Requirements for Service Function Chaining
draft-boucadair-sfc-requirements-03

Abstract

This document identifies the requirements for the Service Function Chaining (SFC).

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 RFC 2119 [RFC2119].

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 August 16, 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 described in the Simplified BSD License.

Table of Contents

• 1. Introduction
• 2. Terminology
• 3. Detailed Requirements List
• 4. Service Function Discovery
• 5. SFC Diagnosis & Troubleshooting
• 6. Scalability Considerations
• 7. IANA Considerations
• 8. Security Considerations
• 9. Contributors
• 10. Acknowledgements
• 11. References
• 11.1. Normative References
• 11.2. Informative References
• Authors' Addresses

1. Introduction

This document identifies the requirements for the Service Function Chaining (SFC). In particular:

1. Generic requirements are listed in Section 3.
2. Service Function Discovery requirements are discussed in Section 4.
3. SFC diagnostic requirements are discussed in Section 5.
4. Security-specific requirements are listed in Section 8.

The overall problem space is described in [I-D.ietf-sfc-problem-statement].

2. Terminology

The reader should be familiar with the terms defined in [I-D.boucadair-sfc-framework] and [I-D.ietf-sfc-problem-statement].

3. Detailed Requirements List

The following set of functional requirements should be considered for the design of the Service Function Chaining solution:

REQ#1:

The solution MUST NOT make any assumption on whether Service Functions (SF) are deployed directly on physical hardware, as one or more Virtual Machines, or any combination thereof.

REQ#2:

The solution MUST NOT make any assumption on whether Service Functions each reside on a separate addressable Network Element, or as a horizontal scaling of Service Functions, or are co-resident in a single addressable Network Element, or any combination thereof.

• Note: Communications between co-located Service Functions are considered implementation-specific. These considerations are therefore out of scope of the SFC specification effort.

REQ#3:

The solution MUST NOT require any IANA registry for Service Functions.

REQ#4:

The solution MUST NOT assume any predefined order of Service Functions. In particular, the solution MUST NOT require any IANA registry to store typical Service Function Chains.

REQ#5:

The identification of instantiated Service Function Chains is local to each administrative domain; it is policy-based and deployment-specific.

REQ#6:

The solution MUST allow multiple instances of a given Service Function ( i.e., a Service Function can be embedded in multiple Network Elements).

1. This is used for load-balancing, load-sharing, to minimize the impact of failures (e.g., by means of a hot or cold standby protection design), to accommodate planned maintenance operations, etc.
2. How these multiple devices are involved in the service delivery is deployment-specific.

REQ#7:

The solution MUST allow for multiple Service Chains to be simultaneously enforced within an administrative domain.

REQ#8:

The solution MUST allow the same Service Function to belong to multiple Service Function Chains.

REQ#9:

The solution MUST support the ability to deploy multiple SFC-enabled domains within the same administrative domain.

REQ#10:

The solution MUST be able to associate the same or distinct Service Function Chains for each direction (inbound/outbound) of the traffic pertaining to a specific service. In particular, unidirectional Service Function Chains, bi-directional Service Function Chains, or any combination thereof MUST be supported.

• Note, the solution must allow to involve distinct SFC Boundary Nodes for upstream and downstream. Multiple SFC Boundary Nodes may be deployed within an administrative domain.

REQ#11:

The solution MUST be able to dynamically enforce Service Function Chains. In particular, the solution MUST allow the update or the withdrawal of existing Service Function Chains, the definition of a new Service Function Chain, the addition of new Service Functions without having any impact on other existing Service Functions or other Service Function Chains.

REQ#12:

The solution MUST provide means to control the SF-inferred information to be leaked outside an SFC-enabled domain. In particular, an administrative entity MUST be able to prevent the exposure of the Service Function Chaining logic and its related policies outside the administrative domain.

REQ#13:

The solution SHOULD minimize fragmentation; in particular, a minimal set of SFC-specific information should be conveyed in the data packet.

1. Traffic forwarding on a SFC basis MUST be undertaken without relying on dedicated resources to treat fragments. In particular, Out of order fragments MUST be forwarded on a per-SFC basis without relying on any state.
2. Of course, some SFs (e.g., NAT) may require dedicated resources (e.g., resources to store fragmented packets) or they may adopt a specific behavior (e.g, limit the time interval to accept fragments). The solution MUST NOT interfere with such practices.

REQ#14:

The solution MUST NOT make any assumption on how RIBs (Routing Information Bases) and FIBs (Forwarding Information Bases) are populated. Particularly, the solution does not make any assumption on protocols and mechanisms used to build these tables.

REQ#15:

The solution MUST be transport independent.

1. The Service Function Chaining should operate regardless of the network transport used by the administrative entity. In particular, the solution can be used whatever the switching technologies deployed in the underlying transport infrastructure.
2. Techniques such as MPLS are neither required nor excluded.

REQ#16:

The solution MUST allow for chaining logics where involved Service Functions are not within the same layer 3 subnet.

REQ#17:

The solution MUST NOT exclude Service Functions to be within the same IP subnet (because this is deployment-specific).

REQ#18:

The solution MUST NOT make any assumption on how the traffic is to be bound to a given chaining policy. In other words, classification rules are deployment-specific and policy-based. For instance, classification can rely on a subset of the information carried in a received packet such as 5-tuple classification.

REQ#19:

The solution MUST support traffic classification capabilities according to the Service Function Chains supported within the SFC domain.

REQ#20:

The solution MUST NOT require every Service Function to be co-located with a SFC Classifier; this is a deployment-specific decision.

REQ#21:

The solution MAY allow traffic re-classification at the level of Service Functions (i.e., a Service Function can also be co-located with a classifier). The configuration of classification rules in such context are the responsibility of the administrative entity that operates the SFC-enabled domain.

REQ#22:

The solution MUST be able to forward traffic between two Service Functions (involved in the same Service Function Chain) without relying upon the destination address field of the a data packet.

REQ#23:

The solution MUST allow for the association of a context with the data packets. In particular:

1. The solution MUST support the ability to invoke differentiated sets of policies for a Service Function (such sets of policies are called Profiles). A profile denotes a set of policies configured to a local Service Function (e.g., content-filter-child, content-filter-adult).
   1. Few profiles should be assumed per Service Function to accommodate the need for scalable solutions.
   2. A finer granularity of profiles may be configured directly to each Service Function; there is indeed no need to overload the design of Service Function Chains with policies of low-level granularity.

REQ#24:

The solution MUST allow for Operations, Administration, and Maintenance (OAM) features [RFC6291]. In particular, the solution MUST:

1. Support means to verify the completion of the forwarding actions until the SFC Border Node is reached (see Section 3.4.1 of [RFC5706]).
2. Support means to ensure coherent classification rules are installed in and enforced by all the Classifiers of the SFC domain.
3. Support means to correlate classification policies with observed forwarding actions.
4. Support in-band liveliness and functionality checking mechanisms for the instantiated Service Function Chains and the Service Functions that belong to these chains.

REQ#25:

The solution MUST prevent the same Service Function to be invoked multiple times within the context of the same Service Function Chain (at the risk of generating Service Function Loop).

REQ#26:

The solution MUST allow for load-balancing.

1. Load-balancing may be provided by legacy technologies or protocols (e.g., make use of load-balancers)
2. Load-balancing may be part of the Service Function itself.
3. Load-balancer may be considered as a Service Function element.
4. Because of the possible complications, load balancing SHOULD NOT be driven by the SFC Classifier.

REQ#27:

The solution MUST separate SF-specific policy provisioning-related aspects from the actual handling of packets (including forwarding decisions).

REQ#28:

The solution SHOULD support means to detect the liveliness of involved Service Functions.

REQ#29:

Means to dynamically discover Service Functions SHOULD be supported.

REQ#30:

Service Functions may be reachable using IPv4 and/or IPv6. The administrative domain entity MUST be able to define and enforce policies with regards to the address family to be used when invoking a Service Function.

1. A SF Map may be composed of IPv4 addresses, IPv6 addresses, or a mix of both IPv4 and IPv6 addresses.
2. Multiple Service Functions can be reachable using the same IP address. Each of these Service Functions is unambiguously identified with a Service Function Identifier.

REQ#31:

The solution MUST allow for gradual deployment in legacy infrastructures, and therefore coexist with legacy technologies that cannot support SFC-specific capabilities, such as SFC Map interpretation and processing. The solution MUST be able to work in a domain that may be partly composed of opaque elements, i.e., elements that do not support SFC-specific capabilities.

REQ#32:

The solution MUST be able to provide different SLAs (Service Level Agreements, [I-D.boucadair-connectivity-provisioning-profile]). In particular,

1. The solution MUST allow for different levels of service to be provided for different traffic streams (e.g., configure Classes of Service (CoSes)).
2. The solution MUST be able to work properly within a Diffserv domain [RFC2475].
3. The solution SHOULD support the two modes defined in [RFC2983].

REQ#33:

ECN re-marking, when required, MUST be performed according to [RFC6040].

4. Service Function Discovery

This section lists the set of requirements for the Service Function Discovery procedure (denoted hereafter as "the solution").

DISC_REQ#1:

The solution MUST use the Service Function Identifier as a unique identifier that unambiguously distinguishes a Service Function among the set of Service Functions enabled in a given SFC domain.

DISC_REQ#2:

The solution MUST NOT make any assumption on how a Service Function Identifier is configured and associated to a given Service Function.

DISC_REQ#3:

The solution MUST allow for the dynamic discovery of all locations where a given Service Function may reside and be invoked for a given SF chain. Particularly, the solution MUST allow for the dynamic discovery of both IPv4 and IPv6 locators of a Service Function instance.

DISC_REQ#4:

The solution SHOULD allow the dynamic discovery of additional information characterizing a Service Function, including:

• The capabilities of the Service Function.
• The capacity of the Service Function. For example, this information can refer to the maximum number of binding entries that can be supported by a NAT function, the maximum number of IP-in-IP tunnels that can be established, the maximum link capacity, etc.
• The current load of the Service Function. This information may be used for load-balancing purposes for instance. This parameter may reflect the amount of active NAT entries, the number of active IP-in-IP tunnel, the link capacity usage, etc.

DISC_REQ#5:

The solution MUST support means to protect the SFC domain as a whole against attacks that would lead to the discovery of an illegitimate Service Function. For example, a Service Function that cannot be invoked for a specific SF chain.

DISC_REQ#6:

The solution MUST support means to dynamically detect that a Service Function instance is out of service and notify the relevant elements accordingly (PDP and classifiers, for one).

DISC_REQ#7:

The solution MUST allow a Service Function instance to dynamically announce scheduled periods of unavailability (for maintenance purposes, for example). The support of this capability is useful for instance to migrate traffic to another instance of the same Service Function so as to minimize service disruption. Note also that operational teams proceed to regular reboots of operational devices (for major software upgrades, for example). Dynamically advertising such events to inform the PDP that a Service Function instance will not be available during the reboot of the device, would be useful. Means to indicate whether the Service Function will be available immediately after the reboot or not are RECOMMENDED. Indeed, such information will be used as an input to the decision-making process of the PDP to avoid any subsequent traffic forwarding policy changes at the risk of service disruption.

DISC_REQ#8:

The solution MAY allow for a Service Function to dynamically discover its PDP.

5. SFC Diagnosis & Troubleshooting

This section lists the set of requirements for the SFC Diagnosis & Troubleshooting procedure (denoted hereafter as "the solution").

DIAG_REQ#1:

The solution MUST allow to assess the status of the serviceability of a Service Function (i.e., the Service Function that provides the service(s) it is configured for).

DIAG_REQ#2:

The solution MUST NOT rely only on IP reachability to assess whether a Service Function is up and running.

DIAG_REQ#3:

The solution MUST allow to diagnose the availability of a Service Function Chain.

DIAG_REQ#4:

The solution MUST support the correlation between a Service Function Chain and the actual forwarding path followed by a packet matching that SFC.

DIAG_REQ#5:

The solution MUST allow to diagnose the availability of a segment of a Service Function Chain, i.e., a subset of service functions that belong to the said chain.

DIAG_REQ#6:

The solution MUST be able to analyze the outcomes of the processing of a test packet when presented to a given Service Function for diagnosis purposes.

DIAG_REQ#7:

The solution MUST support the unsolicited notification of signals as a means to notify the PDPs whenever some events occur (for example, a malfunctioning service function instance).

DIAG_REQ#8:

The solution MUST allow for local diagnostic procedures specific to each Service Function.

DIAG_REQ#9:

The solution MUST allow to make use of local diagnostic procedures (e.g., regular checks using built-in diagnostic procedures).

DIAG_REQ#10:

The solution MUST allow for customized service diagnostic. For example, the solution should be able to generate a test packet as per a customer's request who may have observed some service degradation.

6. Scalability Considerations

Designing the SFC solution to accommodate per-subscriber SFCs rather than SFCs on a per group of subscribers basis, should be conditioned by the outcomes of assessing the validity of use cases requiring such per-subscriber SFC feature. Note, instantiating per-subscriber SFCs would mean that millions of SFCs would need be to handled within an SFC-enabled domain!

7. IANA Considerations

Authors of this document do not require any action from IANA.

8. Security Considerations

Below are listed some security-related requirements to be taken into account when designing the Service Function Chaining solution:

SEC_REQ#1:

The solution MUST provide means to prevent any information leaking that would be used as a hint to guess internal engineering practices (e.g., network topology, service infrastructure topology, hints on the enabled mechanisms to protect internal service infrastructures, etc.).

• In particular, topology hiding means MUST be supported to avoid the exposure of the SFC-enabled domain topology (including the set of the service function chains supported within the domain and the corresponding Service Functions that belong to these chains).

SEC_REQ#2:

The solution MUST support means to protect the SFC-enabled domain against any kind of denial-of-service and theft of service (e.g., illegitimate access to the service) attack.

• For example, a user should not be granted access to connectivity services he/she didn't subscribe to (including direct access to some SFs), at the risk of providing illegitimate access to network resources.

SEC_REQ#3:

The solution MUST NOT interfere with IPsec [RFC4301] (in particular IPsec integrity checks).

9. Contributors

   Hongyu Li
   Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd.
   Bantian, Longgang district
   Shenzhen 518129,
   China

   EMail: hongyu.lihongyu@huawei.com

   Jim Guichard
   Cisco Systems, Inc.
   USA

   EMail: jguichar@cisco.com

   Paul Quinn
   Cisco Systems, Inc.
   USA

   Email: paulq@cisco.com

The following individuals contributed text to the document:

10. Acknowledgements

Many thanks to K. Gray, N. Takaya, H. Kitada, and H. Kojima for their comments.

11. References

11.1. Normative References

11.2. Informative References

Authors' Addresses