An MPLS-Based Forwarding Plane for Service Function Chaining
RFC 8595
| Document | Type |
RFC - Proposed Standard
(June 2019; No errata)
Was draft-ietf-mpls-sfc (mpls WG)
|
|
|---|---|---|---|
| Authors | Adrian Farrel , Stewart Bryant , John Drake | ||
| Last updated | 2019-06-07 | ||
| Replaces | draft-farrel-mpls-sfc | ||
| Stream | Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) | ||
| Formats | plain text html pdf htmlized bibtex | ||
| Reviews | |||
| Stream | WG state | Submitted to IESG for Publication | |
| Document shepherd | Loa Andersson | ||
| Shepherd write-up | Show (last changed 2018-11-29) | ||
| IESG | IESG state | RFC 8595 (Proposed Standard) | |
| Action Holders |
(None)
|
||
| Consensus Boilerplate | Yes | ||
| Telechat date | |||
| Responsible AD | Deborah Brungard | ||
| Send notices to | Loa Andersson <loa@pi.nu> | ||
| IANA | IANA review state | Version Changed - Review Needed | |
| IANA action state | RFC-Ed-Ack | ||
Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) A. Farrel
Request for Comments: 8595 Old Dog Consulting
Category: Standards Track S. Bryant
ISSN: 2070-1721 Futurewei
J. Drake
Juniper Networks
June 2019
An MPLS-Based Forwarding Plane for Service Function Chaining
Abstract
This document describes how Service Function Chaining (SFC) can be
achieved in an MPLS network by means of a logical representation of
the Network Service Header (NSH) in an MPLS label stack. That is,
the NSH is not used, but the fields of the NSH are mapped to fields
in the MPLS label stack. This approach does not deprecate or replace
the NSH, but it acknowledges that there may be a need for an interim
deployment of SFC functionality in brownfield networks.
Status of This Memo
This is an Internet Standards Track document.
This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force
(IETF). It represents the consensus of the IETF community. It has
received public review and has been approved for publication by the
Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG). Further information on
Internet Standards is available in Section 2 of RFC 7841.
Information about the current status of this document, any errata,
and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at
https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8595.
Farrel, et al. Standards Track [Page 1]
RFC 8595 MPLS SFC June 2019
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2019 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 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 ....................................................3
2. Requirements Language ...........................................4
3. Choice of Data-Plane SPI/SI Representation ......................4
4. Use Case Scenarios ..............................................5
4.1. Label Swapping for Logical NSH .............................5
4.2. Hierarchical Encapsulation .................................5
4.3. Fine Control of Service Function Instances .................6
4.4. Micro Chains and Label Stacking ............................6
4.5. SFC and Segment Routing ....................................6
5. Basic Unit of Representation ....................................6
6. MPLS Label Swapping .............................................7
7. MPLS Label Stacking ............................................10
8. Mixed-Mode Forwarding ..........................................12
9. A Note on Service Function Capabilities and SFC Proxies ........13
10. Control-Plane Considerations ..................................14
11. Use of the Entropy Label ......................................14
12. Metadata ......................................................15
12.1. Indicating Metadata in User Data Packets .................16
12.2. In-Band Programming of Metadata ..........................18
12.2.1. Loss of In-Band Metadata ..........................21
13. Worked Examples ...............................................22
14. Implementation Notes ..........................................26
15. Security Considerations .......................................26
16. IANA Considerations ...........................................28
17. References ....................................................29
17.1. Normative References .....................................29
17.2. Informative References ...................................30
Acknowledgements ..................................................31
Contributors ......................................................31
Authors' Addresses ................................................32
Farrel, et al. Standards Track [Page 2]
RFC 8595 MPLS SFC June 2019
1. Introduction
Service Function Chaining (SFC) is the process of directing packets
through a network so that they can be acted on by an ordered set of
abstract Service Functions (SFs) before being delivered to the
intended destination. An architecture for SFC is defined in
[RFC7665].
When applying a particular service function chain to the traffic
selected by a service classifier, the traffic needs to be steered
through an ordered set of SFs in the network. This ordered set of
SFs is termed a Service Function Path (SFP), and the traffic is
passed between Service Function Forwarders (SFFs) that are
responsible for delivering the packets to the SFs and for forwarding
them onward to the next SFF.
In order to steer the selected traffic between SFFs and to the
correct SFs, the service classifier needs to attach information to
each packet. This information indicates the SFP on which the packet
is being forwarded and hence the SFs to which it must be delivered.
The information also indicates the progress the packet has already
made along the SFP.
The Network Service Header (NSH) [RFC8300] has been defined to carry
the necessary information for SFC in packets. The NSH can be
inserted into packets and contains various information, including a
Service Path Identifier (SPI), a Service Index (SI), and a Time To
Live (TTL) counter.
Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) [RFC3031] is a widely deployed
forwarding technology that uses labels placed in a packet in a label
stack to identify the forwarding actions to be taken at each hop
through a network. Actions may include swapping or popping the
labels as well as using the labels to determine the next hop for
forwarding the packet. Labels may also be used to establish the
context under which the packet is forwarded. In many cases, MPLS
will be used as a tunneling technology to carry packets through
networks between SFFs.
This document describes how SFC can be achieved in an MPLS network by
means of a logical representation of the NSH in an MPLS label stack.
This approach is applicable to all forms of MPLS forwarding (where
labels are looked up at each hop and are swapped or popped
[RFC3031]). It does not deprecate or replace the NSH, but it
acknowledges that there may be a need for an interim deployment of
SFC functionality in brownfield networks. The mechanisms described
in this document are a compromise between the full function that can
be achieved using the NSH and the benefits of reusing the existing
Farrel, et al. Standards Track [Page 3]
RFC 8595 MPLS SFC June 2019
MPLS forwarding paradigms (the approach defined here does not include
the O bit defined in [RFC8300] and has some limitations to the use of
metadata as described in Section 12).
Section 4 provides a short overview of several use case scenarios
that help to explain the relationship between the MPLS label
operations (swapping, popping, stacking) and the MPLS encoding of the
logical NSH described in this document.
It is assumed that the reader is fully familiar with the terms and
concepts introduced in [RFC7665] and [RFC8300].
Note that one of the features of the SFC architecture described in
[RFC7665] is the "SFC proxy", which exists to include legacy SFs that
are not able to process NSH-encapsulated packets. This issue is
equally applicable to the use of MPLS-encapsulated packets that
encode a logical representation of an NSH. It is discussed further
in Section 9.
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. Choice of Data-Plane SPI/SI Representation
While [RFC8300] defines the NSH that can be used in a number of
environments, this document provides a mechanism to handle situations
in which the NSH is not ubiquitously deployed. In this case, it is
possible to use an alternative data-plane representation of the
SPI/SI by carrying the identical semantics in MPLS labels.
In order to correctly select the mechanism by which SFC information
is encoded and carried between SFFs, it may be necessary to configure
the capabilities and choices either within the whole Service Function
Overlay Network or on a hop-by-hop basis. It is a requirement that
both ends of a tunnel over the underlay network (i.e., a pair of SFFs
adjacent in the SFP) know that the tunnel is used for SFC and know
what form of NSH representation is used. A control-plane signaling
approach to achieve these objectives is provided using BGP in
[BGP-NSH-SFC].
Farrel, et al. Standards Track [Page 4]
RFC 8595 MPLS SFC June 2019
Note that the encoding of the SFC information is independent of the
choice of tunneling technology used between SFFs. Thus, an MPLS
representation of the logical NSH (as defined in this document) may
be used even if the tunnel between a pair of SFFs is not an MPLS
tunnel. Conversely, MPLS tunnels may be used to carry other
encodings of the logical NSH (specifically, the NSH itself).
4. Use Case Scenarios
There are five scenarios that can be considered for the use of an
MPLS encoding in support of SFC. These are set out in the following
subsections.
4.1. Label Swapping for Logical NSH
The primary use case for SFC is described in [RFC7665] and delivered
using the NSH, which, as described in [RFC8300], uses an
encapsulation with a position indicator that is modified at each SFC
hop along the chain to indicate the next hop.
The label-swapping use case scenario effectively replaces the NSH
with an MPLS encapsulation as described in Section 6. The MPLS
labels encode the same information as the NSH to form a logical NSH.
The labels are modified (swapped per [RFC3031]) at each SFC hop along
the chain to indicate the next hop. The processing and the
forwarding state for a chain (i.e., the actions to take on a received
label) are programmed into the network using a control plane or
management plane.
4.2. Hierarchical Encapsulation
[RFC8459] describes an architecture for hierarchical encapsulation
using the NSH. It facilitates partitioning of SFC domains for
administrative reasons and allows concatenation of service function
chains under the control of a service classifier.
The same function can be achieved in an MPLS network using an MPLS
encoding of the logical NSH, and label stacking as defined in
[RFC3031] and described in Section 7. In this model, swapping is
used per Section 4.1 to navigate one chain, and when the end of the
chain is reached, the final label is popped, revealing the label for
another chain. Thus, the primary mode is swapping, but stacking is
used to enable the ingress classifier to control concatenation of
service function chains.
Farrel, et al. Standards Track [Page 5]
RFC 8595 MPLS SFC June 2019
4.3. Fine Control of Service Function Instances
It may be that a service function chain (as described in Section 4.1)
allows some leeway in the choice of service function instances along
the chain. However, it may be that a service classifier wishes to
constrain the choice and this can be achieved using chain
concatenation so that the first chain ends at the point of choice,
the next label in the stack indicates the specific service function
instance to be executed, and the next label in the stack starts a new
chain. Thus, a mixture of label swapping and stacking is used.
4.4. Micro Chains and Label Stacking
The scenario in Section 4.2 may be extended to its logical extreme by
making each concatenated chain as short as it can be: one SF. Each
label in the stack indicates the next SF to be executed, and the
network is programmed through the control plane or management plane
to know how to route to the next (i.e., first) hop in each chain just
as it would be to support the scenarios in Sections 4.1 and 4.2.
This scenario is functionally identical to the use of Segment Routing
(SR) in an MPLS network (known as SR-MPLS) for SFC, as described in
Section 4.5, and the discussion in that section applies to this
section as well.
4.5. SFC and Segment Routing
SR-MPLS uses a stack of MPLS labels to encode information about the
path and network functions that a packet should traverse. SR-MPLS is
achieved by applying control-plane and management-plane techniques to
program the MPLS forwarding plane and by imposing labels on packets
at the entrance to the SR-MPLS network. An implementation proposal
for achieving SFC using SR-MPLS can be found in [SR-Srv-Prog] and is
not discussed further in this document.
5. Basic Unit of Representation
When an MPLS label stack is used to carry a logical NSH, a basic unit
of representation is used. This unit comprises two MPLS labels, as
shown below. The unit may be present one or more times in the label
stack as explained in subsequent sections.
In order to convey the same information as is present in the NSH, two
MPLS label stack entries are used. One carries a label to provide
context within the SFC scope (the SFC Context Label), and the other
carries a label to show which SF is to be actioned (the SF Label).
This two-label unit is shown in Figure 1.
Farrel, et al. Standards Track [Page 6]
RFC 8595 MPLS SFC June 2019
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| SFC Context Label | TC |S| TTL |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| SF Label | TC |S| TTL |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 1: The Basic Unit of MPLS Label Stack for SFC
The fields of these two label stack entries are encoded as follows:
Label: The Label fields contain the values of the SFC Context Label
and the SF Label encoded as 20-bit integers. The precise
semantics of these Label fields are dependent on whether the label
stack entries are used for MPLS label swapping (see Section 6) or
MPLS label stacking (see Section 7).
TC: The TC bits have no meaning in this case. They SHOULD be set to
zero in both label stack entries when a packet is sent and MUST be
ignored on receipt.
S: The "Bottom of Stack" bit has its usual meaning in MPLS. It MUST
be clear in the SFC Context Label stack entry. In the SF Label
stack entry, it MUST be clear in all cases except when the label
is the bottom of the stack, when it MUST be set.
TTL: The TTL field in the SFC Context Label stack entry SHOULD be
set to 1. The TTL in the SF Label stack entry (called the SF TTL)
is set according to its use for MPLS label swapping (see
Section 6) or MPLS label stacking (see Section 7) and is used to
mitigate packet loops.
The sections that follow show how this basic unit of MPLS label stack
may be used for SFC in the MPLS label-swapping case and in the MPLS
label-stacking case. For simplicity, these sections do not describe
the use of metadata; that topic is covered separately in Section 12.
6. MPLS Label Swapping
This section describes how the basic unit of MPLS label stack for SFC
(introduced in Section 5) is used when MPLS label swapping is in use.
The use case scenario for this approach is introduced in Section 4.1.
As can be seen in Figure 2, the top of the label stack comprises the
labels necessary to deliver the packet over the MPLS tunnel between
SFFs. Any MPLS encapsulation may be used (i.e., MPLS, MPLS in UDP,
MPLS in GRE, and MPLS in Virtual Extensible Local Area Networks
Farrel, et al. Standards Track [Page 7]
RFC 8595 MPLS SFC June 2019
(VXLANs) or the Generic Protocol Extension for VXLAN (GPE)); thus,
the tunnel technology does not need to be MPLS, but MPLS is shown
here for simplicity.
An entropy label [RFC6790] may also be present, as described in
Section 11.
---------------
~ Tunnel Labels ~
+---------------+
~ Optional ~
~ Entropy Label ~
+---------------+ - - -
| SPI Label |
+---------------+ Basic unit of MPLS label stack for SFC
| SI Label |
+---------------+ - - -
| |
~ Payload ~
| |
---------------
Figure 2: The MPLS SFC Label Stack
Under these labels (or other encapsulation) comes a single instance
of the basic unit of MPLS label stack for SFC. In addition to the
interpretation of the fields of these label stack entries (provided
in Section 5), the following meanings are applied:
SPI Label: The Label field of the SFC Context Label stack entry
contains the value of the SPI encoded as a 20-bit integer. The
semantics of the SPI are exactly as defined in [RFC8300]. Note
that an SPI as defined by [RFC8300] can be encoded in 3 octets
(i.e., 24 bits), but that the Label field allows for only 20 bits
and reserves the values 0 through 15 as "special-purpose labels"
[RFC7274]. Thus, a system using MPLS representation of the
logical NSH MUST NOT assign SPI values greater than 2^20 - 1 or
less than 16.
SI Label: The Label field of the SF Label stack entry contains the
value of the SI exactly as defined in [RFC8300]. Since the SI
requires only 8 bits, and to avoid overlap with the
special-purpose label range of 0 through 15 [RFC7274], the SI is
carried in the top (most significant) 8 bits of the Label field
with the low-order 12 bits set to zero.
TC: The TC fields are as described in Section 5.
Farrel, et al. Standards Track [Page 8]
RFC 8595 MPLS SFC June 2019
S: The S bits are as described in Section 5.
TTL: The TTL field in the SPI Label stack entry SHOULD be set to 1
as stated in Section 5. The TTL in the SF Label stack entry is
decremented once for each forwarding hop in the SFP, i.e., for
each SFF transited, and so mirrors the TTL field in the NSH.
The following processing rules apply to the Label fields:
o When a classifier inserts a packet onto an SFP, it sets the SPI
Label to indicate the identity of the SFP and sets the SI Label to
indicate the first SF in the path.
o When a component of the SFC system processes a packet, it uses the
SPI Label to identify the SFP and the SI Label to determine which
SFF or instance of an SF (an SFI) to deliver the packet to. Under
normal circumstances (with the exception of branching and
reclassification -- see [BGP-NSH-SFC]), the SPI Label value is
preserved on all packets. The SI Label value is modified by SFFs
and through reclassification to indicate the next hop along
the SFP.
The following processing rules apply to the TTL field of the SF Label
stack entry and are derived from Section 2.2 of [RFC8300]:
o When a classifier places a packet onto an SFP, it MUST set the TTL
to a value between 1 and 255. It SHOULD set this according to the
expected length of the SFP (i.e., the number of SFs on the SFP),
but it MAY set it to a larger value according to local
configuration. The maximum TTL value supported in an NSH is 63,
and so the practical limit here may also be 63.
o When an SFF receives a packet from any component of the SFC system
(classifier, SFI, or another SFF), it MUST discard any packets
with TTL set to zero. It SHOULD log such occurrences but MUST
apply rate limiting to any such logs.
o An SFF MUST decrement the TTL by one each time it performs a
lookup to forward a packet to the next SFF.
o If an SFF decrements the TTL to zero, it MUST NOT send the packet
and MUST discard the packet. It SHOULD log such occurrences but
MUST apply rate limiting to any such logs.
o SFIs MUST ignore the TTL but MUST mirror it back to the SFF
unmodified along with the SI (which may have been changed by local
reclassification).
Farrel, et al. Standards Track [Page 9]
RFC 8595 MPLS SFC June 2019
o If a classifier along the SFP makes any change to the intended
path of the packet, including for looping, jumping, or branching
(see [BGP-NSH-SFC]), it MUST NOT change the SI TTL of the packet.
In particular, each component of the SFC system MUST NOT increase
the SI TTL value; otherwise, loops may go undetected.
7. MPLS Label Stacking
This section describes how the basic unit of MPLS label stack for SFC
(introduced in Section 5) is used when MPLS label stacking is used to
carry information about the SFP and SFs to be executed. The use case
scenarios for this approach are introduced in Section 4.
As can be seen in Figure 3, the top of the label stack comprises the
labels necessary to deliver the packet over the MPLS tunnel between
SFFs. Any MPLS encapsulation may be used.
-------------------
~ Tunnel Labels ~
+-------------------+
~ Optional ~
~ Entropy Label ~
+-------------------+ - - -
| SFC Context Label |
+-------------------+ Basic unit of MPLS label stack for SFC
| SF Label |
+-------------------+ - - -
| SFC Context Label |
+-------------------+ Basic unit of MPLS label stack for SFC
| SF Label |
+-------------------+ - - -
~ ~
+-------------------+ - - -
| SFC Context Label |
+-------------------+ Basic unit of MPLS label stack for SFC
| SF Label |
+-------------------+ - - -
| |
~ Payload ~
| |
-------------------
Figure 3: The MPLS SFC Label Stack for Label Stacking
An entropy label [RFC6790] may also be present, as described in
Section 11.
Farrel, et al. Standards Track [Page 10]
RFC 8595 MPLS SFC June 2019
Under these labels comes one or more instances of the basic unit of
MPLS label stack for SFC. In addition to the interpretation of the
fields of these label stack entries (provided in Section 5), the
following meanings are applied:
SFC Context Label: The Label field of the SFC Context Label stack
entry contains a label that delivers SFC context. This label
contains the SPI, encoded as a 20-bit integer using the semantics
exactly as defined in [RFC8300]. Note that in this case a system
using MPLS representation of the logical NSH MUST NOT assign SPI
values greater than 2^20 - 1 or less than 16. This label may also
be used to convey other SFC context-specific semantics, such as
indicating how to interpret the SF Label or how to forward the
packet to the node that offers the SF if so configured and
coordinated with the controller that programs the labels for
the SFP.
SF Label: The Label field of the SF Label stack entry contains a
value that identifies the next SFI to be actioned for the packet.
This label may be scoped globally or within the context of the
preceding SFC Context Label and comes from the range
16 ... 2^20 - 1.
TC: The TC fields are as described in Section 5.
S: The S bits are as described in Section 5.
TTL: The TTL fields in the SFC Context Label stack entry and in the
SF Label stack entry SHOULD be set to 1 as stated in Section 5 but
MAY be set to larger values if the label indicated a forwarding
operation towards the node that hosts the SF.
The following processing rules apply to the Label fields:
o When a classifier inserts a packet onto an SFP, it adds a stack
comprising one or more instances of the basic unit of MPLS label
stack for SFC. Taken together, this stack defines the SFs to be
actioned and so defines the SFP that the packet will traverse.
o When a component of the SFC system processes a packet, it uses the
top basic unit of label stack for SFC to determine to which SFI to
next deliver the packet. When an SFF receives a packet, it
examines the top basic unit of MPLS label stack for SFC to
determine where to send the packet next. If the next recipient is
a local SFI, the SFF strips the basic unit of MPLS label stack for
SFC before forwarding the packet.
Farrel, et al. Standards Track [Page 11]
RFC 8595 MPLS SFC June 2019
8. Mixed-Mode Forwarding
The previous sections describe homogeneous networks where SFC
forwarding is either all label swapping or all label popping
(stacking). This simplification helps to clarify the explanation of
the mechanisms.
However, as described in Section 4.2, some use cases may use label
swapping and stacking at the same time. Furthermore, it is also
possible that different parts of the network utilize swapping or
popping such that an end-to-end service chain has to utilize a
combination of both techniques. It is also worth noting that a
classifier may be content to use an SFP as installed in the network
by a control plane or management plane and so would use label
swapping, but that there may be a point in the SFP where a choice of
SFIs can be made (perhaps for load balancing) and where, in this
instance, the classifier wishes to exert control over that choice by
use of a specific entry on the label stack as described in
Section 4.3.
When an SFF receives a packet containing an MPLS label stack, it
checks from the context of the incoming interface, and from the SFP
indicated by the top label, whether it is processing an {SPI, SI}
label pair for label swapping or a {context label, SFI index} label
pair for label stacking. It then selects the appropriate SFI to
which to send the packet. When it receives the packet back from the
SFI, it has four cases to consider.
o If the current hop requires an {SPI, SI} and the next hop requires
an {SPI, SI}, it sets the SPI Label according to the SFP to be
traversed, selects an instance of the SF to be executed at the
next hop, sets the SI Label to the SI value of the next hop, and
tunnels the packet to the SFF for that SFI.
o If the current hop requires an {SPI, SI} and the next hop requires
a {context label, SFI Label}, it pops the {SPI, SI} from the top
of the MPLS label stack and tunnels the packet to the SFF
indicated by the context label.
Farrel, et al. Standards Track [Page 12]
RFC 8595 MPLS SFC June 2019
o If the current hop requires a {context label, SFI Label}, it pops
the {context label, SFI Label} from the top of the MPLS label
stack.
* If the new top of the MPLS label stack contains an {SPI, SI}
label pair, it selects an SFI to use at the next hop and
tunnels the packet to the SFF for that SFI.
* If the new top of the MPLS label stack contains a {context
label, SFI Label}, it tunnels the packet to the SFF indicated
by the context label.
9. A Note on Service Function Capabilities and SFC Proxies
The concept of an "SFC proxy" is introduced in [RFC7665]. An SFC
proxy is logically located between an SFF and an SFI that is not
"SFC aware". Such SFIs are not capable of handling the SFC
encapsulation (whether that be NSH or MPLS) and need the
encapsulation stripped from the packets they are to process. In many
cases, legacy SFIs that were once deployed as "bumps in the wire" fit
into this category until they have been upgraded to be SFC aware.
The job of an SFC proxy is to remove and then reimpose SFC
encapsulation so that the SFF is able to process as though it was
communication with an SFC-aware SFI, and so that the SFI is unaware
of the SFC encapsulation. In this regard, the job of an SFC proxy is
no different when NSH encapsulation is used and when MPLS
encapsulation is used as described in this document, although (of
course) it is different encapsulation bytes that must be removed and
reimposed.
It should be noted that the SFC proxy is a logical function. It
could be implemented as a separate physical component on the path
from the SFF to the SFI, but it could be co-resident with the SFF or
it could be a component of the SFI. This is purely an implementation
choice.
Note also that the delivery of metadata (see Section 12) requires
specific processing if an SFC proxy is in use. This is also no
different when NSH functionality or the MPLS encoding defined in this
document is in use, and how it is handled will depend on how (or if)
each non-SFC-aware SFI can receive metadata.
Farrel, et al. Standards Track [Page 13]
RFC 8595 MPLS SFC June 2019
10. Control-Plane Considerations
In order that a packet may be forwarded along an SFP, several
functional elements must be executed.
o Discovery/advertisement of SFIs.
o Computation of the SFP.
o Programming of classifiers.
o Advertisement of forwarding instructions.
Various approaches may be taken. These include a fully centralized
model where SFFs report to a central controller the SFIs that they
support, the central controller computes the SFP and programs the
classifiers, and (if the label-swapping approach is taken) the
central controller installs forwarding state in the SFFs that lie on
the SFP.
Alternatively, a dynamic control plane may be used, such as that
described in [BGP-NSH-SFC]. In this case, the SFFs use the control
plane to advertise the SFIs that they support, a central controller
computes the SFP and programs the classifiers, and (if the
label-swapping approach is taken) the central controller uses the
control plane to advertise the SFPs so that SFFs that lie on the SFP
can install the necessary forwarding state.
11. Use of the Entropy Label
Entropy is used in ECMP situations to ensure that packets from the
same flow travel down the same path, thus avoiding jitter or
reordering issues within a flow.
Entropy is often determined by hashing on specific fields in a packet
header, such as the "five-tuple" in the IP and transport headers.
However, when an MPLS label stack is present, the depth of the stack
could be too large for some processors to correctly determine the
entropy hash. This problem is addressed by the inclusion of an
entropy label as described in [RFC6790].
Farrel, et al. Standards Track [Page 14]
RFC 8595 MPLS SFC June 2019
When entropy is desired for packets as they are carried in MPLS
tunnels over the underlay network, it is RECOMMENDED that an entropy
label be included in the label stack immediately after the tunnel
labels and before the SFC Labels, as shown in Figures 2 and 3.
If an entropy label is present in an MPLS payload, it is RECOMMENDED
that the initial classifier use that value in an entropy label
inserted in the label stack when the packet is forwarded (on the
first tunnel) to the first SFF. In this case, it is not necessary to
remove the entropy label from the payload.
12. Metadata
Metadata is defined in [RFC7665] as providing "the ability to
exchange context information between classifiers and SFs, and among
SFs." [RFC8300] defines how this context information can be directly
encoded in fields that form part of the NSH encapsulation.
Sections 12.1 and 12.2 describe how metadata is associated with user
data packets, and how metadata may be exchanged between SFC nodes in
the network, when using an MPLS encoding of the logical
representation of the NSH.
It should be noted that the MPLS encoding is less functional than the
direct use of the NSH. Both methods support metadata that is
"per-SFP" or "per-flow" (see [RFC8393] for definitions of these
terms), but "per-packet" metadata (where the metadata must be carried
on each packet because it differs from one packet to the next even on
the same flow or SFP) is only supported using the NSH and not using
the mechanisms defined in this document.
Farrel, et al. Standards Track [Page 15]
RFC 8595 MPLS SFC June 2019
12.1. Indicating Metadata in User Data Packets
Metadata is achieved in the MPLS realization of the logical NSH by
the use of an SFC Metadata Label, which uses the extended
special-purpose label construct [RFC7274]. Thus, three label stack
entries are present, as shown in Figure 4:
o The Extension Label (value 15).
o An extended special-purpose label called the Metadata Label
Indicator (MLI) (value 16).
o The Metadata Label (ML).
----------------
| Extension = 15 |
+----------------+
| MLI |
+----------------+
| Metadata Label |
----------------
Figure 4: The MPLS SFC Metadata Label
The Metadata Label value is an index into a table of metadata that is
programmed into the network using in-band or out-of-band mechanisms.
Out-of-band mechanisms potentially include management-plane and
control-plane solutions (such as [BGP-NSH-SFC]) but are out of scope
for this document. The in-band mechanism is described in
Section 12.2.
The SFC Metadata Label (as a set of three labels as indicated in
Figure 4) may be present zero, one, or more times in an MPLS SFC
packet. For MPLS label swapping, the SFC Metadata Labels are placed
immediately after the basic unit of MPLS label stack for SFC, as
shown in Figure 5. For MPLS label stacking, the SFC Metadata Labels
are placed at the bottom of the label stack, as shown in Figure 6.
Farrel, et al. Standards Track [Page 16]
RFC 8595 MPLS SFC June 2019
----------------
~ Tunnel Labels ~
+----------------+
~ Optional ~
~ Entropy Label ~
+----------------+
| SPI Label |
+----------------+
| SI Label |
+----------------+
| Extension = 15 |
+----------------+
| MLI |
+----------------+
| Metadata Label |
+----------------+
~ Other ~
| Metadata |
~ Label Triples ~
+----------------+
| |
~ Payload ~
| |
----------------
Figure 5: The MPLS SFC Label Stack for Label Swapping
with Metadata Label
Farrel, et al. Standards Track [Page 17]
RFC 8595 MPLS SFC June 2019
-------------------
~ Tunnel Labels ~
+-------------------+
~ Optional ~
~ Entropy Label ~
+-------------------+
| SFC Context Label |
+-------------------+
| SF Label |
+-------------------+
~ ~
+-------------------+
| SFC Context Label |
+-------------------+
| SF Label |
+-------------------+
| Extension = 15 |
+-------------------+
| MLI |
+-------------------+
| Metadata Label |
+-------------------+
~ Other ~
| Metadata |
~ Label Triples ~
+-------------------+
| |
~ Payload ~
| |
-------------------
Figure 6: The MPLS SFC Label Stack for Label Stacking
with Metadata Label
12.2. In-Band Programming of Metadata
A mechanism for sending metadata associated with an SFP without a
payload packet is described in [RFC8393]. The same approach can be
used in an MPLS network where the NSH is logically represented by an
MPLS label stack.
Farrel, et al. Standards Track [Page 18]
RFC 8595 MPLS SFC June 2019
The packet header is formed exactly as previously described in this
document so that the packet will follow the SFP through the SFC
network. However, instead of payload data, metadata is included
after the bottom of the MPLS label stack. An extended
special-purpose label is used to indicate that the metadata is
present. Thus, three label stack entries are present:
o The Extension Label (value 15).
o An extended special-purpose label called the Metadata Present
Indicator (MPI) (value 17).
o The Metadata Label (ML) that is associated with this metadata on
this SFP and can be used to indicate the use of the metadata as
described in Section 12.
The MPI, if present, is placed immediately after the last basic unit
of MPLS label stack for SFC. The resultant label stacks are shown in
Figure 7 for the MPLS label-swapping case and Figure 8 for the MPLS
label-stacking case.
---------------
~ Tunnel Labels ~
+---------------+
~ Optional ~
~ Entropy Label ~
+---------------+
| SPI Label |
+---------------+
| SI Label |
+---------------+
| Extension = 15|
+---------------+
| MPI |
+---------------+
| Metadata Label|
+---------------+
| |
~ Metadata ~
| |
---------------
Figure 7: The MPLS SFC Label Stack for Label Swapping
Carrying Metadata
Farrel, et al. Standards Track [Page 19]
RFC 8595 MPLS SFC June 2019
-------------------
~ Tunnel Labels ~
+-------------------+
~ Optional ~
~ Entropy Label ~
+-------------------+
| SFC Context Label |
+-------------------+
| SF Label |
+-------------------+
| SFC Context Label |
+-------------------+
| SF Label |
+-------------------+
~ ~
+-------------------+
| SFC Context Label |
+-------------------+
| SF Label |
+-------------------+
| Extension = 15 |
+-------------------+
| MPI |
+-------------------+
| Metadata Label |
+-------------------+
| |
~ Metadata ~
| |
-------------------
Figure 8: The MPLS SFC Label Stack for Label Stacking
Carrying Metadata
In both cases, the metadata is formatted as a TLV, as shown in
Figure 9.
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Length | Metadata Type |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
~ Metadata ~
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 9: The Metadata TLV
Farrel, et al. Standards Track [Page 20]
RFC 8595 MPLS SFC June 2019
The fields of this TLV are interpreted as follows:
Length: The length of the metadata carried in the Metadata field in
octets, not including any padding.
Metadata Type: The type of the metadata present. Values for this
field are taken from the "NSH MD Types" registry maintained by
IANA and defined in [RFC8300] and encoded with the most
significant bit first.
Metadata: The actual metadata formatted as described in whatever
document defines the metadata. This field is end-padded with zero
to 3 octets of zeroes to take it up to a 4-octet boundary.
12.2.1. Loss of In-Band Metadata
Note that in-band exchange of metadata is vulnerable to packet loss.
This is both a risk arising from network faults and an attack
vulnerability.
If packets that arrive at an SFF use an MLI that does not have an
entry in the metadata table, an alarm can be raised and the packet
can be discarded or processed without the metadata according to local
configuration. This provides some long-term mitigation but is not an
ideal solution.
Further mitigation of loss of metadata packets can be achieved by
retransmitting them at a configurable interval. This is a relatively
cheap, but only partial, solution because there may still be a window
during which the metadata has not been received.
The concern of lost metadata may be particularly important when the
metadata applicable to a specific MPI is being changed. This could
result in out-of-date metadata being applied to a packet. If this is
a concern, it is RECOMMENDED that a new MPI be used to install a new
entry in the metadata table, and the packets in the flow should be
marked with the equivalent new MLI.
Finally, if an application that requires metadata is sensitive to
this potential loss or attack, it SHOULD NOT use in-band metadata
distribution but SHOULD rely on control-plane or management-plane
mechanisms, because these approaches can use a more sophisticated
protocol that includes confirmation of delivery and can perform
verification or inspection of entries in the metadata table.
Farrel, et al. Standards Track [Page 21]
RFC 8595 MPLS SFC June 2019
13. Worked Examples
This section reverts to the simplified descriptions of networks that
rely wholly on label swapping or label stacking. As described in
Section 4, actual deployment scenarios may depend on the use of both
mechanisms and utilize a mixed mode as described in Section 8.
Consider the simplistic MPLS SFC overlay network shown in Figure 10.
A packet is classified for an SFP that will see it pass through two
SFs (SFa and SFb) that are accessed through two SFFs (SFFa and SFFb,
respectively). The packet is ultimately delivered to the
destination, D.
+---------------------------------------------------+
| MPLS SFC Network |
| |
| +---------+ +---------+ |
| | SFa | | SFb | |
| +----+----+ +----+----+ |
| ^ | | ^ | | |
| (2)| | |(3) (5)| | |(6) |
| (1) | | V (4) | | V (7) |
+----------+ ---> +----+----+ ----> +----+----+ ---> +-------+
|Classifier+------+ SFFa +-------+ SFFb +------+ D |
+----------+ +---------+ +---------+ +-------+
| |
+---------------------------------------------------+
Figure 10: Service Function Chaining in an MPLS Network
Let us assume that the SFP is computed and assigned an SPI value of
239. The forwarding details of the SFP are distributed (perhaps
using the mechanisms of [BGP-NSH-SFC]) so that the SFFs are
programmed with the necessary forwarding instructions.
The packet progresses as follows:
1. The classifier assigns the packet to the SFP and imposes two
label stack entries comprising a single basic unit of MPLS SFC
representation:
* The higher label stack entry contains a label carrying the SPI
value of 239.
* The lower label stack entry contains a label carrying the SI
value of 255.
Farrel, et al. Standards Track [Page 22]
RFC 8595 MPLS SFC June 2019
Further labels may be imposed to tunnel the packet from the
classifier to SFFa.
2. When the packet arrives at SFFa, SFFa strips any labels
associated with the tunnel that runs from the classifier to SFFa.
SFFa examines the top labels and matches the SPI/SI to identify
that the packet should be forwarded to SFa. The packet is
forwarded to SFa unmodified.
3. SFa performs its designated function and returns the packet
to SFFa.
4. SFFa modifies the SI in the lower label stack entry (to 254) and
uses the SPI/SI to look up the forwarding instructions. It sends
the packet with two label stack entries:
* The higher label stack entry contains a label carrying the SPI
value of 239.
* The lower label stack entry contains a label carrying the SI
value of 254.
Further labels may be imposed to tunnel the packet from SFFa
to SFFb.
5. When the packet arrives at SFFb, SFFb strips any labels
associated with the tunnel from SFFa. SFFb examines the top
labels and matches the SPI/SI to identify that the packet should
be forwarded to SFb. The packet is forwarded to SFb unmodified.
6. SFb performs its designated function and returns the packet
to SFFb.
7. SFFb modifies the SI in the lower label stack entry (to 253) and
uses the SPI/SI to look up the forwarding instructions. It
determines that it is the last SFF in the SFP, so it strips the
two SFC Label stack entries and forwards the payload toward D
using the payload protocol.
Farrel, et al. Standards Track [Page 23]
RFC 8595 MPLS SFC June 2019
Alternatively, consider the MPLS SFC overlay network shown in
Figure 11. A packet is classified for an SFP that will see it pass
through two SFs (SFx and SFy) that are accessed through two SFFs
(SFFx and SFFy, respectively). The packet is ultimately delivered to
the destination, D.
+---------------------------------------------------+
| MPLS SFC Network |
| |
| +---------+ +---------+ |
| | SFx | | SFy | |
| +----+----+ +----+----+ |
| ^ | | ^ | | |
| (2)| | |(3) (5)| | |(6) |
| (1) | | V (4) | | V (7) |
+----------+ ---> +----+----+ ----> +----+----+ ---> +-------+
|Classifier+------+ SFFx +-------+ SFFy +------+ D |
+----------+ +---------+ +---------+ +-------+
| |
+---------------------------------------------------+
Figure 11: Service Function Chaining Using MPLS Label Stacking
Let us assume that the SFP is computed and assigned an SPI value of
239. However, the forwarding state for the SFP is not distributed
and installed in the network. Instead, it will be attached to the
individual packets using the MPLS label stack.
The packet progresses as follows:
1. The classifier assigns the packet to the SFP and imposes two
basic units of MPLS SFC representation to describe the full SFP:
* The top basic unit comprises two label stack entries as
follows:
+ The higher label stack entry contains a label carrying the
SFC context.
+ The lower label stack entry contains a label carrying the
SF indicator for SFx.
Farrel, et al. Standards Track [Page 24]
RFC 8595 MPLS SFC June 2019
* The lower basic unit comprises two label stack entries as
follows:
+ The higher label stack entry contains a label carrying the
SFC context.
+ The lower label stack entry contains a label carrying the
SF indicator for SFy.
Further labels may be imposed to tunnel the packet from the
classifier to SFFx.
2. When the packet arrives at SFFx, SFFx strips any labels
associated with the tunnel from the classifier. SFFx examines
the top labels and matches the context/SF values to identify that
the packet should be forwarded to SFx. The packet is forwarded
to SFx unmodified.
3. SFx performs its designated function and returns the packet
to SFFx.
4. SFFx strips the top basic unit of MPLS SFC representation,
revealing the next basic unit. It then uses the revealed
context/SF values to determine how to route the packet to the
next SFF, SFFy. It sends the packet with just one basic unit of
MPLS SFC representation comprising two label stack entries:
* The higher label stack entry contains a label carrying the SFC
context.
* The lower label stack entry contains a label carrying the SF
indicator for SFy.
Further labels may be imposed to tunnel the packet from SFFx
to SFFy.
5. When the packet arrives at SFFy, SFFy strips any labels
associated with the tunnel from SFFx. SFFy examines the top
labels and matches the context/SF values to identify that the
packet should be forwarded to SFy. The packet is forwarded to
SFy unmodified.
6. SFy performs its designated function and returns the packet
to SFFy.
7. SFFy strips the top basic unit of MPLS SFC representation,
revealing the payload packet. It forwards the payload toward D
using the payload protocol.
Farrel, et al. Standards Track [Page 25]
RFC 8595 MPLS SFC June 2019
14. Implementation Notes
It is not the job of an IETF specification to describe the internals
of an implementation, except where that directly impacts upon the
bits on the wire that change the likelihood of interoperability or
where the availability of configuration or security options directly
affects the utility of an implementation.
However, in view of the objective of this document to acknowledge
that there may be a need for an interim deployment of SFC
functionality in brownfield MPLS networks, this section provides some
observations about how an SFF might utilize MPLS features that are
available in existing routers. This section is not intended to be
definitive or technically complete; rather, it is indicative.
Consider the mechanism used to indicate to which Virtual Routing and
Forwarding (VRF) system an incoming MPLS packet should be routed in a
Layer 3 Virtual Private Network (L3VPN) [RFC4364]. In this case, the
top MPLS label is an indicator of the VRF system that is to be used
to route the payload.
A similar approach can be taken with the label-swapping SFC technique
described in Section 6 such that the SFC Context Label identifies a
routing table specific to the SFP. The SF Label can be looked up in
the context of this routing table to determine to which SF to direct
the packet and how to forward it to the next SFF.
Advanced features (such as metadata) are not inspected by SFFs. The
packets are passed to SFIs that are MPLS-SFC aware or to SFC proxies,
and those components are responsible for handling all metadata
issues.
Of course, an actual implementation might make considerable
optimizations on this approach, but this section should provide hints
about how MPLS-based SFC might be achieved with relatively small
modifications to deployed MPLS devices.
15. Security Considerations
Discussion of the security properties of SFC networks can be found in
[RFC7665]. Further security discussion for the NSH and its use is
provided in [RFC8300]. Those documents provide analysis and present
a set of requirements and recommendations for security, and the
normative security requirements from those documents apply to this
specification. However, it should be noted that those documents do
not describe any mechanisms for securing NSH systems.
Farrel, et al. Standards Track [Page 26]
RFC 8595 MPLS SFC June 2019
It is fundamental to the SFC design that the classifier is a fully
trusted element. That is, the classification decision process is not
visible to the other elements, and its output is treated as accurate.
As such, the classifier has responsibility for determining the
processing that the packet will be subject to, including, for
example, firewall functions. It is also fundamental to the MPLS
design that packets are routed through the network using the path
specified by the node imposing the labels and that the labels are
swapped or popped correctly. Where an SF is not encapsulation aware,
the encapsulation may be stripped by an SFC proxy such that a packet
may exist as a native packet (perhaps IP) on the path between the SFC
proxy and the SF; however, this is an intrinsic part of the SFC
design, which needs to define how a packet is protected in that
environment.
SFC components are configured and enabled through a management system
or a control plane. This document does not make any assumptions
about what mechanisms are used. Deployments should, however, be
aware that vulnerabilities in the management plane or control plane
of an SFC system imply vulnerabilities in the whole SFC system.
Thus, control-plane solutions (such as [BGP-NSH-SFC]) and management-
plane mechanisms must include security measures that can be enabled
by operators to protect their SFC systems.
An analysis of the security of MPLS systems is provided in [RFC5920],
which also notes that the MPLS forwarding plane has no built-in
security mechanisms. Some proposals to add encryption to the MPLS
forwarding plane have been suggested [MPLS-Opp-Sec], but no
mechanisms have been agreed upon at the time of publication of this
document. Additionally, MPLS does not provide any cryptographic
integrity protection on the MPLS headers. That means that procedures
described in this document rely on three basic principles:
o The MPLS network is often considered to be a closed network such
that insertion, modification, or inspection of packets by an
outside party is not possible. MPLS networks are operated with
closed boundaries so that MPLS-encapsulated packets are not
admitted to the network, and MPLS headers are stripped before
packets are forwarded from the network. This is particularly
pertinent in the SFC context because [RFC7665] notes that "The
architecture described herein is assumed to be applicable to a
single network administrative domain." Furthermore, [RFC8300]
states that packets originating outside the SFC-enabled domain
MUST be dropped if they contain an NSH and packets exiting the
SFC-enabled domain MUST be dropped if they contain an NSH. These
constraints apply equally to the use of MPLS to encode a logical
representation of the NSH.
Farrel, et al. Standards Track [Page 27]
RFC 8595 MPLS SFC June 2019
o The underlying transport mechanisms (such as Ethernet) between
adjacent MPLS nodes may offer security mechanisms that can be used
to defend packets "on the wire".
o The SFC-capable devices participating in an SFC system are
responsible for verifying and protecting payload packets and their
contents as well as providing other security capabilities that
might be required in the particular system.
Additionally, where a tunnel is used to link two non-MPLS domains,
the tunnel design needs to specify how the tunnel is secured.
Thus, this design relies on the component underlying technologies to
address the potential security vulnerabilities, and it documents the
necessary protections (or risk of their absence) above. It does not
include any native security mechanisms in-band with the MPLS encoding
of the NSH functionality.
Note that configuration elements of this system (such as the
programming of the table of metadata; see Section 12) must also be
adequately secured, although such mechanisms are not in scope for
this protocol specification.
No known new security vulnerabilities over the SFC architecture
[RFC7665] and the NSH specification [RFC8300] are introduced by this
design, but if issues are discovered in the future, it is expected
that they will be addressed through modifications to control/
management components of any solution or through changes to the
underlying technology.
16. IANA Considerations
IANA has made allocations from the "Extended Special-Purpose MPLS
Label Values" subregistry of the "Special-Purpose Multiprotocol Label
Switching (MPLS) Label Values" registry as follows:
Value | Description | Reference
-------+-----------------------------------+--------------
16 | Metadata Label Indicator (MLI) | RFC 8595
17 | Metadata Present Indicator (MPI) | RFC 8595
Farrel, et al. Standards Track [Page 28]
RFC 8595 MPLS SFC June 2019
17. References
17.1. Normative References
[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>.
[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>.
[RFC7274] Kompella, K., Andersson, L., and A. Farrel, "Allocating
and Retiring Special-Purpose MPLS Labels", RFC 7274,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7274, June 2014,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7274>.
[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>.
[RFC8393] Farrel, A. and J. Drake, "Operating the Network Service
Header (NSH) with Next Protocol "None"", RFC 8393,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8393, May 2018,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8393>.
Farrel, et al. Standards Track [Page 29]
RFC 8595 MPLS SFC June 2019
17.2. Informative References
[BGP-NSH-SFC]
Farrel, A., Drake, J., Rosen, E., Uttaro, J., and L.
Jalil, "BGP Control Plane for NSH SFC", Work in Progress,
draft-ietf-bess-nsh-bgp-control-plane-11, May 2019.
[MPLS-Opp-Sec]
Farrel, A. and S. Farrell, "Opportunistic Security in
MPLS Networks", Work in Progress,
draft-ietf-mpls-opportunistic-encrypt-03, March 2017.
[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>.
[RFC4364] Rosen, E. and Y. Rekhter, "BGP/MPLS IP Virtual Private
Networks (VPNs)", RFC 4364, DOI 10.17487/RFC4364,
February 2006, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4364>.
[RFC5920] Fang, L., Ed., "Security Framework for MPLS and GMPLS
Networks", RFC 5920, DOI 10.17487/RFC5920, July 2010,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5920>.
[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>.
[RFC8402] Filsfils, C., Ed., Previdi, S., Ed., Ginsberg, L.,
Decraene, B., Litkowski, S., and R. Shakir, "Segment
Routing Architecture", RFC 8402, DOI 10.17487/RFC8402,
July 2018, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8402>.
[RFC8459] Dolson, D., Homma, S., Lopez, D., and M. Boucadair,
"Hierarchical Service Function Chaining (hSFC)", RFC 8459,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8459, September 2018,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8459>.
[SR-Srv-Prog]
Clad, F., Ed., Xu, X., Ed., Filsfils, C., Bernier, D., Li,
C., Decraene, B., Ma, S., Yadlapalli, C., Henderickx, W.,
and S. Salsano, "Service Programming with Segment
Routing", Work in Progress,
draft-xuclad-spring-sr-service-programming-02, April 2019.
Farrel, et al. Standards Track [Page 30]
RFC 8595 MPLS SFC June 2019
Acknowledgements
This document derives ideas and text from [BGP-NSH-SFC]. The authors
are grateful to all those who contributed to the discussions that led
to that work: Loa Andersson, Andrew G. Malis, Alexander (Sasha)
Vainshtein, Joel Halpern, Tony Przygienda, Stuart Mackie, Keyur
Patel, and Jim Guichard. Loa Andersson provided helpful review
comments.
Thanks to Loa Andersson, Lizhong Jin, Matthew Bocci, Joel Halpern,
and Mach Chen for reviews of this text. Thanks to Russ Mundy for his
Security Directorate review and to S Moonesamy for useful
discussions. Thanks also to Benjamin Kaduk, Alissa Cooper, Eric
Rescorla, Mirja Kuehlewind, Alvaro Retana, and Martin Vigoureux for
comprehensive reviews during IESG evaluation.
The authors would like to be able to thank the authors of
[SR-Srv-Prog] and [RFC8402] whose original work on service chaining
and the identification of services using Segment Identifiers (SIDs),
and conversation with whom, helped clarify the application of SR-MPLS
to SFC.
Particular thanks to Loa Andersson for conversations and advice about
working group process.
Contributors
The following individual contributed text to this document:
Andrew G. Malis
Email: agmalis@gmail.com
Farrel, et al. Standards Track [Page 31]
RFC 8595 MPLS SFC June 2019
Authors' Addresses
Adrian Farrel
Old Dog Consulting
Email: adrian@olddog.co.uk
Stewart Bryant
Futurewei
Email: stewart.bryant@gmail.com
John Drake
Juniper Networks
Email: jdrake@juniper.net
Farrel, et al. Standards Track [Page 32]