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

Versions: 00 01 02 03 04 05 draft-ietf-l3vpn-end-system

Network Working Group                                         P. Marques
Internet-Draft                                                   L. Fang
Intended status: Standards Track                           Cisco Systems
Expires: September 12, 2012                                       P. Pan
                                                           Infinera Corp
                                                               A. Shukla
                                                        Juniper Networks
                                                            M. Napierala
                                                               AT&T Labs
                                                                N. Bitar
                                                                 Verizon
                                                              March 2012

                    BGP-signaled end-system IP/VPNs.
                   draft-marques-l3vpn-end-system-05

Abstract

   This document describes how the control plane specified by BGP/MPLS
   IP VPNs [RFC4364] can be used to provide a network virtualization
   solution for end-systems that meets the requirements of large scale
   data-centers.

   It specifies how the control and forwarding functions of a Provide
   Edge (PE) device described in [RFC4364] can be separated such that
   the forwarding function can be implemented in end-systems themselves.

   The solution is applicable to any encapsulation that can deliver
   packets across an IP network as a tunneled IP datagram plus a 20-bit
   label.

Status of this Memo

   This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
   provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.

   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
   Task Force (IETF).  Note that other groups may also distribute
   working documents as Internet-Drafts.  The list of current Internet-
   Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.

   Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
   and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
   time.  It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
   material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."

   This Internet-Draft will expire on September 12, 2012.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2012 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the


Marques, Fang, Pan, Shukla, Napierstd & Bitar                   [Page 1]

Internet-Draft      BGP-signaled end-system IP/VPNs           March 2012

   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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  2
     1.1.  Terminoloy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  2
   2.  Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3
   3.  Applicability of BGP IP VPNs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
   4.  Virtual network end-points . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
   5.  VPN forwarder  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
   6.  XMPP signaling protocol  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
   7.  Signaling gateway behavior . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
   8.  Operational Model  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
   9.  Security Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
   10. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
   11. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
     11.1.  Normative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
     11.2.  Informational References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
   Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

1.  Introduction

   This document describes the requirements for a network virtualization
   solution that satisfies the needs of large scale data-centers.  It
   then discusses how the BGP IP VPNs [RFC4364] control plane can be
   used to provide a solution that meets these requirements.  Subsequent
   sections provide a detailed discussion of the control and forwarding
   plane components.

1.1.  Terminoloy

   This document makes use of the following terms:

   Data-center  A logical set of compute, storage and network resources
      that may spread over multiple physical facilities.  Its geographic
      scope is limited by a communication latency requirement.
      Typically, it represents an availability zone for applications.
      It may be the case that the same physical facilities support
      multiple logical data-centers.

   Signaling Gateway  A software application that implements the control
      plane functionality of a BGP IP VPN PE device and a XMPP server
      that interacts with VPN forwarders.

   Virtual Interface  An interface in an end-system that is used by a



Marques, Fang, Pan, Shukla, Napierstd & Bitar                   [Page 2]

Internet-Draft      BGP-signaled end-system IP/VPNs           March 2012

      virtual machine or by applications.  It performs the role of a CE
      interface in a BGP IP VPN network.

   VPN Forwarder  The forwarding component of a BGP IP VPN PE device.

2.  Requirements

   The main drivers for network virtualization in data-center solutions
   are network based access-control, multi-tenancy support and VM
   mobility.  Data-centers often have the need to support one or more of
   these network functions which have often in the past been implemented
   using VLAN [IEEE.802-1Q] technologies.

   The prevalence of L2 based implementations in small scale deployments
   has created the perception that the network functionality itself
   requires L2 transparency and is best served by technologies that
   attempt to drive up the scope and scale of L2 broadcast domains.

   This document takes the view that the desired functionality requires
   a virtualization technology that provides an IP service, with layer 2
   topology being irrelevant as long as the service goals are met.

   IP-based access control was the first of these functions to be
   commonly deployed in data-centers.  Its goal is to provide a "closed
   user-group" among a set of end-points, often compute resources
   dedicated to one application, such that communication within that
   group occurs unfettered.  This was accomplished by placing all these
   end-points on the same IP subnet.  At the same time IP-based access
   control allows the use of traffic filtering polices to control/
   restrict communication between the members of the group and other
   groups (inter-subnet communication).  These "closed user-groups" are
   often used by IT organizations to both segregate applications as well
   a separate production, quality-assurance and development environments
   which often must be contained in different communication domains.

   The term "closed user-group" does not imply that there is no
   communication with external groups.  Only that the membership in the
   group is administratively defined.  Each "closed user-group" is a VPN
   in the terminology used by BGP IP VPNs.  Traditionally this
   functionality has been implemented in data-center designs by using a
   VLAN between access and aggregation switches and controlling the
   VLAN-to-VLAN access control policies at the aggregation switches.

   This solution works well in an environment where the I/O bandwidth
   between compute resources is considered to be the resource to
   optimize for.  In this scenario resources associated to a given
   application are dedicated to it and kept in physical proximity.

   Solutions that optimize for the maximum utilization of fungible
   compute and storage resources need a different approach.  They
   require that the compute resources associated with an application
   (and thus a "closed user-group"/VPN) may be located anywhere in the
   data-center.  And given that this physical spreading of resources
   already implies a very significant increase in data-center core



Marques, Fang, Pan, Shukla, Napierstd & Bitar                   [Page 3]

Internet-Draft      BGP-signaled end-system IP/VPNs           March 2012

   bandwidth requirements, they must also make sure that packets only
   traverse the switching infrastructure once.

   If members of a "closed-user group" may be be present anywhere in the
   data-center, that implies a different operational environment for a
   VLAN based implementation.  Either it would have to operate under the
   assumption that all switches belong to all VLANs or to be able to
   dynamically adjust the topology of each VLAN. The later implies that
   the dimension and scope of each broadcast domain is not know
   a-priori.

   In order to minimize core bandwidth and traffic latency the inter-
   subnet traffic exchange policies should be pushed as far as possible
   to the edge.  The end-systems that source and receive the traffic are
   able to implement the virtualization and policy enforcement
   functionality while using the optimal path for traffic.

   With VLAN [IEEE.802-1Q] an ethernet end-point can only be a member of
   a single "closed user group".  Ideally a single application end-point
   should be able to be a member of multiple "closed user groups".  That
   is possible with L3 based technologies such as BGP IP VPNs.

   The second function, multi-tenant support is often combined with
   network based access control.  Each tenant should be able to define
   multiple "closed user-groups", for instance on a per-application
   basis, and while "closed user-groups" from multiple tenants are often
   not allowed to interact directly, tenants are typically allowed to
   use common infrastructure services (e.g.  storage, database services,
   application-services, etc).

   In both of these scenarios, the requirement is to control the IP
   traffic crossing multiple subnets (where an IP subnet is a "closed
   user group") such that it conforms to the defined traffic policies.

   The third function to be considered is the need to support "VM life-
   migration".  This functionality requires a virtual IP topology by
   itself even in data-centers where network based access control or
   multi-tenancy are not a concern.  Life-migration requires virtual
   machines to be moved from a physical server A to a physical server B
   such that the total migration time does not disrupt its communication
   sessions.  This implies that transport sessions must answer
   keepalives before the user-specified timeout (often a few seconds).
   In some cases, the operation may also be constrained by the
   application latency requirements which are typically in the sub-
   second range.  While the main bottleneck in this process is the
   process of saving and restoring the VM's modified memory pages, the
   connectivity restoration time is critical.










Marques, Fang, Pan, Shukla, Napierstd & Bitar                   [Page 4]

Internet-Draft      BGP-signaled end-system IP/VPNs           March 2012


   Support for minimizing connectivity interruption and minimum latency
   impact would benefit from the ability for the same IP end-point to be
   received at the new physical location of the VM (B) as well as the
   ability to tunnel traffic from the old location (A) during the
   convergence period.  It also requires a control plane that can
   minimize convergence time and that can decouple the instantiation of
   the end-point (i.e.  the VM IP address becoming active) from its
   advertisement to the network as the preferred route to that IP
   address.

   It is important to note that, as with the previous network functions,
   we need to consider IP transport sessions with system both in the
   same "closed user group" (or subnet) as the VM as well as in
   different "closed user groups" (i.e.  subnets). Any solution to this
   problem must be able to minimize connectivity restoration time across
   different IP subnets.

3.  Applicability of BGP IP VPNs

   BGP IP VPNs [RFC4364] is the industry de-facto standard for providing
   "closed user group" functionality in WAN environments.  It is used by
   service providers in environments where several millions of routes
   are present.  It supports both isolated VPNs as well as overlapping
   VPNs (often referred to as "extranets").

   In its traditional usage in Service Provider networks, BGP IP VPN
   functionality is implemented in a Provider Edge (PE) device that
   combines both BGP signaling as well a VRF-based forwarding functions.
   In practice, most PE devices in current use are multi-component
   systems with the signaling and forwarding functionality actually
   implemented in different processors attached to an internal network.

   This document assumes a similar separation of functionality in which
   signaling devices implement the control plane functionality of a PE
   device and a VPN forwarder (in the hypervisor/host OS or first-hop
   switch) implements the forwarding function usually found in a PE
   device "line-card".

   Operationally, BGP IP VPN technology has several important
   characteristics:

      It has a high-level of aggregation between customer interfaces and
      managed entities (Provider Edge devices).

      It defines VPNs as policies, allowing an interface to be a member
      of multiple VPNs and allowing for the topology of the virtual
      network to be modified by modifying the policy configuration.

      It scales horizontally in terms of event propagation.  By
      increasing the number of signaling devices, implementing the PE
      control plane, it is possible to decrease the load on each
      signaling device when it comes to propagating events that
      originate in a specific location and must be propagated across the
      network.


Marques, Fang, Pan, Shukla, Napierstd & Bitar                   [Page 5]

Internet-Draft      BGP-signaled end-system IP/VPNs           March 2012


   The last point is particularly relevant to the convergence
   characteristics required for large scale deployments.  BGP's
   hierarchical route distribution capabilities allow a deployment to
   divide the workload by increasing the number of BGP signaling
   gateways.

   As an example consider a topology in which 100 BGP signaling gateways
   are deployed in a data-center each serving a subset of the VPN
   forwarding elements.  The signaling gateways inter-connect to two
   top-level BGP Route Reflectors [RFC4456].

   If an event (i.e.  a VPN route change) needs to be propagated from a
   specific machine that activates a VM to 10.000 clients randomly
   distributed across a data-center, each of the BGP signaling gateways
   must generate 100 updates to its respective downstream clients.

   By modifying this topology such that another 100 signaling gateways
   are added, then each signaling gateway is now responsible to generate
   50 client updates.  This example illustrates the linear scaling
   properties of BGP: doubling the number of signaling gateways (i.e.
   the processing capacity) reduces in half the number of updates
   generated by each (i.e.  load at each processing node).

   The same horizontal scaling techniques can be applied to the Route
   Reflector layer in the example above by subsetting the VPN Route
   space according to some pre-defined criteria (for instance VPN route
   target) and using a pair of Route Reflectors per subset.

   In the example above we assumed a dense membership in which all
   signaling gateways have local clients that are interested in a
   particular event.  BGP also optimizes the route distribution for
   sparse events.  The Route Target Constraint [RFC4684] extension,
   builds an optimal distribution tree for message propagation based on
   VPN membership.  It ensures that only the Signaling Gateways with
   local receivers for a particular event do receive it also decreasing
   the total load on the upstream BGP speaker.

   In the WAN environment, BGP IP VPN control plane scaling is focused
   not primarily on route convergence times but on memory footprint of
   embedded devices.  While memory footprint does not have a similar
   linear scaling behavior, memory technology in the data-center is
   often at 10x the scale of what is commonly found in WAN environments.

   The functionality present in the BGP IP VPN control plane addresses
   the requirements specified in the previous section.  Specifically, it
   supports multiple potentially overlapping "groups", regular or "hub
   and spoke" topologies and the scaling characteristics necessary.

   The BGP IP VPN control plane supports not only the definition of
   "closed user-groups" (VPNs in its terminology) but also the
   propagation of inter-VPN traffic policies [RFC5575].  An application





Marques, Fang, Pan, Shukla, Napierstd & Bitar                   [Page 6]

Internet-Draft      BGP-signaled end-system IP/VPNs           March 2012

   of that mechanism to "end-system" VPN is presented in [I-D.marques-
   sdnp-flow-spec].

   Note that the signaling protocol itself is rather agnostic of the
   encapsulation used on the wire as long as this encapsulation has the
   ability to carry a 20 bit label.

   Several data-center deployments use a switching infrastructure that
   is only capable of providing an IP unicast service.  In order to
   support them, implementations of this document should support the
   MPLS in GRE [RFC4023] encapsulation.  Other encapsulations are
   possible, including UDP based encapsulations.

4.  Virtual network end-points

   This document assumes that end-systems support one or more virtual
   network interfaces in addition to a physical interface that is
   associated with the data-center switching infrastructure.  Virtual
   network interfaces can be associated with a VM or they can be used to
   provide network connectivity directly to applications in the same way
   that a "VPN tunnel" interface is used to provide access between an
   end-system (e.g.  a laptop) and a remote corporate network.

   From an IP address assignment point of view, a virtual network
   interface is addressed out of the virtual IP topology and associated
   with a "closed user group" or VPN, while the physical interface of
   the machine is addressed in the network infrastructure topology.  As
   a security measure, it is recommended that virtual and infrastructure
   topologies never be allowed to exchange traffic directly.

   In data-center environments, static IP address allocation is common
   since it is desirable to associate a permanent IP address to a VM and
   have that IP address remain constant even as the VM migrates.
   However dynamic address assignment through DHCP is also possible
   assuming that the VPN forwarder implements DHCP relay functionality.

   A virtual network interface is connected to a VPN forwarder.  This
   VPN forwarder MAY be located on the hypervisor or host OS that co-
   resides on the same physical machine or it could be located in an
   external system, such as the first-hop switch.  We refer to this
   second system as the external VPN forwarder.

   All traffic that ingresses or egresses through this virtual network
   interface is routed at the VPN forwarder which acts as the first-hop
   router (in the virtual topology). The IP configuration on the client
   side of this virtual network interface (e.g.  in the guest OS) can
   follow one of two models:

      point-to-point interface model.

      multipoint interface model.






Marques, Fang, Pan, Shukla, Napierstd & Bitar                   [Page 7]

Internet-Draft      BGP-signaled end-system IP/VPNs           March 2012


   In a point-to-point interface model, the system routing table (e.g.
   the guest OS) contains the following routing entires: a host route to
   the local IP address, a host route to the first-hop router via the
   virtual interface and a default route to the first-hop router.  This
   is the model typically used in "VPN tunnel" configurations or other
   access technologies such as cable deployments or DSL. When this model
   is used, the first-hop router IP address is a link-local address that
   is the same on all first-hop routers across a specific deployment.
   This first-hop IP address should not change when a VM migrates
   between different machines.

   In a multi-point interface model, the system routing table (on the
   guest OS) contains the following routing entires: a host route to the
   local IP address, a subnet route to the local interface and
   optionally a default route to an specific router address within that
   subnet.  In this model, the end-system will issue address resolution
   requests for any IP addresses it considers to be directly attached to
   the subnet.  The VPN forwarder shall answer all address resolution
   requests with a virtual MAC address which SHOULD be the same across
   all VPN forwarders in a specific deployment.  This virtual MAC
   address SHALL default to the VRRP [RFC5798] virtual router MAC
   address for VRID 1..

   When the virtual topology first-hop router resides on the same
   physical machine, the host OS is responsible to map the virtual
   interface with a VPN specific routing table (without taking L2
   addresses into consideration). In this case the mac-addresses known
   to the guest OS are not used on the wire.

   When the virtual topology first-hop router resides in an external
   system (e.g.  the first hop-switch) the virtual interface shall be
   identified by the combination of the physical interface mac-address
   and a 802.1Q VLAN tag.  The first-hop switch should use a virtual
   router MAC address to answer any address resolution queries.

   Whenever an external VPN forwarder is used and resiliency is desired,
   the external VPN forwarder should be redundant.  It is desirable to
   use VRRP as a mechanism to control the flow of traffic between the
   end-system and the external VPN forwarder.  VRRP already defines the
   necessary procedures to elect a single forwarder for a LAN.

   This specification uses the VRRP virtual router MAC address as the
   default L2 address for the VPN forwarder as a VM may move between
   locations where redundancy is and is not present.

   While the VRRP Virtual Router MAC will be used resolve any address
   resolution request made by the virtual interface client (e.g.  the
   guest VM) this does not imply that a single default router is elected
   per virtual IP subnet.  The ingress VPN forwarder will perform an IP
   forwarding decision based on the destination IP address of the
   (payload) traffic.

   VRRP router election is only relevant in selecting the VPN forwarder
   associated with a specific machine, when external forwarders are in


Marques, Fang, Pan, Shukla, Napierstd & Bitar                   [Page 8]

Internet-Draft      BGP-signaled end-system IP/VPNs           March 2012

   use.

5.  VPN forwarder

   In this solution, the Host OS/Hypervisor in the end-system must
   participate in the virtual network service.  Given an end-system with
   multiple virtual interfaces, these virtual interfaces must be mapped
   onto the network by the guest OS such that applications on one
   virtual interface are not allowed to impersonate another virtual
   interface.

   When VPN forwarder functionality is implemented by the Host OS/
   Hypervisor, intermediate systems in the network, be they access,
   aggregation or core switches, do not require any knowledge of the
   virtual network topology.  This can simplify the design an operation
   of the data-center switching infrastructure.

   When it is not possible or desirable to add the VPN forwarding
   functionality to the end-system, it may be implemented by an external
   system, typically located as close as possible to the end-system
   itself.  This could be a top-of-rack or aggregation switch.

   Both models, end-system and extern VPN forwarder can co-exist in a
   deployment.

   In order to implement the BGP IP VPN forwarder functionality a device
   MUST implement the following functionality:

      Support for multiple "Virtual Routing and Forwarding" (VRF)
      tables;

         VRF route entries map prefixes in the virtual network topology
         to a next-hop containing a infrastructure IP address and a
         20-bit label allocated by the destination forwarder.  The VRF
         table lookup follows the standard IP lookup (best-match)
         algorithm.

      Associate a end-system virtual interface with a specific VRF
      table;

         When the first-hop router is the Host OS/hypervisor this
         association is performed by an internal mechanism.  When the
         first-hop router is external this association is performed
         using the mac-address of the end-system and a IEEE 802.1Q tag
         that identifies the virtual interface within the end-system.

      Encapsulate outgoing traffic (end-system to network) according to
      the result of the VRF lookup;

      Associate incoming packets (network to end-system) to a VRF
      according to the 20-bit label contained immediately after the GRE
      header;





Marques, Fang, Pan, Shukla, Napierstd & Bitar                   [Page 9]

Internet-Draft      BGP-signaled end-system IP/VPNs           March 2012


   The VPN forwarder MAY support the ability to associate multiple
   virtual interfaces with the same VRF. When that is the case, locally
   originated routes, that is IP routes to the local virtual interfaces
   SHALL NOT be used to forward outbound traffic (from the virtual
   interfaces to the outside) unless a route advertisement has been
   received that matches that specific IP prefix and next-hop
   information.

   As an example, if a given VRF contains two virtual interfaces,
   "veth0" and "veth1", with the addresses 10.0.1.1/32 and 10.0.1.2/32
   respectively, the initial forwarding state must be initialized such
   that traffic from either of these interfaces does not match the
   other's routing table entry.  It may for instance match a default
   route advertised by a remote system.  Traffic received from other VPN
   forwarders, however, must be delivered to the correct local
   interface.  If at a subsequent stage a route is received from the
   signaling gateway such that 10.0.1.2/32 has a next-hop with the IP
   address of the local host and the correct label, the system may
   subsequently install a local routing table entry that delivers
   traffic directly to the "veth1" interface.

   The 20-bit label which is associated with a virtual-interface is of
   local significance only and SHOULD be allocated by the VPN forwarder.

   When an external VPN forwarder is used the end-system MUST associate
   each virtual interface with a VLAN [IEEE.802-1Q] that is unique on
   the end-system.  The switching infrastructure MUST be configured such
   that multi-destination frames sourced from an end-system are only
   delivered to VPN forwarders used by this end-system and not to other
   end-systems.

6.  XMPP signaling protocol

   Signaling Gateways must be made aware of virtual interface creation
   and deletion and of when IP addresses are added or removed from these
   virtual interfaces.

   VPN forwarders must receive VPN route information from which to
   populate their forwarding tables.  When the VPN forwarder is a
   different system than the end-system where the virtual interface
   resides, it also needs to receive the interface and IP address events
   from the end-system.  In this case it is the VPN forwarder that
   propagates these to the Signaling Gateway.

   When an external VPN forwarder is used, the end-system assigns the
   VLAN identifier used for each virtual interface.  This information is
   conveyed by an optional parameter in the VPN subscription request.
   It is not propagated by the VPN forwarder.

   In order to exchange this information this specification uses the
   XMPP [RFC6120] protocol along with the PubSub Collection Nodes
   [pubsub] extension.




Marques, Fang, Pan, Shukla, Napierstd & Bitar                  [Page 10]

Internet-Draft      BGP-signaled end-system IP/VPNs           March 2012


   Clients (end-systems and external VPN forwarders) establish
   persistent XMPP sessions.  These sessions MUST use the XMPP Ping
   [xmpp-ping] extension in order to detect end-system failures.

   A client MAY connect to multiple servers (e.g.  VPN-signaling
   gateways) for reliability.  In this case it SHOULD publish its
   information to each of the gateways.  It MAY choose to subscribe to
   VPN routing information once only from one of the available gateways.

   The information advertised by a client SHOULD be deleted after a
   configurable timeout, when the session closes.  This timeout should
   default to 60 seconds.

                   +---------+             +--------+
                   | gateway | ----------- |  BGP   |
                   +---------+             +--------+
                   //          \          /
                 XMPP           \        /
                 //              \      /
   +------------+                 \    /
   | end-system |                  \  /
   +------------+                   \/
                 \\                 /\
                 XMPP              /  \
                   \\             /    \
                   +---------+   /      \  +--------+
                   | gateway | ----------- |  BGP   |
                   +---------+             +--------+

   The figure above represents a typical configuration in which an end-
   system (implementing the VPN forwarder functionality) is directly
   connected to two gateways, which are in turn connected to multiple
   BGP spakers which may be other BGP signaling gateways or BGP route
   reflectors.

   In deployment the number of gateways used will depend on the desired
   gateway to VPN forwarder ratio which affects the convergence time of
   event propagation.

   The XMPP "jid" used by the client shall be a 6-byte value that
   uniquely identifies it in the domain.  This specification recommends
   the use of the MAC address of one of the physical ethernet
   interfaces.

   Each VPN shall be identified by a 64 ASCII character string.

   When external forwarders are used, its control software operates as a
   XMPP server processing requests from end-systems and as a client of
   one or more Signaling Gateways.  The control software relays to the
   Signaling Gateways(s) messages it receives from the end-system.  VPN
   routing information received from the Signaling Gateways(s) SHOULD
   NOT be propagated to the end-system.




Marques, Fang, Pan, Shukla, Napierstd & Bitar                  [Page 11]

Internet-Draft      BGP-signaled end-system IP/VPNs           March 2012


   When a virtual interface is created, for instance as result of a
   Virtual Machine being instantiated on a end-system, the host
   operating-system software shall generate an XMPP Subscribe message to
   its server (the VPN-signaling gateway or external VPN forwarder).

   Subscription request from end-system to gateway (local VPN
   forwarder):

   <iq type='set'
       from='01020304abcd@domain.org'
       to='network-control.domain.org'
       id='sub1'>
     <pubsub xmlns='http://jabber.org/protocol/pubsub'>
       <subscribe node='vpn-customer-name'/>
     </pubsub>
   </iq>

   The request above, instructs the signaling gateway to start
   populating the client's VRF table with any routing information that
   is available for this VPN.  The XMPP node 'vpn-customer-name' is
   assumed to be a collection which is implicitly created by the VPN-
   signaling gateway.  Creation of a virtual interface may precede any
   IP address becoming active on the interface, as it is the case with
   VM life migration.

   Subscription request from end-system to external VPN forwarder:

   <iq type='set'
       from='01020304abcd@domain.org'
       to='network-control.domain.org'
       id='sub1'>
     <pubsub xmlns='http://jabber.org/protocol/pubsub'>
       <subscribe node='vpn-customer-name'/>
       <options>
         <x xmlns='jabber:x:data' type='submit'>
           <field var='vpn#vlan_id'><value>vlan-id</value></field>
         </x>
       </options>
     </pubsub>
   </iq>

   When an external VPN forwarder is used the end-system should include
   the VLAN identifier it assigned to the virtual interface as a
   subscription option.

   When a IP address is added to a virtual interface, the end-system
   will generate an XMPP Publish request.

   Publish request from end-system to gateway:







Marques, Fang, Pan, Shukla, Napierstd & Bitar                  [Page 12]

Internet-Draft      BGP-signaled end-system IP/VPNs           March 2012


   <iq type='set'
       from='01020304abcd@domain.org'  <!-- system-id@domain.org -->
       to='network-control.domain.org'
       id='request1'>
     <pubsub xmlns='http://jabber.org/protocol/pubsub'>
       <publish node='01020304abcd:vpn-ip-address/32'>
         <item>
           <entry xmlns='http://ietf.org/protocol/bgpvpn'>
             <nlri af='1'>'vpn-ip-address/32'</nlri>
         <next-hop af='1'>'infrastructure-ip-address'</next-hop>
             <version id='1'>      <!-- non-decreasing VM version # -->
         <label>10000</label>      <!-- 24 bit number -->
           </entry>
          </item>
       </publish>
     </pubsub>
   </iq>

   <iq type='set'
       from='01020304abcd@domain.org'
       to='network-control.domain.org'
       id='request2'>
     <pubsub xmlns='http://jabber.org/protocol/pubsub'>
       <collection node='vpn-customer-name'>
         <associate node='01020304abcd:vpn-ip-address/32'/>
       </collection>
     </pubsub>
   </iq>

   The VPN-signaling gateway will convert the information received in a
   the 'publish' request into the corresponding BGP route information
   such that:.

      It associates the specific request with a local VRF which it
      resolves by using a combination of the originator system-id and
      the collection 'node' attribute.

      It creates a BGP VPN route with a 'Route Distinguisher' (RD) which
      contains the the end-system's 'system-id' value and the specified
      IP prefix and 'label' as the Network Layer Reachability
      Information (NLRI) .

      The BGP next-hop address is set to the address of egress VPN
      forwarder.

      It associates the route with an extended community TDB containing
      the version number.

   Update notification from gateway to end-system:







Marques, Fang, Pan, Shukla, Napierstd & Bitar                  [Page 13]

Internet-Draft      BGP-signaled end-system IP/VPNs           March 2012


   <message to='system-id@domain.org from='network-control.domain.org>
     <event xmlns='http://jabber.org/protocol/pubsub#event'>
       <items node='vpn-customer-name'>
         <item id='ae890ac52d0df67ed7cfdf51b644e901'>
           <entry xmlns='http://ietf.org/protocol/bgpvpn'>
             <nlri af='1'>'vpn-ip-address>/32'</nlri>
         <next-hop af='1'>'infrastructure-ip-address'</next-hop>
             <version id='1'>      <!-- non-decreasing VM version # -->
         <label>10000</label>      <!-- 24 bit number -->
           </entry>
          </item>
         <item >
           ...
         </item>
       </items>
     </event>
   </message>

   Notifications should be generated whenever a VPN route is added,
   modified or deleted.

   Note that the Update from the signaling gateway to the end-point does
   not contain the system-id of the destination end-point.  When
   multiple possible routes exist for a given VPN IP address, for
   instance because the VM may be in the process of moving location, it
   is the responsibility of the gateway to select the best path to
   advertise to the end-system.

   When routes are withdrawn, the signaling gateway generates both a
   "collection disassociate" request as well as a node "delete" request.

   In situations where an automated system is controlling the
   instantiation of VMs it may be possible to have that system assign a
   non-decreasing version number for each instantiation of that
   particular VM. In that case, this number, carried in the 'version'
   field may be used to help gateways select the most recent
   instantiation of a VM during the interval of time where multiple
   routes are present.

7.  Signaling gateway behavior

   BGP Signaling gateways SHALL support the address families: VPN-IPv4
   (1, 128), VPN-IPv6 (2, 128) and RT-Constraint (1, 132) [RFC4684].

   When a VPN-signaling gateway receives a request to create or modify a
   VPN route it SHALL generate a BGP VPN route advertisement with the
   corresponding information.

   It is assumed that the VPN-signaling gateways contain information
   regarding the mapping between end-system the tuple ('system-id',
   'vpn-customer-names') and BGP Route Targets used to import and export
   information from the associated VRFs.  This mapping is known via an
   out-of-band mechanism not specified in this document.



Marques, Fang, Pan, Shukla, Napierstd & Bitar                  [Page 14]

Internet-Draft      BGP-signaled end-system IP/VPNs           March 2012


   Whenever the Signaling Gateway receives an XMPP subscription request,
   it SHALL consult its RT-Constraint Routing Information Base (RIB).
   If the Signaling Gateway does not already have locally originated
   route that corresponds to the route target being carried in the
   request, it SHALL create one and generate the corresponding BGP route
   advertisement.  This route advertisement should only be withdrawn
   when there are no more downstream XMPP clients subscribed to the VPN.

   The 32bit route version number defined in the XML schema is
   advertised into BGP as a Extended community with type TBD.

   Signaling gateways SHOULD automatically assign a BGP route
   distinguisher per VPN routing table.

8.  Operational Model

   In the simplest case, a VPN is a collection of systems that are
   allowed to exchange traffic with each other and only with each other.
   Since all the forwarding tables in this VPN have the same routing
   entires they are often referred to as symmetrical VPNs.

   In order to better illustrate the operation of the protocol we
   consider a simple example in which "host 1" and "host 2" both contain
   a VM that is a member of the same VPN.

   Each of these hosts has an XMPP session with a Signaling Gateway, SG1
   and SG2 our example, and these Signaling Gateways are part of the
   same BGP mesh.

   When a virtual interface is created on "host 1", the local XMPP
   client generates a XMPP subscription message to its respective
   Signaling Gateway.  This message contains a VPN identifier that has
   been assigned by the VM provisioning system.  The Signaling Gateway
   maps that identifier to a BGP IP VPN configuration which contains the
   list of import and export route targets to be used for that
   particular VRF.

   Once the VM is operational, "host 1" will publish any IP addresses
   that are configured on the respective virtual interface.  This will
   in turn cause the Signaling Gateway to advertise these to any other
   BGP speaker on the network which is connected to an attachement point
   of that VPN.

   +--------+       +-----------+       +----------+
   | host 1 | <===> | signaling | <===> | BGP mesh |
   +--------+       | gateway   |       +----------+
                    +-----------+

   +----------------+-------------+-------+-----------+
   | VPN IP address | NEXT-HOP    | label | Known via |
   +----------------+-------------+-------+-----------+
   | 10.1.1.1/32    | 192.168.1.1 | 10000 | XMPP      |
   | 10.1.1.2/32    | 192.168.2.1 | 20000 | BGP       |
   +----------------+-------------+-------+-----------+


Marques, Fang, Pan, Shukla, Napierstd & Bitar                  [Page 15]

Internet-Draft      BGP-signaled end-system IP/VPNs           March 2012


   VPN Routing table on signaling gateway

   The figure above represents the contents of the VRF routing table on
   Signaling Gateway 1 after the IPv4 address 10.1.1.1 has been added to
   the virtual interface on host 1. It assumes that there is another
   attachement point for this VPN with the IPv4 address of 10.1.1.2.
   Host 1 has an infrastructure IP address of 192.168.1.1 configured on
   its physical interface while host 2 has IP address 192.168.2.1.

   The contents of the VRF routing table in the Signaling Gateway are
   advertised via XMPP Update notifications sent to host 1. This
   information is the used by the host to populate the forwarding table
   associated with that VPN.

                  +--------+                 +--------+
   VM1 -- veth0 --| host 1 |=== [network] ===| host 2 |-- veth0 -- VM2
                  +--------+                 +--------+

    IP pkt  ===> GRE encap  ===> [IP net] ===> GRE decap ===> IP pkt
              [192.168.2.1, 20]               map 20 to veth0

   +----------------+--------------+-------+
   | VPN IP address | Host address | label |
   +----------------+--------------+-------+
   | 10.1.1.1/32    | localhost    | 10000 |
   | 10.1.1.2/32    | 192.168.2.1  | 20000 |
   +----------------+--------------+-------+

   VRF table on host1

   When the VM on host 1 generates packets with a destination IP address
   of 10.1.1.2 these are routed by the VPN forwarder implemented in the
   Host OS.  The packets are encapsulated with a GRE header that
   contains a 20-bit label assigned by host 2.

   When the VM on host 1 sends packets on the virtual interface it is
   using the Virtual Router MAC address as the destination MAC. When
   host 2 delivers packets to the remote VM it sets the Virtual Router
   MAC address as the source MAC address.  This MAC address is not
   present on the GRE encapsulated packet.

   BGP/XMPP Signaling Gateways are software applications the implement
   both the BGP IP VPN PE control plane as well as XMPP server
   functionality.  These application are not in the forwarding plane and
   do not need to be co-located with a network device.

   Network devices MAY have direct BGP sessions to the Signaling
   Gateways.  For instance, a router or security appliance that supports
   BGP/MPLS IP VPNs over GRE may use its existing functionality to
   inter-operate directly with a collection of Virtual Machines.






Marques, Fang, Pan, Shukla, Napierstd & Bitar                  [Page 16]

Internet-Draft      BGP-signaled end-system IP/VPNs           March 2012


   Signaling Gateways implement the VRF import policy and export policy
   functionality that is associated with PE routers in standard BGP IP/
   VPN deployments.  VPN forwarders receive forwarding information after
   policy and route selection is applied.  These are unqualified routes
   in a specific VRF rather than VPN routing information qualified by a
   Route Distinguisher and with a set of Route Targets.

   A symmetrical VPN uses a vrf import and vrf export polices that
   contain a single route target, where the route target used for both
   import and export is the same.

   Different VPN topologies can be created by manipulating the vrf
   import and export configuration including "hub-and-spoke" topologies
   or overlapping VPNs.

   An example of a hub-and-spoke VPN configuration is one where all the
   traffic from VMs must be redirected though a middle-box (on a VM) for
   inspection.  Assuming that the VMs of a particular user are
   configured to be in the VPN "tenant1".  At an initial stage this
   "tenant1" VPN is symmetrical and uses a single Route Target in both
   its import and export policies.  The middle-box functionality can be
   incrementally deployed by defining a new VPN, "tenant1-hub", and an
   associated Route Target.  Accompanied with a change in the Signaling
   Gateway configuration such that VPN "tenant1" only imports routes
   with the Route Target associated with the hub.  The "hub" VPN is
   assumed to advertise a prefix that covers all the VMs IP addresses.
   The "hub" VPN imports the VMs routes in order for it to be able to
   generate the XMPP updates to the "hub" end-system.  This information
   is required for the return traffic from the hub to the spokes (the
   standard VMs).  In such a scenario a single interface can connect the
   middle-box to the VMs in a given VPN which appear logically as
   downstream from it.  Such a middle-box would often require
   connectivity to multiple VPNs, such as for instance an "outside" VPN
   which provides external connectivity to one or more "inside" VPNs.

   The functionality defined in this document in which the BGP IP VPN PE
   functionality is split into its control (Signaling Gateway) and
   forwarding (VPN forwarder) components is fully interoperable with
   existing BGP IP VPN PEs.

   This makes it possible to reuse existing systems.  For example, at
   the edge of a data-center facility it may be desirable to use an
   existing router or appliance that aggregates IP VPN routing
   information and/or provides IP based services such as stateful packet
   inspection.

   Such a system can be configured, based on existing functionality, to
   suppress more specific routes than a specified aggregate while
   advertising the aggregate with a BGP NEXT_HOP containing the PE's IP
   address and a locally assigned label corresponding to a VRF where the
   more specific routes are present.

9.  Security Considerations



Marques, Fang, Pan, Shukla, Napierstd & Bitar                  [Page 17]

Internet-Draft      BGP-signaled end-system IP/VPNs           March 2012


   The signaling protocol defines the access control policies for each
   virtual interface and any VM associated with it.  It is important to
   secure the end-system access to signaling gateways and the BGP
   infrastructure itself.

   The XMPP session between end-systems and the XMPP gateways MUST use
   mutual authentication.  One possible strategy is to distribute pre-
   signed certificates to end-systems which are presented as proof of
   authorization to the signaling gateway.

   BGP sessions MUST be authenticated using a shared secret.  This
   document recommends that BGP speaking systems filter traffic on port
   179 such that only IP addresses which are known to participate in the
   BGP signaling protocol are allowed.

10.  Acknowledgements

   Yakov Rekhter has contributed to this document by providing detailed
   feedback and suggestions.  The authors would also like to thank
   Thomas Morin for his comments.

11.  References

11.1.  Normative References

   [RFC4023]  Worster, T., Rekhter, Y. and E. Rosen, "Encapsulating MPLS
              in IP or Generic Routing Encapsulation (GRE)", RFC 4023,
              March 2005.

   [RFC4271]  Rekhter, Y., Li, T. and S. Hares, "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.

   [RFC4456]  Bates, T., Chen, E. and R. Chandra, "BGP Route Reflection:
              An Alternative to Full Mesh Internal BGP (IBGP)", RFC
              4456, April 2006.

   [RFC4684]  Marques, P., Bonica, R., Fang, L., Martini, L., Raszuk,
              R., Patel, K. and J. Guichard, "Constrained Route
              Distribution for Border Gateway Protocol/MultiProtocol
              Label Switching (BGP/MPLS) Internet Protocol (IP) Virtual
              Private Networks (VPNs)", RFC 4684, November 2006.

   [RFC5575]  Marques, P., Sheth, N., Raszuk, R., Greene, B., Mauch, J.
              and D. McPherson, "Dissemination of Flow Specification
              Rules", RFC 5575, August 2009.

   [RFC5798]  Nadas, S., "Virtual Router Redundancy Protocol (VRRP)
              Version 3 for IPv4 and IPv6", RFC 5798, March 2010.

   [RFC6120]  Saint-Andre, P., "Extensible Messaging and Presence
              Protocol (XMPP): Core", RFC 6120, March 2011.


Marques, Fang, Pan, Shukla, Napierstd & Bitar                  [Page 18]

Internet-Draft      BGP-signaled end-system IP/VPNs           March 2012


   [xmpp-ping]
              "XMPP Ping", XEP 0199, June 2009.

   [pubsub]   "PubSub Collection Nodes", XEP 0248, September 2010.

11.2.  Informational References

   [I-D.marques-sdnp-flow-spec]
              Marques, P, Fang, L, Pan, P and A Shukla, "Traffic
              classification, filtering and redirection for end-system
              IP VPNs.", Internet-Draft draft-marques-sdnp-flow-spec-00,
              October 2011.

   [IEEE.802-1Q]
              Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, "Local
              and Metropolitan Area Networks: Virtual Bridged Local Area
              Networks", IEEE Std 802.1Q-2005, May 2006.

Authors' Addresses

   Pedro Marques

   Email: pedro.r.marques@gmail.com


   Luyuan Fang
   Cisco Systems
   111 Wood Avenue South
   Iselin, NJ 08830

   Email: lufang@cisco.com


   Ping Pan
   Infinera Corp
   140 Caspian Ct.
   Sunnyvale, CA 94089

   Email: ppan@infinera.com


   Amit Shukla
   Juniper Networks
   1194 N. Mathilda Av.
   Sunnyvale, CA 94089

   Email: amit@juniper.net


   Maria Napierala
   AT&T Labs
   200 Laurel Avenue
   Middletown, NJ 07748

   Email: mnapierala@att.com

Marques, Fang, Pan, Shukla, Napierstd & Bitar                  [Page 19]

Internet-Draft      BGP-signaled end-system IP/VPNs           March 2012



   Nabil Bitar
   Verizon
   40 Sylvan Rd.
   Waltham, MA 02145

   Email: nabil.bitar@verizon.com

















































Marques, Fang, Pan, Shukla, Napierstd & Bitar                  [Page 20]


Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.109, available from https://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/