One document matched: draft-ietf-ppvpn-requirements-05.txt
Differences from draft-ietf-ppvpn-requirements-04.txt
INTERNET DRAFT M. Carugi
Internet Engineering Task Force Nortel Networks
Document: D. McDysan
draft-ietf-ppvpn-requirements-05.txt WorldCom
October 2002 (Co-Editors)
Category: Informational
Expires: April 2003
Service requirements for Layer 3 Provider Provisioned Virtual Private
Networks:
<draft-ietf-ppvpn-requirements-05.txt>
Status of this memo
This document is an Internet-Draft and is in full conformance with
all provisions of Section 10 of RFC 2026 ([RFC-2026]).
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that other
groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-Drafts.
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."
The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt
The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.
This document is a product of the IETF's Provider Provisioned Virtual
Private Network (ppvpn) working group. Comments should be addressed
to WG's mailing list at ppvpn@ppvpn.francetelecom.com. The charter
for ppvpn may be found at http://www.ietf.org/html.charters/ppvpn-
charter.html
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2000). All Rights Reserved.
Distribution of this memo is unlimited.
Abstract
This document provides requirements for Layer 3 Provider Provisioned
Virtual Private Networks (PPVPNs). It identifies requirements
applicable to a number of individual approaches that a Service
Provider may use for the provisioning of a VPN service. This document
expresses a service provider perspective, based upon past experience
of IP-based service offerings and the ever-evolving needs of the
customers of such services. Toward this end, it first defines
terminology and states general requirements. Detailed requirements
are expressed from a customer as well as a service provider
perspective.
Carugi et al 1 Service requirements for Layer 3 PPVPNs October, 2002
Conventions used in this document
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 ([RFC-2119]).
Table of Contents
1 Introduction ......................................................5
1.1 Scope of this document .........................................5
1.2 Outline ........................................................5
2 Contributing Authors ..............................................6
3 Definitions .......................................................6
3.1 Virtual Private Network Components .............................6
3.2 Users, Sites, Customers and Agents .............................6
3.3 Intranets, Extranets, and VPNs .................................7
3.4 Networks of Customer and Provider Devices ......................7
3.5 Access Networks, Tunnels, and Hierarchical Tunnels .............8
3.6 Use of Tunnels and roles of CE and PE in L3 PPVPNs .............8
3.6.1 PE-Based Layer 3 PPVPNs and Virtual Forwarding Instances ..8
3.6.2 CE-Based PPVPN Tunnel Endpoints and Functions ............10
3.7 Customer and Provider Network Management ......................10
4 Service Requirements Common to Customers and Service Providers ...11
4.1 Traffic Types .................................................11
4.2 Topology ......................................................11
4.3 Isolated Exchange of Data and Routing Information .............11
4.4 Security ......................................................12
4.4.1 User data security .......................................12
4.4.2 Access control ...........................................12
4.4.3 Site authentication and authorization ....................12
4.5 Addressing ....................................................12
4.6 Quality of Service ............................................13
4.6.1 QoS Standards ............................................13
4.6.2 Service Models ...........................................14
4.7 Service Level Specification and Agreements ....................15
4.8 Management ....................................................16
4.9 Interoperability ..............................................16
4.10 Interworking ..................................................17
5 Customer Requirements ............................................17
5.1 VPN Membership (Intranet/Extranet) ............................17
5.2 Service Provider Independence .................................17
5.3 Addressing ....................................................17
5.4 Routing Protocol Support ......................................18
5.5 Quality of Service and Traffic Parameters .....................18
5.5.1 Application Level QoS Objectives .........................18
5.5.2 DSCP Transparency ........................................18
5.6 Service Level Specification/Agreement .........................19
5.7 Customer Management of a VPN ..................................19
5.8 Isolation .....................................................19
5.9 Security ......................................................19
5.10 Migration Impact ..............................................20
5.11 Network Access ................................................20
5.11.1 Physical/Link Layer Technology ...........................20
Carugi et al Informational - Expires April 2003 2 Service requirements for Layer 3 PPVPNs October, 2002
5.11.2 Temporary Access .........................................20
5.11.3 Sharing of the Access Network ............................21
5.11.4 Access Connectivity ......................................21
5.12 Service Access ................................................23
5.12.1 Internet Access ..........................................23
5.12.2 Hosting, Application Service Provider ....................23
5.12.3 Other Services ...........................................23
5.13 Hybrid VPN Service Scenarios ..................................24
6 Service Provider Network Requirements ............................24
6.1 Scalability ...................................................24
6.1.1 Service Provider Capacity Sizing Projections .............24
6.1.2 Solution-Specific Metrics ................................25
6.2 Addressing ....................................................26
6.3 Identifiers ...................................................26
6.4 Discovering VPN Related Information ...........................27
6.5 SLA and SLS Support ...........................................27
6.6 Quality of Service (QoS) and Traffic Engineering ..............27
6.7 Routing .......................................................28
6.8 Isolation of Traffic and Routing ..............................28
6.9 Security ......................................................29
6.9.1 Support for Securing Customer Flows ......................29
6.9.2 Authentication Services ..................................30
6.9.3 Resource Protection ......................................30
6.10 Inter-AS (SP)VPNs .............................................31
6.10.1 Routing Protocols ........................................31
6.10.2 Management ...............................................31
6.10.3 Bandwidth and QoS Brokering ..............................32
6.10.4 Security Considerations ..................................32
6.11 PPVPN Wholesale ...............................................32
6.12 Tunneling Requirements ........................................33
6.13 Support for Access and Backbone Technologies ..................33
6.13.1 Dedicated Access Networks ................................33
6.13.2 On-Demand Access Networks ................................34
6.13.3 Backbone Networks ........................................34
6.14 Protection, Restoration .......................................34
6.15 Interoperability ..............................................35
6.16 Migration Support .............................................35
7 Service Provider Management Requirements .........................35
7.1 Fault management ..............................................36
7.2 Configuration Management ......................................36
7.2.1 Configuration Management for PE-Based VPNs ...............37
7.2.2 Configuration management for CE-based VPN ................38
7.2.3 Provisioning Routing .....................................38
7.2.4 Provisioning Network Access ..............................38
7.2.5 Provisioning Security Services ...........................38
7.2.6 Provisioning VPN Resource Parameters .....................39
7.2.7 Provisioning Value-Added Service Access ..................39
7.2.8 Provisioning Hybrid VPN Services .........................40
7.3 Accounting ....................................................40
7.4 Performance Management ........................................41
7.4.1 Performance Monitoring ...................................41
7.4.2 SLA and QoS management features ..........................41
Carugi et al Informational - Expires April 2003 3 Service requirements for Layer 3 PPVPNs October, 2002
7.5 Security Management ...........................................41
7.5.1 Management Access Control ................................42
7.5.2 Authentication ...........................................42
7.6 Network Management Techniques .................................42
8 Security Considerations ..........................................43
9 Acknowledgements .................................................43
10 References......................................................44
10.1 Normative References ..........................................44
10.2 Non-normative References ......................................44
11 Authors' address................................................46
Carugi et al Informational - Expires April 2003 4 Service requirements for Layer 3 PPVPNs October, 2002
1 Introduction
This section describes the scope and outline of the document.
1.1 Scope of this document
This document provides requirements specific to Layer 3 Provider
Provisioned Virtual Private Networks (PPVPN). Requirements that are
generic to L2 and L3 VPNs are contained in [PPVPN-GR]. It identifies
requirements that may apply to one or more individual approaches that
a Service Provider may use for the provisioning of a Layer 3 (e.g.,
IP) VPN service. The content of this document makes use of the
terminologies and common components for deploying Layer 3 PPVPNs
defined in [PPVPN-FR].
The specification of any technical means to provide PPVPN services is
outside the scope of this document. Other documents, such as the
framework document [PPVPN-FR] and several sets of documents, one set
per each individual technical approach providing PPVPN services, are
intended to cover this aspect.
This document describes requirements for two types of network-based
L3 PPVPNs: aggregated routing VPNs [RFC2547bis] and virtual routers
[PPVPN-VR] and one type of CE-based PPVPN [IPsec-PPVPN]. The
approach followed in this document distinguishes PPVPN types as to
where the endpoints of tunnels exist as detailed in the PPVPN
framework document [PPVPN-FR]. Terminology regarding whether
equipment faces a customer or the service provider network is used to
define the various types of PPVPN solutions.
This document is intended as a "checklist" of requirements that will
provide a consistent way to evaluate and document how well each
individual approach satisfies specific requirements. The
applicability statement documents for each individual approach should
document the results of this evaluation.
This document provides requirements from several points of view. It
begins with common customer and service provider point of view,
followed by a customer perspective, and concludes with specific needs
of a Service Provider (SP). These requirements provide high-level
PPVPN features expected by an SP in provisioning PPVPN to make them
beneficial to his or her customers. These general requirements
include SP requirements for security, privacy, manageability,
interoperability and scalability, including service provider
projections for number, complexity, and rate of change of customer
VPNs over the next several years.
1.2 Outline
The outline of the rest of this document is as follows. Section 2
defines terminology. Section 3 provides common requirements that
apply to both customer and service providers. Section 4 states
requirements from a customer perspective. Section 5 states network
requirements from a service provider perspective. Section 6 states
Carugi et al Informational - Expires April 2003 5 Service requirements for Layer 3 PPVPNs October, 2002
service provider management requirements. Section 7 describes
security considerations. Section 8 lists acknowledgements. Section 9
provides a list of references cited herein. Section 10 lists the
author's addresses.
2 Contributing Authors
This document was the combined effort of the editors and the
following authors who contributed to this document:
Luyuan Fang
Ananth Nagarajan
Junichi Sumimoto
Rick Wilder
3 Definitions
This section provides the definition of terms and concepts used
throughout the document.
[Editor's Note: this section may be moved to another PPVPN RFC that
defines terminology.]
3.1 Virtual Private Network Components
This document uses the word _private_ in VPN in the sense of
ownership, which is different from the use of the similar word
_privacy_ used in discussions regarding security. The term _virtual
private_ means that the offered service retains at least some aspects
of a privately owned customer network.
The term "Virtual Private Network" (VPN) refers to the communication
between a set of sites, making use of a shared network
infrastructure. Multiple sites of a private network may therefore
communicate via the public infrastructure, in order to facilitate the
operation of the private network. The logical structure of the VPN,
such as topology, addressing, connectivity, reachability, and access
control, is equivalent to part of or all of a conventional private
network using private facilities.
The term _Provider Provisioned VPN_ refers to VPNs for which the
service provider participates in management and provisioning of the
VPN.
3.2 Users, Sites, Customers and Agents
User: A user is an entity (e.g., a human being using a host, a
server, or a system) that has been authorized to use a VPN service.
Site: A site is a set of users that have mutual IP reachability
without use of a specific service provider network. A site may
consist of a set of users that are in geographic proximity. However,
two geographic locations connected via another provider's network
would also constitute a single site since communication between the
two locations does not involve the use of the service provider
offering the VPN service.
Carugi et al Informational - Expires April 2003 6 Service requirements for Layer 3 PPVPNs October, 2002
Customer: A single organization, corporation, or enterprise that
administratively controls a set of sites.
Agent: A set of users designated by a customer who has the
authorization to manage a customer's VPN service offering.
3.3 Intranets, Extranets, and VPNs
Intranet: An intranet restricts communication to a set of sites that
belong to one customer. An example is branch offices at different
sites that require communication to a headquarters site.
Extranet: An extranet allows the specification of communication
between a set of sites that belong to different customers. In other
words, two or more organizations have access to a specified set of
each other's sites. Examples of an extranet scenario include
multiple companies cooperating in joint software development, a
service provider having access to information from the vendors'
corporate sites, different companies, or universities participating
in a consortium.
Note that an intranet or extranet can exist across a single service
provider network or across multiple service providers.
Virtual Private Network (VPN): The term VPN is used within this
document to refer to a specific set of sites as either an intranet or
an extranet that have been configured to allow communication. Note
that a site is a member of at least one VPN, and may be a member of
many VPNs.
3.4 Networks of Customer and Provider Devices
PPVPNs are composed of the following types of devices.
Customer Edge (CE) device: A CE device faces the users at a customer
site. The CE has an access connection to a PE device. It may be a
router or a switch that allows users at a customer site to
communicate over the access network with other sites in the VPN. In a
CE-based PPVPN, the service provider manages (at least partially) the
CE device.
Provider Edge (PE) device: A PE device faces the provider network on
one side and attaches via an access connection over one or more
access networks to one or more CE devices. It may be a router or a
label switching-router.
Note that the definitions of Customer Edge and Provider Edge do not
necessarily map to the physical deployment of equipment on customer
premises or a provider point of presence.
Provider (P) device: A device within a provider network that
interconnects PE devices, but does not have any direct attachment to
CE.
Carugi et al Informational - Expires April 2003 7 Service requirements for Layer 3 PPVPNs October, 2002
Service Provider (SP) network: An SP network is a set of
interconnected PE and P devices administered by a single service
provider.
3.5 Access Networks, Tunnels, and Hierarchical Tunnels
VPNs are built between CEs using access networks, tunnels, and
hierarchical tunnels.
Access connection: An access connection provides connectivity between
a CE and a PE. This includes dedicated physical circuits, virtual
circuits, such as frame Relay or ATM, Ethernet, or IP tunnels (e.g.,
IPsec, L2TP).
Access network: An access network provides access connections between
CE and PE devices. It may be a TDM network, L2 network (e.g. FR,
ATM, and Ethernet), or an IP network over which access is tunneled
(e.g., using L2TP [RFC2661]).
Tunnel: A tunnel between two entities is formed by encapsulating
packets within another encapsulating header for purpose of
transmission between those two entities in support of a VPN
application. Examples of protocols commonly used for tunneling are:
GRE, IPsec, IP-in-IP tunnels, and MPLS.
Hierarchical Tunnel: Encapsulating one tunnel within another forms a
hierarchical tunnel. The innermost tunnel protocol header defines a
logical association between two entities (e.g., between CEs or PEs)
[VPN TUNNEL]. Note that the tunneling protocols need not be the same
at different levels in a hierarchical tunnel.
3.6 Use of Tunnels and roles of CE and PE in L3 PPVPNs
This section summarizes the point where tunnels terminate and the
functions implemented in the CE and PE devices that differentiate the
two major categories of PPVPNs for which requirements are stated,
namely PE-based and CE-based PPVPNs. See the PPVPN framework document
for more detail [PPVPN-FR].
3.6.1 PE-Based Layer 3 PPVPNs and Virtual Forwarding Instances
In a PE-based layer 3 PPVPN service, a customer site receives IP
layer (i.e., layer 3) service from the SP. The PE is attached via an
access connection to one or more CEs. The PE performs forwarding of
user data packets based on information in the IP layer header, such
as an IPv4 or IPv6 destination address. The CE sees the PE as a layer
3 device such as an IPv4 or IPv6 router.
Virtual Forwarding Instance (VFI): In a PE-based layer 3 VPN service,
the PE contains a VFI for each L3 VPN that it serves. The VFI
terminates tunnels for interconnection with other VFIs and also
terminates access connections for accommodating CEs. VFI contains
information regarding how to forward data received over the access
connection to the CE to VFIs in other PEs supporting the same L3 VPN.
Carugi et al Informational - Expires April 2003 8 Service requirements for Layer 3 PPVPNs October, 2002
The VFI includes the router information base and forwarding
information base for a L3 VPN [PPVPN-FR]. A VFI enables router
functions dedicated to serving a particular VPN, such as separation
of forwarding and routing and support for overlapping address spaces.
Routing protocols in the PEs and the CEs interact to populate the
VFI.
The following narrative and figures provide further explanation of
the way PE devices use tunnels and hierarchical tunnels. Figure 3.1
illustrates the case where a PE uses a separate tunnel for each VPN.
As shown in the figure, the tunnels provide communication between the
virtual switching/forwarding instances in each of the PE devices.
+----------+ +----------+
+-----+ |PE device | |PE device | +-----+
| CE | | | | | | CE |
| dev | Access | +------+ | | +------+ | Access | dev |
| of | conn. | |VFI of| | Tunnel | |VFI of| | conn. | of |
|VPN A|----------|VPN A |======================|VPN A |----------|VPN A|
+-----+ | +------+ | | +------+ | +-----+
| | | |
+-----+ Access | +------+ | | +------+ | Access +-----+
|CE | conn. | |VFI of| | Tunnel | |VFI of| | conn. | CE |
| dev |----------|VPN B |======================|VPN B |----------| dev |
| of | | +------+ | | +------+ | | of |
|VPN B| | | | | |VPN B|
+-----+ +----------+ +----------+ +-----+
Figure 3.1 PE Usage of Separate Tunnels to Support VPNs
Figure 3.3 illustrates the case where a single hierarchical tunnel is
used between PE devices to support communication for VPNs. The
innermost encapsulating protocol header provides the means for the PE
to determine the VPN for which the packet is directed.
+----------+ +----------+
+-----+ |PE device | |PE device | +-----+
| CE | | | | | | CE |
| dev | Access | +------+ | | +------+ | Access | dev |
| of | conn. | |VFI of| | | |VFI of| | conn. | of |
|VPN A|----------|VPN A | | Hierarchical |VPN A |----------|VPN A|
+-----+ | +------+\| Tunnel | +------+ | +-----+
| >==================< |
+-----+ Access | +------+/| |\+------+ | Access +-----+
| CE | conn. | |VFI of| | | |VFI of| | conn. | CE |
| dev |----------|VPN B | | | |VPN B |----------| dev |
| of | | +------+ | | +------+ | | of |
|VPN B| | | | | |VPN B|
+-----+ +----------+ +----------+ +-----+
Figure 3.3 PE Usage of a Shared Hierarchical Tunnels to Support VPNs
Carugi et al Informational - Expires April 2003 9 Service requirements for Layer 3 PPVPNs October, 2002
3.6.2 CE-Based PPVPN Tunnel Endpoints and Functions
Figure 3.5 illustrates the CE-based L3 VPN reference model. In this
configuration, typically a single level of tunnel (e.g., IPsec)
terminates at pairs of CEs. Usually, a CE serves a single customer
site and therefore the forwarding and routing is physically separate
from all other customers. Furthermore, the PE is not aware of the
membership of specific CE devices to a particular VPN. Hence, the VPN
functions are implemented using provisioned configurations on the CE
devices and the shared PE and P network is used to only provide the
routing and forwarding that supports the tunnel endpoints on between
CE devices. The tunnel topology connecting the CE devices may be a
full or partial mesh, depending upon VPN customer requirements and
traffic patterns.
+---------+ +------------------------------------+ +---------+
| | | | | |
| | | +------+ +------+ : +------+
+------+ : | | | | | | : | CE |
| CE | : | | | P | | PE | : |device|
|device| : +------+ Tunnel |router| |device| : | of |
| of |=:====================================================:=|VPN A|
|VPN A| : | | +------+ +------+ : +------+
+------+ : | PE | | | : |
+------+ : |device| | | : |
| CE | : | | Tunnel +------+ : +------+
|device|=:====================================================:=| CE |
| of | : +------+ | PE | : |device|
|VPN B| : | | |device| : | of |
+------+ : | | +------------+ +------------+ | | : |VPN B|
| : | | | Customer | | Network | +------+ : +------+
|Customer | | | management | | management | | | : |
|interface| | | function | | function | | |Customer |
| | | +------------+ +------------+ | |interface|
| | | | | |
+---------+ +------------------------------------+ +---------+
| Access | |<---------- SP network(s) --------->| | Access |
| network | | | | network |
Figure 3.5 Provider Provisioned CE-based L3 VPN
3.7 Customer and Provider Network Management
Customer Network Management Function: A Customer network management
function provides the means for a customer agent to query or
configure customer specific information, or receive alarms regarding
his or her VPN. Customer specific information includes data related
to contact, billing, site, access network, IP address, routing
protocol parameters, etc. It may also include confidential data, such
as encryption keys. It may use a combination of proprietary network
management system, SNMP manager, or directory service (e.g., LDAP
[RFC1777] [RFC2251]).
Carugi et al Informational - Expires April 2003 10 Service requirements for Layer 3 PPVPNs October, 2002
Provider Network Management Function: A provider network management
function provides many of the same capabilities as a customer network
management system across all customers. This would not include
customer confidential information, such as keying material. The
intent of giving the provider a view comparable to that of customer
network management is to aid in troubleshooting and problem
resolution. Such a system also provides the means to query,
configure, or receive alarms regarding any infrastructure supporting
the PPVPN service. It may use a combination of proprietary network
management system, SNMP manager, or directory service (e.g., LDAP
[RFC1777] [RFC2251]).
4 Service Requirements Common to Customers and Service Providers
This section contains requirements that apply to both the customer
and the provider, or are of an otherwise general nature.
[Editor's Note: Some of the material in this section is generic to L2
and L3 VPNs and may be deleted if the draft proposed for [PPVPN-GR]
is accepted.]
4.1 Traffic Types
PPVPN services must support unicast traffic and should support
multicast traffic. It is highly desirable to support L3 multicast
limited in scope to an intranet or extranet. The solution should be
able to support a large number of such intranet or extranet specific
multicast groups in a scalable manner.
4.2 Topology
A PPVPN should support arbitrary, customer agent defined inter-site
connectivity, ranging, for example, from hub-and-spoke, partial mesh
to full mesh topology. To the extent possible, a PPVPN service should
be independent of the geographic extent of the deployment.
A PPVPN should support multiple VPNs per customer site.
To the extent possible, the PPVPN services should be independent of
access network technology.
4.3 Isolated Exchange of Data and Routing Information
A mechanism for isolating the distribution of reachability
information to only those sites associated with a VPN must be
provided.
PPVPN solutions shall define means that prevent routers in a VPN from
interaction with unauthorized entities and avoid introducing
undesired routing information that could corrupt the VPN
routing information base [VPN-CRIT].
A means to constrain, or isolate, the distribution of addressed data
to only those VPN sites determined either by routing data and/or
configuration must be provided.
Carugi et al Informational - Expires April 2003 11 Service requirements for Layer 3 PPVPNs October, 2002
A single site shall be capable of being in multiple VPNs. The VPN
solution must ensure that traffic is exchanged only with those sites
that are in the same VPN.
The internal structure of a VPN should not be advertised nor
discoverable from outside that VPN.
Note that isolation of forwarded data and/or exchange of reachability
information to only those sites that are part of a VPN may be viewed
as a form of security, for example, [Y.1311.1],[MPLS SEC].
4.4 Security
A range of security features should be supported by the suite of
PPVPN solutions [VPN SEC]. Each PPVPN solution should state which
security features it supports and how such features can be configured
on a per customer basis.
4.4.1 User data security
PPVPN solutions that support user data security should use standard
methods (e.g., IPsec) to achieve confidentiality, integrity,
authentication and replay attack prevention.
4.4.2 Access control
A PPVPN solution may also have the ability to activate the
appropriate filtering capabilities upon request of a customer [VPN-
NEEDS]. A filter provides a mechanism so that access control can be
invoked at the point(s) of communication between different
organizations involved in an extranet. Access control can be
implemented by a firewall, access control lists on routers or similar
mechanisms to apply policy-based access control to transit traffic.
4.4.3 Site authentication and authorization
A L3 VPN solution requires authentication and authorization of the
following:
- temporary and permanent access for users connecting to sites
(authentication and authorization BY the site)
- the site itself (authentication and authorization FOR the site)
4.5 Addressing
An L3 VPN service shall support overlapping customer addresses, for
example non-unique private IP addresses [RFC1918].
IP addresses must be unique within the set of sites reachable from
the VPNs of which a particular site is a member.
A VPN solution must support IPv4 and IPv6 as both the encapsulating
and encapsulated protocol.
A VPN service should be capable of translating customer private IP
addresses for communicating with IP systems having public addresses.
Carugi et al Informational - Expires April 2003 12 Service requirements for Layer 3 PPVPNs October, 2002
A VPN service may be capable of supporting non-IP layer 3 customer
addresses (e.g., IPX, Appletalk). If a VPN service supports such
addresses, then it should be capable of translating customer private
addresses for the purpose of communicating with systems having public
addresses.
FR and ATM link layer identifiers (i.e., DLCI and VPI/VCI) shall be
unique only on a physical interface basis.
Normally, Ethernet MAC addresses on access connections are globally
unique.
4.6 Quality of Service
To the extent possible, L3 VPN QoS should be independent of the
access network technology.
4.6.1 QoS Standards
According to the PPVPN charter, a non-goal is the development of new
protocols or extension of existing ones. Therefore, with regards to
QoS support, a PPPVN shall be able to support QoS in one or more of
the following already standardized modes:
- Best Effort (support mandatory for all PPVPN types)
- Aggregate CE Interface Level QoS (i.e., _hose_ level)
- Site-to-site, or _pipe_ level QoS
- Intserv (i.e., RSVP) signaled
- Diffserv marked
- Across packet-switched access networks
Note that all cases involving QoS may require that the CE and/or PE
perform shaping and/or policing.
PPVPN CE should be capable of supporting integrated services
(Intserv) for certain customers in support of session applications,
such as switched voice or video. Intserv-capable CE devices shall
support the following Internet standards:
- Resource reSerVation Protocol (RSVP) [RFC 2205]
- Guaranteed Quality of Service providing a strict delay bound
[RFC 2212]
-Controlled Load Service providing performance equivalent to that
of an unloaded network [RFC 2211]
PPVPN CE and PE should be capable of supporting differentiated
service (diffserv). In diffserv Per Hop Behavior PHB - a description
of the externally observable forwarding behavior of a DS node applied
to a particular DS behavior aggregate [RFC 2475]. Diffserv-capable
PPVPN CE and PE shall support the following per hop behavior (PHB)
types:
- Expedited Forwarding (EF) - the departure rate of an aggregate
class of traffic from a router that must equal or exceed a configured
rate [RFC 3246].
- Assured Forwarding (AF) - is a means for a provider DS domain to
offer different levels of forwarding assurances for IP packets
Carugi et al Informational - Expires April 2003 13 Service requirements for Layer 3 PPVPNs October, 2002
received from a customer DS domain. Four AF classes are defined,
where each AF class is in each DS node allocated a certain amount of
forwarding resources (e.g., buffer space and bandwidth) [RFC 2597].
A customer, CE, or PE device supporting a L3 VPN service may classify
a packet for a particular Intserv or Diffserv service based on upon
one or more of the following IP header fields: protocol ID, source
port number, destination port number, destination address, or source
address.
For TCP traffic, L3 PPVPN devices should support Random Early
Detection (RED) to provide graceful degradation in the event of
network congestion.
The need to provide QoS will occur primarily in the access network,
since that will often be the bottleneck. This is likely to occur
since the backbone effectively statistically multiplexes many users,
is traffic engineered, and in some cases also includes capacity for
restoration and growth. There are two directions of QoS management
that must be considered in any PPVPN service regarding QoS:
- From the CE across the access network to the PE
- From the PE across the access network to CE
PPVPN CE and PE devices should be capable of supporting QoS across a
subset of the access networks defined in section 5.11, such as:
- ATM Virtual Connections (VCs)
- Frame Relay Data Link Connection Identifiers (DLCIs)
- 802.1d Prioritized Ethernet
- MPLS-based access
- Multilink Multiclass PPP
- QoS-enabled wireless (e.g., LMDS, MMDS)
- Cable modem [DOCSIS 1.1]
- QoS-enabled Digital Subscriber Line (DSL)
4.6.2 Service Models
A service provider must be able to offer QoS service to a customer
for at least the following generic service types: managed access VPN
service or an edge-to-edge QoS service.
A managed access L3 PPVPN service provides QoS on the access
connection between the CE and the PE. For example, diffserv would be
enabled only on the CE router and the customer-facing ports of the PE
router. Note that this service would not require implementation of
DiffServ in the SP IP backbone. The SP may use policing for inbound
traffic at the PE. The CE may perform shaping for outbound traffic.
Another example of a managed access L3 VPN service is where the SP
performs the packet classification and diffserv marking. An SP may
provide several packet classification profiles that customers may
select, or may offer a service that offers custom profiles based upon
customer specific requirements. In general, more complex QoS policies
should be left to the customer for implementation.
Carugi et al Informational - Expires April 2003 14 Service requirements for Layer 3 PPVPNs October, 2002
An edge-to-edge QoS VPN service provides QoS from provider edge to
provider edge. The provider edge may be either PE or CE depending
upon the service demarcation point between the provider and the
customer. Such a service may be provided across one or more provider
backbones. The CE requirements for this service model are the same as
the managed access VPN service. However, in this service QoS is
provided from one edge of the SP network(s) to the other edge.
4.7 Service Level Specification and Agreements
A Service Level Specification (SLS) may be defined per access network
connection, per VPN, per VPN site, and/or per VPN route. The service
provider may define objectives and the measurement interval for at
least the SLS using the following Service Level Objective (SLO)
parameters:
O QoS and traffic parameters for the Intserv flow or Diffserv class
O Availability for the site, VPN, or access connection
O Duration of outage intervals per site, route or VPN
O Service activation interval (e.g., time to turn up a new site)
O Trouble report response time interval
O Time to repair interval
O Total traffic offered to the site, route or VPN
O Measure of non-conforming traffic for the site, route or VPN
The above list contains items from [Y.1241], as well as other items
typically part of SLAs for currently deployed VPN services [FRF.13].
See RFC 3198 for generic definitions of SLS, SLA, and SLO.
The provider network management system shall measure, and report as
necessary, whether measured performance meets or fails to meet the
above SLS objectives.
The service provider and the customer may negotiate a contractual
arrangement that includes a Service Level Agreement (SLA) regarding
compensation if the provider does not meet an SLS performance
objective. Details of such compensation are outside the scope of this
document.
SLS measurements for quality based on the DiffServ scheme should be
based upon the following classification [Y.1311.1]:
A Point-to-Point SLS, sometimes also referred to as the "Pipe"
model, defines traffic parameters in conjunction with the QoS
objectives for traffic exchanged between a pair of VPN sites (i.e.,
points). A Point-to-Point SLS is analogous to the SLS typically
supported over point-to-point Frame Relay or ATM PVCs or an edge-
to-edge MPLS tunnel. The set of SLS specifications to all other
reachable VPN sites would define the overall Point-to-Point SLS for
a specific site.
A Point-to-Cloud SLS, sometimes also referred as the "Hose" model,
defines traffic parameters in conjunction with the QoS objectives
Carugi et al Informational - Expires April 2003 15 Service requirements for Layer 3 PPVPNs October, 2002
for traffic exchanged between a CE and a PE for traffic destined to
a set (either all or a subset) of other sites in the VPN (i.e., the
cloud), as applicable. In other words, a point-to-cloud SLS defines
compliance in terms of all packets transmitted from a given VPN
site toward the SP network on an aggregate basis (i.e., regardless
of the destination VPN site of each packet).
A Cloud-to-Point SLS, is the case where flows originating from
multiple sources may congest the interface from the network toward
a specific site, which this SLS does not cover.
Traffic parameters and actions should be defined for packets to and
from the demarcation between the service provider and the site. For
example, policing may be defined on ingress and shaping on egress.
4.8 Management
An SP and its customers must be able to manage the capabilities and
characteristics of their VPN services. To the extent possible,
automated operations and interoperability with standard management
platforms should be supported.
The ITU-T Telecommunications Management Network (TMN) model has the
following generic requirements structure:
O Engineer, deploy and manage the switching, routing and
transmission resources supporting the service, from a network
perspective (network element management);
O Manage the VPNs deployed over these resources (network
management);
o Manage the VPN service (service management);
o Manage the VPN business, mainly provisioning administrative
and accounting information related to the VPN service customers
(business management).
Service management should include the TMN 'FCAPS' functionalities, as
follows: Fault, Configuration, Accounting, Provisioning, and
Security, as detailed in section 7.
4.9 Interoperability
Each technical solution should support the Internet standards (in
terms of compatibility and modularity).
Multi-vendor interoperability at network element, network and service
levels among different implementations of the same technical solution
should be guaranteed (that will likely rely on the completeness of
the corresponding standard). This is a central requirement for SPs
and customers.
The technical solution must be multi-vendor interoperable not only
within the SP network infrastructure, but also with the customer's
network equipment and services making usage of the PPVPN service.
Carugi et al Informational - Expires April 2003 16 Service requirements for Layer 3 PPVPNs October, 2002
4.10 Interworking
Interworking scenarios among different solutions providing PPVPN
services is highly desirable. See the PPVPN framework document for
more details on interworking scenarios [PPVPN-FR]. Interworking
should be supported in a scalable manner.
Interworking scenarios must consider at least traffic and routing
isolation, security, QoS, access, and management aspects. This
requirement is essential in the case of network migration, to ensure
service continuity among sites belonging to different portions of the
network.
5 Customer Requirements
This section captures additional requirements from a customer
perspective.
5.1 VPN Membership (Intranet/Extranet)
When an extranet is formed, a customer agent from each of the
organizations must approve addition of a site to an extranet VPN. The
intent of this requirement is to ensure that both organizations
approve extranet communication before the PPVPN allows exchange of
traffic and routing information.
5.2 Service Provider Independence
Customers may require VPN service that spans multiple administrative
domains or service provider networks. Therefore, a VPN service must
be able to span multiple AS and SP networks, but still act and appear
as a single, homogenous VPN from a customer point of view.
A customer might also start with a VPN provided in a single AS with a
certain SLA but then ask for an expansion of the service spanning
multiple ASs/SPs. In this case, as well as for all kinds of multi-
AS/SP VPNs, VPN service should be able to deliver the same SLA to all
sites in a VPN regardless of the AS/SP to which it homes.
5.3 Addressing
A customer requires support from a L3 VPN for the following
addressing IP assignment schemes:
o customer assigned, non-unique, or RFC 1918 private addresses
o globally unique addresses obtained by the customer from IANA
o globally unique addresses statically assigned by the PPVPN
service provider
o on-demand, dynamically assigned IP addresses (e.g., DHCP),
irrespective of whether the access is temporary (e.g., remote) or
permanent (i.e., dedicated)
In the case of combined L3 PPVPN service with non-unique or private
addresses and Internet access, mechanisms that permit the exchange of
traffic between the customer's private address space and the global
unique Internet address space must be supported, for example, NAT.
Carugi et al Informational - Expires April 2003 17 Service requirements for Layer 3 PPVPNs October, 2002
5.4 Routing Protocol Support
There should be no restriction on the routing protocols used between
CE and PE routers, or between CE routers. At least the following
protocols must be supported: static routing, IGP, such as RIP, OSPF,
IS-IS, and BGP [PPVPN-FR].
5.5 Quality of Service and Traffic Parameters
QoS is expected to be an important aspect of a PPVPN service for some
customers. QoS requirements cover scenarios involving an intranet, an
extranet, as well as shared access between a VPN site and the
Internet.
5.5.1 Application Level QoS Objectives
A customer is concerned primarily that the PPVPN service provide his
or her application has the QoS and level of traffic such that the
application performs acceptably. Pseudo-wires (e.g., SONET emulation)
voice and interactive video, and multimedia applications are expected
to require the most stringent QoS. These real-time applications are
sensitive to delay, delay variation, loss, availability and/or
reliability. Another set of applications requires near real time
performance. Examples are multimedia, interactive video, high-
performance web browsing and file transfer intensive applications.
Finally, best effort applications are not sensitive to degradation.
That is, they are elastic and can adapt to conditions of degraded
performance.
The selection of appropriate QoS and service type to meet specific
application requirements is particularly important to deal with
periods of congestion in a SP network. Sensitive applications will
likely select per-flow Integrated service (Intserv) with precise SLA
guarantees measured on a per flow basis. On the other hand, non-
sensitive applications will likely rely on a Differentiated service
(Diffserv) class-based QoS.
The fundamental customer application requirement is that a PPVPN
solution must support both the Intserv QoS model for selected
individual flows, and Diffserv for aggregated flows.
A customer application should experience consistent QoS independent
of the access network technology used at different sites connected to
the same VPN.
5.5.2 DSCP Transparency
The Diffserv Code Point (DSCP) set by a user as received by the
ingress CE should be capable of being relayed transparently to the
egress CE [Y.1311.1]. Although RFC 2475 states that interior or
boundary nodes within a provider's Diffserv domain may change the
DSCP, customer VPNs may have other requirements, such as:
o Applications that use the DSCP in a manner differently than the
DSCP solution supported by the SP network(s);
o Customers using more DSCPs within their sites than the SP
network(s) supports;
Carugi et al Informational - Expires April 2003 18 Service requirements for Layer 3 PPVPNs October, 2002
o Support for a carriers' carrier service where one SP is the
customer of another PPVPN SP. Such an SP should be able to resell
VPN service to his or her VPN customers independently of the DSCP
mapping solution supported by the carriers' carrier SP.
Note that support for DSCP transparency has no implication on the QoS
or SLA requirements. If an SP supports DSCP transparency, then that
SP needs to only carry the DSCP values across its domain, but may map
the received DSCP to some other value for QoS support across its
domain.
5.6 Service Level Specification/Agreement
Most customers simply want their applications to perform well. An SLA
is a vehicle for customer recourse in the event that SP(s) do not
perform or manage a VPN service well in a measurable sense.
Therefore, when purchasing service under an SLA, a customer agent
must have access to the measures from the SP(s) that support the SLA.
5.7 Customer Management of a VPN
A customer must have a means to view the topology, operational state,
order status, and other parameters associated with his or her VPN.
All aspects of management information about CE devices and customer
attributes of a PPVPN manageable by an SP should be capable of being
configured and maintained by an authenticated, authorized customer
agent.
A customer agent should be able to make dynamic requests for changes
to traffic parameters. A customer should be able to receive real-time
response from the SP network in response to these requests. One
example of such as service is a "Dynamic Bandwidth management"
capability, that enables real-time response to customer requests for
changes of allocated bandwidth allocated to their VPN(s)[Y.1311.1].
A customer who may not be able to afford the resources to manage
their own sites should be able to outsource the management of his or
her VPN to the service provider(s) supporting the network.
5.8 Isolation
These features include traffic and routing information exchange
isolation, similar to that obtained in VPNs based on Layer 1 and
Layer 2 (e.g., private lines, FR, or ATM) [MPLS SEC].
5.9 Security
The suite of PPVPN solutions should support a range of security
related features. Higher levels of security services, like edge-to-
edge encryption, authentication, or replay attack should be
supported.
Security in a PPVPN service should be as transparent as possible to
the customer, with the obvious exception of support for remote or
temporary user access, as detailed in section 5.11.2.
Carugi et al Informational - Expires April 2003 19 Service requirements for Layer 3 PPVPNs October, 2002
PPVPN customers must be able to deploy their own internal security
mechanisms in addition to those deployed by the SP, in order to
secure specific applications or traffic at a granularity finer than a
site-to-site basis.
A security solution deployed by a customer must not hide information
necessary for the SP to support QoS features. For example,
applications must send RSVP messages in support of Intserv either in
the clear or encrypted using a key negotiated with the SP. Another
case is where applications using an IPsec tunnel must copy the DSCP
from the encrypted IP header to the header of the tunnel's IP header.
Security services shall apply to:
o either, all VPN traffic exchanged between different sites ;
o or, a subset of the VPN traffic between sites as identified by a
combination of the destination IP address, the Security Profile
Index (SPI) and the IPsec AH or ESP identifier.
5.10 Migration Impact
Often, customers are migrating from an already deployed private
network toward one or more Provider Provisioned VPN solutions. A
typical private network scenario is CE routers connected via real or
virtual circuits. Ideally, minimal incremental cost should result
during the migration period. Furthermore, if necessary, any
disruption of service should also be minimized.
A range of scenarios of customer migration must be supported. Full
migration of all sites must be supported. Support for cases of
partial migration is highly desirable [Y.1311.1], that is, legacy
private network sites that belong to the PPVPN service should still
have L3 reachability to the sites that migrate to the PPVPN service.
5.11 Network Access
Every L3 packet exchanged between the customer and the SP over the
access connection must appear as it would on a private network
providing an equivalent service to that offered by the PPVPN.
5.11.1 Physical/Link Layer Technology
PPVPNs should support a broad range of physical and link layer access
technologies, such as PSTN, ISDN, xDSL, cable modem, leased line,
Ethernet, Ethernet VLAN, ATM, Frame Relay, Wireless local loop,
mobile radio access, etc. The capacity and QoS achievable may be
dependent on the specific access technology in use.
5.11.2 Temporary Access
The VPN service offering should allow both permanent and temporary
access to one or more PPVPNs for authenticated users across a broad
range of access technologies. Support for remote or temporary VPN
access should include ISDN, PSTN dial-in, xDSL or access via another
SP network. The customer should be able to choose from alternatives
for authentication of temporary access users. Choices for access
Carugi et al Informational - Expires April 2003 20 Service requirements for Layer 3 PPVPNs October, 2002
authentication are: SP-provided, third-party, or customer-provided
authentication servers.
A significant number of VPN users are not permanently attached to one
VPN site. In order to limit access to a VPN to only authorized users,
it is first necessary to authenticate them. Authentication shall
apply as configured by the customer agent and/or SP where a specific
user may be part of one or more VPNs. The authentication function
should be used to automatically invoke all actions necessary VPN
communication.
A user should be able to access a PPVPN via a network having generic
Internet access.
Mobile users may move within a PPVPN site. Mobile users may also
temporarily connect to another PPVPN site within the same VPN.
Authentication should be provided for both of these cases.
5.11.3 Sharing of the Access Network
In a PE-based PPVPN, if the site shares the access network with other
traffic (e.g., access to the Internet), then data security in the
access network is the responsibility of the PPVPN customer.
5.11.4 Access Connectivity
Various types of physical connectivity scenarios must be supported,
such as multi-homed sites, backdoor links between customer sites,
devices homed to two or more SP networks. PPVPN solutions should
support at least the types of physical or link-layer connectivity
arrangements shown in Figure 5.1. Support for other physical
connectivity scenarios with arbitrary topology is desirable.
Access arrangements with multiple physical or logical paths from a CE
to other CEs and PEs must support redundancy, and should support load
balancing. Resiliency uses redundancy to provide connectivity between
a CE site and other CE sites, and optionally, other services. Load
balancing provides a means to perform traffic engineering such that
capacity on redundant links is used to achieve improved performance
during periods when the redundant component(s) are available.
For multi-homing to a single SP, load balancing capability should be
supported by the PE across the CE to PE links. For example, in case
(a), load balancing should be provided by the two PEs over the two
links connecting to the single CE. In case (c), load balancing should
be provided by the two PEs over the two links connecting to the two
CEs.
Carugi et al Informational - Expires April 2003 21 Service requirements for Layer 3 PPVPNs October, 2002
+---------------- +---------------
| |
+------+ +------+
+---------| PE | +---------| PE |
| |router| | |router| SP network
| +------+ | +------+
+------+ | +------+ |
| CE | | | CE | +---------------
|device| | SP network |device| +---------------
+------+ | +------+ |
| +------+ | +------+
| | PE | | | PE |
+---------|router| +---------|router| SP network
+------+ +------+
| |
+---------------- +---------------
(a) (b)
+---------------- +---------------
| |
+------+ +------+ +------+ +------+
| CE |-----| PE | | CE |-----| PE |
|device| |router| |device| |router| SP network
+------+ +------+ +------+ +------+
| | | |
| Backdoor | | Backdoor +---------------
| link | SP network | link +---------------
| | | |
+------+ +------+ +------+ +------+
| CE | | PE | | CE | | PE |
|device|-----|router| |device|-----|router| SP network
+------+ +------+ +------+ +------+
| |
+---------------- +---------------
(c) (d)
+---------------- +---------------
| |
+------+ +------+ +------+ +------+
| CE |-----| PE | | CE |-----| PE |
|device| |router| |device| |router| SP network
+------+\ +------+ +------+\ +------+
| \ | | \ |
|Back \ | |Back \ +---------------
|door \ | SP network |door \ +---------------
|link \ | |link \ |
+------+ +------+ +------+ +------+
| CE | | PE | | CE | | PE |
|device|-----|router| |device|-----|router| SP network
+------+ +------+ +------+ +------+
| |
+---------------- +---------------
(e) (f)
Figure 5.1 Representative types of access arrangements.
Carugi et al Informational - Expires April 2003 22 Service requirements for Layer 3 PPVPNs October, 2002
In addition, the load balancing parameters (e.g., the ratio of
traffic on the multiple load-balanced links, or the preferred link)
should be provisionable based on customer's requirements. The load
balancing capability may also be used to achieve resiliency in the
event of access connectivity failures. For example, in cases (b) a CE
may connect to two different SPs via diverse access networks.
Resiliency may be further enhanced as shown in case (d), where CE's
connected via a "back door" connection connect to different SPs.
Furthermore, arbitrary combinations of the above methods, with a few
examples shown in cases (e) and (f) should be supportable by any
PPVPN approach.
For multi-homing to multiple SPs, load balancing capability may also
be supported by the PEs in the different SPs (clearly, this is a more
complex type of load balancing to realize, and requires policy and
service agreements between the SPs to interoperate).
5.12 Service Access
Customers may also require access to other services, as described in
this section.
5.12.1 Internet Access
Customers should be able to have L3 PPVPN and Internet access across
the same access network for one or more of the customer's sites.
Customers should be able to direct Internet traffic from the set of
sites in the PPVPN to one or more customer sites that have firewalls,
other security-oriented devices, and/or NAT that process all traffic
between the Internet and the customer's VPN.
L3 PPVPN Customers should be able to receive traffic from the
Internet addressed to a publicly accessible resource that is not part
of the VPN, such as an enterprise's public web server.
As stated in section 5.3, network address translation (NAT) or
similar mechanism must be provided either by the customer or the SP
in order to be able to interchange traffic between devices assigned
non-unique or private IP addresses and devices that have unique IP
addresses.
5.12.2 Hosting, Application Service Provider
A customer should be able to access hosting, other application
services, or other Application Service Providers (ASP) over a L3
PPVPN service. This may require that an ASP participates in one or
more VPNs with the customers that use such a service.
5.12.3 Other Services
In conjunction with a VPN service, a customer may also wish to have
access to other services, such as: DNS, FTP, HTTP, NNTP, SMTP, LDAP,
VoIP, NAT, LDAP, Videoconferencing, Application sharing, E-business,
Streaming, E-commerce, Directory, Firewall, etc. The resource(s) that
Carugi et al Informational - Expires April 2003 23 Service requirements for Layer 3 PPVPNs October, 2002
implement these services could be physically dedicated to each VPN.
If the resource(s) are logically shared, then they need to have
access separated and isolated between VPNs in a manner consistent
with the PPVPN solution to meet this requirement.
5.13 Hybrid VPN Service Scenarios
Intranet or extranet customers have a number of reasons for wanting
hybrid networks that involve more than one VPN solution type. These
include migration, mergers, extranet customers with different VPN
types, the need for different capabilities between different sets of
sites, temporary access, different availability of VPN solutions as
provided by different service providers.
The framework and solution approaches should include provisions for
interworking, interconnection, and/or reachability between different
PPVPN solutions in such a way that does not overly complicate
provisioning, management, scalability, or performance.
6 Service Provider Network Requirements
This section describes requirements from a service provider
perspective.
6.1 Scalability
This section contains projections regarding PPVPN sizing projections
and scalability requirements and metrics specific to particular
solutions.
6.1.1 Service Provider Capacity Sizing Projections
This section captures projections for scaling requirements over the
next several years in terms of number of VPNs, number of interfaces
per VPN, number of routes per VPN, and the rate of VPN configuration
changes. These numbers provide a baseline against which the
scalability of specific approaches can be assessed. These values were
derived from ITU-T [Y.1311.1] and inputs from service providers.
A PPVPN solution should be scalable to support a very large number of
VPNs per Service Provider network. The estimate is that a large
service provider will require support for on the order of 10,000 VPNs
within four years.
A PPVPN solution should be scalable to support of a wide range of
number of site interfaces per VPN, depending on the size and/or
structure of the customer organization. The number of site interfaces
should range from a few site interfaces to over 50,000 site
interfaces per VPN.
A PPVPN solution should be scalable to support of a wide range of
number of routes per VPN. The number of routes per VPN may range from
just a few to the number of routes exchanged between ISPs using BGP
(in 2001, on the order of 100,000). Typically, the number of routes
per VPN is O(2N), where N is the number of site interfaces.
Carugi et al Informational - Expires April 2003 24 Service requirements for Layer 3 PPVPNs October, 2002
A PPVPN solution should support high values of the frequency of
configuration setup and change, e.g. for real-time provisioning of an
on-demand videoconferencing VPN. As a guideline, an estimate on the
VPN frequency of change (e.g., addition/removal of sites per VPN per
time unit) could be as large as 1 million per year across all service
providers within the next four years.
Approaches should articulate scaling and performance limits for more
complex deployment scenarios, such as inter-AS(S) VPNs and carriers'
carrier. Approaches should also describe other dimensions of
interest, such as capacity requirements or limits, number of
interworking instances supported as well as any scalability
implications on management systems.
6.1.2 Solution-Specific Metrics
Each PPVPN solution shall document its scalability characteristics in
quantitative terms. Several examples are provided below as an
illustration.
The number of tunnels necessary per device is one metric of interest.
In a PE-based VPN, tunnels potentially from every PE to every other
PE must be set up for each VPN. Or, a full mesh of tunnels between
PEs can be shared across many VPNs using hierarchical tunnels. In a
CE-based VPN, end-to-end tunnels between pairs of CE's in a full or
partial mesh are necessary, but PEs need not be aware of these
tunnels at all. Furthermore, in a CE-based VPN, the tunnels endpoints
are distributed to the CEs in a particular VPN.
Another metric is that of complexity. In a PE-based solution the PE
is more complex in that it must maintain a VFI must for each VPN, but
the CE is simpler since it needs to support no tunnels. On the other
hand, in a CE-based solution, the CE is more complex since it must
implement routing across a number of tunnels to other CEs in the VPN,
but the PE is simpler since it has only one routing and forwarding
instance.
A PE-based solution should quantify the amount of state that a PE and
P router must support. This should be stated in terms of the total
number of VPNs and site interfaces supported by the service provider.
Ideally, all VPN-specific state should be contained in the PE router,
since routing and/or configuration information depends only on the
VPNs whose site(s) are connected to that PE. However, this should be
balanced against the requirements of specific services, such as
multicast, which may require per VPN state in the P router.
A CE-based solution should quantify the state and scaling limits.
This should be stated in terms of the number of tunnels supported,
how these tunnels are provisioned and maintained (e.g., key
exchange), how routing occurs across these tunnels, and what the
impact of changes in the network topology do to the convergence
performance of such a solution.
Carugi et al Informational - Expires April 2003 25 Service requirements for Layer 3 PPVPNs October, 2002
6.2 Addressing
As described in section 4.4, SPs require support for public and
private IP addresses, IPv4 and IPv6, for both unicast and multicast.
In order to support this range of addressing schemes, SPs require the
following support from PPVPN solutions.
A L3 PPVPN solution must be able to assign blocks of addresses form
its own public IP address space to PPVPN customer sites in such a way
that advertisement of routes to other SPs and other sites aggregates
efficiently.
A PPVPN solution must be able to use address assignments made by a
customer. These customer assigned addresses may be public, or
private.
In the case where private IP addresses are used, a PPVPN solution
must provide a means for an SP to translate such addresses to public
IP addresses for communication with other VPNs using overlapping
addresses, or the Internet.
6.3 Identifiers
A number of identifiers may be necessary for SP use in management,
control, and routing protocols. Requirements for at least the
following identifiers are known.
An SP domain must be uniquely identified at least within the set of
all interconnected SP networks when supporting a VPN that spans
multiple SPs. Ideally, this identifier should be globally unique
(e.g., an AS number).
An identifier for each VPN should be unique, at least within each
SP's network. Ideally, the VPN identifier should be globally unique
to support the case where a VPN spans multiple SPs (e.g., [RFC
2685]).
A CE device should have a unique identifier, at least within each
SP's network.
A PE device should have a unique identifier, at least within each
SP's network.
The identifier of a device interconnecting SP networks must be unique
within the set of aforementioned networks.
Each site interface should have a unique identifier, at least within
each PE router supporting such an interface.
Each tunnel should have a unique identifier, at least within each
router supporting the tunnel.
Carugi et al Informational - Expires April 2003 26 Service requirements for Layer 3 PPVPNs October, 2002
6.4 Discovering VPN Related Information
Configuration of CE and PE devices is a significant task for a
service provider. Solutions should strive to contain methods that
that dynamically allows VPN information to be discovered (or learned)
by the PE and/or CE to reduce configuration complexity. The following
specific requirements apply to intra and inter-provider VPNs [VPN
DISC].
Every device involved in a VPN shall be able to identify and
authenticate itself to other devices in the VPN. After learning the
VPN membership, the devices should be able to securely exchange
configuration information. The VPN information must include at least
the IP address of the PE and may be extensible to provide additional
information.
Each device in a VPN should be able to determine which other devices
belong to the same VPN. Such a membership discovery scheme must
prevent unauthorized access and allows authentication of the source.
Distribution of VPN information should be limited to those devices
involved in that VPN.
In the case of a PE-based VPN, a solution should support the means
for attached CEs to authenticate each other and verify that the
service provider VPN is correctly configured.
The mechanism should respond to VPN membership changes in a timely
manner. A "timely manner" is no longer than the provisioning
timeframe, typically on the order of minutes, and may be as short as
the timeframe required for "rerouting," typically on the order of
seconds.
Dynamically creating, changing, and managing multiple VPN assignments
to sites and/or customers is another aspect of membership that must
be addressed in a L3 PPVPN solution.
6.5 SLA and SLS Support
Typically, a Service Provider offering a PPVPN service commits to
specific Service Level Specifications (SLS) as part of a contract
with the customer, as described in section 4.7. Such a Service Level
Agreement (SLA) drives the following specific SP requirements for
measuring Specific Service Level Specifications (SLS) for quality,
availability, response time, and configuration intervals.
6.6 Quality of Service (QoS) and Traffic Engineering
A significant aspect of a PPVPN is support for QoS. Since an SP has
control over the provisioning of resources and configuration of
parameters in at least the PE and P devices, and in some cases, the
CE device as well, the onus is on the service provider to provide
either managed QoS access service, or edge-to-edge QoS service, as
defined in section 4.6.2.
Carugi et al Informational - Expires April 2003 27 Service requirements for Layer 3 PPVPNs October, 2002
Each PPVPN approach must describe the traffic engineering techniques
available for a service provider to meet the QoS objectives. These
descriptions of traffic engineering techniques should quantify
scalability and achievable efficiency. Traffic engineering support
may be on an aggregate or per-VPN basis.
QoS policies must not be impacted by security mechanisms. For
example, Diffserv policies must not be impacted by the use of IPSec
tunnels, using the mechanisms explained in RFC 2983.
As stated in RFC 2475, a mapping function from customer provided
Difserv marking to marking used in a SP network should be provided
for L3 PPVPN services.
In the case where a customer requires DSCP transparency, as described
in section 5.5.2, a L3 PPVPN service must deliver the same value of
DSCP field in the IP header received from the customer to the egress
demarcation of the destination.
6.7 Routing
The distribution of reachability and routing policy should be
constrained to the sites that are members of the VPN.
Optionally, the exchange of such information may use some form of
authentication (e.g., MD5).
Functions to isolate the SP network and customer VPNs from anomalous
routing behavior from a specific set of customer sites are highly
desirable. Examples of such functions are: controls for route flap
dampening, filters that accept only prefixes configured for a
specific CE, a maximum number of routes accepted for each CE, or a
maximum rate at which route updates can be received from a CE.
When VPN customers use overlapping, non-unique IP addresses, the
solution must define a means to distinguish between such overlapping
addresses on a per-VPN basis.
Furthermore, the solution should provide an option that either
allows, or prevents advertisement of VPN routes to the Internet.
Ideally, the choice of a SP's IGP should not depend on the routing
protocol(s) used between PE and CE routers in a PE-based VPN.
Furthermore, it is desirable that an SP should have a choice with
regards to the IGP routing protocol.
The additional routing burden that a Service Provider must
carry should be articulated in each specific L3 PPVPN solution.
6.8 Isolation of Traffic and Routing
The internal structure of a PPVPN network should not be visible to
outside networks (i.e., the Internet or any connected VPN).
Carugi et al Informational - Expires April 2003 28 Service requirements for Layer 3 PPVPNs October, 2002
From a high level SP perspective, a PE-based PPVPN must isolate the
exchange of traffic and routing information to only those sites that
are authenticated and authorized members of a VPN.
In a CE-based VPN, the tunnels that connect the sites effectively
meet this isolation requirement if both traffic and routing
information flow over the tunnels.
A PPVPN solution should provide a means for meeting PPVPN QoS SLA
requirements that isolates VPN traffic from the affects of traffic
offered by non-VPN customers. Also, PPVPN solutions should provide a
means to isolate the effects that traffic congestion produced by
sites as part of one VPN can have on another VPN.
6.9 Security
[Editor's Note: Some of the material in this section is generic to L2
and L3 VPNs and may be deleted if the draft proposed for [PPVPN-GR]
is accepted.]
This section contains requirements related to securing customer
flows, providing authentication services for temporary, remote or
mobile users, and the need to protect service provider resources
involved in supporting a PPVPN.
6.9.1 Support for Securing Customer Flows
In order to meet the general requirement for providing a range of
security options to a customer, each PPVPN solution must clearly
spell out the configuration options that can work together and how
the can do so.
When a VPN solution operates over a part of the Internet it should
support a configurable option to support one or more of the following
standard IPsec methods for securing a flow for a specified subset of
a customer's VPN traffic:
o confidentiality, so that only authorized devices can decrypt it,
o integrity, to ensure that the data has not been altered,
o authentication, to ensure that the sender is indeed who it claims
to be,
o replay attack prevention, to prevent a "man in the middle"
attack.
The above functions should be capable of being applied to "data
traffic" of the customer, which includes the traffic exchanged
between sites, between temporary users and sites and even between
temporary users. It should also be possible to apply these functions
to "control traffic", such as routing protocol exchanges, that are
not necessarily perceived by the customer but nevertheless essential
to maintain his or her VPN. Note that it may be necessary to extend
the IPsec protocol to support exchange of control traffic over an
IPsec tunnel [IPSEC-PPVPN].
Furthermore, such security methods must be configurable between
different end points, such as CE-CE, PE-PE, and CE-PE. It is also
Carugi et al Informational - Expires April 2003 29 Service requirements for Layer 3 PPVPNs October, 2002
desirable to configure security on a per-route or per-VPN basis [VPN
SEC].
A VPN solution may support one or more encryption schemes, including
DES, 3DES. Encryption, decryption, and key management should be
included in profiles as part of the security management system.
6.9.2 Authentication Services
A service provider must provide authentication services in support of
temporary user access requirements, as described in section 5.11.2.
Furthermore, traffic exchanged within the scope of VPN may involve
several categories of equipment that must cooperate together to
provide the service [Y.1311.1]. These network elements can be CE, PE,
firewalls, backbone routers, servers, management stations, etc. These
network elements learn about each others identity, either via manual
configuration or via discovery protocols, as described in section
6.4. When network elements must cooperate, it is necessary to
authenticate peers before providing the requested service. This
authentication function may also be used to control access to network
resources.
The peer identification and authentication function described above
applies only to network elements participating in the VPN. Examples
include:
- traffic between a CE and a PE,
- traffic between CEs belonging to the same VPN,
- CE or PE routers dealing with route announcements for a VPN,
- policy decision point [RFC 3198] and a network element,
- management station and an SNMP agent.
Each PPVPN solution should describe for a peer authentication
function: where it is necessary, how it shall be implemented, how
secure it must be, and the way to deploy and maintain identification
and authentication information necessary to operate the service.
6.9.3 Resource Protection
Recall from the definitions in section 3.3, that a site can be part
of an intranet with sites from the only same organization, part of an
extranet involving sites from other organizations, have access to the
Internet, or any combination of these scopes of communication. Within
these contexts, a site might be subject to various attacks coming
from different sources. Potential sources of attack include:
- users connected to the supporting public IP backbone,
- users from the Internet,
- users from temporary sites belonging to the intranet and/or
extranet VPN that the site is part of.
Security threats and risks that a site may encounter include the
following:
- denial of service, for example: mail spamming, access connection
congestion, TCP SYN attacks, ping attacks, etc.
Carugi et al Informational - Expires April 2003 30 Service requirements for Layer 3 PPVPNs October, 2002
- intrusion attempts, which may eventually lead to denial of
service (e.g. a Trojan horse attack).
In order to address the above threats and risks, a SP should be able
to deploy functions that control access to the site. This includes
filtering functions provided by firewall, and monitoring, alerting
and eventually logging all suspicious activities in order to detect
potential attacks. Another way to prevent such an attack is to make
sure that machines are not reachable via address hiding [MPLS SEC].
The devices in the PPVPN network must provide some means of reporting
intrusion attempts to the service provider.
6.10 Inter-AS (SP)VPNs
The scenario for VPNs spanning multiple Autonomous Systems (AS) or
Service Providers (SP) requires standardization. The scenario where
multiple AS's are involved is the most general case, and is therefore
the one described here. The scenarios of concern are the CE-based
and PE-based L3 VPNs defined in section 3.
In each scenario, all applicable SP requirements, such as traffic and
routing isolation, SLA's, management, security, provisioning, etc.
must be preserved across adjacent AS's. The solution must describe
the inter-SP network interface, encapsulation method(s), routing
protocol(s), and all applicable parameters [VPN IW].
An essential pre-condition for an inter-AS VPN is an agreement
between the AS's involved that spells out at least trust, economic,
and management responsibilities.
The overall scalability of the VPN service must allow the PPVPN
service to be offered across potentially hundreds of SPs, with the
overall scaling parameters per SP given in section 6.1.
6.10.1 Routing Protocols
If the link between AS's is not trusted, routing protocols running
between those AS's must support some form of authentication. For
example, the TCP option for carrying an MD5 digest may be used to
enhance security for BGP [RFC2385].
BGP must be supported as the standard inter-AS routing protocol to
control the path taken by PPVPN traffic.
6.10.2 Management
The general requirements for managing a single AS apply to a
concatenation of AS's. A minimum subset of such capabilities is the
following:
- Diagnostic tools (e.g., ping, traceroute)
- Secured access to one AS management system by another
- Configuration request and status query tools
- Fault notification and trouble tracking tools
Carugi et al Informational - Expires April 2003 31 Service requirements for Layer 3 PPVPNs October, 2002
6.10.3 Bandwidth and QoS Brokering
When a VPN spans multiple AS's, there is a need for a brokering
mechanism that requests certain SLA parameters, such as bandwidth and
QoS, from the other domains and/or networks involved in transferring
traffic to various sites. The essential requirement is that a
solution must be able to determine whether a set of AS's can
establish and guarantee uniform QoS in support of a PPVPN.
The brokering mechanism can be a manual one, for example, where one
provider requests from another provider a specific set of QoS
parameters for traffic going to and from a specific set of sites. The
mechanism could also be an automated one where a device dynamically
requests and receives certain SLA/QoS parameters. For instance, in
the case of a L3 PPVPN, a PE may negotiate the label for different
traffic classes to reach a PE residing in a neighboring AS. Or, it
might be a combination of both.
In the case of an automated function, which is desirable, the
functionality supported should dynamically request and reserve
certain QoS parameters such as bandwidth and priority, and then to
classify, mark and handle the packets as agreed in the negotiation.
Observe that as traffic might traverse multiple AS's, the brokering
method should also allow this.
It is not desirable to perform brokering on a per VPN basis since
such an approach would not scale. A solution must provide some means
of aggregating QoS and bandwidth brokering requests between AS's. One
method could be for SP's to make an agreement specifying the maximum
amount of bandwidth for specific QoS parameters for all VPN customers
using the SP network. Alternatively, such aggregation might be on a
per hierarchical tunnel basis between PE routers in different AS's
supporting a L3 PPVPN service.
6.10.4 Security Considerations
If a tunnel traverses multiple SP networks and it passes through an
unsecured SP, POP, NAP, or IX, then security mechanisms must be
employed.
6.11 PPVPN Wholesale
The architecture must support the possibility of one service provider
offering VPN service to another service provider. Another example is
when one service provider sells PPVPN service at wholesale to another
service provider, who then resells that VPN service to his or her
customers.
The wholesaler's VPN must be transparent to the addressing and
routing used by the reseller.
Support for additional levels of hierarchy, for example three levels
where a reseller can again resell the VPN service to yet another VPN
provider, should be provided. This is called a hierarchical VPN
scenario.
Carugi et al Informational - Expires April 2003 32 Service requirements for Layer 3 PPVPNs October, 2002
The Carrier's carrier scenario is the name used in this document for
this category of PPVPN wholesale. Various Carrier's Carrier scenarios
should be supported, such as:
- the customer Carriers do not operate PPVPN services for their
clients;
- the customer Carriers operate PPVPN services for their clients,
but these services are not linked with the PPVPN service offered
by the Carriers' Carrier;
- the customer Carriers operate PPVPN services for their clients and
these services are linked with the PPVPN service offered by the
Carriers' Carrier ("Hierarchical VPNs" scenario)
6.12 Tunneling Requirements
Connectivity between CE sites or PE devices in the backbone should be
able to use a range of tunneling technologies, such as L2TP, IPSEC,
GRE, IP-in-IP, MPLS, etc.
To set up tunnels between routers, every router must support static
configuration for tunneling and may support a tunnel setup protocol.
If employed, a tunnel establishment protocol should be capable of
conveying information, such as the following:
- Relevant identifiers
- QoS/SLA parameters
- Restoration parameters
- Multiplexing identifiers
- Security parameters
There must be a means to monitor the following aspects of tunnels:
- Statistics, such as amount of time spent in the up and down
state
- Count of transitions between the up and down state
- Events, such as transitions between the up and down states
The tunneling technology used by the VPN Service Provider and its
associated mechanisms for tunnel establishment, multiplexing, and
maintenance must meet the requirements on scaling, isolation,
security, QoS, manageability, etc.
6.13 Support for Access and Backbone Technologies
This section describes requirements for aspects of access and
backbone network technologies from a service provider point of view.
Some SPs may desire that a single network infrastructure should
suffice for all services, public IP, VPNs, traffic engineering, and
differentiated services [L2 VPN].
6.13.1 Dedicated Access Networks
Ideally, the PPVPN service should be independent of physical, link
layer or even network technology of the access network. However, the
characteristics of access networks must be accounted for when
specifying the QoS aspects of SLAs for VPN service offerings.
Carugi et al Informational - Expires April 2003 33 Service requirements for Layer 3 PPVPNs October, 2002
6.13.2 On-Demand Access Networks
Service providers should be able to support temporary user access, as
described in section 5.11.2 using dedicated or dial-in access network
technology.
PPVPN solutions must support the case where a VPN user directly
accesses the VPN service through an access network connected to the
service provider. They must also describe how they can support the
case where one or more other service provider networks are used as
access to the service provider supporting the PPVPN service.
Ideally, all information necessary to identify and authenticate users
for an intranet should be stored and maintained by the customer. In
an extranet, one customer should be able to maintain the
authentication server, or the customers involved in the extranet may
choose to outsource the function to a service provider.
Identification and authentication information could be made available
to the service provider for controlling access, or the service
provider may query a customer maintained server. Furthermore, one SP
may act as access for the SP providing the VPN service. In the case
where the access SP performs identification and authentication on
behalf of the VPN SP, an agreement must be reached on a common
specification.
Support for at least the following authentication protocols is
required: PAP, CHAP and EAP, since they are currently used in a wide
range of equipment and services.
6.13.3 Backbone Networks
Ideally, the backbone interconnecting SP PE and P devices should be
independent of physical and link layer technology. Nevertheless, the
characteristics of backbone technology must be taken into account
when specifying the QoS aspects of SLAs for VPN service offerings.
6.14 Protection, Restoration
When primary and secondary access connections are available, a PPVPN
solution must provide restoration of access connectivity whenever the
primary access link from a CE site to a PE fails. This restoration
capability should be as automatic as possible, that is, the traffic
should be directed over the secondary link soon after failure of the
primary access link is detected. Furthermore, reversion to the
primary link should be dynamic, if configured to do so [VPN-NEEDS].
As mentioned in Section 5.11.4 above, in the case of multi-homing,
the load balancing capability may be used to achieve a degree of
redundancy in the network. In the case of failure of one or more (but
not all) of the multi-homed links, the load balancing parameters may
be dynamically adjusted to rapidly redirect the traffic from the
failed link(s) to the surviving links. Once the failed link(s) is
Carugi et al Informational - Expires April 2003 34 Service requirements for Layer 3 PPVPNs October, 2002
(are) restored, the original provisioned load balancing ratio should
be restored to its value prior to the failure.
The Service provider should be able to deploy protection and
restoration mechanisms within the service provider's backbone
infrastructure to increase reliability and fault tolerance of the VPN
service offering. These techniques should be scalable, and therefore
should strive to not perform such function in the backbone on a per-
VPN basis.
Appropriate measurements and alarms that indicate how well network
protection and restoration mechanisms are performing must be
supported.
6.15 Interoperability
Service providers are interested in interoperability in at least the
following scenarios:
- To facilitate use of PE and managed CE devices within a single SP
network
- To implement PPVPN services across two or more interconnected SP
networks
- To achieve interworking or interconnection between customer sites
using different PPVPN approaches or different implementations of
the same approach
Each approach must describe whether any of the above objectives can
be met. If an objective can be met, the approach must describe how
such interoperability could be achieved. In particular, the approach
must describe the inter-solution network interface, encapsulation
method(s), routing protocol(s), security, isolation, management, and
all other applicable aspects of the overall VPN solution provided
[VPN IW].
6.16 Migration Support
Service providers must have a graceful means to migrate a customer
with minimal service disruption on a site-by-site basis to a PPVPN
approach.
If PPVPN approaches can interwork or interconnect, then service
providers must have a graceful means to migrate a customer with
minimal service disruption on a site-by-site basis whenever changing
interworking or interconnection.
7 Service Provider Management Requirements
A service provider must have a means to view the topology,
operational state, order status, and other parameters associated with
each customer's VPN. Furthermore, the service provider must have a
means to view the underlying logical and physical topology,
operational state, provisioning status, and other parameters
associated with the equipment providing the VPN service(s) to its
customers.
Carugi et al Informational - Expires April 2003 35 Service requirements for Layer 3 PPVPNs October, 2002
Currently, proprietary methods are often used to manage VPNs. The
additional expense associated with operators having to use multiple
proprietary management methods (e.g., command line interface (CLI)
languages) to access such systems is undesirable. Therefore, devices
should provide standards-based interfaces wherever feasible.
The remainder of this section presents detailed service provider
management requirements for a Network Management System (NMS) in the
traditional fault, configuration, accounting, performance, and
security (FCAPS) management categories. Much of this text was adapted
from ITU-T Y.1311.1.
7.1 Fault management
Support for fault management includes:
- indication of customers impacted by failure,
- fault detection (incidents reports, alarms, failure visualization),
- fault localization (analysis of alarms reports, diagnostics),
- incident recording or logs, creation and follow through of trouble
tickets),
- corrective actions (traffic, routing, resource allocation).
Since PE-based VPNs rely on a common network infrastructure, the
network management system must provide a means to inform the provider
on the VPN customers impacted by a failure in the infrastructure. The
NMS should provide pointers to the related customer configuration
information to aid in fault isolation and the determination of
corrective action.
It is desirable to detect faults caused by configuration errors,
because these may cause VPN service to fail, or not meet other
requirements (e.g., traffic and routing isolation). Detection of such
errors is inherently difficult because the problem involves more than
one node and may reach across a global perspective. One approach
could be a protocol that systematically checks that all constraints
and consistency checks hold among tunnel configuration parameters at
the various end points.
A capability to verify L3 reachability within a VPN must be provided
for diagnostic purposes.
A capability to verify the parameter configuration of a device
supporting a PPVPN must be provided for diagnostic purposes.
7.2 Configuration Management
Overall, The NMS must support configuration necessary to realize
desired L3 reachability of a PPVPN. Toward this end, an NMS must
provide configuration management to provision at least the following
PPVPN components: PE,CE, hierarchical tunnels, access connections,
routing, and QoS, as detailed in this section. If shared access to
the Internet is provided, then this option must also be configurable.
Carugi et al Informational - Expires April 2003 36 Service requirements for Layer 3 PPVPNs October, 2002
Since VPN configuration and topology are highly dependent upon a
customer's organization, provisioning systems must address a broad
range of customer specific requirements. The NMS must ensure that
these devices and protocols are provisioned consistently and
correctly.
Provisioning for adding or removing sites should be as localized and
automated as possible.
Configuration management for VPNs, according to service templates
defined by the provider must be supported. A service template
contains fields which, when instantiated, yield a definite service
requirement or policy. For example, a template for an IPSec tunnel
would contain fields such as tunnel end points, authentication modes,
encryption and authentication algorithms, preshared keys if any, and
traffic filters. An SLA template would contain fields such as delay,
jitter, throughput and packet loss thresholds as well as end points
over which the SLA has to be satisfied. In general, a customer's
service order can be regarded as a set of instantiated service
templates. This set can, in turn, be regarded as the logical or
service architecture of the customer's VPN.
Service templates can also be used by the provider to define the
service architecture of the provider's own network. For example, OSPF
templates could contain fields such as the subnets that form a
particular area, the area identifier and the area type. BGP service
template could contain fields which when instantiated would yield a
BGP policy such as for expressing a preference about an exit router
for a particular destination.
The set of service templates should be comprehensive in that they can
capture all service orders in some meaningful sense.
The provider should provide means for translating instantiated
service templates into device configurations so that associated
services can be provisioned.
Finally, the approach should provide means for checking if a service
order is correctly provisioned. This would represent one method of
diagnosing configuration errors. Configuration errors can arise due
to a variety of reasons: manual configuration, intruder attacks,
conflicting service requirements.
7.2.1 Configuration Management for PE-Based VPNs
Requirements for configuration management unique to a PE-based VPN
are as follows.
o The NMS must support configuration of at least the following
aspects of a L3 PE routers: intranet and extranet membership, CE
routing protocol for each access connection, routing metrics,
tunnels, etc.
Carugi et al Informational - Expires April 2003 37 Service requirements for Layer 3 PPVPNs October, 2002
o The NMS should use identifiers for SPs, PPVPNs, PEs, CEs,
hierarchical tunnels and access connections as described in section
6.3.
o Tunnels must be configured between PE and P devices. This requires
coordination of identifiers of tunnels, hierarchical tunnels, VPNs,
and any associated service information, for example, a QoS/SLA
service.
o Routing protocols running between PE routers and CE devices must be
configured per VPN.
O For multicast service, multicast routing protocols must also be
configurable.
o Routing protocols running between PE routers and between PE and P
routers must also be configured.
o The configuration of a PE-based PPVPN must be coordinated with the
configuration of the underlying infrastructure, including Layer 1 and
2 networks interconnecting components of a PPVPN.
7.2.2 Configuration management for CE-based VPN
Requirements for configuration management unique to a CE-based VPN
are as follows.
o Tunnels must be configured between CE devices. This requires
coordination of identifiers of tunnels, VPNs, and any associated
service information, for example, a QoS/SLA service.
o Routing protocols running between PE routers and CE devices must be
configured. For multicast service, multicast routing protocols must
also be configurable.
7.2.3 Provisioning Routing
A means for a service provider to provision parameters for the IGP
for a PPVPN must be provided. This includes link level metrics,
capacity, QoS capability, and restoration parameters.
7.2.4 Provisioning Network Access
A service provider must have the means to provision network access
between SP-managed PE and CE, as well as the case where the customer
manages the CE.
7.2.5 Provisioning Security Services
When a security service is requested, an SP must have the means to
provision the entities and associated parameters involved with the
service. For example, for IPsec service, tunnels, options, keys, and
other parameters must be provisioned at either the CE and/or PE. In
the case of an intrusion detection service, the filtering and
detection rules must be provisioned on a VPN basis.
Carugi et al Informational - Expires April 2003 38 Service requirements for Layer 3 PPVPNs October, 2002
7.2.6 Provisioning VPN Resource Parameters
A service provider must have a means to dynamically provision
resources associated with VPN services. For example, in a PE-based
service, the number and size of virtual switching and forwarding
table instances must be provisionable.
Dynamic VPN resource assignment is crucial to cope with the frequent
changes requests from customer's (e.g., sites joining or leaving a
VPN), as well as to achieve scalability. The PEs should be able to
dynamically assign the VPN resources. This capability is especially
important for dial and wireless VPN services.
If an SP supports a "Dynamic Bandwidth management" service, then the
dates, times, amounts and interval required to perform requested
bandwidth allocation change(s) must be traceable for accounting
purposes.
If an SP supports a "Dynamic Bandwidth management" service, then the
provisioning system must be able to make requested changes within the
ranges and bounds specified in the Service Level Agreement (SLA).
Example SLA parameters are response time and probability of being
able to service such a request
7.2.7 Provisioning Value-Added Service Access
A PPVPN service provides controlled access between a set of sites
over a common backbone. However, many service providers also offer a
range of value-added services, for example: Internet access, firewall
services, intrusion protection, IP telephony and IP Centrex,
application hosting, backup, etc. It is outside of the scope of this
document to define if and how these different services interact with
the VPN in order to solve issues such as addressing, integrity and
security. However, the VPN service must be able to provide access to
these various types of value-added services.
A VPN service should allow the SP to supply the customer with
different kinds of standard IP services like DNS, NTP and RADIUS
needed for ordinary network operation and management. The provider
should be able to provide IP services to multiple customers from one
or many servers.
A firewall function may be required to restrict access to the PPVPN
from the Internet [Y.1311].
A managed firewall service must be carrier grade. For redundancy and
failure recovery, a means for firewall fail-over should be provided.
Managed firewall services that may be provided include dropping
specified protocol types, intrusion protection, traffic-rate limiting
against malicious attacks, etc.
Managed firewalls must be supported on a per-VPN basis, although
multiple VPNs may be supported by the same physical device (e.g., in
network or PE-based solution). Managed firewalls should be provided
Carugi et al Informational - Expires April 2003 39 Service requirements for Layer 3 PPVPNs October, 2002
at the major access point(s) for the PPVPN. Managed firewall services
may be embedded in the CE or PE devices, or implemented in standalone
devices.
The NMS should allow a customer to outsource the management of an IP
networking service to the SP providing the VPN or a third party.
The management system should support collection of information
necessary for optimal allocation of IP services in response to
customer orders.
Network-based firewall services must be carrier grade. For redundancy
and failure recovery, a means for firewall fail-over should be
provided. Network-based firewall services that may be provided
include dropping specified protocol types, intrusion detection,
traffic-rate limiting against malicious attacks, etc.
Network-based firewalls must be supported on a per-VPN basis,
although multiple VPNs may be supported by the same physical device.
Network-based firewalls should be provided at the major access
point(s) for the PPVPN. Network-based firewall services may be
embedded in the PE equipment, or implemented in standalone equipment.
Reachability to and from the Internet to sites within a VPN must be
configurable by an SP. This could be controlled by configuring
routing policy to control distribution of VPN routes advertised to
the Internet.
7.2.8 Provisioning Hybrid VPN Services
Configuration of interworking or interconnection between PPVPN
solutions should be also supported. Ensuring that security and end-
to-end QoS issues are provided consistently should be addressed.
7.3 Accounting
Many service providers require collection of measurements regarding
resource usage for accounting purposes. The NMS may need to correlate
accounting information with performance and fault management
information to produce billing that takes into account SLA provisions
for periods of time where the SLS is not met.
A PPVPN solution must describe how the following accounting functions
can be provided:
- measurements of resource utilization,
- collection of accounting information,
- storage and administration of measurements.
Some providers may require near-real time reporting of measurement
information, and may offer this as part of a customer network
management service.
If an SP supports a "Dynamic Bandwidth management" service, then the
dates, times, amounts and interval required to perform requested
Carugi et al Informational - Expires April 2003 40 Service requirements for Layer 3 PPVPNs October, 2002
bandwidth allocation change(s) must be traceable for monitoring and
accounting purposes.
Solutions should state compliance to accounting requirements, as
described in section 1.7 of RFC 2975.
7.4 Performance Management
Performance management includes functions involved with monitoring
and collecting performance data regarding devices, facilities, and
services, as well as determination of conformance to Service Level
Specifications (SLS), such as QoS and availability measurements.
Performance management should also support analysis of important
aspects of a PPVPN , such as bandwidth utilization, response time,
availability, QoS statistics, and trends based on collected data.
7.4.1 Performance Monitoring
The NMS must monitor device behavior to evaluate performance metrics
associated with a service level agreement. Different measurement
techniques may be necessary depending on the service for which an SLA
is provided. Example services are QoS, security, multicast, and
temporary access. These techniques may be either intrusive or non-
intrusive depending on the parameters being monitored.
The NMS must also monitor aspects of the VPN not directly associated
with an SLA, such as resource utilization, state of devices and
transmission facilities, as well as control of monitoring resources
such as probes and remote agents at network access points used by
customers and mobile users.
7.4.2 SLA and QoS management features
The NMS should support SLAs between the SP and the various customers
according to the corresponding SLSes by measurement of the indicators
defined within the context of the SLA, on a regular basis.
The NMS should use the QOS parameter measurement definitions,
techniques, and methods as defined by the IETF IP Performance Metrics
(IPPM) working group for delay, loss, and delay variation.
The NMS should support allocation and measurement of end-to-end QoS
requirements to QoS parameters for one or more network(s).
Devices supporting PPVPN SLAs should have real-time performance
measurements that have indicators and threshold crossing alerts. Such
thresholds should be configurable.
7.5 Security Management
The security management function of the NMS must include management
features to guarantee the security of devices, access connections,
and protocols within the PPVPN network(s), as well as the security of
customer data and control as described in section 6.9.
Carugi et al Informational - Expires April 2003 41 Service requirements for Layer 3 PPVPNs October, 2002
7.5.1 Management Access Control
Management access control determines the privileges that a user has
for particular applications and parts of the network. Without such
control, only the security of the data and control traffic is
protected, leaving the devices providing the PPVPN network
unprotected. Access control capabilities protect these devices to
ensure that users have access to only the resources and applications
to which they are authorized to use.
In particular, access to the routing and switching resources managed
by the SP must be tightly controlled to prevent and/or effectively
mitigate a malicious attack.
7.5.2 Authentication
Authentication is the process of verifying that the sender is
actually is who he or she says they are. The NMS must support
standard methods for authenticating users attempting to access
management services.
Scalability is critical as the number of nomadic/mobile clients is
increasing rapidly. The authentication scheme implemented for such
deployments must be manageable for large numbers of users and VPN
access points.
Support for strong authentication schemes shall be supported to
ensure the security of both VPN access point-to-VPN access point (PE
to PE) and client-to-VPN Access point (CE-to-PE) communications. This
is particularly important to prevent VPN access point spoofing. VPN
Access Point Spoofing is the situation where an attacker tries to
convince a PE or CE that the attacker is the VPN Access Point. If an
attacker can convinces a PE or CE of that, then the device will send
VPN traffic to the attacker (who could forward it on to your true
access point after compromising confidentially or integrity).
In other words, a non-authenticated VPN AP can be spoofed with a man-
in-the-middle attack, because the endpoints never verify each other.
A weakly-authenticated VPN AP may be subject to such an attack.
However, strongly-authenticated VPN APs are not subject to such
attacks, because the man-in-the-middle cannot authenticate as the
real AP, due to the strong authentication algorithms.
7.6 Network Management Techniques
Each PPVPN solution approach must specify the management or policy
information bases (MIBs or PIBS) for network elements involved in
PPVPN services. This is an essential requirement in network
provisioning. The approach should identify any information not
contained in a standard MIB related to FCAPS that is necessary to
meet a generic requirement.
The IP VPN Policy Information model should reuse the policy
information models being developed in parallel for specific IP
network capabilities [IM-REQ]. This includes the QoS Policy
Carugi et al Informational - Expires April 2003 42 Service requirements for Layer 3 PPVPNs October, 2002
Information Model_[QPIM] and the IPSEC Configuration Policy Model_
[IPSECIM]. The information model should provide the OSS with adequate
"hooks" to correlate service level specifications with traffic data
collected from network elements. The use of policies includes rules
that control corrective actions taken by OSS components responsible
for monitoring the network and ensuring that it meets service
requirements.
Additional requirements on information models are given in reference
[IM-PPVPN]. In particular, an information model must allow a service
provider to change network dimensions with minimal influence on
provisioning issues. The adopted model should be applicable to both
small/medium size networks and large-scale PPVPN solutions.
Some service providers may require systems that visually, audibly, or
logically present FCAPS information to internal operators and/or
customers.
8 Security Considerations
Security considerations occur at several levels and dimensions within
Provider Provisioned VPNs, as detailed within this document. This
section provides a summary with references to supporting detailed
information.
The requirements in this document separate the notion of traditional
security requirements, such as integrity, confidentiality, and
authentication as detailed in section 4.4 from that of isolating (or
separating) the exchange of forwarded packets and exchange of routing
information between specific sets of sites, as defined in sections
3.3 and 4.3. Further detail on security requirements are given from
the customer and service provider perspectives in sections 4.4 and
5.9, respectively. In an analogous manner, further detail on traffic
and routing isolation requirements are given from the customer and
service provider perspectives in sections 4.3 and 5.8, respectively.
Furthermore, requirements regarding management of security from a
service provider perspective are described in section 7.5.
9 Acknowledgements
The authors of this document would like to acknowledge the
contributions from the ITU-T people who launched the work on VPN
requirements inside SG13, the authors of the original IP VPN
requirements and framework document [RFC 2764], Tom Worster, Ron
Bonica, Sanjai Narain, Muneyoshi Suzuki, Tom Nadeau, Nail Akar, Derek
Atkins, Bryan Gleeson, Greg Burns, and Frederic LeGarrec. The authors
are also grateful to the helpful suggestions and direction provided
by the technical advisors, Scott Bradner, Bert Wijnen and Rob Coltun.
We would also like to acknowledge the insights and requirements
gleaned from the many documents listed in the references section.
Citations to these documents were made only where the authors
believed that additional insight to the requirement could be obtained
by reading the source document.
Carugi et al Informational - Expires April 2003 43 Service requirements for Layer 3 PPVPNs October, 2002
10 References
10.1 Normative References
[PPVPN-GR] Nagaragan, A., "Generic Requirements for Provider
Provisioned VPN," Work in Progress.
[RFC 1777] Yeong, W. et al., "Lightweight Directory Access Protocol,"
RFC 1777, March 1995.
[RFC 1918] Rekhter, Y. et al., "Address Allocation for Private
Internets," RFC 1918, February 1996.
[RFC 2026] Bradner, S., "The Internet Standards Process -- Revision
3", BCP 9, RFC 2026, October 1996.
[RFC 2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997
[RFC 2205] R. Braden, Ed., L. Zhang, S. Berson, S. Herzog, S.
Jamin, "Resource ReSerVation Protocol (RSVP) -- Version 1
Functional Specification," September 1997.
[RFC 2211] J. Wroclawski, Specification of the Controlled-Load
Network Element Service, RFC 2211, IETF, September 1997.
[RFC 2212] S. Shenker, C. Partridge, R Guerin, Specification of
Guaranteed Quality of Service, RFC 2212, IETF, September
1997.
[RFC 2251] Wahl, M. et al., "Lightweight Directory Access Protocol
(v3)," RFC 2251, December 1997.
[RFC 2475] S. Blake, D. Black, M. Carlson, E. Davies, Z. Wang, W.
Weiss, "An Architecture for Differentiated Services",
RFC 2475, Dec. 1998.
[RFC 2597] "Assured Forwarding PHB Group", F. Baker, J. Heinanen, W.
Weiss, J. Wroclawski, RFC 2597,
[RFC 2661] Townsley, W. et al., "Layer Two Tunneling Protocol
"L2TP"," RFC 2661, August 1999.
[RFC 2685] Fox B., et al, "Virtual Private Networks Identifier", RFC
2685, September 1999.
[RFC 2983] Black, D., _Differentiated Services and Tunnels_, RFC2983,
October 2000
[RFC 3031] E. Rosen, A. Viswanathan, R. Callon, "Multiprotocol Label
Switching Architecture," January 2001.
[RFC 3246] B. Davie et al, "An Expedited Forwarding PHB", RFC 3246,
March 2002.
10.2 Non-normative References
[2547bis] Rosen, E., Rekhter, Y. et al., "BGP/MPLS VPNs", work n
progress.
[2917bis] Muthukrishnan, K., et al., _ A Core MPLS IP VPN
Architecture_, work in progress
[DOCSIS 1.1] Data Over Cable Service Interface Specification
(DOCSIS), Cable Labs,
http://www.cablemodem.com/specifications.html
[FRF.13] Frame Relay Forum, "Service Level Definitions
Implementation Agreement," August, 1998.
[IM-PPVPN] P. Lago et al, "An Information Model for Provider
Provisioned Virtual Private Networks," work in progress.
Carugi et al Informational - Expires April 2003 44 Service requirements for Layer 3 PPVPNs October, 2002
[IM-REQ] M. Iyer et al, "Requirements for an IP VPN Policy
Information Model," work in progress
[IPSECIM] J. Jason, _"IPsec Configuration Policy Model," work in
progress.
[IPSEC- B. Gleeson, "Uses of IPsec with Provider Provisioned
PPVPN] VPNs," work in progress.
[L2 MPLS] L. Martini et al, _Transport of Layer 2 Frames Over
MPLS,_ work in progress.
[L2 VPN] E. Rosen et al, "An Architecture for L2VPNs," work in
progress.
[L2 VPN] K. Kompella, R. Bonica, "Whither Layer 2 VPNs?," work in
progress.
[MPLS SEC] M. Behringer, "Analysis of the Security of the MPLS
Architecture," work in progress
[NBVPN-FR] Suzuki, M. and Sumimoto, J. (editors), "A framework for
Network-based VPNs", work in progress
[PPVPN-FR] Callon, R., Suzuki, M., et al. "A Framework for Provider
Provisioned Virtual Private Networks ",work in progress
[PPVPN-FR] R. Callon, M. Suzuki, B. Gleeson, A. Malis, K.
Muthukrishnan, E. Rosen, C. Sargor, J. Yu, "A Framework
for Provider Provisioned Virtual Private Networks," work
in progress.
[PPVPN-VR] H. Ould-Brahim, B. Gleeson et al. "Network based PPVPN
Architecture using Virtual Routers", work in
progress
[QPIM] Snir, Ramberg, Strassner, Cohen and Moore,_"Policy QoS
Information Model" work in progress.
[RFC 2547] E. Rosen, Y. Rekhter, _BGP/MPLS VPNs,_ RFC 2547,March
1999.
[RFC 2764] Gleeson, B., et al., "A Framework for IP based Virtual
Private Networks", RFC 2764, February 2000
[RFC 2975] B. Aboba et al, "Introduction to Accounting Management,"
October 2000.
[RFC 3198] A. Westerinen et al, "Terminology for Policy-Based
Management," November, 2001.
[VPLS REQ] W. Augustyn et al, "Requirements for Virtual Private LAN
Services (VPLS)," work in progress.
[VPN DISC] M. Squire et al, "VPN Discovery Discussions and
Options," work in progress.
[VPN IW] H. Kurakami et al, "Provider-Provisioned VPNs
Interworking," work in progress.
[VPN SEC] J. De Clercq et al, "Considerations about possible
security extensions to BGP/MPLS VPN," work in progress.
[VPN TUNNEL] T. Worster et al, "A PPVPN Layer Separation: VPN Tunnels
and Core Connectivity," work in progress
[VPN-CRIT] Yu, J., Jou, L., Matthews, A ., Srinivasan, V.,
"Criteria for Evaluating VPN Implementation Mechanisms",
work in progress
[VPN-NEEDS] Jacquenet, C., "Functional needs for the deployment of
an IP VPN service offering : a service provider
perspective ", work in progress
[VPN-VR] Ould-Brahim, H., Gleeson, B., et al. _Network based IP
Carugi et al Informational - Expires April 2003 45 Service requirements for Layer 3 PPVPNs October, 2002
VPN Architecture using Virtual Routers_, work in
progress
[Y.1241] "IP Transfer Capability for the support of IP based
Services", Y.1241 ITU-T Draft Recommendation, March 2000
[Y.1311.1] Carugi, M. (editor), "Network Based IP VPN over MPLS
architecture",Y.1311.1 ITU-T Recommendation, May 2001
[Y.1311] Knightson, K. (editor), " Network based IP VPN Service -
Generic Framework and Service Requirements ", Y.1311 ITU-T
Draft Recommendation, May 2001
11 Authors' address
Marco Carugi (Co-editor)
Nortel Networks S.A.
Parc d'activites de Magny-Les Jeunes Bois CHATEAUFORT
78928 YVELINES Cedex 9 - FRANCE
marco.carugi@nortelnetworks.com
Dave McDysan (Co-editor)
WorldCom
22001 Loudoun County Parkway
Ashburn, VA 20147, USA
dave.mcdysan@wcom.com
Luyuan Fang
AT&T
200 Laurel Ave - Room C2-3B35
Middletown, NJ 07748 USA
Luyuanfang@att.com
Ananth Nagarajan
Sprint
6220 Sprint Parkway,
Overland Park, KS 66251, USA
ananth.nagarajan@mail.sprint.com
Junichi Sumimoto
NTT Information Sharing Platform Labs.
3-9-11, Midori-cho,
Musashino-shi, Tokyo 180-8585, Japan
Email: sumimoto.junichi@lab.ntt.co.jp
Rick Wilder
Masergy
rwilder@masergy.com
Full copyright statement
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (1999). All Rights Reserved.
Carugi et al Informational - Expires April 2003 46 Service requirements for Layer 3 PPVPNs October, 2002
This document and translations of it may be copied and furnished to
others, and derivative works that comment on or otherwise explain it
or assist its implementation may be prepared, copied, published and
distributed, in whole or in part, without restriction of any kind,
provided that the above copyright notice and this paragraph are
included on all such copies and derivative works. However, this
document itself may not be modified in any way, such as by removing
the copyright notice or references to the Internet Society or other
Internet organizations, except as needed for the purpose of
developing Internet standards in which case the procedures for
copyrights defined in the Internet Standards process must be
followed, or as required to translate it into languages other than
English.
The limited permissions granted above are perpetual and will not be
revoked by the Internet Society or its successors or assigns.
This document and the information contained herein is provided on an
"AS IS" basis and THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING
TASK FORCE DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING
BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INFORMATION
HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF
MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
Carugi et al Informational - Expires April 2003 47 | PAFTECH AB 2003-2026 | 2026-04-21 01:18:29 |