One document matched: draft-ietf-spring-ipv6-use-cases-00.xml
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="US-ASCII"?>
<!DOCTYPE rfc SYSTEM "rfc2629.dtd" [
<!ENTITY rfc2119 SYSTEM "http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.2119.xml">
<!ENTITY rfc2865 SYSTEM "http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.2865.xml">
<!ENTITY __reference.RFC.2869__g60i1uxb SYSTEM "http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.2869.xml">
]>
<?xml-stylesheet type='text/xsl' href='rfc2629.xslt' ?>
<?rfc toc="yes"?>
<?rfc compact="yes"?>
<?rfc symrefs="yes"?>
<?rfc sortrefs="yes" ?>
<?rfc strict="yes" ?>
<?rfc linkmailto="yes" ?>
<rfc category="info" docName="draft-ietf-spring-ipv6-use-cases-00"
ipr="trust200902" updates="">
<front>
<title abbrev="IPv6 Segment Routing Use Cases">IPv6 SPRING Use
Cases</title>
<author fullname="John Brzozowski" initials="J." surname="Brzozowski">
<organization abbrev="">Comcast</organization>
<address>
<email>john_brzozowski@cable.comcast.com</email>
</address>
</author>
<author fullname="John Leddy" initials="J." surname="Leddy">
<organization abbrev="">Comcast</organization>
<address>
<email>John_Leddy@cable.comcast.com</email>
</address>
</author>
<author fullname="Ida Leung" initials="I." surname="Leung">
<organization>Rogers Communications</organization>
<address>
<postal>
<street>8200 Dixie Road</street>
<city>Brampton</city>
<region>ON</region>
<code>L6T 0C1</code>
<country>CANADA</country>
</postal>
<phone/>
<facsimile/>
<email>Ida.Leung@rci.rogers.com</email>
<uri/>
</address>
</author>
<author fullname="Stefano Previdi" initials="S." surname="Previdi">
<organization abbrev="">Cisco Systems</organization>
<address>
<postal>
<street>Via Del Serafico, 200</street>
<city>Rome</city>
<code>00142</code>
<country>Italy</country>
</postal>
<phone/>
<email>sprevidi@cisco.com</email>
</address>
</author>
<author fullname="Mark Townsley" initials="M." surname="Townsley">
<organization abbrev="">Cisco Systems</organization>
<address>
<email>townsley@cisco.com</email>
</address>
</author>
<author fullname="Christian Martin" initials="C." surname="Martin">
<organization abbrev="">Cisco Systems</organization>
<address>
<email>martincj@cisco.com</email>
</address>
</author>
<author fullname="Clarence Filsfils" initials="C." surname=" Filsfils">
<organization abbrev="">Cisco Systems</organization>
<address>
<postal>
<street/>
<city>Brussels</city>
<country>BE</country>
</postal>
<phone/>
<email>cfilsfil@cisco.com</email>
</address>
</author>
<author fullname="Roberta Maglione" initials="R." role="editor"
surname="Maglione">
<organization abbrev="">Cisco Systems</organization>
<address>
<postal>
<street>181 Bay Street</street>
<city>Toronto</city>
<code>M5J 2T3</code>
<country>Canada</country>
</postal>
<phone/>
<email>robmgl@cisco.com</email>
</address>
</author>
<date month="May" year="2014"/>
<area>Internet</area>
<workgroup>Spring</workgroup>
<abstract>
<t>Source Packet Routing in Networking (SPRING) architecture leverages
the source routing paradigm. A node steers a packet through a controlled
set of instructions, called segments, by prepending the packet with
SPRING header. A segment can represent any instruction, topological or
service-based. A segment can have a local semantic to the SPRING node or
global within the SPRING domain. SPRING allows to enforce a flow through
any topological path and service chain while maintaining per-flow state
only at the ingress node to the SPRING domain.</t>
<t>The objective of this document is to illustrate some use cases that
need to be taken into account by the Source Packet Routing in Networking
(SPRING) architecture.</t>
</abstract>
</front>
<middle>
<section anchor="intro" title="Introduction">
<t>Source Packet Routing in Networking (SPRING) architecture leverages
the source routing paradigm. An ingress node steers a packet through a
controlled set of instructions, called segments, by prepending the
packet with SPRING header. A segment can represent any instruction,
topological or service-based. A segment can represent a local semantic
on the SPRING node, or a global semantic within the SPRING domain.
SPRING allows one to enforce a flow through any topological path and
service chain while maintaining per-flow state only at the ingress node
to the SPRING domain.</t>
<t>The SPRING architecture is described in <xref
target="I-D.filsfils-rtgwg-segment-routing"/>. The SPRING control plane
is agnostic to the dataplane, thus it can be applied to both MPLS and
IPv6. In case of MPLS the (list of) segment identifiers are carried in
the MPLS label stack, while for the IPv6 dataplane, a new type of
routing extension header is required.</t>
<t>The details of the new routing extension header are described in
<xref target="I-D.previdi-6man-segment-routing-header"/> which also
covers the security considerations and the aspects related to the
deprecation of the IPv6 Type 0 Routing Header described in <xref
target="RFC5095"/>.</t>
</section>
<section anchor="use-cases" title="IPv6 SPRING use cases">
<t>In today's networks, source routing is typically accomplished by
encapsulating IP packets in MPLS LSPs that are signaled via RSVP-TE.
Therefore, there are scenarios where it may be possible to run IPv6 on
top of MPLS, and as such, the MPLS Segment Routing architecture
described in <xref target="I-D.filsfils-spring-segment-routing-mpls"/>
could be leveraged to provide SPRING capabilities in an IPv6/MPLS
environment.</t>
<t>However, there are other cases and/or specific network segments (such
as for example the Home Network, the Data Center, etc.) where MPLS may
not be available or deployable for lack of support on network elements
or for an operator’s design choice. In such scenarios a non-MPLS
based solution would be preferred by the network operators of such
infrastructures.</t>
<t>Specifically, there are a class of use cases that motivate an IPv6
data plane. We identify some fundamental scenarios that, when recognized
in conjunction, strongly indicate an IPv6 data plane:</t>
<t><list style="numbers">
<t>There is a need or desire to impose source-routing semantics
within an application or at the edge of a network (for example, a
CPE or home gateway)</t>
<t>There is a strict lack of an MPLS dataplane</t>
<t>There is a need or desire to remove routing state from any node
other than the source, such that the source is the only node that
knows and will know the path a packet will take, a priori</t>
<t>There is a need to connect millions of addressable segment
endpoints, thus high routing scalability is a requirement. IPv6
addresses are inherently summarizable: a very large operator could
scale by summarizing IPv6 subnets at various internal boundaries.
This is very simple and is a basic property of IP routing. MPLS node
segments are not summarizable. To reach the same scale, an operator
would need to introduce additional complexity, such as mechanisms
described in <xref target="I-D.ietf-mpls-seamless-mpls"/></t>
</list></t>
<t>In any environment with requirements such as those listed above, an
IPv6 data plane provides a powerful combination of capabilities for a
network operator to realize benefits in explicit routing, protection and
restoration, high routing scalability, traffic engineering, service
chaining, service differentiation and application flexibility via
programmability.</t>
<t>This section will describe some scenarios where MPLS may not be
present and it will highlight how the SPRING architecture could be used
to address such use cases, particularly, when an MPLS data plane is
neither present nor desired.</t>
<t>The use cases described in the section do not constitute an
exhaustive list of all the possible scenarios; this section only
includes some of the most common envisioned deployment models for IPv6
Segment Routing.</t>
<t>In addition to the use cases described in this document the SPRING
architecture can be applied to all the use cases described in <xref
target="I-D.filsfils-rtgwg-segment-routing-use-cases"/> for the SPRING
MPLS data plane, when an IPv6 data plane is present.</t>
<section anchor="Home" title="SPRING in the Home Network ">
<t>An IPv6-enabled home network provides ample globally routed IP
addresses for all devices in the home. An IPv6 home network with
multiple egress points and associated provider-assigned prefixes will,
in turn, provide multiple IPv6 addresses to hosts. A homenet
performing Source and Destination Routing (<xref
target="I-D.troan-homenet-sadr"/>) will ensure that packets exit the
home at the appropriate egress based on the associated delegated
prefix for that link.</t>
<t>A SPRING enabled home provides the possibility for imposition of a
Segment List by end-hosts in the home, or a customer edge router in
the home. If the Segment List is enabled at the customer edge router,
that router is responsible for classifying traffic and inserting the
appropriate Segment List. If hosts in the home have explicit source
selection rules (see <xref
target="I-D.lepape-6man-prefix-metadata"/>), classification can be
based on source address or associated network egress point, avoiding
the need for DPI-based implicit classification techniques. If the
Segment List is inserted by the host itself, it is important to know
which networks can interpret the SPRING header. This information can
be provided as part of host configuration as a property of the
configured IP address (see <xref
target="I-D.bhandari-dhc-class-based-prefix"/>).</t>
<t>The ability to steer traffic to an appropriate egress or utilize a
specific type of media (e.g., low-power, WIFI, wired, femto-cell,
bluetooth, MOCA, HomePlug, etc.) within the home itself are obvious
cases which may be of interest to an application running within a home
network.</t>
<t>Steering to a specific egress point may be useful for a number of
reasons, including:</t>
<t><list style="symbols">
<t>Regulatory</t>
<t>Performance of a particular service associated with a
particular link</t>
<t>Cost imposed due to data-caps or per-byte charges</t>
<t>Home vs. work traffic in homes with one or more teleworkers,
etc.</t>
<t>Specific services provided by one ISP vs. another</t>
</list></t>
<t>Information included in the Segment List, whether imposed by the
end-host itself, a customer edge router, or within the access network
of the ISP, may be of use at the far ends of the data communication as
well. For example, an application running on an end-host with
application-support in a data center can utilize the Segment List as a
channel to include information that affects its treatment within the
data center itself, allowing for application-level steering and
load-balancing without relying upon implicit application
classification techniques at the data-center edge. Further, as more
and more application traffic is encrypted, the ability to extract (and
include in the Segment List) just enough information to enable the
network and data center to load-balance and steer traffic
appropriately becomes more and more important.</t>
</section>
<section anchor="Access" title="SPRING in the Access Network">
<t>Access networks deliver a variety of types of traffic from the
service provider's network to the home environment and from the home
towards the service provider's network.</t>
<t>For bandwidth management or related purposes, the service provider
may want to associate certain types of traffic to specific physical or
logical downstream capacity pipes.</t>
<t>This mapping is not the same thing as classification and
scheduling. In the Cable access network, each of these pipes are
represented at the DOCCIS layer as different service flows, which are
better identified as differing data links. As such, creating this
separation allows an operator to differentiate between different types
of content and perform a variety of differing functions on these
pipes, such as egress vectoring, byte capping, regulatory compliance
functions, and billing.</t>
<t>In a cable operator's environment, these downstream pipes could be
a specific QAM, a DOCSIS service flow or a service group.</t>
<t>Similarly, the operator may want to map traffic from the home sent
towards the service provider's network to specific upstream capacity
pipes. Information carried in a packet's SPRING header could provide
the target pipe for this specific packet. The access device would not
need to know specific details about the packet to perform this
mapping; instead the access device would only need to know how to map
the SR SID value to the target pipe.</t>
<t/>
</section>
<section anchor="DC" title="SPRING in the Data Center">
<t>A key use case for SPRING is to cause a packet to follow a specific
path through the network. One can think of the service function
performed at each SPRING node to be forwarding. More complex service
functions could be applied to the packet by a SPRING node including
accounting, IDS, load balancing, and fire walling.</t>
<t>The term "Service Function Chain", as defined in <xref
target="I-D.ietf-sfc-problem-statement"/>, it is used to describe an
ordered set of service functions that must be applied to packets.</t>
<t>A service provider may choose to have these service functions
performed external to the routing infrastructure, specifically on
either dedicated physical servers or within VMs running on a
virtualization platform.</t>
<t><xref target="I-D.kumar-sfc-dc-use-cases"> </xref> describes use
cases that demonstrate the applicability of Service Function Chaining
(SFC) within a data center environment and provides SFC requirements
for data center centric use cases.</t>
</section>
<section anchor="CDN" title="SPRING in the Content Delivery Networks">
<t>The rise of online video applications and new, video-capable IP
devices has led to an explosion of video traffic traversing network
operator infrastructures. In the drive to reduce the capital and
operational impact of the massive influx of online video traffic, as
well as to extend traditional TV services to new devices and screens,
network operators are increasingly turning to Content Delivery
Networks (CDNs).</t>
<t>Several studies showed the benefits of connecting caches in a
hierarchical structure following the hierarchical nature of the
Internet. In a cache hierarchy one cache establishes peering
relationships with its neighbor caches. There are two types of
relationship: parent and sibling. A parent cache is essentially one
level up in a cache hierarchy. A sibling cache is on the same level.
Multiple levels of hierarchy are commonly used in order to build
efficient caches architecture.</t>
<t>In an environment, where each single cache system can be uniquely
identified by its own IPv6 address, a Segment List containing a
sequence of the caches in a hierarchy can be built. At each node
(cache) present in the Segment List a TCP session to port 80 is
established and if the requested content is found at the cache (cache
hits scenario) the sequence ends, even if there are more nodes in the
list.</t>
<t>To achieve the behavior described above, in addition to the Segment
List, which specifies the path to be followed to explore the
hierarchic architecture, a way to instruct the node to take a specific
action is required. The function to be performed by a service node can
be carried into a new header called Network Service Header (NSH)
defined in <xref target="I-D.quinn-sfc-nsh"/>. A Network Service
Header (NSH) is metadata added to a packet that is used to create a
service plane. The service header is added by a service classification
function that determines which packets require servicing, and
correspondingly which service path to follow to apply the appropriate
service.</t>
<t>In the above example the service to be performed by the service
node was to establish a TCP session to port 80, but in other scenarios
different functions may be required. Another example of action to be
taken by the service node is the capability to perform transformations
on payload data, like real-time video transcode option (for rate
and/or resolution).</t>
<t>The use of SPRING together with the NSH allows building flexible
service chains where the topological information related to the path
to be followed is carried into the Segment List while the "service
plane related information" (function/action to be performed) is
encoded in the metadata, carried into the NSH. The details about using
SPRING together with NSH will be described in a separate document.</t>
</section>
<section anchor="core" title="SPRING in the Core networks ">
<t>MPLS is a well-known technology widely deployed in many IP core
networks. However there are some operators that do not run MPLS
everywhere in their core network today, thus moving forward they would
prefer to have an IPv6 native infrastructure for the core network.</t>
<t>While the overall amount of traffic offered to the network
continues to grow and considering that multiple types of traffic with
different characteristics and requirements are quickly converging over
single network architecture, the network operators are starting to
face new challenges.</t>
<t>Some operators are looking at the possibility to setup an explicit
path based on the IPv6 source address for specific types of traffic in
order to efficiently use their network infrastructure. In case of IPv6
some operators are currently assigning or plan to assign IPv6
prefix(es) to their IPv6 customers based on regions/geography, thus
the subscriber's IPv6 prefix could be used to identify the region
where the customer is located. In such environment the IPv6 source
address could be used by the Edge nodes of the network to steer
traffic and forward it through a specific path other than the optimal
path.</t>
<t>The need to setup a source-based path, going through some specific
middle/intermediate points in the network may be related to different
requirements: <list style="symbols">
<t>The operator may want to be able to use some high bandwidth
links for specific type of traffic (like video) avoiding the need
for over-dimensioning all the links of the network;</t>
<t>The operator may want to be able to setup a specific path for
delay sensitive applications;</t>
<t>The operator may have the need to be able to select one (or
multiple) specific exit point(s) at peering points when different
peering points are available;</t>
<t>The operator may have the need to be able to setup a source
based path for specific services in order to be able to reach some
servers hosted in some facilities not always reachable through the
optimal path.</t>
</list></t>
<t>All these scenarios would require a form of traffic engineering
capabilities in IP core networks not running MPLS and not willing to
run it.</t>
<t>IPv4 protocol does not provide such functionalities today and it is
not the intent of this document to address the IPv4 scenario, both
because this may create a lot of backward compatibility issues with
currently deployed networks and for the security issues that may
raise.</t>
<t>The described use cases could be addressed with the SPRING
architecture by having the Edge nodes of network to impose a Segment
List on specific traffic flows, based on certain classification
criteria that would include source IPv6 address.</t>
</section>
</section>
<!-- term -->
<!-- xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx -->
<section anchor="contr" title="Acknowledgements">
<t>The authors would like to thank Brian Field, Robert Raszuk, John G.
Scudder and Yakov Rekhter for their valuable comments and inputs to this
document.</t>
</section>
<section anchor="seccons" title="IANA Considerations">
<t>This document does not require any action from IANA.</t>
</section>
<section anchor="IANA" title="Security Considerations">
<t>There are a number of security concerns with source routing at the IP
layer <xref target="RFC5095"/>. The new IPv6-based routing header will
be defined in way that blind attacks are never possible, i.e., attackers
will be unable to send source routed packets that get successfully
processed, without being part of the negations for setting up the source
routes or being able to eavesdrop legitimate source routed packets. In
some networks this base level security may be complemented with other
mechanisms, such as packet filtering, cryptographic security, etc.</t>
</section>
</middle>
<back>
<references title="Informative References">
<?rfc include='reference.RFC.5095'?>
<?rfc include='reference.I-D.filsfils-rtgwg-segment-routing'?>
<?rfc include='reference.I-D.ietf-mpls-seamless-mpls'?>
<?rfc include='reference.I-D.filsfils-rtgwg-segment-routing-use-cases'?>
<?rfc include='reference.I-D.filsfils-spring-segment-routing-mpls'?>
<?rfc include='reference.I-D.previdi-6man-segment-routing-header'?>
<?rfc include='reference.I-D.troan-homenet-sadr'
?>
<?rfc include='reference.I-D.lepape-6man-prefix-metadata'?>
<?rfc include='reference.I-D.quinn-sfc-nsh'?>
<?rfc include='reference.I-D.ietf-sfc-problem-statement'?>
<?rfc include='reference.I-D.kumar-sfc-dc-use-cases'?>
<?rfc include='reference.I-D.bhandari-dhc-class-based-prefix'?>
</references>
</back>
</rfc>
| PAFTECH AB 2003-2026 | 2026-04-23 03:36:27 |