[Docs] [txt|pdf] [Tracker] [WG] [Email] [Diff1] [Diff2] [Nits]

Versions: (draft-ouldbrahim-l1vpn-bgp-auto-discovery) 00 01 02 03 04 05 RFC 5195

  Network Working Group                           Hamid Ould Brahim
  Internet Draft                                          Don Fedyk
  Intended status: Standards Track                         (Nortel)
  Expires: November 2008                              Yakov Rekhter
                                                 (Juniper Networks)


                                                      May 14, 2008



                 BGP-based Auto-Discovery for Layer-1 VPNs


                draft-ietf-l1vpn-bgp-auto-discovery-05.txt


Status of this Memo

   By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any
   applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware
   have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes
   aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of 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.

   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/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt.

   The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
   http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.

   This Internet-Draft will expire in August 2008.


   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.








Ould-Brahim, Fedyk, Rekhter   Expires November 2008            [Page 1]

Internet-Draft  BGP Auto-Discovery for L1VPNs          May 2008




Abstract

   The purpose of this document is to define a BGP-based auto-discovery
   mechanism for Layer-1 VPNs (L1VPNs). The auto-discovery mechanism for
   L1VPNs allows the provider network devices to dynamically discover
   the set of PEs having ports attached to CE members of the same VPN.
   That information is necessary for completing the signaling phase of
   L1VPN connections. One main objective of a L1VPN auto-discovery
   mechanism is to support the "single-end provisioning" model, where
   addition of a new port to a given L1VPN would involve configuration
   changes only on the PE that has this port and on the CE that is
   connected to the PE via this port.

1. Introduction

   The purpose of this document is to define a BGP-based auto-discovery
   mechanism for Layer-1 VPNs (L1VPNs) [L1VPN-FRMK]. The auto-discovery
   mechanism for L1VPNs allows the provider network devices to
   dynamically discover the set of PEs having ports attached to CE
   members of the same VPN. That information is necessary for completing
   the signaling phase of L1VPN connections. One main objective of a
   L1VPN auto-discovery mechanism is to support the "single-end
   provisioning" model, where addition of a new port to a given L1VPN
   would involve configuration changes only on the PE that has this port
   and on the CE that is connected to the PE via this port.


   The auto-discovery mechanism proceeds by having a PE advertise to
   other PEs, at a minimum, its own IP address and the list of <private
   address, provider address> tuples local to that PE. Once that
   information is received, the remote PEs will identify the list of VPN
   members they have in common with the advertising PE, and use the
   information carried within the discovery mechanism to perform address
   resolution during the signaling phase of Layer-1 VPN connections.

   Figure 1 highlights the network reference for using BGP-based auto-
   discovery mechanism for Layer-1 VPNs. For the purpose of auto-
   discovery mechanism, BGP is running only on the provider network. The
   PEs maintain per VPN information tables called Port Information Table
   (PIT) related to <private address, provider address> information.
   More information on the PIT tables is described in section 2.










Ould-Brahim, Fedyk, Rekhter   Expires November 2008         [Page 2]

Internet-Draft  BGP Auto-Discovery for L1VPNs          May 2008


                   PE1                        PE2
               +---------+             +--------------+
   +--------+  | +------+|             | +----------+ | +--------+
   |  VPN-A |  | |VPN-A ||             | |  VPN-A   | | |  VPN-A |
   |   CE1  |--| |PIT   ||  BGP route  | |  PIT     | |-|   CE2  |
   +--------+  | |      ||<----------->| |          | | +--------+
               | +------+| Distribution| +----------+ |
               |         |             |              |
   +--------+  | +------+|             | +----------+ | +--------+
   | VPN-B  |  | |VPN-B ||  --------   | |   VPN-B  | | |  VPN-B |
   |  CE1   |--| |PIT   ||-(   GMPLS )-| |   PIT    | |-|   CE2  |
   +--------+  | |      || (Backbone ) | |          | | +--------+
               | +------+|  ---------  | +----------+ |
               |         |             |              |
   +--------+  | +-----+ |             | +----------+ | +--------+
   | VPN-C  |  | |VPN-C| |             | |   VPN-C  | | |  VPN-C |
   |  CE1   |--| |PIT  | |             | |   PIT    | |-|   CE2  |
   +--------+  | |     | |             | |          | | +--------+
               | +-----+ |             | +----------+ |
               +---------+             +--------------+
                   Figure 1 BGP auto-discovery for L1VPN

   [L1VPN-FRMK] describes two modes of operation for a L1VPN: the basic
   mode and the enhanced mode. This document describes an auto-discovery
   mechanism for the basic mode only.

2. Procedures

   In the context of L1VPNs, a CE is connected to a PE via one or more
   ports, where each port may consist of one or more channels or sub-
   channels. Each port on a CE that connects the CE to a PE has an
   identifier that is unique within that L1VPN (but need not be unique
   across several L1VPNs). We refer to this identifier as the customer
   port identifier (CPI). Each port on a PE also has an identifier that
   is unique within the provider network. We refer to this identifier as
   the provider port identifier (PPI). Note that IP addresses used for
   CPIs or PPIs could be either IPv4 or IPv6 addresses.

   For each L1VPN that has at least one port configured on a PE, the PE
   maintains a Port Information Table (PIT). A PIT contains a list of
   <CPI, PPI> tuples for all the ports within its L1VPN. Note that a PIT
   may also hold routing information (for example when CPIs are learnt
   using a routing protocol).

   A PIT on a given PE is populated with two types of information.

   - Information related to the CEs' ports attached to the ports on the
   PE. This information could be locally configured at the PE or could
   be received from the CEs.

   - Information received from other PEs through the auto-discovery
   mechanism.

Ould-Brahim, Fedyk, Rekhter   Expires November 2008         [Page 3]

Internet-Draft  BGP Auto-Discovery for L1VPNs          May 2008


   We refer to the former as local information, and to the latter as
   remote information. Propagation of local information to other PEs is
   accomplished by using BGP multiprotocol extensions [RFC4760]. To
   restrict the flow of this information to only the PITs within a given
   L1VPN, we use BGP route filtering based on the Route Target Extended
   Community [BGP-COMM], as follows.

   Each PIT on a PE is configured with one or more Route Target
   Communities, called "export Route Targets", that are used for tagging
   the local information when it is exported into the provider's BGP.
   The granularity of such tagging could be as fine as a single <CPI,
   PPI> pair. In addition, each PIT on a PE is configured (at
   provisioning time) with one or more Route Target Communities, called
   "import Route Targets", that restrict the set of routes that could be
   imported from provider's BGP into the PIT to only the routes that
   have at least one of these Communities.

   When a service provider adds a new L1VPN port to a particular PE (at
   provisioning time), this port is associated at provisioning time with
   a PIT on that PE, and this PIT is associated (again at provisioning
   time) with that L1VPN.

   Note that since the protocol used to populate a PIT with remote
   information is BGP, since BGP works across multiple autonomous
   systems, it follows that the mechanism described in this document
   could support L1VPNs that span multiple autonomous systems.

   Although multi-AS L1VPNs are currently out of scope for the Basic
   Mode, the mechanisms defined in this document appear to be easily
   applicable to a multi-AS scenario should such a need arise in the
   future. At that time additional work may be required to examine
   various aspects including security.



3. Carrying L1VPN information in BGP

   The <CPI, PPI> mapping is carried using the Multiprotocol Extensions
   to BGP [RFC4760]. [RFC4760] defines the format of two BGP attributes,
   MP_REACH_NLRI and MP_UNREACH_NLRI that can be used to announce and
   withdraw the announcement of reachability information. We introduce a
   new subsequent address family identifier, called Layer-1 VPN auto-
   discovery information (to be assigned by the IANA), and also a new
   NLRI format for carrying the CPI and PPI information.

   One or more <PPI, CPI> tuples could be carried in the above mentioned
   BGP attributes.

   The format of the NLRI is described in figure 2.




Ould-Brahim, Fedyk, Rekhter   Expires November 2008         [Page 4]

Internet-Draft  BGP Auto-Discovery for L1VPNs          May 2008


                +---------------------------------------+

                |     Length (1 octet)                  |

                +---------------------------------------+

                |     Auto-discovery info (variable)    |

                +---------------------------------------+

                       Figure 2 Encoding of the NLRI

   Note that the encoding of the auto-discovery information is described
   in [L1VPN-BM] and note also that if the value of the Length of the
   Next Hop field (of the MP_REACH_NLRI attribute) is 4, then the Next
   Hop contains an IPv4 address. If this value is 16, then the Next Hop
   contains an IPv6 address.

4. Carrying L1VPN Traffic Engineering Information in BGP

   In addition to reachability information, the auto-discovery mechanism
   MAY carry Traffic Engineering information used for the purpose of
   egress path selection. For example a PE may learn the switching
   capability and the maximum LSP bandwidth of remote L1VPN interfaces
   from the remote PEs. This document uses the BGP Traffic Engineering
   Attribute [BGP-TE-ATTRIBUTE] to carry such information.

5. Scalability


   Recall that the Service Provider network consists of (a) PEs, (b) BGP
   Route Reflectors, (c) P nodes (which are neither PEs nor Route
   Reflectors), and, in the case of multi-provider VPNs, (d) ASBRs.

   A PE router, unless it is a Route Reflector, does not retain L1VPN-
   related information unless it has at least one VPN with an Import
   Target identical to one of the VPN-related information Route Target
   attributes. If a PE does not have a VPN with a matching Import Route
   Target it MUST then discard received l1VPN information.  Inbound
   filtering MUST be used to cause such information to be discarded.  If
   a new Import Target is later added to one of the PE's VPNs (a "VPN
   Join" operation), it MUST then acquire the VPN-related information it
   previously has discarded.

   In this case the refresh mechanism described in [BGP-RFSH] MUST be
   used. The outbound route filtering mechanism of [BGP-ORF], [BGP-CONS]
   can also be used to advantage to make the filtering more dynamic.

   Similarly, if a particular Import Target is no longer present in any
   of a PE's VPN (as a result of one or more "VPN Prune" operations),
   the PE MAY discard all VPN-related information which, as a result, no


Ould-Brahim, Fedyk, Rekhter   Expires November 2008         [Page 5]

Internet-Draft  BGP Auto-Discovery for L1VPNs          May 2008


   longer have any of the PE's VPN Import Targets as one of their Route
   Target attributes.

   Note that VPN Join and Prune operations are non-disruptive, and do
   not require any BGP connections to be brought down, as long as the
   refresh mechanism of [BGP-RFSH] is used.

   As a result of these distribution rules, no one PE ever needs to
   maintain all routes for all L1VPNs; this is an important scalability
   consideration.

   Route reflectors can be partitioned among VPNs so that each partition
   carries routes for only a subset of the L1VPNs supported by the
   Service Provider. Thus no single route reflector is required to
   maintain VPN-related information for all VPNs.

   For inter-provider VPNs, if multi-hop EBGP is used, then the ASBRs
   need not maintain and distribute VPN-related information at all. P
   routers do not maintain any VPN-related information.

   As a result, no single component within the Service Provider network
   has to maintain all the VPN-related information for all the VPNs. So
   the total capacity of the network to support increasing numbers of
   VPNs is not limited by the capacity of any individual component.

   An important consideration to remember is that one may have any
   number of INDEPENDENT BGP systems carrying VPN-related information.
   This is unlike the case of the Internet, where the Internet BGP
   system MUST carry all the Internet routes. Thus one significant (but
   perhaps subtle) distinction between the use of BGP for the Internet
   routing and the use of BGP for distributing VPN-related information,
   as described in this document is that the former is not amenable to
   partition, while the latter is.

6. Security Considerations

   This document describes a BGP-based auto-discovery mechanism which
   enables a PE that attaches to a particular L1VPN to discover the set
   of other PE routers that attach to the same VPN.  Each PE router that
   is attached to a given VPN uses BGP to advertise that fact. Other PE
   routers which attach to the same VPN receive these BGP
   advertisements. This allows that set of PEs to discover each other.
   Note that a PE will not always receive these advertisements directly
   from the remote PEs; the advertisements can be received from
   "intermediate" BGP speakers.

   It is of critical importance that a particular PE MUST NOT be
   "discovered" to be attached to a particular VPN unless that PE really
   is attached to that VPN, and indeed is properly authorized to be
   attached to that VPN.  If any arbitrary node on the Internet could
   start sending these BGP advertisements, and if those advertisements
   were able to reach the PE nodes, and if the PE nodes accepted those

Ould-Brahim, Fedyk, Rekhter   Expires November 2008         [Page 6]

Internet-Draft  BGP Auto-Discovery for L1VPNs          May 2008


   advertisements, then anyone could add any site to any L1VPN.  Thus
   the auto-discovery procedures described here presuppose that a
   particular PE trusts its BGP peers to be who they appear to be, and
   further that it can trust those peers to be properly securing their
   local attachments.  (That is, a PE MUST trust that its peers are
   attached to, and are authorized to be attached to, the L1VPNs to
   which they claim to be attached.)

   If a particular remote PE is a BGP peer of the local PE, then the BGP
   authentication procedures of RFC 2385 SHOULD be used to ensure that
   the remote PE is who it claims to be, i.e., that it is a PE that is
   trusted.

   If a particular remote PE is not a BGP peer of the local PE, then the
   information it is advertising is being distributed to the local PE
   through a chain of BGP speakers.  The local PE MUST trust that its
   peers only accept information from peers that they trust in turn, and
   this trust relation MUST be transitive.  BGP does not provide a way
   to determine that any particular piece of received information
   originated from a BGP speaker that was authorized to advertise that
   particular piece of information.  Hence the procedures of this
   document MUST be used only in environments where adequate trust
   relationships exist among the BGP speakers (such as the case of using
   the auto-discovery mechanism within a single provider network).


7. IANA Considerations


   This document requires assignment of a new SAFI, called Layer-1 VPN
   auto-discovery information (see Section 3). This assignment has to be
   done from the Subsequent Address Family Identifier (SAFI) registry
   using the Standards Action allocation procedures. Suggested value is
   69.

8. References

8.1. Normative References


   [RFC4760]  Bates, Chandra, Katz, and Rekhter, "Multiprotocol
             Extensions for BGP4", January 2007, RFC 4760.

   [BGP-RFSH] Chen, A., "Route Refresh Capability for BGP-4", RFC 2918,
             October 2000.


8.2. Informative References





Ould-Brahim, Fedyk, Rekhter   Expires November 2008         [Page 7]

Internet-Draft  BGP Auto-Discovery for L1VPNs          May 2008


   [BGP-TE-ATTRIBUTE] Ould-Brahim, H., Fedyk, D., Rekhter, Y.,
             "Traffic Engineering Attribute", draft-ietf-softwire-bgp-
             te-attribute-00.txt, work in progress.

    [BGP-ORF] Chen, E., and Rekhter, Y., "Outbound Route Filtering
             Capability for BGP-4", draft-ietf-idr-route-filter-16.txt,
             Work in Progress.

   [BGP-CONS] Marques, P., et al., "Constrained VPN route
             distribution", RFC4684.

   [BGP-COMM] Ramachandra, Tappan, et al., "BGP Extended  Communities
             Attribute",  RFC4360.

   [L1VPN-FRMK] Tomonori Takeda, et al., "Framework and    Requirements
             for Layer 1 Virtual Private Networks", RFC4847.

   [L1VPN-BM] Fedyk, D., Rekhter, Y. (Eds.), "Layer 1 VPN Basic Mode",
             draft-ietf-l1vpn-basic-mode, work in progress.

9. Acknowledgment

   We would like to thank Adrian Farrel for the useful comments.


10. Authors' Addresses

    Hamid Ould-Brahim
    Nortel
    P O Box 3511 Station C
    Ottawa ON K1Y 4H7 Canada
    Phone: +1 (613) 763 4730
    Email: hbrahim@nortel.com

    Yakov Rekhter
    Juniper Networks
    1194 N. Mathilda Avenue
    Sunnyvale, CA 94089
    Email: yakov@juniper.net

    Don Fedyk
    Nortel
    600 Technology Park
    Billerica, Massachusetts
    01821 U.S.A
    Phone: +1 (978) 288 3041
    Email: dwfedyk@nortel.com


Intellectual Property Statement



Ould-Brahim, Fedyk, Rekhter   Expires November 2008         [Page 8]

Internet-Draft  BGP Auto-Discovery for L1VPNs          May 2008


   The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
   Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to
   pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in
   this document or the extent to which any license under such rights
   might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has
   made any independent effort to identify any such rights.  Information
   on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be
   found in BCP 78 and BCP 79.

   Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any
   assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an
   attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of
   such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this
   specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at
   http://www.ietf.org/ipr.

   The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any
   copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary
   rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement
   this standard.  Please address the information to the IETF at ietf-
   ipr@ietf.org.

   Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2008).

   This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions
   contained in BCP 78, and except as set forth therein, the authors
   retain all their rights.

   This document and the information contained herein are provided on an
   "AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS
   OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY, THE IETF TRUST AND
   THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS
   OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF
   THE INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED
   WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.


















Ould-Brahim, Fedyk, Rekhter   Expires November 2008         [Page 9]


Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.108, available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/