INTERNET-DRAFT Luyuan Fang Intended Status: Standards track John Evans Expires: August 18, 2013 David Ward Rex Fernando John Mullooly Cisco Ning So Tata Communications Nabil Bitar Verizon Maria Napierala AT&T February 18, 2013 BGP IP VPN Virtual CE draft-fang-l3vpn-virtual-ce-00 Abstract This document describes the BGP IP VPN with virtual Customer Edge architecture. The solution is aimed at providing efficient service delivery capability through CE virtualization, and is especially beneficial in virtual Private Cloud (vPC) environments for extending IP VPN into tenant virtual Data Center containers. This document includes: BGP IP VPN virtual CE architecture; Control plane and forwarding options; Data Center orchestration processes; integration with existing WAN enterprise VPNs; management capability requirements; and security considerations. The solution is generally applicable to any BGP IP VPN deployment. The virtual CE solution is complementary to the virtual PE solutions. Today's data center's require multi-tenancy and mechanisms to establish overlay network connectivity. This document describes one approach to enabling data center network connectivity. Status of this Memo This Internet-Draft is submitted to IETF in full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-Drafts. Expires [Page 1] L. Fang et al. BGP IP VPN Virtual CE 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." The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at http://www.ietf.org/1id-abstracts.html The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html Copyright and License Notice Copyright (c) 2013 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the document authors. All rights reserved. This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (http://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 Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as described in the Simplified BSD License. Table of Contents 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 1.1 Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 1.2 Problem statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 1.3 Scope of the document . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 2. Virtual CE Architecture and Reference Model . . . . . . . . . . 7 2.1 Virtual CE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 2.2 Architecture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 3. Control Plane . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 3.1 vCE Control Plane . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 4. Forwarding Plane . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 4.1 Forwarding between vCE and PE/vPE . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 4.2 Forwarding between vCE and VM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 5. Addressing and QoS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 5.1 Addressing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 5.2 QoS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 6. Management plane . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 6.1 Network abstraction and management . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 Expires [Page 2] L. Fang et al. BGP IP VPN Virtual CE 6.2 Service VM Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 7. Orchestration and IP VPN inter-provisioning . . . . . . . . . . 12 7.1 DC Instance to WAN IP VPN instance "binding" Requirements . 13 7.2. Provisioning/Orchestration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 7.2.1 vCE Push model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 7.2.1.1 Inter-domain provisioning vCE Push Model . . . . . . 14 7.2.1.2 Cross-domain provisioning vCE Push Model . . . . . . 15 7.1.1 vCE Pull model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 8. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 9. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 10. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 10.1 Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 10.2 Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 11. Acknowledgement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 Expires [Page 3] L. Fang et al. BGP IP VPN Virtual CE 1. Introduction In the typical enterprise BGP/MPLS IP VPN [RFC4364] deployment, the Provider Edge (PE) and Customer Edge (CE) are physical routers which support the PE and CE functions. With the recent development of cloud services, using virtual instances of PE or CE functions, which reside in a compute device such as a server, can be beneficial to emulate the same logical functions as the physical deployment model but now achieved via cloud based network virtualization principles. This document describes IP VPN virtual CE (vCE) solutions, while Virtual PE (vPE) concept and implementation options are discussed in [I-D.fang-l3vpn-virtual-pe], [I-D.ietf-l3vpn-end-system]. vPE and vCE solutions provide two avenues to realize network virtualization. 1.1 Terminology The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119]. Term Definition ----------- -------------------------------------------------- AAA Authentication, Authorization, and Accounting ACL Access Control List 3GPP 3rd Generation Partnership Project (3GPP) AS Autonomous Systems ASBR Autonomous Systems Border Router BGP Border Gateway Protocol CE Customer Edge DB Data Base DMZ Demilitarized Zone, a.k.a. perimeter networking ED End device: where Guest OS, Host OS/Hypervisor, applications, VMs, and virtual router may reside FE Front End Forwarder L3VPN forwarding function FRR Fast Re-Route FTP File Transfer Protocol GRE Generic Routing Encapsulation HTTP Hypertext Transfer Protocol Hypervisor Virtual Machine Manager I2RS Interface to Routing System LDAP Lightweight Directory Access Protocol MP-BGP Multi-Protocol Border Gateway Protocol NVGRE OSPF Open Shortest Path First Expires [Page 4] L. Fang et al. BGP IP VPN Virtual CE PE Provider Edge QinQ Provider Bridging, stacked VLANs RR Route Reflector SDN Software Defined Network SLA Service Level Agreement SMTP Simple Mail Transfer Protocol ToR Top of the Rack switch VI Virtual Interface vCE virtual Customer Edge Router vLB virtual Load Balancer VM Virtual Machine VLAN Virtual Local Area Network vPC virtual Private Cloud vPE virtual Provider Edge Router VPN Virtual Private Network vRR virtual Route Reflector vSG virtual Security Gateway VXLAN Virtual eXtensible Local Area Network WAN Wide Area Network Definitions: Virtual CE (vCE): A virtual instance of the Customer Edge (CE) routing function which resides in one or more network or compute devices. For example, the vCE data plane may reside in an end device, such as a server, and as co-resident with application Virtual Machines (VMs) on the server; the vCE control plane may reside in the same device or in a separate entity such as a controller. Network Container/Tenant Container: An abstraction of a set of network and compute resources which can be physical and virtual, providing the cloud services for a tenant. One tenant can have more than one Tenant Containers. Zone: A logical grouping of VMs and service assets within a tenant container. Different security policies may be applied within and between zones. DMZ: Demilitarized zone, a.k.a. perimeter networking. It is often a machine or a small subnet that sits between a trusted internal network, such as a corporate private LAN, and an un-trusted external network, such as the public Internet. Typically, the DMZ contains devices accessible to Internet traffic, such as Web (HTTP) servers, FTP servers, SMTP (e-mail) servers and DNS servers. Note: Throughout this document, the term virtual CE (vCE) is used to denote BGP/MPLS IP VPN virtual Customer Edge router. Expires [Page 5] L. Fang et al. BGP IP VPN Virtual CE 1.2 Problem statement With the growth of cloud services and the increase in the number of CE devices, routers/switches, and appliances, such as Firewalls (FWs) and Load Balancers (LBs), that need to be supported, there are benefits to virtualize the Data Center tenant container. The virtualized container can increase resource sharing, optimize routing and forwarding of inter-segment and inter-service traffic, and simplify design, provisioning, and management. The following two aspects of the virtualized Data Center tenant container for the IP VPN CE solution are discussed in this document. 1. Architecture re-design for virtualized DC. The optimal architecture of the virtualized container includes virtual CE, virtual appliances, application VMs. All these functions are co-resitents on virtualized servers. For simplicity, we want to emulate a "virtual enterprise site". In this arrangement, CEs and appliances can be created and removed easily on demand, and the virtual CE can interconnect the virtual appliances (e.g., FW, LB, NAT), applications (e.g., Web, App., and DB) in a co-located fashion for simplicity, routing/forwarding optimization, and easier service chaining. Virtualizing these functions on a per-tenant basis provides simplicity for the network operator in regards to managing per tenant service orchestration, tenant container moves, capacity planning across tennants and per-tenant policies. 2. Provisioning/orchestration. Two issues need to be addressed: a) The provisioning/orchestration system of the virtualized data center need to support VM life cycle and VM migration. b) The provisioning/orchestration systems of the DC and the WAN networks need to be coordinated to support end-to-end IP VPN from DC to DC or from DC to enterprise remote office in the same VPN. The DC and the WAN network are often operated by separate departments, even if they belong to the same provider. Today, the process of inter- connecting is slow and painful, and automation is highly desirable. 1.3 Scope of the document It is assumed that the readers are familiar with BGP/MPLS IP VPN [RFC4364] terms and technologies, the base technology and its operation are not reviewed in details in this document. As the majority (all in some networks) of applications are IP, this vCE solution is focusing on IP VPN solutions to cover the most common Expires [Page 6] L. Fang et al. BGP IP VPN Virtual CE cases and keep matters as simple as possible. 2. Virtual CE Architecture and Reference Model 2.1 Virtual CE As described in [RFC4364], IP uses a "peer model" - the customers' edge routers (CE routers) exchange routes with the Service Provider's edge routers (PE routers); the CEs do not peer with each other. MP- BGP [RFC4271, RFC4760] is used between the PEs which have a particular VPN attached to them to exchange the VPN routes. A CE sends IP packets to the PE; no VPN labels for packets forwarded between CE and PE. A virtual CE (vCE) as defined in this document is a software instance of IP VPN CE function which can reside in ANY network or compute devices. For example, a vCE MAY reside in an end device, such as a server in a Data Center, where the application VMs reside. The CE functionality and management models remain the same as defined in [RFC4364] regardless of whether the CE is physical or virtual. Using the virtual CE model, the CE functions CAN easily co-located with the VM/applications, e.g., in the same server. This allows tenant inter-segment and inter-service routing to be optimized. Likewise the vCE can be in a separate server (in the same DC rack or across racks) than the application VMs, in which case VMs would typically use standard L2 technologies to access the vCE via the DC network. Similar to the virtual PE solution, the control and forwarding of a virtual CE can be on the same device, or decoupled and reside on different physical devices. The provisioning of a virtual CE, associated applications, and the tenant network container can be supported through distributed systems or centralized controllers, or a combination of both. Unlike a physical or virtual PE which can support multi-tenants, a physical or virtual CE supports a single tenant only. A single tenant CAN use multiple physical or virtual CEs. An end device, such as a server, CAN support one or more vCE(s). While the vCE is defined as a single tenant device, each tenant can have multiple logical departments which are under the tenants administrative control, requiring logical separation, this is the same model as today's physical CE deployments. Virtual CE and virtual PE are complimentary approaches for extending IP VPN into tenant containers. In the vCE solution, there is no IP VPN within the data center or other type of service network, the vCE Expires [Page 7] L. Fang et al. BGP IP VPN Virtual CE can connect to the PE which is a centralized IP VPN PE/Gateway/ASBR, or connect to distributed vPE on a server or on the Top of the Rack switch (ToR). Virtual CE can be used to extend the SP managed CE solution to create new cloud enabled services and provide the same topological model and features that are consistent with the physical CE systems. 2.2 Architecture Figure 1 illustrates the topology where vCE is resident in the servers where the applications are hosted. .''---'''---''. ( ) ( IP/MPLS ) ( WAN ) WAN '--,,,_,,,--' ----------------|----------|------------------ Service/DC | | Network +-------+ +-------+ |Gateway|---|Gateway| | PE | | PE | +-------+ +-------+ | ,---. | .---. ( '.---. ( ' ' ') (' Data Center ) (. Fabric .) ( ( ).--' / ''--' '-''--' \ / / \ \ +-------+ +---+---+ +-------+ +-------+ | vCE | |vCE|vCE| | vCE | |vCE|vCE| +---+---+ +---+---+ +---+---+ +---+---+ |VM |VM | |VM |VM | |VM |VM | |VM |VM | +---+---+ +---+---+ +---+---+ +---+---+ |VM |VM | |VM |VM | |VM |VM | |VM |VM | +---+---+ +---+---+ +---+---+ +---+---+ End Device End Device End Device End Device Figure 1. Virtualized Data Center with vCE Figure 1 shows above vCE solution in a virtualized Data Center with application VMs on the servers. One or more vCEs MAY be used on each server. Expires [Page 8] L. Fang et al. BGP IP VPN Virtual CE The vCEs logically connect to the PEs/Gateway PEs to join the particular IP VPN which the tenant belongs to. Gateway PEs connect to the IP MPLS WAN network for inter-DC and DC to enterprise VPN sites connection. The server physically connects to the DC Fabric for packet forwarding. ,---. ,---. .--.( ) .--.( ) ( ' '.---. ( ' '.---. (' L3VPN ) (' Internet ) '..( ).' '..( ).' '--'---'' '--'---'' +---+ +---+ +---+ +---+ |PE | |PE | | R | | R | +---+ +---+ +---+ +---+ | | | | """"""""""""""""""|"""""""|""""""""""""""|"""""""|""""""""""""""""" " End Device | | +----+ | " " (e.g. a server) +-------+-----+ +----|vSG |----+ " " | | +----+ " " +----+ " " +---------------------|vCE |-----------+ " " | +----+ | " " +----+ | +----+ | | +----+ " " |vLB |-| |vLB |--+-----------+ +--|vLB | " " +----+ | +----+ | | +----+ " " | | +----+ | " " | | +------|vSG |-+------+ " " | | | +----+ | " " '''''''|'''''''''''|''''' ''''''|'''''''''|''''''''''|''''''''' " " ' +--------+ +--------+ ' ' +-------+ +-------+ +-----------+ ' " " ' | Apps/ | | Apps/ | ' ' | Apps/ | | Apps/ | |Apps |Apps | ' " " ' | VMs | | VMs | ' ' | VMs | | VMs | |VMs |VMs | ' " " ' | | | | ' ' | | | | |ZONE3|ZONE4| ' " " ' | Public | |Protect-| ' ' | | | | +-----+-----+ ' " " ' | Zone | | ed FE | ' ' | ZONE1 | | ZONE2 | |Apps |Apps | ' " " ' | (DMZ) | | | ' ' | | | | |VMs |VMs | ' " " ' | | | | ' ' | | | | |ZONE5|ZONE6| ' " " ' +--------+ +--------+ ' ' +-------+ +-------+ +-----------+ ' " " ' Front-end Zone ' ' Back-end Zone ' " " ' ' ' ' " " ''''''''''''''''''''''''' ''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' " """"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""" Figure 2. A Virtualized Container with vCE in an End Device An end device shown in Figure 2 is a physical server supporting multiple virtualized appliances and application, and hosts multiple Expires [Page 9] L. Fang et al. BGP IP VPN Virtual CE client VMs. An end device shown in Figure 2 is a physical server supporting multiple In the traditional deployment, the topology often involves multiple physical CEs, physical Security Gateways and Load Balancers residing in the same Data Center. The virtualized approach provides the benefit of reduced number of physical devices, simplified management, optimal routing due to the co-location of vCE, services, and client VMs. While the above diagram represents a simplified view of all of the tenant service and application VMs residing in the same physical server, the above model can also be represented with the VMs spread across many physical servers and the DC network would provide the physical inter-connectivity while the vCE and the VMs connected to the vCE form the logical connections. 3. Control Plane 3.1 vCE Control Plane The vPE control plane can be distributed or centralized. 1) Distributed control plane vCE CAN exchange BGP routes with PE or vPE for the particular IP VPN as described in [RFC4364]. The vCE needs to support BGP if this approach is used. The advantage of distributed protocols is to avoid single point of failure and bottleneck. Service chaining can be easily and efficiently supported in this approach. BGP as PE-CE protocol is used in about 70% of cases in typical Enterprise IP VPN PE-CE connections. BGP supports rich policy compared to other alternatives. Other dynamic protocols, e.g. OSPF, are sometimes used in Enterprise IP VPN deployments, but it is a less common case compared to BGP. They MAY be used in this environment. 2) Static routing. It is used in about 30% of cases in Enterprise IP VPN PE-CE connections. It MAY be used if the operator prefers. 2. Centralized routing controller Using controller is the Software Defined Nework (SDN) approach. The central controller performs the control plane functions, and sends Expires [Page 10] L. Fang et al. BGP IP VPN Virtual CE instructions to the vCE on the end devices to configure the data plane. This requires standard interface to routing system (IRS). The Interface to Routing System (IRS) is work in progress in IETF [I- D.ward-irs-framework], [I-D.draft-rfernando-irs-framework- requirement]. 4. Forwarding Plane 4.1 Forwarding between vCE and PE/vPE No MPLS forwarding is required between PE and CE in typical PE-CE connection scenarios, though MPLS label forwarding is required for implementing Carriers' Carrier (CSC) model. IPv4 and IPv6 packet forwarding MUST be supported. Native fabric CAN be used to support isolation between vCEs to PE connections. Examples of native fabric include: - VLANs [IEEE 802.1Q], Virtual Local Area Network- IEEE 802.1ad [IEEE 802.1ad]/QinQ, Provider Bridge Or overlay segmentation with better scalability: - VXLANs [I-D.mahalingam-dutt-dcops-vxlan], Virtual Extensible LAN- NVGRE [I-D.sridharan-virtualization-nvgre], Network Virtualization using GRE Note the the above references for overlay network are currently work in progress in IETF. 4.2 Forwarding between vCE and VM If the vCE and the VM the vCE is connecting are co-located in the same server, the connection is internal to the server, no external protocol involved. If the vCE and the VM the vCE is connecting are located in different devices, standard external protocols are needed. The forwarding can be native or overlay techniques as listed in the above sub-section. 5. Addressing and QoS 5.1 Addressing Expires [Page 11] L. Fang et al. BGP IP VPN Virtual CE IPv4 and IPv6 addressing MUST be supported. IP address allocation for vCEs and applications/client: 1) IP address MAY be assigned by central management/provisioning with predetermined blocks through planning process. 2) IP address MAY be obtained through DHCP server. Address space separation: The IP addresses used for clients in the IP VPNs in the Data Center SHOULD be in separate address blocks outside the blocks used for the underlay infrastructure of the Data Center. The purpose is to protect the Data Center infrastructure from being attacked if the attacker gain access of the tenant VPNs. 5.2 QoS Differentiated Services [RFC2475] Quality of Service (QoS) is standard functionality for physical CEs and MUST be supported on vCE. This is important to ensure seamless end-to-end SLA from IP VPN in the WAN into service network/Data center. The use of MPLS Diffserv tunnel model Pipe Mode (RFC3270) with explicit null LSP must be supported. 6. Management plane 6.1 Network abstraction and management The use of vCE with single tenant virtual service instances can simplify management requirements as there is no need to discover device capabilities, track tenant dependencies and manage service resources. vCE North bound interface SHOULD be standards based. vCE element management MUST be supported, it can be in the similar fashion as for physical CE. 6.2 Service VM Management Service VM Management SHOULD be hypervisor agnostic, e.g. On demand service VMs turning-up SHOULD be supported. The management tool SHOULD be open standards. 7. Orchestration and IP VPN inter-provisioning Expires [Page 12] L. Fang et al. BGP IP VPN Virtual CE 7.1 DC Instance to WAN IP VPN instance "binding" Requirements - MUST support service activation in the physical and virtual environment. For example, assign VLAN to correct VRF. - MUST support per VLAN Authentication, Authorization, and Accounting (AAA). The PE function is an OA&M boundary. - MUST be able to apply other policies to VLAN. For example, per VLAN QOS, ACLs. - MUST ensure that WAN IP VPN state and Data cCentre state are dynamically synchronized. Ensure that there is no possibility of customer being connected to the wrong VRF. For example, remove all tenant state when service instance terminated. - MUST integrate with existing WAN IP VPN provisioning processes. - MUST scale to at least 10,000 tenant service instances. - MUST cope with rapid (sub minute) tenant mobility. - MAY support Automated cross provisioning accounting correlation between WAN IP VPN and cloud/DC for the same tenant. - MAY support Automated cross provisioning state correlation between WAN IP VPN and cloud/DC/extended Data Center for the same tenant. 7.2. Provisioning/Orchestration There are two primary approaches for IP VPN provisioning - push and pull, both CAN be used for provisioning/orchestration. 7.2.1 vCE Push model Push model: It is a top down approach - push IP VPN provisioning from network management system or other central control provisioning systems to the IP VPN network elements. This approach supports service activation and it is commonly used in Expires [Page 13] L. Fang et al. BGP IP VPN Virtual CE the existing IP VPN enterprise deployment. When existing the IP VPN solution into the cloud/data center or separate Data Center, it MUST support off-line accounting correlation between the WAN IP VPN and the cloud/DC IP VPN for the tenant, the systems SHOULD be able to bind interface accounting to particular tenant. It MAY requires offline state correlation as well, for example, bind interface state to tenant. 7.2.1.1 Inter-domain provisioning vCE Push Model Provisioning process: 1) Cloud/DC orchestration configures vCE. 2) Orchestration initiates WAN IP VPN provisioning; passes connection IDs (e.g., of VLAN/VXLAN) and tenant context to WAN IP VPN provisioning systems. 3) WAN IP VPN provisioning system provisions PE VRF and other policies per normal enterprise IP VPN provisioning processes. This model requires the following: - The DC Orchestration system or the WAN IP VPN provisioning system know the topology inter-connecting the DC and WAN VPN. For example, which interface on the WAN core device connects to which interface on the DC PE. - Offline state correlation. - Offline accounting correlation. - Per SP integration. Dynamic BGP session between PE/vPE and vCE MAY be used to automate the PE provisioning in the PE-vCE model, that will remove the needs for PE configuration. Other protocols can be used for this purpose as well, for example, use Enhanced Interior Gateway Routing Protocol (EIGRP) for dynamic neighbour relationship establishment. The dynamic routing Prevents the need to configure the PEs in PE-vCE model. Caution: This is only under the assumption that the DC provisioning system is trusted and could support dynamic establishment of PE-vCE BGP neighbor relationships, for example, the WAN network and the cloud/DC belongs to the same Service Provider. Expires [Page 14] L. Fang et al. BGP IP VPN Virtual CE 7.2.1.2 Cross-domain provisioning vCE Push Model Provisioning Process: 1) Cross-domain orchestration system initiates DC orch. 2) DC orchestration system configures vCE 3) DC orchestration system passes back VLAN/VXLAN and tenant context to Cross-domain orchestration system 4) Cross-domain orchestration system initiates WAN IP VPN provisioning 5) WAN IP VPN provisioning system provisions PE VRF and other policies as per normal enterprise IP VPN provisioning processes. This model requires the following: - Cross-domain orchestration system knows the topology connecting the DC and WAN IP VPN, for example, which interface on core device connects to which interface on DC PE.- Offline state correlation. - Offline accounting correlation. - Per SP integration. 7.1.1 vCE Pull model Pull model: It is a bottom-up approach - pull from network elements to network management/AAA based upon data plane or control plane activity. It supports service activation, this approach is often used in broadband deployment. Dynamic accounting correlation and dynamic state correlation are supported. For example, session based accounting is implicitly includes tenant context state correlation, as well as session based state which implicitly includes tenant context. Inter-domain Provisioning: Process: 1) Cloud/DC orchestration system configures vCE 2) Cloud/DC Orchestration system primes WAN IP VPN provisioning/AAA for new service, passes connection IDs (e.g., VLAN/VXLAN) and tenant context WAN IP VPN provisioning systems. Expires [Page 15] L. Fang et al. BGP IP VPN Virtual CE 3) Cloud/DC PE detects new VLAN, send Radius Access-Request. 4) Radius Access-Accept with VRF and other policies. This model requires VLAN/VLAN information and tenant context to passed on a per transaction basis. In practice, it may simplify to use DC orchestration updating LDAP directory Auto accounting correlation and auto state correlation is supported. 8. Security Considerations vCE creation on server - is server owned by the the operator? is this managed CE model? how to authenticate? vCE in DC connecting VPN in WAN IP - are the DC and WAN IP VPN belong to the same SP or different? How much info are permitted to pass through auto-provisioning? How to authenticate connections, especially in pull models? How vCE protects itself from attach from client VMs? Additional security procedures in all virtualized cloud/DC environment, FW placement. All virtualized appliances need to be protected against attack. Three tier (Web, App, DB) interaction access control. Details to be added. 9. IANA Considerations None. 10. References 10.1 Normative References [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. [RFC4271] Rekhter, Y., Ed., Li, T., Ed., and S. Hares, Ed., "A Border Gateway Protocol 4 (BGP-4)", RFC 4271, January 2006. [RFC4364] Rosen, E. and Y. Rekhter, "BGP/MPLS IP Virtual Private Networks (VPNs)", RFC 4364, February 2006. Expires [Page 16] L. Fang et al. BGP IP VPN Virtual CE [RFC4760] Bates, T., Chandra, R., Katz, D., and Y. Rekhter, "Multiprotocol Extensions for BGP-4", RFC 4760, January 2007. [I-D.ietf-l3vpn-end-system] Marques, P., Fang, L., Pan, P., Shukla, A., Napierala, M., "BGP-signaled end-system IP/VPNs", draft-ietf-l3vpn-end-system-00, October 2012. [IEEE 802.1ad] IEEE, "Provider Bridges", 2005. [IEEE 802.1q] IEEE, "802.1Q - Virtual LANs",2006. 10.2 Informative References [RFC2475] Blake, S., Black, D., Carlson, M., Davies, E., Wang, Z., and W. Weiss, "An Architecture for Differentiated Services", RFC 2475, December 1998. [I-D.fang-l3vpn-virtual-pe] Fang, L., Ward, D., Fernando, R., Napierala, M., Bitar, N., Rao, D., Rijsman, B., So, N., "BGP IP VPN Virtual PE", draft-fang-l3vpn-virtual-pe-00, Feb. 2013. [I-D.ward-irs-framework] Atlas, A., Nadeau, T., Ward. D., "Interface to the Routing System Framework", draft-ward-irs- framework-00, July 2012. [I-D.rfernando-irs-framework-requirement] Fernando, R., Medved, J., Ward, D., Atlas, A., Rijsman, B., "IRS Framework Requirements", draft-rfernando-irs-framework-requirement- 00, Oct. 2012. [I-D.mahalingam-dutt-dcops-vxlan]: Mahalingam, M, Dutt, D.., et al., "A Framework for Overlaying Virtualized Layer 2 Networks over Layer 3 Networks" draft-mahalingam-dutt-dcops-vxlan- 02, Aug. 2012. [I-D.sridharan-virtualization-nvgre]: SridharanNetwork, M., et al., "Virtualization using Generic Routing Encapsulation", draft-sridharan-virtualization-nvgre-01.txt, July 2012. 11. Acknowledgement The authors would like to thank Vaughn Suazo for his review and comments. Expires [Page 17] L. Fang et al. BGP IP VPN Virtual CE Authors' Addresses Luyuan Fang Cisco 111 Wood Ave. South Iselin, NJ 08830 US Email: lufang@cisco.com John Evans Cisco 16-18 Finsbury Circus London, EC2M 7EB UK Email: joevans@cisco.com David Ward Cisco 170 W Tasman Dr San Jose, CA 95134 US Email: wardd@cisco.com Rex Fernando Cisco 170 W Tasman Dr San Jose, CA US Email: rex@cisco.com John Mullooly Cisco 111 Wood Ave. South Iselin, NJ 08830 US Email: jmullool@cisco.com Ning So Tata Communications Plano, TX 75082, USA Email: ning.so@tatacommunications.com Nabil Bitar Verizon 40 Sylvan Road Waltham, MA 02145 Email: nabil.bitar@verizon.com Expires [Page 18] L. Fang et al. BGP IP VPN Virtual CE Maria Napierala AT&T 200 Laurel Avenue Middletown, NJ 07748 Email: mnapierala@att.com Expires [Page 19]