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

Versions: 00 01

IPSECME Working Group                                        F. Detienne
Internet-Draft                                                  M. Kumar
Updates: 2332 (if approved)                              M. Sullenberger
Intended status: Standards Track                                   Cisco
Expires: June 23, 2014                                 December 20, 2013


                       Flexible Dynamic Mesh VPN
                        draft-detienne-dmvpn-01

Abstract

   The purpose of a Dynamic Mesh VPN (DMVPN) is to allow IPsec/IKE
   Security Gateways administrators to configure the devices in a
   partial mesh (often a simple star topology called Hub-Spokes) and let
   the Security Gateways establish direct protected tunnels called
   Shortcut Tunnels.  These Shortcut Tunnels are dynamically created
   when traffic flows and are protected by IPsec.

   To achieve this goal, this document extends NHRP ([RFC2332]) into a
   routing policy feed and integrates GRE tunneling with IKEv2 and IPsec
   to provide the necessary cryptographic security.

Status of This Memo

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

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

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

   This Internet-Draft will expire on June 23, 2014.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2013 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors.  All rights reserved.

   This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
   Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
   (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of



Detienne, et al.          Expires June 23, 2014                 [Page 1]


Internet-Draft              Dynamic Mesh VPN               December 2013


   publication of this document.  Please review these documents
   carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
   to this document.  Code Components extracted from this document must
   include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
   the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
   described in the Simplified BSD License.

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
   2.  Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   3.  Tunnel Types  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
   4.  Solution Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
     4.1.  Initial Connectivity  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
     4.2.  Initial Routing Table Status  . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
     4.3.  Indirection Notification  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
     4.4.  Node Discovery via Resolution Request . . . . . . . . . .  10
     4.5.  Resolution Request Forwarding . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
     4.6.  Egress node NHRP cache and Tunnel Creation  . . . . . . .  12
     4.7.  Resolution Reply format and processing  . . . . . . . . .  13
     4.8.  From Hub and Spoke to Dynamic Mesh  . . . . . . . . . . .  14
     4.9.  Remote Access Clients . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15
     4.10. Node mutual authentication  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  16
   5.  NHRP Extension Format . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  17
     5.1.  NHRP Traffic Indication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  17
   6.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  19
   7.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  19
   8.  Compliance against ADVPN requirements . . . . . . . . . . . .  19
   9.  Design Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  26
     9.1.  Routing Policy and RFC4301 Security . . . . . . . . . . .  26
     9.2.  Using Configuration Attributes  . . . . . . . . . . . . .  28
     9.3.  NAT Support . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  30
   10. Acknowldegements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  30
   11. References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  30
     11.1.  Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  30
     11.2.  Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  31
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  32

1.  Introduction

   This document describes a Dynamic Mesh VPN (DMVPN), in which an
   initial partial mesh expands to create direct connections called
   Shortcut Tunnels between endpoints that need to exchange data but are
   not directly connected in the initial mesh.

   The approach used in the design of this specification gives DMVPN the
   following advantages:




Detienne, et al.          Expires June 23, 2014                 [Page 2]


Internet-Draft              Dynamic Mesh VPN               December 2013


   o  Can run with routing protocol or with IKEv2 policies (CP_Exchange)
      making the specification suitable for complex gateways and remote
      access clients alike.
   o  Can handle virtually infinite number of prefixes (including mobile
      prefixes) thanks to routing protocol.
   o  The tunnel approach allows load balancing over multiple Transport
      networks and multicast to work natively.
   o  Routing policy can apply more complex peer selection than 5-tuple
      traffic selector.
   o  The layered approach allows evolution of other specifications used
      over DMVPN without having to rewrite or modify DMVPN.
   o  Non-IP protocols such as ISIS, MPLS, plain ethernet... are
      natively supported (e.g. for Data Center Interconnection).

   In a generic manner, DMVPN topologies initialize as Hub-Spoke
   networks where Spoke Security Gateway nodes S* connect to Hub
   Security Gateway nodes H* over a public transport network (such as
   the Internet) considered insufficiently secure so as to mandate the
   use of IPsec and IKE.  For scalability and redundancy reasons, there
   may be multiple hubs; the Hubs would then be connected together
   through the DMVPN.  The diagram Figure 1 depicts this situation.

                              DC1      DC2
                               |        |
                              [H1]-----[H2]
                              |  |     |  |
                            +-+  |     |  +-+
                            |    |     |    |
                           [S1] [S2]  [S3] [S4]
                            |    |     |
                            D1   D2    D3

          Figure 1: Hub and Spoke, multiple hubs, multiple spokes

   Initially, the Security Gateway nodes (S*) are configured to build
   tunnels secured with IPsec to the Security Gateway node (H*) in a hub
   and spoke style network (any partial mesh will do, but Hub-Spoke is
   common and easily understood).  This initial network is then used
   when traffic starts flowing between the protected networks D*. DMVPN
   uses NHRP as a signaling mechanism over the S*-H* and H*-H* tunnels
   to trigger the spokes (S*) to discover each other and build dynamic,
   direct Shortcut Tunnels.  The Shortcut Tunnels allow those spokes to
   communicate directly with each other without forwarding traffic
   through the hub, essentially creating a dynamic mesh.

   The spokes can be either routers or firewalls playing the role of
   Security Gateways or hosts such as computers, mobile phones,etc.




Detienne, et al.          Expires June 23, 2014                 [Page 3]


Internet-Draft              Dynamic Mesh VPN               December 2013


   protecting their own traffic.  Nodes S1, S2 and S3 above are routers
   while S4 is a host implementation.

   This document describes how NHRP is modified and augmented to allow
   the rapid creation of dynamic IPsec tunnels between two devices.
   Throughout this document, we will call these devices participating in
   the DMVPN "nodes".

   In the context of this document, the nodes protect a topologically
   dispersed Private, Overlay Network address space.  The nodes allow
   the devices in the Overlay Network to communicate securely with each
   other via GRE tunnels secured by IPsec using dynamic tunnels
   established between the nodes over the (presumably insecure)
   Transport network.  I.e. the protected tunnel packets are forwarded
   over this Transport network.

   The NBMA Next Hop Resolution Protocol (NHRP) as described in
   [RFC2332] allows an ingress node to determine the internetworking
   layer address and NBMA address of an egress node.  The servers in
   such an NBMA network provide the functionality of address resolution
   based on a cache which contains protocol layer address to NBMA
   subnetwork layer address resolution information.  This can be used to
   create a virtual network where dynamic virtual circuits can be
   created on an as needed basis.  In this document, we will depart the
   underlying notion of a centralized NHS.

   All data traffic, NHRP frames and other control traffic needed by
   this DMVPN MUST be protected by IPsec.  In order to efficiently
   support Layer 2 based protocols, all packets and frames MUST be
   encapsulated in GRE ([RFC2784]) first; the resulting GRE packet then
   MUST be protected by IPsec.  IPsec transport mode MUST be supported
   while IPsec tunnel mode MAY be used.  The usage of a GRE
   encapsulation protected by IPsec is described in [RFC4301].
   Implementations SHOULD strongly link GRE and IPsec SA's through some
   form of connection latching as described in [RFC5660].

2.  Terminology

   The NHRP semantic is used throughout this document however some
   additional terminology is used to better fit to the context.

   o  Protected Network, Private Network: a network hosted by one of the
      nodes.  The protected network IP addresses are those that are
      resolved by NHRP into an NBMA address.
   o  Overlay Network: the entire network composed with the Protected
      Networks and the IP addresses installed on the Tunnel interfaces
      instantiating the DMVPN.




Detienne, et al.          Expires June 23, 2014                 [Page 4]


Internet-Draft              Dynamic Mesh VPN               December 2013


   o  Transport Network, Public Network: the network transporting the
      GRE/IPsec packets.
   o  Nodes: the devices connected by the DMVPN that implement NHRP, GRE
      /IPsec and IKE.
   o  Ingress Node: The NHRP node that takes data packets from off of
      the DMVPN and injects them into the DMVPN on either a multi-hop
      tunnel path (initially) or single hop shortcut tunnel.  Also the
      node that will send an NHRP Resolution Request and receive an NHRP
      Resolution Reply to build a short-cut tunnel.
   o  Egress Node: The NHRP node that extracts data packets from the
      DMVPN and forwards them off of the DMVPN.  Also the node that
      answers an NHRP Resolution Request and send an NHRP Resolution
      Reply.
   o  Intermediate Node: An NHRP node that is in the middle of multi-hop
      tunnel path between an Ingress and Egress Node.  For the
      particular data traffic in question the Intermediate node will
      receive packets from the DMVPN and resend them (hair-pin) them
      back onto the DMVPN.

   Note, a particular node in the DMVPN, may at the same time be an
   Ingress, Egress and Intermediate node depending on the data traffic
   flow being looked at.

   In general, DMVPN nodes make extensive use of the Local Address
   Groups (LAG) and Logically Independent Subnets (LIS)models as
   described in [RFC2332].  A compliant implementation MUST support the
   LAG model and SHOULD support the LIS model.

   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
   "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
   "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in
   [RFC2119].

3.  Tunnel Types

   The tunnels described in this document are of type GRE/IPsec.  GRE/
   IPsec allows a single pair of IPsec SA's to be negotiated between the
   DMVPN nodes.  From an IPsec aggregation standpoint, this means less
   negotiation, cleaner use of expensive resources and less
   reprogramming of the data plane by the IKE control plane as
   additional networks are discovered between any two peers.

   In the remainder of this document, GRE and GRE/IPsec will be used
   interchangeably depending on the focused layer but always imply "GRE
   protected by IPsec"

   Taking advantage of the GRE encapsulation, and while NHRP could be
   forwarded over IP, the RFC recommended Layer 2 NHRP frames have been



Detienne, et al.          Expires June 23, 2014                 [Page 5]


Internet-Draft              Dynamic Mesh VPN               December 2013


   retained in order to simplify the security policies (packet filters
   do not have to be augmented to allow NHRP through, no risk of
   mistakenly propagating frames where they should not, etc.).
   Compliant implementations MUST support L2 NHRP frames.

   DMVPN can be implemented in a number of ways and this document places
   no restriction on the actual implementation.  This section covers
   what the authors believe are the important implementation
   recommendations to construct a scalable implementation.

   The authors recommend using a logical interface construct to
   represent the GRE tunnels.  These interfaces are called Tunnel
   Interfaces or simply Interfaces from here onward.

   In the remainder of this document, we will assume the implementation
   uses point-to-point Tunnel Interfaces; routes to prefixes in the
   Overlay network are in the Routing Table (aka Routing Information
   Base).  These routes forward traffic toward the tunnel interfaces.

   Point-to-Multipoint GRE interfaces (aka multipoint interfaces for
   short) can also be used.  In that case there is by construction only
   one tunnel source NBMA address and the interface has multiple tunnel
   endpoints.  In this case NHRP registration request and reply
   messages, [RFC2332], are used to pass the tunnel address to tunnel
   NBMA address mapping from the NHC (S*) to the NHS (H*).  The NHRP
   registration request and reply MAY be restricted to a single direct
   tunnel hop between the NHC (S*) and NHS (H*).

   For didactic reasons, and an easier understanding of the LAG support,
   we will use the point-to-point construct to highlight the protocol
   behavior in the remainder of this document.  An implementation can
   use different models (point-to-point, multipoint, bump in the
   stack,...) but MUST comply to the external (protocol level) behavior
   described in this document.

4.  Solution Overview

4.1.  Initial Connectivity

   We assume the following scenario where nodes (S1, S2, H1, H2)
   depicted in Figure 2 supporting GRE, IPsec/IKE and NHRP establish
   connections instantiated by GRE tunnels.  Those GRE tunnels SHOULD be
   protected by IPsec/IKE.  These tunnels will be used to secure all the
   data traffic as well as the NHRP control frames.  In general, routing
   protocols (and possibly other control protocols such as NHRP or IKE)
   will also be protected by IPsec or IKE.





Detienne, et al.          Expires June 23, 2014                 [Page 6]


Internet-Draft              Dynamic Mesh VPN               December 2013


              DC1
               |
             [H1]
             |  |       ]
           +-+  +-+     ] GRE/IPsec tunnels over Transport network
           |      |     ]
          [S1]   [S2]
           |      |
           D1     D2

               Figure 2: Hub and Spoke Initial Connectivity

   It is assumed that S1, H1 and S2 are connected via a shared Transport
   network (typically a Public, NBMA network) and there is connectivity
   between the nodes over that transport network.

   The nodes possess multiple interfaces; each of which has a dedicated
   IP address:

   o  a public interface IntPub connected to the transport network; IP
      address: Pub{node}
   o  one or several tunnel interface Tunnel0,1,.. (GRE/IPsec)
      connecting to peers; IP address: Tun{i}{node}
   o  a private interface IntPriv facing the private network of the
      node; IP address: Priv{node}

   e.g. node S1 owns the following addresses: PubS1, TunS1 and PrivS1

   The networks D1, D2, DC1 and also the tunnel address Tun{i} can and
   are presumed to be private in the sense that their address space is
   kept independent from the transport network address space.  Together,
   they form the Overlay network.  For the transport network, the
   address family is either IPv4 or IPv6.  In the context of this
   document, for the overlay network, the address family is IPv4 and/or
   IPv6.

   Initially, nodes S1 and S2 create a connection to node H1.
   Optionally, S1 and S2 MAY register to H1 via NHRP.  Typically the GRE
   tunnels between S* and H1 will be protected by IPsec.  A compliant
   implementation MUST support IPsec protected GRE tunnels and SHOULD
   support unprotected GRE tunnels.

   At the end of this section, a dynamic tunnel will be set up between
   S1 and S2 and traffic will flow directly through S1 and S2 without
   going through H1.






Detienne, et al.          Expires June 23, 2014                 [Page 7]


Internet-Draft              Dynamic Mesh VPN               December 2013


4.2.  Initial Routing Table Status

   In the context of this document, the authors make no assumption about
   how the routing tables are initially populated but one can assume
   that routing protocols exchange information between H1 and S1 and
   between H1 and S2.

   In this diagram, we assume each node has routes (summarized or
   specific) for networks D1, D2, DC1 which are IP networks.  We assume
   the summary prefix SUM to encompass all the private networks depicted
   on this diagram.  We assume the communication between those networks
   needs to be protected and therefore, the routes point to tunnels.
   I.e. S1 knows a route summarizing all the Overlay subnets and this
   route points to the GRE/IPsec tunnel leading to H1.  Note, the the
   summary prefix is a network design choice and it can be replaced by a
   prefix summary manifold or individual non-summarized routes.

   Example 1: Node S1 has the following routing table:

   o  TunH1 => Tunnel0
   o  SUM => TunH1 on Tunnel0
   o  0.0.0.0/0 => IntPub
   o  D1 => IntPriv

   Example 2: Node H1 has the following routing table:

   o  TunS1 => Tunnel1
   o  TunS2 => Tunnel2
   o  D1 => TunS1 on Tunnel1
   o  D2 => TunS2 on Tunnel2
   o  0.0.0.0/0 => IntPub
   o  DC1 => IntPriv

   The exact format of the routing table is implementation dependent but
   the node discovery principle MUST be enforced and the implementation
   MUST be compatible with an implementation using the routing tables
   outlined above.

   This document does not specify how the routes are installed but it
   can be assumed that the routes (1) and (2) in the tables above are
   exchanged between S* and H* nodes after the S*-H* connections have
   been duly authenticated.  In a DMVPN solution, it is typical that the
   routes are exchanged by a route exchange protocol (e.g. BGP or IKE as
   shown in Section 9.2) or are installed statically (usually a mix of
   both).  It is important that routing updates be filtered in order to
   prevent a node from advertising improper routes to another node.
   This filtering is out of the scope of this document as most routing
   protocol implementations are already capable of such filtering.  In



Detienne, et al.          Expires June 23, 2014                 [Page 8]


Internet-Draft              Dynamic Mesh VPN               December 2013


   order to meet these criteria, an implementation SHOULD offer
   identity-based policies to filter those routes on a per peer basis.

   When a device Ds on network D1 needs to connect to a device Dd on
   network D2

   o  a data packet ip(Ds, Dd) is sent and reaches S1 on IntPriv
   o  the data packet is routed by S1 via Tunnel0 toward H1; S1
      encapsulates, protects and forwards this packet out IntPub via the
      transport network to H1
   o  H1 receives the protected packet on IntPub; H1 decrypts and
      decapsulates this packet; the resulting data packet looks to the
      IP stack on H1 as if it arrived on interface Tunnel1
   o  the data packet is routed by H1 via Tunnel2 toward S2; H1
      encapsulates, protects and forwards this out IntPub via the
      transport network to S2
   o  S2 receives the protected packet on IntPub; S2 decrypts and
      decapsulates this packet; the resulting data packet looks to the
      IP stack as if it arrived on interface Tunnel0
   o  S2 routes the data packet out of its IntPriv interface to the
      destination Dd

4.3.  Indirection Notification

   Considering the packet flow seen in {previous section}. When H1
   (Intermediate Node) receives a packet from the ingress node S1 and
   forwards it to the Next Node S2, it technically re-injects the packet
   back into the DMVPN.

   At this point H1 SHOULD an Indirection Notification message to S1.
   The Indirection Notification is a dedicated NHRP message indicating
   the ingress node that it sent an IP packet that had to be forwarded
   via the intermediate node to another node.  The Indirection
   Notification MUST contain the first 64 bytes of the clear text IP
   packet that was forwarded to the next node.  The exact format of this
   message is detailed in the section [PACKET_FORMAT].

   The Indirection Notification MUST be sent back to the ingress node
   through the same GRE/IPsec tunnel upon which the hair-pinned IP
   packet was received and MUST be rate limited.

   This message is a hint that a direct tunnel SHOULD be built between
   the end-nodes, bypassing intermediate nodes.  This tunnel is called a
   "Shortcut Tunnel".

   Compliant implementations MUST be able to send and accept the
   Indirection Notification, however implementations MUST continue to




Detienne, et al.          Expires June 23, 2014                 [Page 9]


Internet-Draft              Dynamic Mesh VPN               December 2013


   accept traffic over the spoke-hub-spoke path during spoke-spoke path
   establishment (Shortcut Tunnel).

   When a node receives such a notification, it MUST perform the
   following:

   o  parse and accept the message
   o  extract the source address of the original protected IP packet
      from the 64 bytes available
   o  perform a route lookup on this source address

      *  If the routing to this source address is also via the DMVPN
         network upon which it received the Indirect Notification then
         this node is an intermediate node on the tunnel path from the
         ingress node (injection point) to the egress node (extraction
         point).  In this case this intermediate node MUST silently drop
         the Indirect Notification that it received.  Note that if the
         node is an intermediate node, it is likely that it has
         generated and sent an Indirect Notification about this same
         protected IP packet to its tunnel neighbor on the tunnel path
         back towards the ingress node (injection point).  This is
         correct behavior.
   o  if the previous step did succeed, extract the destination IP
      address (Dd) of the original protected IP packet from the 64 bytes
      available.

   The ingress node MAY also extract additional information from those
   64 bytes such as the protocol type, port numbers etc.

   In steady state, Indirection Notifications MUST be accepted and
   processed as above from any trusted peer with which the node has a
   direct connection.

4.4.  Node Discovery via Resolution Request

   After processing the information in the Indirection Notify, the
   ingress node local policy SHOULD determine whether a shortcut tunnel
   needs to be established.  Assuming the local policy requests a
   shortcut tunnel, the ingress node MUST emit a Resolution Request for
   the destination IP address Dd.

   More specifically, the NHRP Resolution Request emitted by S1 to
   resolve Dd will contain the following fields:

   o  Fixed Header

      *  ar$op.version = 1
      *  ar$op.type = 1



Detienne, et al.          Expires June 23, 2014                [Page 10]


Internet-Draft              Dynamic Mesh VPN               December 2013


   o  Common Header (Mandatory Header)

      *  Source NBMA Address = PubS1
      *  Source Protocol Address = TunS1
      *  Destination Protocol Address = Dd

   The resolution request is routed by S1 to H1 over the GRE/IPsec
   tunnel.  If an intermediate node has a valid (authoritative) NHRP
   mapping in its cache, it MAY respond.  An intermediate node SHOULD
   NOT answer Resolution Requests in any other case.

   Note that a Resolution Request can be voluntarily emitted by Security
   Gateway and is not strictly limited to a response to the Indirection
   Notify message.  Such cases and policies are out of the scope of the
   document.

   The sending of Resolution Requests by a ingress node MUST be rate
   limited.

4.5.  Resolution Request Forwarding

   The Resolution Request can be sent by S1 to an explicit or implicit
   next-hop-server.  In the explicit scenario, the NHS is defined in the
   node configuration.  In the implicit case, the node can infer the NHS
   to use.  Similarly, an intermediate node that cannot answer a
   Resolution Request SHOULD forward the Resolution Request to an
   implicit or explicit NHS in the same manner unless local policy
   forbids resolution forwarding between Spokes.  There can be an
   undetermined number of intermediate node.

   A DMVPN compliant implementation MUST be able to infer the NHS from
   its routing table in the following way:

   o  the address Dd to be resolved is looked up in the routing table
      (other parameters can be considered by the ingress node but these
      will not be available to intermediate nodes)
   o  the best route for Dd is selected (longest prefix match)

      *  if several routes match (same prefix length) only the routes
         pointing to a DMVPN Tunnel interface are kept.  This SHOULD NOT
         occur in practice.
   o  if the best route found points to a DMVPN Tunnel interface, the
      next-hop address MUST be used as NHS
   o  if the best route found does not point to a DMVPN Tunnel interface
      the forwarding of the packet stops and the matching prefix P and
      prefix len (Plen) is kept temporarily.  Very often, P/Plen == D2/
      D2len (this is the case in the diagram used in this document) but
      this may not always be true depending on the structure of the



Detienne, et al.          Expires June 23, 2014                [Page 11]


Internet-Draft              Dynamic Mesh VPN               December 2013


      networks protected by S2.  The associated prefix length (Plen) is
      also preserved.

   If the Resolution Request forwarding stops at the ingress node (at
   emission), the Resolution Request process MUST be stopped with an
   error for address Dd.  If the lookup succeeds, the next-hop's NBMA
   address is used as destination address of the GRE encapsulation.
   Before forwarding, each intermediate node MUST add a Forward Transit
   Extension record to the NHRP Resolution Request.

   Any intermediate nodes SHOULD NOT cache any information while
   forwarding Resolution Requests.  In the case an intermediate node
   implementation caches information, it MUST NOT assume that other
   intermediate nodes will also cache that information.

   Thanks to the forwarding model described in this document and due to
   the absence of intermediate caching, Server Cache Synchronization is
   not needed and even recommended against.  Therefore, a DMVPN
   compliant implementation MUST NOT rely on such a synchronization
   which would have adverse effects on the scalability of the entire
   system.

   If the TTL of the request drops to zero or the current node finds
   itself on a Forward Transit Extension record then the NHRP Resolution
   Request MUST be dropped and an NHRP error message sent to the source.

   When the Resolution Request eventually reaches a node where the
   route(s) to the destination would take it out through a non-DMVPN
   interface, the Resolution Request process MUST be stopped and this
   node becomes the egress node.  The egress node is typically (by
   virtue of network design) the topologically closest node to the
   resolved address Dd.

   The egress node must then prepare itself for replying with a
   Resolution Reply.

4.6.  Egress node NHRP cache and Tunnel Creation

   When a node declares itself an egress node while attempting to
   forward a Resolution Request, it MUST evaluate the need for
   establishing a shortcut tunnel according to a user policy.  Note that
   an implementation is not mandated to support a user policy but then
   the implicit policy MUST request the shortcut establishment.  If
   policies are supported, one of the possible policies MUST be shortcut
   establishment.

   If a shortcut is required, the egress node MUST perform the following
   operations:



Detienne, et al.          Expires June 23, 2014                [Page 12]


Internet-Draft              Dynamic Mesh VPN               December 2013


   o  the source NBMA address (PubS1) is extracted from the NHRP
      Resolution Request
   o  if a GRE/IPsec tunnel already exists between PubS2 and PubS1, this
      tunnel is selected (assuming interface TunnelX)
   o  otherwise, a new GRE shortcut tunnel is created between PubS2 and
      PubS1 (assuming interface TunnelX); the GRE tunnel SHOULD be
      protected by IPsec and the SA's immediately negotiated by IKE
   o  an NHRP cache entry is created for TunS1 => PubS1.  The entry
      SHOULD NOT remain in the cache for more than the specified Hold
      Time (from the NHRP Resolution Request).  This NHRP cache entry
      may be 'refreshed' for another hold time period prior to expiry by
      receipt of another matching NHRP Resolution Request or by sending
      an NHRP Resolution Request and receiving an NHRP Resolution Reply.
   o  a route is inserted into the RIB: TunS1/32 => PubS1 on TunnelX
      (assuming IPv4)

   Regardless how the shortcut tunnel is created a node SHOULD NOT try
   to establish more than one tunnel with a remote node.  If there are
   other tunnels not managed by DMVPN, the tunnel selectors (source,
   destination, tunnel key) MUST NOT interfere with the DMVPN shortcut
   tunnels.

   If a tunnel has to be created and SA's established, a node SHOULD
   wait for the tunnel to be in place before proceeding with further
   operations.  Regardless of how those operations are timed in the
   implementation, a node SHOULD avoid dropping data packets during the
   cache and SA installation.  The order of operations SHOULD ensure
   continuous forwarding.

4.7.  Resolution Reply format and processing

   After the operations described in the previous section are completed,
   a Resolution Reply MUST be emitted by the egress node.  Instead of
   strictly answering with just the host address being looked up, the
   Reply will contain the entire prefix (P/Plen) that was found during
   the stopped Resolution Request forwarding phase.

   The Resolution Reply main fields MUST be populated as follows:

   o  Fixed Header

      *  ar$op.version = 1
      *  ar$op.type = 2
   o  Common Header (Mandatory Header)

      *  Source NBMA Address = PubS1
      *  Source Protocol Address = TunS1
      *  Destination Protocol Address = Dd



Detienne, et al.          Expires June 23, 2014                [Page 13]


Internet-Draft              Dynamic Mesh VPN               December 2013


   o  CIE-1

      *  Prefix-len = Plen
      *  Client NBMA Address = PubS2
      *  Client Protocol Address = TunS2

   The Destination Protocol address remains the address being resolved
   (Dd) while the CIE actually contains the remainder of the response
   (Plen via NBMA PubS2, Protocol TunS2).  The Resolution Reply MUST be
   forwarded to the ingress node S1 either through the shortcut tunnel
   or via the Hub.

   If the address family of the resolved address Dd is IPv6, the
   Resolution Reply SHOULD be augmented with a second CIE containing the
   egress node's link local address.

   If a node decides to block the resolution process, it MAY simply drop
   the Resolution Request or avoid sending a Resolution Reply.  A node
   MAY also send a NACK Resolution Reply.

   When the Resolution Reply is received by the ingress node, a new
   tunnel TunnelY MUST be created pointing to PubS2 if one does not
   already exist (which depends on whether the Resolution Reply was
   routed via the Hub(s) or directly on the shortcut tunnel).  The
   ingress node MUST process the reply in the following way:

   o  Validate that this Resolution Reply corresponds to a Request
      emitted by S1.  If not, issue an error and stop processing the
      Reply.
   o  An NHRP Cache entry is created for TunS2 => PubS2
   o  Two routes are added to the routing table:

      *  TunS2 => TunnelY
      *  P/Plen => TunS2 on TunnelY

   Though implementations may be entirely different, a compliant
   implementation MUST exhibit a functional behavior strictly equivalent
   to the one described above.  I.e. IP packets MUST eventually be
   forwarded according to the above implementation.

   DMVPN compliant implementations MUST support providing and receiving
   aggregated address resolution information.

4.8.  From Hub and Spoke to Dynamic Mesh

   At the end of the resolution process, the overlay topology will be as
   follows:




Detienne, et al.          Expires June 23, 2014                [Page 14]


Internet-Draft              Dynamic Mesh VPN               December 2013


              DC1
               |
             [H1]
             |  |       ]
           +-+  +-+     ] GRE/IPsec tunnels over Transport network
           |      |     ]
          [S1]===[S2]
           |      |
           D1     D2

                        Shortcut tunnel established

   Where the tunnel depicted with = is a GRE/IPsec shortcut tunnel
   created by NHRP.  The Routing Table on S1 will now look as follows:

   o  TunH1 => Tunnel0
   o  SUM => TunH1 on Tunnel0
   o  0.0.0.0/0 => IntPub
   o  D1 => IntPriv
   o  TunS2 => TunnelY
   o  P/Plen => TunS2 on TunnelY

   It is easy to see that traffic from D1 to D2 will follow the shortcut
   path under the assumption that P == D2 or D2 is a subnet included in
   P.

   The tunnels between S* and H* are actually tunnels created
   automatically to bootstrap the DMVPN.  In practice the initial
   topology will be a static star (aka Hub and Spoke) topology between
   S* and H* that will evolve into a dynamic mesh between the nodes S*.

   From the spokes (S*) standpoint, the bootstrap tunnels can be
   established with a node H1 statically defined or discovered by DNS.
   The problem of finding the initial hubs in a DMVPN is not different
   than finding regular hubs in a traditional Hub and Spoke network.

   For scalability reasons, it is expected that the NHRP Indirection/
   Resolution is the only way by which routes are exchanged between S*
   nodes.  While this does not fall in the context of this document, it
   is worth mentioning that actual implementations SHOULD NOT establish
   a routing protocol adjacency directly over the shortcut tunnels.

4.9.  Remote Access Clients

   The specification in this document allows a node to not protect any
   private network.  I.e. in a degenerate case, it MUST be possible for
   a node S1 to not have a D1 network attached to it.  Instead, S1 only
   owns a PubS1? and TunS1? address.  This would typically the case of a



Detienne, et al.          Expires June 23, 2014                [Page 15]


Internet-Draft              Dynamic Mesh VPN               December 2013


   remote access client (PC, mobile device,...) that only has a tunnel
   address and an NBMA address.

              DC1
               |
             [H1]
             |  |       ]
           +-+  +-+     ] GRE/IPsec tunnels over Transport network
           |      |     ]
          [S1]===[S2]
                  |
                  D2

                           Remote Access Client

   On the diagram above, S1 is actually a simple PC or mobile node that
   is not protecting any other network other than its own tunnel
   address.

   These nodes may fully participate in a DMVPN network, including
   building spoke-spoke tunnels as long as they support GRE, NHRP, IPsec
   /IKE, and have a way to separate tunneled traffic (virtual
   interfaces) and be able to update a local routing table to associate
   networks with different next-hops out either their IntTun (data
   traffic going over the tunnel) or (IntPub) (tunnel packets themselves
   and/or non-tunneled data traffic).  They may not need to run a
   routing protocol since they can rely on the Configuration Payload
   Exchange described in Section 9.2.

4.10.  Node mutual authentication

   Nodes authenticate each other using the IKE protocol, while they
   attempt to establish a tunnel.  Because the system is by nature
   extremely distributed, it is recommended to use X.509 certificates
   for authentication.  Internet Public Key Infrastructure is described
   in [RFC5280]

   The structured names and various fields in the certificate can be
   useful for filtering undesired connectivity in large administrative
   domains or when two domains are being partially merged.  It is indeed
   easy for a system administrator to define filters to prevent
   connectivity between nodes that are not supposed to communicate
   directly (e.g. filtering based on the O or OU fields).

   Though nodes may be blocked from building a direct tunnel by the
   above means they may or may not be allowed to communicate via a
   spoke-hub-spoke path.  Allowing or blocking communication via the
   spoke-hub-spoke path is outside the scope of this document.



Detienne, et al.          Expires June 23, 2014                [Page 16]


Internet-Draft              Dynamic Mesh VPN               December 2013


5.  NHRP Extension Format

   As described in [RFC2332], an NHRP packet consists of a fixed part, a
   mandatory part and an extensions part.  The Fixed Part is common to
   all NHRP packet types.  The Mandatory Part MUST be present, but
   varies depending on packet type.  The Extensions Part also varies
   depending on packet type, and need not be present.  This section
   describes the packet format of the new messages introduced as well as
   extensions to the existing packet types.

5.1.  NHRP Traffic Indication

   The fixed part of an NHRP Traffic Indication packet picks itself
   directly from the standard NHRP fixed part and all fields pick up the
   same meaning as in [RFC2332] unless otherwise explicitly stated.


       0                   1                   2                   3
       0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |            ar$afn             |          ar$pro.type          |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |                          ar$pro.snap                          |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |  ar$pro.snap  |   ar$hopcnt   |            ar$pktsz           |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |           ar$chksum           |            ar$extoff          |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      | ar$op.version |   ar$op.type  |    ar$shtl    |    ar$sstl    |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

                 Figure 3: Traffic Indication Fixed Header

   o  ar$op.type With ar$op.version = 1, this is an NHRP packet.
      Further, [RFC2332] uses the numbers 1-7 for standard NHRP
      messages.  When ar$op.type = 8, this indicates a traffic
      indication packet.

   The mandatory part of the NHRP Traffic Indication packet is slightly
   different from the NHRP Resolution/Registration/Purge Request/Reply
   packets and bears a much closer resemblance with the mandatory part
   of NHRP Error Indication packet.  The mandatory part of an NHRP
   Traffic Indication has the following format








Detienne, et al.          Expires June 23, 2014                [Page 17]


Internet-Draft              Dynamic Mesh VPN               December 2013


       0                   1                   2                   3
       0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      | Src Proto Len | Dst Proto Len |            unused             |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |           Traffic Code        |            unused             |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |            Source NBMA Address (variable length)              |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |          Source NBMA Subaddress (variable length)             |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |          Source Protocol Address (variable length)            |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |       Destination  Protocol Address (variable length)         |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |       Contents of Data Packet in traffic (variable length)    |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

                Figure 4: Traffic Indication Mandatory Part

   o  Src Proto Len: This field holds the length in octets of the Source
      Protocol Address.
   o  Dst Proto Len: This field holds the length in octets of the
      Destination Protocol Address.
   o  Traffic Code: A code indicating the type of traffic indication
      message, chosen from the following list

      *  0: NHRP Traffic Redirect/Indirection message.This indirection
         is an indication,to the receiver, of the possible existence of
         a 'better' path in the NBMA network.
   o  Source NBMA Address: The Source NBMA address field is the address
      of the station which generated the traffic indication.
   o  Source NBMA SubAddress: The Source NBMA subaddress field is the
      address of the station generated the traffic indication.  If the
      field's length as specified in ar$sstl is 0 then no storage is
      allocated for this address at all.
   o  Source Protocol Address: This is the protocol address of the
      station which issued the Traffic Indication packet.
   o  Destination Protocol Address: This is the destination IP address
      from the packet which triggered the sending of this Traffic
      Indication message.

   Note that unlike NHRP Resolution/Registration/Purge messages, Traffic
   Indication message doesn't have a request/reply pair nor does it
   contain any CIE though it may contain extension records.






Detienne, et al.          Expires June 23, 2014                [Page 18]


Internet-Draft              Dynamic Mesh VPN               December 2013


6.  Security Considerations

   The use of NHRP and its protocol extensions described in this
   document do not open a direct security hole.  The peers are duly
   authenticated with each other by IKE and the traffic is protected by
   IPsec.  The only risk may come from inside the network itself; this
   is not different from static meshes.

   Implementers must be diligent in offering all the control and data
   plane filtering options that an administrator would need to secure
   the communication inside the overlay network.

7.  IANA Considerations

   The following values are used experimentally:

   o  The ar$op.type value of 8 representing Traffic Indication
   o  Traffic Code value of 0 indicating a Traffic Indirection message.

   Full standardization would require official IANA numbers to be
   assigned.

8.  Compliance against ADVPN requirements

   This section compares the adequacy of DMVPN to the requirement list
   stated in [RFC7018].

8.1.  Requirement 1: minimize configuration change

   There are three requirements from requirement 1 from [RFC7018] which
   reads:

      "For any network topology (star, full mesh, and dynamic full
      mesh), when a new gateway or endpoint is added, removed, or
      changed, configuration changes are minimized as follows.  Adding
      or removing a spoke in the topology MUST NOT require configuration
      changes to hubs other than where the spoke was connected and
      SHOULD NOT require configuration changes to the hub to which the
      spoke was connected.  The changes also MUST NOT require
      configuration changes in other spokes.

      Specifically, when evaluating potential proposals, we will compare
      them by looking at how many endpoints or gateways must be
      reconfigured when a new gateway or endpoint is added, removed, or
      changed and how substantial this reconfiguration is, in addition
      to the amount of static configuration required."





Detienne, et al.          Expires June 23, 2014                [Page 19]


Internet-Draft              Dynamic Mesh VPN               December 2013


   The three requirements are (1a) all hub change, (1b) connected hub
   change, and (1c) other spokes.

   (1a), (1b), and (1c) are met by the ability for tunnels transport
   addresses to be dynamically discovered by NHRP and the tunnels
   dynamically created and configured by IKE when the authentication
   succeeds.

8.2.  Requirement 2: IPsec without config change, even with peer address
      change

   There is one requirement from Requirement 2 of [RFC7018] which reads:

      "ADVPN Peers MUST allow IPsec tunnels to be set up with other
      members of the ADVPN without any configuration changes, even when
      peer addresses get updated every time the device comes up.  This
      implies that Security Policy Database (SPD) entries or other
      configuration based on a peer IP address will need to be
      automatically updated, avoided, or handled in some manner to avoid
      a need to manually update policy whenever an address changes."

   Each proposal meets this requirement as described below:

   This requirement is met, and uses the Summary route from Hub
   (Section 4.2), then method of Indirection (Section 4.3) then a
   Resolution Request (Section 4.4) and finally a Resolution reply
   (Section 4.7) to identify the overlay address to transport address
   mapping in a dynamic manner.

8.3.  Requirement 3: Tunnel, Routing, and no Additional Configuration

   There are two requirements from requirement 3 of [RFC7018] which
   reads:

      "In many cases, additional tunneling protocols (e.g., GRE) or
      routing protocols (e.g., OSPF) are run over the IPsec tunnels.
      Gateways MUST allow for the operation of tunneling and routing
      protocols operating over spoke-to-spoke IPsec tunnels with minimal
      or no configuration impact.  The ADVPN solution SHOULD NOT
      increase the amount of information required to configure protocols
      running over IPsec tunnels."

   The two requirements are: (3a) minimal or no configuration impact
   incurred by the tunneling protocols between spokes, (3b) minimal
   configuration impact incurred by routing protocols operating over the
   spoke-to-spoke tunnels.





Detienne, et al.          Expires June 23, 2014                [Page 20]


Internet-Draft              Dynamic Mesh VPN               December 2013


   Requirement (3a) is met as dynamic tunnels are dynamically created at
   the same time as the IKE SA is authenticated.

   Requirement (3b) is met as routing protocols do not operate over
   spoke-to-spoke tunnels; only NHRP is responsible for exchanging
   prefixes between spokes and NHRP is entirely dynamic.

8.4.  Requirement 4: Spoke-to-Spoke Optimization

   There are two requirements from requirement 4 of [RFC7018] which
   reads:

      "In the full-mesh and dynamic full-mesh topologies, spokes MUST
      allow for direct communication with other spoke gateways and
      endpoints.  In the star topology mode, direct communication
      between spokes MUST be disallowed."

   The two requirements are: (4a) in full-mesh and dynamic full-mesh
   topologies, allow direct spoke-to-spoke communication and (4b) in
   star topology, disallow direct spoke-to-spoke communication.

   Requirement (4a) is met by the Resolution Request/Reply mechanism
   described from Section 4.4 to Section 4.7.

   Requirement (4b) is met by disabling the NHRP protocol handler from a
   tunnel pointing to a remote peer.  As NHRP is disabled, NHRP messages
   to and from that peer will be dropped and the peer will be unable to
   forge a new dynamic endpoint with any other spoke.  It is sufficient
   to disable NHRP to that spoke at the hub level to impede the
   Resolution mechanism causing the spoke-spoke optimization.
   Requirement (4b) can be applied globally (for all spokes) or
   individually (for selected spokes) the activation or deactivation of
   NHRP on a given peer to peer tunnel can be driven by static
   configuration or on a per-identity basis.  Additionally, peers can
   filter NHRP Resolution Requests or Replies if partial meshing is
   allowed to specific prefixes only.  Additional identity and
   certificate filters can be imposed to further restrict which devices
   can connect to others.  For instance, Certificates Subject Names
   fields such as Organization or Organization Unit are frequently used
   to that effect.

8.5.  Requirement 5: Credentials and Compromise

   There are three requirements from requirement 5 of [RFC7018] which
   reads:

      "ADVPN Peers MUST NOT have a way to get the long-term
      authentication credentials for any other ADVPN Peers.  The



Detienne, et al.          Expires June 23, 2014                [Page 21]


Internet-Draft              Dynamic Mesh VPN               December 2013


      compromise of an endpoint MUST NOT affect the security of
      communications between other ADVPN Peers.  The compromise of a
      gateway SHOULD NOT affect the security of the communications
      between ADVPN Peers not associated with that gateway."

   The three requirements are: (5a) no way to get the long-term
   authentication credentials from any other ADVPN peers, (5b)
   compromise of an endpoint does not affect security of communications
   with other peers, and (5c) compromise of a gateway does not affect
   the security of communications between ADVPN peers not associated
   with that gateway.

   Requirement (5a) and is met by Section 4.10 which recommends PKI.

   Requirement (5b) is met with mutual authentication.  If an endpoint
   is compromised, its corresponding certificate will be revoked and it
   will be impossible for this endpoint to create any new connection to
   any new peer.

   Requirement (5c), is met by the same mechanism as (5b).

8.6.  Requirement 6: Handoff and Roaming

   There are two requirements from requirement 6 of [RFC7018] which
   reads:

      "Gateways SHOULD allow for seamless handoff of sessions in cases
      where endpoints are roaming, even if they cross policy boundaries.
      This would mean the data traffic is minimally affected even as the
      handoff happens.  External factors like firewalls and NAT boxes
      that will be part of the overall solution when ADVPN is deployed
      will not be considered part of this solution.  Such endpoint
      roaming may affect not only the endpoint-to- endpoint SA but also
      the relationship between the endpoints and gateways (such as when
      an endpoint roams to a new network that is handled by a different
      gateway)."

   The two requirements are (6a) gateways allow for seamless handoff of
   sessions when clients roaming (6b) even if they cross policy
   boundaries.

   Requirement (6a) is met by the fact that tunnels can be established
   dynamically but will not be available for traffic until the IPsec SA
   is fully available.  This is ensured by the fact that NHRP does not
   install prefixes into the routing policy until the SA's are fully
   negotiated, as described in Section 4.6





Detienne, et al.          Expires June 23, 2014                [Page 22]


Internet-Draft              Dynamic Mesh VPN               December 2013


   Requirement (6b) is met because DMVPN is agnostic to policy
   boundaries or domains.

8.7.  Requirement 7: Easy handoff and Migration

   The are two requirements from requirement 7 of [RFC7018] which reads:

      "Gateways SHOULD allow for easy handoff of a session to another
      gateway, to optimize latency, bandwidth, load balancing,
      availability, or other factors, based on policy.  This ability to
      migrate traffic from one gateway to another applies regardless of
      whether the gateways in question are hubs or spokes.  It even
      applies in the case where a gateway (hub or spoke) moves in the
      network, as may happen with a vehicle-based network."

   The two requiremets are: (7a) Easy handoff os a session to another
   gateway to optimize requirements based on policy, and (7b) ability to
   migrate from one gateway to another.

   Requirement (7a) can be achieved by using IKEv2 Redirect ([RFC5685])
   to redirect a peer entirely to another gateway.  Specific Indirection
   Notification can be used to redirect specific networks or peers.

   Requirement (7b) is met because IKEv2 Redirect, Resolution Request
   and Indirection Notification can be sent on a voluntary basis by any
   device (hub or spoke) which means than a source node or an egress
   node can be of any type (hub or spoke).  In practice, this is an
   unusual mode of operation (seldom desirable) but it is legitimate.

8.8.  Requirement 8: NAT

   There are three requirements from requirement 8 of [RFC7018] which
   reads:

      "Gateways and endpoints MUST have the capability to participate in
      an ADVPN even when they are located behind NAT boxes.  However, in
      some cases they may be deployed in such a way that they will not
      be fully reachable behind a NAT box.  It is especially difficult
      to handle cases where the hub is behind a NAT box.  When the two
      endpoints are both behind separate NATs, communication between
      these spokes SHOULD be supported using workarounds such as port
      forwarding by the NAT or detecting when two spokes are behind
      uncooperative NATs, and using a hub in that case."

   The three requirements are: (8a) Gateways and endpoints MUST have the
   capability to participate in an ADVPN even when they are located
   behind NAT boxes. (8b) When the two endpoints are both behind




Detienne, et al.          Expires June 23, 2014                [Page 23]


Internet-Draft              Dynamic Mesh VPN               December 2013


   separate NAT boxes. (8c) Shortcuts should continue to work seamlessly
   when NAT prevents direct spoke-spoke connectivity.

   All requirements (8a,8b) are met by the use of NAT Traversal to
   detect NAT devices within the network.  If a hub is deployed behind a
   NAT address, the spokes need to point their tunnel destination
   towards the public address of the Hub,as described in Section 9.3

   Requirement (8c) is met since NHRP does not install prefixes into the
   routing policy until the SA's are fully negotiated, as described in
   Section 4.6.

8.9.  Requirement 9: Changes reported

   There is one requirement from requirement 9 of [RFC7018] which reads:

      "Changes such as establishing a new IPsec SA SHOULD be reportable
      and manageable.  However, creating a MIB or other management
      technique is not within scope for this effort."

   Requirement (9) is met by taking advantage of the various MIB's
   defined in existing documents such as [RFC2677], [RFC4292], etc.
   There is no standard IPsec MIB but various vendors have developed a
   proprietary MIB (typically based on draft-ietf-ipsec-flowmon-mib and
   draft-ietf-ipsec-mib) that implementations of this specification can
   use.  Traps can be triggered as tunnel interfaces come up and down
   dynamically as defined in [RFC2863] section 3.1.9.  Additional
   logging message can be triggered at various levels of the
   implementation.

8.10.  Requirement 10: Federation between organisations

   There is one requirement from requirement 10 of [RFC7018] which
   reads:

      "To support allied and federated environments, endpoints and
      gateways from different organizations SHOULD be able to connect to
      each other."

   Requirement (10) is met is met by the use of PKI ([RFC5280]),
   described in Section 4.6.  NHRP can resolve networks across multiple
   domains as long as those domains are somehow initially connected to
   the topology.








Detienne, et al.          Expires June 23, 2014                [Page 24]


Internet-Draft              Dynamic Mesh VPN               December 2013


8.11.  Requirement 11: Configuration of star, full-mesh, or partial
       full-mesh topologies

   There is one requirement from requirement 11 of [RFC7018] which
   reads:

      "The administrator of the ADVPN SHOULD allow for the configuration
      of a star, full-mesh, or partial full-mesh topology, based on
      which tunnels are allowed to be set up."

   Requirement (11) is met by the same principle as Requirement (4b).

8.12.  Requirement 12: Scale for Multicast

   There is one requirement from requirement 12 of [RFC7018] which
   reads:

      "The ADVPN solution SHOULD be able to scale for multicast
      traffic."

   Requirement (12) is met by the use of a full tunneling interface as
   described in Section 1.  All multicast control protocols such as PIM
   ([RFC4601]) or IGMP ([RFC4604]) or even MLD ([RFC3810]) will work
   seamlessly on the overlay medium (GRE/IPsec tunnels).

8.13.  Requirement 13: Monitoring and Reporting

   There is one requirement from requirement 13 of [RFC7018] which
   reads:

      "The ADVPN solution SHOULD allow for easy monitoring, logging, and
      reporting of the dynamic changes to help with troubleshooting such
      environments."

   Requirement (13) is met by the use of multiple existing technologies
   (IPsec, IKE, NHRP, GRE, interfaces) which all generate their own
   monitoring, logging, and reporting.

8.14.  Requirement 14: L3 VPNs

   There is one requirement from requirement 14 of [RFC7018] which
   reads:

      "There is also the case where L3VPNs operate over IPsec tunnels,
      for example, Provider-Edge-based VPNs.  An ADVPN MUST support
      L3VPNs as applications protected by the IPsec tunnels."





Detienne, et al.          Expires June 23, 2014                [Page 25]


Internet-Draft              Dynamic Mesh VPN               December 2013


   Requirement (14) is met by the use of GRE to encapsulate all traffic
   which allows for L2 headers to be transported over DMVPN providing
   L3VPN functionality.  L3VPN labels can be exchanged by running a
   routing protocol over the tunnels.

   In accordance to Requirements (1) and (2) about minimal
   configuration, the tunnel interfaces only need to activate MPLS as a
   supported encapsulation format.  This activation can be performed
   globally for all tunnels or can be performed for individual tunnels
   based on the peer identity.

8.15.  Requirement 15: QoS

   There is one requirement from requirement 15 of [RFC7018] which
   reads:

      "The ADVPN solution SHOULD allow the enforcement of per-peer QoS
      in both the star and full-mesh topologies."

   Requirement (15) is met by applying a QoS policy on the point-to-
   point (GRE/IPsec) tunnels, allowing the policy to only parse traffic
   that is destined to a specific remote peer.

8.16.  Requirement 16: Hub Redundancy

   There is one requirement from requirement 16 of [RFC7018] which
   reads:

      "The ADVPN solution SHOULD take care of not letting the hub be a
      single point of failure."

   Requirement (16) is met by the ability to use multiple Hubs and an
   overlay routing protocol as described in Sections 1 and 4.2.  This
   method allows a routing based resiliency.  Additionally, a spoke can
   define multiple addresses or a DNS names to be used as a backup hub.

9.  Design Considerations

   This section contains a number of points that do not augment the
   specification explained so far but instead clarify its use.

9.1.  Routing Policy and RFC4301 Security

   The notion of routing policy is extensively used throughout this
   document.  This routing policy is a mechanism used to lookup which
   peer or node the packet should be sent to.  The exact representation
   of a Routing Policy is left to the implementer.  It may represent but
   is not limited to a unique routing table, a manifold of routing



Detienne, et al.          Expires June 23, 2014                [Page 26]


Internet-Draft              Dynamic Mesh VPN               December 2013


   table, a policy route or any other mechanism that can take a
   forwarding decision.

   A key conceptual difference between a Routing Policy and a plain SADB
   or a routing table is that packets can be routed to a peer based on
   complex rules that may be more complex than just the usual
   destination prefix of a RIB or the 3- or 5-tuple (source/destination
   IP, source/destination port, protocol) of the SADB.

   Most systems can take forwarding decisions that are more elaborate
   than that.  This includes policy-based-routing, application based
   forwarding, multi-topology routing, etc. that are used to evaluate
   packets before they optionally undergo the basic routing table or
   SADB.

   A notable example of a Routing Policy is a manifold of Routing Tables
   in the context of VPN Instances (see [RFC4026]); these dedicated
   tables are called VRF's. In this example, a dedicated VRF that we
   will call VRF Red is associated to the overlay network and
   exclusively routes protected packets.  In effect, the private
   interfaces and the tunnel interfaces are considered Red Interfaces
   and exclusively make use of VRF Red as a routing table.  Packets
   entering the system on a Red interface undergo a VRF Red lookup and
   can only leave the device on a Red interface (which tunnels are part
   of).

   Another routing table called VRF Black is associated to the transport
   network (or NBMA network) and exclusively routes traffic to and from
   Unprotected Network.  This means the physical interfaces facing the
   transport network are Black interfaces and traffic entering that
   interface is driven by the Black VRF routing table.  GRE/IPsec
   packets entering the Unprotected interface are such packets.

   As noted earlier in this document, GRE tunnels request to be IPsec
   protected through a crypto socket as explained in [RFC5660].  A
   corresponding SPD and SADB will be created by that socket.

   Plain GRE packets will be discarded as they were not duly protected
   and no SPD covers that traffic flow ([RFC4301], section 5).

   IPsec packets will be accepted by the IPsec stack, their SPI looked
   up, get validated (hash, anti-replay) and decrypted.  The clear text
   packet undergoes the SADB check and MUST be a GRE packet.  If it is
   not a GRE packet of adequate source/destination, the packet is
   discarded.  In the light of [RFC5660], the packets will be given to
   their application without further intermediate lookup; in this case,
   the application is the corresponding GRE Tunnel Interface.




Detienne, et al.          Expires June 23, 2014                [Page 27]


Internet-Draft              Dynamic Mesh VPN               December 2013


   The protected/overlay packet is now in the clear, ready to be
   processed by the GRE Input Features.  In particular, security
   features can be applied on the clear text, overlay packet (access-
   filter, Unicast Reverse Path Forwarding, Layer 7 inspection via
   Firewall or Intrusion Prevention system,...).  Those policies can be
   applied on the fly at IKE negotiation time when the remote peer
   identity is known.  The clear text packet, should it survive the
   security policies, will be forwarded to another Red Interface
   according to the VRF Red table.

   In the egress direction, clear text packets enter a VRF Red
   Interface, get forwarded to a Tunnel interface according to VRF Red.
   The packet undergoes output features on the output interface (this
   may include filters, firewalling etc.) and is encapsulated into GRE.
   The GRE encapsulation function passes the packet to IPsec for
   protection through the crypto socket.  The packet is now an ESP or AH
   packet and can be routed out the public interface according to the
   VRF Black table.

   For compliance with [RFC4301], explicit leaks may be configured
   between VRF's to allow specific traffic to bypass IPsec encryption or
   other security policies if necessary but by default, the Red and
   Black VRF's are absolutely compartmented.

   Various operating systems such as Linux do support VRFs but also have
   other methods of implementing a routing policy (e.g. iproute2) that
   they can use to their advantage to achieve beyond-routing or beyond-
   SADB policy enforcement.

9.2.  Using Configuration Attributes

   As outlined earlier in this document, this specification lets any
   administratively authorized control protocol set up the routing
   policy of the base topology.  This section explains how IKEv2 can
   perform that task.

   IKEv2 natively features Configuration Attributes exchanged in
   Configuration Payloads ([RFC5996], section 3.15).  These payloads can
   be used to exchange prefix between peers.  The exchange looks like












Detienne, et al.          Expires June 23, 2014                [Page 28]


Internet-Draft              Dynamic Mesh VPN               December 2013


            Spoke1                        Hub

            HDR, SK {IDi, [CERT,]
             [CERTREQ,] [IDr,] AUTH,
             CP(CFG_REQUEST), SAi2,
             TSi, TSr}  -->
                                      <-- HDR, SK {IDr, [CERT,] AUTH,
                                          CP(CFG_REPLY), SAr2,
                                          TSi, TSr}
            HDR, SK {CP(CFG_SET)}
                        -->
                                      <-- HDR, SK {CP(CFG_ACK)}

                              Config Exchange

   In accordance to the previous notation, the config payloads and
   attributes in order to set up the routing table depicted in
   Section 4.2 looks as follows:

                  CP(CFG_REQUEST)=
                   INTERNAL_ADDRESS()

                  CP(CFG_REPLY)=
                   INTERNAL_ADDRESS(TunS1)
                   INTERNAL_NETMASK(255.255.255.255)
                   INTERNAL_SUBNET(SUM/SUM_MASK)
                   ... (other INTERNAL_SUBNETs if necessary)

                  CP(CFG_SET)=
                   INTERNAL_SUBNET(D1/D1_MASK)
                   ... (other INTERNAL_SUBNETs if necessary)

                  CP(CFG_ACK)

                              Config Exchange

   The information exchange can be achieved by both sides requesting and
   responding solely using CFG_REQUEST and CFG_ACK but it has been
   expanded to showcase the conformance to the IKEv2 protocols.

   Due to limited packet size and issues caused by fragmentation, the
   number of prefixes exchanged by CP exchange is expected to be limited
   in practice.  This mechanism is not meant to transfer a large number
   of prefixes.  Should the prefix count be high, the authors strongly
   recommend the use of a routing protocol instead.

   A peer receiving INTERNAL_SUBNET attributes from another peer MUST be
   free to ignore or otherwise interpret that INTERNAL_SUBNET in



Detienne, et al.          Expires June 23, 2014                [Page 29]


Internet-Draft              Dynamic Mesh VPN               December 2013


   accordance to a security policy.  This is necessary in accordance to
   [RFC4301] PAD and a recommended practice.Interpretation of that
   INTERNAL_SUBNET includes plain rejection (ignore), modification of
   the received subnet, logging a warning message and/or termination of
   the connection.

9.3.  NAT Support

   IKEv2 supports NAT Traversal natively.  Since GRE provides the
   tunneling capability, GRE itself can be protected by IPsec Transport
   Mode.  See [RFC5996], sections 2.23 for NAT support and 2.23.1 in
   particular for NAT Traversal in Transport Mode for the protocol
   details.

   If a hub is deployed behind a NAT address, the spokes need to point
   their tunnel destination towards the public address of the Hub,
   assuming the hub is reachable via a well known NAT translation
   (static mapping or dynamic public address published via DNS for
   instance).

10.  Acknowldegements

   The authors would like to thank Graham Bartlett, Brian Weis, Mark
   Comeadow and Mark Jackson from Cisco for their help in publishing and
   reviewing this document.  We would also like to acknowledge the
   historical DMVPN team, in particular Jan Vilhuber and Pratima Sethi.

11.  References

11.1.  Normative References

   [RFC2119]  Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
              Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.

   [RFC2332]  Luciani, J., Katz, D., Piscitello, D., Cole, B., and N.
              Doraswamy, "NBMA Next Hop Resolution Protocol (NHRP)", RFC
              2332, April 1998.

   [RFC2784]  Farinacci, D., Li, T., Hanks, S., Meyer, D., and P.
              Traina, "Generic Routing Encapsulation (GRE)", RFC 2784,
              March 2000.

   [RFC3810]  Vida, R. and L. Costa, "Multicast Listener Discovery
              Version 2 (MLDv2) for IPv6", RFC 3810, June 2004.

   [RFC4026]  Andersson, L. and T. Madsen, "Provider Provisioned Virtual
              Private Network (VPN) Terminology", RFC 4026, March 2005.




Detienne, et al.          Expires June 23, 2014                [Page 30]


Internet-Draft              Dynamic Mesh VPN               December 2013


   [RFC4301]  Kent, S. and K. Seo, "Security Architecture for the
              Internet Protocol", RFC 4301, December 2005.

   [RFC5226]  Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an
              IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 5226,
              May 2008.

   [RFC5660]  Williams, N., "IPsec Channels: Connection Latching", RFC
              5660, October 2009.

   [RFC5685]  Devarapalli, V. and K. Weniger, "Redirect Mechanism for
              the Internet Key Exchange Protocol Version 2 (IKEv2)", RFC
              5685, November 2009.

   [RFC5996]  Kaufman, C., Hoffman, P., Nir, Y., and P. Eronen,
              "Internet Key Exchange Protocol Version 2 (IKEv2)", RFC
              5996, September 2010.

   [RFC7018]  Manral, V. and S. Hanna, "Auto-Discovery VPN Problem
              Statement and Requirements", RFC 7018, September 2013.

11.2.  Informative References

   [RFC2677]  Greene, M., Cucchiara, J., and J. Luciani, "Definitions of
              Managed Objects for the NBMA Next Hop Resolution Protocol
              (NHRP)", RFC 2677, August 1999.

   [RFC2863]  McCloghrie, K. and F. Kastenholz, "The Interfaces Group
              MIB", RFC 2863, June 2000.

   [RFC4292]  Haberman, B., "IP Forwarding Table MIB", RFC 4292, April
              2006.

   [RFC4601]  Fenner, B., Handley, M., Holbrook, H., and I. Kouvelas,
              "Protocol Independent Multicast - Sparse Mode (PIM-SM):
              Protocol Specification (Revised)", RFC 4601, August 2006.

   [RFC4604]  Holbrook, H., Cain, B., and B. Haberman, "Using Internet
              Group Management Protocol Version 3 (IGMPv3) and Multicast
              Listener Discovery Protocol Version 2 (MLDv2) for Source-
              Specific Multicast", RFC 4604, August 2006.

   [RFC5280]  Cooper, D., Santesson, S., Farrell, S., Boeyen, S.,
              Housley, R., and W. Polk, "Internet X.509 Public Key
              Infrastructure Certificate and Certificate Revocation List
              (CRL) Profile", RFC 5280, May 2008.





Detienne, et al.          Expires June 23, 2014                [Page 31]


Internet-Draft              Dynamic Mesh VPN               December 2013


Authors' Addresses

   Frederic Detienne
   Cisco
   De Kleetlaan 7
   Diegem  1831
   Belgium

   Email: fd@cisco.com


   Manish Kumar
   Cisco
   Mail Stop BGL14/G/
   SEZ Unit, Cessna Business Park
   Varthur Hobli, Sarjapur Marathalli Outer Ring Road
   Bangalore, Karnataka  560 103
   India

   Email: manishkr@cisco.com


   Mike Sullenberger
   Cisco
   Mail Stop SJCK/3/1
   225 W. Tasman Drive
   San Jose, California  95134
   United States

   Email: mls@cisco.com





















Detienne, et al.          Expires June 23, 2014                [Page 32]


Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.122, available from https://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/