Internet DRAFT - draft-matsuhira-mslb
draft-matsuhira-mslb
Network Working Group N. Matsuhira
Internet-Draft WIDE Project
Intended status: Informational 3 October 2023
Expires: 5 April 2024
Multi-Stage Transparent Server Load Balancing
draft-matsuhira-mslb-15
Abstract
This document specifies Multi-Stage Transparent Server Load Balancing
(MSLB) specification. MSLB makes server load balancing over Layer3
network without packet header change at client and server. MSLB
makes server load balancing with any protocol and protocol with
encryption such as IPsec ESP, SSL/TLS.
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].
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 5 April 2024.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2023 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.
Matsuhira Expires 5 April 2024 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft MSLB October 2023
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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. Traditional load balancing method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
3. Architecture of MSLB . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
4. configuration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
4.1. basic configuration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
4.2. one arm configuration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
5. mode . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
5.1. address translation mode . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
5.2. encapsulation mode . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
6. Ingress filtering environment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
7. Characteristic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
8. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
9. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
10. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
11. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
1. Introduction
This document specifies Multi-Stage Transparent Server Load Balancing
(MSLB) specification.
MSLB provides server load balancing function over Layer3 network
without packet header change at client and server. MSLB works with
any protocol and protocol with payload encryption such as IPsec ESP,
SSL/TLS.
2. Traditional load balancing method
There are several load-balancing techniques, such as round-robin DNS,
IP Anycasting [RFC1546] and destination address translation.
Figure 1 shows a load-balancing system with a typical server load
balancer with destination address translation technique.
Matsuhira Expires 5 April 2024 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft MSLB October 2023
+---------+ +--------+
| +---+ Server |
+---------+ +----------+ | | +--------+
| | | | | | :
+--------+ | | | Server | | | +--------+
| Client +---+ Network +---+ Load +---+ Network +---+ Server |
+--------+ | | | Balancer | | | +--------+
| | | | | | :
+---------+ +----------+ | | +--------+
| +---+ Server |
+---------+ +--------+
Figure 1
It is well-known that Network address translators break the internet
transparency [RFC2775] and have an application dependency [RFC2993]
characteristic.
Some server load balancers use application data, so with IPsec ESP,
SSL/TLS, these mechanisms may not work well.
3. Architecture of MSLB
Load balancing is the technique that distributes packets to multiple
servers. For packet distribution, the destination address
translation technique is useful, however, this technique itself
breaks internet transparency.
After distribution, if writing back to the original destination
address may be possible, it is possible to recover transparency.
This is the basic idea and architecture of MSLB. Figure 2 shows the
architecture of MSLB.
Client ---- overwrite +---------- write back ----- server
destination |
address + --------- write back ----- server
|
: : :
+ --------- write back ----- server
Figure 2
This method processes only the destination address of the IP header.
This method can be applied to both IPv4 and IPv6.
4. configuration
Matsuhira Expires 5 April 2024 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft MSLB October 2023
4.1. basic configuration
Figure 3 shows a basic server load balancing system with MSLB. This
case two-stage configuration with one MSLB-F and one-stage many MSLB-
Bs.
+-------+ +------+ +------+
| +---+MSLB-B+---+Server|
+-------+ +------+ | | +------+ +------+
| | | | | | : :
+------+ | | | | | | +------+ +------+
|Client+---+Network+---+MSLB-F+---+Network+---+MSLB-B+---+Server|
+------+ | | | | | | +------+ +------+
| | | | | | : :
+-------+ +------+ | | +------+ +------+
| +---+MSLB-B+---+Server|
+-------+ +------+ +------+
Figure 3
MSLB-F is a front function of MSLB and translates the destination
address to one of the addresses of MSLB-B. BSLB-B is the backend
function of MSLB and translates the destination address to the
original server address, i.e. address of MSLB-F. The IP address of
MSLB-F and all servers are the same value.
MSLB-F may multi-stage configuration. Figure 4 shows a three-stage
configuration with two-stage MSLB-F and one-stage many MSLB-Bs.
+---+ +------+ +------+
| |--+MSLB-B+--+Server|
+---+ | | +------+ +------+
| | +----+ |Net| : :
+---+ +----+ | | |MSLB| | | +------+ +------+
| | | | | |--+ -F +--+ |--+MSLB-B+--+Server|
+------+ | | | | | | +----+ +---+ +------+ +------+
|Client+--+Net+--+MSLB+--+Net|
+------+ | | | -F | | | +----+ +---+ +------+ +------+
| | | | | +--+MSLB+--+ |--+MSLB-B+--+Server|
+---+ +----+ | | | -F | | | +------+ +------+
| | +----+ |Net| : :
+---+ | | +------+ +------+
| |--+MSLB-B+--+Server|
+---* +------+ +------+
Figure 4
Matsuhira Expires 5 April 2024 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft MSLB October 2023
4.2. one arm configuration
Figure 5 shows one arm configuration of the server load balancing
system with MSLB.
+---------+
| |
| MSLB-F |
| |
+----+----+
|
+----+----+ +--------+ +--------+
| +---+ MSLB-B +---+ Server |
| | +--------+ +--------+
| | : :
+--------+ | | +--------+ +--------+
| Client |-----+ Network +---+ MSLB-B +---+ Server |
+--------+ | | +--------+ +--------+
| | : :
| | +--------+ +--------+
| +---+ MSLB-B +---+ Server |
+---------+ +--------+ +--------+
Figure 5
MSLB-F is a front function of MSLB and translates the destination
address to one of the addresses of MSLB-B. BSLB-B is a backend
function of MSLB and translates the destination address to the
original server address, i.e. address of MSLB-F. The IP address of
MSLB-F and all servers are the same value.
In this configuration, MSLB-F connects to the network with a single
link, that is one arm configuration. In this case, the return
packet, i.e.packet from server to client does not pass through the
MSLB-F.
5. mode
MSLB has two modes, one is address translation mode, and the other is
encapsulation mode.
5.1. address translation mode
This mode uses an address translation technique.
Matsuhira Expires 5 April 2024 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft MSLB October 2023
Figure Figure 6 shows packet processing with address translation
mode.
+-------+ +------+ +------+
| +---+MSLB-B+---+Server|
+------+ | | | IP_B1| | IP_S |
|Client| +-------+ +------+ | | +------+ +------+
| IP_C1+---+ | | | | |
+------+ | | | | | | +------+ +------+
|Network| |MSLB-F|---+Network+---+MSLB-B+---+Server|
| +---+ | | | | IP_B2| | IP_S |
+------+ | | | IP_S | | | +------+ +------+
|Client+---+ | | | | |
| IP_C2| +-------+ +------+ | | +------+ +------+
+------+ | +---+MSLB-B+---+Server|
| | | IP_B3| | IP_S |
+-------+ +------+ +------+
: :
: :
+------+----+ : +------+----+ :+------+----+
| data | IP | : | data | IP | :| data | IP |
+------+----+ : +------+----+ :+------+----+
----------------------> : --------------------> : ------------>
src = IP_C1 : src = IP_C1 : src = IP_C1
dst = IP_S : dst = IP_B1 : dst = IP_S
: :
+------+----+ : +------+----+ :+------+----+
| data | IP | : | data | IP | :| data | IP |
+------+----+ : +------+----+ :+------+----+
<--------------------- -: <-------------------- : <------------
src = IP_S : src = IP_S : src = IP_S
dst = IP_C1 : dst = IP_C1 : dst = IP_C1
: :
Figure 6
In this figure, to the client, the IP address is allocated IP_C1,
IP_C2, and the server IP address is IP_S. In this case, IP_S is also
allocated to all servers and MSLB-F. And to the MSLB-B, IP_B1,
IP_B2, IP_B3 is allocated. This allocation is shown in the upper
part of Figure 6.
Matsuhira Expires 5 April 2024 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft MSLB October 2023
The lower part of Figure 6 shows packet transfered between client and
server. From the client to the server, only the destination address
is translated, MSLB-F translates from IP_S to IP_B1, and MSLB-B
translate from IP_B1 to IP_S. Then the destination address of the
packet sent to the client and the destination address of the packet
that receives the server are the same. That means transparency
remains.
Return packet, i.e., from the server to the client is not translated,
it just forwarded.
On the Internet, the client IP address and server IP address must
Global IP address, however, the IP address of MSLB-B may private IP
address.
+--------------------+----------+-------------------------+
| Source IP address | net mask | destination IP address |
+--------------------+----------+-------------------------+
| IP_C1 | | IP_B1 |
+--------------------+----------+-------------------------+
| IP_C2 | | IP_B2 |
+--------------------+----------+-------------------------+
| : | : | : |
| : | : | : |
| : | : | : |
+--------------------+----------+-------------------------+
Figure 7
Figure 7 shows the MSLB table. MSLB has this table and translates
the destination address using this table value. MSLB-F checks the
source IP address and translates the destination address with this
table.
Using IPv4-IPv6 translation may be possible, i.e., IPv4 packet
translated to IPv6, then translate to IPv4 or IPv6 packet translate
to IPv4, then translate IPv6 may possibleFigure 8 shows possible
combination of IPv4 and IPv6. These IPv4-IPv6 translation cases will
be defined in the future.
Matsuhira Expires 5 April 2024 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft MSLB October 2023
Client MSLB-F MSLB-B Server
: :
: :
(1) <-- IPv4 --> : <-- IPv4 --> : <-- IPv4 -->
: :
(2) <-- IPv6 --> : <-- IPv6 --> : <-- IPv6 -->
: :
(3) <-- IPv4 --> : <-- IPv6 --> : <-- IPv4 -->
: :
(4) <-- IPv6 --> : <-- IPv4 --> : <-- IPv6 -->
: :
Figure 8
5.2. encapsulation mode
This mode uses an encapsulation technique.
Figure Figure 9 shows packet processing with encapsulation mode.
Matsuhira Expires 5 April 2024 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft MSLB October 2023
+-------+ +------+ +------+
| +---+MSLB-B+---+Server|
| | | IP_B1| | IP_S |
+-------+ +------+ | | +------+ +------+
| | | | | |
+------+ | | | | | | +------+ +------+
|Client|---+Network+---+MSLB-F|---+Network+---+MSLB-B+---+Server|
| IP_C | | | | | | | | IP_B2| | IP_S |
+------+ | | | IP_S | | | +------+ +------+
| | | | | |
+-------+ +------+ | | +------+ +------+
| +---+MSLB-B+---+Server|
| | | IP_B3| | IP_S |
+-------+ +------+ +------+
: :
: :
+------+----+ : +------+----+----+ :+------+----+
| data | IP | : | data | IP | IP | :| data | IP |
+------+----+ : +------+----+----+ :+------+----+
----------------------> : --------------------> : ------------>
src = IP_C : Inner header : src = IP_C
dst = IP_S : src = IP_C : dst = IP_S
: dst = IP_S :
: Outer header :
: src = IP_S :
: dst = IP_B1 :
: :
: :
: :
+------+----+ : +------+----+ :+------+----+
| data | IP | : | data | IP | :| data | IP |
+------+----+ : +------+----+ :+------+----+
<--------------------- -: <-------------------- : <------------
src = IP_S : src = IP_S : src = IP_S
dst = IP_C : dst = IP_C : dst = IP_C
: :
Figure 9
Matsuhira Expires 5 April 2024 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft MSLB October 2023
In this figure, to the client, the IP address is allocated IP_C1,
IP_C2, and the server IP address is IP_S. In this case, IP_S is also
allocated to all servers and MSLB-F. And to the MSLB-B, IP_B1,
IP_B2, IP_B3 is allocated. This allocation is shown in the upper
part of Figure 6.
The lower part of Figure 6 shows packet transfered between client and
server. From the client to the server, MSLB-F encapsulates the
original IP packet and sends it to MSLB-B. MSLB-B decapsulates the
outer IP header and forwards it to the server. The inner IP packet
does not change, which means, transparency is remained.
With encapsulation mode, packet size is increased, so fragmentation
is needed if the encapsulated packet size exceeds MTU or Path MTU.
MSLB-F MUST support tunnel MTU discovery [RFC1853]. Fragmentation
and Path MTU discovery [RFC1191] issue will be described in the
future.
Return packet, i.e., from the server to the client is not
encapsulated, just forwarded.
On the Internet, the client IP address and the server IP address must
Global IP address, however, the IP address of MSLB-B may private IP
address.
+--------------------+----------+-------------------------+
| Source IP address | net mask | destination IP address |
+--------------------+----------+-------------------------+
| IP_C1 | | IP_B1 |
+--------------------+----------+-------------------------+
| IP_C2 | | IP_B2 |
+--------------------+----------+-------------------------+
| : | : | : |
| : | : | : |
| : | : | : |
+--------------------+----------+-------------------------+
Figure 10
Figure 10 shows the MSLB table. MSLB has this table and encapsulates
and generates an outer header with the destination address using this
table value. MSLB-F checks the source IP address and generates the
destination address of the outer header with this table.
Matsuhira Expires 5 April 2024 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft MSLB October 2023
Using IPv4 over IPv6 encapsulation or IPv6 over IPv4 encapsulation
may be possible, i.e., IPv4 packet encapsulated to IPv6, then
decapsulate to IPv4 or IPv6 packet encapsulated to IPv4, then de-
encapsulated IPv6 may be possible. Figure 11 shows the possible
combination of IPv4 and IPv6. These IPv4-IPv6 encapsulation cases
will be defined in the future.
Client MSLB-F MSLB-B Server
: :
: :
(1) <-- IPv4 --> : <-- IPv4 over IPv4 --> : <-- IPv4 -->
: :
(2) <-- IPv6 --> : <-- IPv6 over IPv6 --> : <-- IPv6 -->
: :
(3) <-- IPv4 --> : <-- IPv4 over IPv6 --> : <-- IPv4 -->
: :
(4) <-- IPv6 --> : <-- IPv6 over IPv4 --> : <-- IPv6 -->
: :
Figure 11
6. Ingress filtering environment
[RFC2827] describes ingress filtering for defending against DoS
attacks that employ IP source address spoofing.
Depending on the location of the MSLB-F and MSLB-B, packets from the
server to the client may be discarded by ingress filtering. In such
a case, encapsulating the packet from server to client might resolve.
Figure 12 shows such a solution.
Matsuhira Expires 5 April 2024 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft MSLB October 2023
+-------+ +------+ +------+
| +---+MSLB-B+---+Server|
+------+ | | | IP_B1| | IP_S |
|Client| +-------+ +------+ | | +------+ +------+
| IP_C1+---+ | | | | |
+------+ | | | | | | +------+ +------+
|Network| |MSLB-F|---+Network+---+MSLB-B+---+Server|
| +---+ | | | | IP_B2| | IP_S |
+------+ | | | IP_S | | | +------+ +------+
|Client+---+ | | | | |
| IP_C2| +-------+ +------+ | | +------+ +------+
+------+ | +---+MSLB-B+---+Server|
| | | IP_B3| | IP_S |
+-------+ +------+ +------+
: :
+------+----+ : +------+----+----+ :+------+----+
| data | IP | : | data | IP | IP | :| data | IP |
+------+----+ : +------+----+----+ :+------+----+
<--------------------- -: <-------------------- : <------------
src = IP_S : Inner header : src = IP_S
dst = IP_C : src = IP_S : dst = IP_C
: dst = IP_C :
: Outer header :
: src = IP_B1
: dst = IP_TBD
Figure 12
7. Characteristic
MSLB has the following characteristics.
* Layer 3 Load balancer
* Support NAT unfriendly applications such as FTP
* Work with any application layer protocol (maybe)
* Work with encryption (IPsec ESP, SSL/TLS)
* Work over Layer 3 network
* May enforce policy with static configuration
Matsuhira Expires 5 April 2024 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft MSLB October 2023
8. IANA Considerations
This document does not request IANA.
Note to RFC Editor: this section may be removed on publication as an
RFC.
9. Security Considerations
Security consideration is not discussed in this memo.
10. Acknowledgements
11. Normative References
[RFC1191] Mogul, J. and S. Deering, "Path MTU discovery", RFC 1191,
DOI 10.17487/RFC1191, November 1990,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1191>.
[RFC1546] Partridge, C., Mendez, T., and W. Milliken, "Host
Anycasting Service", RFC 1546, DOI 10.17487/RFC1546,
November 1993, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1546>.
[RFC1853] Simpson, W., "IP in IP Tunneling", RFC 1853,
DOI 10.17487/RFC1853, October 1995,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1853>.
[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>.
[RFC2775] Carpenter, B., "Internet Transparency", RFC 2775,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2775, February 2000,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2775>.
[RFC2827] Ferguson, P. and D. Senie, "Network Ingress Filtering:
Defeating Denial of Service Attacks which employ IP Source
Address Spoofing", BCP 38, RFC 2827, DOI 10.17487/RFC2827,
May 2000, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2827>.
[RFC2993] Hain, T., "Architectural Implications of NAT", RFC 2993,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2993, November 2000,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2993>.
Author's Address
Matsuhira Expires 5 April 2024 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft MSLB October 2023
Naoki Matsuhira
WIDE Project
Japan
Email: naoki.matsuhira@gmail.com
Matsuhira Expires 5 April 2024 [Page 14]