Internet Engineering Task Force | J. Lemon, Ed. |
Internet-Draft | Broadcom |
Intended status: Standards Track | M. Smith |
Expires: November 1, 2019 | Cisco |
A. Isaac | |
Juniper | |
April 30, 2019 |
Geneve encapsulation for Group Based Policy
draft-lemon-geneve-gbp-03
This document describes how a Group Policy Identifier is encapsulated in Geneve for the purposes of policy enforcement.
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 November 1, 2019.
Copyright (c) 2019 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. 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.
This document defines the group-based policy (GBP) encapsulation for Geneve [I-D.ietf-nvo3-geneve]. The GBP shim header carries a group policy ID that is semantically equivalent to the group policy ID defined in [I-D.smith-vxlan-group-policy].
Group-based policy provides a more scalable alternative to access control lists (ACLs) by allowing separation of source marking and destination enforcement. This allows a decrease in the amount of information needed at each entry node, rather than a cross product of every possible source and every possible destination. It also allows assigning source marking based many different possibilities, not just the source address. It also allows not having to know where the packet will end up since whatever the destination is can enforce the policy specific to the destination service.
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].
Any receiving device may use the group policy information contained in the Group-Based Policy (GBP) shim header. If an intermediate device applies policy based upon the GBP shim header, then it must set the Policy Applied Bit, described below.
Because the group policy information is associated with the payload (rather than the tunnel or other means by which it is conveyed), if an intermediate device terminates the Geneve tunnel and reencapsulates the data in a new tunnel with the ability to convey the group policy information, it SHOULD propagate the group policy information and the Policy Applied bit into the new tunnel, unless there is an explicit policy not to do so. If an intermediate device can propagate only some of the group policy IDs, it SHOULD propagate as many as it can, and it MUST select which ones to propagate by the sequence that the GBP IDs are placed in the Geneve header.
For encapsulating group policy IDs into Geneve [I-D.ietf-nvo3-geneve] the group policy ID field is included in the Geneve header using tunnel options. The Group Policy ID field uses a tunnel option class specific for GBP. In an administrative domain where GBP is used, insertion of the GBP tunnel option in Geneve is enabled at the Geneve tunnel endpoints. The Geneve header is defined in [I-D.ietf-nvo3-geneve]. GBP semantics are described in [I-D.smith-vxlan-group-policy].
The packet format of the GBP ID when encapsulated in Geneve with a narrow Group Policy ID is shown in Figure 1.
0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+--+ |Ver| Opt Len |O|C| Rsvd. | Protocol Type | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ Hdr | Virtual Network Identifier (VNI) | Reserved | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+--+ | Option Class = GBP | Type |R|R|R| Length | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ GBP |A| Rsvd |Ver| Reserved | Group Policy ID | ID +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+<-+
Figure 1: Group Based Policy as a Geneve Option Shim
The GBP shim header consists of 8 octets, as illustrated in Figure 1. The first 4 octets are the Geneve Tunnel Option shim header [I-D.ietf-nvo3-geneve], whose format is as follows:
The next 4 octets are the GBP shim header, whose format is as follows:
A tunnel header MAY carry multiple GBP shim headers where each GBP shim header carries a unique GBP type. There MUST be only one shim header of a specific GBP type per tunneled packet.
IANA is requested to allocate a Geneve "option class" number for GBP:
+---------------+-------------+---------------+ | Option Class | Description | Reference | +---------------+-------------+---------------+ | TBD | GBP_ID | This document | +---------------+-------------+---------------+
IANA is requested to set up a registry of "GBP Type". These are 8-bit values. GBP Type values in the table below are defined in this draft. New values in the range of 0x02 through 0x7F are assigned via Standards Action [RFC5226].
+----------------+--------------------+---------------+ | GBP Type Value | Description | Reference | +----------------+--------------------+---------------+ | 0x00 | GBP_Source_ID | This document | +----------------+--------------------+---------------+ | 0x01 | GBP_Destination_ID | This document | +----------------+--------------------+---------------+ | 0x02 - 0x7F | Unassigned | | +----------------+--------------------+---------------+ | 0x80 - 0xFF | Local assignment | | +----------------+--------------------+---------------+
The security considerations of Geneve are discussed in [I-D.ietf-nvo3-geneve]. The security considerations of GBP are discussed in [I-D.smith-vxlan-group-policy].
Additionally, the security policy value carried in the GBP shim header impacts security directly. There is a risk that this identifier could be altered. Accordingly, the network should be designed such that this header can be inserted only by trusted entities, and can not be altered before reaching the destination. This can be mitigated through physical security of the network and/or by encryption or validation of the entire packet, including the GBP.
[I-D.ietf-nvo3-geneve] | Gross, J., Ganga, I. and T. Sridhar, "Geneve: Generic Network Virtualization Encapsulation", Internet-Draft draft-ietf-nvo3-geneve-13, March 2019. |
[I-D.smith-vxlan-group-policy] | Smith, M. and L. Kreeger, "VXLAN Group Policy Option", Internet-Draft draft-smith-vxlan-group-policy-05, October 2018. |
[RFC2119] | Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997. |
[RFC5226] | Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", RFC 5226, DOI 10.17487/RFC5226, May 2008. |