Re: [vnfpool] new VNFPool draft charter

["Susan Hares" <[e-mail]>]

Linda and Ning. 

 

My understanding from this charter is that the pool would be transparent to
whatever entity used it. 

 

If it was a pool of firewalls, then the VNF would be a firewall. It would be
hidden to SFC or SDN controller wanting to use the firewall that it was part
of a pool. 

 

This comes from section 4 in the problem statement that states: 

"The main benefit of using VNF Pool is the pooling mechanism such as
redundancy management are achieved by the VNF Pool inside the VNF and
transparent to the Service Control Entity.  The Service control Entity
simply interacts with the Pool Manager in each VNF to request and
orchestrate the network functions with desired reliability level."

 

To me, in my past work this was important to make the overall process work
simply.   Is this the source of your astute question? 

 

Sue 

 

 

From: vnfpool [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Linda Dunbar
Sent: Wednesday, June 04, 2014 4:13 PM
To: Zongning; [e-mail]
Subject: Re: [vnfpool] new VNFPool draft charter

 

Ning, 

 

I made some wording changes to the proposed charter. The attached Word
document has the changes mark, making it easier to see. In case the mailing
list doesn't allow attachment, here is the proposed changes. 

 

Should we also add a paragraph to show why/how VNFpool is different from
SFC? 

 

Linda

 

 

Network functions such as firewalls, load balancers, and WAN optimizers are
conventionally deployed as specialized hardware servers in both network
operators' networks and data center networks as the building blocks of the
network services. There is a trend to implement such network functions as
software instances running on general purpose servers, via a virtualization
layer (i.e., hypervisors). These virtualized functions are called
Virtualized Network Functions (VNFs), which can be instantiated to build
network services.

 

The use of VNFs introduces additional challenges to the reliability of the
provided network services. A single VNF instance would typically not have
built-in reliability mechanisms on its host (i.e., a general purpose
server). Instead, there are more factors of risk such as software failure at
various levels including hypervisors and virtual machines, hardware failure,
and instance migration that can make a VNF instance unreliable.

 

In order to achieve higher reliability, a pool of VNFs that perform the same
function can be grouped together for the network services.  Conceptionally,
multiple instances of a same function are grouped together and managed by
its Pool Manager. Different functions have different pool manager.  A Pool
Manager is responsible for monitoring  the status of the instances in the
pool, selecting active/standby instances for specific services, and
potentially interacts with other entities, e.g. service control entity or
service orchestration system. The major benefit of using VNF Pool is that
reliability mechanisms such as redundancy & protection are achieved by the
VNF Pool and thus not visible to the service control entity. A VNF
Pool-enabled VNF still appears as a normal VNF when orchestrated by a
service control entity.[L1] <>   

 

Questions that are raised by the addition of a pooling mechanism to VNF
include:

.       How to manage the redundancy model, e.g., select active/standby VNF
instances in a VNF Pool?

.       What pool states need to be maintained to support the pooling
mechanism itself, and how are such states maintained?

.       What information is exchanged between a VNF and a service control
entity? For example, how can a VNF Pool be addressed by the service control
entity?

.       When a live VNF instance goes out of service, how does the service
control entity learn which instance in a VNF Pool will replace it, and learn
the characteristics of the new instance?

The WG initially focuses on several reliability mechanisms that are mainly
associated with a redundancy model based on a VNF Pool in a VNF. Additional
mechanisms might include state maintenance of instances in a VNF Pool only
for pooling purpose (service state synchronization is out of scope). The WG
assumes that a VNF Pool contains identical VNF instances of same functional
type. Different types of VNFs are envisoned to be held in separate VNF
Pools. The WG will address the reliability of an individual VNF, but not the
reliability related to the control or the routing between adjacent VNFs that
can form a network service.

 

 

 

 

 

From: vnfpool [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Zongning
Sent: Tuesday, June 03, 2014 4:36 AM
To: [e-mail]
Subject: [vnfpool] new VNFPool draft charter

 

Hi, folks,

 

Please see the below new draft charter of VNFPool. We believe that we have
updated the charter to address most of the comments from London BoF. Main
changes are:

1)       We narrow down our scope to only focus on the redundancy model and
the related interfaces associated with the VNF Pool in a single VNF.

2)       Service state synchronization between VNF instances is
out-of-scope. We may consider how to maintain the pool states in a VNF Pool
only for pooling purpose.

3)       We assume that a VNF Pool contains redundant VNF instances of same
functional type. Different types of VNFs are envisoned to be held in
separate VNF Pools.

4)       We do not address reliability related control or routing between
adjacent VNFs in the service graph. This is also applied to update the
relation between VNF Pool and SFC WG.

 

==========================================================================

Network functions such as firewalls, load balancers, and WAN optimizers are
conventionally deployed as specialized hardware servers in both network
operators' networks and data center networks as the building blocks of the
network services. There is a trend to implement such network functions as
software instances running on general purpose servers, via a virtualization
layer (i.e., hypervisors). These virtualized functions are called
Virtualized Network Functions (VNFs), which can be used to build network
services.

 

The use of VNFs introduces additional challenges to the reliability of the
provided network services. A single VNF instance would typically not have
built-in reliability mechanisms on its host (i.e., a general purpose
server). Instead, there are more factors of risk such as software failure at
various levels including hypervisors and virtual machines, hardware failure,
and instance migration that can make a VNF instance unreliable.

 

In order to provide a reliable function, a VNF may adopt a pooling mechanism
by using a number of VNF instances providing the same function, which we
call a "VNF Pool". Conceptionally, a Pool Manager is used to manage the VNF
Pool, e.g., selects active/standby VNF instances, and potentially interacts
with a service control entity. Such a service control entity is an entity
that orchestrates a set of network functions to build network services. The
major benefit of using VNF Pool is that reliability mechanisms such as
redundancy model are achieved by the VNF Pool inside the VNF and thus not
visible to the service control entity. A VNF Pool-enabled VNF still appears
as a normal VNF when orchestrated by a service control entity.

 

Questions that are raised by the addition of a pooling mechanism to VNF
include:

.       How to manage the redundancy model, e.g., select active/standby VNF
instances in a VNF Pool?

.       What pool states need to be maintained to support the pooling
mechanism itself, and how are such states maintained?

.       What information is exchanged between a VNF and a service control
entity? For example, how can a VNF Pool be addressed by the service control
entity?

.       When a live VNF instance goes out of service, how does the service
control entity learn which instance in a VNF Pool will replace it, and learn
the characteristics of the new instance?

The WG initially focuses on several reliability mechanisms that are mainly
associated with a redundancy model based on a VNF Pool in a VNF. Additional
mechanisms that may be needed include state maintenance in a VNF Pool only
for pooling purpose (service state synchronization is out of scope). The WG
assumes that a VNF Pool contains redundant VNF instances of same functional
type. Different types of VNFs are envisoned to be held in separate VNF
Pools. The WG will address the reliability of an individual VNF, but not the
reliability related to the control or the routing between adjacent VNFs that
can form a network service.

Specifically, the WG will work on the following technical aspects:

.           Redundancy management within a VNF Pool, such as the signaling
between the Pool Manager and the instances in the pool for instance
registration, backup instances selection, and switching between active and
standby instances.

.           The protocol between the Pool Manager and the underlying network
to collect the network information required for appropriate
placement/selection of backup instances.

.           The protocol between a VNF and the service control entity to
exchange operational information between a VNF Pool and the service control
entity.

.           Identify and analyze reliable transport protocols, such as MPTCP
and SCTP for reliable delivery of the messages associated with the
redundancy management within a VNF Pool.

.           Analysis of pooling security characteristics and requirements to
identify and mitigate threats against the pooling mechanism. Identification
of an appropriate trust model between pool members, and between pool members
and Pool Manager.

The WG plans to deliver a problem statement, a set of use cases, VNF Pool
requirements and an architecture covering the aforementioned technical
aspects, and applicability and gap analysis of existing technologies such as
RSerPool. It is our expectation that we will be able to rely heavily on
existing IETF technologies, but that gaps will be found around problems like
redundancy mechanisms, state maintenance solely for pooling purposes,
reliable transport, and trust/security, all of which will need to be
considered and addressed. The WG will include consideration of the
manageability of a VNF Pool. The WG will seek re-chartering before adopting
any work to develop new, or extend existing, protocols.

 

In particular, we will work closely with the SFC WG, as we believe that SFC
and VNF Pool are independent but complementary. SFC would essentially see a
VNF Pool-enabled VNF as a normal service function and therefore be able to
merge it into an SFC just like any other service functions. Information
exchanged between the VNF Pool and the SFC may include some operational
information from the VNF Pool including the pool address, pool instance
characteristic, and so on, as requested by the SFC WG.

 

Goals and Milestones:

December 2014 - Submit VNFPool Problem Statement to IESG for publication as
Informational

April 2015 - Submit VNFPool Use Cases to IESG for publication as
Informational

August 2015 - Submit VNFPool Requirements, including the manageability of
VNF Pool to IESG for publication as Informational

August 2015 - Submit VNFPool Architecture to IESG for publication as
Proposed Standard

December 2015 - Submit Applicability and Gap Analysis of RSerPool to IESG
for publication as Informational

==========================================================================

 

Your comments and suggestions to the charter text are highly appreciated!

 

Thanks.

 

-Ning

  _____  

 Not clear of the intent. 

 

Do you mean: "VNF instances in the VNF pool are still visible by the service
control entity"?