Internet DRAFT - draft-carpenter-flow-label-balancing
draft-carpenter-flow-label-balancing
Network Working Group B. Carpenter
Internet-Draft Univ. of Auckland
Intended status: Informational S. Jiang
Expires: June 8, 2013 Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd
W. Tarreau
Exceliance
December 5, 2012
Using the IPv6 Flow Label for Server Load Balancing
draft-carpenter-flow-label-balancing-02
Abstract
This document describes how the IPv6 flow label as currently
specified can be used to enhance layer 3/4 load distribution and
balancing for large server farms.
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 June 8, 2013.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2012 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
Carpenter, et al. Expires June 8, 2013 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft Flow Label Load Balancers December 2012
described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Summary of Flow Label Specification . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. Summary of Load Balancing Techniques . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
4. Applying the Flow Label to L3/L4 Load Balancing . . . . . . . 7
5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
7. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
8. Change log [RFC Editor: Please remove] . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Carpenter, et al. Expires June 8, 2013 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft Flow Label Load Balancers December 2012
1. Introduction
The IPv6 flow label has been redefined [RFC6437] and is now a
recommended IPv6 node requirement [RFC6434]. Its use for load
sharing in multipath routing has been specified [RFC6438]. Another
scenario in which the flow label could be used is in load
distribution for large server farms. Load distribution is a slightly
more general term than load balancing, but the latter is more
commonly used. This document starts with brief introductions to the
flow label and to load balancing techniques, and then describes how
the flow label can be used to enhance layer 3/4 load balancers in
particular.
The motivation for this approach is to improve the performance of
most types of layer 3/4 load balancers, especially for traffic
including multiple IPv6 extension headers and in particular for
fragmented packets. Fragmented packets, often the result of
customers reaching the load balancer via a VPN with a limited MTU,
are a common performance problem.
2. Summary of Flow Label Specification
The IPv6 flow label is a 20 bit field included in every IPv6 header
[RFC2460]. It is recommended to be supported in all IPv6 nodes by
[RFC6434] and it is defined in [RFC6437]. There is additional
background material in [RFC6436] and [RFC6294]. According to its
definition, the flow label should be set to a constant value for a
given traffic flow (such as an HTTP connection), and that value will
belong to a uniform statistical distribution, making it potentially
valuable for load balancing purposes.
Any device that has access to the IPv6 header has access to the flow
label, and it is at a fixed position in every IPv6 packet. In
contrast, transport layer information, such as the port numbers, is
not always in a fixed position, since it follows any IPv6 extension
headers that may be present. In fact, the logic of finding the
transport header is always more complex for IPv6 than for IPv4, due
to the absence of an Internet Header Length field in IPv6.
Additionally, if packets are fragmented, the flow label will be
present in all fragments, but the transport header will only be in
one packet. Therefore, within the lifetime of a given transport
layer connection, the flow label can be a more convenient "handle"
than the port number for identifying that particular connection.
According to RFC 6437, source hosts should set the flow label, but if
they do not (i.e. its value is zero), forwarding nodes (such as the
first-hop router) may set it instead. In both cases, the flow label
Carpenter, et al. Expires June 8, 2013 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft Flow Label Load Balancers December 2012
value must be constant for a given transport session, normally
identified by the IPv6 and Transport header 5-tuple. By default, the
flow label value should be calculated by a stateless algorithm. The
resulting value should form part of a statistically uniform
distribution, regardless of which node sets it.
It is recognised that at the time of writing, very few traffic flows
include a non-zero flow label value. The mechanism described below
is one that can be added to existing load balancing mechanisms, so
that it will become effective as more and more flows contain a non-
zero label. If the flow label is in fact set to zero, it will not
affect the information entropy of the IPv6 header. Even if the flow
label is chosen from an imperfectly uniform distribution, it will
nevertheless increase the header entropy. These facts allow for
progressive introduction of load balancing based on the flow label.
A careful reading of RFC 6437 shows that for a given source accessing
a well-known TCP port at a given destination, the flow label is in
effect a substitute for the source port number, found at a fixed
position in the layer 3 header.
The flow label is defined as an end-to-end component of the IPv6
header, but there are three qualifications to this:
1. Until the RFC 6437 standard is widely implemented as recommended
by RFC 6434, the flow label will often be set to the default
value of zero.
2. Because of the recommendation to use a stateless algorithm to
calculate the label, there is a low (but non-zero) probability
that two simultaneous flows from the same source to the same
destination have the same flow label value despite having
different transport protocol port numbers.
3. The flow label field is in an unprotected part of the IPv6
header, which means that intentional or unintentional changes to
its value cannot be trivially detected by a receiver.
The first two points are addressed below in Section 4 and the third
in Section 5.
3. Summary of Load Balancing Techniques
Load balancing for server farms is achieved by a variety of methods,
often used in combination [Tarreau]. The flow label is not relevant
to all of them, and the actual load balancing algorithm (the choice
of which server to use for a new client session) is irrelevant to
this discussion.
Carpenter, et al. Expires June 8, 2013 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft Flow Label Load Balancers December 2012
o The simplest method is simply using the DNS to return different
server addresses for a single name such as www.example.com to
different users. Typically this is done by rotating the order in
which different addresses are listed by the relevant authoritative
DNS server, assuming that the client will pick the first one.
Routing may be configured such that the different addresses are
handled by different ingress routers. The flow label can have no
impact on this method and it is not discussed further.
o Another method, for HTTP servers, is to operate a layer 7 reverse
proxy in front of the server farm. The reverse proxy will present
a single IP address to the world, communicated to clients by a
single AAAA record. For each new client session (an incoming TCP
connection and HTTP request), it will pick a particular server and
proxy the session to it. Hopefully the act of proxying will be
cheap compared to the act of serving the required content. The
proxy must retain TCP state and proxy state for the duration of
the session. This TCP state could, potentially, include the
incoming flow label value.
o A component of some load balancing systems is an SSL reverse proxy
farm. The individual SSL proxies handle all cryptographic aspects
and exchange raw HTTP with the actual servers. Thus, from the
load balancing point of view, this really looks just like a server
farm, except that it's specialised for HTTPS. Each proxy will
retain SSL and TCP and maybe HTTP state for the duration of the
session, and the TCP state could potentially include the flow
label.
o Finally the "front end" of many load balancing systems is a layer
3/4 load balancer. While it can sometimes be a dedicated
hardware, it also happens to be a standard function of some
network switches or routers (eg: using ECMP, [RFC2991]). In this
case, it is the layer 3/4 load balancer whose IP address is
published as the primary AAAA record for the service. All client
sessions will pass through this device. According to the precise
scenario, it will spread new sessions across the actual
application servers, across an SSL proxy farm, or across a set of
layer 7 proxies. In all cases, the layer 3/4 load balancer has to
recognize incoming packets as belonging to new or existing client
sessions, and choose the target server or proxy so as to ensure
persistence. 'Persistence' is defined as guaranteeing that a
given session will run to completion on a single server. The
layer 3/4 load balancer therefore needs to inspect each incoming
packet to identify the session. There are two common types of
layer 3/4 load balancers, the totally stateless ones which only
act on packets, generally involving a per-packet hashing of easy-
to-find information such as the source address and/or port into a
server number, and the stateful ones which take the routing
decision on the very first packets of a session and maintain the
same direction for all packets belonging to the same session.
Carpenter, et al. Expires June 8, 2013 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft Flow Label Load Balancers December 2012
Clearly, both types of layer 3/4 balancers could inspect and make
use of the flow label value.
Our focus is on how the balancer identifies a particular flow.
For clarity, note that two aspects of layer 3/4 load balancers
could not be affected by use of the flow label to identify
sessions:
1. Balancers use various techniques to redirect traffic to a
specific target server.
- All servers are configured with the same IP address, they
are all on the same LAN, and the load balancer sends directly
to their individual MAC addresses.
- Each server has its own IP address, and the balancer uses an
IP-in-IP tunnel to reach it.
- Each server has its own IP address, and the balancer
performs NAPT (network address and port translation) to
deliver the client's packets to that address.
The choice between these methods is not affected by use of the
flow label.
2. A layer 3/4 balancer must correctly handle Path MTU Discovery
by forwarding relevant ICMPv6 packets in both directions.
This too is not affected by use of the flow label.
The following diagram, inspired by [Tarreau], shows a maximum layout.
Carpenter, et al. Expires June 8, 2013 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft Flow Label Load Balancers December 2012
___________________________________________
( )
( Clients in the Internet )
(___________________________________________)
| |
------------ ------------
| Ingress | | Ingress |
| router | | router |
------------ ------------
___|_______DNS-based____________|___
| load splitting |
| |
| |
------------ ------------
| L3/4 ASIC| | L3/4 ASIC|
| balancer | | balancer |
------------ ------------
| load |
| spreading |
__________|________________________|___________
| | | |
------------ ------------ -------- --------
|HTTP proxy|...|HTTP proxy| | SSL |...| SSL |
| balancer | | balancer | | proxy| | proxy|
------------ ------------ -------- --------
____|_____________|_____________|_________|_____
| | | | |
-------- -------- -------- -------- --------
|HTTP | |HTTP | |HTTP | |HTTP | |HTTP |
|server| |server| |server| |server| |server|
-------- -------- -------- -------- --------
From the previous paragraphs, we can identify several points in this
diagram where the flow label might be relevant:
1. Layer 3/4 load balancers.
2. SSL proxies.
3. HTTP proxies.
However, usage by the proxies seems unlikely to be cost-effective, so
in this document we focus only on layer 3/4 balancers.
4. Applying the Flow Label to L3/L4 Load Balancing
The suggested model for using the flow label in a load balancing
mechanism is as follows:
Carpenter, et al. Expires June 8, 2013 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft Flow Label Load Balancers December 2012
o We are only concerned with IPv6 traffic in which the flow label
value has been set at or near the source according to [RFC6437].
If the flow label of an incoming packet is zero, load balancers
will continue to use the transport header in the traditional way.
As the use of the flow label becomes more prevalent according to
RFC 6434, load balancers, and therefore users, will reap a growing
performance benefit.
o If the flow label of an incoming packet is non-zero, layer 3/4
load balancers can use the 2-tuple {source address, flow label} as
the session key for whatever load distribution algorithm they
support. If any IPv6 extension headers, including fragment
headers, are present, this will be significantly quicker than
searching for the transport port numbers later in the packet.
Moreover, the transport layer information such as the source port
is not repeated in fragments, which generally prevents stateless
load balancers from supporting fragmented traffic since they
generally cannot reassemble fragments.
A stateless layer 3/4 load balancer would simply apply a hash
algorithm to the 2-tuple {source address, flow label} on all
packets, in order to select the same target server consistently
for a given flow.
A stateful layer 3/4 load balancer would apply its usual load
distribution algorithm to the first packet of a session, and store
the {2-tuple, server} association in a table so that subsequent
packets belonging to the same session are forwarded to the same
server. Thus, for all subsequent packets of the session, it can
ignore all IPv6 extension headers, which should lead to a
performance benefit. Whether this benefit is valuable will depend
on engineering details of the specific load balancer.
Layer 3/4 balancers that redirect the incoming packets by NAPT are
not expected to obtain any saving of time by using the flow label,
because they must in any case follow the extension header chain in
order to locate and modify the port number and transport checksum.
The same would apply to balancers that perform TCP state tracking
for any reason.
o Note that correct handling of ICMPv6 for Path MTU Discovery
requires the layer 3/4 balancer to keep state for the client
source address, independently of either the port numbers or the
flow label.
o SSL and HTTP proxies, if present, should forward the flow label
value towards the server. This has no performance benefit, but is
consistent with the general RFC 6437 model for the flow label.
It should be noted that the performance benefit, if any, depends
entirely on engineering trade-offs in the design of the L3/L4
Carpenter, et al. Expires June 8, 2013 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft Flow Label Load Balancers December 2012
balancer. An extra test is needed (is the label non-zero?), but all
logic for handling extension headers can be omitted except for the
first packet of a new flow. Since the only state to be stored is the
2-tuple and the server identifier, storage requirements will be
reduced. Additionally, the method will work for fragmented traffic
and for flows where the transport information is missing (unknown
transport protocol) or obfuscated (e.g., IPsec). Traffic reaching
the load balancer via a VPN is particularly prone to the
fragmentation issue, due to MTU size issues. For some load balancer
designs, these are very significant advantages.
In the unlikely event of two simultaneous flows from the same source
address having the same flow label value, the two flows would end up
assigned to the same server, where they would be distinguished as
normal by their port numbers. Since this would be a statistically
rare event, it would not damage the overall load balancing effect.
Moreover, it is very likely that there will be many more flow label
values than servers at most sites (1 million possible label values),
so it is already expected that multiple flow label values will end up
on the same server for a given IP address.
In the case that many thousands of clients are hidden behind the same
large-scale NAPT (network address and port translator) with a single
shared IP address, the assumption of low probability of conflicts
might become incorrect, unless flow label values are random enough to
avoid following similar sequences for all clients. This is not
expected to be a factor for IPv6 anyway, since there is no need to
implement large-scale NAPT with address sharing [RFC4864]. The
statistical assumption is valid for sites that implement network
prefix translation [RFC6296], since this technique provides a
different address for each client.
5. Security Considerations
Security aspects of the flow label are discussed in [RFC6437]. As
noted there, a malicious source or man-in-the-middle could disturb
load balancing by manipulating flow labels. This risk already exists
today where the source address and port are used as hashing key in
layer 3/4 load balancers, as well as where a persistence cookie is
used in HTTP to designate a server. It even exists on layer 3
components which only rely on the source address to select a
destination, making them more DDoS-prone. Nevertheless, all these
methods are currently used because the benefits for load balancing
and persistence hugely outweigh the risks. The flow label does not
significantly alter this situation.
Specifically, the specification [RFC6437] states that "stateless
Carpenter, et al. Expires June 8, 2013 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft Flow Label Load Balancers December 2012
classifiers should not use the flow label alone to control load
distribution, and stateful classifiers should include explicit
methods to detect and ignore suspect flow label values." The former
point is answered by also using the source address. The latter point
is more complex. If the risk is considered serious, the site ingress
router or the layer 3/4 balancer should use a suitable heuristic to
verify incoming flows with non-zero flow label values. If a flow
from a given source address and port number does not have a constant
flow label value, it is suspect and should be dropped. This would
deal with both intentional and accidental changes to the flow label.
RFC 6437 notes in its Security Considerations that if the covert
channel risk is considered significant, a firewall might rewrite non-
zero flow labels. As long as this is done as described in RFC 6437,
it will not invalidate the mechanisms described above.
The flow label may be of use in protecting against distributed denial
of service (DDOS) attacks against servers. As noted in RFC 6437, a
source should generate flow label values that are hard to predict,
most likely by including a secret nonce in the hash used to generate
each label. The attacker does not know the nonce and therefore has
no way to invent flow labels which will all target the same server,
even with knowledge of both the hash algorithm and the load balancing
algorithm. Still, it is important to understand that it is always
trivial to force a load balancer to stick to the same server during
an attack, so the security of the whole solution must not rely on the
unpredicatability of the flow label values alone, but should include
defensive measures like most load balancers already have against
abnormal use of source address or session cookies.
New flows are assigned to a server according to any of the usual
algorithms available on the load balancer (e.g., least connections,
round robin, etc.). The association between the flow label value and
the server is stored in a table (often called stick table) so that
future connections using the same flow label can be sent to the same
server. This method is more robust against a loss of server and also
makes it harder for an attacker to target a specific server, because
the association between a flow label value and a server is not known
externally.
6. IANA Considerations
This document requests no action by IANA.
Carpenter, et al. Expires June 8, 2013 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft Flow Label Load Balancers December 2012
7. Acknowledgements
Valuable comments and contributions were made by Fred Baker, Lorenzo
Colitti, Joel Jaeggli, Gurudeep Kamat, Julia Renouard, Julius Volz,
and others.
This document was produced using the xml2rfc tool [RFC2629].
8. Change log [RFC Editor: Please remove]
draft-carpenter-flow-label-balancing-02: updates based on external
review, 2012-12-05.
draft-carpenter-flow-label-balancing-01: update following comments,
2012-06-12.
draft-carpenter-flow-label-balancing-00: restructured after IETF83,
2012-05-08.
draft-carpenter-v6ops-label-balance-02: clarified after WG
discussions, 2012-03-06.
draft-carpenter-v6ops-label-balance-01: updated with community
comments, additional author, 2012-01-17.
draft-carpenter-v6ops-label-balance-00: original version, 2011-10-13.
9. References
9.1. Normative References
[RFC2460] Deering, S. and R. Hinden, "Internet Protocol, Version 6
(IPv6) Specification", RFC 2460, December 1998.
[RFC6434] Jankiewicz, E., Loughney, J., and T. Narten, "IPv6 Node
Requirements", RFC 6434, December 2011.
[RFC6437] Amante, S., Carpenter, B., Jiang, S., and J. Rajahalme,
"IPv6 Flow Label Specification", RFC 6437, November 2011.
9.2. Informative References
[RFC2629] Rose, M., "Writing I-Ds and RFCs using XML", RFC 2629,
June 1999.
[RFC2991] Thaler, D. and C. Hopps, "Multipath Issues in Unicast and
Carpenter, et al. Expires June 8, 2013 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft Flow Label Load Balancers December 2012
Multicast Next-Hop Selection", RFC 2991, November 2000.
[RFC4864] Van de Velde, G., Hain, T., Droms, R., Carpenter, B., and
E. Klein, "Local Network Protection for IPv6", RFC 4864,
May 2007.
[RFC6294] Hu, Q. and B. Carpenter, "Survey of Proposed Use Cases for
the IPv6 Flow Label", RFC 6294, June 2011.
[RFC6296] Wasserman, M. and F. Baker, "IPv6-to-IPv6 Network Prefix
Translation", RFC 6296, June 2011.
[RFC6436] Amante, S., Carpenter, B., and S. Jiang, "Rationale for
Update to the IPv6 Flow Label Specification", RFC 6436,
November 2011.
[RFC6438] Carpenter, B. and S. Amante, "Using the IPv6 Flow Label
for Equal Cost Multipath Routing and Link Aggregation in
Tunnels", RFC 6438, November 2011.
[Tarreau] Tarreau, W., "Making applications scalable with load
balancing", 2006, <http://1wt.eu/articles/2006_lb/>.
Authors' Addresses
Brian Carpenter
Department of Computer Science
University of Auckland
PB 92019
Auckland, 1142
New Zealand
Email: brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com
Sheng Jiang
Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd
Q14, Huawei Campus
No.156 Beiqing Road
Hai-Dian District, Beijing 100095
P.R. China
Email: jiangsheng@huawei.com
Carpenter, et al. Expires June 8, 2013 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft Flow Label Load Balancers December 2012
Willy Tarreau
Exceliance
R&D Produits reseau
3 rue du petit Robinson
78350 Jouy-en-Josas
France
Email: w@1wt.eu
Carpenter, et al. Expires June 8, 2013 [Page 13]
