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

Versions: 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09

L3VPN WG                                              Hamid Ould-Brahim
Internet Draft                                          Nortel Networks
Expiration Date: August 2005
                                                          Eric C. Rosen
                                                          Cisco Systems

                                                          Yakov Rekhter
                                                       Juniper Networks

                                                              (Editors)

                                                          February 2005


                     Using BGP as an Auto-Discovery
                 Mechanism for Layer-3 and Layer-2 VPNs

                  draft-ietf-l3vpn-bgpvpn-auto-05.txt


Status of this Memo

   This document is an Internet-Draft and is subject to all provisions
   of section 3 of RFC 3667. 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 become aware will be disclosed, in accordance with
   RFC 3668.

   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.


Abstract

   In any Layer-3 and Layer-2 VPN scheme, the Provider Edge (PE)
   devices attached to a common VPN must exchange certain information
   as a prerequisite to establish VPN-specific connectivity. The
   purpose of this draft is to define a BGP based auto-discovery
   mechanism for layer-2 VPN architectures and Virtual router-based

Ould-Brahim & Rosen & Rekhter                                 [Page 1]

Internet-Draft   draft-ietf-l3vpn-bgpvpn-auto-05.txt      February 2005

   layer-3 VPNs [VPN-VR]. This mechanism is based on the approach used
   by BGP/MPLS-IP-VPN [BGP/MPLS-IP-VPN] for distributing VPN routing
   information within the service provider(s). In the context of
   L2VPNs, an auto-discovery mechanism enables a PE to determine the
   set of other PEs having VPN members in common along with information
   relative to each specific L2VPN endpoints such as attachment circuit
   identifier, topology information, etc. Each VPN scheme uses the
   mechanism to automatically discover the information needed by that
   particular scheme.


1. Introduction

   In any Layer-2 and Layer-3 VPN scheme, the Provider Edge (PE)
   devices attached to a common VPN must exchange certain information
   as a prerequisite to establish VPN-specific connectivity. The
   purpose of this draft is to define a BGP based auto-discovery
   mechanism for layer-2 VPNs (i.e., [VPLS-BGP], [L2VPN-ROSEN], [VPLS-
   LDP]) and layer-3 VPNs based on Virtual Router(VR [VPN-VR])
   solution. This mechanism is based on the approach used by BGP/MPLS-
   IP-VPN for distributing VPN routing information within the service
   provider(s). Each VPN scheme uses the mechanism to automatically
   discover the information needed by that particular scheme.

   In BGP/MPLS-IP-VPN, VPN-specific routes are exchanged, along with
   the information needed to enable a PE to determine which routes
   belong to which VRFs.

   In VR model, virtual router (VR) addresses must be exchanged, along
   with the information needed to enable the PEs to determine which VRs
   are in the same VPN ("membership"), and which of those VRs are to
   have VPN connectivity ("topology"). Once the VRs are reachable
   through the tunnels, routes ("reachability") are then exchanged by
   running existing routing protocols per VPN basis.

   In the context of L2VPNs, an auto-discovery mechanism enables a PE
   to determine the set of other PEs having VPN members in common along
   with information relative to each specific L2VPN endpoints such as
   attachment circuit identifier, topology information, etc.

   The BGP-4 multiprotocol extensions are used to carry various
   information about VPNs for both layer-2 and layer-3 VPN
   architectures. VPN-specific information associated with the NLRI is
   encoded either as attributes of the NLRI, or as part of the NLRI
   itself, or both.


2. Provider-Provisioned VPN Reference Model

   Both the layer-2 and layer-3 vpn architectures ([VPLS-BGP],[VPLS-
   LDP], [L2VPN-ROSEN], [VPN-VR], [BGP/MPLS-IP-BPN]) are using a
   network reference model as illustrated in figure 1.

Ould-Brahim & Rosen & Rekhter       February 2005           [Page 2]

Internet-Draft   draft-ietf-l3vpn-bgpvpn-auto-05.txt      February 2005


                     PE                         PE
               +--------------+             +--------------+
   +--------+  | +----------+ |             | +----------+ | +--------+
   |  VPN-A |  | |  VPN-A   | |             | |  VPN-A   | | |  VPN-A |
   |  Sites |--| |Database /| |  BGP route  | | Database/| |-|  sites |
   +--------+  | |Processing| |<----------->| |Processing| | +--------+
               | +----------+ | Distribution| +----------+ |
               |              |             |              |
   +--------+  | +----------+ |             | +----------+ | +--------+
   | VPN-B  |  | |  VPN-B   | |  --------   | |   VPN-B  | | |  VPN-B |
   | Sites  |--| |Database /| |-(Backbones)-| | Database/| |-|  sites |
   +--------+  | |Processing| |  --------   | |Processing| | +--------+
               | +----------+ |             | +----------+ |
               |              |             |              |
   +--------+  | +----------+ |             | +----------+ | +--------+
   | VPN-C  |  | |  VPN-C   | |             | |   VPN-C  | | |  VPN-C |
   | Sites  |--| |Database /| |             | | Database/| |-|  sites |
   +--------+  | |Processing| |             | |Processing| | +--------+
               | +----------+ |             | +----------+ |
               +--------------+             +--------------+


                Figure 1: Network based VPN Reference Model


   It is assumed that the PEs can use BGP to distribute information to
   each other. This may be via direct IBGP peering, via direct EBGP
   peering, via multihop BGP peering, through intermediaries such as
   Route Reflectors, through a chain of intermediate BGP connections,
   etc. It is assumed also that the PE knows what architecture it is
   supporting.


3. Carrying VPN information in BGP Multi-Protocol (BGP-MP) Attributes

   The BGP-4 multiprotocol extensions are used to carry various
   information about VPNs for both layer-2 and layer-3 VPN
   architectures. VPN-specific information associated with the NLRI is
   encoded either as attributes of the NLRI, or as part of the NLRI
   itself, or both.  The addressing information in the NLRI field is
   ALWAYS within the VPN address space, and therefore MUST be unique
   within the VPN. The address specified in the BGP next hop attribute,
   on the other hand, is in the service provider addressing space.

3.1 Carrying Layer-3 VPN Information in BGP-MP

   This is done as follows.  The NLRI is a VPN-IP address or a labeled
   VPN-IP address.



Ould-Brahim & Rosen & Rekhter       February 2005           [Page 3]

Internet-Draft   draft-ietf-l3vpn-bgpvpn-auto-05.txt      February 2005

   In the case of the virtual router, the NLRI address prefix is an
   address of one of the virtual routers configured on the PE. Thus
   this mechanism allows the virtual routers to discover each other, to
   set up adjacencies and tunnels to each other, etc. In the case of
   BGP/MPLS-IP-VPN, the NLRI prefix represents a route to an arbitrary
   system or set of systems within the VPN.

3.2 Carrying Layer-2 VPN Information in BGP-MP

   The NLRI carries VPN layer-2 addressing information called VPN-L2
   address. A VPN-L2 address is composed of a quantity beginning with
   an 8 bytes Route Distinguisher (RD) field and a variable length
   quantity (see section 5 for specific encodings of this quantity).

   Different layer-2 VPN solutions use the same common AFI, but
   different SAFI. The AFI indicates that the NLRI is carrying a VPN-l2
   address, while the SAFI indicates solution-specific semantics and
   syntax of the VPN-l2 address that goes after the RD. The RD must be
   chosen so as it ensures that each NLRI is globally unique (i.e., the
   same NLRI does not appear in two VPNs).


   BGP Route target extended community is used to constrain route
   distribution between PEs. The BGP Next hop carries the service
   provider tunnel endpoint address.

   This draft doesn't preclude the use of additional extended
   communities for encoding specific l2vpn parameters.


4. Interpretation of VPN Information in Layer-3 VPNs

4.1 Interpretation of VPN Information in the BGP/MPLS-IP-VPN Model

   For details see [BGP/MPLS-IP-VPN].

4.2 Interpretation of VPN Information in the VR Model

4.2.1 Membership Discovery

   The VPN-ID format as defined in [RFC-2685] is used to identify a
   VPN. All virtual routers that are members of a specific VPN share
   the same VPN-ID. A VPN-ID is carried in the NLRI to make addresses
   of VRs globally unique. Making these addresses globally unique is
   necessary if one uses BGP for VRs' auto-discovery.

4.2.1.1 Encoding of the VPN-ID in the NLRI

   For the virtual router model, the VPN-ID is carried within the route
   distinguisher (RD) field. In order to hold the 7-bytes VPN-ID, the
   first byte of RD type field is used to indicate the existence of the
   VPN-ID format. A value of 0x80 in the first byte of RD's type field

Ould-Brahim & Rosen & Rekhter       February 2005           [Page 4]

Internet-Draft   draft-ietf-l3vpn-bgpvpn-auto-05.txt      February 2005

   indicates that the RD field is carrying the VPN-ID format. In this
   case, the type field range 0x8000-0x80ff will be reserved for the
   virtual router case.


4.2.1.2 VPN-ID Extended Community

   A new extended community is used to carry the VPN-ID format. This
   attribute is transitive across the Autonomous system boundary. The
   type field of the VPN-ID extended community is of regular type to be
   assigned by IANA [BGP-COMM]. The remaining 7 bytes hold the VPN-ID
   value field as per [RFC-2685]. The BGP UPDATE message will carry
   information for a single VPN. It is the VPN-ID Extended Community,
   or more precisely route filtering based on the Extended Community
   that allows one VR to find out about other VRs in the same VPN.


4.2.2 VPN Topology Information

   A new extended community is used to indicate different VPN topology
   values. This attribute is transitive across the Autonomous system
   boundary. The value of the type field for extended type is assigned
   by IANA. The first two bytes of the value field (of the remaining 6
   bytes) are reserved. The actual topology values are carried within
   the remaining four bytes. The following topology values are defined:

         Value    Topology Type

           1          "Hub"
           2          "Spoke"
           3          "Mesh"

   Arbitrary values can also be used to allow specific topologies to be
   constructed.

   In a hub and spoke topology, spoke VRs (i.e., PE having VRs as
   spokes within the VPN)  will advertise their BGP information with
   VPN topology extended community with value of "2". Spoke VRs will
   only be allowed to connect to hub VRs. Hence spoke VR-based PEs will
   not import VPN information with VPN topology information set to "2".
   Hub sites can connect to both hub and spoke sites (i.e., Hub VRs can
   import VPN topology of both values "1", "2", or "3". In a mesh
   topology, mesh sites connect to each other, each VR will advertise
   VPN topology information of "3".

   Furthermore, in the presence of both hub and spoke and mesh
   topologies within the same VPN, mesh sites can as well connect to
   hub sites and vice versa.


5. Interpretation of VPN Information in Layer-2 VPNs


Ould-Brahim & Rosen & Rekhter       February 2005           [Page 5]

Internet-Draft   draft-ietf-l3vpn-bgpvpn-auto-05.txt      February 2005

   The interpretation of the VPN information for L2VPN solutions is
   described in the following sections.

5.1 Single-sided Provisioning with Discovery Point-to-Point L2VPNs

   As described in [L2VPN-ROSEN], the single-sided provisioning model
   with discovery model for point-to-point L2VPNs requires that each
   Attachment Circuit of a point-to-point L2VPN must be provisioned
   with a local name.  The local name consists of a Attachment Group
   Identifier (AGI) (which can represent a VPN-ID) and an Attachment
   Individual Identifier which is unique relative to the AGI.  If two
   Attachment circuits are to be connected by a PW, only one of them
   needs to be provisioned with a remote name (which of course is the
   local name of the other Attachment Circuit).  Neither needs to be
   provisioned with the address of the remote PE, but both must have
   the same VPN-id.

   As part of an auto-discovery procedure, each PE advertises its <VPN-
   id, local AII> pairs.  Each PE compares its local <VPN-id, remote
   AII> pairs with the <VPN-id, local AII> pairs advertised by the
   other PEs.  If PE1 has a local <VPN-id, remote AII> pair with value
   <V, fred>, and PE2 has a local <VPN-id, local AII> pair with value
   <V,fred>, PE1 will thus be able to discover that it needs to connect
   to PE2.  When signaling, it will use "fred" as the TAII, and will
   use V as he AGI.  PE1's local name for the Attachment Circuit is
   sent as the SAII.

5.2 Colored Pools

   In the "Colored Pools" model of operation, each PE may contain
   several pools of Attachment Circuits, each pool associated with a
   particular VPN.  A PE may contain multiple pools per VPN, as each
   pool may correspond to a particular CE device.  It may be desired to
   create one pseudowire between each pair of pools that are in the
   same VPN; the result would be to create a full mesh of CE-CE VCs for
   each VPN.

   In order to use BGP-based auto-discovery, the color associated with
   a colored pool must be encodable as both an RT (Route Target) and an
   RD (Route Distinguisher). The globally unique identifier of a pool
   must be encodable as NLRI; the color would be encoded as the RD and
   the pool identifier as a four-byte quantity which is appended to the
   RD to create the NLRI.

   Auto-discovery procedures by having each PE distribute, via BGP, the
   NLRI for each of its pools, with itself as the BGP next hop, and
   with the RT that encodes the pool's color.  If a given PE has a pool
   with a particular color (RT), it must receive, via BGP, all NLRI
   with that same color (RT).  Typically, each PE would be a client of
   a small set of BGP route reflectors, which would redistribute this
   information to the other clients.

   If a PE has a pool with a particular color, it can then receive all

Ould-Brahim & Rosen & Rekhter       February 2005           [Page 6]

Internet-Draft   draft-ietf-l3vpn-bgpvpn-auto-05.txt      February 2005

   the NLRI which have that same color, and from the BGP next hop
   attribute of these NLRI will learn the IP addresses of the other PE
   routers which have pools switches with the same color.  It also
   learns the unique identifier of each such remote pool, as this is
   encoded in the NLRI.  The remote pool's relative identifier can be
   extracted from the NLRI and used in the signaling, as specified
   below.


5.3 VPLS

   In order to use BGP-based auto-discovery for VPLS-based VPNs where
   discovery and signaling are separate components such as [VPLS-LDP]
   solutions, the globally unique identifier associated with a VPLS
   must be encodable as an 8-byte Route Distinguisher (RD). If the
   globally unique identifier for a VPLS is an RFC2685 VPN-id, it can
   be encoded as an RD as specified in section 4.2.1.1.  However, any
   other method of assigning a unique identifier to a VPLS and encoding
   it as an RD (using the encoding techniques of [BGP/MPLS-IP-VPN])
   will do.

   Each VSI needs to have a unique identifier, which can be encoded as
   a BGP NLRI.  This is formed by prepending the RD (from the previous
   paragraph) to an IP address of the PE containing the virtual LAN
   switch (VSI). Note that it is not strictly necessary for all the
   VSIs in the same VPLS to have the same RD, all that is really
   necessary is that the NLRI uniquely identify a virtual LAN switch.

   Each VSI needs to be associated with one or more Route Target (RT)
   Extended Communities.  These control the distribution of the NLRI,
   and hence will control the formation of the overlay topology of
   pseudowires that constitutes a particular VPLS.

   Auto-discovery proceeds by having each PE distribute, via BGP, the
   NLRI for each of its VSIs, with itself as the BGP next hop, and with
   the appropriate RT for each such NLRI.  Typically, each PE would be
   a client of a small set of BGP route reflectors, which would
   redistribute this information to the other clients.

   If a PE has a VSI with a particular RT, it can then receive all the
   NLRI which have that same RT, and from the BGP next hop attribute of
   these NLRI will learn the IP addresses of the other PE routers which
   have VSIs with the same RT.

   If a particular VPLS is meant to be a single fully connected LAN,
   all its VSIs will have the same RT, in which case the RT could be
   (though it need not be) an encoding of the VPN-id.  If a particular
   VPLS consists of multiple VLANs, each VLAN must have its own unique
   RT.  A VSI can be placed in multiple VLANS (or even in multiple
   VPLSes) by assigning it multiple RTs.

   Note that hierarchical VPLS can be set up by assigning multiple RTs
   to some of the virtual LAN switches; the RT mechanism allows one to

Ould-Brahim & Rosen & Rekhter       February 2005           [Page 7]

Internet-Draft   draft-ietf-l3vpn-bgpvpn-auto-05.txt      February 2005

   have complete control over the pseudowire overlay which constitutes
   the VPLS topology.

5.3.1 VPLS using BGP as a signaling Mechanism

   The interpretation of VPN information for VPLS services using BGP as
   the signaling component is described in [VPLS-BGP]. Note that this
   solution complies with procedures described in section 3.2.


6. Tunnel Discovery

   Layer-3 VPNs and Layer-2 VPNs must be implemented through some form
   of tunneling mechanism, where the packet formats and/or the
   addressing used within the VPN can be unrelated to that used to
   route the tunneled packets across the backbone. There are numerous
   tunneling mechanisms that can be used by a network based VPN (e.g.,
   IP/IP [RFC-2003], GRE tunnels [RFC-1701], IPSec [RFC-2401], and MPLS
   tunnels [RFC-3031]). Each of these tunnels allows for opaque
   transport of frames as packet payload across the backbone, with
   forwarding disjoint from the address fields of the encapsulated
   packets. A provider edge router may terminate multiple types of
   tunnels and forward packets between these tunnels and other network
   interfaces in different ways.

   BGP can be used to carry tunnel endpoint addresses between edge
   routers. For scalability purposes, this draft recommends the use of
   tunneling mechanisms with demultiplexing capabilities such as IPSec,
   MPLS, and GRE (with respect to using GRE -the key field, it is no
   different than just MPLS over GRE, however there is no specification
   on how to exchange the key field, while there is a specification and
   implementations on how to exchange the label). Note that IP in IP
   doesn't have demultiplexing capabilities.


   The BGP next hop will carry the service provider tunnel endpoint
   address. As an example, if IPSec is used as tunneling mechanism, the
   IPSec tunnel remote address will be discovered through BGP, and the
   actual tunnel establishment is achieved through IPSec signaling
   protocol.

   When MPLS tunneling is used, the label carried in the NLRI field is
   associated with an address of a VR, where the address is carried in
   the NLRI and is encoded as a VPN-IP address.

   The auto-discovery mechanism should convey minimum information for
   the tunnels to be setup. The means of distributing multiplexors must
   be defined either via some sort of tunnel-protocol-specific signaling
   mechanism, or via additional information carried by the
   auto-discovery protocol. That information may or may not be
   used directly within the specific signaling protocol. On one end of
   the spectrum, the combination of IP address (such as BGP next hop and
   IP address carried within the NLRI) and the label and/or VPN-ID

Ould-Brahim & Rosen & Rekhter       February 2005           [Page 8]

Internet-Draft   draft-ietf-l3vpn-bgpvpn-auto-05.txt      February 2005

   provides sufficient information for a PE to setup per VPN tunnels or
   shared tunnels per set of VPNs. On another end of the spectrum
   additional specific tunnel related information can be carried within
   the discovery process if needed.



7. Scalability Considerations

   In this section, we briefly summarize the main characteristics of
   our model with respect to scalability.

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

   A PE router, unless it is a Route Reflector should not retain
   VPN-related information unless it has at least one VPN with an
   Import Target identical to one of the VPN-related information Route
   Target attributes.  Inbound filtering should 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 may previously have
   discarded.

   This can be done using the refresh mechanism described in [BGP-
   RFSH].

   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 VPNs (as a result of one or more "VPN Prune"
   operations), the PE may discard all VPN-related information which,
   as a result, no longer have any of the PE's VPN's 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 VPNs; 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 VPNs 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.

Ould-Brahim & Rosen & Rekhter       February 2005           [Page 9]

Internet-Draft   draft-ietf-l3vpn-bgpvpn-auto-05.txt      February 2005


   P routers do not maintain any VPN-related information.  In order
   to properly forward VPN traffic, the P routers need only maintain
   routes to the PE routers and the ASBRs.

   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.


8. Security Considerations


   This document describes a BGP-based auto-discovery mechanism which
   enables a PE router that attaches to a particular VPN 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 PE routers to discover
   each other. Note that a PE will not always receive these
   advertisements directly from the remote PEs; the advertisements may
   be received from "intermediate" BGP speakers.

   It is of critical importance that a particular PE should 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 routers, and if the PE
   routers accepted those advertisements, then anyone could add any
   site to any VPN.  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 trusts 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 VPNs 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 can be used to ensure that
   the remote PE is who it claims to be, i.e., that it is a PE that is
   trusted.




Ould-Brahim & Rosen & Rekhter       February 2005           [Page 10]

Internet-Draft   draft-ietf-l3vpn-bgpvpn-auto-05.txt      February 2005

   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 should be used only in environments
   where adequate trust relationships exist among the BGP speakers.

   Some of the VPN schemes which may use the procedures of this
   document can be made robust to failures of these trust
   relationships.  That is, it may be possible to keep the VPNs secure
   even if the auto-discovery procedures are not secure.  For example,
   a VPN based on the VR model can use IPsec tunnels for transmitting
   data and routing control packets between PE routers.  An
   illegitimate PE router which is discovered via BGP will not have the
   shared secret which makes it possible to set up the IPsec tunnel,
   and so will not be able to join the VPN.  Similarly, [IPSEC-2547]
   describes procedures for using IPsec tunnels to secure VPNs based on
   the BGP/MPLS-IP-VPN model.  The details for using IPsec to secure a
   particular sort of VPN depend on that sort of VPN and so are out of
   scope of the current document.


9. IANA Considerations


9.1 IANA Considerations for L2VPNs

   New AFI value to be assigned by IANA to indicate that the NLRI is
   carrying VPN-L2 Address as described in section 3.2.

   New SAFI number is required for single-sided Point-to-point L2VPN
   solutions.

   New SAFI number for Colored pools L2VPNs

   New SAFI number for VPLS-based L2VPNs solutions using LDP-based
   signalling.

9.2 IANA Considerations for VR-based L3VPNs


    SAFI number "129" for indicating that the NLRI is carrying
    information for VR-based solution.

    SAFI number "140" for indicating that the NLRI is carrying
    information for VR for non-labeled prefixes.

    New Extended Community to be assigned by IANA and used for Topology
    values for VR-based L3VPN solution see section 4.2.2.

Ould-Brahim & Rosen & Rekhter       February 2005           [Page 11]

Internet-Draft   draft-ietf-l3vpn-bgpvpn-auto-05.txt      February 2005


    New Extended Community to be assigned by IANA for carrying VPN-ID
    format based on RFC2685 format (see section 4.2.1.2)

10. Use of BGP Capability Advertisement

   A BGP speaker that uses VPN information as described in this
   document with multiprotocol extensions should use the Capability
   Advertisement procedures [RFC-3392] to determine whether the speaker
   could use Multiprotocol Extensions with a particular peer.

11. Acknowledgement

   The authors would like to acknowledge Benson Schliesser, and Thomas
   Narten for the constructive and fruitful comments.

12. Normative References


   [BGP-COMM] Ramachandra, Tappan, et al., "BGP Extended Communities
      Attribute", June 2001, work in progress

   [BGP-MP] Bates, Chandra, Katz, and Rekhter, "Multiprotocol
      Extensions for BGP4", February 1998, RFC 2283

   [RFC-3107] Rekhter Y, Rosen E., "Carrying Label Information in
      BGP4", January 2000, RFC3107

   [BGP/MPLS-IP-VPN] Rosen E., et al, "BGP/MPLS VPNs", Work in
      Progress.

   [RFC-2685] Fox B., et al, "Virtual Private Networks Identifier", RFC
      2685, September 1999.

   [RFC-3392] Chandra, R., et al., "Capabilities Advertisement with
      BGP-4", RFC3392, May 2002.

   [VPN-VR] Knight, P., Ould-Brahim H., Gleeson, B., "Network based IP
      VPN Architecture using Virtual Routers", Work in Progress.


13. Informative References

   [L2VPN-ROSEN] Rosen, E., Radoaca, V., "Provisioning Models and
       Endpoint Identifiers in L2VPN Signaling", Work in Progress.

   [VPLS-BGP] Kompella, K., et al., "Virtual Private LAN Service",
       Work in Progress.

   [VPLS-LDP] Kompella, V., Lasserre, M., et al., "Virtual Private LAN
       Services over MPLS", Work in Progress.




Ould-Brahim & Rosen & Rekhter       February 2005           [Page 12]

Internet-Draft   draft-ietf-l3vpn-bgpvpn-auto-05.txt      February 2005

   [RFC-1701] Hanks, S., Li, T., Farinacci, D. and P. Traina, "Generic
      Routing Encapsulation (GRE)", RFC 1701, October 1994.

   [RFC-2003] Perkins, C., "IP Encapsulation within IP", RFC2003,
      October 1996.

   [RFC-2026] Bradner, S., "The Internet Standards Process -- Revision
      3", RFC2026, October 1996.

   [RFC-2401] Kent S., Atkinson R., "Security Architecture for the
      Internet Protocol", RFC2401, November 1998.

   [RFC-2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
      Requirement Levels", RFC 2119, March 1997.

   [TLS-TISSA] "BGP/MPLS Layer-2 VPN", draft-tsenevir-bgpl2vpn-01.txt,
      work in progress, July 2001.

   [IPSEC-2547] Rosen, E., et al., "Use of PE-PE IPsec in RFC2547
      VPNs", Work in Progress.

   [BGP-RFSH] Chen, A., "Route Refresh Capability for BGP-4", RFC2918,
      September 2000.

   [BGP-ORF] Chen, E., and Rekhter, Y., "Cooperative Route Filtering
      Capability for BGP-4", Work in Progress.

   [BGP-CONS] Marques, P., et al., "Constrained VPN route distribution"
      work in progress, draft-ietf-l3vpn-rt-constrain-01.txt

14. Annex: Auto-Discovery in VR and MPLS-IP-VPN Interworking Scenarios

   Two interwoking scenarios are considered when the network is using
   both virtual routers and BGP/MPLS-IP-VPN. The first scenario is a
   CE-PE relationship between a PE (implementing BGP/MPLS-IP-VPN), and
   a VR appearing as a CE to the PE. The connection between the VR, and
   the PE can be either direct connectivity, or through a tunnel (e.g.,
   IPSec).

   The second scenario is when a PE is implementing both architectures.
   In this particular case, a single BGP session configured on the
   service provider network can be used to advertise either BGP/MPLS-
   IP-VPN VPN information or the virtual router related VPN
   information. From the VR and the BGP/MPLS-IP-VPN point of view there
   is complete separation from data path and addressing schemes.
   However the PE's interfaces are shared between both architectures.

   A PE implementing only BGP/MPLS-IP-VPN will not import routes from a
   BGP UPDATE message containing the VPN-ID extended community. On the
   other hand, a PE implementing the virtual router architecture will
   not import routes from a BGP UPDATE message containing the route
   target extended community attribute.


Ould-Brahim & Rosen & Rekhter       February 2005           [Page 13]

Internet-Draft   draft-ietf-l3vpn-bgpvpn-auto-05.txt      February 2005

   The granularity at which the information is either BGP/MPLS-IP-VPN
   related or VR-related is per BGP UPDATE message. Different SAFI
   numbers are used to indicate that the message carried in BGP
   multiprotocol extension attributes is to be handled by the VR or
   BGP/MPLS-IP-VPN architectures. SAFI number of 128 is used for
   BGP/MPLS-IP-VPN related format. A value of 129 for the SAFI number is
   for the virtual router (where the NLRI are carrying a labeled
   prefixes), and a SAFI value of 140 is for non labeled addresses.




15. Contributors


   Bryan Gleeson
   Tahoe Networks
   3052 Orchard Drive
   San Jose, CA 95134 USA
   Email: bryan@tahoenetworks.com

   Peter Ashwood-Smith
   Nortel Networks
   P.O. Box 3511 Station C,
   Ottawa, ON K1Y 4H7, Canada
   Phone: +1 613 763 4534
   Email: petera@nortelnetworks.com



   Luyuan Fang
   AT&T
   200 Laurel Avenue
   Middletown, NJ 07748
   Email: Luyuanfang@att.com
   Phone: +1 (732) 420 1920

  Jeremy De Clercq
  Alcatel
  Francis Wellesplein 1
  B-2018 Antwerpen, Belgium
  Phone: +32 3 240 47 52
  Email: jeremy.de_clercq@alcatel.be

  Riad Hartani
  Caspian Networks
  170 Baytech Drive
  San Jose, CA 95143
  Phone: 408 382 5216
  Email: riad@caspiannetworks.com

  Tissa Senevirathne
  Force10 Networks

Ould-Brahim & Rosen & Rekhter       February 2005           [Page 14]

                 draft-ietf-l3vpn-bgpvpn-auto-05.txt    February 2005

  1440 McCarthy Blvd,
  Milpitas, CA 95035.
  Phone: 408-965-5103
  Email: tsenevir@hotmail.com


17. Authors Information

   Hamid Ould-Brahim
   Nortel Networks
   P O Box 3511 Station C
   Ottawa, ON K1Y 4H7, Canada
   Email: hbrahim@nortelnetworks.com

   Eric C. Rosen
   Cisco Systems, Inc.
   1414 Massachusetts Avenue
   Boxborough, MA 01719
   E-mail: erosen@cisco.com


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




























Ould-Brahim & Rosen & Rekhter      February 2005             [Page 15]

                 draft-ietf-l3vpn-bgpvpn-auto-05.txt    February 2005

   Intellectual Property Statement

      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.

   Disclaimer of Validity

      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 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.


   Copyright Statement

      Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2005).  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.










Ould-Brahim & Rosen & Rekhter      February 2005             [Page 16]


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