]> Geneve network service interfaces option class Google
vimoreno@google.com
Spinglass
pradosh@spinglass.co
Palo Alto Networks
pankaj@paloaltonetworks.com
nvo3 nvo3 Geneve Option class This specification defines a new Geneve Option Class and a registration procedure for corresponding option types that can be used for the exchange of metadata between network service domains. The metadata enables implementation of coordinated network service functionality across domains by carrying extra context.
Introduction Following the publication of , IANA created a registry to manage the option class space. The option classes so far have been reserved for private use by different organizations from the "First come first served" range. As enterprises evolve their network to span carriers, co-locations and public clouds, there is a desire to integrate with best-of-the- breed network services in a flexible and interoperable fashion. In many cases, these network service functionalities are offered as a managed service, which is usually hosted in a separate and independent network. This is a departure from the traditional model of enterprise network administrators managing service appliances within their premises. Geneve is increasingly being adopted as the encapsulation protocol to tie these disparate networks together and offer coordinated services. At the point where a service needs to be applied to an enterprise's traffic, network elements encapsulate the traffic over an on-demand Geneve overlay to a service endpoint while ensuring tenant isolation for the enterprise consuming the services. Geneve options carry extra context across domains to be used while applying the service. This specification proposes a standard option class subrange under the "IETF review" range for such purposes, called "Network service interfaces Option Class". It enables an "implement once and offer everywhere" approach that vendors and providers can leverage.
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 when, and only when, they appear in all capitals, as shown here.
Use cases Below is a sample topology where Geneve tunnel is used to carry the traffic from a cloud provider to a network security service provider to apply security and get the traffic back to the destination.
Example topology 1
Below is another topology that demonstrates tenant isolation, along with the presence of enterprise network footprint across cloud providers. Each enterprise's network traffic is carried in separate Geneve tunnel, ensuring isolation.
| | 2 | | | |virtual | |virtual | | | |virtual | | | |network | |network | | | |network | | | +--|-------+ +--|-------+ | | +----------+ | +----|------------|---------+ +------------------------+ | | +----+-----+ +---+------+ |enterprise| |enterprise| | 1 | | 2 | |on-prem | |on-prem | |network | |network | +----------+ +----------+ ]]>
Options This specification defines a new Option Class called "Network service interfaces Option Class" to carry extra context across domains that offer network services to enterprises. The new class will be structured as a subrange. Under the first option class in "network service interfaces option class" subrange, this specification defines the following option types.
Origin Location To serve localized content to end users, a network service may require the country of origin of the user traffic. This information is exchanged in a new option type called "origin location" that encodes the 10-bit country/subdivision code as standardized in ISO- 3166-2 [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISO_3166]. The format is as follows:
Origin Location option type
Deployment and Operational Considerations
IANA Considerations IANA is requested to assign a new option class subrange from the "IETF Review" range to be called "Network service interfaces Option Class". The suggested subrange is 0x0000 - 0x0009. IANA is also requested to maintain a new option type registry per option class in this subrange for "IETF expert review".
Security Considerations There are no additional security risks introduced by this design.
References Normative References Informative References Geneve Classes IANA
Acknowledgements The authors would like to thank Alia Atlas, Soumya Kailasa, and Jaywant Kapadnis for their comments and contributions.