Internet DRAFT - draft-chen-nvo3-gap-analysis
draft-chen-nvo3-gap-analysis
Internet Engineering Task Force X. Chen
Internet-Draft Huawei Technologies
Intended status: Informational T. Tsou
Expires: August 22, 2013 Huawei Technologies (USA)
E. Roch
Huawei Technologies
February 18, 2013
NVO3 Requirements Versus Available Protocol Capabilities
draft-chen-nvo3-gap-analysis-00
Abstract
This document matches candidate protocols against the NVO3
requirements. Based on the results, gaps are identified and further
protocol work is recommended.
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 22, 2013.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2013 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
Chen, et al. Expires August 22, 2013 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft NVO3 Gap Analysis February 2013
described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.1. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.2. Abbreviations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Management Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3. Control Plane Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
4. Data Plane Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
5. Summary and Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
6. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
8. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Chen, et al. Expires August 22, 2013 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft NVO3 Gap Analysis February 2013
1. Introduction
The charter of the NVO3 Working Group requires it to identify any
gaps between the requirements it has identified and the available
protocol solutions as a prerequisite to rechartering or concluding
the Working Group if no gaps exist. The present document is intended
to provide the required analysis. It provides a tabulation of the
candidate protocols' ability to satisfy each requirement identified
by the Working Group. Areas where further work is required to ensure
that the requirements are met are identified.
Since the Working Group has yet to adopt documents describing
requirements for the management and control planes, they are absent
from the present version of this document. The data plane
requirements are taken from [I_D.dataplane_requirements]. The
initial candidate protocols are NVGRE [I_D.NVGRE], VxLAN [I_D.VxLAN],
L2VPN [reference?], and L3VPN [reference?].
1.1. 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].
1.2. Abbreviations
This document uses the following abbreviations:
NVO3: Network virtualization overlays
L2VPN Layer 2 virtual private network
L3VPN Layer 3 virtual private network
NVE: Network virtualization edge
VAP: Virtual access point
VNI: Virtual network instance
LAG: Link aggregation group
ECMP: Equal cost multi-path
DSCP: Differentiated services code point
Chen, et al. Expires August 22, 2013 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft NVO3 Gap Analysis February 2013
ECN: Explicit congestion notification [RFC3168]
2. Management Requirements
To come.
3. Control Plane Requirements
To come.
4. Data Plane Requirements
In this section, the numbering of requirement headings is taken from
the corresponding section numbers in [I_D.dataplane_requirements].
3.1. Virtual Access Points (VAPs)
+-------------------------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| Requirement | NVGRE | VxLAN | L2VPN | L3VPN |
+-------------------------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| MUST support VAP | | | | |
| identification | | | | |
| - | - | - | - | - |
| 1) Local interface | YES | | | |
| - | - | - | - | - |
| 2) Local interface + fields | YES | | | |
| in frame header | | | | |
+-------------------------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
Table 1: VAP Identification Requirements
3.2. Virtual Network Instance (VNI)
+-------------------------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| Requirement | NVGRE | VxLAN | L2VPN | L3VPN |
+-------------------------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| VAP are associated with a | YES | | | |
| specific VNI at service | | | | |
| instantiation time. | | | | |
+-------------------------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
Table 2: VAP-VNI Association
3.2.1. L2 VNI
Chen, et al. Expires August 22, 2013 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft NVO3 Gap Analysis February 2013
+-------------------------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| Requirement | NVGRE | VxLAN | L2VPN | L3VPN |
+-------------------------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| L2 VNI MUST provide an | NO | | | |
| emulated Ethernet multipoint | | | | |
| service as if Tenant Systems | | | | |
| are interconnected by a | | | | |
| bridge (but instead by using | | | | |
| a set of NVO3 tunnels). | | | | |
| - | - | - | - | - |
| Loop avoidance capability | | | | |
| MUST be provided. | | | | |
| - | - | - | - | - |
| In the absence of a | | | | |
| management or control plane, | | | | |
| data plane learning MUST be | | | | |
| used to populate forwarding | | | | |
| tables. | | | | |
| - | - | - | - | - |
| When flooding is required, | | | | |
| either to deliver unknown | | | | |
| unicast, or broadcast or | | | | |
| multicast traffic, the NVE | | | | |
| MUST either support ingress | | | | |
| replication or multicast. | | | | |
| - | - | - | - | - |
| In this latter case, the NVE | | | | |
| MUST be able to build at | | | | |
| least a default flooding tree | | | | |
| per VNI. | | | | |
+-------------------------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
Table 3: L2 VNI Service
3.2.2. L3 VNI
+-------------------------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| Requirement | NVGRE | VxLAN | L2VPN | L3VPN |
+-------------------------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| L3 VNIs MUST provide | YES | | | |
| virtualized IP routing and | | | | |
| forwarding. | | | | |
| - | - | - | - | - |
Chen, et al. Expires August 22, 2013 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft NVO3 Gap Analysis February 2013
| L3 VNIs MUST support | YES | | | |
| per-tenant forwarding | | | | |
| instance with IP addressing | | | | |
| isolation and L3 tunneling | | | | |
| for interconnecting instances | | | | |
| of the same VNI on NVEs. | | | | |
+-------------------------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
Table 4: L3 VNI Service
3.3.1. NVO3 overlay header
+-------------------------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| Requirement | NVGRE | VxLAN | L2VPN | L3VPN |
+-------------------------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| An NVO3 overlay header MUST | YES | | | |
| be included after the | | | | |
| underlay tunnel header when | | | | |
| forwarding tenant traffic. | | | | |
+-------------------------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
Table 5: Overlay Header
3.3.1.1. Virtual Network Context Identification
+-------------------------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| Requirement | NVGRE | VxLAN | L2VPN | L3VPN |
+-------------------------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| The overlay encapsulation | YES | | | |
| header MUST contain a field | | | | |
| which allows the encapsulated | | | | |
| frame to be delivered to the | | | | |
| appropriate virtual network | | | | |
| endpoint by the egress NVE. | | | | |
+-------------------------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
Table 6: Virtual Network Context Identification
3.3.1.2. Service QoS identifier
Chen, et al. Expires August 22, 2013 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft NVO3 Gap Analysis February 2013
+-------------------------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| Requirement | NVGRE | VxLAN | L2VPN | L3VPN |
+-------------------------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| Traffic flows originating | NO | | | |
| from different applications | | | | |
| could rely on differentiated | | | | |
| forwarding treatment to meet | | | | |
| end-to-end availability and | | | | |
| performance objectives. | | | | |
+-------------------------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
Table 7: QoS Service Identification
3.3.2.1. LAG and ECMP
+-------------------------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| Requirement | NVGRE | VxLAN | L2VPN | L3VPN |
+-------------------------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| For performance reasons, | YES | | | |
| multipath over LAG and ECMP | | | | |
| paths SHOULD be supported. | | | | |
+-------------------------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
Table 8: Multipath Support
3.3.2.2. DiffServ and ECN marking
+-------------------------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| Requirement | NVGRE | VxLAN | L2VPN | L3VPN |
+-------------------------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| [RFC2983] defines two modes | NO | | | |
| for mapping the DSCP markings | | | | |
| from inner to outer headers | | | | |
| and vice versa. Both models | | | | |
| SHOULD be supported. | | | | |
| - | - | - | - | - |
| ECN marking MUST be performed | NO | | | |
| according to [RFC6040] which | | | | |
| describes the correct ECN | | | | |
| behavior for IP tunnels. | | | | |
+-------------------------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
Table 9: DSCP and ECN Marking
3.3.2.3. Handling of broadcast, unknown unicast, and multicast
traffic
Chen, et al. Expires August 22, 2013 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft NVO3 Gap Analysis February 2013
+-------------------------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| Requirement | NVGRE | VxLAN | L2VPN | L3VPN |
+-------------------------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| NVO3 data plane support for | YES | | | |
| either ingress replication or | | | | |
| point-to- multipoint tunnels | | | | |
| is required to send traffic | | | | |
| destined to multiple | | | | |
| locations on a per-VNI basis | | | | |
| (e.g. L2/L3 multicast | | | | |
| traffic, L2 broadcast and | | | | |
| unknown unicast traffic). | | | | |
+-------------------------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
Table 10: Handling of Broadcast, Unknown Unicast, and Multicast
Traffic
3.4. External NVO3 connectivity
+-------------------------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| Requirement | NVGRE | VxLAN | L2VPN | L3VPN |
+-------------------------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| NVO3 services MUST | YES | | | |
| interoperate with current VPN | | | | |
| and Internet services. This | | | | |
| may happen inside one DC | | | | |
| during a migration phase or | | | | |
| as NVO3 services are | | | | |
| delivered to the outside | | | | |
| world via Internet or VPN | | | | |
| gateways. | | | | |
+-------------------------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
Table 11: Interoperation
3.5. Path MTU
+-------------------------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| Requirement | NVGRE | VxLAN | L2VPN | L3VPN |
+-------------------------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| Classical ICMP-based MTU Path | NO | | | |
| Discovery ([RFC1191], | | | | |
| [RFC1981]) or Extended MTU | | | | |
| Path Discovery techniques | | | | |
| such as defined in [RFC4821]. | | | | |
| - | - | - | - | - |
Chen, et al. Expires August 22, 2013 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft NVO3 Gap Analysis February 2013
| Segmentation and reassembly | YES | | | |
| support from the overlay | | | | |
| layer operations without | | | | |
| relying on the Tenant Systems | | | | |
| to know about the end-to-end | | | | |
| MTU. | | | | |
+-------------------------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
Table 12: Path MTU
3.7. NVE Multi-Homing Requirements
+-------------------------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| Requirement | NVGRE | VxLAN | L2VPN | L3VPN |
+-------------------------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| Multi-homing techniques | NO | | | |
| SHOULD be used to increase | | | | |
| the reliability of an NVO3 | | | | |
| network. | | | | |
+-------------------------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
Table 13: Multihoming
3.8. OAM
+-------------------------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| Requirement | NVGRE | VxLAN | L2VPN | L3VPN |
+-------------------------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| NVE MAY be able to | NO | | | |
| originate/terminate OAM | | | | |
| messages for connectivity | | | | |
| verification, performance | | | | |
| monitoring, statistic | | | | |
| gathering and fault | | | | |
| isolation. Depending on | | | | |
| configuration, NVEs SHOULD be | | | | |
| able to process or | | | | |
| transparently tunnel OAM | | | | |
| messages, as well as | | | | |
| supporting alarm propagation | | | | |
| capabilities. | | | | |
+-------------------------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
Table 14: OAM Messaging
Chen, et al. Expires August 22, 2013 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft NVO3 Gap Analysis February 2013
5. Summary and Conclusions
To come.
6. Acknowledgements
Peter Ashwood-Smith and Rangaraju Iyengar are acknowledged for their
technical contributions to this document. Tom Taylor served as
XML2RFC guru to produce it.
7. IANA Considerations
This memo includes no request to IANA.
8. Security Considerations
All drafts are required to have a security considerations section.
9. References
9.1. Normative References
[I_D.NVGRE]
Sridharan, M., Greenberg, A., Venkataramiah, N., Wang, Y.,
Duda, K., Ganga, I., Lin, G., Pearson, M., Thaler, P., and
C. Tumuluri, "NVGRE: Network Virtualization using Generic
Routing Encapsulation (Work in progress)", July 2012.
[I_D.VxLAN]
Mahalingam, M., Dutt, D., Duda, K., Agarwal, P., Kreeger,
L., Sridhar, T., Bursell, M., and C. Wright, "VXLAN: A
Framework for Overlaying Virtualized Layer 2 Networks over
Layer 3 Networks (Work in progress)", August 2012.
[I_D.dataplane_requirements]
Bitar, N., Lasserre, M., Balus, F., Morin, T., Jin, L.,
and B. Khasnabish, "NVO3 Data Plane Requirements (Work in
progress)", December 2012.
[RFC1191] Mogul, J. and S. Deering, "Path MTU discovery", RFC 1191,
November 1990.
[RFC1981] McCann, J., Deering, S., and J. Mogul, "Path MTU Discovery
for IP version 6", RFC 1981, August 1996.
Chen, et al. Expires August 22, 2013 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft NVO3 Gap Analysis February 2013
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[RFC2983] Black, D., "Differentiated Services and Tunnels",
RFC 2983, October 2000.
[RFC4821] Mathis, M. and J. Heffner, "Packetization Layer Path MTU
Discovery", RFC 4821, March 2007.
[RFC6040] Briscoe, B., "Tunnelling of Explicit Congestion
Notification", RFC 6040, November 2010.
9.2. Informative References
[RFC3168] Ramakrishnan, K., Floyd, S., and D. Black, "The Addition
of Explicit Congestion Notification (ECN) to IP",
RFC 3168, September 2001.
Authors' Addresses
Xiaoming Chen
Huawei Technologies
Phone:
Email: ming.chen@huawei.com
Tina Tsou
Huawei Technologies (USA)
2330 Central Expressway
Santa Clara, CA 95050
USA
Phone: +1 408 330 4424
Email: Tina.Tsou.Zouting@huawei.com
URI: http://tinatsou.weebly.com/contact.html
Chen, et al. Expires August 22, 2013 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft NVO3 Gap Analysis February 2013
Evelyne Roch
Huawei Technologies
303 Terry Fox Drive, Suite 400
Kanata, Ontario K2K 3J1
Canada
Phone: +1 613 595 1900 x1612
Email: evelyne.roch@huawei.com
Chen, et al. Expires August 22, 2013 [Page 12]
