| Service Function Chaining | J. Napper |
| Internet-Draft | S. Kumar |
| Intended status: Standards Track | Cisco Systems, Inc. |
| Expires: April 29, 2017 | P. Muley |
| W. Hendericks | |
| Nokia | |
| October 26, 2016 |
NSH Context Header Allocation -- Broadband
draft-napper-sfc-nsh-broadband-allocation-01
This document provides a recommended allocation of context headers for a Network Service Header (NSH) within the broadband service provider network context. NSH is described in detail in [ietf-sfc-nsh]. This allocation is intended to support uses cases as defined in [ietf-sfc-use-case-mobility].
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].
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 April 29, 2017.
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.
Service function chaining provides a mechanism for network traffic to be steered through multiple service functions in a sequence. Metadata can be useful to service functions. The Network Service Header (NSH) provides support for carrying shared metadata between service functions (and devices) either using 4 fixed-length 32-bit context headers or as optional TLVs as defined in [ietf-sfc-nsh]. NSH is then encapsulated within an outer header for transport.
This document provides a recommended default allocation scheme for the fixed-length context headers and for TLV types in the context of service chaining within fixed and mobile broadband service provider networks. Supporting use cases describing the need for a metadata header in these contexts are described in [ietf-sfc-use-case-mobility]. This draft does not address control plane mechanisms.
This document uses the terms as defined in [RFC7498] and [RFC7665].
In Service Function Chaining, the Network Service Header is composed of a 4-byte base header (BH1), a 4-byte service path header (SH1) and four mandatory 4-byte context headers (CH1-CH4) in the case of MD Type 0x01 and optional TLVs in the case of MD Type 0x02 as described in [ietf-sfc-nsh].
The following Figure 1 shows the MD Type 0x01 mandatory context headers.
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|O|C|R|R|R|R|R|R| Length | MD Type = 0x01| Next Protocol | BH1 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Service Path ID | Service Index | SH1 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Mandatory Context Header 1 | CH1 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Mandatory Context Header 2 | CH2 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Mandatory Context Header 3 | CH3 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Mandatory Context Header 4 | CH4 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 1: Network Service Header - MD Type 0x01
The following Figure 2 shows the MD Type 0x02 optional TLV header format.
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|O|C|R|R|R|R|R|R| Length | MD Type = 0x02| Next Protocol | BH1 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Service Path ID | Service Index | SH1 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | | ~ Variable Length Context Headers (opt.) ~ | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 2: Network Service Header - MD Type 0x02
The following header allocations provide information to support service function chaining in a mobile service provider network as described in [ietf-sfc-use-case-mobility].
The set of metadata headers can be delivered to service functions that can use the metadata within to enforce policy, communicate between service functions, provide subscriber information and other functionality. Several of the headers are typed allowing for different metadata to be provided to different service functions or even to the same service function but on different packets within a flow. Which metadata are sent to which service functions is decided in the SFC control plane and is thus out of the scope of this document.
The following Figure 3 provides a high-level description of the fields in the recommended allocation of the fixed context headers for a mobility context.
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 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | R | Sub | Tag | Context ID | CH1 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Sub/Endpoint ID ~ CH2 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ ~ Sub/Endpoint ID (cont.) | CH3 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Service Information | CH4 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 3: NSH Context Allocation
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 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | CAN | QoS/DSCP | Con | App Id | Rsvd | CH4 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 4: Service Information RAN Allocation
The intended use for each of the context header allocations is as follows:
The following Figure 5 provides a high-level description of the fields in the recommended allocation of the variable length headers for a mobility context.
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 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | TLV Class = 3GPP |C| Type |R|R|R| Len | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Data ... +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 5: TLV Allocation
The intended use of the header is for TLVs associated with 3GPP Radio Access Networks as described in [TS.29.230]. This TLV can be used by 3GPP to extend the metadata as per use cases. Having this TLV helps to carry more information that does not fit within the MD Type 0x01.
The Len field carries the total length. Type = 0x01 is reserved. If set to 0x01, the TLV carries the 4 context headers as defined in Section 4.1.
This document describes an allocation scheme for both the mandatory context headers and optional TLV headers in the context of broadband service providers. This suggested allocation of headers should be considered as a guideline and may vary depending on the use case. The control plane aspects of specifying and distributing the allocation scheme among different service functions within the Service Function Chaining environment to guarantee consistent semantics for the metadata is beyond the scope of this document.
The header allocation recommended by this document includes numbers that must be distributed consistently across a Service Function Chaining environment. Protocols for distributing these numbers securely are required in the control plane, but are out of scope of this document.
Furthermore, some of the metadata carried in the headers require secure methods to prevent spoofing or modification by service function elements that may themselves be exposed to subscriber traffic and thus might be compromised. This document does not address such security concerns.
This document requests IANA to assign a TLV class for 3GPP to be used for its use cases.
The authors would like to thank Jim Guichard for his assistance structuring the document.
| [RFC2119] | Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997. |