Problem Statement for the Interface to the Routing System
RFC 7920
| Document | Type | RFC - Informational (June 2016; No errata) | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Authors | Alia Atlas , Thomas Nadeau , David Ward | ||
| Last updated | 2018-12-20 | ||
| Replaces | draft-atlas-i2rs-problem-statement | ||
| Stream | Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) | ||
| Formats | plain text html pdf htmlized bibtex | ||
| Reviews | |||
| Stream | WG state | Submitted to IESG for Publication | |
| Document shepherd | Qin Wu | ||
| Shepherd write-up | Show (last changed 2016-01-28) | ||
| IESG | IESG state | RFC 7920 (Informational) | |
| Action Holders |
(None)
|
||
| Consensus Boilerplate | Yes | ||
| Telechat date | |||
| Responsible AD | Deborah Brungard | ||
| Send notices to | (None) | ||
| IANA | IANA review state | Version Changed - Review Needed | |
| IANA action state | No IANA Actions | ||
Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) A. Atlas, Ed.
Request for Comments: 7920 Juniper Networks
Category: Informational T. Nadeau, Ed.
ISSN: 2070-1721 Brocade
D. Ward
Cisco Systems
June 2016
Problem Statement for the Interface to the Routing System
Abstract
Traditionally, routing systems have implemented routing and signaling
(e.g., MPLS) to control traffic forwarding in a network. Route
computation has been controlled by relatively static policies that
define link cost, route cost, or import and export routing policies.
Requirements have emerged to more dynamically manage and program
routing systems due to the advent of highly dynamic data-center
networking, on-demand WAN services, dynamic policy-driven traffic
steering and service chaining, the need for real-time security threat
responsiveness via traffic control, and a paradigm of separating
policy-based decision-making from the router itself. These
requirements should allow controlling routing information and traffic
paths and extracting network topology information, traffic
statistics, and other network analytics from routing systems.
This document proposes meeting this need via an Interface to the
Routing System (I2RS).
Status of This Memo
This document is not an Internet Standards Track specification; it is
published for informational purposes.
This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force
(IETF). It represents the consensus of the IETF community. It has
received public review and has been approved for publication by the
Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG). Not all documents
approved by the IESG are a candidate for any level of Internet
Standard; see Section 2 of RFC 7841.
Information about the current status of this document, any errata,
and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at
http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7920.
Atlas, et al. Informational [Page 1]
RFC 7920 I2RS Problem Statement June 2016
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2016 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
described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction ....................................................3
2. I2RS Model and Problem Area for the IETF ........................4
3. Standard Data Models of Routing State for Installation ..........6
4. Learning Router Information .....................................7
5. Aspects to be Considered for an I2RS Protocol ...................8
6. Security Considerations .........................................9
7. References .....................................................10
7.1. Normative References ......................................10
7.2. Informative References ....................................10
Appendix A. Existing Management Interfaces .......................11
Acknowledgements ..................................................12
Authors' Addresses ................................................12
Atlas, et al. Informational [Page 2]
RFC 7920 I2RS Problem Statement June 2016
1. Introduction
Traditionally, routing systems have implemented routing and signaling
(e.g., MPLS) to control traffic forwarding in a network. Route
computation has been controlled by relatively static policies that
define link cost, route cost, or import and export routing policies.
The advent of highly dynamic data-center networking, on-demand WAN
services, dynamic policy-driven traffic steering and service
chaining, the need for real-time security threat responsiveness via
traffic control, and a paradigm of separating policy-based decision-
making from the router itself has created the need to more
dynamically manage and program routing systems in order to control
routing information and traffic paths and to extract network topology
information, traffic statistics, and other network analytics from
routing systems.
As modern networks continue to grow in scale and complexity and
desired policy has become more complex and dynamic, there is a need
to support rapid control and analytics. The scale of modern networks
and data centers and the associated operational expense drives the
need to automate even the simplest operations. The ability to
quickly interact via more complex operations to support dynamic
policy is even more critical.
In order to enable network applications to have access to and control
over information in the different vendors' routing systems, a
publicly documented interface is required. The interface needs to
support real-time, asynchronous interactions using efficient data
models and encodings that are based on and extend those previously
defined. Furthermore, the interface must be tailored to provide a
solid base on which a variety of use cases can be supported.
To support the requirements of orchestration software and automated
network applications to dynamically modify the network, there is a
need to learn topology, network analytics, and existing state from
the network as well as to create or modify routing information and
network paths. A feedback loop is needed so that changes made can be
verifiable and so that these applications can learn and react to
network changes.
Proprietary solutions to partially support the requirements outlined
above have been developed to handle specific situations and needs.
Standardizing an interface to the routing system will make it easier
to integrate use of it into a network. Because there are proprietary
partial solutions already, the standardization of a common interface
should be feasible.
Atlas, et al. Informational [Page 3]
RFC 7920 I2RS Problem Statement June 2016
It should be noted that during the course of this document, the term
"applications" is used. This is meant to refer to an executable
program of some sort that has access to a network, such as an IP or
MPLS network, via a routing system.
2. I2RS Model and Problem Area for the IETF
Managing a network of systems running a variety of routing protocols
and/or providing one or more additional services (e.g., forwarding,
classification and policing, firewalling) involves interactions
between multiple components within these systems. Some of these
systems or system components may be virtualized, co-located within
the same physical system, or distributed. In all cases, it is
desirable to enable network applications to manage and control the
services provided by many, if not all, of these components, subject
to authenticated and authorized access and policies.
A data-model-driven interface to the routing system is needed. This
will allow expansion of what information can be read and controlled
and allow for future flexibility. At least one accompanying protocol
with clearly defined operations is needed; the suitable protocol(s)
can be identified and expanded to support the requirements of an
Interface to the Routing System (I2RS). These solutions must be
designed to facilitate rapid, isolated, secure, and dynamic changes
to a device's routing system. These would facilitate wide-scale
deployment of interoperable applications and routing systems.
The I2RS model and problem area for IETF work is illustrated in
Figure 1. This document uses terminology defined in [RFC7921]. The
I2RS agent is associated with a routing element, which may or may not
be co-located with a data plane. The I2RS client could be integrated
in a network application or controlled and used by one or more
separate network applications. For instance, an I2RS client could be
provided by a network controller or a network orchestration system
that provides a non-I2RS interface to network applications and an
I2RS interface to I2RS agents on the systems being managed. The
scope of the data models used by I2RS extends across the entire
routing system and the selected protocol(s) for I2RS.
As depicted in Figure 1, the I2RS client and I2RS agent in a routing
system are objects with in the I2RS scope. The selected protocol(s)
for I2RS extend between the I2RS client and I2RS agent. All other
objects and interfaces in Figure 1 are outside the I2RS scope for
standardization.
Atlas, et al. Informational [Page 4]
RFC 7920 I2RS Problem Statement June 2016
+***************+ +***************+ +***************+
* Application * * Application * * Application *
+***************+ +***************+ +***************+
| I2RS Client | ^ ^
+---------------+ * *
^ * ****************
| * *
| v v
| +---------------+ +-------------+
| | I2RS Client |<------->| Other I2RS |
| +---------------+ | Agents |
| ^ +-------------+
|________________ |
| | <== I2RS Protocol
| |
...........................|..|..................................
. v v .
. +*************+ +---------------+ +****************+ .
. * Policy * | | * Routing & * .
. * Database *<***>| I2RS Agent |<****>* Signaling * .
. +*************+ | | * Protocols * .
. +---------------+ +****************+ .
. ^ ^ ^ ^ .
. +*************+ * * * * .
. * Topology * * * * * .
. * Database *<*******+ * * v .
. +*************+ * * +****************+ .
. * +********>* RIB Manager * .
. * +****************+ .
. * ^ .
. v * .
. +*******************+ * .
. * Subscription & * * .
. * Configuration * v .
. * Templates for * +****************+ .
. * Measurements, * * FIB Manager * .
. * Events, QoS, etc. * * & Data Plane * .
. +*******************+ +****************+ .
.................................................................
Atlas, et al. Informational [Page 5]
RFC 7920 I2RS Problem Statement June 2016
<--> interfaces inside the scope of I2RS Protocol
+--+ objects inside the scope of I2RS-defined behavior
<**> interfaces NOT within the scope of I2RS Protocol
+**+ objects NOT within the scope of I2RS-defined behavior
<== used to point to the interface where the I2RS Protocol
would be used
.... boundary of a router supporting I2RS
Figure 1: I2RS Model and Problem Area
The protocol(s) used to carry messages between I2RS clients and I2RS
agents should provide the key features specified in Section 5.
I2RS will use a set of meaningful data models for information in the
routing system and in a topology database. Each data model should
describe the meaning and relationships of the modeled items. The
data models should be separable across different features of the
managed components, versioned, and extendable. As shown in Figure 1,
I2RS needs to interact with several logical components of the routing
element: policy database, topology database, subscription and
configuration for dynamic measurements/events, routing and signaling
protocols, and its Routing Information Base (RIB) manager. This
interaction is both for writing (e.g., to policy databases or RIB
manager) as well as for reading (e.g., dynamic measurement or
topology database). An application should be able to combine data
from individual routing elements to provide network-wide data
model(s).
The data models should translate into a concise transfer syntax, sent
via the I2RS protocol, that is straightforward for applications to
use (e.g., a web services design paradigm). The information transfer
should use existing transport protocols to provide the reliability,
security, and timeliness appropriate for the particular data.
3. Standard Data Models of Routing State for Installation
As described in Section 1, there is a need to be able to precisely
control routing and signaling state based upon policy or external
measures. One set of data models that I2RS should focus on is for
interacting with the RIB layer (e.g., RIB, Label Information Base
(LIB), multicast RIB, policy-based routing) to provide flexibility
and routing abstractions. As an example, the desired routing and
signaling state might range from simple static routes to policy-based
Atlas, et al. Informational [Page 6]
RFC 7920 I2RS Problem Statement June 2016
routing to static multicast replication and routing state. This
means that, to usefully model next hops, the data model employed
needs to handle next-hop indirection and recursion (e.g., a prefix X
is routed like prefix Y) as well as different types of tunneling and
encapsulation.
Efforts to provide this level of control have focused on
standardizing data models that describe the forwarding plane (e.g.,
Forwarding and Control Element Separation (ForCES) [RFC3746]). I2RS
recognizes that the routing system and a router's OS provide useful
mechanisms that applications could usefully harness to accomplish
application-level goals. Using routing indirection, recursion, and
common routing abstractions (e.g., tunnels, Label Switched Paths
(LSPs), etc.) provides significant flexibility and functionality over
collapsing the state to individual routes in the Forwarding
Information Base (FIB) that need to be individually modified when a
change occurs.
In addition to interfaces to control the RIB layer, there is a need
to dynamically configure policies and parameter values for the
various routing and signaling protocols based upon application-level
policy decisions.
4. Learning Router Information
A router has information that applications may require so that they
can understand the network, verify that programmed state is
installed, measure the behavior of various flows, and understand the
existing configuration and state of the router. I2RS should provide
a framework so that applications can register for asynchronous
notifications and can make specific requests for information.
Although there are efforts to extend the topological information
available, even the best of these (e.g., BGP-LS [RFC7752]) still only
provide the current active state as seen at the IGP and BGP layers.
Detailed topological state that provides more information than the
current functional status (e.g., active paths and links) is needed by
applications. Examples of missing information include paths or links
that are potentially available (e.g., administratively down) or
unknown (e.g., to peers or customers) to the routing topology.
For applications to have a feedback loop that includes awareness of
the relevant traffic, an application must be able to request the
measurement and timely, scalable reporting of data. While a
mechanism such as IP Flow Information Export (IPFIX) [RFC5470] may be
the facilitator for delivering the data, providing the ability for an
application to dynamically request that measurements be taken and
data delivered is important.
Atlas, et al. Informational [Page 7]
RFC 7920 I2RS Problem Statement June 2016
There is a wide range of events that applications could use to
support verification of router state before other network state is
changed (e.g., that a route has been installed) and to allow timely
action in response to changes of relevant routes by others or to
router events (e.g., link up/down). While a few of these (e.g., link
up/down) may be available via MIB notifications today, the full range
is not (e.g., route installed, route changed, primary LSP changed,
etc.)
5. Aspects to be Considered for an I2RS Protocol
This section describes required aspects of a protocol that could
support I2RS. Whether such a protocol is built upon extending
existing mechanisms or requires a new mechanism requires further
investigation.
The key aspects needed in an interface to the routing system are:
Multiple Simultaneous Asynchronous Operations: A single application
should be able to send multiple independent atomic operations via
I2RS without being required to wait for each to complete before
sending the next.
Very Fine Granularity of Data Locking for Writing: When an I2RS
operation is processed, it is required that the data locked for
writing be very granular (e.g., a particular prefix and route)
rather than extremely coarse, as is done for writing
configuration. This should improve the number of concurrent I2RS
operations that are feasible and reduce blocking delays.
Multi-Headed Control: Multiple applications may communicate to the
same I2RS agent in a minimally coordinated fashion. It is
necessary that the I2RS agent can handle multiple requests in a
well-known policy-based fashion. Data written can be owned by
different I2RS clients at different times; data may even be
overwritten by a different I2RS client. The details of how this
should be handled are described in [RFC7921].
Duplex: Communications can be established by either the I2RS client
(i.e., that resides within the application or is used by it to
communicate with the I2RS agent) or the I2RS agent. Similarly,
events, acknowledgements, failures, operations, etc., can be sent
at any time by both the router and the application. The I2RS is
not a pure pull model where only the application queries to pull
responses.
Atlas, et al. Informational [Page 8]
RFC 7920 I2RS Problem Statement June 2016
High Throughput: At a minimum, the I2RS agent and associated router
should be able to handle a considerable number of operations per
second (for example, 10,000 per second to handle many individual
subscriber routes changing simultaneously).
Low Latency: Within a sub-second timescale, it should be possible
to complete simple operations (e.g., reading or writing a single
prefix route).
Multiple Channels: It should be possible for information to be
communicated via the interface from different components in the
router without requiring going through a single channel. For
example, for scaling, some exported data or events may be better
sent directly from the forwarding plane, while other interactions
may come from the control plane. One channel, with authorization
and authentication, may be considered primary; only an authorized
client can then request that information be delivered on a
different channel. Writes from a client are only expected on
channels that provide authorization and authentication.
Scalable, Filterable Information Access: To extract information in a
scalable fashion that is more easily used by applications, the
ability to specify filtering constructs in an operation requesting
data or requesting an asynchronous notification is very valuable.
Secure Control and Access: Any ability to manipulate routing state
must be subject to authentication and authorization. Sensitive
routing information also may need to be provided via secure access
back to the I2RS client. Such communications must be integrity
protected. Most communications will also require confidentiality.
Extensibility and Interoperability: Both the I2RS protocol and
models must be extensible and interoperate between different
versions of protocols and models.
6. Security Considerations
Security is a key aspect of any protocol that allows state
installation and extracting of detailed router state. The need for
secure control and access is mentioned in Section 5. More
architectural security considerations are discussed in [RFC7921].
Briefly, the I2RS agent is assumed to have a separate authentication
and authorization channel by which it can validate both the identity
and the permissions associated with an I2RS client. Mutual
authentication between the I2RS agent and I2RS client is required.
Different levels of integrity, confidentiality, and replay protection
are relevant for different aspects of I2RS.
Atlas, et al. Informational [Page 9]
RFC 7920 I2RS Problem Statement June 2016
7. References
7.1. Normative References
[RFC7921] Atlas, A., Halpern, J., Hares, S., Ward, D., and T.
Nadeau, "An Architecture for the Interface to the Routing
System", RFC 7921, DOI 10.17487/RFC7921, June 2016,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7921>.
7.2. Informative References
[RFC3746] Yang, L., Dantu, R., Anderson, T., and R. Gopal,
"Forwarding and Control Element Separation (ForCES)
Framework", RFC 3746, DOI 10.17487/RFC3746, April 2004,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3746>.
[RFC5470] Sadasivan, G., Brownlee, N., Claise, B., and J. Quittek,
"Architecture for IP Flow Information Export", RFC 5470,
DOI 10.17487/RFC5470, March 2009,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5470>.
[RFC6241] Enns, R., Ed., Bjorklund, M., Ed., Schoenwaelder, J., Ed.,
and A. Bierman, Ed., "Network Configuration Protocol
(NETCONF)", RFC 6241, DOI 10.17487/RFC6241, June 2011,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6241>.
[RFC7752] Gredler, H., Ed., Medved, J., Previdi, S., Farrel, A., and
S. Ray, "North-Bound Distribution of Link-State and
Traffic Engineering (TE) Information Using BGP", RFC 7752,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7752, March 2016,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7752>.
Atlas, et al. Informational [Page 10]
RFC 7920 I2RS Problem Statement June 2016
Appendix A. Existing Management Interfaces
This section discusses as a single entity the combination of the
abstract data models, their representation in a data language, and
the transfer protocol commonly used with them. While other
combinations of these existing standard technologies are possible,
the ways described are ones that have significant deployment.
There are three basic ways that routers are managed. The most
popular is the command-line interface (CLI), which allows both
configuration and learning of device state. This is a proprietary
interface resembling a UNIX shell that allows for very customized
control and observation of a device, and, specifically of interest in
this case, its routing system. Some form of this interface exists on
almost every device (virtual or otherwise). Processing of
information returned to the CLI (called "screen scraping") is a
burdensome activity because the data is normally formatted for use by
a human operator and because the layout of the data can vary from
device to device and between different software versions. Despite
its ubiquity, this interface has never been standardized and is
unlikely to ever be standardized. CLI standardization is not
considered as a candidate solution for the problems motivating I2RS.
The second most popular interface for interrogation of a device's
state, statistics, and configuration is the Simple Network Management
Protocol (SNMP) and a set of relevant standards-based and proprietary
Management Information Base (MIB) modules. SNMP has a strong history
of being used by network managers to gather statistical and state
information about devices, including their routing systems. However,
SNMP is very rarely used to configure a device or any of its systems
for reasons that vary depending upon the network operator. Some
example reasons include complexity, the lack of desired configuration
semantics (e.g., configuration rollback, sandboxing, or configuration
versioning) and the difficulty of using the semantics (or lack
thereof) as defined in the MIB modules to configure device features.
Therefore, SNMP is not considered as a candidate solution for the
problems motivating I2RS.
Finally, the IETF's Network Configuration Protocol (NETCONF)
[RFC6241] has made many strides at overcoming most of the limitations
around configuration that were just described. However, as a new
technology and with the initial lack of standard data models, the
adoption of NETCONF has been slow. As needed, I2RS will identify and
define information and data models to support I2RS applications.
Additional extensions to handle multi-headed control may need to be
added to NETCONF and/or appropriate data models.
Atlas, et al. Informational [Page 11]
RFC 7920 I2RS Problem Statement June 2016
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank Ken Gray, Ed Crabbe, Nic Leymann,
Carlos Pignataro, Kwang-koog Lee, Linda Dunbar, Sue Hares, Russ
Housley, Eric Grey, Qin Wu, Stephen Kent, Nabil Bitar, Deborah
Brungard, and Sarah Banks for their suggestions and review.
Authors' Addresses
Alia Atlas (editor)
Juniper Networks
Email: akatlas@juniper.net
Thomas D. Nadeau (editor)
Brocade
Email: tnadeau@lucidvision.com
Dave Ward
Cisco Systems
Email: wardd@cisco.com
Atlas, et al. Informational [Page 12]