File formats:

Also available: XML file for editing

 

Status:

INFORMATIONAL

Authors:

D. Trossen
D. Purkayastha
A. Rahman

Stream:

INDEPENDENT

Cite this RFC: TXT  |  XML  |   BibTeX

DOI:  https://doi.org/10.17487/RFC8677

Discuss this RFC: Send questions or comments to the mailing list rfc-ise@rfc-editor.org

Other actions: Submit Errata  |  Find IPR Disclosures from the IETF  |  View History of RFC 8677

Abstract

Adoption of cloud and fog technology allows operators to deploy a single "Service Function" (SF) to multiple "execution locations". The decision to steer traffic to a specific location may change frequently based on load, proximity, etc. Under the current Service Function Chaining (SFC) framework, steering traffic dynamically to the different execution endpoints requires a specific "rechaining", i.e., a change in the service function path reflecting the different IP endpoints to be used for the new execution points. This procedure may be complex and take time. In order to simplify rechaining and reduce the time to complete the procedure, we discuss separating the logical Service Function Path (SFP) from the specific execution endpoints. This can be done by identifying the SFs using a name rather than a routable IP endpoint (or Layer 2 address). This document describes the necessary extensions, additional functions, and protocol details in the Service Function Forwarder (SFF) to handle name-based relationships.

This document presents InterDigital's approach to name-based SFC. It does not represent IETF consensus and is presented here so that the SFC community may benefit from considering this mechanism and the possibility of its use in the edge data centers.

For the definition of Status, see RFC 2026.

For the definition of Stream, see RFC 8729.