Global review of the NetReady requirements documentcolorado.1.0

This patchset enables a global review of the entire NetReady
requirements document. Changes to the document shall be pushed
as new patches to this patchset.

Change-Id: I7cc9290c9260aad5b687253b02d60efbc8a64bb2
Signed-off-by: Georg Kunz <georg.kunz@ericsson.com>

1 files changed, 254 insertions, 0 deletions

diff --git a/docs/requirements/use_cases/l3vpn_hub_and_spoke.rst b/docs/requirements/use_cases/l3vpn_hub_and_spoke.rst
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..ca58f67
--- /dev/null
+++ b/docs/requirements/use_cases/l3vpn_hub_and_spoke.rst
@@ -0,0 +1,254 @@
+.. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
+.. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0
+.. (c) Bin Hu
+
+Hub and Spoke Case
+------------------
+
+Description
+~~~~~~~~~~~
+
+In a traditional Hub-and-spoke topology there are two types of network entities:
+a central hub and multiple spokes. The corresponding VRFs of the hub and the
+spokes are configured to import and export routes such that all traffic is
+directed through the hub. As a result, spokes cannot communicate with each other
+directly, but only indirectly via the central hub. Hence, the hub typically
+hosts central network functions such firewalls.
+
+Furthermore, there is no layer 2 connectivity between the VNFs.
+
+In addition, in this use case, the deployed network infrastructure comprises
+equipment from two different vendors, Vendor A and Vendor B. There are 2 hosts
+(compute nodes). SDN Controller A and vForwarder A are provided by Vendor A, and
+run on host A. SDN Controller B and vForwarder B are provided by Vendor B, and run
+on host B.
+
+There is 1 tenant. Tenant 1 creates L3VPN Blue with 2 subnets: 10.1.1.0/24 and 10.3.7.0/24.
+
+The network topology is shown in :numref:`l3vpn-hub-spoke-figure`:
+
+.. figure:: images/l3vpn-hub-spoke.png
+   :name:  l3vpn-hub-spoke-figure
+   :width: 100%
+
+In L3VPN Blue, vFW(H) is acting the role of ``hub`` (a virtual firewall).
+The other 3 VNF VMs are ``spoke``. vFW(H) and VNF1(S) are spawned on host A,
+and VNF2(S) and VNF3(S) are spawned on host B. vFW(H) (10.1.1.5) and VNF2(S)
+(10.1.1.6) are attached to subnet 10.1.1.0/24. VNF1(S) (10.3.7.9) and VNF3(S)
+(10.3.7.10) are attached to subnet 10.3.7.0/24.
+
+
+Derived Requirements
+~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
+
+Northbound API / Workflow
++++++++++++++++++++++++++
+
+Exemplary workflow is described as follows:
+
+1. Create Network
+
+2. Create VRF Policy Resource
+
+  2.1. Hub and Spoke
+
+3. Create Subnet
+
+4. Create Port
+
+  4.1. Subnet
+
+  4.2. VRF Policy Resource, [H | S]
+
+
+
+Current implementation
+++++++++++++++++++++++
+
+Different APIs have been developed to support creating a L3 network topology and
+directing network traffic through specific network elements in specific order,
+for example, [BGPVPN]_ and [NETWORKING-SFC]_. We analyzed those APIs regarding
+the Hub-and-Spoke use case.
+
+
+BGPVPN
+''''''
+
+Support for creating and managing L3VPNs is in general available in OpenStack
+Neutron by means of the BGPVPN API [BGPVPN]_.  The [BGPVPN]_ API currently
+supports the concepts of network- and router-associations. An association maps
+Neutron network objects (networks and routers) to a VRF with the following
+semantics:
+
+* A *network association* interconnects all subnets and ports of a Neutron
+  network by binding them to a given VRF
+* a *router association* interconnects all networks, and hence indirectly all
+  ports, connected to a Neutron router by binding them to a given VRF
+
+It is important to notice that these associations apply to entire Neutron
+networks including all ports connected to a network. This is due to the fact
+that in the Neutron, ports can only exist within a network but not individually.
+Furthermore, Neutron networks were originally designed to represent layer 2
+domains. As a result, ports within the same Neutron network typically have layer
+connectivity among each other. There are efforts to relax this original design
+assumption, e.g. routed networks, which however do not solve the problem at hand
+here (see the gap analysis further down below).
+
+In order to realize the hub-and-spoke topology outlined above, VRFs need to be
+created on a per port basis. Specifically, ports belonging to the same network
+should not be interconnected except through a corresponding configuration of a
+per-port-VRF.  This configuration includes setting up next-hop routing table,
+labels, I-RT and E-RT etc. in order to enable traffic direction from hub to
+spokes.
+
+It may be argued that given the current network- and router-association mechanisms,
+the following workflow establishes a network topology which aims to achieve the desired
+traffic flow from Hub to Spokes. The basic idea is to model separate VRFs per VM
+by creating a dedicated Neutron network with two subnets for each VRF in the
+Hub-and-Spoke topology.
+
+1. Create Neutron network "hub"
+  ``neutron net-create --tenant-id Blue hub``
+
+
+2. Create a separate Neutron network for every "spoke"
+  ``neutron net-create --tenant-id Blue spoke-i``
+
+
+3. For every network (hub and spokes), create two subnets
+  ``neutron subnet-create <hub/spoke-i UUID> --tenant-id Blue 10.1.1.0/24``
+
+  ``neutron subnet-create <hub/spoke-i UUID> --tenant-id Blue 10.3.7.0/24``
+
+
+4. Create the Neutron ports in the corresponding networks
+  ``neutron port-create --tenant-id Blue --name vFW(H) --fixed-ip subnet_id=<hub UUID>,ip_address=10.1.1.5``
+
+  ``neutron port-create --tenant-id Blue --name VNF1(S) --fixed-ip subnet_id=<spoke-i UUID>,ip_address=10.3.7.9``
+
+  ``neutron port-create --tenant-id Blue --name VNF2(S) --fixed-ip subnet_id=<spoke-i UUID>,ip_address=10.1.1.6``
+
+  ``neutron port-create --tenant-id Blue --name VNF3(S) --fixed-ip subnet_id=<spoke-i UUID>,ip_address=10.3.7.10``
+
+
+5. Create a BGPVPN object (VRF) for the hub network with the corresponding import
+   and export targets
+  ``neutron bgpvpn-create --name hub-vrf --import-targets <RT-hub RT-spoke> --export-targets <RT-hub>``
+
+
+6. Create a BGPVPN object (VRF) for every spoke network with the corresponding import
+   and export targets
+  ``neutron bgpvpn-create --name spoke-i-vrf --import-targets <RT-hub> --export-targets <RT-spoke>``
+
+
+7. Associate the hub network with the hub VRF
+  ``bgpvpn-net-assoc-create hub --network <hub network-UUID>``
+
+
+8. Associate each spoke network with the corresponding spoke VRF
+  ``bgpvpn-net-assoc-create spoke-i --network <spoke-i network-UUID>``
+
+
+9. Add static route to direct all traffic to vFW VNF running at the hub.
+
+   **Note:** Support for static routes not yet available.
+
+  ``neutron bgpvpn-static-route-add --tenant-id Blue --cidr 0/0 --nexthop-ip 10.1.1.5 hub``
+
+After step 9, VMs can be booted with the corresponding ports.
+
+The resulting network topology intents to resemble the target topology as shown in
+:numref:`l3vpn-hub-spoke-figure`, and achieve the desired traffic direction from Hub to Spoke.
+However, it deviates significantly from the essence of the Hub-and-Spoke use case as
+described above in terms of desired network topology, i.e. one L3VPN with multiple
+VRFs associated with vFW(H) and other VNFs(S) separately. And this method of using
+the current network- and router-association mechanism is not scalable when there are large
+number of Spokes, and in case of scale-in and scale-out of Hub and Spokes.
+
+The gap analysis in the next section describes the technical reasons for this.
+
+
+Network SFC
+'''''''''''
+
+Support of Service Function Chaining is in general available in OpenStack Neutron through
+the Neutron API for Service Insertion and Chaining project [NETWORKING-SFC]_.
+However, the [NETWORKING-SFC]_ API is focused on creating service chaining through
+NSH at L2, although it intends to be agnostic of backend implementation. It is unclear whether
+or not the service chain from vFW(H) to VNFs(S) can be created in the way of L3VPN-based
+VRF policy approach using [NETWORKING-SFC]_ API.
+
+Hence, it is currently not possible to configure the networking use case as described above.
+
+.. **Georg: we need to look deeper into SFC to substantiate our claim here.**
+
+
+Gaps in the Current Solution
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
+
+Given the use case description and the currently available implementation in
+OpenStack provided by [BGPVPN]_ project and [NETWORKING-SFC]_ project,
+we identify the following gaps:
+
+
+[L3VPN-HS-GAP1] No means to disable layer 2 semantic of Neutron networks
+''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''
+
+Neutron networks were originally designed to represent layer 2 broadcast
+domains. As such, all ports connected to a network are in principle
+inter-connected on layer 2 (not considering security rules here). In contrast,
+in order to realize L3VPN use cases such as the hub-and-spoke topology,
+connectivity among ports must be controllable on a per port basis on layer 3.
+
+There are ongoing efforts to relax this design assumption, for instance by means
+of routed networks ([NEUTRON-ROUTED-NETWORKS]_). In a routed network, a Neutron network
+is a layer 3 domain which is composed of multiple layer 2 segments. A routed
+network only provides layer 3 connectivity across segments, but layer 2
+connectivity across segments is **optional**. This means, depending on the
+particular networking backend and segmentation technique used, there might be
+layer 2 connectivity across segments or not. A new flag ``l2_adjacency``
+indicates whether or not a user can expect layer 2 connectivity or not across
+segments.
+
+This flag, however, is ready-only and cannot be used to overwrite or disable the
+layer 2 semantics of a Neutron network.
+
+
+[L3VPN-HS-GAP2] No port-association available in the BGPVPN project yet
+'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''
+
+Due to gap [L3VPN-HS-GAP1], the [BGPVPN]_ project was not yet able to implement
+the concept of a port association. A port association would allow to associate
+individual ports with VRFs and thereby control layer 3 connectivity on a per
+port basis.
+
+The workflow described above intents to mimic port associations by means of
+separate Neutron networks. Hence, the resulting workflow is overly complicated
+and not intuitive by requiring to create additional Neutron entities (networks)
+which are not present in the target topology. Moreover, creating large numbers
+of Neutron networks limits scalability.
+
+Port associations are on the road map of the [BGPVPN]_ project, however, no
+design that overcomes the problems outlined above has been specified yet.
+Consequently, the time-line for this feature is unknown.
+
+As a result, creating a clean Hub-and-Spoke topology is current not yet
+supported by the [BGPVPN]_ API.
+
+
+[L3VPN-HS-GAP3] No support for static routes in the BGPVPN project yet
+''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''
+
+In order to realize the hub-and-spoke use case, a static route is needed to
+attract the traffic at the hub to the corresponding VNF (direct traffic to the
+firewall). Support for static routes in the BGPVPN project is available for the
+router association by means of the Neutron router extra routes feature. However,
+there is no support for static routes for network and port associations yet.
+
+Design work for supporting static routes for network associations has started,
+but no final design has been proposed yet.
+
+..
+.. [L3VPN-HS-GAP4] Creating a clean hub-and-spoke topology is current not yet supported by the NETWORKING-SFC API.
+.. [Georg: We need to look deeper into SFC before we can substantiate our claim]
+