wdiff rfc8596.original rfc8596.txt

MPLS Working Group
Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) A. Malis
Internet-Draft
Request for Comments: 8596 S. Bryant
Intended status:
Category: Informational Huawei Technologies
Expires: September 22, 2019 Futurewei
ISSN: 2070-1721 J. Halpern
Ericsson
W. Henderickx
Nokia
March 21,
June 2019

MPLS Transport Encapsulation For The SFC NSH
draft-ietf-mpls-sfc-encapsulation-04 for the Service Function Chaining (SFC)
Network Service Header (NSH)

Abstract

This document describes how to use a Service Function Forwarder (SFF)
Label (similar to a pseudowire label or VPN label) to indicate the
presence of a Service Function Chaining (SFC) Network Service Header
(NSH) between an MPLS label stack and the packet NSH original packet/
frame. packet/frame.
This allows SFC packets using the NSH to be forwarded between SFFs
over an MPLS network, and network. The label is also used to select one of between
multiple SFFs in the destination MPLS node.

Status of This Memo

This Internet-Draft document is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.

Internet-Drafts are working documents not an Internet Standards Track specification; it is
published for informational purposes.

This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force
(IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list It represents the consensus of current Internet-
Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.

Internet-Drafts are draft the IETF community. It has
received public review and has been approved for publication by the
Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG). Not all documents valid
approved by the IESG are candidates for a maximum any level of Internet
Standard; see Section 2 of six months RFC 7841.

Information about the current status of this document, any errata,
and how to provide feedback on it may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents obtained 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 September 22, 2019.
https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8596.

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 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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 ....................................................2
1.1. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 ................................................3
2. MPLS Encapsulation Using an SFF Label . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 ...........................3
2.1. MPLS Label Stack Construction at the Sending Node . . . . 4 ..........4
2.2. SFF Label Processing at the Destination Node . . . . . . 5 ...............5
3. Equal Cost Equal-Cost Multipath (ECMP) Considerations . . . . . . . . . 5 ......................5
4. Operations, Administration, and Maintenance (OAM)
Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 ..................................................6
5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 .............................................6
6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 .........................................6
7. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
8.1. ......................................................7
7.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
8.2. .......................................7
7.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 .....................................8
Acknowledgements ...................................................9
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 .................................................9

1. Introduction

As discussed in [RFC8300], a number of transport encapsulations for
the Service Function Chaining (SFC) Network Service Header (NSH)
already exist, such as Ethernet, UDP, GRE, and others.

This document describes an MPLS transport encapsulation for the NSH
and how to use a Service Function Forwarder (SFF) [RFC7665] Label to
indicate the presence of the NSH in the MPLS packet payload. This
allows SFC packets using the NSH to be forwarded between SFFs in an
MPLS transport network, where MPLS is used to interconnect the
network nodes that contain one or more SFFs. The label is also used
to select between multiple SFFs in the destination MPLS node.

This

From an SFC perspective, this encapsulation is equivalent from an SFC perspective to other
transport encapsulations of packets using the NSH. This can be
illustrated by adding an additional line to the example of a next-hop
SPI/SI-to-network
SPI / SI-to-network ("SPI" and "SI" stand for "Service Path
Identifier" and "Service Index") overlay network locator mapping in
Table 1 of [RFC8300]:

+------+------+---------------------+-------------------------+
| SPI | SI | Next Hop(s) | Transport Encapsulation |
+------+------+---------------------+-------------------------+
| 25 | 220 | Label 5467 | MPLS |
+------+------+---------------------+-------------------------+

Table 1: Extension to RFC 8300 Table 1 in RFC 8300

SFF Labels are similar to other service labels at the bottom of an
MPLS label stack that denote the contents of the MPLS payload being
other than a normally routed IP packet, such as a layer Layer 2 pseudowire,
an IP packet that is routed in a VPN context with a private address,
or an Ethernet virtual private wire service.

This informational document follows well-established MPLS procedures
and does not require any actions by IANA or any new protocol
extensions.

Note that using the MPLS label stack as a replacement for the SFC
NSH, covering use cases that do not require per-packet metadata, is
described elsewhere [I-D.ietf-mpls-sfc]. in [RFC8595].

1.1. Terminology

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.

2. MPLS Encapsulation Using an SFF Label

The encapsulation is a standard MPLS label stack [RFC3032] with an
SFF Label at the bottom of the stack, followed by a an NSH as defined
by [RFC8300] and the NSH original packet/frame.

Much like a pseudowire label, an SFF Label MUST be allocated by the
downstream receiver of the NSH from its per-platform label space,
since the meaning of the label is identical identical, independent of which
incoming interface it is received from [RFC3031].

If a receiving node supports more than one SFF (i.e., more than one
SFC forwarding instance), then the SFF Label can be used to select
the proper SFF, by having the receiving node advertise more than one
SFF Label to its upstream sending nodes as appropriate.

The method used by the downstream receiving node to advertise SFF
Labels to the upstream sending node is out of scope of for this
document. That said, a number of methods are possible, such as via a
protocol exchange, or via a controller that manages both the sender
and the receiver using NETCONF/YANG, the Network Configuration Protocol
(NETCONF) / YANG, BGP, PCEP, the Path Computation Element Communication
Protocol (PCEP), etc. One such BGP-based method has already been defined,
defined and is documented in
[I-D.ietf-bess-nsh-bgp-control-plane]. [BGP-NSH-SFC]. This does not constrain
the further definition of other such advertisement methods in the
future.

While the SFF label Label will usually be at the bottom of the label stack,
there may be cases where there are additional label stack entries
beneath it. For example, when an Associated Channel Header (ACH) is
carried that applies to the SFF, a Generic Associated Channel Label
(GAL) [RFC5586] will be in the label stack below the SFF. Similarly,
an Entropy Label Indicator/Entropy Indicator / Entropy Label (ELI/EL) [RFC6790] may be
carried below the SFF in the label stack. This is identical to the
situation with VPN labels.

This document does not define a use for the setting of the Traffic Class (TC)
field [RFC5462] (formerly known as the Experimental Use (EXP) bits
[RFC3032]) in the SFF Label.

2.1. MPLS Label Stack Construction at the Sending Node

When one SFF wishes to send an SFC packet with a an NSH to another SFF
over an MPLS transport network, a label stack needs to be constructed
by the MPLS node that contains the sending SFF in order to transport
the packet to the destination MPLS node that contains the receiving
SFF. The label stack is constructed as follows:

1. Push zero or more labels that are interpreted by the destination
MPLS node on to the packet, such as the Generic Associated
Channel GAL [RFC5586] label (see
Section 4). The TTL for these labels is set according to the
relevant standards that define these labels.

2. Push the SFF Label to identify the desired SFF in the receiving
MPLS node. The TTL for this MPLS label MUST be set to one 1 to avoid
mis-forwarding.

3. Push zero or more additional labels such that (a) the resulting
label stack will cause the packet to be transported to the
destination MPLS node, and (b) when the packet arrives at the
destination node, either:

* the SFF Label will be at the top of the label stack (this is
typically the case when penultimate hop popping is used at the
penultimate node, or the source and destination nodes are
direct neighbors), node), or

* as a part of normal MPLS processing, the SFF Label becomes the
top label in the stack before the packet is forwarded to
another node and before the packet is dispatched to a higher
layer.

The TTL for these labels is set by configuration, configuration or set to the
defaults for normal MPLS operation in the network.

2.2. SFF Label Processing at the Destination Node

The destination MPLS node performs a lookup on the SFF label Label to
retrieve the next-hop context between the SFF and SF, e.g. e.g., to
retrieve the destination MAC Media Access Control (MAC) address in the
case where native Ethernet encapsulation is used between the SFF and
SF. How the next-hop context is populated is out of the scope of for this
document.

The receiving SFF SHOULD check that the received SFF label Label has a TTL
of 1 upon receipt. Any other values indicate a likely error
condition and SHOULD result in discarding the packet.

The receiving MPLS node then pops the SFF Label (and any labels
beneath it) so that the destination SFF receives the SFC packet with
the NSH is at the top of the packet.

3. Equal Cost Equal-Cost Multipath (ECMP) Considerations

As discussed in [RFC4928] and [RFC7325], there are ECMP
considerations for payloads carried by MPLS.

Many existing routers use deep packet inspection to examine the
payload of an MPLS packet, and if packet. If the first nibble of the payload is
equal to 0x4 or 0x6, these routers (sometimes incorrectly, as
discussed in [RFC4928]) assume that the payload is IPv4 or IPv6
respectively, and IPv6,
respectively and, as a result, perform ECMP load balancing based on
(presumed) information present in IP/TCP/UDP payload headers or in a
combination of MPLS label stack and (presumed) IP/TCP/UDP payload
headers in the packet.

For SFC, ECMP may or may not be desirable. To prevent ECMP when it
is not desired, the NSH Base Header was carefully constructed so that
the NSH could not look like IPv4 or IPv6 based on its first nibble.
See Section 2.2 of [RFC8300] for further details. Accordingly, the
default behavior for MPLS-encapsulated SFC is to not use ECMP. ECMP other
than by using entropy derived from the MPLS label stack. This
results in all packets going to the same SF taking the same path
regardless of the use of ECMP in the network.

If ECMP is desired when SFC is used with an MPLS transport network,
there are two possible options, Entropy options: entropy labels [RFC6790] and Flow-Aware
Transport
flow-aware transport [RFC6391] labels. A recommendation regarding
choosing between these options, and their proper placement in the
label stack, is left for future study.

4. Operations, Administration, and Maintenance (OAM) Considerations

OAM at the SFC Layer layer is handled by SFC-defined mechanisms [RFC8300].
However, OAM may be required at the MPLS transport layer. If so,
then standard MPLS-layer OAM mechanisms such as the GAL [RFC5586] may
be used at the transport label layer (the labels above the SFF label). layer.

5. IANA Considerations

This document does not request any actions from IANA.

Editorial note to RFC Editor: This section may be removed at your
discretion. has no IANA actions.

6. Security Considerations

This document describes a method for transporting SFC packets using
the NSH over an MPLS transport network. It follows well-established
MPLS procedures in widespread operational use and use. It does not define
any new protocol elements or allocate any new code points, and it is
no more or less secure than carrying any other protocol over MPLS.
To the MPLS network, the NSH and its contents is are simply an opaque
payload.

In addition, the security considerations in [I-D.ietf-mpls-sfc] [RFC8595] also apply to
this document.

7. Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank Jim Guichard, Eric Rosen, Med
Boucadair, Sasha Vainshtein, Jeff Tantsura, Anoop Ghanwani, John
Drake, Loa Andersson, Carlos Pignataro, Christian Hopps, and Benjamin
Kaduk for their reviews and comments.

8. References

8.1.

7.1. Normative References

[I-D.ietf-mpls-sfc]
Farrel, A., Bryant, S., and J. Drake, "An MPLS-Based
Forwarding Plane for Service Function Chaining", draft-
ietf-mpls-sfc-07 (work in progress), March 2019.

[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>.

[RFC3031] Rosen, E., Viswanathan, A., and R. Callon, "Multiprotocol
Label Switching Architecture", RFC 3031,
DOI 10.17487/RFC3031, January 2001,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3031>.

[RFC3032] Rosen, E., Tappan, D., Fedorkow, G., Rekhter, Y.,
Farinacci, D., Li, T., and A. Conta, "MPLS Label Stack
Encoding", RFC 3032, DOI 10.17487/RFC3032, January 2001,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3032>.

[RFC5462] Andersson, L. and R. Asati, "Multiprotocol Label Switching
(MPLS) Label Stack Entry: "EXP" Field Renamed to "Traffic
Class" Field", RFC 5462, DOI 10.17487/RFC5462,
February 2009, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5462>.

[RFC7665] Halpern, J., Ed. and C. Pignataro, Ed., "Service Function
Chaining (SFC) Architecture", RFC 7665,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7665, October 2015,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7665>.

[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>.

[RFC8300] Quinn, P., Ed., Elzur, U., Ed., and C. Pignataro, Ed.,
"Network Service Header (NSH)", RFC 8300,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8300, January 2018,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8300>.

8.2.

[RFC8595] Farrel, A., Bryant, S., and J. Drake, "An MPLS-Based
Forwarding Plane for Service Function Chaining", RFC 8595,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8595, June 2019,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8595>.

7.2. Informative References

[I-D.ietf-bess-nsh-bgp-control-plane]

[BGP-NSH-SFC]
Farrel, A., Drake, J., Rosen, E., Uttaro, J., and L.
Jalil, "BGP Control Plane for NSH SFC", draft-ietf-bess-
nsh-bgp-control-plane-09 (work Work in progress), March Progress,
draft-ietf-bess-nsh-bgp-control-plane-11, May 2019.

[RFC4928] Swallow, G., Bryant, S., and L. Andersson, "Avoiding Equal
Cost Multipath Treatment in MPLS Networks", BCP 128,
RFC 4928, DOI 10.17487/RFC4928, June 2007,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4928>.

[RFC5586] Bocci, M., Ed., Vigoureux, M., Ed., and S. Bryant, Ed.,
"MPLS Generic Associated Channel", RFC 5586,
DOI 10.17487/RFC5586, June 2009,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5586>.

[RFC6391] Bryant, S., Ed., Filsfils, C., Drafz, U., Kompella, V.,
Regan, J., and S. Amante, "Flow-Aware Transport of
Pseudowires over an MPLS Packet Switched Network",
RFC 6391, DOI 10.17487/RFC6391, November 2011,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6391>.

[RFC6790] Kompella, K., Drake, J., Amante, S., Henderickx, W., and
L. Yong, "The Use of Entropy Labels in MPLS Forwarding",
RFC 6790, DOI 10.17487/RFC6790, November 2012,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6790>.

[RFC7325] Villamizar, C., Ed., Kompella, K., Amante, S., Malis, A.,
and C. Pignataro, "MPLS Forwarding Compliance and
Performance Requirements", RFC 7325, DOI 10.17487/RFC7325,
August 2014, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7325>.

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank Jim Guichard, Eric Rosen, Med
Boucadair, Alexander (Sasha) Vainshtein, Jeff Tantsura, Anoop
Ghanwani, John Drake, Loa Andersson, Carlos Pignataro, Christian
Hopps, and Benjamin Kaduk for their reviews and comments.

Authors' Addresses

Andrew G. Malis
Huawei Technologies
Futurewei

Email: agmalis@gmail.com

Stewart Bryant
Huawei Technologies
Futurewei

Email: stewart.bryant@gmail.com

Joel M. Halpern
Ericsson

Email: joel.halpern@ericsson.com

Wim Henderickx
Nokia

Email: wim.henderickx@nokia.com