rfc7814
Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) X. Xu
Request for Comments: 7814 Huawei Technologies
Category: Informational C. Jacquenet
ISSN: 2070-1721 Orange
R. Raszuk
T. Boyes
Bloomberg LP
B. Fee
Extreme Networks
March 2016
Virtual Subnet: A BGP/MPLS IP VPN-Based Subnet Extension Solution
Abstract
This document describes a BGP/MPLS IP VPN-based subnet extension
solution referred to as "Virtual Subnet", which can be used for
building Layer 3 network virtualization overlays within and/or
between data centers.
Status of This Memo
This document is not an Internet Standards Track specification; it is
published for informational purposes.
This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force
(IETF). It represents the consensus of the IETF community. It has
received public review and has been approved for publication by the
Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG). Not all documents
approved by the IESG are a candidate for any level of Internet
Standard; see Section 2 of RFC 5741.
Information about the current status of this document, any errata,
and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at
http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7814.
Xu, et al. Informational [Page 1]
RFC 7814 Virtual Subnet March 2016
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2016 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
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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3. Solution Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.1. Unicast . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.1.1. Intra-subnet Unicast . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.1.2. Inter-subnet Unicast . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.2. Multicast . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
3.3. Host Discovery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
3.4. ARP/ND Proxy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
3.5. Host Mobility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
3.6. Forwarding Table Scalability on Data-Center Switches . . 10
3.7. ARP/ND Cache Table Scalability on Default Gateways . . . 10
3.8. ARP/ND and Unknown Unicast Flood Avoidance . . . . . . . 10
3.9. Path Optimization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
4. Limitations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
4.1. Non-support of Non-IP Traffic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
4.2. Non-support of IP Broadcast and Link-Local Multicast . . 11
4.3. TTL and Traceroute . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
6. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
6.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
6.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Xu, et al. Informational [Page 2]
RFC 7814 Virtual Subnet March 2016
1. Introduction
For business continuity purposes, Virtual Machine (VM) migration
across data centers is commonly used in situations such as data-
center maintenance, migration, consolidation, expansion, or disaster
avoidance. The IETF community has recognized that IP renumbering of
servers (i.e., VMs) after the migration is usually complex and
costly. To allow the migration of a VM from one data center to
another without IP renumbering, the subnet on which the VM resides
needs to be extended across these data centers.
To achieve subnet extension across multiple cloud data centers in a
scalable way, the following requirements and challenges must be
considered:
a. VPN Instance Space Scalability: In a modern cloud data-center
environment, thousands or even tens of thousands of tenants could
be hosted over a shared network infrastructure. For security and
performance isolation purposes, these tenants need to be isolated
from one another.
b. Forwarding Table Scalability: With the development of server
virtualization technologies, it's not uncommon for a single cloud
data center to contain millions of VMs. This number already
implies a big challenge to the forwarding table scalability of
data-center switches. Provided multiple data centers of such
scale were interconnected at Layer 2, this challenge would become
even worse.
c. ARP/ND Cache Table Scalability: [RFC6820] notes that the Address
Resolution Protocol (ARP) / Neighbor Discovery (ND) cache tables
maintained by default gateways within cloud data centers can
raise scalability issues. Therefore, mastering the size of the
ARP/ND cache tables is critical as the number of data centers to
be connected increases.
d. ARP/ND and Unknown Unicast Flooding: It's well-known that the
flooding of ARP/ND broadcast/multicast messages as well as
unknown unicast traffic within large Layer 2 networks is likely
to affect network and host performance. When multiple data
centers that each host millions of VMs are interconnected at
Layer 2, the impact of such flooding would become even worse. As
such, it becomes increasingly important to avoid the flooding of
ARP/ND broadcast/multicast as well as unknown unicast traffic
across data centers.
Xu, et al. Informational [Page 3]
RFC 7814 Virtual Subnet March 2016
e. Path Optimization: A subnet usually indicates a location in the
network. However, when a subnet has been extended across
multiple geographically dispersed data-center locations, the
location semantics of such a subnet is not retained any longer.
As a result, traffic exchanged between a specific user and a
server that would be located in different data centers may first
be forwarded through a third data center. This suboptimal
routing would obviously result in unnecessary consumption of the
bandwidth resources between data centers. Furthermore, in the
case where traditional Virtual Private LAN Service (VPLS)
technology [RFC4761] [RFC4762] is used for data-center
interconnect, return traffic from a server may be forwarded to a
default gateway located in a different data center due to the
configuration of a virtual router redundancy group. This
suboptimal routing would also unnecessarily consume the bandwidth
resources between data centers.
This document describes a BGP/MPLS IP VPN-based subnet extension
solution referred to as "Virtual Subnet", which can be used for data-
center interconnection while addressing all of the aforementioned
requirements and challenges. Here, the BGP/MPLS IP VPN means both
BGP/MPLS IPv4 VPN [RFC4364] and BGP/MPLS IPv6 VPN [RFC4659]. In
addition, since Virtual Subnet is built mainly on proven technologies
such as BGP/MPLS IP VPN and ARP/ND proxy [RFC925] [RFC1027]
[RFC4389], those service providers that provide Infrastructure as a
Service (IaaS) cloud services can rely upon their existing BGP/MPLS
IP VPN infrastructure and take advantage of their BGP/MPLS VPN
operational experience to interconnect data centers.
Although Virtual Subnet is described in this document as an approach
for data-center interconnection, it can be used within data centers
as well.
Note that the approach described in this document is not intended to
achieve an exact emulation of Layer 2 connectivity, and therefore it
can only support a restricted Layer 2 connectivity service model with
limitations that are discussed in Section 4. The discussion about
where this service model can apply is outside the scope of this
document.
2. Terminology
This memo makes use of the terms defined in [RFC4364].
Xu, et al. Informational [Page 4]
RFC 7814 Virtual Subnet March 2016
3. Solution Description
3.1. Unicast
3.1.1. Intra-subnet Unicast
+--------------------+
+------------------+ | | +------------------+
|VPN_A:192.0.2.1/24| | | |VPN_A:192.0.2.1/24|
| \ | | | | / |
| +------+ \ ++---+-+ +-+---++/ +------+ |
| |Host A+-----+ PE-1 | | PE-2 +----+Host B| |
| +------+\ ++-+-+-+ +-+-+-++ /+------+ |
| 192.0.2.2/24 | | | | | | 192.0.2.3/24 |
| | | | | | | |
| DC West | | | IP/MPLS Backbone | | | DC East |
+------------------+ | | | | +------------------+
| +--------------------+ |
| |
VRF_A : V VRF_A : V
+------------+---------+--------+ +------------+---------+--------+
| Prefix |Next hop |Protocol| | Prefix |Next hop |Protocol|
+------------+---------+--------+ +------------+---------+--------+
|192.0.2.1/32|127.0.0.1| Direct | |192.0.2.1/32|127.0.0.1| Direct |
+------------+---------+--------+ +------------+---------+--------+
|192.0.2.2/32|192.0.2.2| Direct | |192.0.2.2/32| PE-1 | IBGP |
+------------+---------+--------+ +------------+---------+--------+
|192.0.2.3/32| PE-2 | IBGP | |192.0.2.3/32|192.0.2.3| Direct |
+------------+---------+--------+ +------------+---------+--------+
|192.0.2.0/24|192.0.2.1| Direct | |192.0.2.0/24|192.0.2.1| Direct |
+------------+---------+--------+ +------------+---------+--------+
Figure 1: Intra-subnet Unicast Example
As shown in Figure 1, two hosts (i.e., Hosts A and B) belonging to
the same subnet (i.e., 192.0.2.0/24) are located in different data
centers (i.e., DC West and DC East), respectively. PE routers (i.e.,
PE-1 and PE-2) that are used for interconnecting these two data
centers create host routes for their own local hosts respectively and
then advertise these routes by means of the BGP/MPLS IP VPN
signaling. Meanwhile, an ARP proxy is enabled on Virtual Routing and
Forwarding (VRF) attachment circuits of these PE routers.
Let's now assume that Host A sends an ARP request for Host B before
communicating with Host B. Upon receiving the ARP request, PE-1
acting as an ARP proxy returns its own MAC address as a response.
Host A then sends IP packets for Host B to PE-1. PE-1 tunnels such
packets towards PE-2, which in turn forwards them to Host B. Thus,
Xu, et al. Informational [Page 5]
RFC 7814 Virtual Subnet March 2016
Hosts A and B can communicate with each other as if they were located
within the same subnet.
3.1.2. Inter-subnet Unicast
+--------------------+
+------------------+ | | +------------------+
|VPN_A:192.0.2.1/24| | | |VPN_A:192.0.2.1/24|
| \ | | | | / |
| +------+ \ ++---+-+ +-+---++/ +------+ |
| |Host A+-------+ PE-1 | | PE-2 +-+----+Host B| |
| +------+\ ++-+-+-+ +-+-+-++ | /+------+ |
| 192.0.2.2/24 | | | | | | | 192.0.2.3/24 |
| GW=192.0.2.4 | | | | | | | GW=192.0.2.4 |
| | | | | | | | +------+ |
| | | | | | | +----+ GW +-- |
| | | | | | | /+------+ |
| | | | | | | 192.0.2.4/24 |
| | | | | | | |
| DC West | | | IP/MPLS Backbone | | | DC East |
+------------------+ | | | | +------------------+
| +--------------------+ |
| |
VRF_A : V VRF_A : V
+------------+---------+--------+ +------------+---------+--------+
| Prefix |Next hop |Protocol| | Prefix |Next hop |Protocol|
+------------+---------+--------+ +------------+---------+--------+
|192.0.2.1/32|127.0.0.1| Direct | |192.0.2.1/32|127.0.0.1| Direct |
+------------+---------+--------+ +------------+---------+--------+
|192.0.2.2/32|192.0.2.2| Direct | |192.0.2.2/32| PE-1 | IBGP |
+------------+---------+--------+ +------------+---------+--------+
|192.0.2.3/32| PE-2 | IBGP | |192.0.2.3/32|192.0.2.3| Direct |
+------------+---------+--------+ +------------+---------+--------+
|192.0.2.4/32| PE-2 | IBGP | |192.0.2.4/32|192.0.2.4| Direct |
+------------+---------+--------+ +------------+---------+--------+
|192.0.2.0/24|192.0.2.1| Direct | |192.0.2.0/24|192.0.2.1| Direct |
+------------+---------+--------+ +------------+---------+--------+
| 0.0.0.0/0 | PE-2 | IBGP | | 0.0.0.0/0 |192.0.2.4| Static |
+------------+---------+--------+ +------------+---------+--------+
Figure 2: Inter-subnet Unicast Example (1)
As shown in Figure 2, only one data center (i.e., DC East) is
deployed with a default gateway (i.e., GW). PE-2, which is connected
to GW, would either be configured with or have learned a default
route from GW with the next hop being pointed at GW. Meanwhile, this
route is distributed to other PE routers (i.e., PE-1) as per normal
operation as described in [RFC4364]. Assume Host A sends an ARP
Xu, et al. Informational [Page 6]
RFC 7814 Virtual Subnet March 2016
request for its default gateway (i.e., 192.0.2.4) prior to
communicating with a destination host outside of its subnet. Upon
receiving this ARP request, PE-1 acting as an ARP proxy returns its
own MAC address as a response. Host A then sends a packet for Host B
to PE-1. PE-1 tunnels such a packet towards PE-2 according to the
default route learned from PE-2, which in turn forwards that packet
to GW.
+--------------------+
+------------------+ | | +------------------+
|VPN_A:192.0.2.1/24| | | |VPN_A:192.0.2.1/24|
| \ | | | | / |
| +------+ \ ++---+-+ +-+---++/ +------+ |
| |Host A+----+--+ PE-1 | | PE-2 +-+----+Host B| |
| +------+\ | ++-+-+-+ +-+-+-++ | /+------+ |
| 192.0.2.2/24 | | | | | | | | 192.0.2.3/24 |
| GW=192.0.2.4 | | | | | | | | GW=192.0.2.4 |
| +------+ | | | | | | | | +------+ |
|--+ GW-1 +----+ | | | | | | +----+ GW-2 +-- |
| +------+\ | | | | | | /+------+ |
| 192.0.2.4/24 | | | | | | 192.0.2.4/24 |
| | | | | | | |
| DC West | | | IP/MPLS Backbone | | | DC East |
+------------------+ | | | | +------------------+
| +--------------------+ |
| |
VRF_A : V VRF_A : V
+------------+---------+--------+ +------------+---------+--------+
| Prefix |Next hop |Protocol| | Prefix |Next hop |Protocol|
+------------+---------+--------+ +------------+---------+--------+
|192.0.2.1/32|127.0.0.1| Direct | |192.0.2.1/32|127.0.0.1| Direct |
+------------+---------+--------+ +------------+---------+--------+
|192.0.2.2/32|192.0.2.2| Direct | |192.0.2.2/32| PE-1 | IBGP |
+------------+---------+--------+ +------------+---------+--------+
|192.0.2.3/32| PE-2 | IBGP | |192.0.2.3/32|192.0.2.3| Direct |
+------------+---------+--------+ +------------+---------+--------+
|192.0.2.4/32|192.0.2.4| Direct | |192.0.2.4/32|192.0.2.4| Direct |
+------------+---------+--------+ +------------+---------+--------+
|192.0.2.0/24|192.0.2.1| Direct | |192.0.2.0/24|192.0.2.1| Direct |
+------------+---------+--------+ +------------+---------+--------+
| 0.0.0.0/0 |192.0.2.4| Static | | 0.0.0.0/0 |192.0.2.4| Static |
+------------+---------+--------+ +------------+---------+--------+
Figure 3: Inter-subnet Unicast Example (2)
As shown in Figure 3, in the case where each data center is deployed
with a default gateway, hosts will get ARP responses directly from
their local default gateways, rather than from their local PE routers
when sending ARP requests for their default gateways.
Xu, et al. Informational [Page 7]
RFC 7814 Virtual Subnet March 2016
+------+
+------+ PE-3 +------+
+------------------+ | +------+ | +------------------+
|VPN_A:192.0.2.1/24| | | |VPN_A:192.0.2.1/24|
| \ | | | | / |
| +------+ \ ++---+-+ +-+---++/ +------+ |
| |Host A+-------+ PE-1 | | PE-2 +------+Host B| |
| +------+\ ++-+-+-+ +-+-+-++ /+------+ |
| 192.0.2.2/24 | | | | | | 192.0.2.3/24 |
| GW=192.0.2.1 | | | | | | GW=192.0.2.1 |
| | | | | | | |
| DC West | | | IP/MPLS Backbone | | | DC East |
+------------------+ | | | | +------------------+
| +--------------------+ |
| |
VRF_A : V VRF_A : V
+------------+---------+--------+ +------------+---------+--------+
| Prefix |Next hop |Protocol| | Prefix |Next hop |Protocol|
+------------+---------+--------+ +------------+---------+--------+
|192.0.2.1/32|127.0.0.1| Direct | |192.0.2.1/32|127.0.0.1| Direct |
+------------+---------+--------+ +------------+---------+--------+
|192.0.2.2/32|192.0.2.2| Direct | |192.0.2.2/32| PE-1 | IBGP |
+------------+---------+--------+ +------------+---------+--------+
|192.0.2.3/32| PE-2 | IBGP | |192.0.2.3/32|192.0.2.3| Direct |
+------------+---------+--------+ +------------+---------+--------+
|192.0.2.0/24|192.0.2.1| Direct | |192.0.2.0/24|192.0.2.1| Direct |
+------------+---------+--------+ +------------+---------+--------+
| 0.0.0.0/0 | PE-3 | IBGP | | 0.0.0.0/0 | PE-3 | IBGP |
+------------+---------+--------+ +------------+---------+--------+
Figure 4: Inter-subnet Unicast Example (3)
Alternatively, as shown in Figure 4, PE routers themselves could be
configured as default gateways for their locally connected hosts as
long as these PE routers have routes to reach outside networks.
3.2. Multicast
To support IP multicast between hosts of the same Virtual Subnet,
Multicast VPN (MVPN) technologies [RFC6513] could be used without any
change. For example, PE routers attached to a given VPN join a
default provider multicast distribution tree that is dedicated to
that VPN. Ingress PE routers, upon receiving multicast packets from
their local hosts, forward them towards remote PE routers through the
corresponding default provider multicast distribution tree. Within
this context, the IP multicast doesn't include link-local multicast.
Xu, et al. Informational [Page 8]
RFC 7814 Virtual Subnet March 2016
3.3. Host Discovery
PE routers should be able to dynamically discover their local hosts
and keep the list of these hosts up-to-date in a timely manner to
ensure the availability and accuracy of the corresponding host routes
originated from them. PE routers could accomplish local host
discovery by some traditional host-discovery mechanisms using ARP or
ND protocols.
3.4. ARP/ND Proxy
Acting as an ARP or ND proxy, a PE router should only respond to an
ARP request or Neighbor Solicitation (NS) message for a target host
when it has a best route for that target host in the associated VRF
and the outgoing interface of that best route is different from the
one over which the ARP request or NS message is received. In the
scenario where a given VPN site (i.e., a data center) is multihomed
to more than one PE router via an Ethernet switch or an Ethernet
network, the Virtual Router Redundancy Protocol (VRRP) [RFC5798] is
usually enabled on these PE routers. In this case, only the PE
router being elected as the VRRP Master is allowed to perform the
ARP/ND proxy function.
3.5. Host Mobility
During the VM migration process, the PE router to which the moving VM
is now attached would create a host route for that host upon
receiving a notification message of VM attachment (e.g., a gratuitous
ARP or unsolicited NA message). The PE router to which the moving VM
was previously attached would withdraw the corresponding host route
when noticing the detachment of that VM. Meanwhile, the latter PE
router could optionally broadcast a gratuitous ARP or send an
unsolicited NA message on behalf of that host with the source MAC
address being one of its own. In this way, the ARP/ND entry of this
host that moved and that has been cached on any local host would be
updated accordingly. In the case where there is no explicit VM
detachment notification mechanism, the PE router could also use the
following trick to detect the VM detachment: upon learning a route
update for a local host from a remote PE router for the first time,
the PE router could immediately check whether that local host is
still attached to it by some means (e.g., ARP/ND PING and/or ICMP
PING). It is important to ensure that the same MAC and IP are
associated to the default gateway active in each data center, as the
VM would most likely continue to send packets to the same default
gateway address after having migrated from one data center to
another. One possible way to achieve this goal is to configure the
Xu, et al. Informational [Page 9]
RFC 7814 Virtual Subnet March 2016
same VRRP group on each location to ensure that the default gateway
active in each data center shares the same virtual MAC and virtual IP
addresses.
3.6. Forwarding Table Scalability on Data-Center Switches
In a Virtual Subnet environment, the MAC learning domain associated
with a given Virtual Subnet that has been extended across multiple
data centers is partitioned into segments, and each segment is
confined within a single data center. Therefore, data-center
switches only need to learn local MAC addresses, rather than learning
both local and remote MAC addresses.
3.7. ARP/ND Cache Table Scalability on Default Gateways
When default gateway functions are implemented on PE routers as shown
in Figure 4, the ARP/ND cache table on each PE router only needs to
contain ARP/ND entries of local hosts. As a result, the ARP/ND cache
table size would not grow as the number of data centers to be
connected increases.
3.8. ARP/ND and Unknown Unicast Flood Avoidance
In a Virtual Subnet environment, the flooding domain associated with
a given Virtual Subnet that was extended across multiple data
centers, is partitioned into segments and each segment is confined
within a single data center. Therefore, the performance impact on
networks and servers imposed by the flooding of ARP/ND broadcast/
multicast and unknown unicast traffic is minimized.
3.9. Path Optimization
As shown in Figure 4, to optimize the forwarding path for the traffic
between cloud users and cloud data centers, PE routers located in
cloud data centers (i.e., PE-1 and PE-2), which are also acting as
default gateways, propagate host routes for their own local hosts to
remote PE routers that are attached to cloud user sites (i.e., PE-3).
As such, traffic from cloud user sites to a given server on the
Virtual Subnet that has been extended across data centers would be
forwarded directly to the data-center location where that server
resides, since traffic is now forwarded according to the host route
for that server, rather than the subnet route. Furthermore, for
traffic coming from cloud data centers and forwarded to cloud user
sites, each PE router acting as a default gateway would forward
traffic according to the longest-match route in the corresponding
VRF. As a result, traffic from data centers to cloud user sites is
forwarded along an optimal path as well.
Xu, et al. Informational [Page 10]
RFC 7814 Virtual Subnet March 2016
4. Limitations
4.1. Non-support of Non-IP Traffic
Although most traffic within and across data centers is IP traffic,
there may still be a few legacy clustering applications that rely on
non-IP communications (e.g., heartbeat messages between cluster
nodes). Since Virtual Subnet is strictly based on L3 forwarding,
those non-IP communications cannot be supported in the Virtual Subnet
solution. In order to support those few non-IP traffic (if present)
in the environment where the Virtual Subnet solution has been
deployed, the approach following the idea of "route all IP traffic,
bridge non-IP traffic" could be considered. In other words, all IP
traffic including both intra- and inter-subnet, would be processed
according to the Virtual Subnet design, while non-IP traffic would be
forwarded according to a particular Layer 2 VPN approach. Such a
unified L2/L3 VPN approach requires ingress PE routers to classify
packets received from hosts before distributing them to the
corresponding L2 or L3 VPN forwarding processes. Note that more and
more cluster vendors are offering clustering applications based on
Layer 3 interconnection.
4.2. Non-support of IP Broadcast and Link-Local Multicast
As illustrated before, intra-subnet traffic across PE routers is
forwarded at Layer 3 in the Virtual Subnet solution. Therefore, IP
broadcast and link-local multicast traffic cannot be forwarded across
PE routers in the Virtual Subnet solution. In order to support the
IP broadcast and link-local multicast traffic in the environment
where the Virtual Subnet solution has been deployed, the unified L2/
L3 overlay approach as described in Section 4.1 could be considered
as well. That is, IP broadcast and link-local multicast messages
would be forwarded at Layer 2 while routable IP traffic would be
processed according to the Virtual Subnet design.
4.3. TTL and Traceroute
As mentioned before, intra-subnet traffic is forwarded at Layer 3 in
the Virtual Subnet context. Since it doesn't require any change to
the Time-To-Live (TTL) handling mechanism of the BGP/MPLS IP VPN,
when doing a traceroute operation on one host for another host
(assuming that these two hosts are within the same subnet but are
attached to different sites), the traceroute output would reflect the
fact that these two hosts within the same subnet are actually
connected via a Virtual Subnet, rather than a Layer 2 connection
since the PE routers to which those two hosts are connected would be
displayed in the traceroute output. In addition, for any other
applications that generate intra-subnet traffic with TTL set to 1,
Xu, et al. Informational [Page 11]
RFC 7814 Virtual Subnet March 2016
these applications may not work properly in the Virtual Subnet
context, unless special TTL processing and loop-prevention mechanisms
for such context have been implemented. Details about such special
TTL processing and loop-prevention mechanisms are outside the scope
of this document.
5. Security Considerations
Since the BGP/MPLS IP VPN signaling is reused without any change,
those security considerations as described in [RFC4364] are
applicable to this document. Meanwhile, since security issues
associated with the NDP are inherited due to the use of NDP proxy,
those security considerations and recommendations as described in
[RFC6583] are applicable to this document as well.
Inter-data-center traffic often carries highly sensitive information
at higher layers that is not directly understood (parsed) within an
egress or ingress PE. For example, migrating a VM will often mean
moving private keys and other sensitive configuration information.
For this reason, inter-data-center traffic should always be protected
for both confidentiality and integrity using a strong security
mechanism such as IPsec [RFC4301]. In the future, it may be feasible
to protect that traffic within the MPLS layer [MPLS-SEC] though at
the time of writing, the mechanism for that is not sufficiently
mature to recommend. Exactly how such security mechanisms are
deployed will vary from case to case, so securing the inter-data-
center traffic may or may not involve deploying security mechanisms
on the ingress/egress PEs or further "inside" the data centers
concerned. Note though that if security is not deployed on the
egress/ingress PEs, there is a substantial risk that some sensitive
traffic may be sent in the clear and will therefore be vulnerable to
pervasive monitoring [RFC7258] or other attacks.
6. References
6.1. Normative References
[RFC925] Postel, J., "Multi-LAN address resolution", RFC 925,
DOI 10.17487/RFC0925, October 1984,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc925>.
[RFC1027] Carl-Mitchell, S. and J. Quarterman, "Using ARP to
implement transparent subnet gateways", RFC 1027,
DOI 10.17487/RFC1027, October 1987,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1027>.
Xu, et al. Informational [Page 12]
RFC 7814 Virtual Subnet March 2016
[RFC4364] Rosen, E. and Y. Rekhter, "BGP/MPLS IP Virtual Private
Networks (VPNs)", RFC 4364, DOI 10.17487/RFC4364, February
2006, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4364>.
[RFC4389] Thaler, D., Talwar, M., and C. Patel, "Neighbor Discovery
Proxies (ND Proxy)", RFC 4389, DOI 10.17487/RFC4389, April
2006, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4389>.
6.2. Informative References
[MPLS-SEC] Farrel, A. and S. Farrell, "Opportunistic Security in MPLS
Networks", Work in Progress, draft-ietf-mpls-
opportunistic-encrypt-01, March 2016.
[RFC4301] Kent, S. and K. Seo, "Security Architecture for the
Internet Protocol", RFC 4301, DOI 10.17487/RFC4301,
December 2005, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4301>.
[RFC4659] De Clercq, J., Ooms, D., Carugi, M., and F. Le Faucheur,
"BGP-MPLS IP Virtual Private Network (VPN) Extension for
IPv6 VPN", RFC 4659, DOI 10.17487/RFC4659, September 2006,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4659>.
[RFC4761] Kompella, K., Ed. and Y. Rekhter, Ed., "Virtual Private
LAN Service (VPLS) Using BGP for Auto-Discovery and
Signaling", RFC 4761, DOI 10.17487/RFC4761, January 2007,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4761>.
[RFC4762] Lasserre, M., Ed. and V. Kompella, Ed., "Virtual Private
LAN Service (VPLS) Using Label Distribution Protocol (LDP)
Signaling", RFC 4762, DOI 10.17487/RFC4762, January 2007,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4762>.
[RFC5798] Nadas, S., Ed., "Virtual Router Redundancy Protocol (VRRP)
Version 3 for IPv4 and IPv6", RFC 5798,
DOI 10.17487/RFC5798, March 2010,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5798>.
[RFC6513] Rosen, E., Ed. and R. Aggarwal, Ed., "Multicast in MPLS/
BGP IP VPNs", RFC 6513, DOI 10.17487/RFC6513, February
2012, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6513>.
[RFC6583] Gashinsky, I., Jaeggli, J., and W. Kumari, "Operational
Neighbor Discovery Problems", RFC 6583,
DOI 10.17487/RFC6583, March 2012,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6583>.
Xu, et al. Informational [Page 13]
RFC 7814 Virtual Subnet March 2016
[RFC6820] Narten, T., Karir, M., and I. Foo, "Address Resolution
Problems in Large Data Center Networks", RFC 6820,
DOI 10.17487/RFC6820, January 2013,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6820>.
[RFC7258] Farrell, S. and H. Tschofenig, "Pervasive Monitoring Is an
Attack", BCP 188, RFC 7258, DOI 10.17487/RFC7258, May
2014, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7258>.
Acknowledgements
Thanks to Susan Hares, Yongbing Fan, Dino Farinacci, Himanshu Shah,
Nabil Bitar, Giles Heron, Ronald Bonica, Monique Morrow, Rajiv Asati,
Eric Osborne, Thomas Morin, Martin Vigoureux, Pedro Roque Marque, Joe
Touch, Wim Henderickx, Alia Atlas, and Stephen Farrell for their
valuable comments and suggestions on this document. Thanks to Loa
Andersson for his WG LC review on this document. Thanks to Alvaro
Retana for his AD review on this document. Thanks to Ronald Bonica
for his RtgDir review. Thanks to Donald Eastlake 3rd for his Sec-DIR
review of this document. Thanks to Jouni Korhonen for the OPS-Dir
review of this document. Thanks to Roni Even for the Gen-ART review
of this document. Thanks to Sabrina Tanamal for the IANA review of
this document.
Xu, et al. Informational [Page 14]
RFC 7814 Virtual Subnet March 2016
Authors' Addresses
Xiaohu Xu
Huawei Technologies
No.156 Beiqing Rd
Beijing 100095
China
Email: xuxiaohu@huawei.com
Christian Jacquenet
Orange
4 rue du Clos Courtel
Cesson-Sevigne, 35512
France
Email: christian.jacquenet@orange.com
Robert Raszuk
Bloomberg LP
731 Lexington Avenue
New York City, NY 10022
United States
Email: robert@raszuk.net
Truman Boyes
Bloomberg LP
Email: tboyes@bloomberg.net
Brendan Fee
Extreme Networks
Email: bfee@extremenetworks.com
Xu, et al. Informational [Page 15]
ERRATA
