Internet DRAFT - draft-huang-rtgwg-us-standalone-sid
draft-huang-rtgwg-us-standalone-sid
RTGWG D.H. Huang
Internet-Draft ZTE Corporation
Intended status: Standards Track G.C. Chen
Expires: 1 August 2024 J.L. Liang
China Telecom
Y.Z. Zhang
China Unicom
F.Y. Yang
China Mobile
D.Y. Dong
Beijing Jiaotong University
Y.DY. Yuan
F.HK. Fu
C. Huang
Y. Guo
ZTE Corporation
29 January 2024
Use Cases-Standalone Service ID in Routing Network
draft-huang-rtgwg-us-standalone-sid-00
Abstract
More and more emerging applications have raised the demand for
establishing networking connections anywhere and anytime, alongside
the availability of highly distributive any-cloud services. Such a
demand motivates the need to efficiently interconnect heterogeneous
entities, e.g., different domains of network and cloud owned by
different providers, with the goal of reducing cost, e.g., overheads
and end-to-end latency, while ensuring the overall performance
satisfies the requirements of the applications. Considering that
different network domains and cloud providers may adopt different
types of technologies, the key of interconnection and efficient
coordination is to employ a unified interface that can be understood
by heterogeneous parties which could derive the consistent
requirements of the same service and treat the service traffic
appropriately by their proprietary policies and technologies.
This document provides use cases and problem statements from two main
Internet traffic categories: one is the traditional north-south
traffic which is defined from clients to entities (such as servers or
DCs), and the other is east-west traffic which refers to traffic
between entities (such as inter-server or inter-service).The
requirements for a standalone Service ID are also derived.
Huang, et al. Expires 1 August 2024 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft Use cases-Standalone Service ID January 2024
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 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 1 August 2024.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2024 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 Revised BSD License text as
described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are
provided without warranty as described in the Revised BSD License.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4. Use Case Scenarios . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4.1. North-South Traffic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4.1.1. Network Resources Provisioning and Differentiated
Network Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4.1.2. Traffic Steering among Multiple Service Instances . . 6
4.1.3. Observability of End-to-End Services . . . . . . . . 7
4.2. East-West Traffic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4.2.1. Connectivity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4.2.2. Scheduling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
4.2.2.1. Traffic Steering for Inter-cloud Optimal
Selection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Huang, et al. Expires 1 August 2024 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft Use cases-Standalone Service ID January 2024
4.2.2.2. Traffic Steering of Service Chains for End-to-end
Requirements Satisfaction . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
4.2.2.3. Dynamic Computing Workload Distribution and
Computing Scaling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
4.2.3. Observability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
5. Requirements of Service Identification for Addressing and
Networking . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
7. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
8. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
9. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
1. Introduction
The Internet application paradigm has been witnessing fundamental
changes and will have profound impacts on the two most basic Internet
aspects: traffic engineering and traffic steering.
First, due to the fast and deep digital transformation across almost
all sectors of industry and society, more and more applications are
rapidly shifting from simply retrieving well processed content from
central servers and data centers (i.e., C/S model), into delivering
multi-type computing tasks to/from cloud infrastructures, such as 3D
virtual reality, picture recognition, autonomous driving and AI-model
training, etc. The majority type of traffic on the Internet has
therefore been transformed from the single best-effort flow to the
multi-tasking flows with diversified and stringent performance
requirements, for example, time-critical tasks demanding a
deterministic end-to-end delay, large user-generated raw data
requiring steady high transfer rate, and compute-intensive tasks
calling for scheduled CPU cycles or destined to heterogeneous type of
processors (e.g., CPU or GPU), etc. So, this will inevitably bring
challenges to the methodologies and processes of current Internet
traffic engineering, in which the traffic classification is not
sufficient to identify and guarantee SLAs of multi-tasking flows, and
the network scheduling is not adaptive to the transient life cycle of
computing tasks.
Second, the whole cloud computing ecosystem is rapidly evolving to
the cloud native paradigm. Compared to the traditional monolithic
designing patterns, cloud native applications are essentially
designed and developed as distributed and connected micro-services,
with each performing an independent piece of functionality. Because
each micro-service encloses all its required computing resources and
logic codes in a lightweight container, it is very natural and
efficient to deploy and manage replicas of services in a highly
distributive and scalable way via the network. Given the stringent
Huang, et al. Expires 1 August 2024 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft Use cases-Standalone Service ID January 2024
performance requirements, critical computing tasks should be
offloaded to the maximum proximity of user-generated data for the
fastest responsiveness and real-time processing. So, cloud resources
residing in the central cloud, edge cloud, and communication nodes,
such as base stations, vehicles, or even handheld devices, from
different cloud service providers (CSPs), could be considered as
ubiquitous cloud infrastructure to host service instances through the
Internet. This will put great challenges on the protocols and
mechanisms of Internet traffic engineering, in which the computing
tasks and life cycle should be taken into account. As for the
internet traffic steering, in which the current addressing mechanism
is inherently designed in terms of the host as well as the specific
resources, however, the aforementioned service and the connections
with it would be independent of both specific host and resources.
The same service could be deployed at multiple hosts on multiple
sites upon different cloud resources, the service is actually
rendered to be a standalone entity accessed and connected by its
counterpart.
Considering the heterogeneous resources and technologies of different
entities i.e., network domains and cloud providers, use cases and
problem statements are presented from two main Internet traffic
categories. One is the traditional north-south traffic which is
defined from clients to entities (such as servers or DCs). The other
is east-west traffic which refers to traffic between entities (such
as inter-server or inter-service). Usually in most edge computing
scenarios, resources are insufficient and heterogeneous due to cost
and energy limitations. So, instead of deploying the application
with its full functionalities, it is the service instance that has
smaller resource consumptions and a shorter lifetime that fits well
for these scenarios. Moreover, as for the frequent mobility of
clients and fast service migration, the east-west traffic between
edge cloud and central cloud, and among edge sites (such as inter-
service communications), will significantly increase and greatly
impact the SLA experienced by clients from the point view of
application as a whole.
It is noticed that many technologies have been proposed in the
community for appropriately handling north-south traffic and the
examples are CATS and APN which have proposed frameworks and the
associated service identification mechanisms in the defined
scenarios. As far as east-west traffic among multiple network or
cloud domains is concerned, it is generally sent through tunnels
using existing approaches such as network service mesh, and as is
explained in the following sections, such approaches cause large end-
to-end delay and high complexity especially when multi-hop inter-
service communications are involved.
Huang, et al. Expires 1 August 2024 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft Use cases-Standalone Service ID January 2024
There are either complicated barriers among different network and
cloud entities with regard to service connections or no interface
between the networking sensitive service and the underlying network
for either north-south traffic or east-west traffic. Therefore it is
critical to employ a unified interface and entity that could be
accessed by multiple network or cloud platforms. Leveraging this
unified entity which is temporarily called service ID, addressing and
networking among heterogeneous network domains and cloud providers
with consistent semantics and service SLA guarantees could be
accomplished by establishing the mapping between the unified service
ID and the specific technologies used by a network domain or a cloud
provider.
2. Requirements Language
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. Terminology
* Service ID: Service Identifier.
* OAM: Operation Administration and Maintenance.
* CSP: Cloud Service Provider.
* Multi-cloud [ITU-T Y. 3537]: Use of cloud services in the public
cloud from two or more independent cloud service providers (CSPs)
at the same time for business.
* SLA: Service Level Agreement.
* APM: Application Performance Management.
* RED: Request, Error, and Delay.
* eBPF: enhanced Berkeley Packet Filter.
4. Use Case Scenarios
Huang, et al. Expires 1 August 2024 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft Use cases-Standalone Service ID January 2024
4.1. North-South Traffic
In the following section, three typical use case scenarios, i.e.,
network resources provisioning, fine-grained traffic steering among
multiple service instances, and observability of end-to-end services,
are described for conventional circumstances of north-south traffic.
For each use case, problems as well as gap analysis will be
demonstrated.
4.1.1. Network Resources Provisioning and Differentiated Network
Services
The Internet has long been used as a pipe to deliver the north-south
traffic from a client to a server. However, with the stringent
requirements raised by newly emerging applications such as XR and AI-
based services, the requirements of introducing the application-
related information into the network and providing differentiated and
fine-granular treatment for a variety of distinctive applications and
services which require network capabilities exceeding Best Effort
have been increasing. To this end, application-aware networking
(APN) has been proposed to solve the problem in
[I-D.li-rtgwg-apn-app-side-framework]. Nevertheless, fine-grained
awareness could be extended into sub-service of application for which
the conventional 5 tuples would be hard to identify.
4.1.2. Traffic Steering among Multiple Service Instances
The current Internet adopts a fixed IP address interconnection mode,
and when a service is invoked, it is generally required to first
query the IP address corresponding to the service name through DNS.
Within a possible ubiquitous distributed service scenario, the
efficiency of querying IP addresses through DNS would be relatively
low for often requiring multiple redirects to find the most
appropriate service instance, which cannot meet the fast response
needs of high interaction applications such as AR/VR and autonomous
driving. In addition, when the client moves or the server migrates,
the traffic flow will initiate a new handshake process, which cannot
meet the performance requirements of access agility and being always
online.
Also, it is well acknowledged that for some distributed services, the
performance experienced by clients depends not only on network
metrics such as bandwidth and latency but also on cloud metrics such
as processing, storage capabilities, and capacity. Computing aware
traffic steering (CATS) working group is working on this. For cases
mentioned in [I-D.ietf-cats-usecases-requirements], Cloud VR/AR, for
instance, brings challenging requirements to both network and
computing. Correspondingly, CATS enables distributed edge nodes to
Huang, et al. Expires 1 August 2024 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft Use cases-Standalone Service ID January 2024
serve a service request with carefully selected instances which
guarantees it has sufficient computing resources and ensured network
path to meet the end-to-end delay requirements by introducing
computing metrics into the conventional routing scheme. Other use
case scenarios included in [I-D.ietf-cats-usecases-requirements]
involve computing-aware intelligent transportation, digital twin, SD-
WAN, etc. CATS will also provide agile service access and enhance
the utilization of network and computing resources.
Compared to IP-based addressing and routing schemes, service-based
interconnection and routing would be more aligned with the essential
demands and expectations of clients and services. Thus, it would be
instructive to identify and indicate services in the interconnected
network to steer and guarantee north-south traffic.
4.1.3. Observability of End-to-End Services
To locate performance bottlenecks, prevent failures, and improve
resource utilization efficiency, many technologies have been
developed for measuring the traffic and monitoring the network
status. Examples of these technologies include bidirectional
forwarding detection (BFD), in-band network telemetry (INT), and
packet loss and delay management for MPLS. However, the primary goal
of such technologies is facilitating network operators to conduct
operations, administrations, and maintenance (OAM), so these
technologies generally collect statistics associated with a link or a
path in a network domain, but fail to provide measurements of an end-
to-end connection from a client to a server. In fact, due to a lack
of service semantics, extensive efforts are required to correlate the
statistics of observed metrics with specific applications and
services. Furthermore, relevant schemes, e.g., ping and keepalive,
do exist and provide the client-to-server end-to-end detection while
such schemes generally work at the application level and fail to
provide information and guidance for lower layers, e.g., L3 and L4.
Consequently, it remains a problem to achieve whole-stack
observability for the north-south traffic of end-to-end services.
4.2. East-West Traffic
In the following, three typical use cases, i.e., connectivity,
scheduling, and observability, of east-west traffic will be
described, taking into account the evolution of architecture from one
cloud to multi-cloud and even multi-CSP. For each use case, the
burdening complexity and the hinderances for service performance with
existing methods are demonstrated.
Huang, et al. Expires 1 August 2024 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft Use cases-Standalone Service ID January 2024
4.2.1. Connectivity
In the service mesh architecture, inter-service communication is
generally conducted using sidecar proxies that are collocated with
service pods. A sidecar proxy intercepts all incoming traffic of the
collocated service pod and conducts appropriate processing, such as
service discovery, routing, or rate limiting. After receiving
packets processed by the service pod, the sidecar proxy sends the
packets to the next-hop sidecar proxy. The selection of the next-hop
node may be subject to various criteria such as load balancing.
Consequently, it is essential to consider the application semantics
in the selection, which makes the communication between adjacent
sidecar proxies with layer-7 protocols such as gRPC, or REST API.
When the service mesh architecture extends from one cloud domain to
multi-cloud domains, gateways are needed in inter-service
communications. These gateways are generally connected, e.g., by
tunnels, to ensure they are reachable to each other. As shown below,
micro-service A is located in cloud domain A, and micro-service B is
located in cloud domain B. Both cloud domains can be owned by the
same CSP or even different CSPs. Cloud gateways A and B are deployed
for accessing the micro-services in their internal domain,
respectively. Consequently, the communication between micro-services
A and B consists of three TCP segments, i.e., from sidecar proxy A to
cloud gateway A, from sidecar proxy B to cloud gateway B, and between
gateways A and B.
|Incoming
|traffic
+-------v--------+ +-----------------+
| cloud GW A |------------>| cloud GW B |
+----|------^----+ Tunnels etc +--------|--------+
| | |
+----v------|----+ +--------v--------+
| sidecar proxy A| | sidecar proxy B |
+----|------^----+ +--------|--------+
| | |
+----v------|----+ +--------v--------+
| microservice A | | microservice B |
+----------------+ +-----------------+
cloud domain A cloud domain B
Huang, et al. Expires 1 August 2024 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft Use cases-Standalone Service ID January 2024
Figure 1: Inter-service communication within multi-domains
It can be seen that each hop inter-service communication includes
processing delay at the two gateways of both cloud domains for
operations such as encapsulation and decapsulation, service
discovery, routing, and load balancing. When the two domains adopt
different technologies such as cloud topology and routing protocols,
the two gateways further serve as interfaces and establish
appropriate mapping between the different technologies. If an
application requires multi-hop inter-service communications, e.g.,
switching to other CSPs for failure recovery, extending micro-
services chains for performance promotion, or supporting service
continuity of a moving client, the complexity of managing the
application is tremendous and the end-to-end delay of the application
would always exceed the maximum tolerable latency requirements.
4.2.2. Scheduling
4.2.2.1. Traffic Steering for Inter-cloud Optimal Selection
Services from remote clusters should be created locally via current
existing APIs, ServiceEntries for instance, in a
name.namespace.global format. DNS resolution is provided by CoreDNS.
With a remote service registered, the sidecar of an application pod
redirects traffic to the cluster IP and steers it to the remote
gateway. Remote gateways among various clusters require fundamental
connectivity via LAN or WAN. As for local entities to determine a
preferred remote endpoint, strategies would be implemented as
instructed by definitions and configurations in VirtualServices and
DestinationRules.
Huang, et al. Expires 1 August 2024 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft Use cases-Standalone Service ID January 2024
(Configured in ServiceEntry)
Service B:
Cloud 1 Gateway Cloud 2
Cloud 2 Gateway +-------------+
| |
(Configured in VirtualService) | |
Match TAG I: +-------+ -- |
Cloud 1 Gateway +---->|Gateway|--->( ) |
Match TAG II: / +-------+ -- |
Cloud 2 Gateway / | Service B |
/ | |
/ +-------------+
+-------------+ / +-------------+
| | / | |
| |/ | |
| -- +-------+ +-------+ -- |
| ( )--->|Gateway|-------->|Gateway|--->( ) |
| -- +-------+ +-------+ -- |
| Service A | | Service B |
| | | |
+-------------+ +-------------+
Cloud 1 Cloud 3
Figure 2: Inter-cluster communication within Istio network APIs
In order to be aware of and access multiple distributed service
instances of remote services, remote gateways need to be registered
as endpoints in the local cluster. Furthermore, the steering
strategy is comparatively static. It is almost impossible to always
rewrite configurations in ServiceEntries, VirtualServices, and
DestinationRules. Thus, it is challenging to dynamically steer the
traffic among different clusters and edge clouds, aiming to select an
optimal or most appropriate endpoint. Network infrastructure
connects edge gateways rather than services, making it unable to be
aware of the information and requirements of the services it carries.
Thus, it would be difficult to provide corresponding fine granular
services provisioning.
The gaps and problems are concluded as follows:
* Maintaining and managing dynamic remote service endpoints under
the service name makes real-time maintenance and dynamic
management difficult within a distributed manner.
Huang, et al. Expires 1 August 2024 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft Use cases-Standalone Service ID January 2024
* Service endpoints and routing strategies are not aware of remote
cluster capabilities and network status, making dynamic
optimization and scheduling difficult.
4.2.2.2. Traffic Steering of Service Chains for End-to-end Requirements
Satisfaction
The non-invasive grayscale release of service mesh has become a
mature feature. However, in the context of the widespread adoption
of cloud native applications, applications often no longer exist in
the form of individual services but are decomposed into a series of
cloud native micro-services deployed in various clusters, where there
are chains among services in which micro-services jointly provide
services to the customers.
Similar to the service function chain (SFC) defined in L3, the micro-
service chain (MSC) is correspondingly proposed for conditions in L7.
When there is an invoking link between micro-services, the grayscale
release of services is often not limited to a single micro-service
but requires environmental isolation and traffic control of the
entire micro-service chain.
Huang, et al. Expires 1 August 2024 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft Use cases-Standalone Service ID January 2024
+-------------+
| -- |
| ( ) |
| -- |
/| Service A |\
/ +-------------+ \
/ Cloud 1 \
| v || v |
| +-------------+ || +-------------+ |
| | -- | || | -- | |
| | ( ) | || | ( ) | |
| | -- | || | -- | |
| | Service B | || | Service B | |
| +-------------+ || +-------------+ |
| |Cloud 2 || | Cloud 4 |
| v || v |
| +-------------+ || +-------------+ |
| | -- | || | -- | |
| | ( ) | || | ( ) | |
| | -- | || | -- | |
| | Service C | || | Service C | |
| +-------------+ || +-------------+ |
| Cloud 3 || Cloud 5 |
LANE 1 LANE 2
Figure 3: Traffic lanes for micro-service chains
Distinguishing and isolating applications according to versions or
other features into separate operating environments is defined as
traffic lanes. Then, by configuring traffic lane rules, traffic
could be steered into the target lane.
However, gaps may exist for which traffic lanes are required to be
pre-configured and established. Traffic could be steered into
respective traffic lanes according to specific tag fields or
features. Specific service instances would be named when a traffic
lane is configured. Though a loose mode for traffic lanes may be
introduced in which instances in other lanes may not be named, but
rather quote corresponding ones from the main lane, it still may not
implement adjustments dynamically. Furthermore, separate service
endpoints and network segments are not aware of a chain scheduling
logic, making it difficult to ensure cross-service consistency and
provisioning capabilities.
Huang, et al. Expires 1 August 2024 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft Use cases-Standalone Service ID January 2024
Thus, it would be beneficial to examine service performance and
identify the end-to-end SLA requirements for a specific service or a
target micro-service chain when correspondingly steering the traffic.
Dealing with the possibility of traffic congestion and overload
scenarios, dynamic scheduling capabilities of the network would be
correspondingly utilized.
4.2.2.3. Dynamic Computing Workload Distribution and Computing Scaling
Serverless is a model based on cloud computing, which is a collection
of FaaS (Function as a Service) and BaaS (Backend as a Service).
CSPs host computing, storage, databases, and other computing-related
resources, dynamically manage and allocate them, and then provide
services to clients.
When a service request reaches the GW or load balancer of an edge
cloud, a request process module queries the instance management
module to determine whether there are available idle instances. When
there is a sudden increase in service requests, the resource
scheduling module will apply for expansion and create new instances.
+--------------------------------------------------+
| +---------+ +----------+ +-----------+|
| +->| Request |----->|Instance |--->|Resource ||
|/ | Process | |Management| |Secheduling||
/ +---------+ +----------+ +-----------+|
+---------------+ /| \ trigger Initiate | Create | |
| Gateway / |/ | +--------------+ | | |
| Load Balancer | | \ | | |
+---------------+ | vv | |
^ | +--------+ | |
| | |Instance|<-------+ |
| | | (new) | |
| | +--------+ |
| | |
| | +--------+ +--------+ +--------+ +--------+ |
| | |Instance| |Instance| |Instance| |Instance| |
Request | +--------+ +--------+ +--------+ +--------+ |
| |
| +--------+ +--------+ +--------+ +--------+ |
| |Instance| |Instance| |Instance| |Instance| |
| +--------+ +--------+ +--------+ +--------+ |
+--------------------------------------------------+
Figure 4: Serveless mode meeting service requests
Huang, et al. Expires 1 August 2024 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft Use cases-Standalone Service ID January 2024
However, the resources of a single resource pool or edge cloud are
always limited. In the context of ubiquitous resources and services,
service scheduling urgently requires identifying the expectations of
a service request and perceiving the distribution and utilization of
resources in order to dynamically schedule requests and achieve
optimal workload distribution.
4.2.3. Observability
In the current service mesh, observability is generally conducted on
a one-cloud basis using application performance management (APM)
approaches such as distributed tracing. However, when the service
mesh architecture moves from one cloud domain to multi-cloud domains,
e.g., edge clouds that are distributed in different physical
locations or multiple clouds that are owned by different CSPs,
existing approaches have two major shortcomings. First, APM
approaches conduct instrumentation to obtain measurements such as
traces, metrics, and logs, which require the modification of codes
and the re-publish of applications. However, in the multi-domain
scenario, such an intrusive process either is not allowed or leads to
maintenance difficulties such as conflicts of codes, which hinders
the adoption of the APM approaches. Second, APM approaches focus on
collecting statistics associated with the business logic and the
micro-service framework, but fail to obtain measurements regarding
the infrastructure such as system calls and network transmissions.
This feature causes observation blind spots to service mesh in the
multi-cloud scenario since inter-service communication generally goes
through a complicated transmission path that consists of various
gateways. As an example, one transmission path between two micro-
services A and B may go through the pod, node, KVM virtual machines,
and other infrastructure such as gateways.
To complement APM approaches, new technologies such as the enhanced
Berkeley Packet Filter (eBPF) are introduced to collect statistics
associated with the cloud-native infrastructure such as system calls,
various gateways, and sidecars. The statistics are then aggregated
to enable the calculation of performance metrics, e.g., RED
(Request/Error/Delay), for the entire stack and facilitate
distributed tracing through the correlation of call logs. However,
since the byte streams collected by the eBPF technologies generally
do not contain business semantics, it is difficult to conduct
aggregation, especially in cross-thread communication and
asynchronous invocation scenarios. Moreover, since the underlay
network is invisible to the tunnel if a failure is detected in the
underlay network, there is no way for the eBPF approach to correlate
with the overlay tunnel and take action in a timely manner.
Consequently, it remains a problem to achieve whole-stack
observability for the east-west traffic of end-to-end services.
Huang, et al. Expires 1 August 2024 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft Use cases-Standalone Service ID January 2024
5. Requirements of Service Identification for Addressing and Networking
In this section, requirements of service identification for routing
network have been identified based on the use cases.
* REQ 1 Service identification SHOULD have standalone semantics
against 5-tuples.
* REQ 2 Service identification SHOULD have global and unified
semantics across terminal, network, and cloud.
* REQ 3 Service identification SHOULD be able to index the specified
service profile in terms of its SLA requirements.
* REQ 4 Service identification SHOULD be authenticatable .
* REQ 5 Service identification MAY indicate specified networking
capabilities and specified applications as well as application
components such as micro-services.
* REQ 6 Service identification MAY cover only the selected services
and applications that have been designated to be either networking
or computing-sensitive.
* REQ 7 Service identification MAY be carried across layers from L7
to lower layers such as L3 and L4.
6. Security Considerations
TBA.
7. Acknowledgements
TBA.
8. IANA Considerations
TBA.
9. Normative References
Huang, et al. Expires 1 August 2024 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft Use cases-Standalone Service ID January 2024
[I-D.ietf-cats-usecases-requirements]
Yao, K., Trossen, D., Boucadair, M., Contreras, L. M.,
Shi, H., Li, Y., Zhang, S., and Q. An, "Computing-Aware
Traffic Steering (CATS) Problem Statement, Use Cases, and
Requirements", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-
ietf-cats-usecases-requirements-02, 1 January 2024,
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-cats-
usecases-requirements-02>.
[I-D.li-rtgwg-apn-app-side-framework]
Li, Z. and S. Peng, "Extension of Application-aware
Networking (APN) Framework for Application Side", Work in
Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-li-rtgwg-apn-app-side-
framework-00, 22 October 2023,
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-li-rtgwg-apn-
app-side-framework-00>.
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,
May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.
Authors' Addresses
Daniel Huang
ZTE Corporation
Nanjing
China
Phone: +86 13770311052
Email: huang.guangping@zte.com.cn
Ge Chen
China Telecom
Guangzhou
China
Email: chengg55@chinatelecom.cn
Jie Liang
China Telecom
Guangzhou
China
Email: liangjie6@chinatelecom.cn
Huang, et al. Expires 1 August 2024 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft Use cases-Standalone Service ID January 2024
Yan Zhang
China Unicom
Beijing
China
Email: zhangy1156@chinaunicom.cn
Feng Yang
China Mobile
Beijing
China
Email: yangfeng@chinamobile.com
Dong Yang
Beijing Jiaotong University
Beijing
Email: dyang@bjtu.edu.cn
Dongyu Yuan
ZTE Corporation
Nanjing
China
Email: yuan.dongyu@zte.com.cn
Huakai Fu
ZTE Corporation
Wuhan
China
Email: fu.huakai@zte.com.cn
Cheng Huang
ZTE Corporation
Shanghai
Phone: +86 13167198926
Email: huang.cheng13@zte.com.cn
Yong Guo
ZTE Corporation
Shanghai
Phone: +86 15618880912
Email: guo.yong3@zte.com.cn
Huang, et al. Expires 1 August 2024 [Page 17]
