[Docs] [txt|pdf] [draft-gleeson-vpn...] [Diff1] [Diff2] [Errata]

INFORMATIONAL
Errata Exist
Network Working Group                                         B. Gleeson
Request for Comments: 2764                                        A. Lin
Category: Informational                                  Nortel Networks
                                                             J. Heinanen
                                                           Telia Finland
                                                             G. Armitage
                                                                A. Malis
                                                     Lucent Technologies
                                                           February 2000


           A Framework for IP Based Virtual Private Networks


Status of this Memo

   This memo provides information for the Internet community.  It does
   not specify an Internet standard of any kind.  Distribution of this
   memo is unlimited.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2000).  All Rights Reserved.

IESG Note

   This document is not the product of an IETF Working Group.  The IETF
   currently has no effort underway to standardize a specific VPN
   framework.

Abstract

   This document describes a framework for Virtual Private Networks
   (VPNs) running across IP backbones.  It discusses the various
   different types of VPNs, their respective requirements, and proposes
   specific mechanisms that could be used to implement each type of VPN
   using existing or proposed specifications.  The objective of this
   document is to serve as a framework for related protocol development
   in order to develop the full set of specifications required for
   widespread deployment of interoperable VPN solutions.











Gleeson, et al.              Informational                      [Page 1]

RFC 2764           IP Based Virtual Private Networks       February 2000


Table of Contents

   1.0 Introduction ................................................  4
   2.0 VPN Application and Implementation Requirements .............  5
   2.1 General VPN Requirements ....................................  5
   2.1.1 Opaque Packet Transport:  .................................  6
   2.1.2 Data Security .............................................  7
   2.1.3 Quality of Service Guarantees .............................  7
   2.1.4 Tunneling Mechanism .......................................  8
   2.2 CPE and Network Based VPNs ..................................  8
   2.3 VPNs and Extranets ..........................................  9
   3.0 VPN Tunneling ............................................... 10
   3.1 Tunneling Protocol Requirements for VPNs .................... 11
   3.1.1 Multiplexing .............................................. 11
   3.1.2 Signalling Protocol ....................................... 12
   3.1.3 Data Security ............................................. 13
   3.1.4 Multiprotocol Transport ................................... 14
   3.1.5 Frame Sequencing .......................................... 14
   3.1.6 Tunnel Maintenance ........................................ 15
   3.1.7 Large MTUs ................................................ 16
   3.1.8 Minimization of Tunnel Overhead ........................... 16
   3.1.9 Flow and congestion control ............................... 17
   3.1.10 QoS / Traffic Management ................................. 17
   3.2 Recommendations ............................................. 18
   4.0 VPN Types:  Virtual Leased Lines ............................ 18
   5.0 VPN Types:  Virtual Private Routed Networks ................. 20
   5.1 VPRN Characteristics ........................................ 20
   5.1.1 Topology .................................................. 23
   5.1.2 Addressing ................................................ 24
   5.1.3 Forwarding ................................................ 24
   5.1.4 Multiple concurrent VPRN connectivity ..................... 24
   5.2 VPRN Related Work ........................................... 24
   5.3 VPRN Generic Requirements ................................... 25
   5.3.1 VPN Identifier ............................................ 26
   5.3.2 VPN Membership Information Configuration .................. 27
   5.3.2.1 Directory Lookup ........................................ 27
   5.3.2.2 Explicit Management Configuration ....................... 28
   5.3.2.3 Piggybacking in Routing Protocols ....................... 28
   5.3.3 Stub Link Reachability Information ........................ 30
   5.3.3.1 Stub Link Connectivity Scenarios ........................ 30
   5.3.3.1.1 Dual VPRN and Internet Connectivity ................... 30
   5.3.3.1.2 VPRN Connectivity Only ................................ 30
   5.3.3.1.3 Multihomed Connectivity ............................... 31
   5.3.3.1.4 Backdoor Links ........................................ 31
   5.3.3.1 Routing Protocol Instance ............................... 31
   5.3.3.2 Configuration ........................................... 33
   5.3.3.3 ISP Administered Addresses .............................. 33
   5.3.3.4 MPLS Label Distribution Protocol ........................ 33



Gleeson, et al.              Informational                      [Page 2]

RFC 2764           IP Based Virtual Private Networks       February 2000


   5.3.4 Intra-VPN Reachability Information ........................ 34
   5.3.4.1 Directory Lookup ........................................ 34
   5.3.4.2 Explicit Configuration .................................. 34
   5.3.4.3 Local Intra-VPRN Routing Instantiations ................. 34
   5.3.4.4 Link Reachability Protocol .............................. 35
   5.3.4.5 Piggybacking in IP Backbone Routing Protocols ........... 36
   5.3.5 Tunneling Mechanisms ...................................... 36
   5.4 Multihomed Stub Routers ..................................... 37
   5.5 Multicast Support ........................................... 38
   5.5.1 Edge Replication .......................................... 38
   5.5.2 Native Multicast Support .................................. 39
   5.6 Recommendations ............................................. 40
   6.0 VPN Types:  Virtual Private Dial Networks ................... 41
   6.1 L2TP protocol characteristics ............................... 41
   6.1.1 Multiplexing .............................................. 41
   6.1.2 Signalling ................................................ 42
   6.1.3 Data Security ............................................. 42
   6.1.4 Multiprotocol Transport ................................... 42
   6.1.5 Sequencing ................................................ 42
   6.1.6 Tunnel Maintenance ........................................ 43
   6.1.7 Large MTUs ................................................ 43
   6.1.8 Tunnel Overhead ........................................... 43
   6.1.9 Flow and Congestion Control ............................... 43
   6.1.10 QoS / Traffic Management ................................. 43
   6.1.11 Miscellaneous ............................................ 44
   6.2 Compulsory Tunneling ........................................ 44
   6.3 Voluntary Tunnels ........................................... 46
   6.3.1 Issues with Use of L2TP for Voluntary Tunnels ............. 46
   6.3.2 Issues with Use of IPSec for Voluntary Tunnels ............ 48
   6.4 Networked Host Support ...................................... 49
   6.4.1 Extension of PPP to Hosts Through L2TP .................... 49
   6.4.2 Extension of PPP Directly to Hosts:  ...................... 49
   6.4.3 Use of IPSec .............................................. 50
   6.5 Recommendations ............................................. 50
   7.0 VPN Types:  Virtual Private LAN Segment ..................... 50
   7.1 VPLS Requirements ........................................... 51
   7.1.1 Tunneling Protocols ....................................... 51
   7.1.2 Multicast and Broadcast Support ........................... 52
   7.1.3 VPLS Membership Configuration and Topology ................ 52
   7.1.4 CPE Stub Node Types ....................................... 52
   7.1.5 Stub Link Packet Encapsulation ............................ 53
   7.1.5.1 Bridge CPE .............................................. 53
   7.1.5.2 Router CPE .............................................. 53
   7.1.6 CPE Addressing and Address Resolution ..................... 53
   7.1.6.1 Bridge CPE .............................................. 53
   7.1.6.2 Router CPE .............................................. 54
   7.1.7 VPLS Edge Node Forwarding and Reachability Mechanisms ..... 54
   7.1.7.1 Bridge CPE .............................................. 54



Gleeson, et al.              Informational                      [Page 3]

RFC 2764           IP Based Virtual Private Networks       February 2000


   7.1.7.2 Router CPE .............................................. 54
   7.2 Recommendations ............................................. 55
   8.0 Summary of Recommendations .................................. 55
   9.0 Security Considerations ..................................... 56
   10.0 Acknowledgements ........................................... 56
   11.0 References ................................................. 56
   12.0 Author Information ......................................... 61
   13.0 Full Copyright Statement ................................... 62

1.0  Introduction

   This document describes a framework for Virtual Private Networks
   (VPNs) running across IP backbones.  It discusses the various
   different types of VPNs, their respective requirements, and proposes
   specific mechanisms that could be used to implement each type of VPN
   using existing or proposed specifications.  The objective of this
   document is to serve as a framework for related protocol development
   in order to develop the full set of specifications required for
   widespread deployment of interoperable VPN solutions.

   There is currently significant interest in the deployment of virtual
   private networks across IP backbone facilities.  The widespread
   deployment of VPNs has been hampered, however, by the lack of
   interoperable implementations, which, in turn, derives from the lack
   of general agreement on the definition and scope of VPNs and
   confusion over the wide variety of solutions that are all described
   by the term VPN.  In the context of this document, a VPN is simply
   defined as the 'emulation of a private Wide Area Network (WAN)
   facility using IP facilities' (including the public Internet, or
   private IP backbones).  As such, there are as many types of VPNs as
   there are types of WANs, hence the confusion over what exactly
   constitutes a VPN.

   In this document a VPN is modeled as a connectivity object.  Hosts
   may be attached to a VPN, and VPNs may be interconnected together, in
   the same manner as hosts today attach to physical networks, and
   physical networks are interconnected together (e.g., via bridges or
   routers).  Many aspects of networking, such as addressing, forwarding
   mechanism, learning and advertising reachability, quality of service
   (QoS), security, and firewalling, have common solutions across both
   physical and virtual networks, and many issues that arise in the
   discussion of VPNs have direct analogues with those issues as
   implemented in physical networks.  The introduction of VPNs does not
   create the need to reinvent networking, or to introduce entirely new
   paradigms that have no direct analogue with existing physical
   networks.  Instead it is often useful to first examine how a
   particular issue is handled in a physical network environment, and
   then apply the same principle to an environment which contains



Gleeson, et al.              Informational                      [Page 4]

RFC 2764           IP Based Virtual Private Networks       February 2000


   virtual as well as physical networks, and to develop appropriate
   extensions and enhancements when necessary.  Clearly having
   mechanisms that are common across both physical and virtual networks
   facilitates the introduction of VPNs into existing networks, and also
   reduces the effort needed for both standards and product development,
   since existing solutions can be leveraged.

   This framework document proposes a taxonomy of a specific set of VPN
   types, showing the specific applications of each, their specific
   requirements, and the specific types of mechanisms that may be most
   appropriate for their implementation.  The intent of this document is
   to serve as a framework to guide a coherent discussion of the
   specific modifications that may be needed to existing IP mechanisms
   in order to develop a full range of interoperable VPN solutions.

   The document first discusses the likely expectations customers have
   of any type of VPN, and the implications of these for the ways in
   which VPNs can be implemented.  It also discusses the distinctions
   between Customer Premises Equipment (CPE) based solutions, and
   network based solutions.  Thereafter it presents a taxonomy of the
   various VPN types and their respective requirements.  It also
   outlines suggested approaches to their implementation, hence also
   pointing to areas for future standardization.

   Note also that this document only discusses implementations of VPNs
   across IP backbones, be they private IP networks, or the public
   Internet.  The models and mechanisms described here are intended to
   apply to both IPV4 and IPV6 backbones.  This document specifically
   does not discuss means of constructing VPNs using native mappings
   onto switched backbones - e.g., VPNs constructed using the LAN
   Emulation over ATM (LANE) [1] or Multiprotocol over ATM (MPOA) [2]
   protocols operating over ATM backbones.  Where IP backbones are
   constructed using such protocols, by interconnecting routers over the
   switched backbone, the VPNs discussed operate on top of this IP
   network, and hence do not directly utilize the native mechanisms of
   the underlying backbone.  Native VPNs are restricted to the scope of
   the underlying backbone, whereas IP based VPNs can extend to the
   extent of IP reachability.  Native VPN protocols are clearly outside
   the scope of the IETF, and may be tackled by such bodies as the ATM
   Forum.

2.0  VPN Application and Implementation Requirements

2.1  General VPN Requirements

   There is growing interest in the use of IP VPNs as a more cost
   effective means of building and deploying private communication
   networks for multi-site communication than with existing approaches.



Gleeson, et al.              Informational                      [Page 5]

RFC 2764           IP Based Virtual Private Networks       February 2000


   Existing private networks can be generally categorized into two types
   - dedicated WANs that permanently connect together multiple sites,
   and dial networks, that allow on-demand connections through the
   Public Switched Telephone Network (PSTN) to one or more sites in the
   private network.

   WANs are typically implemented using leased lines or dedicated
   circuits - for instance, Frame Relay or ATM connections - between the
   multiple sites.  CPE routers or switches at the various sites connect
   these dedicated facilities together and allow for connectivity across
   the network.  Given the cost and complexity of such dedicated
   facilities and the complexity of CPE device configuration, such
   networks are generally not fully meshed, but instead have some form
   of hierarchical topology.  For example remote offices could be
   connected directly to the nearest regional office, with the regional
   offices connected together in some form of full or partial mesh.

   Private dial networks are used to allow remote users to connect into
   an enterprise network using PSTN or Integrated Services Digital
   Network (ISDN) links.  Typically, this is done through the deployment
   of Network Access Servers (NASs) at one or more central sites.  Users
   dial into such NASs, which interact with Authentication,
   Authorization, and Accounting (AAA) servers to verify the identity of
   the user, and the set of services that the user is authorized to
   receive.

   In recent times, as more businesses have found the need for high
   speed Internet connections to their private corporate networks, there
   has been significant interest in the deployment of CPE based VPNs
   running across the Internet.  This has been driven typically by the
   ubiquity and distance insensitive pricing of current Internet
   services, that can result in significantly lower costs than typical
   dedicated or leased line services.

   The notion of using the Internet for private communications is not
   new, and many techniques, such as controlled route leaking, have been
   used for this purpose [3].  Only in recent times, however, have the
   appropriate IP mechanisms needed to meet customer requirements for
   VPNs all come together.  These requirements include the following:

2.1.1 Opaque Packet Transport:

   The traffic carried within a VPN may have no relation to the traffic
   on the IP backbone, either because the traffic is multiprotocol, or
   because the customer's IP network may use IP addressing unrelated to
   that of the IP backbone on which the traffic is transported.  In
   particular, the customer's IP network may use non-unique, private IP
   addressing [4].



Gleeson, et al.              Informational                      [Page 6]

RFC 2764           IP Based Virtual Private Networks       February 2000


2.1.2 Data Security

   In general customers using VPNs require some form of data security.
   There are different trust models applicable to the use of VPNs.  One
   such model is where the customer does not trust the service provider
   to provide any form of security, and instead implements a VPN using
   CPE devices that implement firewall functionality and that are
   connected together using secure tunnels.  In this case the service
   provider is used solely for IP packet transport.

   An alternative model is where the customer trusts the service
   provider to provide a secure managed VPN service.  This is similar to
   the trust involved when a customer utilizes a public switched Frame
   Relay or ATM service, in that the customer trusts that packets will
   not be misdirected, injected into the network in an unauthorized
   manner, snooped on, modified in transit, or subjected to traffic
   analysis by unauthorized parties.

   With this model providing firewall functionality and secure packet
   transport services is the responsibility of the service provider.
   Different levels of security may be needed within the provider
   backbone, depending on the deployment scenario used.  If the VPN
   traffic is contained within a single provider's IP backbone then
   strong security mechanisms, such as those provided by the IP Security
   protocol suite (IPSec) [5], may not be necessary for tunnels between
   backbone nodes.  If the VPN traffic traverses networks or equipment
   owned by multiple administrations then strong security mechanisms may
   be appropriate.  Also a strong level of security may be applied by a
   provider to customer traffic to address a customer perception that IP
   networks, and particularly the Internet, are insecure.  Whether or
   not this perception is correct it is one that must be addressed by
   the VPN implementation.

2.1.3 Quality of Service Guarantees

   In addition to ensuring communication privacy, existing private
   networking techniques, building upon physical or link layer
   mechanisms, also offer various types of quality of service
   guarantees.  In particular, leased and dial up lines offer both
   bandwidth and latency guarantees, while dedicated connection
   technologies like ATM and Frame Relay have extensive mechanisms for
   similar guarantees.  As IP based VPNs become more widely deployed,
   there will be market demand for similar guarantees, in order to
   ensure end to end application transparency.  While the ability of IP
   based VPNs to offer such guarantees will depend greatly upon the
   commensurate capabilities of the underlying IP backbones, a VPN
   framework must also address the means by which VPN systems can
   utilize such capabilities, as they evolve.



Gleeson, et al.              Informational                      [Page 7]

RFC 2764           IP Based Virtual Private Networks       February 2000


2.1.4 Tunneling Mechanism

   Together, the first two of the requirements listed above imply that
   VPNs must be implemented through some form of IP 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 IP backbone.  Such tunnels, depending upon their form, can
   provide some level of intrinsic data security, or this can also be
   enhanced using other mechanisms (e.g., IPSec).

   Furthermore, as discussed later, such tunneling mechanisms can also
   be mapped into evolving IP traffic management mechanisms.  There are
   already defined a large number of IP tunneling mechanisms.  Some of
   these are well suited to VPN applications, as discussed in section
   3.0.

2.2  CPE and Network Based VPNs

   Most current VPN implementations are based on CPE equipment.  VPN
   capabilities are being integrated into a wide variety of CPE devices,
   ranging from firewalls to WAN edge routers and specialized VPN
   termination devices.  Such equipment may be bought and deployed by
   customers, or may be deployed (and often remotely managed) by service
   providers in an outsourcing service.

   There is also significant interest in 'network based VPNs', where the
   operation of the VPN is outsourced to an Internet Service Provider
   (ISP), and is implemented on network as opposed to CPE equipment.
   There is significant interest in such solutions both by customers
   seeking to reduce support costs and by ISPs seeking new revenue
   sources.  Supporting VPNs in the network allows the use of particular
   mechanisms which may lead to highly efficient and cost effective VPN
   solutions, with common equipment and operations support amortized
   across large numbers of customers.

   Most of the mechanisms discussed below can apply to either CPE based
   or network based VPNs.  However particular mechanisms are likely to
   prove applicable only to the latter, since they leverage tools (e.g.,
   piggybacking on routing protocols) which are accessible only to ISPs
   and which are unlikely to be made available to any customer, or even
   hosted on ISP owned and operated CPE, due to the problems of
   coordinating joint management of the CPE gear by both the ISP and the
   customer.  This document will indicate which techniques are likely to
   apply only to network based VPNs.







Gleeson, et al.              Informational                      [Page 8]

RFC 2764           IP Based Virtual Private Networks       February 2000


2.3  VPNs and Extranets

   The term 'extranet' is commonly used to refer to a scenario whereby
   two or more companies have networked access to a limited amount of
   each other's corporate data.  For example a manufacturing company
   might use an extranet for its suppliers to allow it to query
   databases for the pricing and availability of components, and then to
   order and track the status of outstanding orders.  Another example is
   joint software development, for instance, company A allows one
   development group within company B to access its operating system
   source code, and company B allows one development group in company A
   to access its security software.  Note that the access policies can
   get arbitrarily complex.  For example company B may internally
   restrict access to its security software to groups in certain
   geographic locations to comply with export control laws, for example.

   A key feature of an extranet is thus the control of who can access
   what data, and this is essentially a policy decision.  Policy
   decisions are typically enforced today at the interconnection points
   between different domains, for example between a private network and
   the Internet, or between a software test lab and the rest of the
   company network.  The enforcement may be done via a firewall, router
   with access list functionality, application gateway, or any similar
   device capable of applying policy to transit traffic.  Policy
   controls may be implemented within a corporate network, in addition
   to between corporate networks.  Also the interconnections between
   networks could be a set of bilateral links, or could be a separate
   network, perhaps maintained by an industry consortium.  This separate
   network could itself be a VPN or a physical network.

   Introducing VPNs into a network does not require any change to this
   model.  Policy can be enforced between two VPNs, or between a VPN and
   the Internet, in exactly the same manner as is done today without
   VPNs.  For example two VPNs could be interconnected, which each
   administration locally imposing its own policy controls, via a
   firewall, on all traffic that enters its VPN from the outside,
   whether from another VPN or from the Internet.

   This model of a VPN provides for a separation of policy from the
   underlying mode of packet transport used.  For example, a router may
   direct voice traffic to ATM Virtual Channel Connections (VCCs) for
   guaranteed QoS, non-local internal company traffic to secure tunnels,
   and other traffic to a link to the Internet.  In the past the secure
   tunnels may have been frame relay circuits, now they may also be
   secure IP tunnels or MPLS Label Switched Paths (LSPs)






Gleeson, et al.              Informational                      [Page 9]

RFC 2764           IP Based Virtual Private Networks       February 2000


   Other models of a VPN are also possible.  For example there is a
   model whereby a set of application flows is mapped into a VPN.  As
   the policy rules imposed by a network administrator can get quite
   complex, the number of distinct sets of application flows that are
   used in the policy rulebase, and hence the number of VPNs, can thus
   grow quite large, and there can be multiple overlapping VPNs.
   However there is little to be gained by introducing such new
   complexity into a network.  Instead a VPN should be viewed as a
   direct analogue to a physical network, as this allows the leveraging
   of existing protocols and procedures, and the current expertise and
   skill sets of network administrators and customers.

3.0  VPN Tunneling

   As noted above in section 2.1, VPNs must be implemented using some
   form of tunneling mechanism.  This section looks at the generic
   requirements for such VPN tunneling mechanisms.  A number of
   characteristics and aspects common to any link layer protocol are
   taken and compared with the features offered by existing tunneling
   protocols.  This provides a basis for comparing different protocols
   and is also useful to highlight areas where existing tunneling
   protocols could benefit from extensions to better support their
   operation in a VPN environment.

   An IP tunnel connecting two VPN endpoints is a basic building block
   from which a variety of different VPN services can be constructed.
   An IP tunnel operates as an overlay across the IP backbone, and the
   traffic sent through the tunnel is opaque to the underlying IP
   backbone.  In effect the IP backbone is being used as a link layer
   technology, and the tunnel forms a point-to-point link.

   A VPN device may terminate multiple IP tunnels and forward packets
   between these tunnels and other network interfaces in different ways.
   In the discussion of different types of VPNs, in later sections of
   this document, the primary distinguishing characteristic of these
   different types is the manner in which packets are forwarded between
   interfaces (e.g., bridged or routed).  There is a direct analogy with
   how existing networking devices are characterized today.  A two-port
   repeater just forwards packets between its ports, and does not
   examine the contents of the packet.  A bridge forwards packets using
   Media Access Control (MAC) layer information contained in the packet,
   while a router forwards packets using layer 3 addressing information
   contained in the packet.  Each of these three scenarios has a direct
   VPN analogue, as discussed later.  Note that an IP tunnel is viewed
   as just another sort of link, which can be concatenated with another
   link, bound to a bridge forwarding table, or bound to an IP
   forwarding table, depending on the type of VPN.




Gleeson, et al.              Informational                     [Page 10]

RFC 2764           IP Based Virtual Private Networks       February 2000


   The following sections look at the requirements for a generic IP
   tunneling protocol that can be used as a basic building block to
   construct different types of VPNs.

3.1  Tunneling Protocol Requirements for VPNs

   There are numerous IP tunneling mechanisms, including IP/IP [6],
   Generic Routing Encapsulation (GRE) tunnels [7], Layer 2 Tunneling
   Protocol (L2TP) [8], IPSec [5], and Multiprotocol Label Switching
   (MPLS) [9].  Note that while some of these protocols are not often
   thought of as tunneling protocols, they do each allow for opaque
   transport of frames as packet payload across an IP network, with
   forwarding disjoint from the address fields of the encapsulated
   packets.

   Note, however, that there is one significant distinction between each
   of the IP tunneling protocols mentioned above, and MPLS.  MPLS can be
   viewed as a specific link layer for IP, insofar as MPLS specific
   mechanisms apply only within the scope of an MPLS network, whereas IP
   based mechanisms extend to the extent of IP reachability.  As such,
   VPN mechanisms built directly upon MPLS tunneling mechanisms cannot,
   by definition, extend outside the scope of MPLS networks, any more so
   than, for instance, ATM based mechanisms such as LANE can extend
   outside of ATM networks.  Note however, that an MPLS network can span
   many different link layer technologies, and so, like an IP network,
   its scope is not limited by the specific link layers used.  A number
   of proposals for defining a set of mechanisms to allow for
   interoperable VPNs specifically over MPLS networks have also been
   produced ([10] [11] [12] [13], [14] and [15]).

   There are a number of desirable requirements for a VPN tunneling
   mechanism, however, that are not all met by the existing tunneling
   mechanisms.  These requirements include:

3.1.1  Multiplexing

   There are cases where multiple VPN tunnels may be needed between the
   same two IP endpoints.  This may be needed, for instance, in cases
   where the VPNs are network based, and each end point supports
   multiple customers.  Traffic for different customers travels over
   separate tunnels between the same two physical devices.  A
   multiplexing field is needed to distinguish which packets belong to
   which tunnel.  Sharing a tunnel in this manner may also reduce the
   latency and processing burden of tunnel set up.  Of the existing IP
   tunneling mechanisms, L2TP (via the tunnel-id and session-id fields),
   MPLS (via the label) and IPSec (via the Security Parameter Index
   (SPI) field) have a multiplexing mechanism.  Strictly speaking GRE
   does not have a multiplexing field.  However the key field, which was



Gleeson, et al.              Informational                     [Page 11]

RFC 2764           IP Based Virtual Private Networks       February 2000


   intended to be used for authenticating the source of a packet, has
   sometimes been used as a multiplexing field.  IP/IP does not have a
   multiplexing field.

   The IETF [16] and the ATM Forum [17] have standardized on a single
   format for a globally unique identifier used to identify a VPN (a
   VPN-ID).  A VPN-ID can be used in the control plane, to bind a tunnel
   to a VPN at tunnel establishment time, or in the data plane, to
   identify the VPN associated with a packet, on a per-packet basis.  In
   the data plane a VPN encapsulation header can be used by MPLS, MPOA
   and other tunneling mechanisms to aggregate packets for different
   VPNs over a single tunnel.  In this case an explicit indication of
   VPN-ID is included with every packet, and no use is made of any
   tunnel specific multiplexing field.  In the control plane a VPN-ID
   field can be included in any tunnel establishment signalling protocol
   to allow for the association of a tunnel (e.g., as identified by the
   SPI field) with a VPN.  In this case there is no need for a VPN-ID to
   be included with every data packet.  This is discussed further in
   section 5.3.1.

3.1.2  Signalling Protocol

   There is some configuration information that must be known by an end
   point in advance of tunnel establishment, such as the IP address of
   the remote end point, and any relevant tunnel attributes required,
   such as the level of security needed.  Once this information is
   available, the actual tunnel establishment can be completed in one of
   two ways - via a management operation, or via a signalling protocol
   that allows tunnels to be established dynamically.

   An example of a management operation would be to use an SNMP
   Management Information Base (MIB) to configure various tunneling
   parameters, e.g., MPLS labels, source addresses to use for IP/IP or
   GRE tunnels, L2TP tunnel-ids and session-ids, or security association
   parameters for IPSec.

   Using a signalling protocol can significantly reduce the management
   burden however, and as such, is essential in many deployment
   scenarios.  It reduces the amount of configuration needed, and also
   reduces the management co-ordination needed if a VPN spans multiple
   administrative domains.  For example, the value of the multiplexing
   field, described above, is local to the node assigning the value, and
   can be kept local if distributed via a signalling protocol, rather
   than being first configured into a management station and then
   distributed to the relevant nodes.  A signalling protocol also allows
   nodes that are mobile or are only intermittently connected to
   establish tunnels on demand.




Gleeson, et al.              Informational                     [Page 12]

RFC 2764           IP Based Virtual Private Networks       February 2000


   When used in a VPN environment a signalling protocol should allow for
   the transport of a VPN-ID to allow the resulting tunnel to be
   associated with a particular VPN.  It should also allow tunnel
   attributes to be exchanged or negotiated, for example the use of
   frame sequencing or the use of multiprotocol transport.  Note that
   the role of the signalling protocol need only be to negotiate tunnel
   attributes, not to carry information about how the tunnel is used,
   for example whether the frames carried in the tunnel are to be
   forwarded at layer 2 or layer 3. (This is similar to Q.2931 ATM
   signalling - the same signalling protocol is used to set up Classical
   IP logical subnetworks as well as for LANE emulated LANs.

   Of the various IP tunneling protocols, the following ones support a
   signalling protocol that could be adapted for this purpose: L2TP (the
   L2TP control protocol), IPSec (the Internet Key Exchange (IKE)
   protocol [18]), and GRE (as used with mobile-ip tunneling [19]). Also
   there are two MPLS signalling protocols that can be used to establish
   LSP tunnels. One uses extensions to the MPLS Label Distribution
   Protocol (LDP) protocol [20], called Constraint-Based Routing LDP
   (CR-LDP) [21], and the other uses extensions to the Resource
   Reservation Protocol (RSVP) for LSP tunnels [22].

3.1.3  Data Security

   A VPN tunneling protocol must support mechanisms to allow for
   whatever level of security may be desired by customers, including
   authentication and/or encryption of various strengths.  None of the
   tunneling mechanisms discussed, other than IPSec, have intrinsic
   security mechanisms, but rely upon the security characteristics of
   the underlying IP backbone.  In particular, MPLS relies upon the
   explicit labeling of label switched paths to ensure that packets
   cannot be misdirected, while the other tunneling mechanisms can all
   be secured through the use of IPSec.  For VPNs implemented over non-
   IP backbones (e.g., MPOA, Frame Relay or ATM virtual circuits), data
   security is implicitly provided by the layer two switch
   infrastructure.

   Overall VPN security is not just a capability of the tunnels alone,
   but has to be viewed in the broader context of how packets are
   forwarded onto those tunnels.  For example with VPRNs implemented
   with virtual routers, the use of separate routing and forwarding
   table instances ensures the isolation of traffic between VPNs.
   Packets on one VPN cannot be misrouted to a tunnel on a second VPN
   since those tunnels are not visible to the forwarding table of the
   first VPN.






Gleeson, et al.              Informational                     [Page 13]

RFC 2764           IP Based Virtual Private Networks       February 2000


   If some form of signalling mechanism is used by one VPN end point to
   dynamically establish a tunnel with another endpoint, then there is a
   requirement to be able to authenticate the party attempting the
   tunnel establishment.  IPSec has an array of schemes for this
   purpose, allowing, for example, authentication to be based on pre-
   shared keys, or to use digital signatures and certificates.  Other
   tunneling schemes have weaker forms of authentication.  In some cases
   no authentication may be needed, for example if the tunnels are
   provisioned, rather than dynamically established, or if the trust
   model in use does not require it.

   Currently the IPSec Encapsulating Security Payload (ESP) protocol
   [23] can be used to establish SAs that support either encryption or
   authentication or both.  However the protocol specification precludes
   the use of an SA where neither encryption or authentication is used.
   In a VPN environment this "null/null" option is useful, since other
   aspects of the protocol (e.g., that it supports tunneling and
   multiplexing) may be all that is required.  In effect the "null/null"
   option can be viewed as just another level of data security.

3.1.4  Multiprotocol Transport

   In many applications of VPNs, the VPN may carry opaque, multiprotocol
   traffic.  As such, the tunneling protocol used must also support
   multiprotocol transport.  L2TP is designed to transport Point-to-
   Point Protocol (PPP) [24] packets, and thus can be used to carry
   multiprotocol traffic since PPP itself is multiprotocol.  GRE also
   provides for the identification of the protocol being tunneled.
   IP/IP and IPSec tunnels have no such protocol identification field,
   since the traffic being tunneled is assumed to be IP.

   It is possible to extend the IPSec protocol suite to allow for the
   transport of multiprotocol packets.  This can be achieved, for
   example, by extending the signalling component of IPSec - IKE, to
   indicate the protocol type of the traffic being tunneled, or to carry
   a packet multiplexing header (e.g., an LLC/SNAP header or GRE header)
   with each tunneled packet.  This approach is similar to that used for
   the same purpose in ATM networks, where signalling is used to
   indicate the encapsulation used on the VCC, and where packets sent on
   the VCC can use either an LLC/SNAP header or be placed directly into
   the AAL5 payload, the latter being known as VC-multiplexing (see
   [25]).

3.1.5  Frame Sequencing

   One quality of service attribute required by customers of a VPN may
   be frame sequencing, matching the equivalent characteristic of
   physical leased lines or dedicated connections.  Sequencing may be



Gleeson, et al.              Informational                     [Page 14]

RFC 2764           IP Based Virtual Private Networks       February 2000


   required for the efficient operation of particular end to end
   protocols or applications.  In order to implement frame sequencing,
   the tunneling mechanism must support a sequencing field.  Both L2TP
   and GRE have such a field.  IPSec has a sequence number field, but it
   is used by a receiver to perform an anti-replay check, not to
   guarantee in-order delivery of packets.

   It is possible to extend IPSec to allow the use of the existing
   sequence field to guarantee in-order delivery of packets.  This can
   be achieved, for example, by using IKE to negotiate whether or not
   sequencing is to be used, and to define an end point behaviour which
   preserves packet sequencing.

3.1.6  Tunnel Maintenance

   The VPN end points must monitor the operation of the VPN tunnels to
   ensure that connectivity has not been lost, and to take appropriate
   action (such as route recalculation) if there has been a failure.

   There are two approaches possible.  One is for the tunneling protocol
   itself to periodically check in-band for loss of connectivity, and to
   provide an explicit indication of failure.  For example L2TP has an
   optional keep-alive mechanism to detect non-operational tunnels.

   The other approach does not require the tunneling protocol itself to
   perform this function, but relies on the operation of some out-of-
   band mechanism to determine loss of connectivity.  For example if a
   routing protocol such as Routing Information Protocol (RIP) [26] or
   Open Shortest Path First (OSPF) [27] is run over a tunnel mesh, a
   failure to hear from a neighbor within a certain period of time will
   result in the routing protocol declaring the tunnel to be down.
   Another out-of-band approach is to perform regular ICMP pings with a
   peer.  This is generally sufficient assurance that the tunnel is
   operational, due to the fact the tunnel also runs across the same IP
   backbone.

   When tunnels are established dynamically a distinction needs to be
   drawn between the static and dynamic tunnel information needed.
   Before a tunnel can be established some static information is needed
   by a node, such as the identify of the remote end point and the
   attributes of the tunnel to propose and accept.  This is typically
   put in place as a result of a configuration operation.  As a result
   of the signalling exchange to establish a tunnel, some dynamic state
   is established in each end point, such as the value of the
   multiplexing field or keys to be used.  For example with IPSec, the
   establishment of a Security Association (SA) puts in place the keys
   to be used for the lifetime of that SA.




Gleeson, et al.              Informational                     [Page 15]

RFC 2764           IP Based Virtual Private Networks       February 2000


   Different policies may be used as to when to trigger the
   establishment of a dynamic tunnel.  One approach is to use a data-
   driven approach and to trigger tunnel establishment whenever there is
   data to be transferred, and to timeout the tunnel due to inactivity.
   This approach is particularly useful if resources for the tunnel are
   being allocated in the network for QoS purposes.  Another approach is
   to trigger tunnel establishment whenever the static tunnel
   configuration information is installed, and to attempt to keep the
   tunnel up all the time.

3.1.7  Large MTUs

   An IP tunnel has an associated Maximum Transmission Unit (MTU), just
   like a regular link. It is conceivable that this MTU may be larger
   than the MTU of one or more individual hops along the path between
   tunnel endpoints. If so, some form of frame fragmentation will be
   required within the tunnel.

   If the frame to be transferred is mapped into one IP datagram, normal
   IP fragmentation will occur when the IP datagram reaches a hop with
   an MTU smaller than the IP tunnel's MTU. This can have undesirable
   performance implications at the router performing such mid-tunnel
   fragmentation.

   An alternative approach is for the tunneling protocol itself to
   incorporate a segmentation and reassembly capability that operates at
   the tunnel level, perhaps using the tunnel sequence number and an
   end-of-message marker of some sort.  (Note that multilink PPP uses a
   mechanism similar to this to fragment packets).  This avoids IP level
   fragmentation within the tunnel itself. None of the existing
   tunneling protocols support such a mechanism.

3.1.8  Minimization of Tunnel Overhead

   There is clearly benefit in minimizing the overhead of any tunneling
   mechanisms.  This is particularly important for the transport of
   jitter and latency sensitive traffic such as packetized voice and
   video.  On the other hand, the use of security mechanisms, such as
   IPSec, do impose their own overhead, hence the objective should be to
   minimize overhead over and above that needed for security, and to not
   burden those tunnels in which security is not mandatory with
   unnecessary overhead.

   One area where the amount of overhead may be significant is when
   voluntary tunneling is used for dial-up remote clients connecting to
   a VPN, due to the typically low bandwidth of dial-up links.  This is
   discussed further in section 6.3.




Gleeson, et al.              Informational                     [Page 16]

RFC 2764           IP Based Virtual Private Networks       February 2000


3.1.9  Flow and congestion control

   During the development of the L2TP protocol procedures were developed
   for flow and congestion control.  These were necessitated primarily
   because of the need to provide adequate performance over lossy
   networks when PPP compression is used, which, unlike IP Payload
   Compression Protocol (IPComp) [28], is stateful across packets.
   Another motivation was to accommodate devices with very little
   buffering, used for example to terminate low speed dial-up lines.
   However the flow and congestion control mechanisms defined in the
   final version of the L2TP specification are used only for the control
   channels, and not for data traffic.

   In general the interactions between multiple layers of flow and
   congestion control schemes can be very complex.  Given the
   predominance of TCP traffic in today's networks and the fact that TCP
   has its own end-to-end flow and congestion control mechanisms, it is
   not clear that there is much benefit to implementing similar
   mechanisms within tunneling protocols.  Good flow and congestion
   control schemes, that can adapt to a wide variety of network
   conditions and deployment scenarios are complex to develop and test,
   both in themselves and in understanding the interaction with other
   schemes that may be running in parallel.  There may be some benefit,
   however, in having the capability whereby a sender can shape traffic
   to the capacity of a receiver in some manner, and in providing the
   protocol mechanisms to allow a receiver to signal its capabilities to
   a sender.  This is an area that may benefit from further study.

   Note also the work of the Performance Implications of Link
   Characteristics (PILC) working group of the IETF, which is examining
   how the properties of different network links can have an impact on
   the performance of Internet protocols operating over those links.

3.1.10  QoS / Traffic Management

   As noted above, customers may require that VPNs yield similar
   behaviour to physical leased lines or dedicated connections with
   respect to such QoS parameters as loss rates, jitter, latency and
   bandwidth guarantees.  How such guarantees could be delivered will,
   in general, be a function of the traffic management characteristics
   of the VPN nodes themselves, and the access and backbone networks
   across which they are connected.

   A full discussion of QoS and VPNs is outside the scope of this
   document, however by modeling a VPN tunnel as just another type of
   link layer, many of the existing mechanisms developed for ensuring
   QoS over physical links can also be applied.  For example at a VPN
   node, the mechanisms of policing, marking, queuing, shaping and



Gleeson, et al.              Informational                     [Page 17]

RFC 2764           IP Based Virtual Private Networks       February 2000


   scheduling can all be applied to VPN traffic with VPN-specific
   parameters, queues and interfaces, just as for non-VPN traffic.  The
   techniques developed for Diffserv, Intserv and for traffic
   engineering in MPLS are also applicable.  See also [29] for a
   discussion of QoS and VPNs.

   It should be noted, however, that this model of tunnel operation is
   not necessarily consistent with the way in which specific tunneling
   protocols are currently modeled.  While a model is an aid to
   comprehension, and not part of a protocol specification, having
   differing models can complicate discussions, particularly if a model
   is misinterpreted as being part of a protocol specification or as
   constraining choice of implementation method.  For example, IPSec
   tunnel processing can be modeled both as an interface and as an
   attribute of a particular packet flow.

3.2  Recommendations

   IPSec is needed whenever there is a requirement for strong encryption
   or strong authentication.  It also supports multiplexing and a
   signalling protocol - IKE.  However extending the IPSec protocol
   suite to also cover the following areas would be beneficial, in order
   to better support the tunneling requirements of a VPN environment.

   -  the transport of a VPN-ID when establishing an SA (3.1.2)

   -  a null encryption and null authentication option (3.1.3)

   -  multiprotocol operation (3.1.4)

   -  frame sequencing (3.1.5)

   L2TP provides no data security by itself, and any PPP security
   mechanisms used do not apply to the L2TP protocol itself, so that in
   order for strong security to be provided L2TP must run over IPSec.
   Defining specific modes of operation for IPSec when it is used to
   support L2TP traffic will aid interoperability.  This is currently a
   work item for the proposed L2TP working group.

4.0  VPN Types:  Virtual Leased Lines

   The simplest form of a VPN is a 'Virtual Leased Line' (VLL) service.
   In this case a point-to-point link is provided to a customer,
   connecting two CPE devices, as illustrated below.  The link layer
   type used to connect the CPE devices to the ISP nodes can be any link
   layer type, for example an ATM VCC or a Frame Relay circuit.  The CPE
   devices can be either routers bridges or hosts.




Gleeson, et al.              Informational                     [Page 18]

RFC 2764           IP Based Virtual Private Networks       February 2000


   The two ISP nodes are both connected to an IP network, and an IP
   tunnel is set up between them.  Each ISP node is configured to bind
   the stub link and the IP tunnel together at layer 2 (e.g., an ATM VCC
   and the IP tunnel).  Frames are relayed between the two links.  For
   example the ATM Adaptation Layer 5 (AAL5) payload is taken and
   encapsulated in an IPSec tunnel, and vice versa.  The contents of the
   AAL5 payload are opaque to the ISP node, and are not examined there.

               +--------+      -----------       +--------+
   +---+       | ISP    |     ( IP        )      | ISP    |      +---+
   |CPE|-------| edge   |-----( backbone  ) -----| edge   |------|CPE|
   +---+ ATM   | node   |     (           )      | node   |  ATM +---+
         VCC   +--------+      -----------       +--------+  VCC

                      <--------- IP Tunnel -------->

   10.1.1.5                subnet = 10.1.1.4/30              10.1.1.6
          Addressing used by customer (transparent to provider)


                          Figure 4.1: VLL Example

   To a customer it looks the same as if a single ATM VCC or Frame Relay
   circuit were used to interconnect the CPE devices, and the customer
   could be unaware that part of the circuit was in fact implemented
   over an IP backbone.  This may be useful, for example, if a provider
   wishes to provide a LAN interconnect service using ATM as the network
   interface, but does not have an ATM network that directly
   interconnects all possible customer sites.

   It is not necessary that the two links used to connect the CPE
   devices to the ISP nodes be of the same media type, but in this case
   the ISP nodes cannot treat the traffic in an opaque manner, as
   described above.  Instead the ISP nodes must perform the functions of
   an interworking device between the two media types (e.g., ATM and
   Frame Relay), and perform functions such as LLC/SNAP to NLPID
   conversion, mapping between ARP protocol variants and performing any
   media specific processing that may be expected by the CPE devices
   (e.g., ATM OAM cell handling or Frame Relay XID exchanges).

   The IP tunneling protocol used must support multiprotocol operation
   and may need to support sequencing, if that characteristic is
   important to the customer traffic.  If the tunnels are established
   using a signalling protocol, they may be set up in a data driven
   manner, when a frame is received from a customer link and no tunnel
   exists, or the tunnels may be established at provisioning time and
   kept up permanently.




Gleeson, et al.              Informational                     [Page 19]

RFC 2764           IP Based Virtual Private Networks       February 2000


   Note that the use of the term 'VLL' in this document is different to
   that used in the definition of the Diffserv Expedited Forwarding Per
   Hop Behaviour (EF-PHB) [30].  In that document a VLL is used to mean
   a low latency, low jitter, assured bandwidth path, which can be
   provided using the described PHB. Thus the focus there is primarily
   on link characteristics that are temporal in nature. In this document
   the term VLL does not imply the use of any specific QoS mechanism,
   Diffserv or otherwise.  Instead the focus is primarily on link
   characteristics that are more topological in nature, (e.g., such as
   constructing a link which includes an IP tunnel as one segment of the
   link). For a truly complete emulation of a link layer both the
   temporal and topological aspects need to be taken into account.

5.0  VPN Types:  Virtual Private Routed Networks

5.1  VPRN Characteristics

   A Virtual Private Routed Network (VPRN) is defined to be the
   emulation of a multi-site wide area routed network using IP
   facilities.  This section looks at how a network-based VPRN service
   can be provided.  CPE-based VPRNs are also possible, but are not
   specifically discussed here.  With network-based VPRNs many of the
   issues that need to be addressed are concerned with configuration and
   operational issues, which must take into account the split in
   administrative responsibility between the service provider and the
   service user.

   The distinguishing characteristic of a VPRN, in comparison to other
   types of VPNs, is that packet forwarding is carried out at the
   network layer.  A VPRN consists of a mesh of IP tunnels between ISP
   routers, together with the routing capabilities needed to forward
   traffic received at each VPRN node to the appropriate destination
   site.  Attached to the ISP routers are CPE routers connected via one
   or more links, termed 'stub' links.  There is a VPRN specific
   forwarding table at each ISP router to which members of the VPRN are
   connected.  Traffic is forwarded between ISP routers, and between ISP
   routers and customer sites, using these forwarding tables, which
   contain network layer reachability information (in contrast to a
   Virtual Private LAN Segment type of VPN (VPLS) where the forwarding
   tables contain MAC layer reachability information - see section 7.0).

   An example VPRN is illustrated in the following diagram, which shows
   3 ISP edge routers connected via a full mesh of IP tunnels, used to
   interconnect 4 CPE routers.  One of the CPE routers is multihomed to
   the ISP network.  In the multihomed case, all stub links may be
   active, or, as shown, there may be one primary and one or more backup
   links to be used in case of failure of the primary.  The term '
   backdoor' link is used to refer to a link between two customer sites



Gleeson, et al.              Informational                     [Page 20]

RFC 2764           IP Based Virtual Private Networks       February 2000


   that does not traverse the ISP network.

   10.1.1.0/30 +--------+                       +--------+ 10.2.2.0/30
   +---+       | ISP    |     IP tunnel         | ISP    |       +---+
   |CPE|-------| edge   |<--------------------->| edge   |-------|CPE|
   +---+ stub  | router |     10.9.9.4/30       | router |  stub +---+
         link  +--------+                       +--------+  link   :
                |   ^  |                         |   ^             :
                |   |  |     ---------------     |   |             :
                |   |  +----(               )----+   |             :
                |   |       ( IP BACKBONE   )        |             :
                |   |       (               )        |             :
                |   |        ---------------         |             :
                |   |               |                |             :
                |   |IP tunnel  +--------+  IP tunnel|             :
                |   |           | ISP    |           |             :
                |   +---------->| edge   |<----------+             :
                |   10.9.9.8/30 | router | 10.9.9.12/30            :
          backup|               +--------+                 backdoor:
           link |                |      |                    link  :
                |      stub link |      |  stub link               :
                |                |      |                          :
                |             +---+    +---+                       :
                +-------------|CPE|    |CPE|.......................:
                10.3.3.0/30   +---+    +---+      10.4.4.0/30


                         Figure 5.1: VPRN Example

   The principal benefit of a VPRN is that the complexity and the
   configuration of the CPE routers is minimized.  To a CPE router, the
   ISP edge router appears as a neighbor router in the customer's
   network, to which it sends all traffic, using a default route.  The
   tunnel mesh that is set up to transfer traffic extends between the
   ISP edge routers, not the CPE routers.  In effect the burden of
   tunnel establishment and maintenance and routing configuration is
   outsourced to the ISP.  In addition other services needed for the
   operation of a VPN such as the provision of a firewall and QoS
   processing can be handled by a small number of ISP edge routers,
   rather than a large number of potentially heterogeneous CPE devices.
   The introduction and management of new services can also be more
   easily handled, as this can be achieved without the need to upgrade
   any CPE equipment.  This latter benefit is particularly important
   when there may be large numbers of residential subscribers using VPN
   services to access private corporate networks.  In this respect the
   model is somewhat akin to that used for telephony services, whereby
   new services (e.g., call waiting) can be introduced with no change in
   subscriber equipment.



Gleeson, et al.              Informational                     [Page 21]

RFC 2764           IP Based Virtual Private Networks       February 2000


   The VPRN type of VPN is in contrast to one where the tunnel mesh
   extends to the CPE routers, and where the ISP network provides layer
   2 connectivity alone.  The latter case can be implemented either as a
   set of VLLs between CPE routers (see section 4.0), in which case the
   ISP network provides a set of layer 2 point-to-point links, or as a
   VPLS (see section 7.0), in which case the ISP network is used to
   emulate a multiaccess LAN segment.  With these scenarios a customer
   may have more flexibility (e.g., any IGP or any protocol can be run
   across all customer sites) but this usually comes at the expense of a
   more complex configuration for the customer.  Thus, depending on
   customer requirements, a VPRN or a VPLS may be the more appropriate
   solution.

   Because a VPRN carries out forwarding at the network layer, a single
   VPRN only directly supports a single network layer protocol.  For
   multiprotocol support, a separate VPRN for each network layer
   protocol could be used, or one protocol could be tunneled over
   another (e.g., non-IP protocols tunneled over an IP VPRN) or
   alternatively the ISP network could be used to provide layer 2
   connectivity only, such as with a VPLS as mentioned above.

   The issues to be addressed for VPRNs include initial configuration,
   determination by an ISP edge router of the set of links that are in
   each VPRN, the set of other routers that have members in the VPRN,
   and the set of IP address prefixes reachable via each stub link,
   determination by a CPE router of the set of IP address prefixes to be
   forwarded to an ISP edge router, the mechanism used to disseminate
   stub reachability information to the correct set of ISP routers, and
   the establishment and use of the tunnels used to carry the data
   traffic.  Note also that, although discussed first for VPRNs, many of
   these issues also apply to the VPLS scenario described later, with
   the network layer addresses being replaced by link layer addresses.

   Note that VPRN operation is decoupled from the mechanisms used by the
   customer sites to access the Internet.  A typical scenario would be
   for the ISP edge router to be used to provide both VPRN and Internet
   connectivity to a customer site.  In this case the CPE router just
   has a default route pointing to the ISP edge router, with the latter
   being responsible for steering private traffic to the VPRN and other
   traffic to the Internet, and providing firewall functionality between
   the two domains.  Alternatively a customer site could have Internet
   connectivity via an ISP router not involved in the VPRN, or even via
   a different ISP.  In this case the CPE device is responsible for
   splitting the traffic into the two domains and providing firewall
   functionality.






Gleeson, et al.              Informational                     [Page 22]

RFC 2764           IP Based Virtual Private Networks       February 2000


5.1.1  Topology

   The topology of a VPRN may consist of a full mesh of tunnels between
   each VPRN node, or may be an arbitrary topology, such as a set of
   remote offices connected to the nearest regional site, with these
   regional sites connected together via a full or partial mesh.  With
   VPRNs using IP tunnels there is much less cost assumed with full
   meshing than in cases where physical resources (e.g., a leased line)
   must be allocated for each connected pair of sites, or where the
   tunneling method requires resources to be allocated in the devices
   used to interconnect the edge routers (e.g., Frame Relay DLCIs).  A
   full mesh topology yields optimal routing, since it precludes the
   need for traffic between two sites to traverse a third.  Another
   attraction of a full mesh is that there is no need to configure
   topology information for the VPRN.  Instead, given the member routers
   of a VPRN, the topology is implicit.  If the number of ISP edge
   routers in a VPRN is very large, however, a full mesh topology may
   not be appropriate, due to the scaling issues involved, for example,
   the growth in the number of tunnels needed between sites, (which for
   n sites is n(n-1)/2), or the number of routing peers per router.
   Network policy may also lead to non full mesh topologies, for example
   an administrator may wish to set up the topology so that traffic
   between two remote sites passes through a central site, rather than
   go directly between the remote sites.  It is also necessary to deal
   with the scenario where there is only partial connectivity across the
   IP backbone under certain error conditions (e.g. A can reach B, and B
   can reach C, but A cannot reach C directly), which can occur if
   policy routing is being used.

   For a network-based VPRN, it is assumed that each customer site CPE
   router connects to an ISP edge router through one or more point-to-
   point stub links (e.g. leased lines, ATM or Frame Relay connections).
   The ISP routers are responsible for learning and disseminating
   reachability information amongst themselves.  The CPE routers must
   learn the set of destinations reachable via each stub link, though
   this may be as simple as a default route.

   The stub links may either be dedicated links, set up via
   provisioning, or may be dynamic links set up on demand, for example
   using PPP, voluntary tunneling (see section 6.3), or ATM signalling.
   With dynamic links it is necessary to authenticate the subscriber,
   and determine the authorized resources that the subscriber can access
   (e.g. which VPRNs the subscriber may join).  Other than the way the
   subscriber is initially bound to the VPRN, (and this process may
   involve extra considerations such as dynamic IP address assignment),
   the subsequent VPRN mechanisms and services can be used for both
   types of subscribers in the same way.




Gleeson, et al.              Informational                     [Page 23]

RFC 2764           IP Based Virtual Private Networks       February 2000


5.1.2  Addressing

   The addressing used within a VPRN may have no relation to the
   addressing used on the IP backbone over which the VPRN is
   instantiated.  In particular non-unique private IP addressing may be
   used [4].  Multiple VPRNs may be instantiated over the same set of
   physical devices, and they may use the same or overlapping address
   spaces.

5.1.3  Forwarding

   For a VPRN the tunnel mesh forms an overlay network operating over an
   IP backbone.  Within each of the ISP edge routers there must be VPN
   specific forwarding state to forward packets received from stub links
   ('ingress traffic') to the appropriate next hop router, and to
   forward packets received from the core ('egress traffic') to the
   appropriate stub link.  For cases where an ISP edge router supports
   multiple stub links belonging to the same VPRN, the tunnels can, as a
   local matter, either terminate on the edge router, or on a stub link.
   In the former case a VPN specific forwarding table is needed for
   egress traffic, in the latter case it is not.  A VPN specific
   forwarding table is generally needed in the ingress direction, in
   order to direct traffic received on a stub link onto the correct IP
   tunnel towards the core.

   Also since a VPRN operates at the internetwork layer, the IP packets
   sent over a tunnel will have their Time to Live (TTL) field
   decremented in the normal manner, preventing packets circulating
   indefinitely in the event of a routing loop within the VPRN.

5.1.4  Multiple concurrent VPRN connectivity

   Note also that a single customer site may belong concurrently to
   multiple VPRNs and may want to transmit traffic both onto one or more
   VPRNs and to the default Internet, over the same stub link.  There
   are a number of possible approaches to this problem, but these are
   outside the scope of this document.

5.2  VPRN Related Work

   VPRN requirements and mechanisms have been discussed previously in a
   number of different documents.  One of the first was [10], which
   showed how the same VPN functionality can be implemented over both
   MPLS and non-MPLS networks.  Some others are briefly discussed below.

   There are two main variants as regards the mechanisms used to provide
   VPRN membership and reachability functionality, - overlay and
   piggybacking.  These are discussed in greater detail in sections



Gleeson, et al.              Informational                     [Page 24]

RFC 2764           IP Based Virtual Private Networks       February 2000


   5.3.2, 5.3.3 and 5.3.4 below.  An example of the overlay model is
   described in [14], which discusses the provision of VPRN
   functionality by means of a separate per-VPN routing protocol
   instance and route and forwarding table instantiation, otherwise
   known as virtual routing.  Each VPN routing instance is isolated from
   any other VPN routing instance, and from the routing used across the
   backbone.  As a result any routing protocol (e.g. OSPF, RIP2, IS-IS)
   can be run with any VPRN, independently of the routing protocols used
   in other VPRNs, or in the backbone itself.  The VPN model described
   in [12] is also an overlay VPRN model using virtual routing.  That
   document is specifically geared towards the provision of VPRN
   functionality over MPLS backbones, and it describes how VPRN
   membership dissemination can be automated over an MPLS backbone, by
   performing VPN neighbor discovery over the base MPLS tunnel mesh.
   [31] extends the virtual routing model to include VPN areas, and VPN
   border routers which route between VPN areas.  VPN areas may be
   defined for administrative or technical reasons, such as different
   underlying network infrastructures (e.g. ATM, MPLS, IP).

   In contrast [15] describes the provision of VPN functionality using a
   piggybacking approach for membership and reachability dissemination,
   with this information being piggybacked in Border Gateway Protocol 4
   (BGP) [32] packets.  VPNs are constructed using BGP policies, which
   are used to control which sites can communicate with each other. [13]
   also uses BGP for piggybacking membership information, and piggybacks
   reachability information on the protocol used to establish MPLS LSPs
   (CR-LDP or extended RSVP).  Unlike the other proposals, however, this
   proposal requires the participation on the CPE router to implement
   the VPN functionality.

5.3  VPRN Generic Requirements

   There are a number of common requirements which any network-based
   VPRN solution must address, and there are a number of different
   mechanisms that can be used to meet these requirements.  These
   generic issues are

   1) The use of a globally unique VPN identifier in order to be able to
      refer to a particular VPN.

   2) VPRN membership determination.  An edge router must learn of the
      local stub links that are in each VPRN, and must learn of the set
      of other routers that have members in that VPRN.

   3) Stub link reachability information.  An edge router must learn the
      set of addresses and address prefixes reachable via each stub
      link.




Gleeson, et al.              Informational                     [Page 25]

RFC 2764           IP Based Virtual Private Networks       February 2000


   4) Intra-VPRN reachability information.  Once an edge router has
      determined the set of address prefixes associated with each of its
      stub links, then this information must be disseminated to each
      other edge router in the VPRN.

   5) Tunneling mechanism.  An edge router must construct the necessary
      tunnels to other routers that have members in the VPRN, and must
      perform the encapsulation and decapsulation necessary to send and
      receive packets over the tunnels.

5.3.1  VPN Identifier

   The IETF [16] and the ATM Forum [17] have standardized on a single
   format for a globally unique identifier used to identify a VPN - a
   VPN-ID.  Only the format of the VPN-ID has been defined, not its
   semantics or usage.  The aim is to allow its use for a wide variety
   of purposes, and to allow the same identifier to used with different
   technologies and mechanisms.  For example a VPN-ID can be included in
   a MIB to identify a VPN for management purposes.  A VPN-ID can be
   used in a control plane protocol, for example to bind a tunnel to a
   VPN at tunnel establishment time.  All packets that traverse the
   tunnel are then implicitly associated with the identified VPN.  A
   VPN-ID can be used in a data plane encapsulation, to allow for an
   explicit per-packet identification of the VPN associated with the
   packet.  If a VPN is implemented using different technologies (e.g.,
   IP and ATM) in a network, the same identifier can be used to identify
   the VPN across the different technologies.  Also if a VPN spans
   multiple administrative domains the same identifier can be used
   everywhere.

   Most of the VPN schemes developed (e.g. [11], [12], [13], [14])
   require the use of a VPN-ID that is carried in control and/or data
   packets, which is used to associate the packet with a particular VPN.
   Although the use of a VPN-ID in this manner is very common, it is not
   universal. [15] describes a scheme where there is no protocol field
   used to identify a VPN in this manner.  In this scheme the VPNs as
   understood by a user, are administrative constructs, built using BGP
   policies.  There are a number of attributes associated with VPN
   routes, such as a route distinguisher, and origin and target "VPN",
   that are used by the underlying protocol mechanisms for
   disambiguation and scoping, and these are also used by the BGP policy
   mechanism in the construction of VPNs, but there is nothing
   corresponding with the VPN-ID as used in the other documents.

   Note also that [33] defines a multiprotocol encapsulation for use
   over ATM AAL5 that uses the standard VPN-ID format.





Gleeson, et al.              Informational                     [Page 26]

RFC 2764           IP Based Virtual Private Networks       February 2000


5.3.2  VPN Membership Information Configuration and Dissemination

   In order to establish a VPRN, or to insert new customer sites into an
   established VPRN, an ISP edge router must determine which stub links
   are associated with which VPRN.  For static links (e.g. an ATM VCC)
   this information must be configured into the edge router, since the
   edge router cannot infer such bindings by itself.  An SNMP MIB
   allowing for bindings between local stub links and VPN identities is
   one solution.

   For subscribers that attach to the network dynamically (e.g. using
   PPP or voluntary tunneling) it is possible to make the association
   between stub link and VPRN as part of the end user authentication
   processing that must occur with such dynamic links.  For example the
   VPRN to which a user is to be bound may be derived from the domain
   name the used as part of PPP authentication.  If the user is
   successfully authenticated (e.g. using a Radius server), then the
   newly created dynamic link can be bound to the correct VPRN.  Note
   that static configuration information is still needed, for example to
   maintain the list of authorized subscribers for each VPRN, but the
   location of this static information could be an external
   authentication server rather than on an ISP edge router.  Whether the
   link was statically or dynamically created, a VPN-ID can be
   associated with that link to signify to which VPRN it is bound.

   After learning which stub links are bound to which VPRN, each edge
   router must learn either the identity of, or, at least, the route to,
   each other edge router supporting other stub links in that particular
   VPRN.  Implicit in the latter is the notion that there exists some
   mechanism by which the configured edge routers can then use this edge
   router and/or stub link identity information to subsequently set up
   the appropriate tunnels between them.  The problem of VPRN member
   dissemination between participating edge routers, can be solved in a
   variety of ways, discussed below.

5.3.2.1  Directory Lookup

   The members of a particular VPRN, that is, the identity of the edge
   routers supporting stub links in the VPRN, and the set of static stub
   links bound to the VPRN per edge router, could be configured into a
   directory, which edge routers could query, using some defined
   mechanism (e.g. Lightweight Directory Access Protocol (LDAP) [34]),
   upon startup.

   Using a directory allows either a full mesh topology or an arbitrary
   topology to be configured.  For a full mesh, the full list of member
   routers in a VPRN is distributed everywhere.  For an arbitrary
   topology, different routers may receive different member lists.



Gleeson, et al.              Informational                     [Page 27]

RFC 2764           IP Based Virtual Private Networks       February 2000


   Using a directory allows for authorization checking prior to
   disseminating VPRN membership information, which may be desirable
   where VPRNs span multiple administrative domains.  In such a case,
   directory to directory protocol mechanisms could also be used to
   propagate authorized VPRN membership information between the
   directory systems of the multiple administrative domains.

   There also needs to be some form of database synchronization
   mechanism (e.g. triggered or regular polling of the directory by edge
   routers, or active pushing of update information to the edge routers
   by the directory) in order for all edge routers to learn the identity
   of newly configured sites inserted into an active VPRN, and also to
   learn of sites removed from a VPRN.

5.3.2.2  Explicit Management Configuration

   A VPRN MIB could be defined which would allow a central management
   system to configure each edge router with the identities of each
   other participating edge router and the identity of each of the
   static stub links bound to the VPRN.  Like the use of a directory,
   this mechanism allows both full mesh and arbitrary topologies to be
   configured.  Another mechanism using a centralized management system
   is to use a policy server and use the Common Open Policy Service
   (COPS) protocol [35] to distribute VPRN membership and policy
   information, such as the tunnel attributes to use when establishing a
   tunnel, as described in [36].

   Note that this mechanism allows the management station to impose
   strict authorization control; on the other hand, it may be more
   difficult to configure edge routers outside the scope of the
   management system.  The management configuration model can also be
   considered a subset of the directory method, in that the management
   directories could use MIBs to push VPRN membership information to the
   participating edge routers, either subsequent to, or as part of, the
   local stub link configuration process.

5.3.2.3  Piggybacking in Routing Protocols

   VPRN membership information could be piggybacked into the routing
   protocols run by each edge router across the IP backbone, since this
   is an efficient means of automatically propagating information
   throughout the network to other participating edge routers.
   Specifically, each route advertisement by each edge router could
   include, at a minimum, the set of VPN identifiers associated with
   each edge router, and adequate information to allow other edge
   routers to determine the identity of, and/or, the route to, the
   particular edge router.  Other edge routers would examine received
   route advertisements to determine if any contained information was



Gleeson, et al.              Informational                     [Page 28]

RFC 2764           IP Based Virtual Private Networks       February 2000


   relevant to a supported (i.e., configured) VPRN; this determination
   could be done by looking for a VPN identifier matching a locally
   configured VPN.  The nature of the piggybacked information, and
   related issues, such as scoping, and the means by which the nodes
   advertising particular VPN memberships will be identified, will
   generally be a function both of the routing protocol and of the
   nature of the underlying transport.

   Using this method all the routers in the network will have the same
   view of the VPRN membership information, and so a full mesh topology
   is easily supported.  Supporting an arbitrary topology is more
   difficult, however, since some form of pruning would seem to be
   needed.

   The advantage of the piggybacking scheme is that it allows for
   efficient information dissemination, but it does require that all
   nodes in the path, and not just the participating edge routers, be
   able to accept such modified route advertisements.  A disadvantage is
   that significant administrative complexity may be required to
   configure scoping mechanisms so as to both permit and constrain the
   dissemination of the piggybacked advertisements, and in itself this
   may be quite a configuration burden, particularly if the VPRN spans
   multiple routing domains (e.g. different autonomous systems / ISPs).

   Furthermore, unless some security mechanism is used for routing
   updates so as to permit only all relevant edge routers to read the
   piggybacked advertisements, this scheme generally implies a trust
   model where all routers in the path must perforce be authorized to
   know this information.  Depending upon the nature of the routing
   protocol, piggybacking may also require intermediate routers,
   particularly autonomous system (AS) border routers, to cache such
   advertisements and potentially also re-distribute them between
   multiple routing protocols.

   Each of the schemes described above have merit in particular
   situations.  Note that, in practice, there will almost always be some
   centralized directory or management system which will maintain VPRN
   membership information, such as the set of edge routers that are
   allowed to support a certain VPRN, the bindings of static stub links
   to VPRNs, or authentication and authorization information for users
   that access the network via dynamics links.  This information needs
   to be configured and stored in some form of database, so that the
   additional steps needed to facilitate the configuration of such
   information into edge routers, and/or, facilitate edge router access
   to such information, may not be excessively onerous.






Gleeson, et al.              Informational                     [Page 29]

RFC 2764           IP Based Virtual Private Networks       February 2000


5.3.3  Stub Link Reachability Information

   There are two aspects to stub site reachability - the means by which
   VPRN edge routers determine the set of VPRN addresses and address
   prefixes reachable at each stub site, and the means by which the CPE
   routers learn the destinations reachable via each stub link.  A
   number of common scenarios are outlined below.  In each case the
   information needed by the ISP edge router is the same - the set of
   VPRN addresses reachable at the customer site, but the information
   needed by the CPE router differs.

5.3.3.1  Stub Link Connectivity Scenarios

5.3.3.1.1  Dual VPRN and Internet Connectivity

   The CPE router is connected via one link to an ISP edge router, which
   provides both VPRN and Internet connectivity.

   This is the simplest case for the CPE router, as it just needs a
   default route pointing to the ISP edge router.

5.3.3.1.2  VPRN Connectivity Only

   The CPE router is connected via one link to an ISP edge router, which
   provides VPRN, but not Internet, connectivity.

   The CPE router must know the set of non-local VPRN destinations
   reachable via that link.  This may be a single prefix, or may be a
   number of disjoint prefixes.  The CPE router may be either statically
   configured with this information, or may learn it dynamically by
   running an instance of an Interior Gateway Protocol (IGP).  For
   simplicity it is assumed that the IGP used for this purpose is RIP,
   though it could be any IGP.  The ISP edge router will inject into
   this instance of RIP the VRPN routes which it learns by means of one
   of the intra-VPRN reachability mechanisms described in section 5.3.4.
   Note that the instance of RIP run to the CPE, and any instance of a
   routing protocol used to learn intra-VPRN reachability (even if also
   RIP) are separate, with the ISP edge router redistributing the routes
   from one instance to another.












Gleeson, et al.              Informational                     [Page 30]

RFC 2764           IP Based Virtual Private Networks       February 2000


5.3.3.1.3  Multihomed Connectivity

   The CPE router is multihomed to the ISP network, which provides VPRN
   connectivity.

   In this case all the ISP edge routers could advertise the same VPRN
   routes to the CPE router, which then sees all VPRN prefixes equally
   reachable via all links.  More specific route redistribution is also
   possible, whereby each ISP edge router advertises a different set of
   prefixes to the CPE router.

5.3.3.1.4  Backdoor Links

   The CPE router is connected to the ISP network, which provides VPRN
   connectivity, but also has a backdoor link to another customer site

   In this case the ISP edge router will advertise VPRN routes as in
   case 2 to the CPE device.  However now the same destination is
   reachable via both the ISP edge router and via the backdoor link.  If
   the CPE routers connected to the backdoor link are running the
   customer's IGP, then the backdoor link may always be the favored link
   as it will appear an an 'internal' path, whereas the destination as
   injected via the ISP edge router will appear as an 'external' path
   (to the customer's IGP).  To avoid this problem, assuming that the
   customer wants the traffic to traverse the ISP network, then a
   separate instance of  RIP should be run between the CPE routers at
   both ends of the backdoor link, in the same manner as an instance of
   RIP is run on a stub or backup link between a CPE router and an ISP
   edge router.  This will then also make the backdoor link appear as an
   external path, and by adjusting the link costs appropriately, the ISP
   path can always be favored, unless it goes down, when the backdoor
   link is then used.

   The description of the above scenarios covers what reachability
   information is needed by the ISP edge routers and the CPE routers,
   and discusses some of the mechanisms used to convey this information.
   The sections below look at these mechanisms in more detail.

5.3.3.1  Routing Protocol Instance

   A routing protocol can be run between the CPE edge router and the ISP
   edge router to exchange reachability information.  This allows an ISP
   edge router to learn the VPRN prefixes reachable at a customer site,
   and also allows a CPE router to learn the destinations reachable via
   the provider network.






Gleeson, et al.              Informational                     [Page 31]

RFC 2764           IP Based Virtual Private Networks       February 2000


   The extent of the routing domain for this protocol instance is
   generally just the ISP edge router and the CPE router although if the
   customer site is also running the same protocol as its IGP, then the
   domain may extend into customer site.  If the customer site is
   running a different routing protocol then the CPE router
   redistributes the routes between the instance running to the ISP edge
   router, and the instance running into the customer site.

   Given the typically restricted scope of this routing instance, a
   simple protocol will generally suffice.  RIP is likely to be the most
   common protocol used, though any routing protocol, such as OSPF, or
   BGP run in internal mode (IBGP), could also be used.

   Note that the instance of the stub link routing protocol is different
   from any instance of a routing protocol used for intra-VPRN
   reachability.  For example, if the ISP edge router uses routing
   protocol piggybacking to disseminate VPRN membership and reachability
   information across the core, then it may redistribute suitably
   labeled routes from the CPE routing instance to the core routing
   instance.  The routing protocols used for each instance are
   decoupled, and any suitable protocol can be used in each case.  There
   is no requirement that the same protocol, or even the same stub link
   reachability information gathering mechanism, be run between each CPE
   router and associated ISP edge router in a particular VPRN, since
   this is a purely local matter.

   This decoupling allows ISPs to deploy a common (across all VPRNs)
   intra-VPRN reachability mechanism, and a common stub link
   reachability mechanism, with these mechanisms isolated both from each
   other, and from the particular IGP used in a customer network.  In
   the first case, due to the IGP-IGP boundary implemented on the ISP
   edge router, the ISP can insulate the intra-VPRN reachability
   mechanism from misbehaving stub link protocol instances.  In the
   second case the ISP is not required to be aware of the particular IGP
   running in a customer site.  Other scenarios are possible, where the
   ISP edge routers are running a routing protocol in the same instance
   as the customer's IGP, but are unlikely to be practical, since it
   defeats the purpose of a VPRN simplifying CPE router configuration.
   In cases where a customer wishes to run an IGP across multiple sites,
   a VPLS solution is more suitable.

   Note that if a particular customer site concurrently belongs to
   multiple VPRNs (or wishes to concurrently communicate with both a
   VPRN and the Internet), then the ISP edge router must have some means
   of unambiguously mapping stub link address prefixes to particular
   VPRNs.  A simple way is to have multiple stub links, one per VPRN.
   It is also possible to run multiple VPRNs over one stub link.  This
   could be done either by ensuring (and appropriately configuring the



Gleeson, et al.              Informational                     [Page 32]

RFC 2764           IP Based Virtual Private Networks       February 2000


   ISP edge router to know) that particular disjoint address prefixes
   are mapped into separate VPRNs, or by tagging the routing
   advertisements from the CPE router with the appropriate VPN
   identifier.  For example if MPLS was being used to convey stub link
   reachability information, different MPLS labels would be used to
   differentiate the disjoint prefixes assigned to particular VPRNs.  In
   any case, some administrative procedure would be required for this
   coordination.

5.3.3.2  Configuration

   The reachability information across each stub link could be manually
   configured, which may be appropriate if the set of addresses or
   prefixes is small and static.

5.3.3.3  ISP Administered Addresses

   The set of addresses used by each stub site could be administered and
   allocated via the VPRN edge router, which may be appropriate for
   small customer sites, typically containing either a single host, or a
   single subnet.  Address allocation can be carried out using protocols
   such as PPP or DHCP [37], with, for example, the edge router acting
   as a Radius client and retrieving the customer's IP address to use
   from a Radius server, or acting as a DHCP relay and examining the
   DHCP reply message as it is relayed to the customer site.  In this
   manner the edge router can build up a table of stub link reachability
   information.  Although these address assignment mechanisms are
   typically used to assign an address to a single host, some vendors
   have added extensions whereby an address prefix can be assigned,
   with, in some cases, the CPE device acting as a "mini-DHCP" server
   and assigning addresses for the hosts in the customer site.

   Note that with these schemes it is the responsibility of the address
   allocation server to ensure that each site in the VPN received a
   disjoint address space.  Note also that an ISP would typically only
   use this mechanism for small stub sites, which are unlikely to have
   backdoor links.

5.3.3.4  MPLS Label Distribution Protocol

   In cases where the CPE router runs MPLS, LDP can be used to convey
   the set of prefixes at a stub site to a VPRN edge router.  Using the
   downstream unsolicited mode of label distribution the CPE router can
   distribute a label for each route in the stub site.  Note however
   that the processing carried out by the edge router in this case is
   more than just the normal LDP processing, since it is learning new
   routes via LDP, rather than the usual case of learning labels for
   existing routes that it has learned via standard routing mechanisms.



Gleeson, et al.              Informational                     [Page 33]

RFC 2764           IP Based Virtual Private Networks       February 2000


5.3.4  Intra-VPN Reachability Information

   Once an edge router has determined the set of prefixes associated
   with each of its stub links, then this information must be
   disseminated to each other edge router in the VPRN.  Note also that
   there is an implicit requirement that the set of reachable addresses
   within the VPRN be locally unique that is, each VPRN stub link (not
   performing load sharing) maintain an address space disjoint from any
   other, so as to permit unambiguous routing.  In practical terms, it
   is also generally desirable, though not required, that this address
   space be well partitioned i.e., specific, disjoint address prefixes
   per edge router, so as to preclude the need to maintain and
   disseminate large numbers of host routes.

   The problem of intra-VPN reachability information dissemination can
   be solved in a number of ways, some of which include the following:

5.3.4.1  Directory Lookup

   Along with VPRN membership information, a central directory could
   maintain a listing of the address prefixes associated with each
   customer site.  Such information could be obtained by the server
   through protocol interactions with each edge router.  Note that the
   same directory synchronization issues discussed above in section
   5.3.2 also apply in this case.

5.3.4.2  Explicit Configuration

   The address spaces associated with each edge router could be
   explicitly configured into each other router.  This is clearly a
   non-scalable solution, particularly when arbitrary topologies are
   used, and also raises the question of how the management system
   learns such information in the first place.

5.3.4.3  Local Intra-VPRN Routing Instantiations

   In this approach, each edge router runs an instance of a routing
   protocol (a 'virtual router') per VPRN, running across the VPRN
   tunnels to each peer edge router, to disseminate intra-VPRN
   reachability information.  Both full-mesh and arbitrary VPRN
   topologies can be easily supported, since the routing protocol itself
   can run over any topology.  The intra-VPRN routing advertisements
   could be distinguished from normal tunnel data packets either by
   being addressed directly to the peer edge router, or by a tunnel
   specific mechanism.






Gleeson, et al.              Informational                     [Page 34]

RFC 2764           IP Based Virtual Private Networks       February 2000


   Note that this intra-VPRN routing protocol need have no relationship
   either with the IGP of any customer site or with the routing
   protocols operated by the ISPs in the IP backbone.  Depending on the
   size and scale of the VPRNs to be supported either a simple protocol
   like RIP or a more sophisticated protocol like OSPF could be used.
   Because the intra-VPRN routing protocol operates as an overlay over
   the IP backbone it is wholly transparent to any intermediate routers,
   and to any edge routers not within the VPRN.  This also implies that
   such routing information can remain opaque to such routers, which may
   be a necessary security requirements in some cases.  Also note that
   if the routing protocol runs directly over the same tunnels as the
   data traffic, then it will inherit the same level of security as that
   afforded the data traffic, for example strong encryption and
   authentication.

   If the tunnels over which an intra-VPRN routing protocol runs are
   dedicated to a specific VPN (e.g. a different multiplexing field is
   used for each VPN) then no changes are needed to the routing protocol
   itself.  On the other hand if shared tunnels are used, then it is
   necessary to extend the routing protocol to allow a VPN-ID field to
   be included in routing update packets, to allow sets of prefixes to
   be associated with a particular VPN.

5.3.4.4  Link Reachability Protocol

   By link reachability protocol is meant a protocol that allows two
   nodes, connected via a point-to-point link, to exchange reachability
   information.  Given a full mesh topology, each edge router could run
   a link reachability protocol, for instance some variation of MPLS
   CR-LDP, across the tunnel to each peer edge router in the VPRN,
   carrying the VPN-ID and the reachability information of each VPRN
   running across the tunnel between the two edge routers.  If VPRN
   membership information has already been distributed to an edge
   router, then the neighbor discovery aspects of a traditional routing
   protocol are not needed, as the set of neighbors is already known.
   TCP connections can be used to interconnect the neighbors, to provide
   reliability.  This approach may reduce the processing burden of
   running routing protocol instances per VPRN, and may be of particular
   benefit where a shared tunnel mechanism is used to connect a set of
   edge routers supporting multiple VPRNs.

   Another approach to developing a link reachability protocol would be
   to base it on IBGP.  The problem that needs to be solved by a link
   reachability protocol is very similar to that solved by IBGP -
   conveying address prefixes reliably between edge routers.






Gleeson, et al.              Informational                     [Page 35]

RFC 2764           IP Based Virtual Private Networks       February 2000


   Using a link reachability protocol it is straightforward to support a
   full mesh topology - each edge router conveys its own local
   reachability information to all other routers, but does not
   redistribute information received from any other router.  However
   once an arbitrary topology needs to be supported, the link
   reachability protocol needs to develop into a full routing protocol,
   due to the need to implement mechanisms to avoid loops, and there
   would seem little benefit in reinventing another routing protocol to
   deal with this.  Some reasons why partially connected meshes may be
   needed even in a tunneled environment are discussed in section 5.1.1.

5.3.4.5  Piggybacking in IP Backbone Routing Protocols

   As with VPRN membership, the set of address prefixes associated with
   each stub interface could also be piggybacked into the routing
   advertisements from each edge router and propagated through the
   network.  Other edge routers extract this information from received
   route advertisements in the same way as they obtain the VPRN
   membership information (which, in this case, is implicit in the
   identification of the source of each route advertisement).  Note that
   this scheme may require, depending upon the nature of the routing
   protocols involved, that intermediate routers, e.g. border routers,
   cache intra-VPRN routing information in order to propagate it
   further.  This also has implications for the trust model, and for the
   level of security possible for intra-VPRN routing information.

   Note that in any of the cases discussed above, an edge router has the
   option of disseminating its stub link prefixes in a manner so as to
   permit tunneling from remote edge routers directly to the egress stub
   links.  Alternatively, it could disseminate the information so as to
   associate all such prefixes with the edge router, rather than with
   specific stub links.  In this case, the edge router would need to
   implement a VPN specific forwarding mechanism for egress traffic, to
   determine the correct egress stub link.  The advantage of this is
   that it may significantly reduce the number of distinct tunnels or
   tunnel label information which need to be constructed and maintained.
   Note that this choice is purely a local manner and is not visible to
   remote edge routers.

5.3.5  Tunneling Mechanisms

   Once VPRN membership information has been disseminated, the tunnels
   comprising the VPRN core can be constructed.

   One approach to setting up the tunnel mesh is to use point-to-point
   IP tunnels, and the requirements and issues for such tunnels have
   been discussed in section 3.0.  For example while tunnel
   establishment can be done through manual configuration, this is



Gleeson, et al.              Informational                     [Page 36]

RFC 2764           IP Based Virtual Private Networks       February 2000


   clearly not likely to be a scalable solution, given the O(n^2)
   problem of meshed links.  As such, tunnel set up should use some form
   of signalling protocol to allow two nodes to construct a tunnel to
   each other knowing only each other's identity.

   Another approach is to use the multipoint to point 'tunnels' provided
   by MPLS.  As noted in [38], MPLS can be considered to be a form of IP
   tunneling, since the labels of MPLS packets allow for routing
   decisions to be decoupled from the addressing information of the
   packets themselves.  MPLS label distribution mechanisms can be used
   to associate specific sets of MPLS labels with particular VPRN
   address prefixes supported on particular egress points (i.e., stub
   links of edge routers) and hence allow other edge routers to
   explicitly label and route traffic to particular VPRN stub links.

   One attraction of MPLS as a tunneling mechanism is that it may
   require less processing within each edge router than alternative
   tunneling mechanisms.  This is a function of the fact that data
   security within a MPLS network is implicit in the explicit label
   binding, much as with a connection oriented network, such as Frame
   Relay.  This may hence lessen customer concerns about data security
   and hence require less processor intensive security mechanisms (e.g.,
   IPSec).  However there are other potential security concerns with
   MPLS.  There is no direct support for security features such as
   authentication, confidentiality, and non-repudiation and the trust
   model for MPLS means that intermediate routers, (which may belong to
   different administrative domains), through which membership and
   prefix reachability information is conveyed, must be trusted, not
   just the edge routers themselves.

5.4  Multihomed Stub Routers

   The discussion thus far has implicitly assumed that stub routers are
   connected to one and only one VPRN edge router.  In general, this
   restriction should be capable of being relaxed without any change to
   VPRN operation, given general market interest in multihoming for
   reliability and other reasons.  In particular, in cases where the
   stub router supports multiple redundant links, with only one
   operational at any given time, with the links connected either to the
   same VPRN edge router, or to two or more different VPRN edge routers,
   then the stub link reachability mechanisms will both discover the
   loss of an active link, and the activation of a backup link.  In the
   former situation, the previously connected VPRN edge router will
   cease advertising reachability to the stub node, while the VPRN edge
   router with the now active link will begin advertising reachability,
   hence restoring connectivity.





Gleeson, et al.              Informational                     [Page 37]

RFC 2764           IP Based Virtual Private Networks       February 2000


   An alternative scenario is where the stub node supports multiple
   active links, using some form of load sharing algorithm.  In such a
   case, multiple VPRN edge routers may have active paths to the stub
   node, and may so advertise across the VPRN.  This scenario should not
   cause any problem with reachability across the VPRN providing that
   the intra-VPRN reachability mechanism can accommodate multiple paths
   to the same prefix, and has the appropriate mechanisms to preclude
   looping - for instance, distance vector metrics associated with each
   advertised prefix.

5.5  Multicast Support

   Multicast and broadcast traffic can be supported across VPRNs either
   by edge replication or by native multicast support in the backbone.
   These two cases are discussed below.

5.5.1  Edge Replication

   This is where each VPRN edge router replicates multicast traffic for
   transmission across each link in the VPRN.  Note that this is the
   same operation that would be performed by CPE routers terminating
   actual physical links or dedicated connections.  As with CPE routers,
   multicast routing protocols could also be run on each VPRN edge
   router to determine the distribution tree for multicast traffic and
   hence reduce unnecessary flood traffic.  This could be done by
   running instances of standard multicast routing protocols, e.g.
   Protocol Independent Multicast (PIM) [39] or Distance Vector
   Multicast Routing Protocol (DVMRP) [40], on and between each VPRN
   edge router, through the VPRN tunnels, in the same way that unicast
   routing protocols might be run at each VPRN edge router to determine
   intra-VPN unicast reachability, as discussed in section 5.3.4.
   Alternatively, if a link reachability protocol was run across the
   VPRN tunnels for intra-VPRN reachability, then this could also be
   augmented to allow VPRN edge routers to indicate both the particular
   multicast groups requested for reception at each edge node, and also
   the multicast sources at each edge site.

   In either case, there would need to be some mechanism to allow for
   the VPRN edge routers to determine which particular multicast groups
   were requested at each site and which sources were present at each
   site.  How this could be done would, in general, be a function of the
   capabilities of the CPE stub routers at each site.  If these run
   multicast routing protocols, then they can interact directly with the
   equivalent protocols at each VPRN edge router.  If the CPE device
   does not run a multicast routing protocol, then in the absence of
   Internet Group Management Protocol (IGMP) proxying [41] the customer
   site would be limited to a single subnet connected to the VPRN edge
   router via a bridging device, as the scope of an IGMP message is



Gleeson, et al.              Informational                     [Page 38]

RFC 2764           IP Based Virtual Private Networks       February 2000


   limited to a single subnet.  However using IGMP-proxying the CPE
   router can engage in multicast forwarding without running a multicast
   routing protocol, in constrained topologies.  On its interfaces into
   the customer site the CPE router performs the router functions of
   IGMP, and on its interface to the VPRN edge router it performs the
   host functions of IGMP.

5.5.2  Native Multicast Support

   This is where VPRN edge routers map intra-VPRN multicast traffic onto
   a native IP multicast distribution mechanism across the backbone.
   Note that intra-VPRN multicast has the same requirements for
   isolation from general backbone traffic as intra-VPRN unicast
   traffic.  Currently the only IP tunneling mechanism that has native
   support for multicast is MPLS.  On the other hand, while MPLS
   supports native transport of IP multicast packets, additional
   mechanisms would be needed to leverage these mechanisms for the
   support of intra-VPRN multicast.

   For instance, each VPRN router could prefix multicast group addresses
   within each VPRN with the VPN-ID of that VPRN and then redistribute
   these, essentially treating this VPN-ID/intra-VPRN multicast address
   tuple as a normal multicast address, within the backbone multicast
   routing protocols, as with the case of unicast reachability, as
   discussed previously.  The MPLS multicast label distribution
   mechanisms could then be used to set up the appropriate multicast
   LSPs to interconnect those sites within each VPRN supporting
   particular multicast group addresses.  Note, however, that this would
   require each of the intermediate LSRs to not only be aware of each
   intra-VPRN multicast group, but also to have the capability of
   interpreting these modified advertisements.  Alternatively,
   mechanisms could be defined to map intra-VPRN multicast groups into
   backbone multicast groups.

   Other IP tunneling mechanisms do not have native multicast support.
   It may prove feasible to extend such tunneling mechanisms by
   allocating IP multicast group addresses to the VPRN as a whole and
   hence distributing intra-VPRN multicast traffic encapsulated within
   backbone multicast packets.  Edge VPRN routers could filter out
   unwanted multicast groups.  Alternatively, mechanisms could also be
   defined to allow for allocation of backbone multicast group addresses
   for particular intra-VPRN multicast groups, and to then utilize
   these, through backbone multicast protocols, as discussed above, to
   limit forwarding of intra-VPRN multicast traffic only to those nodes
   within the group.






Gleeson, et al.              Informational                     [Page 39]

RFC 2764           IP Based Virtual Private Networks       February 2000


   A particular issue with the use of native multicast support is the
   provision of security for such multicast traffic.  Unlike the case of
   edge replication, which inherits the security characteristics of the
   underlying tunnel, native multicast mechanisms will need to use some
   form of secure multicast mechanism.  The development of architectures
   and solutions for secure multicast is an active research area, for
   example see [42] and [43].  The Secure Multicast Group (SMuG) of the
   IRTF has been set up to develop prototype solutions, which would then
   be passed to the IETF IPSec working group for standardization.

   However considerably more development is needed before scalable
   secure native multicast mechanisms can be generally deployed.

5.6  Recommendations

   The various proposals that have been developed to support some form
   of VPRN functionality can be broadly classified into two groups -
   those that utilize the router piggybacking approach for distributing
   VPN membership and/or reachability information ([13],[15]) and those
   that use the virtual routing approach ([12],[14]).  In some cases the
   mechanisms described rely on the characteristics of a particular
   infrastructure (e.g. MPLS) rather than just IP.

   Within the context of the virtual routing approach it may be useful
   to develop a membership distribution protocol based on a directory or
   MIB.  When combined with the protocol extensions for IP tunneling
   protocols outlined in section 3.2, this would then provide the basis
   for a complete set of protocols and mechanisms that support
   interoperable VPRNs that span multiple administrations over an IP
   backbone.  Note that the other major pieces of functionality needed -
   the learning and distribution of customer reachability information,
   can be performed by instances of standard routing protocols, without
   the need for any protocol extensions.

   Also for the constrained case of a full mesh topology, the usefulness
   of developing a link reachability protocol could be examined, however
   the limitations and scalability issues associated with this topology
   may not make it worthwhile to develop something specific for this
   case, as standard routing will just work.

   Extending routing protocols to allow a VPN-ID to carried in routing
   update packets could also be examined, but is not necessary if VPN
   specific tunnels are used.








Gleeson, et al.              Informational                     [Page 40]

RFC 2764           IP Based Virtual Private Networks       February 2000


6.0  VPN Types:  Virtual Private Dial Networks

   A Virtual Private Dial Network (VPDN) allows for a remote user to
   connect on demand through an ad hoc tunnel into another site.  The
   user is connected to a public IP network via a dial-up PSTN or ISDN
   link, and user packets are tunneled across the public network to the
   desired site, giving the impression to the user of being 'directly'
   connected into that site.  A key characteristic of such ad hoc
   connections is the need for user authentication as a prime
   requirement, since anyone could potentially attempt to gain access to
   such a site using a switched dial network.

   Today many corporate networks allow access to remote users through
   dial connections made through the PSTN, with users setting up PPP
   connections across an access network to a network access server, at
   which point the PPP sessions are authenticated using AAA systems
   running such standard protocols as Radius [44].  Given the pervasive
   deployment of such systems, any VPDN system must in practice allow
   for the near transparent re-use of such existing systems.

   The IETF have developed the Layer 2 Tunneling Protocol (L2TP) [8]
   which allows for the extension of of user PPP sessions from an L2TP
   Access Concentrator (LAC) to a remote L2TP Network Server (LNS).  The
   L2TP protocol itself was based on two earlier protocols, the Layer 2
   Forwarding protocol (L2F) [45], and the Point-to-Point Tunneling
   Protocol (PPTP) [46], and this is reflected in the two quite
   different scenarios for which L2TP can be used - compulsory tunneling
   and voluntary tunneling, discussed further below in sections 6.2 and
   6.3.

   This document focuses on the use of L2TP over an IP network (using
   UDP), but L2TP may also be run directly over other protocols such as
   ATM or Frame Relay.  Issues specifically related to running L2TP over
   non-IP networks, such as how to secure such tunnels, are not
   addressed here.

6.1  L2TP protocol characteristics

   This section looks at the characteristics of the L2TP tunneling
   protocol using the categories outlined in section 3.0.

6.1.1 Multiplexing

   L2TP has inherent support for the multiplexing of multiple calls from
   different users over a single link.  Between the same two IP
   endpoints, there can be multiple L2TP tunnels, as identified by a
   tunnel-id, and multiple sessions within a tunnel, as identified by a
   session-id.



Gleeson, et al.              Informational                     [Page 41]

RFC 2764           IP Based Virtual Private Networks       February 2000


6.1.2 Signalling

   This is supported via the inbuilt control connection protocol,
   allowing both tunnels and sessions to be established dynamically.

6.1.3 Data Security

   By allowing for the transparent extension of PPP from the user,
   through the LAC to the LNS, L2TP allows for the use of whatever
   security mechanisms, with respect to both connection set up, and data
   transfer, may be used with normal PPP connections.  However this does
   not provide security for the L2TP control protocol itself.  In this
   case L2TP could be further secured by running it in combination with
   IPSec through IP backbones [47], [48], or related mechanisms on non-
   IP backbones [49].

   The interaction of L2TP with AAA systems for user authentication and
   authorization is a function of the specific means by which L2TP is
   used, and the nature of the devices supporting the LAC and the LNS.
   These issues are discussed in depth in [50].

   The means by which the host determines the correct LAC to connect to,
   and the means by which the LAC determines which users to further
   tunnel, and the LNS parameters associated with each user, are outside
   the scope of the operation of a VPDN, but may be addressed, for
   instance, by evolving Internet roaming specifications [51].

6.1.4 Multiprotocol Transport

   L2TP transports PPP packets (and only PPP packets) and thus can be
   used to carry multiprotocol traffic since PPP itself is
   multiprotocol.

6.1.5 Sequencing

   L2TP supports sequenced delivery of packets.  This is a capability
   that can be negotiated at session establishment, and that can be
   turned on and off by an LNS during a session.  The sequence number
   field in L2TP can also be used to provide an indication of dropped
   packets, which is needed by various PPP compression algorithms to
   operate correctly.  If no compression is in use, and the LNS
   determines that the protocols in use (as evidenced by the PPP NCP
   negotiations) can deal with out of sequence packets (e.g. IP), then
   it may disable the use of sequencing.







Gleeson, et al.              Informational                     [Page 42]

RFC 2764           IP Based Virtual Private Networks       February 2000


6.1.6 Tunnel Maintenance

   A keepalive protocol is used by L2TP in order to allow it to
   distinguish between a tunnel outage and prolonged periods of tunnel
   inactivity.

6.1.7 Large MTUs

   L2TP itself has no inbuilt support for a segmentation and reassembly
   capability, but when run over UDP/IP IP fragmentation will take place
   if necessary.  Note that a LAC or LNS may adjust the Maximum Receive
   Unit (MRU) negotiated via PPP in order to preclude fragmentation, if
   it has knowledge of the MTU used on the path between LAC and LNS.  To
   this end, there is a proposal to allow the use of MTU discovery for
   cases where the L2TP tunnel transports IP frames [52].

6.1.8 Tunnel Overhead

   L2TP as used over IP networks runs over UDP and must be used to carry
   PPP traffic.  This results in a significant amount of overhead, both
   in the data plane with UDP, L2TP and PPP headers, and also in the
   control plane, with the L2TP and PPP control protocols.  This is
   discussed further in section 6.3

6.1.9 Flow and Congestion Control

   L2TP supports flow and congestion control mechanisms for the control
   protocol, but not for data traffic.  See section 3.1.9 for more
   details.

6.1.10 QoS / Traffic Management

   An L2TP header contains a 1-bit priority field, which can be set for
   packets that may need preferential treatment (e.g. keepalives) during
   local queuing and transmission.  Also by transparently extending PPP,
   L2TP has inherent support for such PPP mechanisms as multi-link PPP
   [53] and its associated control protocols [54], which allow for
   bandwidth on demand to meet user requirements.

   In addition L2TP calls can be mapped into whatever underlying traffic
   management mechanisms may exist in the network, and there are
   proposals to allow for requests through L2TP signalling for specific
   differentiated services behaviors [55].








Gleeson, et al.              Informational                     [Page 43]

RFC 2764           IP Based Virtual Private Networks       February 2000


6.1.11 Miscellaneous

   Since L2TP is designed to transparently extend PPP, it does not
   attempt to supplant the normal address assignment mechanisms
   associated with PPP.  Hence, in general terms the host initiating the
   PPP session will be assigned an address by the LNS using PPP
   procedures.  This addressing may have no relation to the addressing
   used for communication between the LAC and LNS.  The LNS will also
   need to support whatever forwarding mechanisms are needed to route
   traffic to and from the remote host.

6.2  Compulsory Tunneling

   Compulsory tunneling refers to the scenario in which a network node -
   a dial or network access server, for instance - acting as a LAC,
   extends a PPP session across a backbone using L2TP to a remote LNS,
   as illustrated below.  This operation is transparent to the user
   initiating the PPP session to the LAC.  This allows for the
   decoupling of the location and/or ownership of the modem pools used
   to terminate dial calls, from the site to which users are provided
   access.  Support for this scenario was the original intent of the L2F
   specification, upon which the L2TP specification was based.

   There are a number of different deployment scenarios possible. One
   example, shown in the diagram below, is where a subscriber host dials
   into a NAS acting as a LAC, and is tunneled across an IP network
   (e.g. the Internet) to a gateway acting as an LNS. The gateway
   provides access to a corporate network, and could either be a device
   in the corporate network itself, or could be an ISP edge router, in
   the case where a customer has outsourced the maintenance of LNS
   functionality to an ISP.  Another scenario is where an ISP uses L2TP
   to provide a subscriber with access to the Internet. The subscriber
   host dials into a NAS acting as a LAC, and is tunneled across an
   access network to an ISP edge router acting as an LNS. This ISP edge
   router then feeds the subscriber traffic into the Internet.  Yet
   other scenarios are where an ISP uses L2TP to provide a subscriber
   with access to a VPRN, or with concurrent access to both a VPRN and
   the Internet.

   A VPDN, whether using compulsory or voluntary tunneling, can be
   viewed as just another type of access method for subscriber traffic,
   and as such can be used to provide connectivity to different types of
   networks, e.g. a corporate network, the Internet, or a VPRN. The last
   scenario is also an example of how a VPN service as provided to a
   customer may be implemented using a combination of different types of
   VPN.





Gleeson, et al.              Informational                     [Page 44]

RFC 2764           IP Based Virtual Private Networks       February 2000


   10.0.0.1
   +----+
   |Host|-----    LAC      -------------     LNS        10.0.0.0/8
   +----+   /   +-----+   (             )   +-----+     ---------
           /----| NAS |---( IP Backbone )---| GW  |----( Corp.   )
        dial    +-----+   (             )   +-----+    ( Network )
        connection         -------------                ---------

                   <------- L2TP Tunnel ------->

     <--------------------- PPP Session ------->

                 Figure 6.1: Compulsory Tunneling Example

   Compulsory tunneling was originally intended for deployment on
   network access servers supporting wholesale dial services, allowing
   for remote dial access through common facilities to an enterprise
   site, while precluding the need for the enterprise to deploy its own
   dial servers.  Another example of this is where an ISP outsources its
   own dial connectivity to an access network provider (such as a Local
   Exchange Carrier (LEC) in the USA) removing the need for an ISP to
   maintain its own dial servers and allowing the LEC to serve multiple
   ISPs.  More recently, compulsory tunneling mechanisms have also been
   proposed for evolving Digital Subscriber Line (DSL) services [56],
   [57], which also seek to leverage the existing AAA infrastructure.

   Call routing for compulsory tunnels requires that some aspect of the
   initial PPP call set up can be used to allow the LAC to determine the
   identity of the LNS.  As noted in [50], these aspects can include the
   user identity, as determined through some aspect of the access
   network, including calling party number, or some attribute of the
   called party, such as the Fully Qualified Domain Name (FQDN) of the
   identity claimed during PPP authentication.

   It is also possible to chain two L2TP tunnels together, whereby a LAC
   initiates a tunnel to an intermediate relay device, which acts as an
   LNS to this first LAC, and acts as a LAC to the final LNS.  This may
   be needed in some cases due to administrative, organizational or
   regulatory issues pertaining to the split between access network
   provider, IP backbone provider and enterprise customer.











Gleeson, et al.              Informational                     [Page 45]

RFC 2764           IP Based Virtual Private Networks       February 2000


6.3  Voluntary Tunnels

   Voluntary tunneling refers to the case where an individual host
   connects to a remote site using a tunnel originating on the host,
   with no involvement from intermediate network nodes, as illustrated
   below.  The PPTP specification, parts of which have been incorporated
   into L2TP, was based upon a voluntary tunneling model.

   As with compulsory tunneling there are different deployment scenarios
   possible. The diagram below shows a subscriber host accessing a
   corporate network with either L2TP or IPSec being used as the
   voluntary tunneling mechanism. Another scenario is where voluntary
   tunneling is used to provide a subscriber with access to a VPRN.

6.3.1  Issues with Use of L2TP for Voluntary Tunnels

   The L2TP specification has support for voluntary tunneling, insofar
   as the LAC can be located on a host, not only on a network node.
   Note that such a host has two IP addresses - one for the LAC-LNS IP
   tunnel, and another, typically allocated via PPP, for the network to
   which the host is connecting.  The benefits of using L2TP for
   voluntary tunneling are that the existing authentication and address
   assignment mechanisms used by PPP can be reused without modification.
   For example an LNS could also include a Radius client, and
   communicate with a Radius server to authenticate a PPP PAP or CHAP
   exchange, and to retrieve configuration information for the host such
   as its IP address and a list of DNS servers to use.  This information
   can then be passed to the host via the PPP IPCP protocol.

   10.0.0.1
   +----+
   |Host|-----             -------------                10.0.0.0/8
   +----+   /   +-----+   (             )   +-----+     ---------
           /----| NAS |---( IP Backbone )---| GW  |----( Corp.   )
        dial    +-----+   (             )   +-----+    ( Network )
        connection         -------------                ---------

     <-------------- L2TP Tunnel -------------->
                        with                      LAC on host
     <-------------- PPP Session -------------->  LNS on gateway

                        or

     <-------------- IPSEC Tunnel -------------->


                  Figure 6.2: Voluntary Tunneling Example




Gleeson, et al.              Informational                     [Page 46]

RFC 2764           IP Based Virtual Private Networks       February 2000


   The above procedure is not without its costs, however.  There is
   considerable overhead with such a protocol stack, particularly when
   IPSec is also needed for security purposes, and given that the host
   may be connected via a low-bandwidth dial up link.  The overhead
   consists of both extra headers in the data plane and extra control
   protocols needed in the control plane.  Using L2TP for voluntary
   tunneling, secured with IPSec, means a web application, for example,
   would run over the following stack

     HTTP/TCP/IP/PPP/L2TP/UDP/ESP/IP/PPP/AHDLC

   It is proposed in [58] that IPSec alone be used for voluntary tunnels
   reducing overhead, using the following stack.

     HTTP/TCP/IP/ESP/IP/PPP/AHDLC

   In this case IPSec is used in tunnel mode, with the tunnel
   terminating either on an IPSec edge device at the enterprise site, or
   on the provider edge router connected to the enterprise site.  There
   are two possibilities for the IP addressing of the host.  Two IP
   addresses could be used, in a similar manner to the L2TP case.
   Alternatively the host can use a single public IP address as the
   source IP address in both inner and outer IP headers, with the
   gateway performing Network Address Translation (NAT) before
   forwarding the traffic to the enterprise network.  To other hosts in
   the enterprise network the host appears to have an 'internal' IP
   address.  Using NAT has some limitations and restrictions, also
   pointed out in [58].

   Another area of potential problems with PPP is due to the fact that
   the characteristics of a link layer implemented via an L2TP tunnel
   over an IP backbone are quite different to a link layer run over a
   serial line, as discussed in the L2TP specification itself.  For
   example, poorly chosen PPP parameters may lead to frequent resets and
   timeouts, particularly if compression is in use.  This is because an
   L2TP tunnel may misorder packets, and may silently drop packets,
   neither of which normally occurs on serial lines.  The general packet
   loss rate could also be significantly higher due to network
   congestion.  Using the sequence number field in an L2TP header
   addresses the misordering issue, and for cases where the LAC and LNS
   are coincident with the PPP endpoints, as in voluntary tunneling, the
   sequence number field can also be used to detect a dropped packet,
   and to pass a suitable indication to any compression entity in use,
   which typically requires such knowledge in order to keep the
   compression histories in synchronization at both ends. (In fact this
   is more of an issue with compulsory tunneling since the LAC may have
   to deliberately issue a corrupted frame to the PPP host, to give an
   indication of packet loss, and some hardware may not allow this).



Gleeson, et al.              Informational                     [Page 47]

RFC 2764           IP Based Virtual Private Networks       February 2000


6.3.2  Issues with Use of IPSec for Voluntary Tunnels

   If IPSec is used for voluntary tunneling, the functions of user
   authentication and host configuration, achieved by means of PPP when
   using L2TP, still need to be carried out.  A distinction needs to be
   drawn here between machine authentication and user authentication.  '
   Two factor' authentication is carried out on the basis of both
   something the user has, such as a machine or smartcard with a digital
   certificate, and something the user knows, such as a password.
   (Another example is getting money from an bank ATM machine - you need
   a card and a PIN number).  Many of the existing legacy schemes
   currently in use to perform user authentication are asymmetric in
   nature, and are not supported by IKE. For remote access the most
   common existing user authentication mechanism is to use PPP between
   the user and access server, and Radius between the access server and
   authentication server.  The authentication exchanges that occur in
   this case, e.g. a PAP or CHAP exchange, are asymmetric.  Also CHAP
   supports the ability for the network to reauthenticate the user at
   any time after the initial session has been established, to ensure
   that the current user is the same person that initiated the session.

   While IKE provides strong support for machine authentication, it has
   only limited support for any form of user authentication and has no
   support for asymmetric user authentication.  While a user password
   can be used to derive a key used as a preshared key, this cannot be
   used with IKE Main Mode in a remote access environment, as the user
   will not have a fixed IP address, and while Aggressive Mode can be
   used instead, this affords no identity protection.  To this end there
   have been a number of proposals to allow for support of legacy
   asymmetric user level authentication schemes with IPSec.  [59]
   defines a new IKE message exchange - the transaction exchange - which
   allows for both Request/Reply and Set/Acknowledge message sequences,
   and it also defines attributes that can be used for client IP stack
   configuration. [60] and [61] describe mechanisms that use the
   transaction message exchange, or a series of such exchanges, carried
   out between the IKE Phase 1 and Phase 2 exchanges, to perform user
   authentication. A different approach, that does not extend the IKE
   protocol itself, is described in [62]. With this approach a user
   establishes a Phase 1 SA with a security gateway and then sets up a
   Phase 2 SA to the gateway, over which an existing authentication
   protocol is run. The gateway acts as a proxy and relays the protocol
   messages to an authentication server.

   In addition there have also been proposals to allow the remote host
   to be configured with an IP address and other configuration
   information over IPSec.  For example [63] describes a method whereby
   a remote host first establishes a Phase 1 SA with a security gateway
   and then sets up a Phase 2 SA to the gateway, over which the DHCP



Gleeson, et al.              Informational                     [Page 48]

RFC 2764           IP Based Virtual Private Networks       February 2000


   protocol is run. The gateway acts as a proxy and relays the protocol
   messages to the DHCP server.  Again, like [62], this proposal does
   not involve extensions to the IKE protocol itself.

   Another aspect of PPP functionality that may need to supported is
   multiprotocol operation, as there may be a need to carry network
   layer protocols other than IP, and even to carry link layer protocols
   (e.g.  ethernet) as would be needed to support bridging over IPSec.
   This is discussed in section 3.1.4.

   The methods of supporting legacy user authentication and host
   configuration capabilities in a remote access environment are
   currently being discussed in the IPSec working group.

6.4  Networked Host Support

   The current PPP based dial model assumes a host directly connected to
   a connection oriented dial access network.  Recent work on new access
   technologies such as DSL have attempted to replicate this model [57],
   so as to allow for the re-use of existing AAA systems.  The
   proliferation of personal computers, printers and other network
   appliances in homes and small businesses, and the ever lowering costs
   of networks, however, are increasingly challenging the directly
   connected host model.  Increasingly, most hosts will access the
   Internet through small, typically Ethernet, local area networks.

   There is hence interest in means of accommodating the existing AAA
   infrastructure within service providers, whilst also supporting
   multiple networked hosts at each customer site.  The principal
   complication with this scenario is the need to support the login
   dialogue, through which the appropriate AAA information is exchanged.
   A number of proposals have been made to address this scenario:

6.4.1  Extension of PPP to Hosts Through L2TP

   A number of proposals (e.g. [56]) have been made to extend L2TP over
   Ethernet so that PPP sessions can run from networked hosts out to the
   network, in much the same manner as a directly attached host.

6.4.2  Extension of PPP Directly to Hosts:

   There is also a specification for mapping PPP directly onto Ethernet
   (PPPOE) [64] which uses a broadcast mechanism to allow hosts to find
   appropriate access servers with which to connect. Such servers could
   then further tunnel, if needed, the PPP sessions using L2TP or a
   similar mechanism.





Gleeson, et al.              Informational                     [Page 49]

RFC 2764           IP Based Virtual Private Networks       February 2000


6.4.3  Use of IPSec

   The IPSec based voluntary tunneling mechanisms discussed above can be
   used either with networked or directly connected hosts.

   Note that all of these methods require additional host software to be
   used, which implements either LAC, PPPOE client or IPSec client
   functionality.

6.5  Recommendations

   The L2TP specification has been finalized and will be widely used for
   compulsory tunneling.  As discussed in section 3.2, defining specific
   modes of operation for IPSec when used to secure L2TP would be
   beneficial.

   Also, for voluntary tunneling using IPSec, completing the work needed
   to provide support for the following areas would be useful

   -  asymmetric / legacy user authentication (6.3)

   -  host address assignment and configuration (6.3)

   along with any other issues specifically related to the support of
   remote hosts. Currently as there are many different non-interoperable
   proprietary solutions in this area.

7.0  VPN Types:  Virtual Private LAN Segment

   A Virtual Private LAN Segment (VPLS) is the emulation of a LAN
   segment using Internet facilities.  A VPLS can be used to provide
   what is sometimes known also as a Transparent LAN Service (TLS),
   which can be used to interconnect multiple stub CPE nodes, either
   bridges or routers, in a protocol transparent manner.  A VPLS
   emulates a LAN segment over IP, in the same way as protocols such as
   LANE emulate a LAN segment over ATM.  The primary benefits of a VPLS
   are complete protocol transparency, which may be important both for
   multiprotocol transport and for regulatory reasons in particular
   service provider contexts.












Gleeson, et al.              Informational                     [Page 50]

RFC 2764           IP Based Virtual Private Networks       February 2000


   10.1.1.1    +--------+                       +--------+    10.1.1.2
   +---+       | ISP    |     IP tunnel         | ISP    |       +---+
   |CPE|-------| edge   |-----------------------| edge   |-------|CPE|
   +---+ stub  | node   |                       | node   |  stub +---+
         link  +--------+                       +--------+  link
                    ^  |                         |   ^
                    |  |     ---------------     |   |
                    |  |    (               )    |   |
                    |  +----( IP BACKBONE   )----+   |
                    |       (               )        |
                    |        ---------------         |
                    |               |                |
                    |IP tunnel  +--------+  IP tunnel|
                    |           | ISP    |           |
                    +-----------| edge   |-----------+
                                | node   |
                                +--------+    subnet = 10.1.1.0/24
                                    |
                          stub link |
                                    |
                                  +---+
                                  |CPE| 10.1.1.3
                                  +---+

                         Figure 7.1: VPLS Example

7.1  VPLS Requirements

   Topologically and operationally a VPLS can be most easily modeled as
   being essentially equivalent to a VPRN, except that each VPLS edge
   node implements link layer bridging rather than network layer
   forwarding.  As such, most of the VPRN tunneling and configuration
   mechanisms discussed previously can also be used for a VPLS, with the
   appropriate changes to accommodate link layer, rather than network
   layer, packets and addressing information.  The following sections
   discuss the primary changes needed in VPRN operation to support
   VPLSs.

7.1.1  Tunneling Protocols

   The tunneling protocols employed within a VPLS can be exactly the
   same as those used within a VPRN, if the tunneling protocol permits
   the transport of multiprotocol traffic, and this is assumed below.








Gleeson, et al.              Informational                     [Page 51]

RFC 2764           IP Based Virtual Private Networks       February 2000


7.1.2  Multicast and Broadcast Support

   A VPLS needs to have a broadcast capability.  This is needed both for
   broadcast frames, and for link layer packet flooding, where a unicast
   frame is flooded because the path to the destination link layer
   address is unknown.  The address resolution protocols that run over a
   bridged network typically use broadcast frames (e.g. ARP).  The same
   set of possible multicast tunneling mechanisms discussed earlier for
   VPRNs apply also to a VPLS, though the generally more frequent use of
   broadcast in VPLSs may increase the pressure for native multicast
   support that reduces, for instance, the burden of replication on VPLS
   edge nodes.

7.1.3  VPLS Membership Configuration and Topology

   The configuration of VPLS membership is analogous to that of VPRNs
   since this generally requires only knowledge of the local VPN link
   assignments at any given VPLS edge node, and the identity of, or
   route to, the other edge nodes in the VPLS; in particular, such
   configuration is independent of the nature of the forwarding at each
   VPN edge node.  As such, any of the mechanisms for VPN member
   configuration and dissemination discussed for VPRN configuration can
   also be applied to VPLS configuration.  Also as with VPRNs, the
   topology of the VPLS could be easily manipulated by controlling the
   configuration of peer nodes at each VPLS edge node, assuming that the
   membership dissemination mechanism was such as to permit this.  It is
   likely that typical VPLSs will be fully meshed, however, in order to
   preclude the need for traffic between two VPLS nodes to transit
   through another VPLS node, which would then require the use of the
   Spanning Tree protocol [65] for loop prevention.

7.1.4  CPE Stub Node Types

   A VPLS can support either bridges or routers as a CPE device.

   CPE routers would peer transparently across a VPLS with each other
   without requiring any router peering with any nodes within the VPLS.
   The same scalability issues that apply to a full mesh topology for
   VPRNs, apply also in this case, only that now the number of peering
   routers is potentially greater, since the ISP edge device is no
   longer acting as an aggregation point.

   With CPE bridge devices the broadcast domain encompasses all the CPE
   sites as well as the VPLS itself.  There are significant scalability
   constraints in this case, due to the need for packet flooding, and






Gleeson, et al.              Informational                     [Page 52]

RFC 2764           IP Based Virtual Private Networks       February 2000


   the fact that any topology change in the bridged domain is not
   localized, but is visible throughout the domain.  As such this
   scenario is generally only suited for support of non-routable
   protocols.

   The nature of the CPE impacts the nature of the encapsulation,
   addressing, forwarding and reachability protocols within the VPLS,
   and are discussed separately below.

7.1.5  Stub Link Packet Encapsulation

7.1.5.1  Bridge CPE

   In this case, packets sent to and from the VPLS across stub links are
   link layer frames, with a suitable access link encapsulation.  The
   most common case is likely to be ethernet frames, using an
   encapsulation appropriate to the particular access technology, such
   as ATM, connecting the CPE bridges to the VPLS edge nodes.  Such
   frames are then forwarded at layer 2 onto a tunnel used in the VPLS.
   As noted previously, this does mandate the use of an IP tunneling
   protocol which can transport such link layer frames.  Note that this
   does not necessarily mandate, however, the use of a protocol
   identification field in each tunnel packet, since the nature of the
   encapsulated traffic (e.g. ethernet frames) could be indicated at
   tunnel setup.

7.1.5.2  Router CPE

   In this case, typically, CPE routers send link layer packets to and
   from the VPLS across stub links, destined to the link layer addresses
   of their peer CPE routers.  Other types of encapsulations may also
   prove feasible in such a case, however, since the relatively
   constrained addressing space needed for a VPLS to which only router
   CPE are connected, could allow for alternative encapsulations, as
   discussed further below.

7.1.6  CPE Addressing and Address Resolution

7.1.6.1  Bridge CPE

   Since a VPLS operates at the link layer, all hosts within all stub
   sites, in the case of bridge CPE, will typically be in the same
   network layer subnet.  (Multinetting, whereby multiple subnets
   operate over the same LAN segment, is possible, but much less
   common).  Frames are forwarded across and within the VPLS based upon
   the link layer addresses - e.g. IEEE MAC addresses - associated with
   the individual hosts.  The VPLS needs to support broadcast traffic,
   such as that typically used for the address resolution mechanism used



Gleeson, et al.              Informational                     [Page 53]

RFC 2764           IP Based Virtual Private Networks       February 2000


   to map the host network addresses to their respective link addresses.
   The VPLS forwarding and reachability algorithms also need to be able
   to accommodate flooded traffic.

7.1.6.2  Router CPE

   A single network layer subnet is generally used to interconnect
   router CPE devices, across a VPLS.  Behind each CPE router are hosts
   in different network layer subnets.  CPE routers transfer packets
   across the VPLS by mapping next hop network layer addresses to the
   link layer addresses of a router peer.  A link layer encapsulation is
   used, most commonly ethernet, as for the bridge case.

   As noted above, however, in cases where all of the CPE nodes
   connected to the VPLS are routers, then it may be possible, due to
   the constrained addressing space of the VPLS, to use encapsulations
   that use a different address space than normal MAC addressing.  See,
   for instance, [11], for a proposed mechanism for VPLSs over MPLS
   networks, leveraging earlier work on VPRN support over MPLS [38],
   which proposes MPLS as the tunneling mechanism, and locally assigned
   MPLS labels as the link layer addressing scheme to identify the CPE
   LSR routers connected to the VPLS.

7.1.7  VPLS Edge Node Forwarding and Reachability Mechanisms

7.1.7.1  Bridge CPE

   The only practical VPLS edge node forwarding mechanism in this case
   is likely to be standard link layer packet flooding and MAC address
   learning, as per [65].  As such, no explicit intra-VPLS reachability
   protocol will be needed, though there will be a need for broadcast
   mechanisms to flood traffic, as discussed above.  In general, it may
   not prove necessary to also implement the Spanning Tree protocol
   between VPLS edge nodes, if the VPLS topology is such that no VPLS
   edge node is used for transit traffic between any other VPLS edge
   nodes - in other words, where there is both full mesh connectivity
   and transit is explicitly precluded.  On the other hand, the CPE
   bridges may well implement the spanning tree protocol in order to
   safeguard against 'backdoor' paths that bypass connectivity through
   the VPLS.

7.1.7.2  Router CPE

   Standard bridging techniques can also be used in this case.  In
   addition, the smaller link layer address space of such a VPLS may
   also permit other techniques, with explicit link layer routes between
   CPE routers.  [11], for instance, proposes that MPLS LSPs be set up,
   at the insertion of any new CPE router into the VPLS, between all CPE



Gleeson, et al.              Informational                     [Page 54]

RFC 2764           IP Based Virtual Private Networks       February 2000


   LSRs.  This then precludes the need for packet flooding.  In the more
   general case, if stub link reachability mechanisms were used to
   configure VPLS edge nodes with the link layer addresses of the CPE
   routers connected to them, then modifications of any of the intra-VPN
   reachability mechanisms discussed for VPRNs could be used to
   propagate this information to each other VPLS edge node.  This would
   then allow for packet forwarding across the VPLS without flooding.

   Mechanisms could also be developed to further propagate the link
   layer addresses of peer CPE routers and their corresponding network
   layer addresses across the stub links to the CPE routers, where such
   information could be inserted into the CPE router's address
   resolution tables.  This would then also preclude the need for
   broadcast address resolution protocols across the VPLS.

   Clearly there would be no need for the support of spanning tree
   protocols if explicit link layer routes were determined across the
   VPLS.  If normal flooding mechanisms were used then spanning tree
   would only be required if full mesh connectivity was not available
   and hence VPLS nodes had to carry transit traffic.

7.2  Recommendations

   There is significant commonality between VPRNs and VPLSs, and, where
   possible, this similarity should be exploited in order to reduce
   development and configuration complexity.  In particular, VPLSs
   should utilize the same tunneling and membership configuration
   mechanisms, with changes only to reflect the specific characteristics
   of VPLSs.

8.0  Summary of Recommendations

   In this document different types of VPNs have been discussed
   individually, but there are many common requirements and mechanisms
   that apply to all types of VPNs, and many networks will contain a mix
   of different types of VPNs.  It is useful to have as much commonality
   as possible across these different VPN types.  In particular, by
   standardizing a relatively small number of mechanisms, it is possible
   to allow a wide variety of VPNs to be implemented.

   The benefits of adding support for the following mechanisms should be
   carefully examined.

   For IKE/IPSec:

   -  the transport of a VPN-ID when establishing an SA (3.1.2)

   -  a null encryption and null authentication option (3.1.3)



Gleeson, et al.              Informational                     [Page 55]

RFC 2764           IP Based Virtual Private Networks       February 2000


   -  multiprotocol operation (3.1.4)

   -  frame sequencing (3.1.5)

   -  asymmetric / legacy user authentication (6.3)

   -  host address assignment and configuration (6.3)

   For L2TP:

   -  defining modes of operation of IPSec when used to support L2TP
      (3.2)

   For VPNs generally:

   -  defining a VPN membership information configuration and
      dissemination mechanism, that uses some form of directory or MIB
      (5.3.2)

   -  ensure that solutions developed, as far as possible, are
      applicable to different types of VPNs, rather than being specific
      to a single type of VPN.

9.0  Security Considerations

   Security considerations are an integral part of any VPN mechanisms,
   and these are discussed in the sections describing those mechanisms.

10.0  Acknowledgements

   Thanks to Anthony Alles, of Nortel Networks, for his invaluable
   assistance with the generation of this document, and who developed
   much of the material on which early versions of this document were
   based.  Thanks also to Joel Halpern for his helpful review comments.

11.0  References

   [1]  ATM Forum. "LAN Emulation over ATM 1.0", af-lane-0021.000,
        January 1995.

   [2]  ATM Forum. "Multi-Protocol Over ATM Specification v1.0", af-
        mpoa-0087.000, June 1997.

   [3]  Ferguson, P. and Huston, G. "What is a VPN?", Revision 1, April
        1 1998; http://www.employees.org/~ferguson/vpn.pdf.






Gleeson, et al.              Informational                     [Page 56]

RFC 2764           IP Based Virtual Private Networks       February 2000


   [4]  Rekhter, Y., Moskowitz, B., Karrenberg, D., de Groot, G. and E.
        Lear, "Address Allocation for Private Internets", BCP 5, RFC
        1918, February 1996.

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

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

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

   [8]  Townsley, W., Valencia, A., Rubens, A., Pall, G., Zorn, G. and
        B. Palter, "Layer Two Tunneling Protocol "L2TP"", RFC 2661,
        August 1999.

   [9]  Rosen, E., et al., "Multiprotocol Label Switching Architecture",
        Work in Progress.

   [10] Heinanen, J., et al., "MPLS Mappings of Generic VPN Mechanisms",
        Work in Progress.

   [11] Jamieson, D., et al., "MPLS VPN Architecture", Work in Progress.

   [12] Casey, L., et al., "IP VPN Realization using MPLS Tunnels", Work
        in Progress.

   [13] Li, T. "CPE based VPNs using MPLS", Work in Progress.

   [14] Muthukrishnan, K. and A. Malis, "Core MPLS IP VPN Architecture",
        Work in Progress.

   [15] Rosen, E. and Y. Rekhter, "BGP/MPLS VPNs", RFC 2547, March 1999.

   [16] Fox, B. and B. Gleeson, "Virtual Private Networks Identifier",
        RFC 2685, September 1999.

   [17] Petri, B. (editor) "MPOA v1.1 Addendum on VPN support", ATM
        Forum, af-mpoa-0129.000.

   [18] Harkins, D. and C. Carrel, "The Internet Key Exchange (IKE)",
        RFC 2409, November 1998.

   [19] Calhoun, P., et al., "Tunnel Establishment Protocol", Work in
        Progress.





Gleeson, et al.              Informational                     [Page 57]

RFC 2764           IP Based Virtual Private Networks       February 2000


   [20] Andersson, L., et al., "LDP Specification", Work in Progress.

   [21] Jamoussi, B., et al., "Constraint-Based LSP Setup using LDP"
        Work in Progress.

   [22] Awduche, D., et al., "Extensions to RSVP for LSP Tunnels", Work
        in Progress.

   [23] Kent, S. and R. Atkinson, "IP Encapsulating Security Protocol
        (ESP)", RFC 2406, November 1998.

   [24] Simpson, W., Editor, "The Point-to-Point Protocol (PPP)", STD
        51, RFC 1661, July 1994.

   [25] Perez, M., Liaw, F., Mankin, A., Hoffman, E., Grossman, D. and
        A. Malis, "ATM Signalling Support for IP over ATM", RFC 1755,
        February 1995.

   [26] Malkin, G.  "RIP Version 2  Carrying Additional Information",
        RFC 1723, November 1994.

   [27] Moy, J., "OSPF Version 2", STD 54, RFC 2328, April 1998.

   [28] Shacham, A., Monsour, R., Pereira, R. and M. Thomas, "IP Payload
        Compression Protocol (IPComp)", RFC 2393, December 1998.

   [29] Duffield N., et al., "A Performance Oriented Service Interface
        for Virtual Private Networks", Work in Progress.

   [30] Jacobson, V., Nichols, K. and B. Poduri, "An Expedited
        Forwarding PHB", RFC 2598, June 1999.

   [31] Casey, L., "An extended IP VPN Architecture", Work in Progress.

   [32] Rekhter, Y., and T. Li, "A Border Gateway Protocol 4 (BGP-4),"
        RFC 1771, March 1995.

   [33] Grossman, D. and J. Heinanen, "Multiprotocol Encapsulation over
        ATM Adaptation Layer 5", RFC 2684, September 1999.

   [34] Wahl, M., Howes, T. and S. Kille, "Lightweight Directory Access
        Protocol (v3)", RFC 2251, December 1997.

   [35] Boyle, J., et al., "The COPS (Common Open Policy Service)
        Protocol", RFC 2748, January 2000.

   [36] MacRae, M. and S. Ayandeh, "Using COPS for VPN Connectivity"
        Work in Progress.



Gleeson, et al.              Informational                     [Page 58]

RFC 2764           IP Based Virtual Private Networks       February 2000


   [37] Droms, R., "Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol", RFC 2131,
        March 1997.

   [38] Heinanen, J. and E. Rosen, "VPN Support with MPLS", Work in
        Progress.

   [39] Estrin, D., Farinacci, D., Helmy, A., Thaler, D., Deering, S.,
        Handley, M., Jacobson, V., Liu, C., Sharma, P. and L. Wei,
        "Protocol Independent Multicast-Sparse Mode (PIM-SM): Protocol
        Specification", RFC 2362, June 1998.

   [40] Waitzman, D., Partridge, C., and S. Deering, "Distance Vector
        Multicast Routing Protocol", RFC 1075, November 1988.

   [41] Fenner, W., "IGMP-based Multicast Forwarding (IGMP Proxying)",
        Work in Progress.

   [42] Wallner, D., Harder, E. and R. Agee, "Key Management for
        Multicast: Issues and Architectures", RFC 2627, June 1999.

   [43] Hardjono, T., et al., "Secure IP Multicast: Problem areas,
        Framework, and Building Blocks", Work in Progress.

   [44] Rigney, C., Rubens, A., Simpson, W. and S. Willens, "Remote
        Authentication Dial In User Service (RADIUS)", RFC 2138, April
        1997.

   [45] Valencia, A., Littlewood, M. and T. Kolar, "Cisco Layer Two
        Forwarding (Protocol) "L2F"", RFC 2341, May 1998.

   [46] Hamzeh, K., Pall, G., Verthein, W., Taarud, J., Little, W. and
        G. Zorn, "Point-to-Point Tunneling Protocol (PPTP)", RFC 2637,
        July 1999.

   [47] Patel, B., et al., "Securing L2TP using IPSEC", Work in
        Progress.

   [48] Srisuresh, P., "Secure Remote Access with L2TP", Work in
        Progress.

   [49] Calhoun, P., et al., "Layer Two Tunneling Protocol "L2TP"
        Security Extensions for Non-IP networks", Work in Progress.

   [50] Aboba, B. and Zorn, G. "Implementation of PPTP/L2TP Compulsory
        Tunneling via RADIUS", Work in progress.

   [51] Aboba, B. and G. Zorn, "Criteria for Evaluating Roaming
        Protocols", RFC 2477, January 1999.



Gleeson, et al.              Informational                     [Page 59]

RFC 2764           IP Based Virtual Private Networks       February 2000


   [52] Shea, R., "L2TP-over-IP Path MTU Discovery (L2TPMTU)", Work in
        Progress.

   [53] Sklower, K., Lloyd, B., McGregor, G., Carr, D. and T.
        Coradetti, "The PPP Multilink Protocol (MP)", RFC 1990, August
        1996.

   [54] Richards, C. and K. Smith, "The PPP Bandwidth Allocation
        Protocol (BAP) The PPP Bandwidth Allocation Control Protocol
        (BACP)", RFC 2125, March 1997.

   [55] Calhoun, P. and K. Peirce, "Layer Two Tunneling Protocol "L2TP"
        IP Differential Services Extension", Work in Progress.

   [56] ADSL Forum. "An Interoperable End-to-end Broadband Service
        Architecture over ADSL Systems (Version 3.0)", ADSL Forum 97-
        215.

   [57] ADSL Forum. "Core Network Architectures for ADSL Access Systems
        (Version 1.01)", ADSL Forum 98-017.

   [58] Gupta, V., "Secure, Remote Access over the Internet using
        IPSec", Work in Progress.

   [59] Pereira, R., et al., "The ISAKMP Configuration Method", Work in
        Progress.

   [60] Pereira, R. and S. Beaulieu, "Extended Authentication Within
        ISAKMP/Oakley", Work in Progress.

   [61] Litvin, M., et al., "A Hybrid Authentication Mode for IKE", Work
        in Progress.

   [62] Kelly, S., et al., "User-level Authentication Mechanisms for
        IPsec", Work in Progress.

   [63] Patel, B., et al., "DHCP Configuration of IPSEC Tunnel Mode",
        Work in Progress.

   [64] Mamakos, L., Lidl, K., Evarts, J., Carrel, D., Simone, D. and R.
        Wheeler, "A Method for Transmitting PPP Over Ethernet (PPPoE)",
        RFC 2516, February 1999.

   [65] ANSI/IEEE - 10038: 1993 (ISO/IEC) Information technology -
        Telecommunications and information exchange between systems -
        Local area networks - Media access control (MAC) bridges,
        ANSI/IEEE Std 802.1D, 1993 Edition.




Gleeson, et al.              Informational                     [Page 60]

RFC 2764           IP Based Virtual Private Networks       February 2000


12.0  Author Information

   Bryan Gleeson
   Nortel Networks
   4500 Great America Parkway
   Santa Clara CA 95054
   USA

   Phone: +1 (408) 548 3711
   EMail: bgleeson@shastanets.com

   Juha Heinanen
   Telia Finland, Inc.
   Myyrmaentie 2
   01600 VANTAA
   Finland

   Phone: +358 303 944 808
   EMail: jh@telia.fi

   Arthur Lin
   Nortel Networks
   4500 Great America Parkway
   Santa Clara CA 95054
   USA

   Phone: +1 (408) 548 3788
   EMail: alin@shastanets.com

   Grenville Armitage
   Bell Labs Research Silicon Valley
   Lucent Technologies
   3180 Porter Drive,
   Palo Alto, CA 94304
   USA

   EMail: gja@lucent.com

   Andrew G. Malis
   Lucent Technologies
   1 Robbins Road
   Westford, MA 01886
   USA

   Phone: +1 978 952 7414
   EMail: amalis@lucent.com





Gleeson, et al.              Informational                     [Page 61]

RFC 2764           IP Based Virtual Private Networks       February 2000


13.0  Full Copyright Statement

   Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2000).  All Rights Reserved.

   This document and translations of it may be copied and furnished to
   others, and derivative works that comment on or otherwise explain it
   or assist in its implementation may be prepared, copied, published
   and distributed, in whole or in part, without restriction of any
   kind, provided that the above copyright notice and this paragraph are
   included on all such copies and derivative works.  However, this
   document itself may not be modified in any way, such as by removing
   the copyright notice or references to the Internet Society or other
   Internet organizations, except as needed for the purpose of
   developing Internet standards in which case the procedures for
   copyrights defined in the Internet Standards process must be
   followed, or as required to translate it into languages other than
   English.

   The limited permissions granted above are perpetual and will not be
   revoked by the Internet Society or its successors or assigns.

   This document and the information contained herein is provided on an
   "AS IS" basis and THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING
   TASK FORCE DISCLAIMS 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.

Acknowledgement

   Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the
   Internet Society.



















Gleeson, et al.              Informational                     [Page 62]


Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.107, available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/