Internet DRAFT - draft-zu-nvo3-ts-traffic-handling
draft-zu-nvo3-ts-traffic-handling
Network Working Group Z. Qiang
Internet Draft Ericsson
Intended status: Informational February 6, 2015
Expires: August 2015
Tenant Traffic Handling in NVO3
draft-zu-nvo3-ts-traffic-handling-00.txt
Status of this Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
This document may contain material from IETF Documents or IETF
Contributions published or made publicly available before November
10, 2008. The person(s) controlling the copyright in some of this
material may not have granted the IETF Trust the right to allow
modifications of such material outside the IETF Standards Process.
Without obtaining an adequate license from the person(s) controlling
the copyright in such materials, this document may not be modified
outside the IETF Standards Process, and derivative works of it may
not be created outside the IETF Standards Process, except to format
it for publication as an RFC or 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
The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html
This Internet-Draft will expire on July 6, 2015.
Z. Qiang Expires August 6, 2015 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft Data Plane Handling in NVO3 February 2015
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2015 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.
Abstract
This draft discusses the considerations on how to handle the tenant
traffic in NVO3 architecture and several related issues which need to
be considered when designing a NVO3 based virtualized data center
network for multiple tenants.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction...................................................3
2. Conventions used in this document..............................3
3. Terminology....................................................3
4. Tenant Traffic Forwarding......................................3
5. L2CP...........................................................4
5.1. STP/RSTP/MSTP.............................................4
5.2. LACP......................................................5
6. ARP and Neighbor Discovery.....................................5
7. Routing protocol...............................................7
8. Security Considerations........................................9
9. IANA Considerations...........................................10
10. References...................................................10
10.1. Normative References....................................10
10.2. Informative References..................................10
11. Acknowledgments..............................................11
Z. Qiang Expires August 6, 2015 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft Data Plane Handling in NVO3 February 2015
1. Introduction
A high-level overview of a possible architecture for building NVO3
overlay networks has been present in [nvo3-arch]. The corresponding
control plane requirements has documented in [hypervisor-nve-cp] and
[nve-nva-cp-req].
Tenant traffic, including the Layer 2 Control Protocol (L2CP)
specified in IEEE802.1 and Layer 3 Control Protocol (L3CP) specified
in IETF, needs to be handled carefully in NVO3 network.
This document is providing some considerations on how the tenant
traffic shall be handled by NVO3. And several related issues due to
the required tenant traffic handling procedure are discussed. Section
4 provides some considerations on how to forward the generic TS
traffic over NVO3. Section 5 discusses the handling on L2CP messages
received from the TS. Section 6 is the ARP and ND message
optimization considerations. Section 7 lists all the issues and
possible alternatives when dynamic IP routing is supported by a TS.
2. Conventions used in this document
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].
In this document, these words will appear with that interpretation
only when in ALL CAPS. Lower case uses of these words are not to be
interpreted as carrying RFC-2119 significance.
3. Terminology
This document uses the same terminology as found in the NVO3
Framework document [framework] and [hypervisor-nve-cp].
4. Tenant Traffic Forwarding
In NVO3, a L2 NVE implements Ethernet LAN emulation, an Ethernet
based multipoint service similar to an IETF VPLS [RFC4761] [RFC4762]
or EVPN [EVPN] service. It forwards the multicast and unicast L2
traffic between the TSs. From the Tenant Systems aspect, the NVE is
just like a L2 bridge as specified in IEEE 802.1Q [IEEE 802.1Q].
A L3 NVE provides Virtualized IP forwarding service, similar to IETF
IP VPN, e.g. BGP/MPLS IPVPN [RFC4364]. An L3 NVE provides inter-
subnet layer 3 switching/routing for the TS. The NVE is the first hop
or next hop router to the attached TS.
Z. Qiang Expires August 6, 2015 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft Data Plane Handling in NVO3 February 2015
In NVO3, it is very common to provide both L2 and L3 service to a TS.
In logic view, the TS is attached to a NVE which provides both L2 and
L3 function. In implementation, the L2 NVE function and L3 NVE
function may be collocated. The L2 NVE function provides intra-subnet
traffic forwarding. The L3 NVE function provides inter-subnet traffic
forwarding.
In NVO3, to avoid flooding issues, the inner-outer address mapping
table is built using the NVA-NVE control signaling [nve-nva-cp-req].
Both L2 and L3 data forwarding are based on the inner-outer address
mapping table lookup (and forwarding policies).
The data forwarding procedure is similar for both L2 NVE and L3 NVE.
Upon receiving a unicast packet from the TS, the NVE performs a
lookup in the inner-outer address mapping table using the received
destination IP/MAC address. If a mapping is found, the received
packet will be encapsulated and forwarded to the destination NVE. If
no mapping is found, the received unknown unicast packet should be
dropped. As an alternative, the inner-outer address mapping table
updating procedure may be triggered using the NVA-NVE control
signaling [nve-nva-cp-req]. However, an attacker may generate large
amount of unknown unicast packets from a compromised VM, which may
result a denial of service (DOS) attacks. Therefore for security
reason, the inner-outer address mapping table updating procedure
shall not be triggered too often. One easy way to avoid this kind
security issue is to implement a frequency limitation function at
processing TS traffic with unknown destination addresses.
Discussions: As specified in [nvo3-sec-req], frequency limitation
shall be supported on the NVA query procedure triggered by any
received unknown data packets.
5. L2CP
For a L2 NVE, the VAP is an emulation of a physical Ethernet port. It
shall have the capability to handle any L2CP.
5.1. STP/RSTP/MSTP
The Spanning Tree Protocol (STP) is a L2 protocol that ensures a
loop-free topology for any bridged Ethernet local area network. STP
is originally standardized as IEEE 802.1D. It is deprecated as of
802.1d-2004 in favor of Rapid Spanning Tree Protocol (RSTP). The
Multiple Spanning Tree Protocol (MSTP) defines an extension to RSTP
to further develop the usefulness of VLANs.
Z. Qiang Expires August 6, 2015 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft Data Plane Handling in NVO3 February 2015
In NVO3 network, the L2 forwarding / switching function provided by
the NVE is based on the destination MAC address and the inner-outer
address mapping table. There won't be any looping of the L2
connections among the TSes by the NVEs if the NVE inner-outer address
mapping table is configured correctly. Therefor there is no need to
use any L2CP for that purpose among the participated NVEs of a TS.
However, STP/RSTP/MSTP may be used by the TS, including multi-homing
case.
In NVO3 network, the NVE does not need to propagate any STP messages
to the remote NVEs. But, the NVE may need to learn the Root Bridge
MAC address and Bridge Priority of the root of the Internal Spanning
Tree (IST) of the attached layer 2 segment by listening to the BPDUs.
Discussions: The NVE does not need to forward the STP message. But it
may need to participate.
5.2. LACP and MC-LAG
Link Aggregation [IEEE 802.1AXbk-2012] is a mechanism for making
multiple point-to-point links between a pair of devices appear to be
a single logical link between those devices.
MC-LAG [IEEE 802.1aq-2012], or Multi-Chassis Link Aggregation Group,
is a type of LAG with constituent ports that terminate on separate
chassis, thereby providing node-level redundancy.
LACP may be used between the TS and its attached NVE. MC-LAG may be
used if the TS is attaching to multiple NVEs. In both cases, a L2 NVE
may have to be involved in the Link Aggregation procedure. When MC-
LAG is used, Inter-Chassis Communication Protocol (ICCP) needs to be
enabled.
Discussions: The NVE may need to support the Link Aggregation
procedure.
6. ARP and Neighbor Discovery
For an L2 service, it is not a must for NVE to support any special
processing of ARP [RFC0826] and IPv6 Neighbor Discovery (ND)
[RFC4861] in NVO3 architecture. The NVE may forward the ARP or ND
messages using the mcast capability. However, as a performance
optimization, an NVE does not need to propagate the ARP or ND
messages. To avoid ARP/ND flooding, it can intercept ARP or ND
requests received from its attached TSs and respond based on the
information configured in the inner-outer address mapping table.
Z. Qiang Expires August 6, 2015 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft Data Plane Handling in NVO3 February 2015
Discussions: To avoid ARP/ND flooding, the NVE may need to response
to the received messages based on the inner-outer address mapping
table.
Upon receiving ARP or ND request from a TS, the NVE sends the ARP or
ND response with the requested MAC address back. The NVE may perform
ARP or ND proxy when responding the ARP or ND request. If the NVE
does not have the interested MAC information in the receiving ARP or
ND request, it may query the NVA using the NVA-NVE control signaling
[nve-nva-cp-req]. However, an attacker may generate large amount of
ARP / ND request packets from a compromised VM, which may result a
denial of service (DOS) attacks. Therefore for security reason, the
inner-outer address mapping table updating procedure shall not be
triggered too often. One easy way to avoid this kind security issue
is to implement frequency limitation function at processing TS ARP/ND
request messages.
Discussions: As specified in [nvo3-sec-req], the NVE shall have a
frequency limitation at sending NVA query message triggered by the
received ARP/ND request messages with unknown MAC addresses.
In Multi-Homing NVE scenarios, a TS may be reachable via more than
one NVEs. In this case, if ARP / ND proxy is supported at the
participated NVEs of the same network segment where a TS is attached,
all participated NVEs may be aware of the same location of the
traffic's destination. Therefore, all participated NVEs may offer its
own MAC address for the same destination IP address in the ARP / ND
reply message, which could be a racing condition. One NVE may need to
be selected by the NVA at each network segment to avoid racing issue.
Only the selected NVE can response to the ARP / ND request at the
attached network segment.
Discussions: The NVA may need a property way to select one NVE per
network segment of a TS for ARP / ND proxy of given destination IP
addresses to avoid the racing issue.
At VM mobility, a VM may be moved from one layer-2 segment to another
layer-2 segment, assuming IP address preservation is supported. To
optimize the ARP or ND updating procedure, both the source NVE and
the target NVE can have the same MAC address configured at the VAP
where the TS attached.
Discussions: The NVA may need a property way to configure the
participated NVEs with same MAC address on the VAP of the same VN at
each network segment. However, at Multi-Homing NVE scenarios, the NVA
may need a property way to configure the participated NVEs on the VAP
Z. Qiang Expires August 6, 2015 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft Data Plane Handling in NVO3 February 2015
of the same VN at each network segment to avoid duplicated MAC
address issue.
7. Routing protocol
IP routing protocol may be used by the TS for dynamic IP forwarding.
A routing protocol specifies how routers communicate with each other,
disseminating information that enables them to select routes between
any two nodes on a computer network.
In NVO3, there are different developments to support layer 3
services: centralized GW function, distributed GW function, or the
combination of both.
If the layer 3 service is provided by a NVO3 Centralized Gateway
function, the TS routing function and the NVO3 Centralized Gateway
functions appears as router adjacencies to each other. A routing
protocol may be used between the routers for overlay data plane. Any
TS routing messages (e.g. routing updates message from a vR function
installed in a VM of the TS) will be handled by the NVO3 Centralized
Gateway function. Once there is a routing rules installation or
updating, the NVO3 Centralized Gateway function may update its
routing distribution polices and forward data packets accordingly.
The user data packet will be forwarded by the attached NVE to the
NVO3 Centralized Gateway function. Then the NVO3 Centralized Gateway
function will make the layer 3 routing decision that either
discarding the packet or tunneling it to the destination NVE where
the destination VM attached. In this case, the NVE functions, both
source and destination, only need to support layer 2 functions.
If the layer 3 service is provided by the Distributed GW function
embedded in the L3 NVE, this can be an issue for dynamic routing
updates. In tenant view, the Distributed GW function appears as next
hop router to the TS routing functions, e.g. vR functions installed
in a VM of the TS. The Distributed GW function embedded in the L3 NVE
may need to support one or more routing protocols (e.g. BGP/OSPF/RIP)
to learn any TS routing rules installation or updating. This allows a
L3 NVE and the attached TS router to learn the IP routes updates from
each other. However, as the TS packet forwarding in the L3 NVE is
based on the inner-outer address mapping table configured by NVA
using the NVA-NVE control protocol, any TS routing updates may
trigger the inner-outer address mapping table updates accordingly,
not only in the attached L3 NVE, but also in the remote participated
L3 NVEs. With the NVO3 architecture specified in [nvo3-arch], it is
an issue on how this dynamic updates can be done.
Z. Qiang Expires August 6, 2015 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft Data Plane Handling in NVO3 February 2015
Figure 1 is an example of the interactions between the distributed GW
function and the vR in TS. The TS1 is attached with NVE1 and NVE2.
And TS2 is attached with NVE3. Both TS1 and TS2 may have v-Routing
function enabled in the VM. The distributed GW function is supported
in NVE1, NVE2 and NVE3. In this example, the vR in TS1 and the dGW in
NVE1/NVE2 are routing peers. The vR in TS2 and the dGW in NVE3 are
routing peer. Two forwarding paths are available between TS1 and TS2.
The TS packets between TS1 and TS2 are forwarded using NVE1-NVE3
tunnel or NVE2-NVE3 tunnel based on the inner-outer address mapping
table which is configured by the NVA.
+-----+
| NVA |
+-----+
+--------------------------------------+
| +-----------------+ |
| | | |
+---+---+ +---+---+ +-+---+-+
| NVE1 | | NVE2 | | NVE3 |
| dGW | | dGW | | dGW |
+---+---+ +---+---+ +---+---+
| | |
+-----+ +-------+ |
| | |
+-+--+-+ +--+--+
| TS1 | | TS2 |
| vR | | vR |
+------+ +-----+
Figure 1 example of TS dynamic routing
The issue is that the TS may want to change the routing policies at
any time. For instance, initially the NVE3 may be configured with a
routing policy that any traffic from TS2 to TS1 shall use the NVE3-
NVE1 tunnel. At some point, TS1 may want to change that police. It
would like to use the route with NVE2 for the traffic with TS2. Or it
may have a new route available, e.g. a new subnet installed in TS1,
and it would like to use the route with NVE2 for the new installed
subnet. At any of above routing updates, both NVE 1 and NVE 2 may be
informed by TS1 using a routing protocol, e.g. OSPF. At receiving the
routing update messages, both NVE1 and NVE2 shall process it and may
update its inner-outer address mapping table accordingly. However
Z. Qiang Expires August 6, 2015 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft Data Plane Handling in NVO3 February 2015
this inner-outer address mapping table update is only good for the
traffic forwarding from TS1 to TS2. The problem is how to update the
NVE3 for the traffic forwarding from TS2 to TS1, which the NVE3 shall
update its inner-outer address mapping table accordingly as well.
Discussion: Alternatives are:
- Alt A: Limiting the usage of distributed GW function in NVO3.
Using the centralized GW function for the TS with dynamic IP
routing is enabled. The Distributed GW function is only used for a
TS where TS dynamic IP routing is not enabled. With this
limitation, there is no NVO3 control plane impact.
- Alt B: Using NVE-NVE interaction messages to flood the peer L3
NVEs. For instance, the L3NVE may inform the peer NVEs with the
received routing updates information. However, in this case,
should the peer NVE update its inner-outer address mapping table
without NVA's involvements? This may be challenging the NVA's
centralized control role. And it may also cause some security
violation concerns.
- Alt C: Using the NVA-NVE signaling to update the peer L3 NVEs. In
this case, the L3 NVE shall not forward any routing updates
information to any peer NVEs to avoid flooding. Instead, it shall
always inform the NVA about any routing changes. Then the NVA will
use the NVA-NVE signaling for the inner-outer address mapping
table updating at the peer NVE.
- Alt D: Collocated NVA and GW function. With this alternative, the
TS routing policies (i.e. RIB) is managed by the collocated GW
function. It is assumed that the NVA is synced with the collocated
GW function. The Distributed GW function embedded in the NVE is
installed with the TS IP forwarding policies (i.e. FIB or inner-
outer address mapping table). The TS routing messages will be
terminated at the collocated GW function which is the next hop
router of the TS routing function. If there is any TS routing
installing and updating, the collocated GW function may update the
routing policies (i.e. RIB), and the NVA will notify the
distributed GW functions with the updated inner-outer address
mapping table using the NVA-NVE control signaling.
8. Security Considerations
This is a discussion paper which provides inputs for the NVO3
requirement documents and in itself does not introduce any new
security concerns.
Z. Qiang Expires August 6, 2015 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft Data Plane Handling in NVO3 February 2015
9. IANA Considerations
No actions are required from IANA for this informational document.
10. References
10.1. Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[RFC2234] Crocker, D. and Overell, P.(Editors), "Augmented BNF for
Syntax Specifications: ABNF", RFC 2234, Internet Mail
Consortium and Demon Internet Ltd., November 1997.
10.2. Informative References
[overlay-problem-statement] Narten, T., Gray, E., Black, D., Fang,
L., Kreeger, L., and M. Napierala, "Problem Statement:
Overlays for Network Virtualization", draft-ietf-nvo3-
overlay-problem-statement-04 (work in progress), July 31,
2013.
[hypervisor-nve-cp] Li, Y., Yong L., Kreeger, L., Narten, T., and D.
Black, "Hypervisor to NVE Control Plane Requirements",
draft-ietf-nvo3-hpvr2nve-cp-req-00(work in progress), July
1, 2014.
[nvo3-framework] Lasserre, M., Balus, F., Morin, T., Bitar, N., and
Y. Rekhter, "Framework for DC Network Virtualization",
draft-ietf-nvo3-framework-09 (work in progress), July 4,
2014.
[nve-nva-cp-req] Kreeger, L., D. Dutt, T. Narten, D. Black, "Network
Virtualization NVE to NVA Control Protocol Requirements",
draft-ietf-nvo3-nve-nva-cp-req-02 (work in progress), April
24, 2014
[nvo3-arch] D. Black, J. Hudson, L. Kreeger, M. Lasserre, T. Narten,
"An Architecture for Overlay Networks (NVO3)", draft-ietf-
nvo3-arch-01(work in progress), February 14, 2014
[nvo3-sec-req] S.Hartman, D.Zhang, M.Wasserman, Z.Qiang, "Security
Requirements of NVO3", draft-ietf-nvo3-security-
requirements-04 (work in progress), January 12, 2015
[IEEE 802.1Q] "Virtual Bridged Local Area Networks", 2005
Z. Qiang Expires August 6, 2015 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft Data Plane Handling in NVO3 February 2015
[IEEE 802.1AXbk-2012] "IEEE Standard for Local and metropolitan area
networks--Link Aggregation Amendment 1: Protocol
addressing"
[IEEE 802.1aq-2012] "IEEE Standard for Local and metropolitan area
networks--Media Access Control (MAC) Bridges and Virtual
Bridged Local Area Networks--Amendment 20: Shortest Path
Bridging"
[EVPN] Sajassi, A. et al, "BGP MPLS Based Ethernet VPN", draft-
ietf-l2vpn-evpn (work in progress)
[RFC4761] Kompella, K. et al, "Virtual Private LAN Service (VPLS)
Using BGP for auto-discovery and Signaling", RFC4761,
January 2007
[RFC4762] Lasserre, M. et al, "Virtual Private LAN Service (VPLS)
Using Label Distribution Protocol (LDP) Signaling",
RFC4762, January 2007
[RFC0826] Plummer, D., "Ethernet Address Resolution Protocol: Or
converting network protocol addresses to 48.bit Ethernet
address for transmission on Ethernet hardware", STD 37, RFC
826, November 1982.
[RFC4364] Rosen, E. and Y. Rekhter, "BGP/MPLS IP Virtual Private
Networks (VPNs)", RFC 4364, February 2006.
[RFC4861] Narten, T., Nordmark, E., Simpson, W., and H. Soliman,
"Neighbor Discovery for IP version 6 (IPv6)", RFC 4861,
September 2007.
[RFC7275] L. Martini, S. Salam, A. Sajassi, "Inter-Chassis
Communication Protocol for Layer 2 Virtual Private Network
(L2VPN) Provider Edge (PE) Redundancy", RFC7275, June 2014
11. Acknowledgments
Many people have contributed to the development of this document and
many more will probably do so before we are done with it. While we
cannot thank all contributors, some have played an especially
prominent role. The following have provided essential input: Suresh
Krishnan.
Z. Qiang Expires August 6, 2015 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft Data Plane Handling in NVO3 February 2015
Authors' Addresses
Zu Qiang
Ericsson
8400, boul. Decarie
Ville Mont-Royal, QC,
Canada
Email: Zu.Qiang@Ericsson.com
Z. Qiang Expires August 6, 2015 [Page 12]
