Internet DRAFT - draft-dunbar-lsr-5g-edge-compute-ospf-ext
draft-dunbar-lsr-5g-edge-compute-ospf-ext
Network Working Group L. Dunbar
Internet Draft H. Chen
Intended status: Standard Futurewei
Expires: September 10, 2021 Aijun Wang
China Telecom
March 10, 2021
OSPF extension for 5G Edge Computing Service
draft-dunbar-lsr-5g-edge-compute-ospf-ext-04
Abstract
This draft describes an OSPF extension for routers to
advertise the running status and environment of the
directly attached 5G Edge Computing servers. The
AppMetaData can be used by the routers in the 5G Local Data
Network to make intelligent decisions to optimize the
forwarding of flows from UEs. The goal is to improve
latency and performance for 5G Edge Computing services.
Status of this Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with
the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with
the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. This document may not
be modified, and derivative works of it may not be created,
except to publish it as an RFC and to translate it into
languages other than English.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet
Engineering Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working
groups. Note that other groups may also distribute working
documents as Internet-Drafts.
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."
The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt
xxx, et al. Expires September 10, 2021 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft OSPF Extension for 5G EC Service
The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be
accessed at http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html
This Internet-Draft will expire on April 7, 2021.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2021 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........................................... 3
1.1. 5G Edge Computing Background...................... 3
1.2. Problem#1: ANYCAST in 5G EC Environment........... 4
1.3. Problem #2: Unbalanced Anycast Distribution due to
UE Mobility............................................ 5
1.4. Problem 3: Application Server Relocation.......... 5
2. Conventions used in this document...................... 5
3. Solution Overview...................................... 7
3.1. Flow Affinity to an ANYCAST server................ 8
3.2. IP Layer Metrics to Gauge App Server Running Status
....................................................... 8
3.3. To Equalize traffic among Multiple ANYCAST
Locations.............................................. 9
3.4. Reason for using IGP Based Solution.............. 10
4. Aggregated Cost Computed by Egress routers............ 11
4.1. OSPFv3 LSA to carry the Aggregated Cost.......... 11
4.2. OSPFv2 LSA to carry the Aggregated Cost.......... 11
5. IP Layer App-Metrics Advertisements................... 11
5.1. OSPFv3 Extension to carry the App-Metrics........ 12
Dunbar, et al. Expires September 10, 2021 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft OSPF Extension for 5G EC Service
5.2. OSPFv2 Extension to advertise the IP Layer App-
Metrics............................................... 13
5.3. IP Layer App-Metrics Sub-TLVs.................... 14
6. Soft Anchoring of an ANYCAST Flow.... Error! Bookmark not
defined.
7. Manageability Considerations.......................... 16
8. Security Considerations............................... 16
9. IANA Considerations................................... 16
10. References........................................... 16
10.1. Normative References............................ 17
10.2. Informative References.......................... 17
11. Acknowledgments...................................... 18
1. Introduction
This document describes an OSPF extension to distribute the
5G Edge Computing App running status and environment so
that other routers in the 5G Local Data Network (LDN) can
make intelligent decisions to optimize the forwarding of
flows from UEs. The goal is to improve latency and
performance for 5G Edge Computing services.
1.1. 5G Edge Computing Background
As described in [3GPP-EdgeComputing], it is desirable for a
mission critical Application to have multiple Application
Servers hosted in multiple Edge Computing data centers to
minimize the latency and to optimize the user experience.
Those Edge Computing data centers are usually very close to
or co-located with 5G base stations.
When a UE (User Equipment) initiates application packets
using the destination address from a DNS reply or its
cache, the packets from the UE are carried in a PDU session
through 5G Core [5GC] to the 5G UPF-PSA (User Plan Function
- PDU Session Anchor). The UPF-PSA decapsulates the 5G GTP
outer header and forwards the packets from the UEs to the
Ingress router of the Edge Computing (EC) Local Data
Network (LDN) which is responsible for forwarding the
packets to the intended destinations.
When the UE moves out of coverage of its current gNB (next-
generation Node B) (gNB1), the handover procedure is
initiated which includes the 5G SMF (Session Management
Dunbar, et al. Expires September 10, 2021 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft OSPF Extension for 5G EC Service
Function) selecting a new UPF-PSA [3GPP TS 23.501 and TS
23.502]. When the handover process is complete, the UE has
a new IP address and the IP point of attachment is to the
new UPF-PSA. 5GC may maintain a path from the old UPF to
new the UPF for a short time for SSC [Session and Service
Continuity] mode 3 to make the handover process more
seamless.
+--+
|UE|---\+---------+ +------------------+
+--+ | 5G | +---------+ | S1: aa08::4450 |
+--+ | Site +--++---+ +----+ |
|UE|----| A |PSA| Ra| | R1 | S2: aa08::4460 |
+--+ | +---+---+ +----+ |
+---+ | | | | | S3: aa08::4470 |
|UE1|---/+---------+ | | +------------------+
+---+ |IP Network | L-DN1
|(3GPP N6) |
| | | +------------------+
| UE1 | | | S1: aa08::4450 |
| moves to | +----+ |
| Site B | | R3 | S2: aa08::4460 |
v | +----+ |
| | | S3: aa08::4470 |
| | +------------------+
| | L-DN3
+--+ | |
|UE|---\+---------+ | | +------------------+
+--+ | 5G | | | | S1: aa08::4450 |
+--+ | Site +--++-+--+ +----+ |
|UE|----| B |PSA| Rb | | R2 | S2: aa08::4460 |
+--+ | +--++----+ +----+ |
+--+ | | +-----------+ | S3: aa08::4470 |
|UE|---/+---------+ +------------------+
+--+ L-DN2
Figure 1: App Servers in different edge DCs
1.2. Problem#1: ANYCAST in 5G EC Environment
Increasingly, ANYCAST is used extensively by various
application providers and CDNs because ANYCAST makes it
possible to dynamically load balance across server
locations based on network conditions. With multiple
Dunbar, et al. Expires September 10, 2021 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft OSPF Extension for 5G EC Service
servers having the same ANYCAST address, it eliminates the
single point of failure and bottleneck at the application
layer load balancers. Another benefit of using ANYCAST
address is removing the dependency on how UEs get the IP
addresses for their Applications. Some UEs (or clients)
might use stale cached IP addresses for an extended period.
But, having multiple locations of the same ANYCAST address
in 5G Edge Computing environment can be problematic because
all those edge computing Data Centers can be close in
proximity. There might be very little difference in the
routing cost to reach the Application Servers in different
Edge DCs, which can cause packets from one flow to be
forwarded to different locations, resulting in service
glitches.
1.3. Problem #2: Unbalanced Anycast Distribution due to UE
Mobility
UEs' frequent moving from one 5G site to another can make
it difficult to plan where the App Servers should be
hosted. When one App server is heavily utilized, other App
servers of the same address close-by can be very under-
utilized. Since the condition can be short-lived, it is
difficult for the application controller to anticipate the
move and adjust.
1.4. Problem 3: Application Server Relocation
When an Application Server is added to, moved, or deleted
from a 5G Edge Computing Data Center, not only the
reachability changes but also the utilization and capacity
for the Data Center might change.
Note: for the ease of description, the Edge Computing
server, Application server, App server are used
interchangeably throughout this document.
2. Conventions used in this document
A-ER: Egress Router to an Application Server, [A-ER]
is used to describe the last router that the
Application Server is attached. For 5G EC
Dunbar, et al. Expires September 10, 2021 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft OSPF Extension for 5G EC Service
environment, the A-ER can be the gateway router
to a (mini) Edge Computing Data Center.
Application Server: An application server is a physical or
virtual server that hosts the software system
for the application.
Application Server Location: Represent a cluster of servers
at one location serving the same Application.
One application may have a Layer 7 Load
balancer, whose address(es) are reachable from
an external IP network, in front of a set of
application servers. From IP network
perspective, this whole group of servers is
considered as the Application server at the
location.
Edge Application Server: used interchangeably with
Application Server throughout this document.
EC: Edge Computing
Edge Hosting Environment: An environment providing the
support required for Edge Application Server's
execution.
NOTE: The above terminologies are the same as
those used in 3GPP TR 23.758
Edge DC: Edge Data Center, which provides the Edge
Computing Hosting Environment. It might be co-
located with 5G Base Station and not only host
5G core functions, but also host frequently
used Edge server instances.
gNB next generation Node B
LDN: Local Data Network
PSA: PDU Session Anchor (UPF)
SSC: Session and Service Continuity
Dunbar, et al. Expires September 10, 2021 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft OSPF Extension for 5G EC Service
UE: User Equipment
UPF: User Plane Function
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL",
"SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT
RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to
be interpreted as described in BCP 14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174]
when, and only when, they appear in all capitals, as shown
here.
3. Solution Overview
From IP Layer, the Application Servers are identified by
their IP (ANYCAST) addresses. To a router, having multiple
servers with the same (ANYCAST) address attached to
different egress routers (A-ER) is same as having multiple
paths to reach the (ANYCAST) address.
There are many tools available to influence the path
section on a router, such as the routing distance, TE
metrics, policies, etc. This draft describes a solution to
add "Site-Cost" to influence the path selection. The "Site-
Cost", which is derived from "site-capacity + load
measurement + Preference + xxx", can be raw measurements
collected by the egress routers based on the instructions
from a controller or can be informed by the App Controller
periodically.
The proposed solution is for the egress router (A-ER) that
have a direct connection to the Application Servers to
collect desired measurements about the Servers' running
status and advertise the metrics to other routers in 5G EC
LDN.
The solution assumes that the 5G Edge Computing controller
or management system is aware of the ANYCAST addresses that
need optimized forwarding. To minimize the processing on
routers, only the application flows that match with the
ACLs configured by the 5G Edge Computing controller will
collect and advertise the desired measurements.
Dunbar, et al. Expires September 10, 2021 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft OSPF Extension for 5G EC Service
3.1. Flow Affinity to an ANYCAST server
Having multiple Edge Computing Servers or App Layer Load
Balancers with the same ANYCAST address attached to
multiple A-ERs, Flow Affinity means routers sending the
packets of the same flow to the same A-ER even if the cost
towards the A-ER is no longer optimal.
Many commercial routers today support some forms of flow
affinity to ensure packets belonging to one flow be
forwarded along the same path.
Editor's note: for IPv6 traffic, Flow Affinity can be
supported by the routers of the Local Data Network (LDN)
forwarding the packets with the same Flow Label in the
packets' IPv6 Header along the same path towards the same
egress router.
3.2. IP Layer Metrics to Gauge App Server Running Status
Most applications do not expose their internal logic to the
network. Their communications are generally encrypted. Most
of them do not even respond to PING or ICMP messages
initiated by routers or network gears.
[5G-EC-Metrics] describes the IP Layer Metrics that can
gauge the application servers running status and
environment:
- IP-Layer Metric for App Server Load Measurement:
The Load Measurement to an App Server is a weighted
combination of the number of packets/bytes to the App
Server and the number of packets/bytes from the App
Server which are collected by the A-ER that has the
direct connection to the App Server.
The A-ER is configured with an ACL that can filter out
the packets for the Application Server.
- Capacity Index:
Capacity Index is used to differentiate the running
environment of the attached application server. Some
data centers can have hundreds, or thousands, of
servers behind an application server's App Layer Load
Balancer. Other data centers can have a very small
number of servers for the application. "Capacity
Dunbar, et al. Expires September 10, 2021 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft OSPF Extension for 5G EC Service
Index", which is a numeric number, is used to
represent the capacity of the application server
attached to an A-ER.
- Site preference index:
[IPv6-StickyService] describes a scenario that some
sites are more preferred for handling an application
than others for flows from a specific UE.
For ease of description, those metrics, more may be added
later, are called IP Layer App-Metrics throughout the
document.
3.3. To Equalize traffic among Multiple ANYCAST Locations
The main benefit of using ANYCAST is to leverage the
network layer information to balance the traffic among
multiple Application Server locations.
For 5G Edge Computing environment, the routers in the LDN
need to be notified of various measurements of the App
Servers attached to each A-ER to make the intelligent
decision on where to forward the traffic for the
application from UEs.
[5G-EC-Metrics] describes the algorithms that can be used
by the routers in LDN to compare the cost to reach the App
Servers between the Site-i or Site-j:
Load-i * CP-j Pref-j * Network-Delay-i
Cost-i=min(w *(----------------) + (1-w) *(-------------------------))
Load-j * CP-i Pref-i * Network-Delay-j
Load-i: Load Index at Site-i, it is the weighted
combination of the total packets or/and bytes sent to
and received from the Application Server at Site-i
during a fixed time period.
CP-i: capacity index at site I, a higher value means
higher capacity.
Network Delay-i: Network latency measurement (RTT) to
the A-ER that has the Application Server attached at the
site-i.
Dunbar, et al. Expires September 10, 2021 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft OSPF Extension for 5G EC Service
Noted: Ingress nodes can easily measure RTT to all the
egress nodes by existing IPPM metrics. But it is not so
easy for ingress nodes to measure RTT to all the App
Servers. Therefore, "Network-Delay-i", a.k.a. Network
latency measurement (RTT), is between the Ingress nodes
and egress nodes. The link cost between the egress nodes
to their attached servers are embedded in the "capacity
index".
Pref-i: Preference index for site-i, a higher value
means higher preference.
w: Weight for load and site information, which is a
value between 0 and 1. If smaller than 0.5, Network
latency and the site Preference have more influence;
otherwise, Server load and its capacity have more
influence.
3.4. Reason for using IGP Based Solution
Here are some benefits of using IGP to propagate the IP
Layer App-Metrics:
- Intermediate routers can derive the aggregated cost to
reach the Application Servers attached to different
egress nodes, especially:
- The path to the optimal egress node can be more
accurate or shorter
- Convergence is shorter when there is any failure
along the way towards the optimal ANYCAST server.
- When there is any failure at the intended ANYCAST
server, all the transient packets can be optimally
forwarded to another App Server attached to a
different egress router.
- Doesn't need the ingress nodes to establish tunnels with
egress nodes.
There are limitations of using IGP too, such as:
- The IGP approach might not suit well to 5G EC LDN
operated by multiple ISPs networks.
For LDN operated by multiple IPSs, BGP should be used.
AppMetaData NLRI Path Attribute [5G-AppMetaData]
describes the BGP UPDATE message to propagate IP Layer
App-Metrics crossing multiple ISPs.
Dunbar, et al. Expires September 10, 2021 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft OSPF Extension for 5G EC Service
4. Aggregated Cost Computed by Egress Routers
If all egress routers that have a direct connection to the
App Servers can get a periodic update of the aggregated
cost to the App Servers or can be configured with a
consistent algorithm to compute an aggregated cost that
takes into consideration the Load Measurement, Capacity
value, and Preference value, this aggregated cost can be
considered as the Metric of the link to the App Server.
In this scenario, there is no protocol extension needed.
4.1. OSPFv3 LSA to carry the Aggregated Cost
If the App Servers use IPv6 ANYCAST address, the aggregated
cost computed by the egress routers can be encoded in the
Metric field [the interface cost] of Intra-Area-Prefix-LSA
specified by Section 3.7 of the [ RFC5340].
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| 6 (Intra-Area Prefix) | TLV Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| 0 | Aggregated Cost to the App Server |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| PrefixLength | PrefixOptions | 0 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Address Prefix |
| ... |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 2: Aggregated Cost to App Server
4.2. OSPFv2 LSA to carry the Aggregated Cost
For App Servers in IPv4 address, the Aggregated Cost can be
encoded in the "Metric" field of the Stub Link LSA [Link
type =3] specified by Section 12.4 of the [RFC2328].
5. IP Layer App-Metrics Advertisements
This section describes the OSPF extension that can carry
the detailed IP Layer Metrics when it is not possible for
all the egress routers to have a consistent algorithm to
compute the aggregated cost or some routers need all the
detailed IP Layer metrics for the App Servers for other
purposes.
Dunbar, et al. Expires September 10, 2021 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft OSPF Extension for 5G EC Service
Since only a subset of routers within an IGP domain need to
know those detailed metrics, it makes sense to use the
OSPFv2 Extended Prefix Opaque LSA for IPv4 and OSPFv3
Extended LSA with Intra-Area-Prefix TLV to carry the
detailed sub-TLVs. For routers that don't care about those
metrics, they can ignore them very easily.
It worth noting that not all hosts (prefix) attached to an
A-ER are ANYCAST servers that need network optimization.
An A-ER only needs to advertise the App-Metrics for the
ANYCAST addresses that match with the configured ACLs.
Draft [draft-wang-lsr-passive-interface-attribute]
introduces the Stub-Link TLV for OSPFv2/v3 and ISIS
protocol respectively. Considering the interfaces on an
edge router that connects to the App servers are normally
configured as passive interfaces, these IP-layer App-
metrics can also be advertised as the attributes of the
passive/stub link. The associated prefixes can then be
advertised in the "Stub-Link Prefix Sub-TLV" that is
defined in [draft-wang-lsr-passive-interface-attribute].
All the associated prefixes share the same characteristic
of the link. Other link related sub-TLVs defined in
[RFC8920] can also be attached and applied to the
calculation of path to the associated prefixes.
5.1. OSPFv3 Extension to carry the App-Metrics
For App Servers using IPv6, the OSPFv3 Extended LSA with
the Intra-Area-Prefix Address TLV specified by the Section
3.7 of RFC8362 can be used to carry the App-Metrics for the
attached App Servers.
Dunbar, et al. Expires September 10, 2021 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft OSPF Extension for 5G EC Service
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|7 (IPv6 Local-Local Address) | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| IPv6 AppServer (ANYCAST) address |
~ ~
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Load measurement sub-TLV |
~ ~
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Capability sub-TLV |
~ ~
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Preference sub-TLV |
~ ~
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 3: IPv6 App Server App-Metrics Encoding
5.2. OSPFv2 Extension to advertise the IP Layer App-Metrics
For App Servers using IPv4 addresses, the OSPFv2 Extended
Prefix Opaque LSA with the extended Prefix TLV can be used
to carry the App Metrics sub-TLVs, as specified by the
Section 2.1 [RFC7684].
Here is the proposed encoding:
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Type | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Route Type | Prefix Length | AF | Flags |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Address Prefix (variable) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Load Measurement Sub-TLV |
~ ~
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| capacity Index Sub-TLV |
~ ~
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Site Preference Sub-TLV |
~ ~
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Dunbar, et al. Expires September 10, 2021 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft OSPF Extension for 5G EC Service
Figure 4: App-Metrix Sub-TLVs in OSPFv2 Extended Prefix TLV
5.3. IP Layer App-Metrics Sub-TLVs
Two types of Load Measurement Sub-TLVs are specified:
a) The Aggregated Load Index based on a weighted
combination of the collected measurements;
b) The raw measurements of packets/bytes to/from the App
Server address. The raw measurement is useful when the
egress routers cannot be configured with a consistent
algorithm to compute the aggregated load index or the
raw measurements are needed by a central analytic
system.
The Aggregated Load Index Sub-TLV has the following 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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Type (TBD2) | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Measurement Period |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Aggregated Load Index to reach the App Server |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 5: Aggregated Load Index Sub-TLV
Type=TBD2 (to be assigned by IANA) indicates that the
sub-TLV carries the Aggregated Load Measurement Index
derived from the Weighted combination of bytes/packets
sent to/received from the App server:
Index=w1*ToPackets+w2*FromPackes+w3*ToBytes+w4*FromBytes
Where wi is a value between 0 and 1; w1+ w2+ w3+ w4 = 1.
Dunbar, et al. Expires September 10, 2021 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft OSPF Extension for 5G EC Service
The Raw Load Measurement sub-TLV has the following 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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Type (TBD3) | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Measurement Period |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| total number of packets to the AppServer |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| total number of packets from the AppServer |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| total number of bytes to the AppServer |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| total number of bytes from the AppServer |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 6: Raw Load Measurement Sub-TLV
Type= TBD3 (to be assigned by IANA) indicates that the
sub-TLV carries the Raw measurements of packets/bytes
to/from the App Server ANYCAST address.
Measurement Period: A user-specified period in seconds,
default is 3600 seconds.
The Capacity Index sub-TLV has the following 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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Type (TBD3) | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Capacity Index |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 7: Capacity Index Sub-TLV
Dunbar, et al. Expires September 10, 2021 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft OSPF Extension for 5G EC Service
The Preference Index sub-TLV has the following 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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Type (TBD4) | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Preference Index |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 8: Preference Index Sub-TLV
Note: "Capacity Index" and "Site preference" can be more
stable for each site. If those values are configured to
nodes, they might not need to be included in every OSPF
LSA.
6. Manageability Considerations
To be added.
7. Security Considerations
To be added.
8. IANA Considerations
The following Sub-TLV types need to be added by IANA
to OSPFv4 Extended-LSA Sub-TLVs and OSPFv2 Extended
Link Opaque LSA TLVs Registry.
- Aggregated Load Index Sub-TLV type
- Raw Load Measurement Sub-TLV type
- Capacity Index Sub-TLV type
- Preference Index Sub-TLV type
9. References
Dunbar, et al. Expires September 10, 2021 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft OSPF Extension for 5G EC Service
9.1. Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to
Indicate Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
March 1997.
[RFC2328] J. Moy, "OSPF Version 2", RFC 2328, April 1998.
[RFC7684] P. Psenak, et al, "OSPFv2 Prefix/Link Attribute
Advertisement", RFC 7684, Nov. 2015.
[RFC8200] S. Deering R. Hinden, "Internet Protocol, Version
6 (IPv6) Specification", July 2017.
[RFC8326] A. Lindem, et al, "OSPFv3 Link State
advertisement (LSA0 Extensibility", RFC 8362,
April 2018.
9.2. Informative References
[3GPP-EdgeComputing] 3GPP TR 23.748, "3rd Generation
Partnership Project; Technical Specification
Group Services and System Aspects; Study on
enhancement of support for Edge Computing in 5G
Core network (5GC)", Release 17 work in progress,
Aug 2020.
[5G-AppMetaData] L. Dunbar, K. Majumdar, H. Wang, "BGP NLRI
App Meta Data for 5G Edge Computing Service",
draft-dunbar-idr-5g-edge-compute-app-meta-data-
01, work-in-progress, Nov 2020.
[5G-EC-Metrics] L. Dunbar, H. Song, J. Kaippallimalil, "IP
Layer Metrics for 5G Edge Computing Service",
draft-dunbar-ippm-5g-edge-compute-ip-layer-
metrics-01, work-in-progress, Nov 2020.
[5G-StickyService] L. Dunbar, J. Kaippallimalil, "IPv6
Solution for 5G Edge Computing Sticky Service",
draft-dunbar-6man-5g-ec-sticky-service-00, work-
in-progress, Oct 2020.
Dunbar, et al. Expires September 10, 2021 [Page 17]
Internet-Draft OSPF Extension for 5G EC Service
[RFC5521] P. Mohapatra, E. Rosen, "The BGP Encapsulation
Subsequent Address Family Identifier (SAFI) and
the BGP Tunnel Encapsulation Attribute", April
2009.
[BGP-SDWAN-Port] L. Dunbar, H. Wang, W. Hao, "BGP Extension
for SDWAN Overlay Networks", draft-dunbar-idr-
bgp-sdwan-overlay-ext-03, work-in-progress, Nov
2018.
[SDWAN-EDGE-Discovery] L. Dunbar, S. Hares, R. Raszuk, K.
Majumdar, "BGP UPDATE for SDWAN Edge Discovery",
draft-dunbar-idr-sdwan-edge-discovery-00, work-
in-progress, July 2020.
[Tunnel-Encap] E. Rosen, et al "The BGP Tunnel
Encapsulation Attribute", draft-ietf-idr-tunnel-
encaps-10, Aug 2018.
10. Acknowledgments
Acknowledgements to Acee Lindem, Gyan Mishra, Jeff
Tantsura, and Donald Eastlake for their review and
suggestions.
This document was prepared using 2-Word-v2.0.template.dot.
Dunbar, et al. Expires September 10, 2021 [Page 18]
Internet-Draft OSPF Extension for 5G EC Service
Authors' Addresses
Linda Dunbar
Futurewei
Email: ldunbar@futurewei.com
Huaimo Chen
Futurewei
Email: huaimo.chen@futurewei.com
Aijun Wang
China Telecom
Email: wangaj3@chinatelecom.cn
Dunbar, et al. Expires September 10, 2021 [Page 19]
