
|||<-IPv4-in-IPv6 softwire
|||
+--------|||--------+
| BNAS |
+--------|||--------+
+----------------------+
| +----------|----------+
| | SF-SOFTWIRE |
| | SF-NAT |
| +----------|----------+
+-----------------+
|
|
--------|--------
/ | \
| Internet |
\ | /
--------|--------
|
|
+-----+-----+
| IPv4 Host |
+-----------+
Figure 5: DS-Lite
SFC7: Softwire--UM--Softwire--NAT--LB--URL Filter
When the outbound datagram is received by the CPE, the CPE sends it
to a specific classifier which determines the datagram should be
forwarded directly or dealed with DS-Lite process. Then the
classifier sends the datagram within service header encapsulated to
the first element of SFP which contains SF-SOFTWIRE instance.
Next, the BNAS- receives the processed datagram, the BNAS- sends it
Meng, et al. Expires November 14, 2014 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft Service Function Chaining Use Cases May 2014
to a classifier and finds it a legal subscriber and need to be dealed
with DS-Lite process. The SF-NAT creates and maintains the NAT
mapping table, following the subsequent SFs. In other words, BNAS,
itself, would not be aware of any stateful sessions.
3.1.2.3. MAP-E/Lightweight 4o6
+-----------+
| Host |
+-----+-----+
|
+---------|---------+
| CPE |
+---------|---------+
+-----------------+
| +-----|------+
| | SF-NAT |
| | SF-SOFTWIRE|
| +-----|------+
+-----------------+
|||
|||<-IPv4-in-IPv6 softwire
|||
+--------|||--------+
| BNAS |
+--------|||--------+
+----------------------+
| +----------|----------+
| | SF-SOFTWIRE |
| | SF-BINDING(SF-MAPE) |
| +----------|----------+
+----------------------+
|
|
--------|--------
/ | \
| Internet |
\ | /
--------|--------
|
|
+-----+-----+
| IPv4 Host |
+-----------+
Figure 6: MAP-E/Lightweight 4o6
Meng, et al. Expires November 14, 2014 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft Service Function Chaining Use Cases May 2014
The main difference between Lightweight 4o6/MAP-E and DS-Lite is
where NAT happens. And the result is that Lightweight 4o6/MAP-E
realizes NAT on the CPE, and then encapsulates translated IPv4
datagram in IPv6 Header and finally propagates the IPv4-in-IPv6
datagram in IPv6 tunnel to BNAS device. So here gives an example of
this scenario:
SFC8: NAT--Softwire--UM--Binding--LB--URL Filter
In more detail, for outbound traffic in lw4o6 SFC scenario, When the
datagram 1 is received by the home router, the CPE sends it to a
specific classifier named which determines the datagram should be
forwarded directly or dealed with lw4o6 process. Then the classifier
sends the datagram within service header encapsulated to the first
element of this SFP: SF-NAT. SF-NAT translates the IPv4 datagram and
forwards translated IPv4 datagram to SF-SOFTWIRE, which encapsulates
the datagram with the lwAFTR's IPv6 address as IPv6 encapsulated
header and forwards this IPv4-in-IPv6 datagram (datagram 2) to the
BNAS device.
When the BNAS device receives such an IPv4-in-IPv6 datagram, the BNAS
device sends it to a classifier and finds it need to be dealed with
Lightweight 4o6 process. Then the classifier sends the datagram
within service header encapsulated to the first element of SFP: SF-
BINDING. This SF-BINDING creates a binding table about Lightweight
4o6 and decapsulates this datagram, and then propagates the datagram
to internet.
SFC9: NAT--Softwire--UM--MAPE--LB--URL Filter
For outbound traffic in MAP-E SFC scenario, When the datagram 1 is
received by the CPE, the CPE sends it to a specific classifier named
which determines the datagram should be forwarded directly or dealed
with MAP-E process. Then the classifier sends the datagram within
service header encapsulated to the first element of this SFP: SF-NAT.
SF-NAT translates the IPv4 datagram and forwards translated IPv4
datagram to SF-MAPE, which utilizes the MAP-E rules to encapsulate
the datagram with the MAP BR's IPv6 address as IPv6 encapsulated
header and forwards this IPv4-in-IPv6 datagram (datagram 2) to the
BNAS device.
When the BNAS device receives datagram 2, the BNAS device sends it to
a classifier and finds it need to be dealed with MAP-E process. Then
the classifier sends the datagram within service header encapsulated
to the first element of SFP:SF-MAPE. This SF-MAPE utilizes the MAP-E
rules to extract the IPv4 datagram, and then propagates the datagram
to internet.
Meng, et al. Expires November 14, 2014 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft Service Function Chaining Use Cases May 2014
3.1.2.4. NAT64
+-----------+
| Host |
+-----+-----+
|
+---------|---------+
| CPE |
+---------|---------+
--------|--------
/ | \
| IPv6 Network |
\ | /
--------|--------
|
+---------|---------+ +------------+
| BNAS | |DNS64 Server|
+---------|---------+ +------------+
+-----------+
| +-----|------+
| | SF-NAT64 |
| +-----|------+
+-----------+
--------|--------
/ | \
| IPv4 Internet |
\ | /
--------|--------
Figure 7: NAT64
NAT64 scenario is similar with the scenario of simple NAT44. The
only difference is SF-NAT64 should maintain rules that indicate how
to translate a des-IPv6-address to an IPv4 address using a specific
prefix64::/n. Where the NAT64 is deployed is also determined by
Internet Server Provider. This figure is just an example where NAT64
is located nearby BNAS.
Meng, et al. Expires November 14, 2014 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft Service Function Chaining Use Cases May 2014
3.2. Internet Access from Enterprises
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------>
+-------+ +-----+ +----------+
|DPI/DFI| | LB/ | |URL Filter|---|
+-----+ |----| /Qos |---| FRR |---| /FW/PC | |
|host1|--| +----------+ | +-------+ | +-----+ | +----------+ |
+-----+ | |URL Filter| +-----+ | | +-----+ +---------+
---| /FW/PC |--| SR- |-----------|---------|-------------| CR |---| Internet|
+-----+ | +----------+ +-----+ +-----+ +---------+
|host2|--|
+-----+
Figure 8: Internet access from enterprises
Internet access from enterprises is another broadband network. They
lease some ports or even some devices from Internet Server Provider.
In addition to external ISP's service functions which is sitted on
the way to internet, there maybe deploy many service functions in
internal enterprise network for the sake of the security of
enterprise network per se.
Internal service functions may include: Firewall,used for
transforming private IPv4 address to public IPv4 address,like nat
function, URL Filter, used for restricting employees from access to
non-work websites. As well as that, Parental control is used for
monitoring employees' traffic and offers some constrains to certain
websites or inappropriate contents.
As for external service functions deployed by ISP, a typical service
function is VPN, like L2VPN,L3VPN,IPsec,etc. But VPN is mainly used
for interconnection between geographically separate sites of the same
VPN, rather than internet access. Instead, there is a NAT function
based on SR, converting inner traffic to the outer internet.
Other external service functions involved in Internet access from
enterprise network maybe similar to home network, for example,
DPI,DFI,Qos,Load Balance, URL Filter,Firewall,Parental Control and so
on.
SFC10: URL Filter--FW---NAT---Qos---Load Balance----FW
Here, you may see two FW functions. One is in the inner of
enterprise, which represents the URL constrains from the perspective
of enterprise. While the other one is sitted in the ISP network, out
of the inner enterprise, and stands for the URL restrictions from the
standpoint of ISP.
Meng, et al. Expires November 14, 2014 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft Service Function Chaining Use Cases May 2014
3.3. Internet Access from Campuses
TBD
3.4. Added-value Service Access
To promote their primary service, ISP try to provide value-added
services to add value to the standard service offering. Here maybe
focus on some significant value-added services in broadband network
such as IPTV,VOIP,etc.
3.4.1. IPTV
Figure 9 illustrates a possible deployment of IPTV network via SFC.
<----------------------------------------------------
+----+
|STB1|-------|
+----+ |
|
+----+ +-------+ +------+
|STB2|---| BNAS1-|----| Qos1 |---------|
+----+ +-------+ +------+ |
| |
+----+ | |
|STB3|-------| |
+----+ |
+---------+ +-----+
+----+ | DPI/DFI |-----| CDN |
|STB4|-------| +---------+ +-----+
+----+ | |
| |
+----+ +-------+ +------+ |
|STB5|---| BNAS2-|----| Qos2 |---------|
+----+ +-------+ +------+
|
+----+ |
|STB6|-------|
+----+
Figure 9: IPTV network via SFC
IPTV is a IP multicast service, in which multi-subscribers should
receive the same traffic from the multicast source like Content
Distribution Network. Supposed there were six IPTV subscribers, from
STB1 to STB6, they are located in different districts and they all
need to receive traffic from Program 1. A possible SFC abstract here
is :
Meng, et al. Expires November 14, 2014 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft Service Function Chaining Use Cases May 2014
SFC11: DPI--Qos1
|---Qos2
In SFC10, there are two different outputs, Qos1 and Qos2. Firstly,
traffic from multicast source go through DPI, which used for
detecting whether the multicast traffic are legal or unmalicious.
After that, legal traffic propagate to different Qos, and next, each
goes through different BNAS- to different STB subscirbers separately.
3.4.2. VoIP/MoIP
TBD
Meng, et al. Expires November 14, 2014 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft Service Function Chaining Use Cases May 2014
4. Considerations
4.1. Service Function Chain Symmetry
A complete end-to-end access in broadband network should consist of a
set of service function instances in a specific order. Such as:
a.1. Outbound : UM -> NAT
Inbound : NAT -> UM
a.2. Outbound : SOFTWIRE -> UM -> QoS -> SOFTWIRE -> NAT
Inbound : NAT -> UM -> QoS -> SOFTWIRE -> SOFTWIRE
a.3. Outbound : UM -> FIREWALL6 -> NAT64
Inbound : FIREWALL4 -> NAT64 -> UM
etc.
4.2. Deploying consideration
4.2.1. Standalone mode
In broadband networks, service function components are hanging next
to routers such as CPEs/BNASs/CRs. All traffics would be received
and steered by routers. Routers send the traffic to classifier in
which traffic that matches classification criteria is forwarded along
a given SFP to realize the specifications of an SFC.
Meng, et al. Expires November 14, 2014 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft Service Function Chaining Use Cases May 2014
+-----------+
| Host |
+-----+-----+
|
|
+---------|---------+ +-------------------+
| | | ------------- |
| CPE -----> | SFP | |
| <----- -------------- |
+---------|---------+ +-------------------+
|
|
--------|-------
/ | \
| ISP core network |
\ | /
------- | -------
|
|
+---------|---------+ +-------------------+
| | | ----------- |
| BNAS |----> | SFP | |
| <----| ----------- |
+---------|---------+ +-------------------+
|
|
--------|--------
/ | \
| Internet |
\ | /
--------|--------
Figure 10: Standalone mode
Take DS-Lite CGN for example.
Outbound traffic:
In the example shown in Figure X, a datagram received by the CPE from
the host at address 10.0.0.1, using TCP DST port 10000, will be
translated to a datagram with IPv4 SRC address 192.0.2.1 and TCP SRC
port 5000 in the Internet.
When the datagram 1 is received by the CPE, the CPE sent it to a
specific classifier which determines the datagram should be forwarded
directly or dealed with DS-Lite process. Then the classifier sends
the datagram within service header encapsulated to the first element
Meng, et al. Expires November 14, 2014 [Page 17]
Internet-Draft Service Function Chaining Use Cases May 2014
of SFP. SF-SOFTWIRE encapsulates the datagram in another datagram
(datagram 2) and forwards it BACK to CPE over the softwire. The
datagram 2 would be sent to the Dual-Stack Lite carrier-grade NAT by
CPE.
When the BNAS receives datagram 2, the BNAS sends it to a classifier
and find it need to be dealed with DS-Lite process. Then the
classifier send the datagram within service header encapsulated to
the first element of SFP.
SF-SOFTWIRE decapsulates the datagram 2 to datagram 1 and forwards it
SF-NAT, which determines from its NAT table that the datagram
received on the softwire with TCP SRC port 10000 should be translated
to datagram 3 with IPv4 SRC address 192.0.2.1 and TCP SRC port 5000.
The translated datagram would be also sent back to BNAS for next
forwarding.
Inbound traffic:
Figure x shows an inbound message received at the classifer. When
the BNAS receives datagram 1, the BNAS sends it to a classifier.
Then the classifier sends the datagram within service header
encapsulated to the first element of SFP. SF- NAT looks up the IP/
TCP DST information in its translation table. In the example in
Figure 3, the NAT changes the TCP DST port to 10000, sets the IP DST
address to 10.0.0.1, and it will be sent back to BNAS to forwards the
datagram to the softwire. The SF-SOFTWIRE of the CPE decapsulates
the IPv4 datagram inbound softwire datagram and forwards it to the
host.
4.2.2. Directly connecting mode
There is another mode to deploy service function components. In
broadband home networks, service function components are directly
connected to the network. They are connected straight to a BNAS or
Routers.
Under this scenario, it seems like more costly than standalone mode
during transition period.
Meng, et al. Expires November 14, 2014 [Page 18]
Internet-Draft Service Function Chaining Use Cases May 2014
| +-----------+
out | Host |
| +-----+-----+
v |
+---------|---------+ +-------------+
| |-out->classifier A |
| | +------|------+
| CPE | |
| | |
| | out
+---------/\--------+ |
|| |
+<===== in =====+------v------+
| |
| SFP A |
| |
+<----- out-----+------/\-----+
| ||
+---------v---------+ ||
| | ||
| | ||
| BNAS | ||
| | +------||-----+
| |==in=>classifier B |
+---------|---------+ +-------------+
--------|-------- /\
/ | \ ||
| METRO NETWORK | in
\ | / ||
---------^--------
.
.
+---------+---------+
| |
| | +-------------+
| CR | | SFP N |
| | +-------------+
| |
+-------------------+
Figure 11: Directly connecting mode
Take NAT44 for example.
Outbound traffic:
For directly connecting mode, the difference in dealing with traffic
Meng, et al. Expires November 14, 2014 [Page 19]
Internet-Draft Service Function Chaining Use Cases May 2014
is whether the network steer the traffic loopback. That means
service function node could send datagrams directly to the next hop.
For example, when the outbound datagram is received by the BNAS and
processed by classifer A and SF-NAT which forward the processed
datagram straight next to router.
Inbound traffic:
It is quite similar with the process of dealing with outbound
traffic. when the inbound datagram is received by the router and
processed by classifer B and SF-NAT which forward the processed
datagram straight next to NAT BNAS.
4.3. Pool consideration
In traditional networks, pools are configured in router one by one.
Pool configuration means these IP addresses in each pool MUST be
advertised for creating forward routing path to ensures that the
message is routed to the correct target, especially to inbound
traffic. Thus, pool location is a problem we must face to in SFC
framework.
In standalone mode shown in figure 6, pool could be configured in the
classifier beside gateway and advertised by the gateway itself. The
classifier would assign IP addresses to service functions for
creating mapping table. Both-bound traffic should be forward to
gateway first and then for NAT treatment in relative service function
components.
In Directly connecting mode shown in figure 7, pool could be
configured in classifier B and advertised by classifier B for
creating inbound routing path.
There is a mechanism to manage the address pools centrally. Pools
could be assigned to classifiers by management server which is
handled by Operators centrally.
4.4. NAT traversal
TBD
4.5. Unify home router
TBD
Meng, et al. Expires November 14, 2014 [Page 20]
Internet-Draft Service Function Chaining Use Cases May 2014
5. IANA Considerations
This memo includes no request to IANA.
Meng, et al. Expires November 14, 2014 [Page 21]
Internet-Draft Service Function Chaining Use Cases May 2014
6. Security Considerations
TBD
Meng, et al. Expires November 14, 2014 [Page 22]
Internet-Draft Service Function Chaining Use Cases May 2014
7. Normative References
[I-D.ietf-sfc-problem-statement]
Quinn, P. and T. Nadeau, "Service Function Chaining
Problem Statement", draft-ietf-sfc-problem-statement-05
(work in progress), April 2014.
[I-D.ietf-softwire-lw4over6]
Cui, Y., Qiong, Q., Boucadair, M., Tsou, T., Lee, Y., and
I. Farrer, "Lightweight 4over6: An Extension to the DS-
Lite Architecture", draft-ietf-softwire-lw4over6-08 (work
in progress), March 2014.
[I-D.ietf-softwire-map]
Troan, O., Dec, W., Li, X., Bao, C., Matsushima, S.,
Murakami, T., and T. Taylor, "Mapping of Address and Port
with Encapsulation (MAP)", draft-ietf-softwire-map-10
(work in progress), January 2014.
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[RFC2865] Rigney, C., Willens, S., Rubens, A., and W. Simpson,
"Remote Authentication Dial In User Service (RADIUS)",
RFC 2865, June 2000.
[RFC6052] Bao, C., Huitema, C., Bagnulo, M., Boucadair, M., and X.
Li, "IPv6 Addressing of IPv4/IPv6 Translators", RFC 6052,
October 2010.
[RFC6146] Bagnulo, M., Matthews, P., and I. van Beijnum, "Stateful
NAT64: Network Address and Protocol Translation from IPv6
Clients to IPv4 Servers", RFC 6146, April 2011.
[RFC6333] Durand, A., Droms, R., Woodyatt, J., and Y. Lee, "Dual-
Stack Lite Broadband Deployments Following IPv4
Exhaustion", RFC 6333, August 2011.
[RFC6519] Maglione, R. and A. Durand, "RADIUS Extensions for Dual-
Stack Lite", RFC 6519, February 2012.
[RFC6888] Perreault, S., Yamagata, I., Miyakawa, S., Nakagawa, A.,
and H. Ashida, "Common Requirements for Carrier-Grade NATs
(CGNs)", BCP 127, RFC 6888, April 2013.
Meng, et al. Expires November 14, 2014 [Page 23]
Internet-Draft Service Function Chaining Use Cases May 2014
Authors' Addresses
Wei Meng
ZTE Corporation
No.50 Software Avenue, Yuhuatai District
Nanjing
China
Email: meng.wei2@zte.com.cn,vally.meng@gmail.com
Cui Wang
ZTE Corporation
No.50 Software Avenue, Yuhuatai District
Nanjing
China
Email: wang.cui1@zte.com.cn
Bhumip Khasnabish
ZTE TX, Inc.
55 Madison Avenue, Suite 160
Morristown, New Jersey 07960
USA
Email: bhumip.khasnabish@ztetx.com
Meng, et al. Expires November 14, 2014 [Page 24]