[Docs] [txt|pdf] [draft-ietf-l3vpn-...] [Diff1] [Diff2] [Errata]

INFORMATIONAL
Errata Exist
Network Working Group                                           E. Rosen
Request for Comments: 4365                           Cisco Systems, Inc.
Category: Informational                                    February 2006


                Applicability Statement for BGP/MPLS IP
                    Virtual Private Networks (VPNs)

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 (2006).

Abstract

   This document provides an Applicability Statement for the Virtual
   Private Network (VPN) solution described in RFC 4364 and other
   documents listed in the References section.

Table of Contents

   1. Introduction ....................................................2
   2. SP Provisioning Model ...........................................4
   3. Supported Topologies and Traffic Types ..........................6
   4. Isolated Exchange of Data and Routing Information ...............7
   5. Access Control and Authentication ...............................9
   6. Security Considerations .........................................9
      6.1. Protection of User Data ....................................9
      6.2. SP Security Measures ......................................10
      6.3. Security Framework Template ...............................12
   7. Addressing .....................................................18
   8. Interoperability and Interworking ..............................19
   9. Network Access .................................................19
      9.1. Physical/Link Layer Topology ..............................19
      9.2. Temporary Access ..........................................19
      9.3. Access Connectivity .......................................20
   10. Service Access ................................................21
      10.1. Internet Access ..........................................21
      10.2. Other Services ...........................................21
   11. SP Routing ....................................................22
   12. Migration Impact ..............................................22
   13. Scalability ...................................................23
   14. QoS, SLA ......................................................26



Rosen                        Informational                      [Page 1]

RFC 4365      Applicability Statement for BGP/MPLS IP VPNs February 2006


   15. Management ....................................................27
      15.1. Management by the Provider ...............................27
      15.2. Management by the Customer ...............................28
   16. Acknowledgements ..............................................28
   17. Normative References ..........................................29
   18. Informative References ........................................29

1.  Introduction

   This document provides an Applicability Statement for the Virtual
   Private Network (VPN) solution described in [BGP-MPLS-IP-VPN] and
   other documents listed in the References section.  We refer to these
   as "BGP/MPLS IP VPNs", because Border Gateway Protocol (BGP) is used
   to distribute the routes, and Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) is
   used to indicate that particular packets need to follow particular
   routes.  The characteristics of BGP/MPLS IP VPNs are compared with
   the requirements specified in [L3VPN-REQS].

   A VPN service is provided by a Service Provider (SP) to a customer
   (sometimes referred to as an enterprise).  BGP/MPLS IP VPNs are
   intended for the situation in which:

     - The customer:

         * uses the VPN only for carrying IP packets.

         * does not want to manage a routed backbone; the customer may
           be using routing within his sites, but wishes to outsource
           the inter-site routing to the SP.

         * wants the SP to make the backbone and its routing completely
           transparent to the customer's own routing.

           If the customer has a routed infrastructure at his sites, he
           does not want his site routing algorithms to need to be aware
           of any part of the SP backbone network, other than the
           Provider Edge (PE) routers to which the sites are attached.
           In particular, the customer does not want his routers to need
           to be aware of either the native structure of the SP backbone
           or an overlay topology of tunnels through the SP backbone.

     - The Service Provider:

         * has an IP backbone, with MPLS-enabled edge routers, and
           possibly (though not necessarily) with MPLS-enabled core
           routers.





Rosen                        Informational                      [Page 2]

RFC 4365      Applicability Statement for BGP/MPLS IP VPNs February 2006


         * wants to provide a service that meets the customer
           requirements above.

         * does not want to maintain a distinct overlay topology of
           tunnels for each customer.

   The basic principle is to model each VPN as a self-contained
   "internet", where each site makes one or more access connections to
   an SP, sends the SP its routing information, and then relies on the
   SP to distribute routing information to and from the other sites in
   that same VPN.  The service differs from Internet service, however,
   in that the SP strictly controls the distribution of this routing
   information so that routes from within a VPN are not sent outside the
   VPN, unless that is explicitly authorized by the customer.  In fact,
   even within the VPN, the distribution of routes may be controlled by
   the SP so as to meet some policy of the customer.

   The routers at a given customer site need not be routing peers of the
   routers at other customer sites, and indeed need not know anything
   about the internal structure of other customer sites.  In fact,
   different routing protocols may run at the different sites, with each
   site using whatever protocol is most appropriate for that particular
   site.

   If EBGP (the BGP procedures used between BGP speakers from different
   Autonomous Systems) is used on the access links that connect a
   Provider Edge router (PE router) to a Customer Edge router (CE
   router), then the SP and the customer do NOT peer in any Interior
   Gateway Protocol (IGP), i.e., intra-domain routing algorithm).

   BGP/MPLS IP VPNs are optimized for the situation in which a customer
   (an enterprise) expects a service provider to operate and maintain
   the customer's "backbone" (i.e., the customer's inter-site routing).
   As such, the service provider becomes a "business partner" of the
   enterprise.  The technical mechanisms accommodate the case in which a
   number of closely cooperating SPs can jointly offer the VPN service
   to a customer, in that the BGP-based route distribution mechanisms
   can operate between different SPs.  If a set of SPs has sufficient
   agreements with respect to Quality of Service (QoS), Service Level
   Agreement (SLA), etc., then the customer's VPN could have sites
   attached to different SPs from that set.

   [BGP-MPLS-IP-VPN] specifies the inter-AS (Autonomous System)
   mechanisms that allow a single VPN to have sites attached to
   different SPs.  However, the design center is not an environment
   where a given VPN is spread among a very large number (e.g.,
   hundreds) of SPs.




Rosen                        Informational                      [Page 3]

RFC 4365      Applicability Statement for BGP/MPLS IP VPNs February 2006


   In cases where remote offices, individual telecommuters, etc., must
   use the public Internet to access the VPN, it is possible to "tunnel"
   the remote traffic to a PE router, and the PE router will treat the
   traffic as if it had arrived over an interface connected to the PE.
   Remote Point-to-Point Protocol (PPP) connections can be tunneled via
   Layer 2 Tunneling Protocol (L2TP) to a PE router; IPsec tunnels can
   also be used to tunnel traffic to a PE router across the public
   Internet.  Of course, when the public Internet is used, issues such
   as QoS and SLAs must be carefully considered.

   Some customers want to connect their sites over the public Internet,
   creating a VPN "virtual backbone", purchasing connectivity for a
   given site from whatever Internet Service Provider (ISP) offers the
   best price for connecting that site.  A BGP/MPLS IP VPN is not an
   appropriate solution for such customers; they instead need to
   consider solutions (either customer-managed or provider-managed) that
   interconnect their sites via an overlay of secure tunnels across the
   Internet.  (See, for example, [IPSEC-VPN].)

   Some customers who do not want to connect their sites via secure
   site-to-site tunnels across the Internet may nevertheless want to
   maintain complete control over the routing in their VPN backbone.
   These customers will not want a "managed routing service" such as is
   provided by BGP/MPLS IP VPNs, since that hides all details of the
   backbone routing and topology from the customer.  Rather, they may
   prefer a "virtual router" service, in which the tunnels through the
   SP networks are visible as links to the customer's routing algorithm.
   (See, for example, [VR-VPN].)

2.  SP Provisioning Model

   If a particular VPN attaches to a particular PE router, the SP must
   configure that PE router with a VPN Routing and Forwarding table
   (VRF), a routing table that is specific to the specified VPN.  (This
   is known as a VPN Forwarding Instance (VFI) in the language of
   [L3VPN-REQS] and [L3VPN-FRMWRK].)  Each interface or sub-interface at
   that PE that attaches to a site in the specified VPN (i.e., each
   local access link of that VPN) must be configured so as to be
   associated with that VRF.  Each such interface may be unnumbered or
   may be assigned an address that is unique within the VPN's address
   space.  In general, a routing algorithm needs to be run on each of
   these links (though static routing can be used instead).  The routing
   algorithm can be EBGP, or an IGP such as Routing Information Protocol
   (RIP) or Open Shortest Path First (OSPF).  (IF OSPF is used, the
   procedures of [VPN-OSPF] MUST be implemented.)  If an IGP is run on
   the access links, the IGP MUST be a separate IGP instance, different





Rosen                        Informational                      [Page 4]

RFC 4365      Applicability Statement for BGP/MPLS IP VPNs February 2006


   than the IGP instance running among the backbone routers, and
   different than the IGP instance running on the access links of any
   other VPN.  Static routing is also allowed.

   The VRF is populated automatically with routes distributed from
   locally attached CE routers via whatever routing algorithm is run on
   the PE/CE links.  It is also populated automatically with routes
   distributed from other VRFs via BGP.  Standard routing decision
   processes are used to automatically select the proper routes.  Static
   configuration of routes in the VRF is optional.

   Each PE router must run BGP, and must be pre-configured with the
   identities of a small set of BGP Route Reflectors, with which it is
   to peer via IBGP.  ("IBGP" refers to the BGP procedures used between
   BGP speakers from the same Autonomous System.)

   In lieu of using Route Reflectors, one could configure each PE with
   the identities of all the other PEs, and set up a full mesh of IBGP
   connections.  While this might be adequate for small networks, it
   would not scale well to large networks; the use of Route Reflectors
   is necessary to achieve scalability.  See section 4.3.3 of
   [BGP-MPLS-IP-VPN] for a more complete discussion of the use of Route
   Reflectors, and related scalability mechanisms such as Outbound Route
   Filtering.

   Each VRF must be configured with three parameters:

     - A Route Distinguisher.  This is a globally unique 8-byte value.
       Each VRF may have a unique Route Distinguisher (RD), or there may
       be a single unique RD for an entire VPN.  When BGP is used to
       distribute VPN routing information across the SP backbone, this
       value is prepended to the VPN's IPv4 address prefixes, creating a
       new address family, the VPN-IPv4 address family.  Thus, even when
       two VPNs have overlapping IPv4 address spaces, they have unique
       VPN-IPv4 address spaces.

     - One or more Export Route Targets.  A Route Target (RT) is a
       globally unique 8-byte value that BGP carries, as the Extended
       Communities Route Target attribute, along with routes that are
       exported form the VRF.

     - One or more Import Route Targets.  This RT is used to select
       routes to be imported from other VRFs into this VRF.

   In the simplest cases and most common cases, the Export RT, Import
   RT, and RD can be identical, and all VRFs in the same VPN will
   distribute routes to each other (a typical intranet).  In more
   complex cases, they can be set differently, allowing a very fine



Rosen                        Informational                      [Page 5]

RFC 4365      Applicability Statement for BGP/MPLS IP VPNs February 2006


   degree of control over the distribution of routes among VRFs.  This
   can be used to create extranets or to enforce various customer
   policies.  In complicated cases, particular Export RTs can be
   assigned to particular routes using router management mechanisms.
   One advantage to not requiring the RD to be the same as any RT is
   that this may allow an RD value to be automatically determined for
   each VRF; RT values, on the other hand, must always be configured.

   Adding a new site to a VPN is a matter of attaching the site's CE
   router to a PE router, configuring the interface, and, if a VRF for
   that VPN already exists in the PE router, associating that interface
   with the VRF.  If a VRF for that VPN does not already exist in the
   PE, then one must be configured as specified above.  Changes to the
   configuration of a PE are automatically reflected via BGP to the
   other PEs.

   The RTs and RDs are made unique by being structured as an SP
   identifier followed by a number which is assigned by the identified
   SP.  SPs may be identified by their AS numbers, or by a registered IP
   address owned by that SP.

   Although RTs are encoded as BGP Extended Communities, the encoding
   itself distinguishes them from any other kind of BGP Extended
   Community.

3.  Supported Topologies and Traffic Types

   The scheme is optimized for full inter-site connectivity, in the
   sense that this is what the simplest configurations provide.

   However, the SP has full control, through the mechanism of Route
   Targets, of the distribution of routing information among the set of
   VRFs.  This enables the SP to provide hub-and-spoke or partial mesh
   connectivity as well as full mesh connectivity.

   Note that, strictly speaking, the scheme does not create a topology,
   as it does not create layer 2 connections among the sites.  It does,
   however, allow for control over the IP connectivity among the sites.
   It is also possible to constrain the distribution of routing in
   arbitrary ways, e.g., so that data from site A to site B must travel
   through a third site C.  (In fact, if it is desired to do so, this
   level of control can be specified at the granularity of a single
   route.)

   It is possible for some of the routes from a particular customer site
   A to be distributed to one set of remote sites, while other routes
   from site A are distributed to a different set of remote sites.  This
   is done with the Route Target mechanism previously described.



Rosen                        Informational                      [Page 6]

RFC 4365      Applicability Statement for BGP/MPLS IP VPNs February 2006


   Unicast IP traffic is fully supported.  Customer IP packets are
   passed transparently.

   Multicast IP traffic is optionally supported, if the SP provides the
   optional mechanisms of [BGP-MPLS-MCAST-VPN].  There are, however,
   scaling implications to the use of these mechanisms.  Discussion of
   these implications is deferred.

   Non-IP traffic is not supported.  If support for non-IP traffic is
   necessary, either the SP must additionally provide a layer 2
   tunneling service or the customer must use IP tunneling.

   In general, customer routers at different sites do not become routing
   peers.  However, a customer may, if he so desires, allow routers at
   different sites to be routing peers over a link that is NOT part of
   the VPN service.  Such peering relationships are known as "IGP
   backdoors".  To ensure the proper operation of routing when IGP
   backdoors are present, each VPN route that is distributed by the SP
   is distributed along with a corresponding routing metric.  This
   enables the customer's IGP to compare the "backdoor routes" properly
   with the routes that use the SP backbone.  In the particular case
   where a customer running OSPF within his sites wishes to have IGP
   backdoors, he should run OSPF on the PE/CE link, and the PEs should
   run the procedures of [VPN-OSPF].  (The CEs do NOT require any
   special OSPF procedures.)

4.  Isolated Exchange of Data and Routing Information

   The Route Target mechanism is used to control the distribution of
   routing information, so that routes from one VPN do not get sent to
   another.  VPN routes are treated by BGP as a different address family
   than general Internet routes.  Routes from a VRF do not get leaked to
   the Internet unless the VRF has been explicitly configured to allow
   it (and this is NOT the default).

   The way in which a particular VPN is divided into sites, or the
   topology of any particular VPN site, is hidden from the Internet and
   from other VPNs.  (Of course, if a particular site can receive
   Internet traffic, and if it responds to traceroute probes from the
   Internet, then any user of the Internet can learn something about the
   site topology.  The fact that the site is in a VPN does not make this
   any easier or any harder.)

   Similarly, Internet routes do not get leaked into the VPN, unless a
   VRF of that VPN is explicitly configured to import the Internet
   routes.





Rosen                        Informational                      [Page 7]

RFC 4365      Applicability Statement for BGP/MPLS IP VPNs February 2006


   Proper configuration is essential to maintaining the isolation.  In
   particular, each access link must be associated with the proper VRF
   for that access link, and each VRF must be configured with the proper
   set of RTs.

   A number of means for exchanging reachability information between the
   PE and CE devices are supported:  static routing, EBGP, and RIP are
   supported by the procedures of [BGP-MPLS-IP-VPN].  If the procedures
   of [VPN-OSPF] and [OSPF-2547-DNBIT] are implemented, OSPF may be
   used.  If OSPF is used between two VPN sites that are in the same
   OSPF area, and if it is desired for routes over the VPN backbone to
   be preferred to the OSPF intra-site routes, then the "sham link"
   procedures of [VPN-OSPF] must be used.

   The routing protocols used among the customer routers are not in any
   way restricted by the VPN scheme, as whatever IGP is used within the
   VPN, the PE/CE access links may run EBGP, or may otherwise be in a
   different routing domain than the site's internal links.

   BGP is used for passing routing information among SPs.  BGP may be
   authenticated by use of the TCP MD5 option, or by operating through
   an IPsec tunnel.

   Data traveling between two customer sites is encapsulated while in
   transit through the backbone.  The encapsulation contains sufficient
   information to ensure that the packet is sent to the proper PE
   router, and then, in conjunction with the VRF and related information
   at that PE, to the proper CE routers.

   If two VPNs attach to the same PE, there is strict separation of
   forwarding at that PE, as well as strict separation of the routing
   information.

   Isolation of traffic is similar to that provided by classical L2 VPNs
   which are based on Frame Relay or Asynchronous Transfer Mode (ATM).
   As in classical L2 VPNs, the customer must rely on the SP to properly
   configure the backbone network to ensure proper isolation and to
   maintain the security of his communications gear.













Rosen                        Informational                      [Page 8]

RFC 4365      Applicability Statement for BGP/MPLS IP VPNs February 2006


5.  Access Control and Authentication

   No particular means of PE/CE authentication is specified for BGP/MPLS
   IP VPNs.  PE/CE mutual authentication may be done via any mechanism
   supported by the routing protocol in which the CE and PE are peers
   (e.g., use of the TCP MD5 authentication when the PE/CE protocol is
   BGP), or by any other mechanism that may be desired.  With such
   mechanisms in place, a CE may not join a VPN until the CE
   authenticates itself to the Service Provider.

   There is, however, no standardized method that requires a CE to
   authenticate itself to the customer network (rather than to the SP)
   before the CE is allowed to join the VPN.  This is for further study.

   No particular means is specified for controlling which user data
   packets can be forwarded by BGP/MPLS IP VPNs.  BGP/MPLS IP VPNs are
   compatible with Access Control Lists (ACLs) and any other filtering
   features that are supported on the PE routers.  Routing can be set up
   so that extranet traffic is directly through a firewall, if that is
   desired.

   It is possible for various sorts of "tunnel interfaces" to be
   associated with a VRF.  In this case, whatever authentication is
   natively used in the establishment of the tunnel interface may be
   used.  For example, an IPsec tunnel can be used as an "access link"
   to attach a remote user or site to a VRF.  The authentication
   procedure in this case is part of IPsec, not part of the VPN scheme.

   Where L2TP is used, each PPP session carried in an L2TP tunnel can be
   associated with a VRF.  The SP's Authentication, Authorization, and
   Accounting (AAA) server can be used to determine the VPN to which the
   PPP session belongs, and then the customer's AAA server can be given
   the opportunity to authenticate that session as well.

6.  Security Considerations

6.1.  Protection of User Data

   No particular means of ensuring user data security is specified for
   BGP/MPLS IP VPNs.

   The optional procedures of [MPLS/BGP-IPsec] may be used to provide
   authentication and/or encryption of user data as it travels from the
   ingress PE to the egress PE.  However, the data is exposed at those
   two PEs, as well as on the PE/CE access links.






Rosen                        Informational                      [Page 9]

RFC 4365      Applicability Statement for BGP/MPLS IP VPNs February 2006


   The customer may provide his own user data security by using IPsec
   tunnels that terminate within the customer sites.  Such tunnels are
   transparent to the VPN scheme.  Schemes that discover the remote
   tunnel endpoints automatically and then set up the tunnels
   automatically as needed are the best fit with this VPN technology.
   Note that there is no requirement in general that IPsec tunnels
   between customer sites terminate at CE routers.

   The use of end-to-end transport mode IPsec by the customer is also
   transparent to the VPN scheme.  In fact, the VPN scheme is compatible
   with any use of security by the customer, as long as a cleartext IP
   header is passed from CE to PE.

   When data must cross the Internet to reach the ingress PE router,
   IPsec tunnels between the end user and the PE router can be used; the
   PE router must then associate each IPsec tunnel with the proper VRF.
   This association would have to be based on user-specific information
   provided by the Internet Key Exchange (IKE) protocol, such as a VPN-
   id.

   If data is going from one SP network to another, and must cross the
   public Internet to get between those two networks, IPsec tunnels can
   be used to secure the data.  This would require bilateral agreement
   between the two SPs.  BGP connections can also be passed through an
   IPsec tunnel if this is deemed necessary, in order to protect user
   data, by a pair of SPs.  QoS/SLA factors would have to be carefully
   considered in this case.

6.2.  SP Security Measures

   The SP is responsible for preventing illegitimate traffic from
   entering a VPN.  VPN traffic is always encapsulated while traveling
   on the backbone, so preventing illegitimate traffic is a matter of
   ensuring that the PE routers to the encapsulation/decapsulation
   correctly and that encapsulations have not been "spoofed", i.e., that
   the encapsulated packets were actually encapsulated by PE routers.

   This requires the SP to take various security measures.  The PE and P
   routers must themselves be secure against break-ins (either from
   someone physically present or from the Internet), and neither P nor
   PE routers should form routing adjacencies to other P or PE routers
   without benefit of some kind of security.  This may be authentication
   in the IGP, or physical security.








Rosen                        Informational                     [Page 10]

RFC 4365      Applicability Statement for BGP/MPLS IP VPNs February 2006


   The PE/CE access link should be secured in some manner, though the
   provider may make it the responsibility of the customer to ensure
   that the CE is secure from compromise.  If the PE/CE access link is a
   tunnel over the Internet, then of course some sort of authentication
   protocol should always be used.

   Label Distribution Protocol (LDP) sessions and BGP sessions between
   PE and/or P routers should be authenticated.  This can be done via
   the TCP MD5 option or by use of IPsec.

   If the SP is providing the VPN service over an MPLS backbone, it
   should not accept MPLS packets from its external interfaces (i.e.,
   interfaces to CE devices or to other providers' networks) unless the
   top label of the packet was legitimately distributed to the system
   from which the packet is being received.  If the packet's incoming
   interface leads to a different SP (rather than to a customer), an
   appropriate trust relationship must also be present, including the
   trust that the other SP also provides appropriate security measures.

   If the SP is providing the VPN service by using an IP (rather than an
   MPLS) encapsulation, or if it accepts IP-encapsulated VPN packets
   from other SPs, it should apply filtering at its borders so that it
   does not accept from other SPs or from customers any IP packets that
   are addressed to the PE routers, unless appropriate trust
   relationships are in place.

   Cryptographic authentication of the encapsulated data packets is
   certainly advantageous when there are multiple SPs providing a single
   VPN.

   When a dynamic routing protocol is run on the link between a CE
   router and a PE router, routing instability in the private network
   may have an effect on the PE router.  For example, an unusually large
   number of routing updates could be sent from the CE router to the PE
   router, placing an unusually large processing load on the PE router.
   This can potentially be used as a Denial-of-Service (DoS) attack on
   the PE router.

   This issue can be mitigated via resource partitioning in the PE, in
   order to limit the amount of resources (e.g., CPU and memory) that
   any one VPN is permitted to use in PE routers.  Also, rate limits may
   be applied to the routing traffic sent from the CE to the PE.
   Alternately, when this problem is detected, the CE-to-PE interface
   may be shut down.

   Network management traffic from the CE to the PE may be rate limited
   (for example, to prevent network management traffic from CE to PE to
   be used in a DoS attack).



Rosen                        Informational                     [Page 11]

RFC 4365      Applicability Statement for BGP/MPLS IP VPNs February 2006


6.3.  Security Framework Template

   Section 9 of [L2VPN-SEC-FRMWRK] provides "a brief template that may
   be used to evaluate and summarize how a given PPVPN [Provider-
   Provisioned Virtual Private Network] approach (solution) measures up
   against the PPVPN Security Framework".  It further states "an
   evaluation using this template should appear in the applicability
   statement for each PPVPN approach".  The purpose of this subsection
   is to provide the information in the form required by this template.
   Security requirements that are relevant only to L2VPNs are not
   applicable and are not further discussed.

     - Does the approach provides complete IP address space separation
       for each L3VPN?

       Yes.

       The IP address prefixes from a particular VPN appear in their
       native form only in routing tables that are specific to the
       particular VPN.  They are distributed in their native form only
       by routing instances that are specific to the particular VPN.
       When address prefixes from different VPNs are combined into a
       common table, or distributed by a common mechanism, the address
       prefixes are first prepended with a Route Distinguisher (RD).
       The RD is a 64-bit quantity, structured so that globally unique
       RD values can easily be created by an SP.  As long as no two VPNs
       are assigned the same RD value, complete IP address space
       separation is provided.  It is however possible for an SP to
       misconfigure the RD assignments.

     - Does the approach provide complete IP route separation for each
       L3VPN?

       Yes.

       The distribution of routes is controlled by assigning import and
       export Route Targets (RTs).  A route that is exported from a VRF
       carries an RT specified by the SP as an export RT for that VRF.
       The route can be imported into other VRFs only if the RT that it
       carries has been configured by the SP as an import RT for those
       other VRFS.  Thus, the SP has complete control over the set of
       VRFs to which a route will be distributed.  It is of course
       possible for the SP to misconfigure the RT assignments.








Rosen                        Informational                     [Page 12]

RFC 4365      Applicability Statement for BGP/MPLS IP VPNs February 2006


     - Does the approach provide a means to prevent improper cross-
       connection of sites in separate VPNs?

       This requirement is addressed in a way that is beyond the scope
       of the VPN mechanisms.

       In BGP/MPLS IP VPNs, an SP makes a particular site part of a
       particular VPN by configuring the PE router's interface to that
       site to be associated with a particular VRF in that PE.  The VRF
       is configured with import and export RTs, and it is the way in
       which VRFs are configured with RTs in the various PEs that
       results in a particular set of sites being connected as a VPN.

       Connecting the sites properly in this way is regarded as a
       network management function, and the VPN scheme itself does not
       provide a means to prevent misconfiguration.

       The VPN scheme does not provide any particular method for
       ensuring that a given interface from a PE leads to the CE that is
       expected to be there.  If a routing algorithm is run on a
       particular PE/CE interface, any security procedures that the
       routing algorithm provides (e.g., MD5 authentication of BGP
       sessions) can be used; this is outside the scope of the VPN
       scheme.  Also, a CE can attach to a PE via an IPsec tunnel, if
       this is desired, for a greater degree of security.

     - Does the approach provide a means to detect improper cross-
       connection of sites in separate VPNs?

       The base specifications for BGP/MPLS IP VPNs do not provide a
       means for detecting that a site has been connected to the wrong
       VPN.  However, the optional procedure specified in [CE-VERIF]
       does provide such a means.  Basically, each PE obtains, via
       protocol, a secret from each CE to which it is directly attached.
       When the routes from a given CE are distributed, the secret from
       that CE is attached as an attribute of the route.  This secret
       will ultimately be distributed to any other CE that receives any
       route from the given CE.  A CE that is not supposed to be part of
       a given VPN will not know the right secret, and if it is
       connected to the given VPN the other CEs in that VPN will realize
       that a CE that doesn't know the proper secret has been connected
       to the VPN.

     - Does the approach protect against the introduction of
       unauthorized packets into each VPN?

       We must look separately at the various points at which one might
       attempt to introduce unauthorized packets.



Rosen                        Informational                     [Page 13]

RFC 4365      Applicability Statement for BGP/MPLS IP VPNs February 2006


         * Packets arriving at a PE over a PE/CE interface

           If a given PE is directly connected to a given CE, the PE
           will accept any packets that the CE sends it.  The VPN scheme
           has no special procedures for determining that these packets
           actually came from the CE.  However, various means of
           securing the PE/CE connection can be used (for instance, the
           PE and CE can be connected by an IPsec tunnel) if desired.
           That is, this aspect of the requirement can be addressed by
           means that are outside the scope of the VPN specification.

           Once a packet has been accepted from a CE by a PE, the packet
           is routed according to the VRF associated with that PE's
           interface to that CE.  Such packets can only be sent along
           routes that are in that VRF.  There is no way a packet from a
           CE can be routed to an arbitrary VPN.  In particular, there
           is nothing a VPN user can do to cause any particular packet
           to be sent to the wrong VPN.  So this aspect of the
           requirement is fully addressed.

         * Packets arriving at a PE over an interface from the backbone

           The optional procedures of [MPLS/BGP-IPsec] can be used to
           ensure that a packet that is received by a PE from the
           backbone will not be recognized as a VPN packet unless it
           actually is one.  Those procedures also ensure that a
           received VPN packet came from a particular PE and that it
           carries the MPLS label that that PE put on it.  These
           procedures protect the packet from ingress PE to egress PE,
           but do not protect the PE/CE interfaces.

           If the optional procedures of [MPLS/BGP-IPsec] are not used,
           then the following considerations apply.

           Undetected corruption of the routing information carried in a
           packet's VPN encapsulation can result in misdelivery of the
           packet, possibly to the wrong VPN.

           If a packet enters an SP's network on an interface other than
           a PE/CE interface, the SP should ensure that the packet
           either does not look like a VPN packet or else is not routed
           to a PE router.  This can be done in a variety of ways that
           are outside the scope of the VPN scheme.  For example, IP
           packets addressed to the PE routers can be filtered, MPLS
           packets (or, e.g., MPLS-in-IP) from outside the SP network
           can be refused, etc.





Rosen                        Informational                     [Page 14]

RFC 4365      Applicability Statement for BGP/MPLS IP VPNs February 2006


           In the case of a multi-provider L3VPN backbone, the SP will
           have to know which interfaces lead to SPs that are VPN
           partners, so that VPN packets can be allowed to flow on those
           interfaces.

           If the public Internet is used as the L3VPN backbone,
           protection against unauthorized packets cannot be achieved by
           the above measures.  IPsec tunnels should always be used to
           carry VPN traffic across the public Internet.

     - Does the approach provide confidentiality (secrecy) protection,
       sender authentication, integrity protection, or protection
       against replay attacks for PPVPN user data?

       If these are desired, they must be provided by mechanisms that
       are outside the scope of the VPN mechanisms.  For instance, the
       users can use secure protocols on an end-to-end basis, e.g.,
       IPsec, Secure Shell (SSH), Secure Sockets Layer (SSL), etc.

     - Does the approach provide protection against unauthorized traffic
       pattern analysis for PPVPN user data?

       Preventing an observer from obtaining traffic pattern analysis
       from the SP network is beyond the scope of the VPN mechanisms.

     - Do the control protocol(s) used for each of the following
       functions provide for message integrity and peer authentication?

         * VPN membership discovery

           This requirement is fully satisfied.  Membership discovery is
           done by means of BGP.  Control message integrity and peer
           authentication in BGP may be achieved by use of the TCP MD5
           option.

         * Tunnel establishment

           The answer to this question depends of course on the tunnel
           protocol and tunnel establishment protocol; a variety of
           different tunneling schemes can be used in BGP/MPLS IP VPNs.
           Thus, this question is out of scope.

           In the common case where the tunnels are MPLS Label Switching
           Routers (LSRs) established by LDP, then control message
           integrity and peer authentication may be achieved by use of
           the TCP MD5 option.





Rosen                        Informational                     [Page 15]

RFC 4365      Applicability Statement for BGP/MPLS IP VPNs February 2006


         * VPN topology and reachability advertisement

           With respect to PE-PE interactions, the relevant control
           protocol is BGP, so control message integrity and peer
           authentication can be achieved by use of the TCP MD5 option.

           With respect to CE-PE interactions, the answer depends on the
           protocol used for exchanging information between PE and CE,
           as the security mechanisms (if any) of those protocols would
           need to be used.  In the common case where the PE/CE protocol
           is BGP, the TCP MD5 option can be used.

         * VPN provisioning and management

           The protocols procedures for provisioning VPNs and managing
           the PE routers are outside the scope of the VPN scheme.

         * VPN monitoring and attack detection and reporting

           The protocols and procedures for monitoring the VPNs are
           outside the scope of the VPN scheme.

     - What protection does the approach provide against PPVPN-specific
       DoS attacks (i.e., inter-trusted-zone DoS attacks)?

         * Protection of the service provider infrastructure against
           Data Plane or Control Plane DoS attacks originated in a
           private (PPVPN user) network and aimed at PPVPN mechanisms.

           The PE/CE interfaces of a given VPN will generally be
           addressable from within that VPN.  Apart from that, a user
           within an L3VPN has no more access to the service provider
           infrastructure than does any user of the Internet.
           Therefore, we will focus in this section on possible DoS
           attacks against a PE router that may occur when traffic from
           within a VPN is addressed to a PE router.

           A user within the VPN may address traffic to a PE router and
           may attempt to send an excessive amount of traffic to it.
           Presumably, the PE routers will not accept unauthorized TCP
           connections or Simple Network Management Protocol (SNMP)
           commands, so such traffic will be thrown away; the danger is
           that the PE may need to use a significant proportion of its
           capacity to discard such traffic.  However, this case is no
           different than the case of any SP access router that attaches
           to subscriber equipment.  The presence of the VPN mechanisms
           does not make the PE any more or less vulnerable to DoS
           attacks from arbitrary end users.



Rosen                        Informational                     [Page 16]

RFC 4365      Applicability Statement for BGP/MPLS IP VPNs February 2006


         * Protection of the service provider infrastructure against
           Data Plane or Control Plane DoS attacks originated in the
           Internet and aimed at PPVPN mechanisms.

           DoS attacks of this sort can be prevented if the PE routers
           are not addressable from the Internet.  Alternatively, an SP
           can apply address filtering at its boundaries so that packets
           from the Internet are filtered if they are addressed to a PE
           router.

         * Protection of PPVPN users against Data Plane or Control Plane
           DoS attacks originated from the Internet or from other PPVPN
           users and aimed at PPVPN mechanisms.

           Mechanisms already discussed prevent users in a VPN from
           receiving packets from the Internet, unless this is
           specifically allowed.  In the case where it is specifically
           allowed, it is no different than any other situation in which
           a network is connected to the Internet, and there is no
           special vulnerability to DoS attacks due to the L3VPN
           mechanisms.

           There is nothing to prevent a user in a VPN from mounting a
           DoS attack against other users in the VPN.  However, the
           L3VPN mechanisms make this neither more nor less likely.

     - Does the approach provide protection against unstable or
       malicious operation of a PPVPN user network?

         * Protection against high levels of, or malicious design of,
           routing traffic from PPVPN user networks to the service
           provider network.

           If a dynamic routing algorithm is running on the PE/CE
           interface, it can be used to mount an attack on the PE
           router, by having the CE present the PE with an excessive
           number of routing events.  If an end user within a VPN
           successfully attacks the routing algorithm of the VPN, that
           might also result in an excessive number of routing events
           being seen by the PE router.  This sort of attack can be
           ameliorated by having the PE limit the amount of its
           resources that can be expended processing routing events from
           a particular VPN.  If the PE/CE routing algorithm is BGP,
           then such mechanisms as route flap damping may be appropriate
           as well.






Rosen                        Informational                     [Page 17]

RFC 4365      Applicability Statement for BGP/MPLS IP VPNs February 2006


         * Protection against high levels of, or malicious design of,
           network management traffic from PPVPN user networks to the
           service provider network.

           A user in a BGP/MPLS IP VPN has no more ability than any
           Internet user to send management traffic to the service
           provider network.

         * Protection against worms and probes originated in the PPVPN
           user networks, sent towards the service provider network.

           A user in a BGP/MPLS IP VPN has no more ability than any
           Internet user to send worms or probes to the service provider
           network.

7.  Addressing

   Overlapping customer addresses are supported.  There is no
   requirement that such addresses be in conformance with [RFC1918].
   There is no requirement that customer VPN addresses be distinct from
   addresses in the SP network.

   Any set of addresses used in the VPN can be supported, irrespective
   of how they are assigned, how well they aggregate, and whether they
   are public or private.  However, the set of addresses that are
   reachable from a given site must be unique.

   Network address translation for packets leaving/entering a VPN is
   possible and is transparent to the VPN scheme.

   There is nothing in the architecture to preclude the mechanisms from
   being extended to support IPv6, provided that the appropriate IPv6-
   capable routing algorithms are in place.  That is, PE/CE routing must
   support IPv6, and the PE-PE BGP must support the labeled IPv6 address
   family.  The latter has not been specified, but its specification is
   obvious from the specification of the labeled IPv4 address family.
   The IGP used in the SP backbone need not be IPv6 capable in order to
   support customer IPv6 networks.

   In theory, the same could be said of other network layers, but in
   practice a customer who has non-IP traffic to carry must expect to
   carry it either in site-to-site IP tunnels or using some additional
   service (such as a layer 2 service) from the SP.

   Layer 2 addresses and identifiers are never carried across the SP
   backbone.





Rosen                        Informational                     [Page 18]

RFC 4365      Applicability Statement for BGP/MPLS IP VPNs February 2006


   No restrictions are placed on the customer's addressing schemes or
   policies.  Note though that the SP may place restrictions on the
   number of routes from a given customer site, or may charge
   differentially depending on the number of such routes, and such
   restrictions may have implications for the customer's addressing
   scheme.  In particular, addressing schemes that facilitate route
   aggregation on a per-site basis will result in the most efficient use
   of the SP's resources, and this may be reflected in SP charging
   policies.

8.  Interoperability and Interworking

   Interoperability should be ensured by proper implementation of the
   published standards.

   Direct PE-PE interworking over the SP backbone with other VPN
   solutions is not supported.

   As all the different types of L3VPNs are IP networks, they can of
   course interwork in the same way that any two IP networks can
   interwork.  For example, a single site can contain a CE router of one
   VPN scheme and a CE router of another VPN scheme, and these CE
   routers could be IGP peers, or they might even be the same CE router.
   This would result in the redistribution of routes from one type of
   VPN to the other, providing the necessary interworking.

9.  Network Access

9.1.  Physical/Link Layer Topology

   The architecture and protocols do not restrict the link layer or the
   physical layer in any manner.

9.2.  Temporary Access

   Temporary access via PPP is possible, using industry standard PPP-
   based authentication mechanisms.  For example:

     - A dial-up user (or other PPP user) is authenticated by the PE,
       using the SP's AAA server, based on a login string or on the
       number dialed.

     - The SP's AAA server returns a VPN-id to PE.

     - The PE assigns the user to a VRF, based on that VPN-id.






Rosen                        Informational                     [Page 19]

RFC 4365      Applicability Statement for BGP/MPLS IP VPNs February 2006


     - The user is then authenticated by a AAA server within the VPN
       (i.e., managed by the customer rather than by the SP).  This AAA
       server would typically be addressed through the VRF (i.e., may be
       in VPN's private address space).

     - The user gets disconnected if either authentication step is
       unsuccessful.

   IPsec access to a VRF is also possible.  In this case, the security
   association is between the end user and the SP.

   In these ways, a user can access a BGP/MPLS IP VPN via the public
   Internet.

   There is no explicit support for mobility, other than what is stated
   above.

9.3.  Access Connectivity

   Homing of a CE to two or more PEs is fully supported, whether or not
   the PEs are on the same SP network.

   If a CE is connected to two or more PEs, all its PE/CE links can be
   used to carry traffic in both directions.  In particular, traffic
   from different ingress PEs to a particular CE may arrive at that CE
   over different PE/CE links.  This depends on the backbone network
   routing between the CE and the various ingress PEs.

   If a VRF on a particular ingress PE contains several routes to a
   particular destination, then traffic from that ingress PE can be
   split among these routes.  If these routes end with different PE/CE
   links, then traffic from that ingress PE will be split among those
   links.

   BGP contains a multitude of knobs that allow an SP to control the
   traffic sent on one PE/CE link as opposed to the other.  One can also
   make use of the Link Bandwidth extended community [BGP-EXT-COMM] to
   control how traffic is distributed among multiple egress PE/CE links.

   The VPN scheme is of course compatible with the use of traffic
   engineering techniques, Resource Reservation Protocol - Traffic
   Engineering (RSVP-TE) based or otherwise, in the backbone network.









Rosen                        Informational                     [Page 20]

RFC 4365      Applicability Statement for BGP/MPLS IP VPNs February 2006


10.  Service Access

10.1.  Internet Access

   Internet access and VPN access are possible from the same site.  This
   is even possible over the same interface, as long as the VPN's
   internal addresses are distinct from the addresses of the systems
   that must be reached via the Internet.  This requires only that
   Internet routes as well as VPN routes be imported into the VRF
   associated with that interface.  This may be as simple as putting a
   default route to the Internet into that VRF.

   The "route to the Internet" that is in a particular VRF need not lead
   directly to the Internet; it may lead to a firewall or other security
   device at another site of the VPN.  The VPN customer can cause this
   to happen simply by exporting a default route from the site with the
   firewall.  Generally, a site with a firewall will use a different
   virtual interface for Internet access than for VPN access, since the
   firewall needs to distinguish the "clean interface" from the "dirty
   interface".

   In such a configuration, the customer would export his routes to the
   Internet via the firewall's dirty interface, but would export the
   same routes to the VPN via the clean interface.  Thus, all traffic
   from the Internet would come through the dirty interface, then
   through the firewall, and possibly go to another VPN site though the
   clean interface.  This also allows any necessary Network Address
   Translation (NAT) functionality to be done in the firewall.

10.2.  Other Services

   Any externally provided service can be accessed from the VPN,
   provided that it can be addressed with an address that is not
   otherwise in use within the VPN.  Access can be firewalled or non-
   firewalled.  If the client accessing the service does not have a
   globally unique IP address, and a single server provides a service to
   multiple VPNs, NAT will have to be applied to the client's packets
   before they reach the server.  This can be done at a customer site,
   or by a VRF-specific NAT function in a PE router.












Rosen                        Informational                     [Page 21]

RFC 4365      Applicability Statement for BGP/MPLS IP VPNs February 2006


11.  SP Routing

   Routing through the backbone is independent of the VPN scheme and is
   unaffected by the presence or absence of VPNs.  The only impact is
   that the backbone routing must carry routes to the PE routers.

   The VPN routes themselves are carried in BGP as a distinct address
   family, different than the address family that is used to carry
   "ordinary" IP routes.  These routes are passed from PE router to
   Route Reflector to PE router, and are never seen by the P routers.
   The Route Reflectors that carry the VPN routes can be entirely
   separate from the Route Reflectors that carry the "ordinary" IP
   routes.

   The fact that two PE routers support a common VPN does not require
   those PE routers to form an IGP routing adjacency between themselves.
   The number of adjacencies in the backbone IGP is independent of and
   unrelated to the number of VPNs supported by any set of PE routers.

   No VPN-specific protection and restoration mechanisms are needed;
   these are general routing considerations, and the VPN scheme is
   compatible with any protection and restoration mechanisms that may be
   available.

   The SP does not manage the customer's IGP in any way, and routes are
   never leaked between the SP's IGP and any customer's IGP.

   If the PE/CE protocol is EBGP, the SP and the customer do not ever
   participate in a common IGP.

12.  Migration Impact

   Generally, this means replacement of an existing legacy backbone with
   VPN backbone.  The general migration mechanism would be to hook up
   the sites one at a time to the VPN backbone, and to start giving the
   routes via the VPN backbone preference to routes via the legacy
   backbone.  Details depend on the legacy backbone's IGP.  In general,
   one would have to manipulate the IGP metrics to provide the proper
   route preference.

   If the legacy backbone routing protocol is OSPF, then migration is
   best done with OSPF as the PE/CE protocol and the PE supporting the
   [VPN-OSPF] procedures, OR with BGP as the PE/CE protocol, and the CE
   supporting the BGP/OSPF interaction specified in [VPN-OSPF].

   With other legacy backbone routing protocols, the proper metrics must
   be set at the point (PE or CE) where the BGP routes from the SP
   network are being redistributed into the legacy IGP.



Rosen                        Informational                     [Page 22]

RFC 4365      Applicability Statement for BGP/MPLS IP VPNs February 2006


13.  Scalability

   There is no upper limit on the number of VPNs per SP network, as
   there is no one box in the SP network that needs to know of all VPNs.
   Knowledge of a particular VPN is confined to the PE routers that
   attach to sites in that VPN, and to the BGP Route Reflectors that
   receive routing data from those PEs; other systems maintain no state
   at all for the VPN.  Note though that there is no need for any one
   Route Reflector to know of all VPNs.

   If the SP is providing the VPN service over an MPLS backbone, then
   the backbone IGP must carry a host route for every Label Switched
   Path (LSP) egress node within the routing domain.  Every PE router in
   the routing domain is an LSP egress node.  If there are VPNs attached
   to PE routers that are within the routing domain, as well as PE
   routers that are in some second routing domain, then the border
   routers leading towards the second routing domain will also be LSP
   egress nodes.  Thus, the sum of the number of PE routers plus number
   of border routers within a routing domain is limited by the number of
   routes that can be carried within the domain's IGP.  This does not
   seem to create any practical scalability issue.

   There is no upper limit on the number of site interfaces per VPN, as
   state for a particular interface is maintained only at the PE router
   to which that interface attaches.  The number of site interfaces per
   VPN at a given PE router is limited only by the number of interfaces
   that that PE router can support.

   The number of routes per VPN is constrained only by the number of
   routes that can be supported in BGP, the number of routes that can be
   maintained in the PEs that attach to that VPN, and the number of
   routes that can be maintained in the BGP Route Reflectors that hold
   the routes of that VPN.

   The major constraint in considering scalability is the number of
   routes that a given PE can support.  In general, a given PE can
   support as many VPNs as it has interfaces (including virtual
   interfaces or "sub-interfaces", not just physical interfaces), but it
   is constrained in the total number of routes it can handle.  The
   number of routes a given PE must handle depends on the particular set
   of VPNs it attaches to, and the number of routes in each such VPN,
   and the number of "non-VPN" Internet routes (if any) that it must
   also handle.

   The SP may need to engage in significant planning to ensure that
   these limits are not often reached.  If these limits are reached, it
   may be necessary either to replace the PE with one of larger capacity
   or to reorganize the way in which access links lead from CEs to PEs,



Rosen                        Informational                     [Page 23]

RFC 4365      Applicability Statement for BGP/MPLS IP VPNs February 2006


   in order to better concentrate the set of access links from sites
   that are in the same VPN.  Rehoming a site to a different PE may not
   involve actual rewiring; if the access technology is switched, this
   is a matter of provisioning, but may still be a significant
   undertaking.  If it is necessary to have downtime while performing
   the rehoming, the customer is impacted as well.  Rehoming can also be
   done "virtually", by creating a layer 2 tunnel from a CE's "old" PE
   to its "new" PE.

   An important consideration to remember is that one may have any
   number of INDEPENDENT BGP systems carrying VPN routes.  This is
   unlike the case of the Internet, where the Internet BGP system must
   carry all the Internet routes.  The difference stems from the fact
   that all Internet addresses must be reachable from each other, but a
   given VPN address is only supposed to be reachable from other
   addresses in the same VPN.

   Scalability is also affected by the rate of changes in the
   reachability advertisements from CE to PE, as changes reported by a
   CE to its attached PE may be propagated to the other PEs.  BGP
   mechanisms to control the rate of reported changes should be used by
   the SP.

   Another constraint on the number of VPNs that can be supported by a
   particular PE router is based on the number of routing instances that
   the PE router can support.  If the PE/CE routing is static, or is
   done by BGP, the number of routing protocol instances in a PE device
   does not depend on the number of CEs supported by the PE device.  In
   the case of BGP, a single BGP protocol instance can support all CEs
   that exchange routing information using BGP.  If the PE/CE router is
   done via RIP or OSPF, then the PE must maintain one RIP or OSPF
   instance per VRF.  Note that the number of routing instances that can
   be supported may be different for different routing protocols.

   Inter-AS scenarios constructed according to option (b) of section 10
   of [BGP-MPLS-IP-VPN] require BGP "border routers" to hold the routes
   for a set of VPNs.  If two SPs share in a small number of VPNs, a
   single border router between them provides adequate capacity.  As the
   number of shared VPNs increases, additional border routers may be
   needed to handle the increased number of routes.  Again, no single
   border router would handle all the routes from all the VPNs, so an
   increase in the number of VPNs can always be supported by adding more
   border routers.

   Inter-AS scenarios constructed according to option (c) of section 10
   of [BGP-MPLS-IP-VPN] eliminate the need for border routers to contain
   VPN routes (thus improving scalability in that dimension), but at the
   cost of requiring that each AS have a route to the PEs in the others.



Rosen                        Informational                     [Page 24]

RFC 4365      Applicability Statement for BGP/MPLS IP VPNs February 2006


   (Inter-AS scenarios constructed according to option (a) of section 10
   of [BGP-MPLS-IP-VPN] do not scale well.)

   The solution of [BGP-MPLS-IP-VPN] is intended to simplify CE and site
   operations, by hiding the structure of the rest of the VPN from a
   site, and by hiding the structure of the backbone.  Thus, CEs need
   have only a single sub-interface to the backbone, CEs at one site
   need not even be aware of the existence of CEs at another, and CEs at
   one site need not be routing peers of CEs at another.  CEs are never
   routing peers of P routers.  These factors help to scale the
   customer's network, but limiting the number of adjacencies each CE
   must see, and by limiting the total number of links that the
   customer's IGP must handle.

   The solution of [BGP-MPLS-IP-VPN] is also intended to simplify the
   SP's VPN provisioning, so that potentially the SP will have to do
   little more than say which sites belong to which VPNs.  However, as
   the system scales up, planning is needed to determine which PEs
   should home which VPNs, and which BGP RRs should take which VPNs'
   routing information.

   P routers maintain NO per-VPN state at all; the only requirement on
   them is to maintain routes to the PE routers.  When MPLS is used, a P
   router must also maintain one multipoint-to-point LSP for each such
   route.

   However, certain VPN multicast schemes require per-multicast-group
   state in the P routers, summed over all VPNs.  Others require only no
   state in the P routers at all, but will result in sending more
   unnecessary traffic.  The complete set of tradeoffs for multicast is
   not that well understood yet.

   Note that as the scaling of a particular PE is primarily a matter of
   the total number of routes that it must maintain, scalability is
   facilitated if the addresses are assigned in a way that permits them
   to be aggregated (i.e., if the customers have a sensible addressing
   plan).

   When a dynamic routing protocol is run on the link between a CE
   router and a PE router, routing instability in the private network
   may have an effect on the PE router.  For example, an unusually large
   number of routing updates could be sent from the CE router to the PE
   router, placing an unusually large processing load on the PE router.

   This issue can be mitigated via resource partitioning in the PE, in
   order to limit the amount of resources (e.g., CPU and memory) that
   any one VPN is permitted to use in PE routers.  Also, rate limits may
   be applied to the routing traffic sent from the CE to the PE.



Rosen                        Informational                     [Page 25]

RFC 4365      Applicability Statement for BGP/MPLS IP VPNs February 2006


   Alternately, when this problem is detected, the CE-to-PE interface
   may be shut down.

14.  QoS, SLA

   The provision of appropriate QoS capabilities may require any
   combination of the following:

     - QoS in the access network.

     - Admission control (policing) by the PE router on the ingress
       access links.

     - Traffic conditioning (shaping) by the PE router on the ingress
       access links.

     - Traffic engineering in the backbone.

     - Intserv/diffserv classification by the PE, for traffic arriving
       from the CE.  Once the PE classifies the user packets, this
       classification needs to be preserved in the encapsulation (MPLS
       or IP) used to send the packet across the backbone.

     - Differentiated Services Codepoint (DSCP) mapping.

     - DSCP transparency.

     - Random Early Discard in the backbone.

   None of these features are VPN-specific.  The ability to support them
   depends on whether the features are available on the edge and core
   platforms, rather than on any particular VPN scheme.

   MPLS support for differentiated services is detailed in RFC 3270
   [MPLS-DIFFSERV].  DSCP mapping and transparency are covered in
   section 2.6 of that document.

   It is possible to use traffic engineering to provide, e.g.,
   guaranteed bandwidth between two PEs for the traffic of a given VPN.
   The VRF entries for that VPN in each PE need to be modified so that
   the traffic to the other PE is directed onto the traffic-engineered
   path.  How this is done is a local matter.

   BGP/MPLS IP VPNs can support both the "hose model" and the "pipe
   model" of QoS.  In the "pipe model", a particular quality of service
   (e.g., a guaranteed amount of bandwidth) would be applied to all or
   some of the packets traveling between a given pair of CEs.  In the
   "hose model", a particular quality of service (e.g., a guaranteed



Rosen                        Informational                     [Page 26]

RFC 4365      Applicability Statement for BGP/MPLS IP VPNs February 2006


   amount of bandwidth) would be applied to all traffic to or from a
   particular CE, irrespective of which other CE the traffic is going to
   or coming from.  Since BGP/MPLS IP VPNs do not usually make use of
   CE-CE tunnels, the hose model is the more natural fit.  Providing the
   pipe model would require the use of traffic engineering to explicitly
   create the necessary tunnels.

   Many of the requirements specified in [L3VPN-REQS] stipulate that the
   Network Monitoring System (NMS) should support SLA monitoring and
   verification between the SP and the various customers by measurement
   of the indicators defined within the context of the SLA.  The
   measurement of these indicators (i.e., counters) can be achieved when
   BGP/MPLS IP VPNs are used by employing a combination of the
   Management Information Base (MIB) module designed for BGP/MPLS IP
   VPNs [L3VPN-MIB] as well as other standard MIB modules such as the
   IF-MIB [IF-MIB].  Devices supporting these MIB modules can calculate
   SLAs based on real-time performance measurements using indicators and
   threshold crossing alerts.  Devices can make these thresholds
   configurable either via a management interface such as SNMP.

15.  Management

   The L3VPN Requirements document [L3VPN-REQS] stipulates that the term
   "Provider Provisioned VPN" refers to VPNs for which the service
   provider participates in management and provisioning of the VPN.  RFC
   BGP/MPLS IP VPNs can be provisioned and managed to meet these
   requirements.  The following subsections will outline how devices
   supporting BGP/MPLS IP VPNs can satisfy these requirements.

15.1.  Management by the Provider

   The SP manages all the VPN-specific information in the PE device.
   This can be done using the MIB designed for BGP/MPLS IP VPNs
   [L3VPN-MIB], in combination with other standard MIB modules such as
   IF-MIB [IF-MIB], and other MPLS MIB modules [LSRMIB], [LDPMIB],
   [TEMIB], [FTNMIB].

   Devices supporting BGP/MPLS IP VPNs that employ the management
   interface characteristics described above will also support the ITU-T
   Telecommunications Management Network Model "FCAPS" functionalities
   as required in the L3VPN Requirements document.  These include Fault,
   Configuration, Accounting, Provisioning, and Security.

   In BGP/MPLS IP VPNs, the SP is not required to manage the CE devices.
   However, if it is desired for the SP to do so, the SP may manage CE
   devices from a central site, provided that a route to the central
   site is exported into the CE's VPN, and the central site is in a VPN
   into which the routes to the managed CE devices have been imported.



Rosen                        Informational                     [Page 27]

RFC 4365      Applicability Statement for BGP/MPLS IP VPNs February 2006


   This is a form of extranet.

   If the central site is managing CE devices from several VPNs, those
   CE devices must have mutually unique addresses.  Note that this does
   not enable the CE devices from different VPNs to reach each other.

   The CE devices have no VPN-specific information in them.  Hence the
   fact that they are connected together into a VPN does not require
   them to have any VPN-specific management MIB modules or capabilities.

15.2.  Management by the Customer

   CE devices may be managed from within the VPN, transparently to the
   SP.  The CE devices have no VPN-specific information in them, and the
   fact that they are tied together into a VPN does not impact the
   customer's management of them.

   Customer access to a PE device is totally at the discretion of the
   SP, but is not required by the solution.  The PE device is a routing
   peer of a CE device, and can be pinged, etc.

   If a customer is permitted to access the PE router for management
   purposes, the functions available to any particular customer need to
   be strictly controlled, and the use of resource partitioning may be
   appropriate.

   Network management traffic from the CE to the PE may be rate limited
   (for example, to prevent network management traffic from CE to PE to
   be used in a DoS attack).

16.  Acknowledgements

   Many thanks to Jeremy De Clercq, Luyuan Fang, Dave McDysan, Ananth
   Nagarajan, Yakov Rekhter, and Muneyoshi Suzuki, for their comments,
   criticisms, and help in preparing this document.  Thanks also to
   Thomas Nadeau for his help with the section on management, to
   Francois LeFaucheur for his help with the section on QoS, and to Ross
   Callon for his review of the document.













Rosen                        Informational                     [Page 28]

RFC 4365      Applicability Statement for BGP/MPLS IP VPNs February 2006


17.  Normative References

   [BGP-EXT-COMM]       Sangli, S., Tappan, D., and Y. Rekhter, "BGP
                        Extended Communities Attribute", RFC 4360,
                        February 2006.

   [BGP-MPLS-IP-VPN]    Rosen, E. and Y. Rekhter, "BGP/MPLS IP Virtual
                        Private Networks (VPNs)", RFC 4364, February
                        2006.

   [L3VPN-FRMWRK]       Callon, R. and M. Suzuki, "A Framework for Layer
                        3 Provider-Provisioned Virtual Private Networks
                        (PPVPNs)", RFC 4110, July 2005.

   [L3VPN-REQS]         Carugi, M. and D. McDysan, "Service Requirements
                        for Layer 3 Provider Provisioned Virtual Private
                        Networks (PPVPNs)", RFC 4031, April 2005.

   [L2VPN-SEC-FRMWRK]   Fang, L., "Security Framework for Provider-
                        Provisioned Virtual Private Networks (PPVPNs)",
                        RFC 4111, July 2005.

18.  Informative References

   [VPN-OSPF]           Rosen, E., Psenak, P., and P. Pillay-Esnault,
                        "OSPF as the PE/CE Protocol in BGP/MPLS VPNs",
                        Work in Progress, February 2004.

   [OSPF-2547-DNBIT]    Rosen, E., Psenak, P., and P. Pillay-Esnault,
                        "Using an LSA Options Bit to Prevent Looping in
                        BGP/MPLS IP VPNs", Work in Progress, March 2004.

   [MPLS/BGP-IPsec]     Rosen, E., De Clercq, J., Paridaens, O.,
                        T'Joens, Y., and C. Sargor, "Architecture for
                        the Use of PE-PE IPsec Tunnels in BGP/MPLS IP
                        VPNs", Work in Progress, March 2004.

   [BGP-MPLS-MCAST-VPN] Rosen, E., Cai, Y., and IJ. Wijsnands,
                        "Multicast in MPLS/BGP VPNs", Work in Progress,
                        May 2004.

   [CE-VERIF]           Bonica, R., Rekhter, Y., Raszuk, R., Rosen, E.,
                        and D. Tappan, "CE-to-CE Member Verification for
                        Layer 3 VPNs", Work in Progress, September 2003.







Rosen                        Informational                     [Page 29]

RFC 4365      Applicability Statement for BGP/MPLS IP VPNs February 2006


   [FTNMIB]             Nadeau, T., Srinivasan, C., and A. Viswanathan,
                        "Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) Forwarding
                        Equivalence Class To Next Hop Label Forwarding
                        Entry (FEC-To-NHLFE) Management Information Base
                        (MIB)", RFC 3814, June 2004.

   [IPSEC-VPN]          De Clercq, J., Paridaens, O., Krywaniuk, A., and
                        C. Wang, "An Architecture for Provider
                        Provisioned CE-based Virtual Private Networks
                        using IPsec", Work in Progress, February 2004.

   [LDPMIB]             Cucchiara, J., Sjostrand, H., and J. Luciani,
                        "Definitions of Managed Objects for the
                        Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS), Label
                        Distribution Protocol (LDP)", RFC 3815, June
                        2004.

   [LSRMIB]             Srinivasan, C., Viswanathan, A., and T. Nadeau,
                        "Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) Label
                        Switching Router (LSR) Management Information
                        Base (MIB)", RFC 3813, June 2004.

   [MPLS-DIFFSERV]      Le Faucheur, F., Wu, L., Davie, B., Davari, S.,
                        Vaananen, P., Krishnan, R., Cheval, P., and J.
                        Heinanen, "Multi-Protocol Label Switching (MPLS)
                        Support of Differentiated Services", RFC 3270,
                        May 2002.

   [L3VPN-MIB]          Nadeau, T. and H. Van Der Linde, "MPLS/BGP
                        Virtual Private Network Management Information
                        Base Using SMIv2", Work in Progress, August
                        2004.

   [IF-MIB]             McCloghrie, K. and F. Kastenholz, "The
                        Interfaces Group MIB", RFC 2863, June 2000.

   [RFC1918]            Rekhter, Y., Moskowitz, B., Karrenberg, D., de
                        Groot, G., and E. Lear, "Address Allocation for
                        Private Internets", BCP 5, RFC 1918, February
                        1996.

   [TEMIB]              Srinivasan, C., Viswanathan, A., and T. Nadeau,
                        "Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) Traffic
                        Engineering (TE) Management Information Base
                        (MIB)", RFC 3812, June 2004.






Rosen                        Informational                     [Page 30]

RFC 4365      Applicability Statement for BGP/MPLS IP VPNs February 2006


   [VR-VPN]             Knight, P., Ould-Brahim, H., and B. Gleeson,
                        "Network Based IP VPN Architecture using Virtual
                        Routers", Work in Progress, April 2004.

Author's Address

   Eric C. Rosen
   Cisco Systems, Inc.
   1414 Massachusetts Avenue
   Boxborough, MA 01719

   EMail: erosen@cisco.com







































Rosen                        Informational                     [Page 31]

RFC 4365      Applicability Statement for BGP/MPLS IP VPNs February 2006


Full Copyright Statement

   Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2006).

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

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

Intellectual Property

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

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

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

Acknowledgement

   Funding for the RFC Editor function is provided by the IETF
   Administrative Support Activity (IASA).







Rosen                        Informational                     [Page 32]


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