One document matched: draft-rosen-ppvpn-2547bis-protocol-02.txt

Differences from draft-rosen-ppvpn-2547bis-protocol-01.txt

Network Working Group                                      Eric C. Rosen
Internet Draft                                       Cisco Systems, Inc.
Expiration Date: August 2003

                                                           February 2003


                    Protocol Actions for RFC2547bis


               draft-rosen-ppvpn-2547bis-protocol-02.txt

Status of this Memo

   This document is an Internet-Draft and is in full conformance with
   all provisions of Section 10 of RFC2026.

   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.

Abstract

   The purpose of this document is to list all the protocol changes
   specified in [rfc2547bis] and related drafts which might be regarded
   to require approval or other action by IETF WGs other than the PPVPN
   WG.  This document is for temporary administrative purposes only, and
   does not itself specify a protocol or an architecture.












Rosen                                                           [Page 1]


Internet Draft draft-rosen-ppvpn-2547bis-protocol-02.txt   February 2003




Table of Contents

    1      Introduction  ...........................................   2
    2      BGP Protocol Extensions  ................................   2
    2.1    Required Extensions  ....................................   2
    2.2    Optional Extensions  ....................................   3
    3      OSPF Protocol Extensions  ...............................   3
    4      IPsec Considerations  ...................................   4
    5      Multicast Considerations  ...............................   5
    6      Security Considerations  ................................   5
    7      References  .............................................   5




1. Introduction

   The purpose of this document is to list all the protocol changes
   specified in [RFC2547bis] and related drafts which might be regarded
   to require approval or other action by IETF WGs other than the PPVPN
   WG.  This document is for temporary administrative purposes only, and
   does not itself specify a protocol or an architecture.


2. BGP Protocol Extensions

   There are no BGP protocol extensions which require action by any IETF
   WG before [RFC2547bis] may be progressed to proposed standard.  The
   remainder of this section lists the BGP protocol extensions that are
   used, and their status.


2.1. Required Extensions

   Required for the implementation of the VPN architecture specified in
   [RFC2547bis] are the following BGP extensions (to which [RFC2547bis]
   makes normative references):

     - "BGP Multiprotocol Extensions for BGP-4", RFC 2858 (Proposed
       Standard)

     - "BGP Extended Communities Attribute", draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ext-
       communities-05.txt (has passed WG Last Call, on Standards track)






Rosen                                                           [Page 2]


Internet Draft draft-rosen-ppvpn-2547bis-protocol-02.txt   February 2003


     - "Capabilities Advertisement with BGP-4", RFC 2842 (Proposed
       Standard)

   [RFC2547bis] itself defines a new BGP address family, "VPN-IPv4
   Labeled Addresses", but does so in accordance with procedures
   specified in RFC 2858. [2547-IPv6] also defines a new BGP address
   family, "MPLS-labeled VPN-IPv6".


2.2. Optional Extensions

   The following BGP extensions (to which [RFC2547bis] makes NON-
   normative references) are optional for the VPN architecture specified
   in [RFC2547bis]:

     - Route Refresh Capability for BGP-4, RFC 2918 (Proposed Standard)

     - "Cooperative Route Filtering Capability for BGP-4", draft-ietf-
       idr-route-filter-06.txt (BGP working group document)


3. OSPF Protocol Extensions

   [RFC2547bis] does not itself specify the procedures used when OSPF is
   the PE/CE routing protocol.  This is largely specified in the draft
   "OSPF as the PE/CE Protocol in BGP/MPLS VPNs", draft-rosen-vpns-
   ospf-bgp-mpls-04.txt [VPN-OSPF].  As [RFC2547bis] does not require
   the use of OSPF as the PE/CE routing protocol, [RFC2547bis]'s
   reference to [VPN-OSPF] is non-normative.

   [VPN-OSPF] does not require any protocol changes which require action
   by any IETF WG.  However, [VPN-OSPF] does not specify procedures for
   handling the case where the PE/CE link is an Area 0 link.  This is
   specified in a separate draft, [VPN-OSPF-Area0].  Since [VPN-OSPF]
   does not require support for the case where the PE/CE link is an Area
   0 link, any reference from it to [VPN-OSPF-Area0] would be non-
   normative.

   [VPN-OSPF-Area0] does require an extension to the OSPF protocol.  In
   particular, it assigns a use for one of the hitherto unused OSPF
   Options bits.  This does require approval by an IETF WG.










Rosen                                                           [Page 3]


Internet Draft draft-rosen-ppvpn-2547bis-protocol-02.txt   February 2003


4. IPsec Considerations

   In [2547-IPsec], procedures are defined to enable packets between PE
   routers to be encrypted and/or authenticated via IPsec.  This is done
   by first creating an IP tunnel that beings at one PE router and ends
   at the other.  The MPLS packets are placed in this IP tunnel.  IPsec
   Transport Mode is then applied to the packets that enter and leave
   this tunnel.  No changes to IPsec or its related protocols are
   specified or envisioned.  However, the way in which IPsec is used
   might be considered "unusual" in the following respects:

     - Transport mode is used, although the endpoints of the Security
       Association are not the ultimate source and destination of the
       packets.  This is not thought to be an issue, though, because the
       endpoints of the SA ARE the source and destination of the IP
       packets to which IPsec is applied.

     - The egress PE is optionally allowed to exert policy control over
       the Security Association, and BGP may be optionally used to
       distribute policy information.  The existence of policy control
       at the egress is a common industry practice, though some have
       argued that this is not what the IPsec specifications originally
       intended.

     - The set of packets sent on a particular Security Association is
       determined by routing, rather than by filtering on the packet
       header.  While this is a common industry practice, some have
       argued that this is not a "proper" use of IPsec.

   In the opinion of the author, these are non-issues, but they are
   mentioned here in recognition of the fact that there may be other
   opinions.

   There are some additional considerations from [2547-IPsec]:

     - That document references [MPLS-in-IP/GRE], which is being
       proposed to the MPLS WG, but is not yet a working group document.
       Arguably the reference is non-normative.

     - Optional parts of that [2547-IPsec] require the definition of
       additional BGP Extended Communities.










Rosen                                                           [Page 4]


Internet Draft draft-rosen-ppvpn-2547bis-protocol-02.txt   February 2003


5. Multicast Considerations

   This section is deferred to a later revision.


6. Security Considerations

   As this document is for administrative purposes only, and specifies
   no architecture, protocols, procedures, or practices, it does not
   raise any security considerations.


7. References

   [2547-IPsec] Rosen, De Clercq, Paridaens, T'Joens, Sargor, "Use of
   PE-PE IPsec in RFC2547 VPNs", draft-ietf-ppvpn-ipsec-2547-03.txt,
   February 2003

   [2547-IPv6] Nguyen, Gastaud, Ooms, De Clercq, Carugi, "BGP-MPLS VPN
   extension for IPv6 VPN over an IPv4 infrastructure", draft-ietf-
   ppvpn-bgp-ipv6-vpn-03.txt, November 2002

   [BGP-MP] Bates, Chandra, Katz, and Rekhter, "Multiprotocol Extensions
   for BGP4", June 2000, RFC 2858

   [BGP-EXTCOMM] Ramachandra, Tappan, "BGP Extended Communities
   Attribute", draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ext-communities-05.txt, May 2002

   [BGP-ORF] Chen, Rekhter, "Cooperative Route Filtering Capability for
   BGP-4", draft-ietf-idr-route-filter-08.txt, January 2003

   [BGP-RFSH] Chen, "Route Refresh Capability for BGP-4", March 2000,
   RFC 2918

   [MPLS-in-IP/GRE] "Encapsulating MPLS in IP or GRE", draft-ietf-
   mpls-in-ip-or-gre-00.txt, January 2003

   [RFC2547bis] Rosen, Rekhter, et. al., "BGP/MPLS VPNs", draft-ietf-
   ppvpn-r4fc2547bis-03.txt, October 2002

   [VPN-OSPF] Rosen, Psenak and Pillay-Esnault, "OSPF as the PE/CE
   Protocol in BGP/MPLS VPNs", draft-rosen-vpns-ospf-bgp-mpls-06.txt,
   February 2003

   [VPN-OSPF-Area0] Rosen, Psenak, and Pillay-Esnault, "OSPF Area 0
   PE/CE Links in BGP/MPLS VPNs", draft-rosen-ppvpn-ospf2547-area0-
   02.txt, February 2003




Rosen                                                           [Page 5]


Internet Draft draft-rosen-ppvpn-2547bis-protocol-02.txt   February 2003





















































Rosen                                                           [Page 6]