| NFVRG | R. Szabo |
| Internet-Draft | Z. Qiang |
| Intended status: Informational | Ericsson |
| Expires: April 21, 2016 | M. Kind |
| Deutsche Telekom AG | |
| October 19, 2015 |
Towards recursive virtualization and programming for network and cloud resources
draft-unify-nfvrg-recursive-programming-02
The introduction of Network Function Virtualization (NFV) in carrier-grade networks promises improved operations in terms of flexibility, efficiency, and manageability. NFV is an approach to combine network and compute virtualizations together. However, network and compute resource domains expose different virtualizations and programmable interfaces. In [I-D.unify-nfvrg-challenges] we argued for a joint compute and network virtualization by looking into different compute abstractions.
In this document we analyze different approaches to orchestrate a service graph with transparent network functions relying on a public telecommunication network and ending in a commodity data center. We show that a recursive compute and network joint virtualization and programming has clear advantages compared to other approaches with separated control between compute and network resources. In addition, the joint virtualization will have cost and performance advantages by removing additional virtualization overhead. The discussion of the problems and the proposed solution is generic for any data center use case; however, we use NFV as an example.
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 http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
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 April 21, 2016.
Copyright (c) 2015 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document. Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as described in the Simplified BSD License.
To a large degree there is agreement in the research community that rigid network control limits the flexibility of service creation. In [I-D.unify-nfvrg-challenges]
Our goal here is to analyze different approaches to instantiate a service graph with transparent network functions into a commodity Data Center (DC). More specifically, we analyze
The discussion of the problems and the proposed solution is generic for any data center use case; however, we use NFV as an example.
We use the terms compute and "compute and storage" interchangeably throughout the document. Moreover, we use the following definitions, as established in [ETSI-NFV-Arch]:
Further, we make use of the following terms:
Service Function Chaining (SFC) looks into the problem how to deliver end-to-end services through the chain of network functions (NFs). Many of such NFs are envisioned to be transparent to the client, i.e., they intercept the client connection for adding value to the services without the knowledge of the client. However, deploying network function chains in DCs with Virtualized Network Functions (VNFs) are far from trivial [I-D.ietf-sfc-dc-use-cases]. For example, different exposures of the internals of the DC will imply different dynamisms in operations, different orchestration complexities and may yield for different business cases with regards to infrastructure sharing.
We investigate different scenarios with a simple NF forwarding graph of three VNFs (o->VNF1->VNF2->VNF3->o), where all VNFs are deployed within the same DC. We assume that the DC is a multi-tier leaf and spine (CLOS) and that all VNFs of the forwarding graph are bump-in-the-wire NFs, i.e., the client cannot explicitly access them.
In Black Bock DC set-ups, we assume that the compute domain is an autonomous domain with legacy (e.g., OpenStack) orchestration APIs. Due to the lack of direct forwarding control within the DC, no native L2 forwarding can be used to insert VNFs running in the DC into the forwarding graph. Instead, explicit tunnels (e.g., VxLAN) must be used, which need termination support within the deployed VNFs. Therefore, VNFs must be aware of the previous and the next hops of the forwarding graph to receive and forward packets accordingly.
Figure 1 illustrates a set-up where an external VxLAN termination point in the SDN domain is used to forward packets to the first NF (VNF1) of the chain within the DC. VNF1, in turn, is configured to forward packets to the next SF (VNF2) in the chain and so forth with VNF2 and VNF3.
In this set-up VNFs must be capable of handling L3 tunnels (e.g., VxLAN) and must act as forwarders themselves. Additionally, an operational L3 underlay must be present so that VNFs can address each other.
Furthermore, VNFs holding chain forwarding information could be untrusted user plane functions from 3rd party developers. Enforcement of proper forwarding is problematic.
Additionally, compute only orchestration might result in sub-optimal allocation of the VNFs with regards to the forwarding overlay, for example, see back-forth use of a core switch in Figure 1.
In [I-D.unify-nfvrg-challenges] we also pointed out that within a single Compute Node (CN) similar VNF placement and overlay optimization problem may reappear in the context of network interface cards and CPU cores.
| A A
+---+ | S |
|SW1| | D |
+---+ | N | P
/ \ V | H
/ \ | Y
| | A | S
+---+ +-+-+ | | I
|SW | |SW | | | C
,+--++.._ _+-+-+ | | A
,-" _|,,`.""-..+ | C | L
_,,,--"" | `. |""-.._ | L |
+---+ +--++ `+-+-+ ""+---+ | O |
|SW | |SW | |SW | |SW | | U |
+---+ ,'+---+ ,'+---+ ,'+---+ | D |
| | ,-" | | ,-" | | ,-" | | | |
+--+ +--+ +--+ +--+ +--+ +--+ +--+ +--+ | |
|CN| |CN| |CN| |CN| |CN| |CN| |CN| |CN| | |
+--+ +--+ +--+ +--+ +--+ +--+ +--+ +--+ V V
| | |
+-+ +-+ +-+ A
|V| |V| |V| | L
|N| |N| |N| | O
|F| |F| |F| | G
|1| |3| |2| | I
+-+ +-+ +-+ | C
+---+ --1>-+ | | +--<3---------------<3---+ | | A
|SW1| +-2>-----------------------------2>---+ | L
+---+ <4--------------+ V
<<=============================================>>
IP tunnels, e.g., VxLAN
Figure 1: Black Box Data Center with VNF Overlay
Figure 2 illustrates a set-up where an external VxLAN termination point in the SDN domain is used to forward packets among all the SFs (VNF1-VNF3) of the chain within the DC. VNFs in the DC need to be configured to receive and send packets between only the SDN endpoint, hence are not aware of the next hop VNF address. Shall any VNFs need to be relocated, e.g., due to scale in/out as described in [I-D.zu-nfvrg-elasticity-vnf], the forwarding overlay can be transparently re-configured at the SDN domain.
Note however, that traffic between the DC internal SFs (VNF1, VNF2, VNF3) need to exit and re-enter the DC through the external SDN switch. This, certainly, is sub-optimal an results in ping-pong traffic similar to the local and remote DC case discussed in [I-D.zu-nfvrg-elasticity-vnf].
| A A
+---+ | S |
|SW1| | D |
+---+ | N | P
/ \ V | H
/ \ | Y
| | ext port A | S
+---+ +-+-+ | | I
|SW | |SW | | | C
,+--++.._ _+-+-+ | | A
,-" _|,,`.""-..+ | C | L
_,,,--"" | `. |""-.._ | L |
+---+ +--++ `+-+-+ ""+---+ | O |
|SW | |SW | |SW | |SW | | U |
+---+ ,'+---+ ,'+---+ ,'+---+ | D |
| | ,-" | | ,-" | | ,-" | | | |
+--+ +--+ +--+ +--+ +--+ +--+ +--+ +--+ | |
|CN| |CN| |CN| |CN| |CN| |CN| |CN| |CN| | |
+--+ +--+ +--+ +--+ +--+ +--+ +--+ +--+ V V
| | |
+-+ +-+ +-+ A
|V| |V| |V| | L
|N| |N| |N| | O
|F| |F| |F| | G
|1| |3| |2| | I
+-+ +-+ +-+ | C
+---+ --1>-+ | | | | | | A
|SW1| <2-----+ | | | | | L
| | --3>---------------------------------------+ | |
| | <4-------------------------------------------+ |
| | --5>------------+ | |
+---+ <6----------------+ V
<<=============================================>>
IP tunnels, e.g., VxLAN
Figure 2: Black Box Data Center with ext Overlay
Figure 3 illustrates a set-up where the internal network of the DC is exposed in full details through an SDN Controller for steering control. We assume that native L2 forwarding can be applied all through the DC until the VNFs’ port, hence IP tunneling and tunnel termination at the VNFs are not needed. Therefore, VNFs need not be forwarding graph aware but transparently receive and forward packets. However, the implications are that the network control of the DC must be handed over to an external forwarding controller (see that the SDN domain and the DC domain overlaps in Figure 3). This most probably prohibits clear operational separation or separate ownerships of the two domains.
| A A
+---+ | S |
|SW1| | D |
+---+ | N | P
/ \ | | H
/ \ | | Y
| | ext port | A | S
+---+ +-+-+ | | | I
|SW | |SW | | | | C
,+--++.._ _+-+-+ | | | A
,-" _|,,`.""-..+ | | C | L
_,,,--"" | `. |""-.._ | | L |
+---+ +--++ `+-+-+ ""+---+ | | O |
|SW | |SW | |SW | |SW | | | U |
+---+ ,'+---+ ,'+---+ ,'+---+ V | D |
| | ,-" | | ,-" | | ,-" | | | |
+--+ +--+ +--+ +--+ +--+ +--+ +--+ +--+ | |
|CN| |CN| |CN| |CN| |CN| |CN| |CN| |CN| | |
+--+ +--+ +--+ +--+ +--+ +--+ +--+ +--+ V V
| | |
+-+ +-+ +-+ A
|V| |V| |V| | L
|N| |N| |N| | O
|F| |F| |F| | G
|1| |3| |2| | I
+-+ +-+ +-+ | C
+---+ --1>-+ | | +--<3---------------<3---+ | | A
|SW1| +-2>-----------------------------2>---+ | L
+---+ <4--------------+ V
<<=============================================>>
L2 overlay
Figure 3: White Box Data Center with L2 Overlay
We have shown that the different solutions imply different operation and management actions. From network operations point of view, it is not desirable to run and manage similar functions several times (L3 blackbox DC case) – especially if the networking overlay can be easily managed upfront by using a programmatic interface, like with the external steering in black and whitebox DC scenarios.
We argued in [I-D.unify-nfvrg-challenges] for a joint software and network programming interface. Consider that such joint software and network abstraction (virtualization) exists around the DC with a corresponding resource programmatic interface. A software and network programming interface could include VNF requests and the definition of the corresponding network overlay. However, such programming interface is similar to the top level services definition, for example, by the means of a VNF Forwarding Graph.
Figure 4 illustrates a joint domain virtualization and programming setup. In Figure 4 "[x]" denotes ports of the virtualized data plane while "x" denotes port created dynamically as part of the VNF deployment request. Over the joint software and network virtualization VNF placement and the corresponding traffic steering could be defined in an atomic, which is orchestrated, split and handled to the next levels (see Figure 5) in the hierarchy for further orchestration. Such setup allows clear operational separation, arbitrary domain virtualization (e.g., topology details could be omitted) and constraint based optimization of domain wide resources.
|
+-----------------------[x]--------------------+ A
|Domain 0 | | |O
| +--------[x]----------+ | |V
| | / \ | | |E
|Big Switch | -<--- --->-- | | |R
|with | / BiS-BiS \ | | |A
|Big Software | | +-->-+ +-->-+ | | | |R
|(BiS-BiS) | | | | | | | | | |C
| +--x-x----x-x----x-x--+ | |H
| | | | | | | | |I
| +-+ +-+ +-+ | |N
| |V| |V| |V| | |G V
| |N| |N| |N| | | N
| |F| |F| |F| | | F
| |1| |2| |3| | |
| +-+ +-+ +-+ | | F
| | | G
+----------------------------------------------+ V
Figure 4: Recursive Domain Virtualization and Joint VNF FG programming: Overarching View
+-------------------------|-----------------------------+ A | +----------------------[x]---------------------+ AV | | | | Domain 1 / \ | |N | | | | | A | |F | | | | Big Switch (BS) | | | | | |O | | V | | |F | |V | | / \ | |G | |E | +-----------------[x]--------[x]---------------+ V1 | |R | | | | |A | +------------------|----------|----------------+ A | |R | |Domain 2 | A | | | |C | | V | | | | |H | | +---[x]--------[x]----+ | |V | |I | |Big Switch | / BiS-BiS \ | | |N | |N | |with | / \ | | |F | |G | |Big Software | | +-->-+ +-->-+ | | | | | | | |(BiS-BiS) | | | | | | | | | |F | |V | | +--x-x----x-x----x-x--+ | |G | |N | | | | | | | | | |2 | |F | | +-+ +-+ +-+ | | | | | | |V| |V| |V| | | | |F | | |N| |N| |N| | | | |G | | |F| |F| |F| | | | | | | |1| |2| |3| | | | | | | +-+ +-+ +-+ | | | | | +----------------------------------------------+ V | | +-------------------------------------------------------+ V
Figure 5: Recursive Domain Virtualization and Joint VNF FG programming: Domain Views
Let us first define the joint software and network abstraction (virtualization) as a Big Switch with Big Software (BiS-BiS). A BiS-BiS is a node abstraction, which incorporates both software and networking resources with an associated joint software and network control API (see Figure 6).
API o __
| \
Software Ctrler \
API O-------------+ \ \
| \ \
Compute Ctrler \ |
| \ |
| +---------------------+ |
| | | | Joint Software &
| | {vCPU | | Network Ctrl API
| | memory | | o
| | storage} | | |
| | | | +---------------------+
| | | | | {{vCPU |
| |Compute Node | \ [1 memory 3]
| | | ==> | storage} |
| +----------x----------+ / [2 {port rate 4]
\ | | | switching delay}} |
+----------x----------+ | +---------------------+
| | | Big Switch &
[1 {port rate 3] | Big Software (BiS-BiS)
| switching delay} | | with joint
[2 4] / Software & Network Ctrler
| Network Element | /
+---------------------+ /
__/
Figure 6: Big Switch with Big Software definition
The configuration over a BiS-BiS allows the atomic definition of NF placements and the corresponding forwarding overlay as a Network Function - Forwarding Graph (NF-FG). The embedment of NFs into a BiS-BiS allows the inclusion of NF ports into the forwarding overlay definition (see ports a, b, ...,f in Figure 7). Ports 1,2, ..., 4 are seen as infrastructure ports while NF ports are created and destroyed with NF placements.
Step 1: Placement of NFs
Step 2: Interconnect NFs __ Step 1: Placement of NFs
\ with the forwarding
Compute Node \ overlay definition
+---------------------+ \
| +-+ +-+ +-+ | \ +-+ +-+ +-+
| |V| |V| |V| | | |V| |V| |V|
| |N| |N| |N| | | |N| |N| |N|
| |F| |F| |F| | | |F| |F| |F|
| |1| |2| |3| | | |1| |2| |3|
| +-+ +-+ +-+ | | +-+ +-+ +-+
| | +---.| |.---+ | | \ | | | | | |
| +------\ /------+ | ==> +--a-b----c-d----e-f--+
+----------x----------+ / | | | | | | | |
| | [1->+ +-->-+ +-->-+ | 3]
+----------x----------+ | | | |
| / \ | | [2 +->4]
[1->----->- -->---+ 3] | | |
| | | | +---------------------+
[2 +->4] / Big Switch with
| Network Element | / Big Software (BiS-BiS)
+---------------------+ /
__/
Figure 7: Big Switch with Big Software definition with a Network Function - Forwarding Graph (NF-FG)
module: virtualizer
+--rw virtualizer
+--rw id? string
+--rw name? string
+--rw nodes
| +--rw node* [id]
| +--rw id string
| +--rw name? string
| +--rw type string
| +--rw ports
| | +--rw port* [id]
| | +--rw id string
| | +--rw name? string
| | +--rw port_type string
| | +--rw port_data? string
| +--rw links
| | +--rw link* [src dst]
| | +--rw id? string
| | +--rw name? string
| | +--rw src port-ref
| | +--rw dst port-ref
| | +--rw resources
| | +--rw delay? string
| | +--rw bandwidth? string
| +--rw resources
| | +--rw cpu string
| | +--rw mem string
| | +--rw storage string
| +--rw NF_instances
| | +--rw node* [id]
| | +--rw id string
| | +--rw name? string
| | +--rw type string
| | +--rw ports
| | | +--rw port* [id]
| | | +--rw id string
| | | +--rw name? string
| | | +--rw port_type string
| | | +--rw port_data? string
| | +--rw links
| | | +--rw link* [src dst]
| | | +--rw id? string
| | | +--rw name? string
| | | +--rw src port-ref
| | | +--rw dst port-ref
| | | +--rw resources
| | | +--rw delay? string
| | | +--rw bandwidth? string
| | +--rw resources
| | +--rw cpu string
| | +--rw mem string
| | +--rw storage string
| +--rw capabilities
| | +--rw supported_NFs
| | +--rw node* [id]
| | +--rw id string
| | +--rw name? string
| | +--rw type string
| | +--rw ports
| | | +--rw port* [id]
| | | +--rw id string
| | | +--rw name? string
| | | +--rw port_type string
| | | +--rw port_data? string
| | +--rw links
| | | +--rw link* [src dst]
| | | +--rw id? string
| | | +--rw name? string
| | | +--rw src port-ref
| | | +--rw dst port-ref
| | | +--rw resources
| | | +--rw delay? string
| | | +--rw bandwidth? string
| | +--rw resources
| | +--rw cpu string
| | +--rw mem string
| | +--rw storage string
| +--rw flowtable
| +--rw flowentry* [port match action]
| +--rw port port-ref
| +--rw match string
| +--rw action string
| +--rw resources
| +--rw delay? string
| +--rw bandwidth? string
+--rw links
+--rw link* [src dst]
+--rw id? string
+--rw name? string
+--rw src port-ref
+--rw dst port-ref
+--rw resources
+--rw delay? string
+--rw bandwidth? string
Figure 8: Virtualizer's YANG data model: tree view
<CODE BEGINS> file "virtualizer.yang"
module virtualizer {
namespace "http://fp7-unify.eu/framework/virtualizer";
prefix virt;
organization "EU-FP7-UNIFY";
contact "Robert Szabo <robert.szabo@ericsson.com>";
description "data model for joint software and network
virtualization and resource control";
revision 2015-06-27 {
reference "Initial version";
}
// REUSABLE GROUPS
grouping id-name {
description "used for key (id) and naming";
leaf id {
type string;
description "For unique key id";}
leaf name {
type string;
description "Descriptive name";}
}
grouping node-type {
description "For node type defintion";
leaf type{
type string;
mandatory true;
description "to identify nodes (infrastructure or NFs)";
}
}
// PORTS
typedef port-ref {
type string;
description "path to a port; can refer to ports at multiple
levels in the hierarchy";
}
grouping port {
description "Port definition: used for infrastructure and NF
ports";
uses id-name;
leaf port_type {
type string;
mandatory true;
description "Port type identification: abstract is for
technology independent ports and SAPs for technology specific
ports";}
leaf port_data{
type string;
description "Opaque data for port specific types";
}
}
grouping ports {
description "Collection of ports";
container ports {
description "see above";
list port{
key "id";
uses port;
description "see above";
}
}
}
// FORWARDING BEHAVIOR
grouping flowentry {
leaf port {
type port-ref;
mandatory true;
description "path to the port";
}
leaf match {
type string;
mandatory true;
description "matching rule";
}
leaf action {
type string;
mandatory true;
description "forwarding action";
}
container resources{
uses link-resource;
description "network resources assigned to forwarding entry";
}
description "SDN forwarding entry";
}
grouping flowtable {
container flowtable {
description "Collection of flowentries";
list flowentry {
key "port match action";
description "Index list of flowentries";
uses flowentry;
}
}
description "See container description";
}
// LINKS
grouping link-resource {
description "Core networking characteristics / resources
(bandwidth, delay)";
leaf delay {
type string;
description "Delay value with unit; e.g. 5ms";
}
leaf bandwidth {
type string;
description "Bandwithd value with unit; e.g. 10Mbps";
}
}
grouping link {
description "Link between src and dst ports with attributes";
uses id-name;
leaf src {
type port-ref;
description "relative path to the source port";
}
leaf dst {
type port-ref;
description "relative path to the destination port";
}
container resources{
uses link-resource;
description "Link resources (attributes)";
}
}
grouping links {
description "Collection of links in a virtualizer or a node";
container links {
description "See above";
list link {
key "src dst";
description "Indexed list of links";
uses link;
}
}
}
// CAPABILITIES
grouping capabilities {
description "For capability reporting: currently supported NF
types";
container supported_NFs { // supported NFs are enumerated
description "Collecction of nodes as supported NFs";
list node{
key "id";
description "see above";
uses node;
}
}
// TODO: add other capabilities
}
// NODE
grouping software-resource {
description "Core software resources";
leaf cpu {
type string;
mandatory true;
description "In virtual CPU (vCPU) units";
}
leaf mem {
type string;
mandatory true;
description "Memory with units, e.g., 1Gbyte";
}
leaf storage {
type string;
mandatory true;
description "Storage with units, e.g., 10Gbyte";
}
}
grouping node {
description "Any node: infrastructure or NFs";
uses id-name;
uses node-type;
uses ports;
uses links;
container resources{
description "Software resources offer/request of the node";
uses software-resource;
}
}
grouping infra-node {
description "Infrastructure nodes wich can contain other nodes
as NFs";
uses node;
container NF_instances {
description "Hosted NFs";
list node{
key "id";
uses node;
description "see above";
}
}
container capabilities {
description "Supported NFs as capability reports";
uses capabilities;
}
uses flowtable;
}
//======== Virtualizer ====================
container virtualizer {
description "Definition of a virtualizer instance";
uses id-name;
container nodes{
description "infra nodes, which embeds NFs and report
capabilities";
list node{
key "id";
uses infra-node;
description "see above";
}
}
uses links;
}
}
<CODE ENDS>
Figure 9: Virtualizer's YANG data model
According to the ETSI MANO framework [ETSI-NFV-MANO], an NFVO is split into two functions:
Similarly, a VIM is split into two functions:
The functional split is shown in Figure 13.
+-------------------+
|NVFO |
| +--------------+ |
| |NFVO: | |
| |Service | |
| |Lifecycle | |
| |Management | |
| +------+-------+ |
| | |
| +------+-------+ |
| |NFVO: | |
| |Resrouce | |
| |Orchestration | |
| +--+---+----+--+ |
+-----|---|----|----+
/ | \
/---------/ | \------------\
/ | \
+-------------|-----+ +--------|----------+ +------|------------+
|VIM | | |VIM | | |VIM | |
| +----------+---+ | | +-----+--------+ | | +---+----------+ |
| |VIM: | | | |VIM: | | | |VIM: | |
| |Orchestration | | | |Orchestration | | | |Orchestration | |
| |& | | | |& | | | |& | |
| |Optimization | | | |Optimization | | | |Optimization | |
| +------+-------+ | | +------+-------+ | | +------+-------+ |
| | | | | | | | |
| +------+-------+ | | +------+-------+ | | +------+-------+ |
| |VIM: | | | |VIM: | | | |VIM: | |
| |Virtualized 2 | | | |Virtualized 2 | | | |Virtualized 2 | |
| |Pys mapping | | | |Pys mapping | | | |Pys mapping | |
| +--------------+ | | +--------------+ | | +--------------+ |
+-------------------+ +-------------------+ +-------------------+
Figure 10: Functional decomposition of the NFVO and the VIM according to the ETSI MANO
If the Joint Software and Network Control API (Joint API) could be used between all the functional components working on the same abstraction, i.e., from the north of the VIM Virtualized to physical mapping component to the south of the NFVO: Service Lifecycle Management as shown in Figure 11, then a more flexible virtualization programming architecture could be created as shown in Figure 12.
+-------------------+
|NVFO |
| +--------------+ |
| |NFVO: | |
| |Service | |
| |Lifecycle | |
| |Management | |
| +------+-------+ |
| | | <-- Joint API
| +------+-------+ |
| |NFVO: | |
| |Resrouce | |
| |Orchestration | |
| +--+---+-------+ |
+-----|---|---------+
/ |
/---------/ | <-- Joint API
/ |
+-------------|-----+ +--------|----------+
|VIM | | |VIM | |
| +----------+---+ | | +-----+--------+ |
| |VIM: | | | |VIM: | |
| |Orchestration | | | |Orchestration | |
| |& | | | |& | |
| |Optimization | | | |Optimization | |
| +------+-------+ | | +------+-------+ |
| | | | | | <-- Joint API
| +------+-------+ | | +------+-------+ |
| |VIM: | | | |VIM: | |
| |Virtualized 2 | | | |Virtualized 2 | |
| |Pys mapping | | | |Pys mapping | |
| +--------------+ | | +--------------+ |
+-------------------+ +-------------------+
Figure 11: Functional decomposition of the NFVO and the VIM with the Joint Software and Network control API
+--------------+
| |
|Orchestration |
Domain 4 | |
+--+-----------+
**********************|******************
* +--------------+ |
* |NFVO: | |
* |Service | |
* |Lifecycle | |
* |Management | |
* +-------+------+ /
* | / <-- Joint API
* +-+---------+--+
* | |
* |Orchestration |
******************** * | |
+--------------+ * * +--+---+-------+ Domain 3
|NFVO: | * ********|***|*************************
|Service | * / |
|Lifecycle | /---------/ |
|Management | / * |
+---------+----+ | * |
| | * | <-- Joint API
+--+-------+---+* |
| |* |
|Orchestration |* |
| |* |
| |* |
+------+-------+* |
| * *********|********** <-- Joint API
+------+-------+* * +------+-------+ *
|VIM: |* * |VIM: | *
|Virtualized 2 |* * |Virtualized 2 | *
|Pys mapping |* * |Pys mapping | *
+--------------+* * +--------------+ *
Domain 1 * * Domain 2 *
************************* * *
Figure 12: Joint Software and Network Control API: Recurring Flexible Architecture
Figure 13 and Figure 14 show a single node infrastructure report. The example shows a BiS-BiS with two ports, out of which Port 0 is also a Service Access Point 0 (SAP0).
20 CPU
+-----------+ 64GB MEM
SAP1--[0 BiS-BiS | 1TB STO
| (UUID13) |
+[2 1]+
| +-----------+ |
| |
| |
+-----------+ | | +-----------+
SAP0--[0 BiS-BiS 1]+ +[0 BiS-BiS 1]--SAP1
| (UUID11) | | (UUID12) |
| 2]-----------------[2 |
+-----------+ +-----------+
20 CPU 10 CPU
64GB MEM 32GB MEM
100TB STO 100TB STO
Figure 13: Single node infrastructure report example: Virtualization view
<virtualizer xmlns="http://fp7-unify.eu/framework/virtualizer">
<id>UUID001</id>
<name>Single node simple infrastructure report</name>
<nodes>
<node>
<id>UUID11</id>
<name>single Bis-Bis node</name>
<type>BisBis</type>
<ports>
<port>
<id>0</id>
<name>SAP0 port</name>
<port_type>port-sap</port_type>
<vxlan>...</vxlan>
</port>
<port>
<id>1</id>
<name>North port</name>
<port_type>port-abstract</port_type>
<capability>...</capability>
</port>
<port>
<id>2</id>
<name>East port</name>
<port_type>port-abstract</port_type>
<capability>...</capability>
</port>
</ports>
<resources>
<cpu>20</cpu>
<mem>64 GB</mem>
<storage>100 TB</storage>
</resources>
</node>
</nodes>
</virtualizer>
Figure 14: Single node infrastructure report example: xml view
Figure 15 and Figure 16 show a 3-node infrastructure report with 3 BiS-BiS nodes. Infrastructure links are inserted into the virtualization view between the ports of the BiS-BiS nodes.
20 CPU
+-----------+ 64GB MEM
SAP1--[0 BiS-BiS | 1TB STO
| (UUID13) |
+[2 1]+
| +-----------+ |
| |
| |
+-----------+ | | +-----------+
SAP0--[0 BiS-BiS 1]+ +[0 BiS-BiS 1]--SAP1
| (UUID11) | | (UUID12) |
| 2]-----------------[2 |
+-----------+ +-----------+
20 CPU 10 CPU
64GB MEM 32GB MEM
100TB STO 100TB STO
Figure 15: 3-node infrastructure report example: Virtualization view
<virtualizer xmlns="http://fp7-unify.eu/framework/virtualizer">
<id>UUID002</id>
<name>3-node simple infrastructure report</name>
<nodes>
<node>
<id>UUID11</id>
<name>West Bis-Bis node</name>
<type>BisBis</type>
<ports>
<port>
<id>0</id>
<name>SAP0 port</name>
<port_type>port-sap</port_type>
<vxlan>...</vxlan>
</port>
<port>
<id>1</id>
<name>North port</name>
<port_type>port-abstract</port_type>
<capability>...</capability>
</port>
<port>
<id>2</id>
<name>East port</name>
<port_type>port-abstract</port_type>
<capability>...</capability>
</port>
</ports>
<resources>
<cpu>20</cpu>
<mem>64 GB</mem>
<storage>100 TB</storage>
</resources>
</node>
<node>
<id>UUID12</id>
<name>East Bis-Bis node</name>
<type>BisBis</type>
<ports>
<port>
<id>1</id>
<name>SAP1 port</name>
<port_type>port-sap</port_type>
<vxlan>...</vxlan>
</port>
<port>
<id>0</id>
<name>North port</name>
<port_type>port-abstract</port_type>
<capability>...</capability>
</port>
<port>
<id>2</id>
<name>West port</name>
<port_type>port-abstract</port_type>
<capability>...</capability>
</port>
</ports>
<resources>
<cpu>10</cpu>
<mem>32 GB</mem>
<storage>100 TB</storage>
</resources>
</node>
<node>
<id>UUID13</id>
<name>North Bis-Bis node</name>
<type>BisBis</type>
<ports>
<port>
<id>0</id>
<name>SAP2 port</name>
<port_type>port-sap</port_type>
<vxlan>...</vxlan>
</port>
<port>
<id>1</id>
<name>East port</name>
<port_type>port-abstract</port_type>
<capability>...</capability>
</port>
<port>
<id>2</id>
<name>West port</name>
<port_type>port-abstract</port_type>
<capability>...</capability>
</port>
</ports>
<resources>
<cpu>20</cpu>
<mem>64 GB</mem>
<storage>1 TB</storage>
</resources>
</node>
</nodes>
<links>
<link>
<id>0</id>
<name>Horizontal link</name>
<src>../../nodes/node[id=UUID11]/ports/port[id=2]</src>
<dst>../../nodes/node[id=UUID12]/ports/port[id=2]</dst>
<resources>
<delay>2 ms</delay>
<bandwidth>10 Gb</bandwidth>
</resources>
</link>
<link>
<id>1</id>
<name>West link</name>
<src>../../nodes/node[id=UUID11]/ports/port[id=1]</src>
<dst>../../nodes/node[id=UUID13]/ports/port[id=2]</dst>
<resources>
<delay>5 ms</delay>
<bandwidth>10 Gb</bandwidth>
</resources>
</link>
<link>
<id>2</id>
<name>East link</name>
<src>../../nodes/node[id=UUID12]/ports/port[id=0]</src>
<dst>../../nodes/node[id=UUID13]/ports/port[id=1]</dst>
<resources>
<delay>2 ms</delay>
<bandwidth>5 Gb</bandwidth>
</resources>
</link>
</links>
</virtualizer>
Figure 16: 3-node infrastructure report example: xml view
Figure 17 and Figure 18 show the allocation request for 3 NFs (NF1: Parental control B.4, NF2: Http Cache 1.2 and NF3: Stateful firewall C) as instrumented over a BiS-BiS node. It can be seen that the configuration request contains both the NF placement and the forwarding overlay definition as a joint request.
+---+ +---+ +---+
|NF1| |NF2| |NF3|
+---+ +---+ +---+
| | | | | |
+-2-3----4-5----6-7--+
--[0-/ \____/ \----|- \ |
| |___________| \-+1]--
| |
| BiS-BiS (UUID11) |
+--------------------+
Figure 17: Simple request of 3 NFs on a single BiS-BiS: Virtualization view
<virtualizer xmlns="http://fp7-unify.eu/framework/virtualizer">
<id>UUID001</id>
<name>Single node simple request</name>
<nodes>
<node>
<id>UUID11</id>
<NF_instances>
<node>
<id>NF1</id>
<name>first NF</name>
<type>Parental control B.4</type>
<ports>
<port>
<id>2</id>
<name>in</name>
<port_type>port-abstract</port_type>
<capability>...</capability>
</port>
<port>
<id>3</id>
<name>out</name>
<port_type>port-abstract</port_type>
<capability>...</capability>
</port>
</ports>
</node>
<node>
<id>NF2</id>
<name>cache</name>
<type>Http Cache 1.2</type>
<ports>
<port>
<id>4</id>
<name>in</name>
<port_type>port-abstract</port_type>
<capability>...</capability>
</port>
<port>
<id>5</id>
<name>out</name>
<port_type>port-abstract</port_type>
<capability>...</capability>
</port>
</ports>
</node>
<node>
<id>NF3</id>
<name>firewall</name>
<type>Stateful firewall C</type>
<ports>
<port>
<id>6</id>
<name>in</name>
<port_type>port-abstract</port_type>
<capability>...</capability>
</port>
<port>
<id>7</id>
<name>out</name>
<port_type>port-abstract</port_type>
<capability>...</capability>
</port>
</ports>
</node>
</NF_instances>
<flowtable>
<flowentry>
<port>../../ports/port[id=0]</port>
<match>*</match>
<action>output:../../NF_instances/node[id=NF1]
/ports/port[id=2]</action>
</flowentry>
<flowentry>
<port>../../NF_instances/node[id=NF1]
/ports/port[id=3]</port>
<match>fr-a</match>
<action>output:../../NF_instances/node[id=NF2]
/ports/port[id=4]</action>
rpcre </flowentry>
<flowentry>
<port>../../NF_instances/node[id=NF1]
/ports/port[id=3]</port>
<match>fr-b</match>
<action>output:../../NF_instances/node[id=NF3]
/ports/port[id=6]</action>
</flowentry>
<flowentry>
<port>../../NF_instances/node[id=NF2]
/ports/port[id=5]</port>
<match>*</match>
<action>output:../../ports/port[id=1]</action>
</flowentry>
<flowentry>
<port>../../NF_instances/node[id=NF3]
/ports/port[id=7]</port>
<match>*</match>
<action>output:../../ports/port[id=1]</action>
</flowentry>
</flowtable>
</node>
</nodes>
</virtualizer>
Figure 18: Simple request of 3 NFs on a single BiS-BiS: xml view
This memo includes no request to IANA.
TBD
The research leading to these results has received funding from the European Union Seventh Framework Programme (FP7/2007-2013) under grant agreement no. 619609 - the UNIFY project. The views expressed here are those of the authors only. The European Commission is not liable for any use that may be made of the information in this document.
We would like to thank in particular David Jocha and Janos Elek from Ericsson for the useful discussions.
| [ETSI-NFV-Arch] | ETSI, "Architectural Framework v1.1.1", Oct 2013. |
| [ETSI-NFV-MANO] | ETSI, "Network Function Virtualization (NFV) Management and Orchestration V0.6.1 (draft)", Jul. 2014. |
| [I-D.ietf-sfc-dc-use-cases] | Surendra, S., Tufail, M., Majee, S., Captari, C. and S. Homma, "Service Function Chaining Use Cases In Data Centers", Internet-Draft draft-ietf-sfc-dc-use-cases-03, July 2015. |
| [I-D.unify-nfvrg-challenges] | Szabo, R., Csaszar, A., Pentikousis, K., Kind, M., Daino, D., Qiang, Z. and H. Woesner, "Unifying Carrier and Cloud Networks: Problem Statement and Challenges", Internet-Draft draft-unify-nfvrg-challenges-02, July 2015. |
| [I-D.zu-nfvrg-elasticity-vnf] | Qiang, Z. and R. Szabo, "Elasticity VNF", Internet-Draft draft-zu-nfvrg-elasticity-vnf-01, March 2015. |