Internet DRAFT - draft-ldbc-cats-framework
draft-ldbc-cats-framework
cats C. Li, Ed.
Internet-Draft Huawei Technologies
Intended status: Informational Z. Du
Expires: 11 September 2023 China Mobile
M. Boucadair, Ed.
Orange
L. M. Contreras
Telefonica
J. Drake
Juniper Networks, Inc.
G. Huang
ZTE
G. Mishra
Verizon Inc.
10 March 2023
A Framework for Computing-Aware Traffic Steering (CATS)
draft-ldbc-cats-framework-01
Abstract
This document describes a framework for Computing-Aware Traffic
Steering (CATS). Particularly, the document identifies a set of CATS
components, describes their interactions, and exemplifies the
workflow of the control and data planes.
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 https://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 11 September 2023.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2023 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
Li, et al. Expires 11 September 2023 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft CATS Framework March 2023
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (https://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 Revised BSD License text as
described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are
provided without warranty as described in the Revised BSD License.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. Framework and Components . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.1. Assumptions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.2. CATS Identifiers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.3. CATS Components . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.3.1. Edge Sites and Services Instances . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.3.2. CATS Service Metric Agent (C-SMA) . . . . . . . . . . 7
3.3.3. The CATS Network Metric Agent (C-NMA) . . . . . . . . 7
3.3.4. CATS Path Selector (C-PS) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3.3.5. CATS Traffic Classifier (C-TC) . . . . . . . . . . . 8
3.3.6. Overlay CATS-Routers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
3.3.7. Underlay Infrastructure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
3.4. Deployment Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
4. CATS Framework Workflow . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
4.1. Provisioning of CATS Components . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
4.2. Service Announcement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
4.3. Metrics Distribution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
4.4. Service Demand Processing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
4.5. Service Instance Affinity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
6. Privacy Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
8. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Appendix A. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
1. Introduction
Edge computing architectures have been expanding from single edge
nodes to multiple, sometimes collaborative, edge nodes to address
various issues (e.g., long response times or suboptimal service and
network resource usage).
Li, et al. Expires 11 September 2023 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft CATS Framework March 2023
The underlying networking infrastructures that include edge computing
resources usually provide relatively static service dispatching (that
is, the selection of the sevice instances that will be invoked for a
request). In such infrastructures, service-specific traffic is often
directed to the closest edge resource from a routing perspective
without considering the actual network state (e.g., traffic
congestion conditions).
As described in [I-D.yao-cats-ps-usecases], traffic steering that
takes into account computing resource metrics would benefit several
services, including latency-sensitive service like immersive services
that rely upon the use of augmented reality or virtual reality (AR/
VR) techniques. This document provides an architectural framework
that aims at facilitating the making of compute- and network-aware
traffic steering decisions in networking environments where edge
computing resources are deployed.
The Computing-Aware Traffic Steering (CATS) framework assumes that
there may be multiple service instances running on different edge
nodes, globally providing one given service. A single edge node may
have limited computing resources available at a given time, whereas
the various edge nodes may experience different resource availability
issues over time. A single edge node may also host multiple
instances of a service or just one service instance.
The CATS framework is an ingress-based overlay framework for the
selection of the suitable service instance(s) from a set of instance
candidates. The exact characterization of 'suitable' will be
determined by a combination of networking and computing metrics. To
that aim, the CATS framework assumes that edge nodes collaborate with
each other under a single administrative domain to achieve a global
objective of dispatching service demands (and thereby optimizing
their processing by the most relevant edge computing resources) over
the various and available edge computing resources, by taking into
account both service instance status and network state (e.g.,
reachability considerations, path cost, and traffic congestion
conditions).
Also, this document describes a workflow of the main CATS procedures
that are executed in both the control and data planes.
2. Terminology
This document makes use of the following terms:
Client: An endpoint that is connected to a service provider network.
Computing-Aware Traffic Steering (CATS): A traffic engineering
Li, et al. Expires 11 September 2023 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft CATS Framework March 2023
approach [I-D.ietf-teas-rfc3272bis] that takes into account the
dynamic nature of computing resources and network state to
optimize service-specific traffic forwarding towards a given
service instance. Various relevant metrics may be used to enforce
such computing-aware traffic steering policies.
CATS Service ID (CS-ID): An identifier representing a service, which
the clients use to access it. See Section 3.2.
CATS Binding ID (CB-ID): An identifier of a single service instance
or location of a given service instance (CS-ID). See Section 3.2.
Service: An offering provided by a service provider and which is
delivered using one or more service functions [RFC7665].
Service instance: A run-time environment (e.g., a server or a
process on a server) that makes a service instance available
(i.e., up and running). One service can be accessed through
multiple instances running at the same or different locations.
Service demand: The demand for a service identified by a CATS
Service ID (CS-ID).
Service request: The request for a specific service instance.
CATS-Router: A network device (usually located at the edge of the
network) that makes forwarding decisions based on CATS information
to steer traffic specific to a service demand towards a
corresponding yet selected service instance. The selection of a
service instance relies upon a multi-metric CATS-based path
computation. A CATS router may behave as Ingress or Egress CATS-
Router.
Ingress CATS-Router: A node that serves as a service access point
for CATS clients. It steers service-specific traffic along a
CATS-computed path that leads to an Egress CATS-Router that
connects to the most suitable edge site that hots the service
instance selected to satisfy the initial service demand.
Egress CATS-Router: A node that is located at the end of a CATS-
computed path and which connects to a CATS-serviced site.
CATS Service Metric Agent (C-SMA): An agent that is responsible for
collecting service capabilities and status, and for reporting them
to a CATS Path Selector (C-PS). See Section 3.3.2.
CATS Network Metric Agent (C-NMA): A functional entity that is
Li, et al. Expires 11 September 2023 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft CATS Framework March 2023
responsible for collecting network capabilities and status, and
for reporting them to a C-PS. See Section 3.3.3.
CATS Path Selector (C-PS): A computation logic that calculates and
selects paths towards service locations and instances and which
accommodates the requirements of service demands. Such a path
computation engine takes into account the service and network
status information. See Section 3.3.4.
CATS Traffic Classifier (C-TC): A functional entity that is
responsible for determining which packets belong to a traffic flow
for a particular service demand. It is also responsible for
forwarding such packets along the C-PS computed path that leads to
the relevant service instance. See Section 3.3.5.
3. Framework and Components
3.1. Assumptions
CATS assumes that there are multiple service instances running on
different edge nodes, and which provide a given service that is
represented by the same service identifier (see Section 3.2).
3.2. CATS Identifiers
CATS introduces the following identifiers:
CATS Service ID (CS-ID): An identifier representing a service, which
the clients use to access it. Such an ID identifies all the
instances of a given service, rgardless of their location. The
CS-ID is independent of which service instance serves the service
demand. Service demands are spread over the service instances
that can accommodate them, considering the location of the
initiator of the service demand and the availability (in terms of
resource/traffic load, for example) of the service instances
resource-wise among other considerations like traffic congestion
conditions.
CATS Binding ID (CB-ID): An identifier of a single service instance
or location of a given service instance (CS-ID).
3.3. CATS Components
The network nodes make forwarding decisions for a given service
demand that has been received from a client according to both service
instances and network status information. The main CATS functional
elements and their interactions are shown in Figure 1.
Li, et al. Expires 11 September 2023 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft CATS Framework March 2023
+-----+ +------+ +------+
+------+| +------+ | +------+ |
|client|+ |client|-+ |client|-+
+---+--+ +---+--+ +---+--+
| | |
| +-------------+ | +-----+-------+
+---+ C-TC +--+ +------+ C-TC |
|-------------| | |-------------|
| | C-PS | +------+ |CATS-Router 4|
........| +-------|.....| C-PS |...| |...
: |CATS-Router 2| | | | | .
: +-------------+ +------+ +-------------+ :
: :
: +-------+ :
: Underlay | C-NMA | :
: Infrastructure +-------+ :
: :
: :
: +-------------+ +-------------+ :
: |CATS-Router 1| +-------+ |CATS-Router 3| :
:...| |..| C-SMA |.... .| |.....:
+-------+-----+ +-------+ +-------------+
| | | C-SMA |
| | +-------+-----+
| | |
| | |
+------------+ +------------+
+------------+ | +------------+ |
| service | | | service | |
| instance |-+ | instance |-+
+------------+ +------------+
edge site 1 edge site 2
Figure 1: CATS Functional Components
3.3.1. Edge Sites and Services Instances
Edge sites (or edges for short) are the premises that provide access
to edge computing resources. As mentioned in Section 3.2, a compute
service (e.g., for face recognition purposes or a game server) is
uniquely identified by a CATS Service IDentifier (CS-ID).
Service instances can be instantiated and accessed through different
edge sites so that a single service can be represented and accessed
by several instances that run in different regions of the network.
Li, et al. Expires 11 September 2023 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft CATS Framework March 2023
Figure 1 shows two edge nodes ("CATS-Router 1" and "CATS-Router 3")
that provide access to service instances. These nodes behave as
Egress CATS-Routers (Section 3.3.6).
Note: "Egress" is used here in reference to the direction of the
service request placement. The directionality is called to
explicitly identify the exit node of the CATS infrastructure.
3.3.2. CATS Service Metric Agent (C-SMA)
The CATS Service Metric Agent (C-SMA) is a functional component that
gathers information about edge sites and server resources, as well as
the status of the different service instances. The C-SMAs are
located adjacent to the service instances and can be hosted by the
Egress CATS-Routers (Section 3.3.6) or located next to them.
Figure 1 shows one C-SMA embedded in "CATS-Router 3", and another
C-SMA that is adjacent to "CATS-Router 1".
3.3.3. The CATS Network Metric Agent (C-NMA)
The CATS Network Metric Agent (C-NMA) is a functional component that
gathers information about the state of the network. The C-NMAs may
be implemented as standalone components or may be hosted by other
components, such as CATS-Routers or CATS Path Selectors (C-PS)
(Section 3.3.4).
Figure 1 shows a single, standalone C-NMA within the underlay
network. There may be one or more C-NMAs for an underlay network.
3.3.4. CATS Path Selector (C-PS)
The C-SMAs and C-NMAs share the collected information with CATS Path
Selectors (C-PSes) that use such information to select the Egress
CATS-Routers (and potentially the service instances) where to forward
traffic for a given service demand. C-PSes also determine the best
paths (possibly using tunnels) to forward traffic, according to
various criteria that include network state and traffic congestion
conditions. The collected information is encoded into one or more
metrics that feed the C-PS path computation logic. Such an
information also includes CS-ID and possibly CB-ID identifiers.
There may be one or more C-PSes used to compute CATS paths. They can
be integrated into CATS-Routers (e.g., "CATS-Router 2" in Figure 1)
or they may be standalone components that communicate with CATS-
Routers (e.g., "CATS-Router 4" in Figure 1).
Li, et al. Expires 11 September 2023 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft CATS Framework March 2023
3.3.5. CATS Traffic Classifier (C-TC)
CATS Traffic Classifier (C-TC) is a functional component that is
responsible for associating incoming packets with existing service
demands. CATS classifiers also ensure that packets that are bound to
a specific service instance are all forwarded along the same path
that leads to the same service instance, as instructed by a C-PS.
CATS classifiers are typically hosted in CATS routers that are
located at the edge of the network.
3.3.6. Overlay CATS-Routers
The Egress CATS-Routers are the endpoints that behave as an overlay
egress for service requests that are forwatded over a CATS
infrastructure. An edge location that hosts service instances may be
connected to one or more Egress CATS routers (that is, multi-homing
is of course a design option). If a C-PS has selected a specific
service instance and the C-TC has marked the traffic with the CB-ID,
the Egress CATS-Router then forwards traffic to the relevant service
instance. In some cases, the choice of the service instance may be
left open to the Egress CATS-Router (i.e., traffic is marked only
with the CS-ID). In such cases, the Egress CATS-Router selects a
service instance using its knowledge of service and network
capabilities as well as the current load as observed by the CATS
router, among other considerations. Absent explicit policy, an
Egress CATS-Router must make sure to forward all packets that pertain
to a given service demand towards the same service instance.
Note that, depending on the design considerations and service
requirements, per-service instance computing-related metrics or
aggregated per-site computing related metrics (and a combination
thereof) can be used by a C-PS. Using aggregated per-site computing
related metrics appears as a privileged option scalability-wise, but
relies on Egress CATS-Routers that connect to various service
instances to select the proper service instance.
3.3.7. Underlay Infrastructure
The "underlay infrastructure" in Figure 1 indicates an IP/MPLS
network that is not necessarily CATS-aware. The CATS paths that are
computed by a P-CS will be distributed among the overlay CATS-Routers
(Section 3.3.6), and will not affect the underlay nodes.
A CATS implementation may rely upon a control or management plane to
distribute service metrics and network metrics - this document does
not define a specific solution.
Li, et al. Expires 11 September 2023 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft CATS Framework March 2023
3.4. Deployment Considerations
This document does not make any assumption about how the various CATS
functional elements are implemented and deployed. Concretely,
whether a CATS deployment follows a fully distributed design or
relies upon a mix of centralized (e.g., a C-PS) and distributed CATS
functions (e.g., CATS traffic classifiers) is deployment-specific and
may reflect the savoir-faire of the (CATS) service provider.
Centralized designs where the computing related metrics from the
C-SMAs are collected by a (logically) centralized path computation
logic (e.g., a Path Computation Element (PCE) [RFC4655]) that also
collects network metrics may be adopted. In the latter case, the
CATS computation logic may process incoming service requests to
compute and select paths and, therefore, service instances. The
outcomes of such a computation process may then be communicated to
CATS traffic classifiers (C-TCs).
4. CATS Framework Workflow
The following subsections provide an overview of how the CATS
workflow operates assuming a distributed CATS design.
4.1. Provisioning of CATS Components
TBC: --detail required provisioning at CAST elements (booptsrapping,
credentials of peer CAST nodes, services, optimization metrics per
service, etc.)--
4.2. Service Announcement
A service is associated with a unique identifier called a CS-ID. A
CS-ID may be a network identifier, such as an IP address. The
mapping of CS-IDs to network identifiers may be learned through a
name resolution service, such as DNS [RFC1034].
4.3. Metrics Distribution
As described in Section 3.3, a C-SMA collects both service-related
capabilities and metrics, and associates them with a CS-ID that
identifies the service. The C-SMA may aggregate the metrics for
multiple service instances, or maintain them separately or both. The
C-SMA then advertises the CS-IDs along with the metrics to be
received by all C-PSes in the network. The service metrics include
computing-related metrics and potentially other service-specific
metrics like the number of end-users who access the service instance
at any given time, their location, etc.
Li, et al. Expires 11 September 2023 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft CATS Framework March 2023
Computing metrics may change very frequently (see
[I-D.yao-cats-ps-usecases] for a discussion). How frequently such
information is distributed is to be determined as part of the
specification of any communication protocol (including routing
protocols) that may be used to distribute the information. Various
options can be considered, such as (but not limited to) interval-
based updates, threshold-triggered updates, or policy-based updates.
Additionally, the C-NMA collects network-related capabilities and
metrics. These may be collected and distributed by existing routing
protocols, although extensions to such protocols may be required to
carry additional information (e.g., link latency). The C-NMA
distributes the network metrics to the C-PSes so that they can use
the combination of service and network metrics to determine the best
Egress CATS-Router to provide access to a service instance and invoke
the compute function required by a service demand.
Network metrics may also change over time. Dynamic routing protocols
may take advantage of some information or capabilities to prevent the
network from being flooded with state change information (e.g.,
Partial Route Computation (PRC) of OSPFv3 [RFC5340]). C-NMAs should
also be configured or instructed like C-SMAs to determine when and
how often updates should be notified to the C-PSes.
Figure 2 shows an example of how CATS metrics can be distributed.
There is a client attached to the netowrk via "CATS-Router 1". There
are three instances of the service with CS-ID "1": two are located at
"Edge Site 2" attached via "CATS-Router 2" and have CB-IDs "1" and
"2"; the third service instance is located at "Edge Site 3" attached
via "CATS-Router 3" and with CB-ID "3". There is also a second
service with CS-ID "2" with only one service instance located at
"Edge Site 2".
In Figure 2, the C-SMA collocated with "CATS-Router 2" distributes
the service metrics for both service instances (i.e., (CS-ID 1, CB-ID
1) and (CS-ID 1, CB-ID 2)). Note that this information may be
aggregated into a single advertisement, but in this case, the metrics
for each service instance are indicated separately. Similarly, the
C-SMA agent located at "Edge Site 2" advertises the service metrics
for the two services hosted by "Edge Site 2".
Li, et al. Expires 11 September 2023 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft CATS Framework March 2023
The service metric advertisements are processed by the C-PS hosted by
"CATS-Router 1". The C-PS also processes network metric
advertisements sent by the C-NMA. All metrics are used by the C-PS
to compute and select the most relevant path that leads to the Egress
CATS-Router according to the initial client's service demand, the
service that is requested ("CS-ID 1" or "CS-ID 2"), the state of the
service instances as reported by the metrics, and the state of the
network.
Service CS-ID 1, instance CB-ID 1 <metrics>
Service CS-ID 1, instance CB-ID 2 <metrics>
:<----------------------:
: : +-------+
: : |CS-ID 1|
: : +--|CB-ID 1|
: +-------------+ | +-------+
: | C-SMA |----| Edge Site 2
: +-------------+ | +-------+
: |CATS-Router 2| +--|CS-ID 1|
: +-------------+ |CB-ID 2|
+--------+ : | +-------+
| Client | : Network +----------------------+
+--------+ : metrics | +-------+ |
| : :<---------| C-NMA | |
| : : | +-------+ |
+-------------------+ | |
|CATS-Router 1|C-PS |------| |
+-------------------+ | Underlay |
: | Infrastructure | +-------+
: | | |CS-ID 1|
: +----------------------+ +---|CB-ID 3|
: | | +-------+
: +-------------+ +-------+
: |CATS-Router 3|--| C-SMA | Edge Site 3
: +-------------+ +-------+
: : | +-------+
: : +---|CS-ID 2|
: : +-------+
:<-------------------------------:
Service CS-ID 1, instance CB-ID 3 <metrics>
Service CS-ID 2, <metrics>
Figure 2: Example CATS Metric Distribution
The example in Figure 2 mainly describes a per-instance computing-
related metric distribution. In the case of distributing aggregated
per-site computing-related metrics, the per-instance CB-ID
information will not be included in the advertisement. Instead, a
Li, et al. Expires 11 September 2023 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft CATS Framework March 2023
per-site CB-ID may be used in case multiple sites are connected to
the Egress CATS-Router to explicitly indicate the site the aggregated
metrics come from.
A CB-ID is not required if the edge site can support consistently
service instance selection.
4.4. Service Demand Processing
The C-PS computes paths that lead to Egress CATS-Routers according to
the service and network metrics that have been advertised. The C-PS
may be collocated with an Ingress CATS-Router (as shown in Figure 2)
or logically centralized.
This document does not specify any algorithm for path computation and
selection purposes, but it is expected that a service demand or local
policy may feed the C-PS computation logic with Objective Functions
that provide some information about the path characteristics (e.g.,
in terms of maximum latency) and the selected service instance.
In the example shown in Figure 2, when the client sends a service
demand to "CATS-Router 1", the router solicits the C-PS to select a
service instance hosted by an edge site that can be accessed through
a particular Egress CATS-Router. The C-PS also determines a path to
that Egress CATS-Router. This information is provided to the Ingress
CATS-Router ("CATS-Router 1") so that it can forward packets to their
proper destination, as computed by the C-PS.
A service transaction consists of one or more service packets sent by
the client to an Ingress CATS-Router to which the client is connected
to. The Ingress CATS-Router classifies incoming packets received
from clients by soliciting the CATS classifier (C-TC). When a
matching classification entry is found for the packets, the Ingress
CATS-Router encapsulates and forwards them to the C-PS selected
Egress CATS-Router. When these packets reach the Egress CATS-Router,
the outer header of the possible overlay encapsulation is removed and
inner packets are sent to the relevant service instance.
Note that multi-homed clients may be connected to multiple CATS
domains that may be operated by the same or distinct service
providers. This version of the framework does not cover
multihoming specifics.
Li, et al. Expires 11 September 2023 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft CATS Framework March 2023
4.5. Service Instance Affinity
Instance affinity means that packets that belong to a flow associated
with a service should always be sent to the same Egress CATS-Router
which will forward them to the same service instance. Furthermore,
packets of a given flow should be forwarded along the same path to
avoid mis-ordering and to prevent the introduction of unpredictable
latency variations.
The affinity is determined at the time of newly formulated service
demands.
Note that different services may have different notions of what
constitutes a 'flow' and may, thus, identify a flow differently.
Typically, a flow is identified by the 5-tuple transport coordinates
(source and destination addresses, source and destination port
numbers, and protocol). However, for instance, an RTP video stream
may use different port numbers for video and audio channels: in that
case, affinity may be identified as a combination of the two 5-tuple
flow identifiers so that both flows are addressed to the same service
instance.
Hence, when specifying a protocol to communicate information about
service instance affinity, a certain level of flexibility for
identifying flows should be supported. Or, from a more general
perspective, there should be a flexible mechanism to specify and
identify the set of packets that are subject to a service instance
affinity.
More importantly, the means for identifying a flow for the purpose of
ensuring instance affinity should be application-independent to avoid
the need for service-specific instance affinity methods. However,
service instance affinity information may be configurable on a per-
service basis. For each service, the information can include the
flow/packets identification type and means, affinity timeout value,
etc.
This document does not define any mechanism for defining or enforcing
service instance affinity.
5. Security Considerations
The computing resource information changes over time very frequently,
especially with the creation and termination of service instances.
When such an information is carried in a routing protocol, too many
updates may affect network stability. This issue could be exploited
by an attacker (e.g., by spawning and deleting service instances very
rapidly). CATS solutions must support guards against such
Li, et al. Expires 11 September 2023 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft CATS Framework March 2023
misbehaviors. For example, these solutions should support
aggregation techniques, dampening mechanisms, and threshold-triggered
distribution updates.
The information distributed by the C-SMA and C-NMA agents may be
sensitive. Such information could indeed disclose intel about the
network and the location of compute resources hosted in edge sites.
This information may be used by an attacker to identify weak spots in
an operator's network. Furthermore, such information may be modified
by an attacker resulting in disrupted service delivery for the
clients, up to and including misdirection of traffic to an attacker's
service implementation. CATS solutions must support authentication
and integrity-protection mechanisms between C-SMAs/C-NMAs and C-PSes,
and between C-PSes and Ingress CATS-Routers. Also, C-SMA agents need
to support a mechanism to authenticate the services for which they
provide information to C-PS computation logics, among other CATS
functions.
6. Privacy Considerations
Means to prevent that on-path nodes in the underlay infrastructure to
fingerprint and track clients (e.g., determine which client accesses
which service) must be supported by CATS solutions. More generally,
personal data must not be exposed to external parties by CATS beyond
what is carried in the packet that was originally issued by the
client.
Since the service will, in some cases, need to know about
applications, clients, and even user identity, it is likely that the
C-PS computed path information will need to be encrypted if the
client/service communication is not already encrypted.
For more discussion about privacy, refer to [RFC6462] and [RFC6973].
7. IANA Considerations
This document makes no requests for IANA action.
8. Informative References
[I-D.ietf-teas-rfc3272bis]
Farrel, A., "Overview and Principles of Internet Traffic
Engineering", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-
ietf-teas-rfc3272bis-22, 27 October 2022,
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-teas-
rfc3272bis-22>.
Li, et al. Expires 11 September 2023 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft CATS Framework March 2023
[I-D.yao-cats-ps-usecases]
Yao, K., Eardley, P., Trossen, D., Boucadair, M.,
Contreras, L. M., Li, C., Li, Y., and P. Liu, "Computing-
Aware Traffic Steering (CATS) Problem Statement and Use
Cases", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-yao-cats-
ps-usecases-00, 3 March 2023,
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-yao-cats-ps-
usecases-00>.
[RFC1034] Mockapetris, P., "Domain names - concepts and facilities",
STD 13, RFC 1034, DOI 10.17487/RFC1034, November 1987,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc1034>.
[RFC4655] Farrel, A., Vasseur, J.-P., and J. Ash, "A Path
Computation Element (PCE)-Based Architecture", RFC 4655,
DOI 10.17487/RFC4655, August 2006,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4655>.
[RFC5340] Coltun, R., Ferguson, D., Moy, J., and A. Lindem, "OSPF
for IPv6", RFC 5340, DOI 10.17487/RFC5340, July 2008,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc5340>.
[RFC6462] Cooper, A., "Report from the Internet Privacy Workshop",
RFC 6462, DOI 10.17487/RFC6462, January 2012,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc6462>.
[RFC6973] Cooper, A., Tschofenig, H., Aboba, B., Peterson, J.,
Morris, J., Hansen, M., and R. Smith, "Privacy
Considerations for Internet Protocols", RFC 6973,
DOI 10.17487/RFC6973, July 2013,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc6973>.
[RFC7665] Halpern, J., Ed. and C. Pignataro, Ed., "Service Function
Chaining (SFC) Architecture", RFC 7665,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7665, October 2015,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7665>.
Appendix A. Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank Joel Halpern, John Scudder, Dino
Farinacci, Adrian Farrel, Cullen Jennings, Linda Dunbar, Jeffrey
Zhang, Peng Liu, Fang Gao, Aijun Wang, Cong Li, Xinxin Yi, Jari
Arkko, Mingyu Wu, Haibo Wang, Xia Chen, Jianwei Mao, Guofeng Qian,
Zhenbin Li, and Xinyue Zhang for their comments and suggestions.
Contributors
Li, et al. Expires 11 September 2023 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft CATS Framework March 2023
Huijuan Yao
China Mobile
Email: yaohuijuan@chinamobile.com
Yizhou Li
Huawei Technologies
Email: liyizhou@huawei.com
Dirk Trossen
Huawei Technologies
Email: dirk.trossen@huawei.com
Luigi Iannone
Huawei Technologies
Email: luigi.iannone@huawei.com
Hang Shi
Huawei Technologies
Email: shihang9@huawei.com
Changwang Lin
New H3C Technologies
Email: linchangwang.04414@h3c.com
Xueshun Wang
CICT
Email: xswang@fiberhome.com
Xuewei Wang
Ruijie Networks
Email: wangxuewei1@ruijie.com.cn
Christian Jacquenet
Orange
Email: christian.jacquenet@orange.com
Authors' Addresses
Li, et al. Expires 11 September 2023 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft CATS Framework March 2023
Cheng Li (editor)
Huawei Technologies
China
Email: c.l@huawei.com
Zongpeng Du
China Mobile
China
Email: duzongpeng@chinamobile.com
Mohamed Boucadair (editor)
Orange
France
Email: mohamed.boucadair@orange.com
Luis M. Contreras
Telefonica
Spain
Email: luismiguel.contrerasmurillo@telefonica.com
John E Drake
Juniper Networks, Inc.
United States of America
Email: jdrake@juniper.net
Guangping Huang
ZTE
China
Email: huang.guangping@zte.com.cn
Gyan Mishra
Verizon Inc.
United States of America
Email: hayabusagsm@gmail.com
Li, et al. Expires 11 September 2023 [Page 17]
