Network Working Group B. Khasnabish
Internet-Draft ZTE TX, Inc.
Intended status: Informational February 11, 2014
Expires: August 15, 2014

Impact of Virtualization and SDN on Emerging Network Coding


This document discusses the impact of virtualization and Software-Defined Networking (SDN) on the emerging network coding.

Status of This Memo

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

Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-Drafts is at

Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."

This Internet-Draft will expire on August 15, 2014.

Copyright Notice

Copyright (c) 2014 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 ( 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


Abstraction/Virtualization of the Elements of Network:

Control of Network Coding:


1.1. Scope

The scope of this document is discussion (and standardization) of utilizing virtualization and SDN paradigm in the emerging network coding.

Ongoing discussions on virtualization and SDN can be found in the following IETF and IRTF Websites: NVO3 [], ForCES [], I2RS [], SCIM [], SPRING [], SFC/NSC [], and SDN-RG [].

Virtualization has been discussed (and deployed) widely in the Computing Industry (e.g., server) in the context of efficient utilization of server resources.

Virtual resources management in the context of Cloud and Data Center (DC) environment using unified API has been discussed in [I-D.junsheng-opsawg-virtual-resource-management].

IETF ForCES Logical Function Block (LFB) Subsidiary Management (SM) for supporting virtualization of ForCES Network Element (NE) including control Element (CE) and Forwarding Element (FE) has been recently discussed in [I-D.khs-forces-lfb-subsidiary-management].

1.2. Abbreviations

1.3. Conventions and Definitions

The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119].

The following definitions are taken from the notional Network Coding Architecture slides ( These are repeated here for convenience.

2. Separation of Control

There are many advantages of separating control from forwarding, routing, transport, etc. in the emerging SDNs.

In addition to flexibility, this also offers additional reliability and scalability with minimal additional burden on cost and performance.

2.1. Separation of Control for Transport

In this section we discuss how the separation of control for transport impacts the network coding and its implementation in the emerging software-defined networks or SDNs.

2.2. Separation of Control for Routing

In this section we discuss how the separation of control for routing impacts the network coding and its implementation in the emerging software-defined networks or SDNs.

2.3. Separation of Control for Forwarding

In this section we discuss how the separation of control for forwarding impacts the network coding and its implementation in the emerging software-defined networks or SDNs.

3. Virtualization and its use in Network Coding

In this section, we discuss general virtualization of applications/services, and computing/networking resources. We then explore the impact of virtualization on emerging networking coding (architecture, control, and services).

3.1. Virtualization of Application/Service Resources

Virtualization of Application/Service resources is becoming increasingly popular with the proliferation of the APP based services in the mobile and Tablet world.

3.2. Virtualization of Computing Resources

Virtualization of computing resources has been widely used in Cloud Computing [I-D.khasnabish-cloud-reference-framework] environment.

3.3. Virtualization of Network-Level Resources

In this section we discuss virtualization of network resources. The network resources typically include routers, switches, and topology and routing databases, policy and security controllers, etc.

3.4. Virtualization for Network Coding

In this section we discuss virtualization for network coding, its benefits and implementation and management hurdles.

3.5. Network Coding Controller and APIs

In this section we discuss the features/functions of the Network Coding Controller (NCC), and possible NCC APIs. Although North- and South-bound APIs are the most important ones, East, West, etc. bound APIs may be also very useful.

4. Network Coding Control and SDN

In this section we discuss a high-level architecture for network/service function virtualization and Software-Defined Networking.

4.1. Apps and Service Layer

In this section we discuss the elements and capabilities of the Application and Service layer.

4.2. Control Layer

In this section we discuss the features/functions and the capabilities of the Control layer.

4.3. Virtualization Layer

In this section we discuss the details of the virtualization layer.

4.4. Physical Resources Layer

In this section we discuss the elements of the physical layer.

4.5. Management and Orchestration

In this section we discuss efficient management and Orchestration in virtualized multi-technology and multi-admin-domain environments.

4.6. APIs: For Example Transport APIs

For the emerging Network Coding, defining an appropriate API for dynamically selecting application/service based Transport may be the most suitable option. For example, SCTP [RFC4960] may be more suitable than TCP/Multi-Path-TCP [RFC6824] or UDP [RFC0768] or any other variants for some applications/services.

The added flexibility (due to using an open Transport API) will allow guided navigation of sessions/flows through a variety of network operations systems and physical/virtual infrastructure network/service elements. This will help achieve unified and seamless user experience irrespective of what the underlying network infrastructure is. Further discussion in this area can be found in [I-D.montpetit-transport-strawman].

4.7. Generic Lifecycle Management

In this section we discuss the generic lifecycle management of virtual entities.

5. Testbed Platform

Texts and diagram(s) related to Testbeds will be added in this section.

6. Reference Implementation

Texts and diagram(s) related to Reference implementation(s) will be added in this section.

7. Security Considerations

Although the use virtualization and separation of control and transport (and forwarding) open up the possibility of supporting greater flexibility and scalability, these also make the network resources more vulnerable to abuse and spoofing. For example, the security considerations for virtualized resources in DC environment can be found in [I-D.karavettil-vdcs-security-framework].

8. IANA Considerations

This document introduces no additional considerations for IANA.

9. Acknowledgments

The author(s) would like to thank Victor, Brian, Senthil, Marie-Jose, and many others for their discussions and support.

10. References

10.1. Normative References

[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[RFC4960] Stewart, R., "Stream Control Transmission Protocol", RFC 4960, September 2007.
[RFC6824] Ford, A., Raiciu, C., Handley, M. and O. Bonaventure, "TCP Extensions for Multipath Operation with Multiple Addresses", RFC 6824, January 2013.
[RFC0768] Postel, J., "User Datagram Protocol", STD 6, RFC 768, August 1980.
[I-D.khs-forces-lfb-subsidiary-management] Khasnabish, B., Haleplidis, E. and J. Salim, "IETF ForCES Logical Function Block (LFB) Subsidiary Management", Internet-Draft draft-khs-forces-lfb-subsidiary-management-00, February 2014.
[I-D.junsheng-opsawg-virtual-resource-management] Chu, J., Khasnabish, B., Qing, Y. and Y. Meng, "Virtual Resource Management in Cloud", Internet-Draft draft-junsheng-opsawg-virtual-resource-management-00, July 2011.
[I-D.khasnabish-cloud-reference-framework] Khasnabish, B., Chu, J., Ma, S., Ning, S., Unbehagen, P., Morrow, M., Hasan, M., Demchenko, Y. and M. Yu, "Cloud Reference Framework", Internet-Draft draft-khasnabish-cloud-reference-framework-06, January 2014.
[I-D.karavettil-vdcs-security-framework] Karavettil, S., Khasnabish, B., Ning, S. and W. Dong, "Security Framework for Virtualized Data Center Services", Internet-Draft draft-karavettil-vdcs-security-framework-05, December 2012.
[I-D.montpetit-transport-strawman] Montpetit, M., Zhovnirovsky, I. and B. Reuther, "Transport Services Strawman Architecture", Internet-Draft draft-montpetit-transport-strawman-01, February 2014.

10.2. Informative References

[RFC3654] Khosravi, H. and T. Anderson, "Requirements for Separation of IP Control and Forwarding", RFC 3654, November 2003.
[RFC3746] Yang, L., Dantu, R., Anderson, T. and R. Gopal, "Forwarding and Control Element Separation (ForCES) Framework", RFC 3746, April 2004.

Author's Address

Bhumip Khasnabish ZTE TX, Inc. 55 Madison Avenue, Suite 160 Morristown, New Jersey 07960 USA Phone: +001-781-752-8003 EMail:, URI: