





Network Working Group                                          R. Callon
Request for Comments: 4110                              Juniper Networks
Category: Informational                                        M. Suzuki
                                                         NTT Corporation
                                                               July 2005


                        A Framework for Layer 3
         Provider-Provisioned Virtual Private Networks (PPVPNs)

Status of This Memo

   This memo provides information for the Internet community.  It does
   not specify an Internet standard of any kind.  Distribution of this
   memo is unlimited.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2005).

Abstract

   This document provides a framework for Layer 3 Provider-Provisioned
   Virtual Private Networks (PPVPNs).  This framework is intended to aid
   in the standardization of protocols and mechanisms for support of
   layer 3 PPVPNs.  It is the intent of this document to produce a
   coherent description of the significant technical issues that are
   important in the design of layer 3 PPVPN solutions.  Selection of
   specific approaches, making choices regarding engineering tradeoffs,
   and detailed protocol specification, are outside of the scope of this
   framework document.

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3
       1.1.  Objectives of the Document . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3
       1.2.  Overview of Virtual Private Networks . . . . . . . . . .  4
       1.3.  Types of VPNs. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
             1.3.1.  CE- vs PE-based VPNs . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8
             1.3.2.  Types of PE-based VPNs . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
             1.3.3.  Layer 3 PE-based VPNs. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
       1.4.  Scope of the Document. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
       1.5.  Terminology. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
       1.6.  Acronyms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
   2.  Reference Models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
       2.1.  Reference Model for Layer 3 PE-based VPN . . . . . . . . 14
             2.1.1.  Entities in the Reference Model. . . . . . . . . 16
             2.1.2.  Relationship Between CE and PE . . . . . . . . . 18



Callon & Suzuki              Informational                      [Page 1]

RFC 4110               A Framework for L3 PPVPNs               July 2005


             2.1.3.  Interworking Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
       2.2.  Reference Model for Layer 3 Provider-Provisioned
             CE-based VPN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
             2.2.1.  Entities in the Reference Model. . . . . . . . . 22
   3.  Customer Interface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
       3.1.  VPN Establishment at the Customer Interface. . . . . . . 23
             3.1.1.  Layer 3 PE-based VPN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
                     3.1.1.1.  Static Binding . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
                     3.1.1.2.  Dynamic Binding. . . . . . . . . . . . 24
             3.1.2.  Layer 3 Provider-Provisioned CE-based VPN. . . . 25
       3.2.  Data Exchange at the Customer Interface. . . . . . . . . 25
             3.2.1.  Layer 3 PE-based VPN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
             3.2.2.  Layer 3 Provider-Provisioned CE-based VPN. . . . 26
       3.3.  Customer Visible Routing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
             3.3.1.  Customer View of Routing for Layer 3 PE-based
                     VPNs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
                     3.3.1.1.  Routing for Intranets  . . . . . . . . 27
                     3.3.1.2.  Routing for Extranets  . . . . . . . . 28
                     3.3.1.3.  CE and PE Devices for Layer 3
                               PE-based VPNs. . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
             3.3.2.  Customer View of Routing for Layer 3 Provider-
                     Provisioned CE-based VPNs. . . . . . . . . . . . 29
             3.3.3.  Options for Customer Visible Routing . . . . . . 30
   4.  Network Interface and SP Support of VPNs . . . . . . . . . . . 32
       4.1.  Functional Components of a VPN . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
       4.2.  VPN Establishment and Maintenance. . . . . . . . . . . . 34
             4.2.1.  VPN Discovery  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
                     4.2.1.1.  Network Management for Membership
                               Information. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
                     4.2.1.2.  Directory Servers. . . . . . . . . . . 36
                     4.2.1.3.  Augmented Routing for Membership
                               Information. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
                     4.2.1.4.  VPN Discovery for Inter-SP VPNs. . . . 37
             4.2.2.  Constraining Distribution of VPN Routing
                     Information  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
             4.2.3.  Controlling VPN Topology . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
       4.3.  VPN Tunneling  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
             4.3.1.  Tunnel Encapsulations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
             4.3.2.  Tunnel Multiplexing. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
             4.3.3.  Tunnel Establishment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
             4.3.4.  Scaling and Hierarchical Tunnels . . . . . . . . 43
             4.3.5.  Tunnel Maintenance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
             4.3.6.  Survey of Tunneling Techniques . . . . . . . . . 46
                     4.3.6.1.  GRE  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
                     4.3.6.2.  IP-in-IP Encapsulation . . . . . . . . 47
                     4.3.6.3.  IPsec. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
                     4.3.6.4.  MPLS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
       4.4.  PE-PE Distribution of VPN Routing Information. . . . . . 51



Callon & Suzuki              Informational                      [Page 2]

RFC 4110               A Framework for L3 PPVPNs               July 2005


             4.4.1.  Options for VPN Routing in the SP. . . . . . . . 52
             4.4.2.  VPN Forwarding Instances . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
             4.4.3.  Per-VPN Routing  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
             4.4.4.  Aggregated Routing Model . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
                     4.4.4.1.  Aggregated Routing with OSPF or IS-IS. 55
                     4.4.4.2.  Aggregated Routing with BGP. . . . . . 56
             4.4.5.  Scalability and Stability of Routing with Layer
                     3 PE-based VPNs. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59
       4.5.  Quality of Service, SLAs, and IP Differentiated Services 61
             4.5.1.  IntServ/RSVP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61
             4.5.2.  DiffServ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62
       4.6.  Concurrent Access to VPNs and the Internet . . . . . . . 62
       4.7.  Network and Customer Management of VPNs. . . . . . . . . 63
             4.7.1.  Network and Customer Management. . . . . . . . . 63
             4.7.2.  Segregated Access of VPN Information . . . . . . 64
   5.  Interworking Interface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66
       5.1.  Interworking Function. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66
       5.2.  Interworking Interface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66
             5.2.1.  Tunnels at the Interworking Interface. . . . . . 67
       5.3.  Support of Additional Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68
       5.4.  Scalability Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69
   6.  Security Considerations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69
       6.1.  System Security. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70
       6.2.  Access Control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70
       6.3.  Endpoint Authentication  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70
       6.4.  Data Integrity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71
       6.5.  Confidentiality. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71
       6.6.  User Data and Control Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72
       6.7.  Security Considerations for Inter-SP VPNs  . . . . . . . 72
   Appendix A: Optimizations for Tunnel Forwarding. . . . . . . . . . 73
       A.1.  Header Lookups in the VFIs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73
       A.2.  Penultimate Hop Popping for MPLS . . . . . . . . . . . . 73
       A.3.  Demultiplexing to Eliminate the Tunnel Egress VFI Lookup 74
   Acknowledgments. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75
   Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76
   Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76
   Contributors' Addresses. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80

1.  Introduction

1.1.  Objectives of the Document

   This document provides a framework for Layer 3 Provider-Provisioned
   Virtual Private Networks (PPVPNs).  This framework is intended to aid
   in standardizing protocols and mechanisms to support interoperable
   layer 3 PPVPNs.





Callon & Suzuki              Informational                      [Page 3]

RFC 4110               A Framework for L3 PPVPNs               July 2005


   The term "provider-provisioned VPNs" refers to Virtual Private
   Networks (VPNs) for which the Service Provider (SP) participates in
   management and provisioning of the VPN, as defined in section 1.3.
   There are multiple ways in which a provider can participate in
   managing and provisioning a VPN; therefore, there are multiple
   different types of PPVPNs.  The framework document discusses layer 3
   VPNs (as defined in section 1.3).

   First, this document provides a reference model for layer 3 PPVPNs.
   Then technical aspects of layer 3 PPVPN operation are discussed,
   first from the customer's point of view, then from the providers
   point of view.  Specifically, this includes discussion of the
   technical issues which are important in the design of standards and
   mechanisms for the operation and support of layer 3 PPVPNs.
   Furthermore, technical aspects of layer 3 PPVPN interworking are
   clarified.  Finally, security issues as they apply to layer 3 PPVPNs
   are addressed.

   This document takes a "horizontal description" approach.  For each
   technical issue, it describes multiple approaches.  To specify a
   particular PPVPN strategy, one must choose a particular way of
   solving each problem, but this document does not make choices, and
   does not select any particular approach to support VPNs.

   The "vertical description" approach is taken in other documents,
   viz., in the documents that describe particular PPVPN solutions.
   Note that any specific solution will need to make choices based on SP
   requirements, customer needs, implementation cost, and engineering
   tradeoffs.  Solutions will need to chose between flexibility
   (supporting multiple options) and conciseness (selection of specific
   options in order to simplify implementation and deployment).  While a
   framework document can discuss issues and criteria which are used as
   input to these choices, the specific selection of a solution is
   outside of the scope of a framework document.

1.2.  Overview of Virtual Private Networks

   The term "Virtual Private Network" (VPN) refers to a set of
   communicating sites, where (a) communication between sites outside
   the set and sites inside the set is restricted, but (b) communication
   between sites in the VPN takes place over a network infrastructure
   that is also used by sites which are not in the VPN.  The fact that
   the network infrastructure is shared by multiple VPNs (and possibly
   also by non-VPN traffic) is what distinguishes a VPN from a private
   network.  We will refer to this shared network infrastructure as the
   "VPN Backbone".





Callon & Suzuki              Informational                      [Page 4]

RFC 4110               A Framework for L3 PPVPNs               July 2005


   The logical structure of the VPN, such as addressing, topology,
   connectivity, reachability, and access control, is equivalent to part
   of or all of a conventional private network using private facilities
   [RFC2764] [VPN-2547BIS].

   In this document, we are concerned only with the case where the
   shared network infrastructure (VPN backbone) is an IP and/or MPLS
   network.  Further, we are concerned only with the case where the
   Service Provider's edge devices, whether at the provider edge (PE) or
   at the Customer Edge (CE), determine how to route VPN traffic by
   looking at the IP and/or MPLS headers of the packets they receive
   from the customer's edge devices; this is the distinguishing feature
   of Layer 3 VPNs.

   In some cases, one SP may offer VPN services to another SP.  The
   former SP is known as a carrier of carriers, and the service it
   offers is known as "carrier of carriers" service.  In this document,
   in cases where the customer could be either an enterprise or SP
   network, we will make use of the term "customer" to refer to the user
   of the VPN services.  Similarly we will use the term "customer
   network" to refer to the user's network.

   VPNs may be intranets, in which the multiple sites are under the
   control of a single customer administration, such as multiple sites
   of a single company.  Alternatively, VPNs may be extranets, in which
   the multiple sites are controlled by administrations of different
   customers, such as sites corresponding to a company, its suppliers,
   and its customers.

   Figure 1.1.  illustrates an example network, which will be used in
   the discussions below.  PE1 and PE2 are Provider Edge devices within
   an SP network.  CE1, CE2, and CE3 are Customer Edge devices within a
   customer network.  Routers r3, r4, r5, and r6 are IP routers internal
   to the customer sites.

















Callon & Suzuki              Informational                      [Page 5]

RFC 4110               A Framework for L3 PPVPNs               July 2005


      ............          .................          ............
      .          .          .               .          .          .
      .        +---+    +-------+       +-------+    +---+        .
      .   r3---|   |    |       |       |       |----|CE2|---r5   .
      .        |   |    |       |       |       |    +---+        .
      .        |CE1|----|  PE1  |       |  PE2  |      :          .
      .        |   |    |       |       |       |    +---+        .
      .   r4---|   |    |       |       |       |----|CE3|---r6   .
      .        +---+    +-------+       +-------+    +---+        .
      . Customer .          .    Service    .          . Customer .
      .  site 1  .          .  provider(s)  .          .  site 2  .
      ............          .................          ............

                Figure 1.1.: VPN interconnecting two sites.

   In many cases, Provider Edge (PE) and Customer Edge (CE) devices may
   be either routers or LSRs.

   In this document, the Service Providers' network is an IP or MPLS
   network.  It is desired to interconnect the customer network sites
   via the Service Providers' network.  Some VPN solutions require that
   the VPN service be provided either over a single SP network, or over
   a small set of closely cooperating SP networks.  Other VPN solutions
   are intended to allow VPN service to be provided over an arbitrary
   set of minimally cooperating SP networks (i.e., over the public
   Internet).

   In many cases, customer networks will make use of private IP
   addresses [RFC1918] or other non-unique IP address (i.e.,
   unregistered addresses); there is no guarantee that the IP addresses
   used in the customer network are globally unique.  The addresses used
   in one customer's network may overlap the addresses used in others.
   However, a single PE device can be used to provide VPN service to
   multiple customer networks, even if those customer networks have
   overlapping addresses.  In PE-based layer 3 VPNs, the PE devices may
   route the VPN traffic based on the customer addresses found in the IP
   headers; this implies that the PE devices need to maintain a level of
   isolation between the packets from different customer networks.  In
   CE-based layer 3 VPNs, the PEs do not make routing decisions based on
   the customer's private addresses, so this issue does not arise.  For
   either PE or CE-based VPNs, the fact that the VPNs do not necessarily
   use globally unique address spaces also implies that IP packets from
   a customer network cannot be transmitted over the SP network in their
   native form.  Instead, some form of encapsulation/tunneling must be
   used.






Callon & Suzuki              Informational                      [Page 6]

RFC 4110               A Framework for L3 PPVPNs               July 2005


   Tunneling is also important for other reasons, such as providing
   isolation between different customer networks, allowing a wide range
   of protocols to be carried over an SP network, etc.  Different QoS
   and security characteristics may be associated with different
   tunnels.

1.3.  Types of VPNs

   This section describes multiple types of VPNs, and some of the
   engineering tradeoffs between different types.  It is not up to this
   document to decide between different types of VPNs.  Different types
   of VPNs may be appropriate in different situations.

   There is a wide spectrum of types of possible VPNs, and it is
   difficult to split the types of VPNs into clearly distinguished
   categories.

   As an example, consider a company making use of a private network,
   with several sites interconnected via leased lines.  All routing is
   done via routers which are internal to the private network.

   At some point, the administrator of the private network might decide
   to replace the leased lines by ATM links (using an ATM service from
   an SP).  Here again all IP-level routing is done between customer
   premises routers, and managed by the private network administrator.

   In order to reduce the network management burden on the private
   network, the company may decide to make use of a provider-provisioned
   CE devices [VPN-CE].  Here the operation of the network might be
   unchanged, except that the CE devices would be provided by and
   managed by an SP.

   The SP might decide that it is too difficult to manually configure
   each CE-CE link.  This might lead the SP to replace the ATM links
   with a layer 2 VPN service between CE devices [VPN-L2].  Auto-
   discovery might be used to simplify configuration of links between CE
   devices, and an MPLS service might be used between CE devices instead
   of an ATM service (for example, to take advantage of the provider's
   high speed IP or MPLS backbone).

   After a while the SP might decide that it is too much trouble to be
   managing a large number of devices at the customers' premises, and
   might instead physically move these routers to be on the provider
   premises.  Each edge router at the provider premises might
   nonetheless be dedicated to a single VPN.  The operation might remain
   unchanged (except that links from the edge routers to other routers
   in the private network become MAN links instead of LAN links, and the
   link from the edge routers to provider core routers become LAN links



Callon & Suzuki              Informational                      [Page 7]

RFC 4110               A Framework for L3 PPVPNs               July 2005


   instead of MAN links).  The routers in question can now be considered
   to be provider edge routers, and the service provided by the SP has
   now become essentially a layer 3 VPN service.

   In order to minimize the cost of equipment, the provider might decide
   to replace several dedicated PE devices with a single physical router
   with the capability of running virtual routers (VR) [VPN-VR].
   Protocol operation may remain unchanged.  In this case the provider
   is offering a layer 3 VPN service making use of a VR capability.
   Note that autodiscovery might be used in a manner which is very
   similar to how it had been done in the layer 2 VPN case described
   above (for example, BGP might be used between VRs for discovery of
   other VRs supporting the same VPN).

   Finally, in order to simplify operation of routing protocols for the
   private network over the SP network, the provider might decide to
   aggregate multiple instances of routing into a single instance of BGP
   [VPN-2547BIS].

   In practice it is highly unlikely that any one network would actually
   evolve through all of these approaches at different points in time.
   However, this example illustrates that there is a continuum of
   possible approaches, and each approach is relatively similar to at
   least some of the other possible approaches for supporting VPN
   services.  Some techniques (such as auto-discovery of VPN sites) may
   be common between multiple approaches.

1.3.1.  CE- vs PE-based VPNs

   The term "CE-based VPN" (or Customer Edge-based Virtual Private
   Network) refers to an approach in which the PE devices do not know
   anything about the routing or the addressing of the customer
   networks.  The PE devices offer a simple IP service, and expect to
   receive IP packets whose headers contain only globally unique IP
   addresses.  What makes a CE-based VPN into a Provider-Provisioned VPN
   is that the SP takes on the task of managing and provisioning the CE
   devices [VPN-CE].

   In CE-based VPNs, the backbone of the customer network is a set of
   tunnels whose endpoints are the CE devices.  Various kinds of tunnels
   may be used (e.g., GRE, IP-in-IP, IPsec, L2TP, MPLS), the only
   overall requirement being that sending a packet through the tunnel
   requires encapsulating it with a new IP header whose addresses are
   globally unique.

   For customer provisioned CE-based VPNs, provisioning and management
   of the tunnels is the responsibility of the customer network
   administration.  Typically, this makes use of manual configuration of



Callon & Suzuki              Informational                      [Page 8]

RFC 4110               A Framework for L3 PPVPNs               July 2005


   the tunnels.  In this case the customer is also responsible for
   operation of the routing protocol between CE devices.  (Note that
   discussion of customer provisioned CE-based VPNs is out of scope of
   the document).

   For provider-provisioned CE-based VPNs, provisioning and management
   of the tunnels is the responsibility of the SP.  In this case the
   provider may also configure routing protocols on the CE devices.
   This implies that routing in the private network is partially under
   the control of the customer, and partially under the control of the
   SP.

   For CE-based VPNs (whether customer or provider-provisioned) routing
   in the customer network treats the tunnels as layer 2 links.

   In a PE-based VPN (or Provider Edge-based Virtual Private Network),
   customer packets are carried through the SP networks in tunnels, just
   as they are in CE-based VPNs.  However, in a PE-based VPN, the tunnel
   endpoints are the PE devices, and the PE devices must know how to
   route the customer packets, based on the IP addresses that they
   carry.  In this case, the CE devices themselves do not have to have
   any special VPN capabilities, and do not even have to know that they
   are part of a VPN.

   In this document we will use the generic term "VPN Edge Device" to
   refer to the device, attached to both the customer network and the
   VPN backbone, that performs the VPN-specific functions.  In the case
   of CE-based VPNs, the VPN Edge Device is a CE device.  In the case of
   PE-based VPNs, the VPN Edge Device is a PE device.

1.3.2.  Types of PE-based VPNs

   Different types of PE-based VPNs may be distinguished by the service
   offered.

   o Layer 3 service

     When a PE receives a packet from a CE, it determines how to forward
     the packet by considering both the packet's incoming link, and the
     layer 3 information in the packet's header.

   o Layer 2 service

     When a PE receives a frame from a CE, it determines how to forward
     the packet by considering both the packet's incoming link, and the
     layer 2 information in the frame header (such as FR, ATM, or MAC
     header).  (Note that discussion of layer 2 service is out of scope
     of the document).



Callon & Suzuki              Informational                      [Page 9]

RFC 4110               A Framework for L3 PPVPNs               July 2005


1.3.3.  Layer 3 PE-based VPNs

   A layer 3 PE-based VPN is one in which the SP takes part in IP level
   forwarding based on the customer network's IP address space.  In
   general, the customer network is likely to make use of private and/or
   non-unique IP addresses.  This implies that at least some devices in
   the provider network needs to understand the IP address space as used
   in the customer network.  Typically this knowledge is limited to the
   PE devices which are directly attached to the customer.

   In a layer 3 PE-based VPN, the provider will need to participate in
   some aspects of management and provisioning of the VPNs, such as
   ensuring that the PE devices are configured to support the correct
   VPNs.  This implies that layer 3 PE-based VPNs are by definition
   provider-provisioned VPNs.

   Layer 3 PE-based VPNs have the advantage that they offload some
   aspects of VPN management from the customer network.  From the
   perspective of the customer network, it looks as if there is just a
   normal network; specific VPN functionality is hidden from the
   customer network.  Scaling of the customer network's routing might
   also be improved, since some layer 3 PE-based VPN approaches avoid
   the need for the customer's routing algorithm to see "N squared"
   (actually N*(N-1)/2) point to point duplex links between N customer
   sites.

   However, these advantages come along with other consequences.
   Specifically, the PE devices must have some knowledge of the routing,
   addressing, and layer 3 protocols of the customer networks to which
   they attach.  One consequence is that the set of layer 3 protocols
   which can be supported by the VPN is limited to those supported by
   the PE (which in practice means, limited to IP).  Another consequence
   is that the PE devices have more to do, and the SP has more
   per-customer management to do.

   An SP may offer a range of layer 3 PE-based VPN services.  At one end
   of the range is a service limited to simply providing connectivity
   (optionally including QoS support) between specific customer network
   sites.  This is referred to as "Network Connectivity Service".  There
   is a spectrum of other possible services, such as firewalls, user or
   site of origin authentication, and address assignment (e.g., using
   Radius or DHCP).

1.4.  Scope of the Document

   This framework document will discuss methods for providing layer 3
   PE-based VPNs and layer 3 provider-provisioned CE-based VPNs.  This
   may include mechanisms which will can be used to constrain



Callon & Suzuki              Informational                     [Page 10]

RFC 4110               A Framework for L3 PPVPNs               July 2005


   connectivity between sites, including the use and placement of
   firewalls, based on administrative requirements [PPVPN-REQ]
   [L3VPN-REQ].  Similarly the use and placement of NAT functionality is
   discussed.  However, this framework document will not discuss methods
   for additional services such as firewall administration and address
   assignment.  A discussion of specific firewall mechanisms and
   policies, and detailed discussion of NAT functionality, are outside
   of the scope of this document.

   This document does not discuss those forms of VPNs that are outside
   of the scope of the IETF Provider-Provisioned VPN working group.
   Specifically, this document excludes discussion of PPVPNs using VPN
   native (non-IP, non-MPLS) protocols as the base technology used to
   provide the VPN service (e.g., native ATM service provided using ATM
   switches with ATM signaling).  However, this does not mean to exclude
   multiprotocol access to the PPVPN by customers.

1.5.  Terminology

   Backdoor Links: Links between CE devices that are provided by the end
   customer rather than the SP; may be used to interconnect CE devices
   in multiple-homing arrangements.

   CE-based VPN: An approach in which all the VPN-specific procedures
   are performed in the CE devices, and the PE devices are not aware in
   any way that some of the traffic they are processing is VPN traffic.

   Customer: A single organization, corporation, or enterprise that
   administratively controls a set of sites belonging to a VPN.

   Customer Edge (CE) Device: The equipment on the customer side of the
   SP-customer boundary (the customer interface).

   IP Router: A device which forwards IP packets, and runs associated IP
   routing protocols (such as OSPF, IS-IS, RIP, BGP, or similar
   protocols).  An IP router might optionally also be an LSR.  The term
   "IP router" is often abbreviated as "router".

   Label Switching Router: A device which forwards MPLS packets and runs
   associated IP routing and signaling protocols (such as LDP, RSVP-TE,
   CR-LDP, OSPF, IS-IS, or similar protocols).  A label switching router
   is also an IP router.

   PE-Based VPNs: The PE devices know that certain traffic is VPN
   traffic.  They forward the traffic (through tunnels) based on the
   destination IP address of the packet, and optionally on based on
   other information in the IP header of the packet.  The PE devices are




Callon & Suzuki              Informational                     [Page 11]

RFC 4110               A Framework for L3 PPVPNs               July 2005


   themselves the tunnel endpoints.  The tunnels may make use of various
   encapsulations to send traffic over the SP network (such as, but not
   restricted to, GRE, IP-in-IP, IPsec, or MPLS tunnels).

   Private Network: A network which allows communication between a
   restricted set of sites, over an IP backbone that is used only to
   carry traffic to and from those sites.

   Provider Edge (PE) Device: The equipment on the SP side of the
   SP-customer boundary (the customer interface).

   Provider-Provisioned VPNs (PPVPNs): VPNs, whether CE-based or
   PE-based, that are actively managed by the SP rather than by the end
   customer.

   Route Reflectors: An SP-owned network element that is used to
   distribute BGP routes to the SP's BGP-enabled routers.

   Virtual Private Network (VPN): Restricted communication between a set
   of sites, making use of an IP backbone which is shared by traffic
   that is not going to or coming from those sites.

   Virtual Router (VR): An instance of one of a number of logical
   routers located within a single physical router.  Each logical router
   emulates a physical router using existing mechanisms and tools for
   configuration, operation, accounting, and maintenance.

   VPN Forwarding Instance (VFI): A logical entity that resides in a PE
   that includes the router information base and forwarding information
   base for a VPN.

   VPN Backbone: IP and/or MPLS network which is used to carry VPN
   traffic between the customer sites of a particular VPN.

   VPN Edge Device: Device, attached to both the VPN backbone and the
   customer network, which performs VPN-specific functions.  For
   PE-based VPNs, this is the PE device; for CE-based VPNs, this is the
   CE device.

   VPN Routing: Routing that is specific to a particular VPN.

   VPN Tunnel: A logical link between two PE or two CE entities, used to
   carry VPN traffic, and implemented by encapsulating packets that are
   transmitted between those two entities.







Callon & Suzuki              Informational                     [Page 12]

RFC 4110               A Framework for L3 PPVPNs               July 2005


1.6.  Acronyms

   ATM             Asynchronous Transfer Mode
   BGP             Border Gateway Protocol
   CE              Customer Edge
   CLI             Command Line Interface
   CR-LDP          Constraint-based Routing Label Distribution Protocol
   EBGP            External Border Gateway Protocol
   FR              Frame Relay
   GRE             Generic Routing Encapsulation
   IBGP            Internal Border Gateway Protocol
   IKE             Internet Key Exchange
   IGP             Interior Gateway Protocol
                   (e.g., RIP, IS-IS and OSPF are all IGPs)
   IP              Internet Protocol (same as IPv4)
   IPsec           Internet Protocol Security protocol
   IPv4            Internet Protocol version 4 (same as IP)
   IPv6            Internet Protocol version 6
   IS-IS           Intermediate System to Intermediate System routing
                   protocol
   L2TP            Layer 2 Tunneling Protocol
   LAN             Local Area Network
   LDAP            Lightweight Directory Access Protocol
   LDP             Label Distribution Protocol
   LSP             Label Switched Path
   LSR             Label Switching Router
   MIB             Management Information Base
   MPLS            Multi Protocol Label Switching
   NBMA            Non-Broadcast Multi-Access
   NMS             Network Management System
   OSPF            Open Shortest Path First routing protocol
   P               Provider equipment
   PE              Provider Edge
   PPVPN           Provider-Provisioned VPN
   QoS             Quality of Service
   RFC             Request For Comments
   RIP             Routing Information Protocol
   RSVP            Resource Reservation Protocol
   RSVP-TE         Resource Reservation Protocol with Traffic
                   Engineering Extensions
   SNMP            Simple Network Management Protocol
   SP              Service Provider
   VFI             VPN Forwarding Instance
   VPN             Virtual Private Network
   VR              Virtual Router






Callon & Suzuki              Informational                     [Page 13]

RFC 4110               A Framework for L3 PPVPNs               July 2005


2.  Reference Models

   This section describes PPVPN reference models.  The purpose of
   discussing reference models is to clarify the common components and
   pieces that are needed to build and deploy a PPVPN.  Two types of
   VPNs, layer 3 PE-based VPN and layer 3 provider-provisioned CE-based
   VPN are covered in separated sections below.

2.1.  Reference Model for Layer 3 PE-based VPN

   This subsection describes functional components and their
   relationship for implementing layer 3 PE-based VPN.

   Figure 2.1 shows the reference model for layer 3 PE-based VPNs and
   Figures 2.2 and 2.3 show relationship between entities in the
   reference model.

   As shown in Figure 2.1, the customer interface is defined as the
   interface which exists between CE and PE devices, and the network
   interface is defined as the interface which exists between a pair of
   PE devices.

   Figure 2.2 illustrates a single logical tunnel between each pair of
   VFIs supporting the same VPN.  Other options are possible.  For
   example, a single tunnel might occur between two PEs, with multiple
   per-VFI tunnels multiplexed over the PE to PE tunnel.  Similarly,
   there may be multiple tunnels between two VFIs, for example to
   optimize forwarding within the VFI.  Other possibilities will be
   discussed later in this framework document.






















Callon & Suzuki              Informational                     [Page 14]

RFC 4110               A Framework for L3 PPVPNs               July 2005


    +---------+  +------------------------------------+  +---------+
    |         |  |                                    |  |         |
    |         |  |                     +------+     +------+  : +------+
+------+ :    |  |                     |      |     |      |  : |  CE  |
|  CE  | :    |  |                     |  P   |     |  PE  |  : |device|
|device| :  +------+   VPN tunnel   :  |router|     |device|  : |  of  |
|  of  |-:--|      |================:===============|      |--:-|VPN  A|
|VPN  A| :  |      |                :  +------+     +------+  : +------+
+------+ :  |  PE  |                :                 |  |    :    |
+------+ :  |device|        Network interface         |  |    :    |
|  CE  | :  |      |                :               +------+  : +------+
|device|-:--|      |================:===============|      |--:-|  CE  |
|  of  | :  +------+                :  VPN tunnel   |  PE  |  : |device|
|VPN  B| :    |  |                                  |device|  : |  of  |
+------+ :    |  |  +------------+   +------------+ |      |  : |VPN  B|
    |    :    |  |  |  Customer  |   |  Network   | +------+  : +------+
    |Customer |  |  | management |   | management |   |  |    :    |
    |interface|  |  |  function  |   |  function  |   |  |Customer |
    |         |  |  +------------+   +------------+   |  |interface|
    |         |  |                                    |  |         |
    +---------+  +------------------------------------+  +---------+
    | Access  |  |<---------- SP network(s) --------->|  | Access  |
    | network |  |   single or multiple SP domains    |  | network |

         Figure 2.1: Reference model for layer 3 PE-based VPN.


               +----------+                  +----------+
+-----+        |PE device |                  |PE device |        +-----+
| CE  |        |          |                  |          |        | CE  |
| dev | Access | +------+ |                  | +------+ | Access | dev |
| of  |  conn. | |VFI of| |    VPN tunnel    | |VFI of| |  conn. | of  |
|VPN A|----------|VPN A |======================|VPN A |----------|VPN A|
+-----+        | +------+ |                  | +------+ |        +-----+
               |          |                  |          |
+-----+ Access | +------+ |                  | +------+ | Access +-----+
| CE  |  conn. | |VFI of| |    VPN tunnel    | |VFI of| |  conn. | CE  |
| dev |----------|VPN B |======================|VPN B |----------| dev |
| of  |        | +------+ |                  | +------+ |        | of  |
|VPN B|        |          |                  |          |        |VPN B|
+-----+        +----------+                  +----------+        +-----+

   Figure 2.2: Relationship between entities in reference model (1).








Callon & Suzuki              Informational                     [Page 15]

RFC 4110               A Framework for L3 PPVPNs               July 2005


               +----------+                  +----------+
+-----+        |PE device |                  |PE device |        +-----+
| CE  |        |          |                  |          |        | CE  |
| dev | Access | +------+ |                  | +------+ | Access | dev |
| of  |  conn. | |VFI of| |                  | |VFI of| |  conn. | of  |
|VPN A|----------|VPN A | |                  | |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 2.3: Relationship between entities in reference model (2).

2.1.1.  Entities in the Reference Model

   The entities in the reference model are described below.

   o Customer edge (CE) device

     In the context of layer 3 provider-provisioned PE-based VPNs, a CE
     device may be a router, LSR, or host that has no VPN-specific
     functionality.  It is attached via an access connection to a PE
     device.

   o P router

     A router within a provider network which is used to interconnect PE
     devices, but which does not have any VPN state and does not have
     any direct attachment to CE devices.

   o Provider edge (PE) device

     In the context of layer 3 provider-provisioned PE-based VPNs, a PE
     device implements one or more VFIs and maintains per-VPN state for
     the support of one or more VPNs.  It may be a router, LSR, or other
     device that includes VFIs and provider edge VPN functionality such
     as provisioning, management, and traffic classification and
     separation.  (Note that access connections are terminated by VFIs
     from the functional point of view).  A PE device is attached via an
     access connection to one or more CE devices.







Callon & Suzuki              Informational                     [Page 16]

RFC 4110               A Framework for L3 PPVPNs               July 2005


   o Customer site

     A customer site is a set of users that have mutual IP reachability
     without use of a VPN backbone that goes beyond the site.

   o SP networks

     An SP network is an IP or MPLS network administered by a single
     service provider.

   o Access connection

     An access connection represents an isolated layer 2 connectivity
     between a CE device and a PE device.  Access connections can be,
     e.g., dedicated physical circuits, logical circuits (such as FR,
     ATM, and MAC), or IP tunnels (e.g., using IPsec, L2TP, or MPLS).

   o Access network

     An access network provides access connections between CE and PE
     devices.  It may be a TDM network, layer 2 network (e.g., FR, ATM,
     and Ethernet), or IP network over which access is tunneled (e.g.,
     using L2TP [RFC2661] or MPLS).

   o VPN tunnel

     A VPN tunnel is a logical link between two VPN edge devices.  A VPN
     packet is carried on a tunnel by encapsulating it before
     transmitting it over the VPN backbone.

     Multiple VPN tunnels at one level may be hierarchically multiplexed
     into a single tunnel at another level.  For example, multiple per-
     VPN tunnels may be multiplexed into a single PE to PE tunnel (e.g.,
     GRE, IP-in-IP, IPsec, or MPLS tunnel).  This is illustrated in
     Figure 2.3.  See section 4.3 for details.

   o VPN forwarding instance (VFI)

     A single PE device is likely to be connected to a number of CE
     devices.  The CE devices are unlikely to all be in the same VPN.
     The PE device must therefore maintain a separate forwarding
     instances for each VPN to which it is connected.  A VFI is a
     logical entity, residing in a PE, that contains the router
     information base and forwarding information base for a VPN.  The
     interaction between routing and VFIs is discussed in section 4.4.2.






Callon & Suzuki              Informational                     [Page 17]

RFC 4110               A Framework for L3 PPVPNs               July 2005


   o Customer management function

     The customer management function supports the provisioning of
     customer specific attributes, such as customer ID, personal
     information (e.g., name, address, phone number, credit card number,
     and etc.), subscription services and parameters, access control
     policy information, billing and statistical information, and etc.

     The customer management function may use a combination of SNMP
     manager, directory service (e.g., LDAP [RFC3377]), or proprietary
     network management system.

   o Network management function

     The network management function supports the provisioning and
     monitoring of PE or CE device attributes and their relationships.

     The network management function may use a combination of SNMP
     manager, directory service (e.g., LDAP [RFC3377]), or proprietary
     network management system.

2.1.2.  Relationship Between CE and PE

   For robustness, a CE device may be connected to more than one PE
   device, resulting in a multi-homing arrangement.  Four distinct types
   of multi-homing arrangements, shown in Figure 2.4, may be supported.

























Callon & Suzuki              Informational                     [Page 18]

RFC 4110               A Framework for L3 PPVPNs               July 2005


                 +----------------                    +---------------
                 |                                    |
             +------+                             +------+
   +---------|  PE  |                   +---------|  PE  |
   |         |device|                   |         |device| SP network
   |         +------+                   |         +------+
+------+         |                   +------+         |
|  CE  |         |                   |  CE  |         +---------------
|device|         |   SP network      |device|         +---------------
+------+         |                   +------+         |
   |         +------+                   |         +------+
   |         |  PE  |                   |         |  PE  |
   +---------|device|                   +---------|device| SP network
             +------+                             +------+
                 |                                    |
                 +----------------                    +---------------
This type includes a CE device connected
to a PE device via two access connections.
                (a)                                  (b)

                 +----------------                    +---------------
                 |                                    |
+------+     +------+                +------+     +------+
|  CE  |-----|  PE  |                |  CE  |-----|  PE  |
|device|     |device|                |device|     |device| SP network
+------+     +------+                +------+     +------+
   |             |                      |             |
   | Backdoor    |                      | Backdoor    +---------------
   | link        |   SP network         | link        +---------------
   |             |                      |             |
+------+     +------+                +------+     +------+
|  CE  |     |  PE  |                |  CE  |     |  PE  |
|device|-----|device|                |device|-----|device| SP network
+------+     +------+                +------+     +------+
                 |                                    |
                 +----------------                    +---------------

                (c)                                  (d)

        Figure 2.4: Four types of double-homing arrangements.

2.1.3.  Interworking Model

   It is quite natural to assume that multiple different layer 3 VPN
   approaches may be implemented, particularly if the VPN backbone
   includes more than one SP network.  For example, (1) each SP chooses
   one or more layer 3 PE-based VPN approaches out of multiple vendor's
   implementations, implying that different SPs may choose different



Callon & Suzuki              Informational                     [Page 19]

RFC 4110               A Framework for L3 PPVPNs               July 2005


   approaches; and (2) an SP may deploy multiple networks of layer 3
   PE-based VPNs (e.g., an old network and a new network).  Thus it is
   important to allow interworking of layer 3 PE-based VPNs making use
   of multiple different layer 3 VPN approaches.

   There are three scenarios that enable layer 3 PE-based VPN
   interworking among different approaches.

   o Interworking function

     This scenario enables interworking using a PE that is located at
     one or more points which are logically located between VPNs based
     on different layer 3 VPN approaches.  For example, this PE may be
     located on the boundary between SP networks which make use of
     different layer 3 VPN approaches [VPN-DISC].  A PE at one of these
     points is called an interworking function (IWF), and an example
     configuration is shown in Figure 2.5.

               +------------------+  +------------------+
               |                  |  |                  |
          +------+  VPN tunnel  +------+  VPN tunnel  +------+
          |      |==============|      |==============|      |
          |      |              |      |              |      |
          |  PE  |              |  PE  |              |  PE  |
          |      |              |device|              |      |
          |device|              |(IWF) |              |device|
          |      |  VPN tunnel  |      |  VPN tunnel  |      |
          |      |==============|      |==============|      |
          +------+              +------+              +------+
               |                  |  |                  |
               +------------------+  +------------------+
               |<-VPN approach 1->|  |<-VPN approach 2->|

                   Figure 2.5: Interworking function.

   o Interworking interface

     This scenario enables interworking using tunnels between PEs
     supporting by different layer 3 VPN approaches.  As shown in Figure
     2.6, interworking interface is defined as the interface which
     exists between a pair of PEs and connects two SP networks
     implemented with different approaches.  This interface is similar
     to the customer interface located between PE and CE, but the
     interface is supported by tunnels to identify VPNs, while the
     customer interface is supported by access connections.






Callon & Suzuki              Informational                     [Page 20]

RFC 4110               A Framework for L3 PPVPNs               July 2005


       +------------------+                     +------------------+
       |                  |          :          |                  |
   +------+ VPN tunnel +------+Tunnel:      +------+ VPN tunnel +------+
   |      |============|      |======:======|      |============|      |
   |      |            |      |      :      |      |            |      |
   |  PE  |            |  PE  |      :      |  PE  |            |  PE  |
   |      |            |      |      :      |      |            |      |
   |device|            |device|      :      |device|            |device|
   |      | VPN tunnel |      |Tunnel:      |      | VPN tunnel |      |
   |      |============|      |======:======|      |============|      |
   +------+            +------+      :      +------+            +------+
       |                  |          :          |                  |
       +------------------+    Interworking     +------------------+
       |<-VPN approach 1->|     interface       |<-VPN approach 2->|

                     Figure 2.6: Interworking interface.

     o Customer-based interworking

     If some customer site has a CE attached to one kind of VPN, and a
     CE attached to another kind, communication between the two kinds of
     VPN occurs automatically.

2.2.  Reference Model for Layer 3 Provider-Provisioned CE-based VPN

   This subsection describes functional components and their
   relationship for implementing layer 3 provider-provisioned CE-based
   VPN.

   Figure 2.7 shows the reference model for layer 3 provider-provisioned
   CE-based VPN.  As shown in Figure 2.7, the customer interface is
   defined as the interface which exists between CE and PE devices.

   In this model, a CE device maintains one or more VPN tunnel
   endpoints, and a PE device has no VPN-specific functionality.  As a
   result, the interworking issues of section 2.1.3 do not arise.















Callon & Suzuki              Informational                     [Page 21]

RFC 4110               A Framework for L3 PPVPNs               July 2005


    +---------+  +------------------------------------+  +---------+
    |         |  |                                    |  |         |
    |         |  |                     +------+     +------+  : +------+
+------+ :    |  |                     |      |     |      |  : |  CE  |
|  CE  | :    |  |                     |  P   |     |  PE  |  : |device|
|device| :  +------+    VPN tunnel     |router|     |device|  : |  of  |
|  of  |=:====================================================:=|VPN  A|
|VPN  A| :  |      |                   +------+     +------+  : +------+
+------+ :  |  PE  |                                  |  |    :    |
+------+ :  |device|                                  |  |    :    |
|  CE  | :  |      |           VPN 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 2.7: Reference model for layer 3
                   provider-provisioned CE-based VPN.

2.2.1.  Entities in the Reference Model

   The entities in the reference model are described below.

   o Customer edge (CE) device

     In the context of layer 3 provider-provisioned CE-based VPNs, a CE
     device provides layer 3 connectivity to the customer site.  It may
     be a router, LSR, or host that maintains one or more VPN tunnel
     endpoints.  A CE device is attached via an access connection to a
     PE device and usually located at the edge of a customer site or
     co-located on an SP premises.

   o P router (see section 2.1.1)

   o Provider edge (PE) device

     In the context of layer 3 provider-provisioned CE-based VPNs, a PE
     device may be a router, LSR, or other device that has no
     VPN-specific functionality.  It is attached via an access
     connection to one or more CE devices.



Callon & Suzuki              Informational                     [Page 22]

RFC 4110               A Framework for L3 PPVPNs               July 2005


   o Customer Site (see section 2.1.1)

   o SP networks

     An SP network is a network administrated by a single service
     provider.  It is an IP or MPLS network.  In the context of layer 3
     provider-provisioned CE-based VPNs, the SP network consists of the
     SP's network and the SP's management functions that manage both its
     own network and the customer's VPN functions on the CE device.

   o Access connection (see section 2.1.1)

   o Access network (see section 2.1.1)

   o VPN tunnel

     A VPN tunnel is a logical link between two entities which is
     created by encapsulating packets within an encapsulating header for
     purpose of transmission between those two entities for support of
     VPNs.  In the context of layer 3 provider-provisioned CE-based
     VPNs, a VPN tunnel is an IP tunnel (e.g., using GRE, IP-in-IP,
     IPsec, or L2TP) or an MPLS tunnel between two CE devices over the
     SP's network.

   o Customer management function (see section 2.1.1)

   o Network management function

     The network management function supports the provisioning and
     monitoring of PE or CE device attributes and their relationships,
     covering PE and CE devices that define the VPN connectivity of the
     customer VPNs.

     The network management function may use a combination of SNMP
     manager, directory service (e.g., LDAP [RFC3377]), or proprietary
     network management system.

3.  Customer Interface

3.1.  VPN Establishment at the Customer Interface

3.1.1.  Layer 3 PE-based VPN

   It is necessary for each PE device to know which CEs it is attached
   to, and what VPNs each CE is associated with.

   VPN membership refers to the association of VPNs, CEs, and PEs.  A
   given CE belongs to one or more VPNs.  Each PE is therefore



Callon & Suzuki              Informational                     [Page 23]

RFC 4110               A Framework for L3 PPVPNs               July 2005


   associated with a set of VPNs, and a given VPN has a set of
   associated PEs which are supporting that VPN.  If a PE has at least
   one attached CE belonging to a given VPN, then state information for
   that VPN (e.g., the VPN routes) must exist on that PE.  The set of
   VPNs that exist on a PE may change over time as customer sites are
   added to or removed from the VPNs.

   In some layer 3 PE-based PPVPN schemes, VPN membership information
   (i.e., information about which PEs are attached to which VPNs) is
   explicitly distributed.  In others, the membership information is
   inferred from other information that is distributed.  Different
   schemes use the membership information in different ways, e.g., some
   to determine what set of tunnels to set up, some to constrain the
   distribution of VPN routing information.

   A VPN site may be added or deleted as a result of a provisioning
   operation carried out by the network administrator, or may be
   dynamically added or deleted as a result of a subscriber initiated
   operation; thus VPN membership information may be either static or
   dynamic, as discussed below.

3.1.1.1.  Static Binding

   Static binding occurs when a provisioning action binds a particular
   PE-CE access link to a particular VPN.  For example, a network
   administrator may set up a dedicated link layer connection, such as
   an ATM VCC or a FR DLCI, between a PE device and a CE device.  In
   this case the binding between a PE-CE access connection and a
   particular VPN to fixed at provisioning time, and remains the same
   until another provisioning action changes the binding.

3.1.1.2.  Dynamic Binding

   Dynamic binding occurs when some real-time protocol interaction
   causes a particular PE-CE access link to be temporarily bound to a
   particular VPN.  For example, a mobile user may dial up the provider
   network and carry out user authentication and VPN selection
   procedures.  Then the PE to which the user is attached is not one
   permanently associated with the user, but rather one that is
   typically geographically close to where the mobile user happens to
   be.  Another example of dynamic binding is that of a permanent access
   connection between a PE and a CE at a public facility such as a hotel
   or conference center, where the link may be accessed by multiple
   users in turn, each of which may wish to connect to a different VPN.

   To support dynamically connected users, PPP and RADIUS are commonly
   used, as these protocols provide for user identification,
   authentication and VPN selection.  Other mechanisms are also



Callon & Suzuki              Informational                     [Page 24]

RFC 4110               A Framework for L3 PPVPNs               July 2005


   possible.  For example a user's HTTP traffic may be initially
   intercepted by a PE and diverted to a provider hosted web server.
   After a dialogue that includes user authentication and VPN selection,
   the user can then be connected to the required VPN.  This is
   sometimes referred to as a "captive portal".

   Independent of the particular mechanisms used for user authentication
   and VPN selection, an implication of dynamic binding is that a user
   for a given VPN may appear at any PE at any time.  Thus VPN
   membership may change at any time as a result of user initiated
   actions, rather than as a result of network provisioning actions.
   This suggests that there needs to be a way to distribute membership
   information rapidly and reliably when these user-initiated actions
   take place.

3.1.2.  Layer 3 Provider-Provisioned CE-based VPN

   In layer 3 provider-provisioned CE-based VPNs, the PE devices have no
   knowledge of the VPNs.  A PE device attached to a particular VPN has
   no knowledge of the addressing or routing information of that
   specific VPN.

   CE devices have IP or MPLS connectivity via a connection to a PE
   device, which just provides ordinary connectivity to the global IP
   address space or to an address space which is unique in a particular
   SPs network.  The IP connectivity may be via a static binding, or via
   some kind of dynamic binding.

   The establishment of the VPNs is done at each CE device, making use
   of the IP or MPLS connectivity to the others.  Therefore, it is
   necessary for a given CE device to know which other CE devices belong
   to the same VPN.  In this context, VPN membership refers to the
   association of VPNs and CE devices.

3.2.  Data Exchange at the Customer Interface

3.2.1.  Layer 3 PE-based VPN

   For layer 3 PE-based VPNs, the exchange is normal IP packets,
   transmitted in the same form which is available for interconnecting
   routers in general.  For example, IP packets may be exchanged over
   Ethernet, SONET, T1, T3, dial-up lines, and any other link layer
   available to the router.  It is important to note that those link
   layers are strictly local to the interface for the purpose of
   carrying IP packets, and are terminated at each end of the customer
   interface.  The IP packets may contain addresses which, while unique
   within the VPN, are not unique on the VPN backbone.  Optionally, the
   data exchange may use MPLS to carry the IP packets.



Callon & Suzuki              Informational                     [Page 25]

RFC 4110               A Framework for L3 PPVPNs               July 2005


3.2.2.  Layer 3 Provider-Provisioned CE-based VPN

   The data exchanged at the customer interface are always normal IP
   packets that are routable on the VPN backbone, and whose addresses
   are unique on the VPN backbone.  Optionally, MPLS frames can be used,
   if the appropriate label-switched paths exist across the VPN
   backbone.  The PE device does not know whether these packets are VPN
   packets or not.  At the current time, MPLS is not commonly offered as
   a customer-visible service, so that CE-based VPNs most commonly make
   use of IP services.

3.3.  Customer Visible Routing

   Once VPN tunnels are set up between pairs of VPN edge devices, it is
   necessary to set up mechanisms which ensure that packets from the
   customer network get sent through the proper tunnels.  This routing
   function must be performed by the VPN edge device.

3.3.1.  Customer View of Routing for Layer 3 PE-based VPNs

   There is a PE-CE routing interaction which enables a PE to obtain
   those addresses, from the customer network, that are reachable via
   the CE.  The PE-CE routing interaction also enables a CE device to
   obtain those addresses, from the customer network, which are
   reachable via the PE; these will generally be addresses that are at
   other sites in the customer network.

   The PE-CE routing interaction can make use of static routing, an IGP
   (such as RIP, OSPF, IS-IS, etc.), or BGP.

   If the PE-CE interaction is done via an IGP, the PE will generally
   maintain at least several independent IGP instances; one for the
   backbone routing, and one for each VPN.  Thus the PE participates in
   the IGP of the customer VPNs, but the CE does not participate in the
   backbone's IGP.

   If the PE-CE interaction is done via BGP, the PE MAY support one
   instance of BGP for each VPN, as well as an additional instance of
   BGP for the public Internet routes.  Alternatively, the PE might
   support a single instance of BGP, using, e.g., different BGP Address
   Families to distinguish the public Internet routes from the VPN
   routes.

   Routing information which a PE learns from a CE in a particular VPN
   must be forwarded to the other PEs that are attached to the same VPN.
   Those other PEs must then forward the information in turn to the
   other CEs of that VPN.




Callon & Suzuki              Informational                     [Page 26]

RFC 4110               A Framework for L3 PPVPNs               July 2005


   The PE-PE routing distribution can be done as part of the same
   routing instance to which the PE-CE interface belongs.
   Alternatively, it can be done via a different routing instance,
   possibly using a different routing algorithm.  In this case, the PE
   must redistribute VPN routes from one routing instance to another.

   Note that VPN routing information is never distributed to the P
   routers.  VPN routing information is known at the edge of the VPN
   backbone, but not in the core.

   If the VPN's IGP is different than the routing algorithm running on
   the CE-PE link, then the CE must support two routing instances, and
   must redistribute the VPN's routes from one instance to the other
   (e.g., [VPN-BGP-OSPF]).

   In the case of layer 3 PE-based VPNs a single PE device is likely to
   provide service for several different VPNs.  Since different VPNs may
   have address spaces which are not mutually unique, a PE device must
   have several forwarding tables, in general one for each VPN to which
   it is attached.  These will be referred to as VPN Forwarding
   Instances (VFIs).  Each VFI is a logical entity internal to the PE
   device.  VFIs are defined in section 2.1.1, and discussed in more
   detail in section 4.4.2.

   The scaling and management of the customer network (as well as the
   operation of the VPN) will depend upon the implementation approach
   and the manner in which routing is done.

3.3.1.1.  Routing for Intranets

   In the intranet case all of the sites to be interconnected belong to
   the same administration (for example, the same company).  The options
   for routing within a single customer network include:

   o A single IGP area (using OSPF, IS-IS, or RIP)

   o Multiple areas within a single IGP

   o A separate IGP within each site, with routes redistributed from
     each site to backbone routing (i.e., to a backbone as seen by the
     customer network).

   Note that these options look at routing from the perspective of the
   overall routing in the customer network.  This list does not specify
   whether PE device is considered to be in a site or not.  This issue
   is discussed below.





Callon & Suzuki              Informational                     [Page 27]

RFC 4110               A Framework for L3 PPVPNs               July 2005


   A single IGP area (such as a single OSPF area, a single IS-IS area,
   or a single instance of RIP between routers) may be used.  One could
   have, all routers within the customer network (including the PEs, or
   more precisely, including a VFI within each PE) appear within a
   single area.  Tunnels between the PEs could also appear as normal
   links.

   In some cases the multi-level hierarchy of OSPF or IS-IS may be used.
   One way to apply this to VPNs would be to have each site be a single
   OSPF or IS-IS area.  The VFIs will participate in routing within each
   site as part of that area.  The VFIs may then be interconnected as
   the backbone (OSPF area 0 or IS-IS level 2).  If OSPF is used, the
   VFIs therefore appear to the customer network as area border routers.
   If IS-IS is used, the VFIs therefore participate in level 1 routing
   within the local area, and appear to the customer network as if they
   are level 2 routers in the backbone.

   Where an IGP is used across the entire network, it is straightforward
   for VPN tunnels, access connections, and backdoor links to be mixed
   in a network.  Given that OSPF or IS-IS metrics will be assigned to
   all links, paths via alternate links can be compared and the shortest
   cost path will be used regardless of whether it is via VPN tunnels,
   access connections, or backdoor links.  If multiple sites of a VPN do
   not use a common IGP, or if the backbone does not use the same common
   IGP as the sites, then special procedures may be needed to ensure
   that routes to/from other sites are treated as intra-area routes,
   rather than as external routes (depending upon the VPN approach
   taken).

   Another option is to operate each site as a separate routing domain.
   For example each site could operate as a single OSPF area, a single
   IS-IS area, or a RIP domain.  In this case the per-site routing
   domains will need to redistribute routes into a backbone routing
   domain (Note: in this context the "backbone routing domain" refers to
   a backbone as viewed by the customer network).  In this case it is
   optional whether or not the VFIs participate in the routing within
   each site.

3.3.1.2.  Routing for Extranets

   In the extranet case the sites to be interconnected belong to
   multiple different administrations.  In this case IGPs (such as OSPF,
   IS-IS, or RIP) are normally not used across the interface between
   organizations.  Either static routes or BGP may be used between
   sites.  If the customer network administration wishes to maintain
   control of routing between its site and other networks, then either





Callon & Suzuki              Informational                     [Page 28]

RFC 4110               A Framework for L3 PPVPNs               July 2005


   static routing or BGP may be used across the customer interface.  If
   the customer wants to outsource all such control to the provider,
   then an IGP or static routes may be used at this interface.

   The use of BGP between sites allows for policy based routing between
   sites.  This is particularly useful in the extranet case.  Note that
   private IP addresses or non-unique IP address (e.g., unregistered
   addresses) should not be used for extranet communication.

3.3.1.3.  CE and PE Devices for Layer 3 PE-based VPNs

   When using a single IGP area across an intranet, the entire customer
   network participates in a single area of an IGP.  In this case, for
   layer 3 PE-based VPNs both CE and PE devices participate as normal
   routers within the area.

   The other options make a distinction between routing within a site,
   and routing between sites.  In this case, a CE device would normally
   be considered as part of the site where it is located.  However,
   there is an option regarding how the PE devices should be considered.

   In some cases, from the perspective of routing within the customer
   network, a PE device (or more precisely a VFI within a PE device) may
   be considered to be internal to the same area or routing domain as
   the site to which it is attached.  This simplifies the management
   responsibilities of the customer network administration, since
   inter-area routing would be handled by the provider.

   For example, from the perspective of routing within the customer
   network, the CE devices may be the area border or AS boundary routers
   of the IGP area.  In this case, static routing, BGP, or whatever
   routing is used in the backbone, may be used across the customer
   interface.

3.3.2.  Customer View of Routing for Layer 3 Provider-Provisioned
        CE-based VPNs

   For layer 3 provider-provisioned CE-based VPNs, the PE devices are
   not aware of the set of addresses which are reachable at particular
   customer sites.  The CE and PE devices do not exchange the customer's
   routing information.

   Customer sites that belong to the same VPN may exchange routing
   information through the CE-CE VPN tunnels that appear, to the
   customers IGP, as router adjacencies.  Alternatively, instead of






Callon & Suzuki              Informational                     [Page 29]

RFC 4110               A Framework for L3 PPVPNs               July 2005


   exchanging routing information through the VPN tunnels, the SP's
   management system may take care of the configuration of the static
   route information of one site towards the other sites in the VPN.

   Routing within the customer site may be done in any possible way,
   using any kind of routing protocols (see section 3.3.3).

   As the CE device receives an IP or MPLS service from the SP, the CE
   and PE devices may exchange routing information that is meaningful
   within the SP routing realm.

   Moreover, as the forwarding of tunneled customer packets in the SP
   network will be based on global IP forwarding, the routes to the
   various CE devices must be known in the entire SP's network.

   This means that a CE device may need to participate in two different
   routing processes:

   o routing in its own private network (VPN routing), within its own
     site and with the other VPN sites through the VPN tunnels, possibly
     using private addresses.

   o routing in the SP network (global routing), as such peering with
     its PE.

   However, in many scenarios, the use of static/default routes at the
   CE-PE interface might be all the global routing that is required.

3.3.3.  Options for Customer Visible Routing

   The following technologies are available for the exchange of routing
   information.

   o Static routing

     Routing tables may be configured through a management system.

   o RIP (Routing Information Protocol) [RFC2453]

     RIP is an interior gateway protocol and is used within an
     autonomous system.  It sends out routing updates at regular
     intervals and whenever the network topology changes.  Routing
     information is then propagated by the adjacent routers to their
     neighbors and thus to the entire network.  A route from a source to
     a destination is the path with the least number of routers.  This
     number is called the "hop count" and its maximum value is 15.  This
     implies that RIP is suitable for a small- or medium-sized networks.




Callon & Suzuki              Informational                     [Page 30]

RFC 4110               A Framework for L3 PPVPNs               July 2005


   o OSPF (Open Shortest Path First) [RFC2328]

     OSPF is an interior gateway protocol and is applied to a single
     autonomous system.  Each router distributes the state of its
     interfaces and neighboring routers as a link state advertisement,
     and maintains a database describing the autonomous system's
     topology.  A link state is advertised every 30 minutes or when the
     topology is reconfigured.

     Each router maintains an identical topological database, from which
     it constructs a tree of shortest paths with itself as the root.
     The algorithm is known as the Shortest Path First or SPF.  The
     router generates a routing table from the tree of shortest paths.
     OSPF supports a variable length subnet mask, which enables
     effective use of the IP address space.

     OSPF allows sets of networks to be grouped together into an area.
     Each area has its own topological database.  The topology of the
     area is invisible from outside its area.  The areas are
     interconnected via a "backbone" network.  The backbone network
     distributes routing information between the areas.  The area
     routing scheme can reduce the routing traffic and compute the
     shortest path trees and is indispensable for larger scale networks.

     Each multi-access network with multiple routers attached has a
     designated router.  The designated router generates a link state
     advertisement for the multi-access network and synchronizes the
     topological database with other adjacent routers in the area.  The
     concept of designated router can thus reduce the routing traffic
     and compute shortest path trees.  To achieve high availability, a
     backup designated router is used.

   o IS-IS (intermediate system to intermediate system) [RFC1195]

     IS-IS is a routing protocol designed for the OSI (Open Systems
     Interconnection) protocol suites.  Integrated IS-IS is derived from
     IS-IS in order to support the IP protocol.  In the Internet
     community, IS-IS means integrated IS-IS.  In this, a link state is
     advertised over a connectionless network service.  IS-IS has the
     same basic features as OSPF.  They include: link state
     advertisement and maintenance of a topological database within an
     area, calculation of a tree of shortest paths, generation of a
     routing table from a tree of shortest paths, the area routing
     scheme, a designated router, and a variable length subnet mask.







Callon & Suzuki              Informational                     [Page 31]

RFC 4110               A Framework for L3 PPVPNs               July 2005


   o BGP-4 (Border Gateway Protocol version 4) [RFC1771]

     BGP-4 is an exterior gateway protocol and is applied to the routing
     of inter-autonomous systems.  A BGP speaker establishes a session
     with other BGP speakers and advertises routing information to them.
     A session may be an External BGP (EBGP) that connects two BGP
     speakers within different autonomous systems, or an internal BGP
     (IBGP) that connects two BGP speakers within a single autonomous
     system.  Routing information is qualified with path attributes,
     which differentiate routes for the purpose of selecting an
     appropriate one from possible routes.  Also, routes are grouped by
     the community attribute [RFC1997] [BGP-COM].

     The IBGP mesh size tends to increase dramatically with the number
     of BGP speakers in an autonomous system.  BGP can reduce the number
     of IBGP sessions by dividing the autonomous system into smaller
     autonomous systems and grouping them into a single confederation
     [RFC3065].  Route reflection is another way to reduce the number of
     IBGP sessions [RFC1966].  BGP divides the autonomous system into
     clusters.  Each cluster establishes the IBGP full mesh within
     itself, and designates one or more BGP speakers as "route
     reflectors," which communicate with other clusters via their route
     reflectors.  Route reflectors in each cluster maintain path and
     attribute information across the autonomous system.  The autonomous
     system still functions like a fully meshed autonomous system.  On
     the other hand, confederations provide finer control of routing
     within the autonomous system by allowing for policy changes across
     confederation boundaries, while route reflection requires the use
     of identical policies.

     BGP-4 has been extended to support IPv6, IPX, and others as well as
     IPv4 [RFC2858].  Multiprotocol BGP-4 carries routes from multiple
     "address families".

4.  Network Interface and SP Support of VPNs

4.1.  Functional Components of a VPN

   The basic functional components of an implementation of a VPN are:

   o A mechanism to acquire VPN membership/capability information

   o A mechanism to tunnel traffic between VPN sites

   o For layer 3 PE-based VPNs, a means to learn customer routes,
     distribute them between the PEs, and to advertise reachable
     destinations to customer sites.




Callon & Suzuki              Informational                     [Page 32]

RFC 4110               A Framework for L3 PPVPNs               July 2005


   Based on the actual implementation, these functions could be
   implemented on a per-VPN basis or could be accomplished via a common
   mechanism shared by all VPNs.  For instance, a single process could
   handle the routing information for all the VPNs or a separate process
   may be created for each VPN.

   Logically, the establishment of a VPN can be thought of as composed
   of the following three stages.  In the first stage, the VPN edge
   devices learn of each other.  In the second stage, they establish
   tunnels to each other.  In the third stage, they exchange routing
   information with each other.  However, not all VPN solutions need be
   decomposed into these three stages.  For example, in some VPN
   solutions, tunnels are not established after learning membership
   information; rather, pre-existing tunnels are selected and used.
   Also, in some VPN solutions, the membership information and the
   routing information are combined.

   In the membership/capability discovery stage, membership and
   capability information needs to be acquired to determine whether two
   particular VPN edge devices support any VPNs in common.  This can be
   accomplished, for instance, by exchanging VPN identifiers of the
   configured VPNs at each VPN edge device.  The capabilities of the VPN
   edge devices need to be determined, in order to be able to agree on a
   common mechanism for tunneling and/or routing.  For instance, if site
   A supports both IPsec and MPLS as tunneling mechanisms and site B
   supports only MPLS, they can both agree to use MPLS for tunneling.
   In some cases the capability information may be determined
   implicitly, for example some SPs may implement a single VPN solution.
   Likewise, the routing information for VPNs can be distributed using
   the methods discussed in section 4.4.

   In the tunnel establishment stage, mechanisms may need to be invoked
   to actually set up the tunnels.  With IPsec, for instance, this could
   involve the use of IKE to exchange keys and policies for securing the
   data traffic.  However, if IP tunneling, e.g., is used, there may not
   be any need to explicitly set up tunnels; if MPLS tunnels are used,
   they may be pre-established as part of normal MPLS functioning.

   In the VPN routing stage, routing information for the VPN sites must
   be exchanged before data transfer between the sites can take place.
   Based on the VPN model, this could involve the use of static routes,
   IGPs such as OSPF/ISIS/RIP, or an EGP such as BGP.

   VPN membership and capability information can be distributed from a
   central management system, using protocols such as, e.g., LDAP.
   Alternatively, it can be distributed manually.  However, as manual
   configuration does not scale and is error prone, its use is
   discouraged.  As a third alternative, VPN information can be



Callon & Suzuki              Informational                     [Page 33]

RFC 4110               A Framework for L3 PPVPNs               July 2005


   distributed via protocols that ensure automatic and consistent
   distribution of information in a timely manner, much as routing
   protocols do for routing information.  This may suggest that the
   information be carried in routing protocols themselves, though only
   if this can be done without negatively impacting the essential
   routing functions.

   It can be seen that quite a lot of information needs to be exchanged
   in order to establish and maintain a VPN.  The scaling and stability
   consequences need to be analyzed for any VPN approach.

   While every VPN solution must address the functionality of all three
   components, the combinations of mechanisms used to provide the needed
   functionality, and the order in which different pieces of
   functionality are carried out, may differ.

   For layer 3 provider-provisioned CE-based VPNs, the VPN service is
   offering tunnels between CE devices.  IP routing for the VPN is done
   by the customer network.  With these solutions, the SP is involved in
   the operation of the membership/capability discovery stage and the
   tunnel establishment stage.  The IP routing functional component may
   be entirely up to the customer network, or alternatively, the SP's
   management system may be responsible for the distribution of the
   reachability information of the VPN sites to the other sites of the
   same VPN.

4.2.  VPN Establishment and Maintenance

   For a layer 3 provider-provisioned VPN the SP is responsible for the
   establishment and maintenance of the VPNs.  Many different approaches
   and schemes are possible in order to provide layer 3 PPVPNs, however
   there are some generic problems that any VPN solution must address,
   including:

   o For PE-based VPNs, when a new site is added to a PE, how do the
     other PEs find out about it?  When a PE first gets attached to a
     given VPN, how does it determine which other PEs are attached to
     the same VPN.  For CE-based VPNs, when a new site is added, how
     does its CE find out about all the other CEs at other sites of the
     same VPN?

   o In order for layer 3 PE-based VPNs to scale, all routes for all
     VPNs cannot reside on all PEs.  How is the distribution of VPN
     routing information constrained so that it is distributed to only
     those devices that need it?






Callon & Suzuki              Informational                     [Page 34]

RFC 4110               A Framework for L3 PPVPNs               July 2005


   o An administrator may wish to provision different topologies for
     different VPNs (e.g., a full mesh or a hub & spoke topology).  How
     is this achieved?

     This section looks at some of these generic problems and at some of
     the mechanisms that can be used to solve them.

4.2.1.  VPN Discovery

   Mechanisms are needed to acquire information that allows the
   establishment and maintenance of VPNs.  This may include, for
   example, information on VPN membership, topology, and VPN device
   capabilities.  This information may be statically configured, or
   distributed by an automated protocol.  As a result of the operation
   of these mechanisms and protocols, a device is able to determine
   where to set up tunnels, and where to advertise the VPN routes for
   each VPN.

   With a physical network, the equivalent problem can by solved by the
   control of the physical interconnection of links, and by having a
   router run a discovery/hello protocol over its locally connected
   links.  With VPNs both the routers and the links (tunnels) may be
   logical entities, and thus some other mechanisms are needed.

   A number of different approaches are possible for VPN discovery.  One
   scheme uses the network management system to configure and provision
   the VPN edge devices.  This approach can also be used to distribute
   VPN discovery information, either using proprietary protocols or
   using standard management protocols and MIBs.  Another approach is
   where the VPN edge devices act as clients of a centralized directory
   or database server that contains VPN discovery information.  Another
   possibility is where VPN discovery information is piggybacked onto a
   routing protocol running between the VPN edge devices [VPN-DISC].

4.2.1.1.  Network Management for Membership Information

   SPs use network management extensively to configure and monitor the
   various devices that are spread throughout their networks.  This
   approach could be also used for distributing VPN related information.
   A network management system (either centralized or distributed) could
   be used by the SP to configure and provision VPNs on the VPN edge
   devices at various locations.  VPN configuration information could be
   entered into a network management application and distributed to the
   remote sites via the same means used to distribute other network
   management information.  This approach is most natural when all the
   devices that must be provisioned are within a single SP's network,





Callon & Suzuki              Informational                     [Page 35]

RFC 4110               A Framework for L3 PPVPNs               July 2005


   since the SP has access to all VPN edge devices in its domain.
   Security and access control are important, and could be achieved for
   example using SNMPv3, SSH, or IPsec tunnels.

4.2.1.2.  Directory Servers

   An SP typically needs to maintain a database of VPN
   configuration/membership information, regardless of the mechanisms
   used to distribute it.  LDAPv3 [RFC3377] is a standard directory
   protocol which makes it possible to use a common mechanism for both
   storing such information and distributing it.

   To facilitate interoperability between different implementations, as
   well as between the management systems of different SPs, a standard
   schema for representing VPN membership and configuration information
   would have to be developed.

   LDAPv3 supports authentication of messages and associated access
   control, which can be used to limit access to VPN information to
   authorized entities.

4.2.1.3.  Augmented Routing for Membership Information

   Extensions to the use of existing BGP mechanisms, for distribution of
   VPN membership information, are proposed in [VPN-2547BIS].  In that
   scheme, BGP is used to distribute VPN routes, and each route carries
   a set of attributes which indicate the VPN (or VPNs) to which the
   route belongs.  This allows the VPN discovery information and routing
   information to be combined in a single protocol.  Information needed
   to establish per-VPN tunnels can also be carried as attributes of the
   routes.  This makes use of the BGP protocol's ability to effectively
   carry large amounts of routing information.

   It is also possible to use BGP to distribute just the
   membership/capability information, while using a different technique
   to distribute the routing.  BGP's update message would be used to
   indicate that a PE is attached to a particular VPN; BGP's withdraw
   message would be used to indicate that a PE has ceased to be attached
   to a particular VPN.  This makes use of the BGP protocol's ability to
   dynamically distribute real-time changes in a reliable and fairly
   rapid manner.  In addition, if a BGP route reflector is used, PEs
   never have to be provisioned with each other's IP addresses at all.
   Both cases make use of BGP's mechanisms, such as route filters, for
   constraining the distribution of information.

   Augmented routing may be done in combination with aggregated routing,
   as discussed in section 4.4.4.  Of course, when using BGP for
   distributing any kind of VPN-specific information, one must ensure



Callon & Suzuki              Informational                     [Page 36]

RFC 4110               A Framework for L3 PPVPNs               July 2005


   that one is not disrupting the classical use of BGP for distributing
   public Internet routing information.  For further discussion of this,
   see the discussion of aggregated routing, section 4.4.4.

4.2.1.4.  VPN Discovery for Inter-SP VPNs

   When two sites of a VPN are connected to different SP networks, the
   SPs must support a common mechanism for exchanging
   membership/capability information.  This might make use of manual
   configuration or automated exchange of information between the SPs.
   Automated exchange may be facilitated if one or more mechanisms for
   VPN discovery are standardized and supported across the multiple SPs.
   Inter-SP trust relationships will need to be established, for example
   to determine which information and how much information about the
   VPNs may be exchanged between SPs.

   In some cases different service providers may deploy different
   approaches for VPN discovery.  Where this occurs, this implies that
   for multi-SP VPNs, some manual coordination and configuration may be
   necessary.

   The amount of information which needs to be shared between SPs may
   vary greatly depending upon the number of size of the multi-SP VPNs.
   The SPs will therefore need to determine and agree upon the expected
   amount of membership information to be exchanged, and the dynamic
   nature of this information.  Mechanisms may also be needed to
   authenticate the VPN membership information.

   VPN information should be distributed only to places where it needs
   to go, whether that is intra-provider or inter-provider.  In this
   way, the distribution of VPN information is unlike the distribution
   of inter-provider routing information, as the latter needs to be
   distributed throughout the Internet.  In addition, the joint support
   of a VPN by two SPs should not require any third SP to maintain state
   for that VPN.  Again, notice the difference with respect to
   inter-provider routing; in inter-provider routing: sending traffic
   from one SP to another may indeed require routing state in a third
   SP.

   As one possible example: Suppose that there are two SPs A and C,
   which want to support a common VPN.  Suppose that A and C are
   interconnected via SP B.  In this case B will need to know how to
   route traffic between A and C, and therefore will need to know
   something about A and C (such as enough routing information to
   forward IP traffic and/or connect MPLS LSPs between PEs or route
   reflectors in A and C).  However, for scaling purposes it is
   desirable that B not need to know VPN-specific information about the
   VPNs which are supported by A and C.



Callon & Suzuki              Informational                     [Page 37]

RFC 4110               A Framework for L3 PPVPNs               July 2005


4.2.2.  Constraining Distribution of VPN Routing Information

   In layer 3 provider-provisioned CE-based VPNs, the VPN tunnels
   connect CE devices.  In this case, distribution of IP routing
   information occurs between CE devices on the customer sites.  No
   additional constraints on the distribution of VPN routing information
   are necessary.

   In layer 3 PE-based VPNs, however, the PE devices must be aware of
   VPN routing information (for the VPNs to which they are attached).
   For scalability reasons, one does not want a scheme in which all PEs
   contain all routes for all VPNs.  Rather, only the PEs that are
   attached to sites in a given VPN should contain the routing
   information for that VPN.  This means that the distribution of VPN
   routing information between PE devices must be constrained.

   As VPN membership may change dynamically, it is necessary to have a
   mechanism that allows VPN route information to be distributed to any
   PE where there is an attached user for that VPN, and allows for the
   removal of this information when it is no longer needed.

   In the Virtual Router scheme, per-VPN tunnels must be established
   before any routes for a VPN are distributed, and the routes are then
   distributed through those tunnels.  Thus by establishing the proper
   set of tunnels, one implicitly constrains and controls the
   distribution of per-VPN routing information.  In this scheme, the
   distribution of membership information consists of the set of VPNs
   that exists on each PE, as well as information about the desired
   topology.  This enables a PE to determine the set of remote PEs to
   which it must establish tunnels for a particular VPN.

   In the aggregated routing scheme (see section 4.4.4), the
   distribution of VPN routing information is constrained by means of
   route filtering.  As VPN membership changes on a PE, the route
   filters in use between the PE and its peers can be adjusted.  Each
   peer may then adjust the filters in use with each of its peers in
   turn, and thus the changes propagate across the network.  When BGP is
   used, this filtering may take place at route reflectors as discussed
   in section 4.4.4.

4.2.3.  Controlling VPN Topology

   The topology for a VPN consists of a set of nodes interconnected via
   tunnels.  The topology may be a full mesh, a hub and spoke topology,
   or an arbitrary topology.  For a VPN the set of nodes will include
   all VPN edge devices that have attached sites for that VPN.
   Naturally, whatever the topology, all VPN sites are reachable from
   each other; the topology simply constrains the way traffic is routed



Callon & Suzuki              Informational                     [Page 38]

RFC 4110               A Framework for L3 PPVPNs               July 2005


   among the sites.  For example, in one topology traffic between site A
   and site B goes from one to the other directly over the VPN backbone;
   in another topology, traffic from site A to site B must traverse site
   C before reaching site B.

   The simplest topology is a full mesh, where a tunnel exists between
   every pair of VPN edge devices.  If we assume the use of point-to-
   point tunnels (rather than multipoint-to-point), then with a full
   mesh topology there are N*(N-1)/2 duplex tunnels or N*(N-1) simplex
   tunnels for N VPN edge devices.  Each tunnel consumes some resources
   at a VPN edge device, and depending on the type of tunnel, may or may
   not consume resources in intermediate routers or LSRs.  One reason
   for using a partial mesh topology is to reduce the number of tunnels
   a VPN edge device, and/or the network, needs to support.  Another
   reason is to support the scenario where an administrator requires all
   traffic from certain sites to traverse some particular site for
   policy or control reasons, such as to force traffic through a
   firewall, or for monitoring or accounting purposes.  Note that the
   topologies used for each VPN are separate, and thus the same VPN edge
   device may be part of a full mesh topology for one VPN, and of a
   partial mesh topology for another VPN.

   An example of where a partial mesh topology could be suitable is for
   a VPN that supports a large number of telecommuters and a small
   number of corporate sites.  Most traffic will be between
   telecommuters and the corporate sites, not between pairs of
   telecommuters.  A hub and spoke topology for the VPN would thus map
   onto the underlying traffic flow, with the telecommuters attached to
   spoke VPN edge devices and the corporate sites attached to hub VPN
   edge devices.  Traffic between telecommuters is still supported, but
   this traffic traverses a hub VPN edge device.

   The selection of a topology for a VPN is an administrative choice,
   but it is useful to examine protocol mechanisms that can be used to
   automate the construction of the desired topology, and thus reduce
   the amount of configuration needed.  To this end it is useful for a
   VPN edge device to be able to advertise per-VPN topology information
   to other VPN edge devices.  It may be simplest to advertise this at
   the same time as the membership information is advertised, using the
   same mechanisms.

   A simple scheme is where a VPN edge device advertises itself either
   as a hub or as a spoke, for each VPN that it has.  When received by
   other VPN edge devices this information can be used when determining
   whether to establish a tunnel.  A more comprehensive scheme allows a
   VPN edge device to advertise a set of topology groups, with tunnels
   established between a pair of VPN edge devices if they have a group
   in common.



Callon & Suzuki              Informational                     [Page 39]

RFC 4110               A Framework for L3 PPVPNs               July 2005


4.3.  VPN Tunneling

   VPN solutions use tunneling in order to transport VPN packets across
   the VPN backbone, from one VPN edge device to another.  There are
   different types of tunneling protocols, different ways of
   establishing and maintaining tunnels, and different ways to associate
   tunnels with VPNs (e.g., shared versus dedicated per-VPN tunnels).
   Sections 4.3.1 through 4.3.5 discusses some common characteristics
   shared by all forms of tunneling, and some common problems to which
   tunnels provide a solution.  Section 4.3.6 provides a survey of
   available tunneling techniques.  Note that tunneling protocol issues
   are generally independent of the mechanisms used for VPN membership
   and VPN routing.

   One motivation for the use of tunneling is that the packet addressing
   used in a VPN may have no relation to the packet addressing used
   between the VPN edge devices.  For example the customer VPN traffic
   could use non-unique or private IP addressing [RFC1918].  Also an
   IPv6 VPN could be implemented across an IPv4 provider backbone.  As
   such the packet forwarding between the VPN edge devices must use
   information other than that contained in the VPN packets themselves.
   A tunneling protocol adds additional information, such an extra
   header or label, to a VPN packet, and this additional information is
   then used for forwarding the packet between the VPN edge devices.

   Another capability optionally provided by tunneling is that of
   isolation between different VPN traffic flows.  The QoS and security
   requirements for these traffic flows may differ, and can be met by
   using different tunnels with the appropriate characteristics.  This
   allows a provider to offer different service characteristics for
   traffic in different VPNs, or to subsets of traffic flows within a
   single VPN.

   The specific tunneling protocols considered in this section are GRE,
   IP-in-IP, IPsec, and MPLS, as these are the most suitable for
   carrying VPN traffic across the VPN backbone.  Other tunneling
   protocols, such as L2TP [RFC2661], may be used as access tunnels,
   carrying traffic between a PE and a CE.  As backbone tunneling is
   independent of and orthogonal to access tunneling, protocols for the
   latter are not discussed here.

4.3.1.  Tunnel Encapsulations

   All tunneling protocols use an encapsulation that adds additional
   information to the encapsulated packet; this information is used for
   forwarding across the VPN backbone.  Examples are provided in section
   4.3.6.




Callon & Suzuki              Informational                     [Page 40]

RFC 4110               A Framework for L3 PPVPNs               July 2005


   One characteristic of a tunneling protocol is whether per-tunnel
   state is needed in the SP network in order to forward the
   encapsulated packets.  For IP tunneling schemes (GRE, IP-in-IP, and
   IPsec) per-tunnel state is completely confined to the VPN edge
   devices.  Other routers are unaware of the tunnels, and forward
   according to the IP header.  For MPLS, per-tunnel state is needed,
   since the top label in the label stack must be examined and swapped
   by intermediate LSRs.  The amount of state required can be minimized
   by hierarchical multiplexing, and by use of multi-point to point
   tunnels, as discussed below.

   Another characteristic is the tunneling overhead introduced.  With
   IPsec the overhead may be considerable as it may include, for
   example, an ESP header, ESP trailer and an additional IP header.  The
   other mechanisms listed use less overhead, with MPLS being the most
   lightweight.  The overhead inherent in any tunneling mechanism may
   result in additional IP packet fragmentation, if the resulting packet
   is too large to be carried by the underlying link layer.  As such it
   is important to report any reduced MTU sizes via mechanisms such as
   path MTU discovery in order to avoid fragmentation wherever possible.

   Yet another characteristic is something we might call "transparency
   to the Internet".  IP-based encapsulation can carry be used to carry
   a packet anywhere in the Internet.  MPLS encapsulation can only be
   used to carry a packet on IP networks that support MPLS.  If an
   MPLS-encapsulated packet must cross the networks of multiple SPs, the
   adjacent SPs must bilateral agreements to accept MPLS packets from
   each other.  If only a portion of the path across the backbone lacks
   MPLS support, then an MPLS-in-IP encapsulation can be used to move
   the MPLS packets across that part of the backbone.  However, this
   does add complexity.  On the other hand, MPLS has efficiency
   advantages, particularly in environments where encapsulations may
   need to be nested.

   Transparency to the Internet is sometimes a requirement, but
   sometimes not.  This depends on the sort of service which a SP is
   offering to its customer.

4.3.2.  Tunnel Multiplexing

   When a tunneled packet arrives at the tunnel egress, it must be
   possible to infer the packet's VPN from its encapsulation header.  In
   MPLS encapsulations, this must be inferred from the packet's label
   stack.  In IP-based encapsulations, this can be inferred from some
   combination of the IP source address, the IP destination address, and
   a "multiplexing field" in the encapsulation header.  The multiplexing





Callon & Suzuki              Informational                     [Page 41]

RFC 4110               A Framework for L3 PPVPNs               July 2005


   field might be one which was explicitly designed for multiplexing, or
   one that wasn't originally designed for this but can be pushed into
   service as a multiplexing field.  For example:

   o GRE: Packets associated to VPN by source IP address, destination IP
     address, and Key field, although the key field was originally
     intended for authentication.

   o IP-in-IP: Packets associated to VPN by IP destination address in
     outer header.

   o IPsec: Packets associated to VPN by IP source address, IP
     destination address, and SPI field.

   o MPLS: Packets associated to VPN by label stack.

   Note that IP-in-IP tunneling does not have a real multiplexing field,
   so a different IP destination address must be used for every VPN
   supported by a given PE.  In the other IP-based encapsulations, a
   given PE need have only a single IP address, and the multiplexing
   field is used to distinguish the different VPNs supported by a PE.
   Thus the IP-in-IP solution has the significant disadvantage that it
   requires the allocation and assignment of a potentially large number
   of IP addresses, all of which have to be reachable via backbone
   routing.

   In the following, we will use the term "multiplexing field" to refer
   to whichever field in the encapsulation header must is used to
   distinguish different VPNs at a given PE.  In the IP-in-IP
   encapsulation, this is the destination IP address field, in the other
   encapsulations it is a true multiplexing field.

4.3.3.  Tunnel Establishment

   When tunnels are established, the tunnel endpoints must agree on the
   multiplexing field values which are to be used to indicate that
   particular packets are in particular VPNs.  The use of "well known"
   or explicitly provisioned values would not scale well as the number
   of VPNs increases.  So it is necessary to have some sort of protocol
   interaction in which the tunnel endpoints agree on the multiplexing
   field values.

   For some tunneling protocols, setting up a tunnel requires an
   explicit exchange of signaling messages.  Generally the multiplexing
   field values would be agreed upon as part of this exchange.  For
   example, if an IPsec encapsulation is used, the SPI field plays the
   role of the multiplexing field, and IKE signaling is used to
   distribute the SPI values; if an MPLS encapsulation is used, LDP,



Callon & Suzuki              Informational                     [Page 42]

RFC 4110               A Framework for L3 PPVPNs               July 2005


   CR-LDP or RSVP-TE can be used to distribute the MPLS label value used
   as the multiplexing field.  Information about the identity of the VPN
   with which the tunnel is to be associated needs to be exchanged as
   part of the signaling protocol (e.g., a VPN-ID can be carried in the
   signaling protocol).  An advantage of this approach is that
   per-tunnel security, QoS and other characteristics may also be
   negotiable via the signaling protocol.  A disadvantage is that the
   signaling imposes overhead, which may then lead to scalability
   considerations, discussed further below.

   For some tunneling protocols, there is no explicit protocol
   interaction that sets up the tunnel, and the multiplexing field
   values must be exchanged in some other way.  For example, for MPLS
   tunnels, MPLS labels can be piggybacked on the protocols used to
   distribute VPN routes or VPN membership information.  GRE and
   IP-in-IP have no associated signaling protocol, and thus by necessity
   the multiplexing values are distributed via some other mechanism,
   such as via configuration, control protocol, or piggybacked in some
   manner on a VPN membership protocol.

   The resources used by the different tunneling establishment
   mechanisms may vary.  With a full mesh VPN topology, and explicit
   signaling, each VPN edge device has to establish a tunnel to all the
   other VPN edge devices for in each VPN.  The resources needed for
   this on a VPN edge device may be significant, and issues such as the
   time needed to recover following a device failure may need to be
   taken into account, as the time to recovery includes the time needed
   to reestablish a large number of tunnels.

4.3.4.  Scaling and Hierarchical Tunnels

   If tunnels require state to be maintained in the core of the network,
   it may not be feasible to set up per-VPN tunnels between all adjacent
   devices that are adjacent in some VPN topology.  This would violate
   the principle that there is no per-VPN state in the core of the
   network, and would make the core scale poorly as the number of VPNs
   increases.  For example, MPLS tunnels require that core network
   devices maintain state for the topmost label in the label stack.  If
   every core router had to maintain one or more labels for every VPN,
   scaling would be very poor.

   There are also scaling considerations related to the use of explicit
   signaling for tunnel establishment.  Even if the tunneling protocol
   does not maintain per tunnel state in the core, the number of tunnels
   that a single VPN edge device needs to handle may be large, as this
   grows according to the number of VPNs and the number of neighbors per
   VPN.  One way to reduce the number of tunnels in a network is to use




Callon & Suzuki              Informational                     [Page 43]

RFC 4110               A Framework for L3 PPVPNs               July 2005


   a VPN topology other than a full mesh.  However this may not always
   be desirable, and even with hub and spoke topologies the hubs VPN
   edge devices may still need to handle large numbers of tunnels.

   If the core routers need to maintain any per-tunnel state at all,
   scaling can be greatly improved by using hierarchical tunnels.  One
   tunnel can be established between each pair of VPN edge devices, and
   multiple VPN-specific tunnels can then be carried through the single
   "outer" tunnel.  Now the amount of state is dependent only on the
   number of VPN edge devices, not on the number of VPNs.  Scaling can
   be further improved by having the outer tunnels be
   multipoint-to-point "merging" tunnels.  Now the amount of state to be
   maintained in the core is on the order of the number of VPN edge
   devices, not on the order of the square of that number.  That is, the
   amount of tunnel state is roughly equivalent to the amount of state
   needed to maintain IP routes to the VPN edge devices.  This is almost
   (if not quite) as good as using tunnels which do not require any
   state to be maintained in the core.

   Using hierarchical tunnels may also reduce the amount of state to be
   maintained in the VPN edge devices, particularly if maintaining the
   outer tunnels requires more state than maintaining the per-VPN
   tunnels that run inside the outer tunnels.

   There are other factors relevant to determining the number of VPN
   edge to VPN edge "outer" tunnels to use.  While using a single such
   tunnel has the best scaling properties, using more than one may allow
   different QoS capabilities or different security characteristics to
   be used for different traffic flows (from the same or from different
   VPNs).

   When tunnels are used hierarchically, the tunnels in the hierarchy
   may all be of the same type (e.g., an MPLS label stack) or they may
   be of different types (e.g., a GRE tunnel carried inside an IPsec
   tunnel).

   One example using hierarchical tunnels is the establishment of a
   number of different IPsec security associations, providing different
   levels of security between a given pair of VPN edge devices.  Per-VPN
   GRE tunnels can then be grouped together and then carried over the
   appropriate IPsec tunnel, rather than having a separate IPsec tunnel
   per-VPN.  Another example is the use of an MPLS label stack.  A
   single PE-PE LSP is used to carry all the per-VPN LSPs.  The
   mechanisms used for label establishment are typically different.  The
   PE-PE LSP could be established using LDP, as part or normal backbone
   operation, with the per-VPN LSP labels established by piggybacking on
   VPN routing (e.g., using BGP) discussed in sections 3.3.1.3 and 4.1.




Callon & Suzuki              Informational                     [Page 44]

RFC 4110               A Framework for L3 PPVPNs               July 2005


4.3.5.  Tunnel Maintenance

   Once a tunnel is established it is necessary to know that the tunnel
   is operational.  Mechanisms are needed to detect tunnel failures, and
   to respond appropriately to restore service.

   There is a potential issue regarding propagation of failures when
   multiple tunnels are multiplexed hierarchically.  Suppose that
   multiple VPN-specific tunnels are multiplexed inside a single PE to
   PE tunnel.  In this case, suppose that routing for the VPN is done
   over the VPN-specific tunnels (as may be the case for CE-based and VR
   approaches).  Suppose that the PE to PE tunnel fails.  In this case
   multiple VPN-specific tunnels may fail, and layer 3 routing may
   simultaneously respond for each VPN using the failed tunnel.  If the
   PE to PE tunnel is subsequently restored, there may then be multiple
   VPN-specific tunnels and multiple routing protocol instances which
   also need to recover.  Each of these could potentially require some
   exchange of control traffic.

   When a tunnel fails, if the tunnel can be restored quickly, it might
   therefore be preferable to restore the tunnel without any response by
   high levels (such as other tunnels which were multiplexed inside the
   failed tunnels).  By having high levels delay response to a lower
   level failed tunnel, this may limit the amount of control traffic
   needed to completely restore correct service.  However, if the failed
   tunnel cannot be quickly restored, then it is necessary for the
   tunnels or routing instances multiplexed over the failed tunnel to
   respond, and preferable for them to respond quickly and without
   explicit action by network operators.

   With most layer 3 provider-provisioned CE-based VPNs and the VR
   scheme, a per-VPN instance of routing is running over the tunnel,
   thus any loss of connectivity between the tunnel endpoints will be
   detected by the VPN routing instance.  This allows rapid detection of
   tunnel failure.  Careful adjustment of timers might be needed to
   avoid failure propagation as discussed the above.  With the
   aggregated routing scheme, there isn't a per-VPN instance of routing
   running over the tunnel, and therefore some other scheme to detect
   loss of connectivity is needed in the event that the tunnel cannot be
   rapidly restored.

   Failure of connectivity in a tunnel can be very difficult to detect
   reliably.  Among the mechanisms that can be used to detect failure
   are loss of the underlying connectivity to the remote endpoint (as
   indicated, e.g., by "no IP route to host" or no MPLS label), timeout
   of higher layer "hello" mechanisms (e.g., IGP hellos, when the tunnel
   is an adjacency in some IGP), and timeout of keep alive mechanisms in




Callon & Suzuki              Informational                     [Page 45]

RFC 4110               A Framework for L3 PPVPNs               July 2005


   the tunnel establishment protocols (if any).  However, none of these
   techniques provides completely reliable detection of all failure
   modes.  Additional monitoring techniques may also be necessary.

   With hierarchical tunnels it may suffice to only monitor the
   outermost tunnel for loss of connectivity.  However there may be
   failure modes in a device where the outermost tunnel is up but one of
   the inner tunnels is down.

4.3.6.  Survey of Tunneling Techniques

   Tunneling mechanisms provide isolated communication between two CE-PE
   devices.  Available tunneling mechanisms include (but are not limited
   to): GRE [RFC2784] [RFC2890], IP-in-IP encapsulation [RFC2003]
   [RFC2473], IPsec [RFC2401] [RFC2402], and MPLS [RFC3031] [RFC3035].

   Note that the following subsections address tunnel overhead to
   clarify the risk of fragmentation.  Some SP networks contain layer 2
   switches that enforce the standard/default MTU of 1500 bytes.  In
   this case, any encapsulation whatsoever creates a significant risk of
   fragmentation.  However, layer 2 switch vendors are in general aware
   of IP tunneling as well as stacked VLAN overhead, thus many switches
   practically allow an MTU of approximately 1512 bytes now.  In this
   case, up to 12 bytes of encapsulation can be used before there is any
   risk of fragmentation.  Furthermore, to improve TCP and NFS
   performance, switches that support 9K bytes "jumbo frames" are also
   on the market.  In this case, there is no risk of fragmentation.

4.3.6.1.  GRE [RFC2784] [RFC2890]

   Generic Routing Encapsulation (GRE) specifies a protocol for
   encapsulating an arbitrary payload protocol over an arbitrary
   delivery protocol [RFC2784].  In particular, it can be used where
   both the payload and the delivery protocol are IP as is the case in
   layer 3 VPNs.  A GRE tunnel is a tunnel whose packets are
   encapsulated by GRE.

   o Multiplexing

     The GRE specification [RFC2784] does not explicitly support
     multiplexing.  But the key field extension to GRE is specified in
     [RFC2890] and it may be used as a multiplexing field.









Callon & Suzuki              Informational                     [Page 46]

RFC 4110               A Framework for L3 PPVPNs               July 2005


   o QoS/SLA

     GRE itself does not have intrinsic QoS/SLA capabilities, but it
     inherits whatever capabilities exist in the delivery protocol (IP).
     Additional mechanisms, such as Diffserv or RSVP extensions
     [RFC2746], can be applied.

   o Tunnel setup and maintenance

     There is no standard signaling protocol for setting up and
     maintaining GRE tunnels.

   o Large MTUs and minimization of tunnel overhead

     When GRE encapsulation is used, the resulting packet consists of a
     delivery protocol header, followed by a GRE header, followed by the
     payload packet.  When the delivery protocol is IPv4, and if the key
     field is not present, GRE encapsulation adds at least 28 bytes of
     overhead (36 bytes if key field extension is used.)

   o Security

     GRE encapsulation does not provide any significant security.  The
     optional key field can be used as a clear text password to aid in
     the detection of misconfigurations, but it does not provide
     integrity or authentication.  An SP network which supports VPNs
     must do extensive IP address filtering at its borders to prevent
     spoofed packets from penetrating the VPNs.  If multi-provider VPNs
     are being supported, it may be difficult to set up these filters.

4.3.6.2.  IP-in-IP Encapsulation [RFC2003] [RFC2473]

   IP-in-IP specifies the format and procedures for IP-in-IP
   encapsulation.  This allows an IP datagram to be encapsulated within
   another IP datagram.  That is, the resulting packet consists of an
   outer IP header, followed immediately by the payload packet.  There
   is no intermediate header as in GRE.  [RFC2003] and [RFC2473] specify
   IPv4 and IPv6 encapsulations respectively.  Once the encapsulated
   datagram arrives at the intermediate destination (as specified in the
   outer IP header), it is decapsulated, yielding the original IP
   datagram, which is then delivered to the destination indicated by the
   original destination address field.









Callon & Suzuki              Informational                     [Page 47]

RFC 4110               A Framework for L3 PPVPNs               July 2005


   o Multiplexing

     The IP-in-IP specifications don't explicitly support multiplexing.
     But if a different IP address is used for every VPN then the IP
     address field can be used for this purpose.  (See section 4.3.2 for
     detail).

   o QoS/SLA

     IP-in-IP itself does not have intrinsic QoS/SLA capabilities, but
     of course it inherits whatever capabilities exist for IP.
     Additional mechanisms, such as RSVP extensions [RFC2764] or
     DiffServ extensions [RFC2983], may be used with it.

   o Tunnel setup and maintenance

     There is no standard setup and maintenance protocol for IP-in-IP.

   o Large MTUs and minimization of tunnel overhead

     When the delivery protocol is IPv4, IP-in-IP adds at least 20 bytes
     of overhead.

   o Security

     IP-in-IP encapsulation does not provide any significant security.
     An SP network which supports VPNs must do extensive IP address
     filtering at its borders to prevent spoofed packets from
     penetrating the VPNs.  If multi-provider VPNs are being supported,
     it may be difficult to set up these filters.

4.3.6.3.  IPsec [RFC2401] [RFC2402] [RFC2406] [RFC2409]

   IP Security (IPsec) provides security services at the IP layer
   [RFC2401].  It comprises authentication header (AH) protocol
   [RFC2402], encapsulating security payload (ESP) protocol [RFC2406],
   and Internet key exchange (IKE) protocol [RFC2409].  AH protocol
   provides data integrity, data origin authentication, and an
   anti-replay service.  ESP protocol provides data confidentiality and
   limited traffic flow confidentiality.  It may also provide data
   integrity, data origin authentication, and an anti-replay service.
   AH and ESP may be used in combination.

   IPsec may be employed in either transport or tunnel mode.  In
   transport mode, either an AH or ESP header is inserted immediately
   after the payload packet's IP header.  In tunnel mode, an IP packet
   is encapsulated with an outer IP packet header.  Either an AH or ESP
   header is inserted between them.  AH and ESP establish a



Callon & Suzuki              Informational                     [Page 48]

RFC 4110               A Framework for L3 PPVPNs               July 2005


   unidirectional secure communication path between two endpoints, which
   is called a security association.  In tunnel mode, PE-PE tunnel (or a
   CE-CE tunnel) consists of a pair of unidirectional security
   associations.  The IPsec and IKE protocols are used for setting up
   IPsec tunnels.

   o Multiplexing

     The SPI field of AH and ESP is used to multiplex security
     associations (or tunnels) between two peer devices.

   o QoS/SLA

     IPsec itself does not have intrinsic QoS/SLA capabilities, but it
     inherits whatever mechanisms exist for IP.  Other mechanisms such
     as "RSVP Extensions for IPsec Data Flows" [RFC2207] or DiffServ
     extensions [RFC2983] may be used with it.

   o Tunnel setup and maintenance

     The IPsec and IKE protocols are used for the setup and maintenance
     of tunnels.

   o Large MTUs and minimization of tunnel overhead

     IPsec transport mode adds at least 8 bytes of overhead.  IPsec
     tunnel mode adds at least 28 bytes of overhead.  IPsec transport
     mode adds minimal overhead.  In PE-based PPVPNs, the processing
     overhead of IPsec (due to its cryptography) may limit the PE's
     performance, especially if privacy is being provided; this is not
     generally an issue in CE-based PPVPNs.

   o Security

     When IPsec tunneling is used in conjunction with IPsec's
     cryptographic capabilities, excellent authentication and integrity
     functions can be provided.  Privacy can also be optionally
     provided.

4.3.6.4.  MPLS [RFC3031] [RFC3032] [RFC3035]

   Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) is a method for forwarding
   packets through a network.  Routers at the edge of a network apply
   simple labels to packets.  A label may be inserted between the data
   link and network headers, or may be carried in the data link header
   (e.g., the VPI/VCI field in an ATM header).  Routers in the network





Callon & Suzuki              Informational                     [Page 49]

RFC 4110               A Framework for L3 PPVPNs               July 2005


   switch packets according to the labels, with minimal lookup overhead.
   A path, or a tunnel in the PPVPN, is called a "label switched path
   (LSP)".

   o Multiplexing

     LSPs may be multiplexed within other LSPs.

   o QoS/SLA

     MPLS does not have intrinsic QoS or SLA management mechanisms, but
     bandwidth may be allocated to LSPs, and their routing may be
     explicitly controlled.  Additional techniques such as DiffServ and
     DiffServ aware traffic engineering may be used with it [RFC3270]
     [MPLS-DIFF-TE].  QoS capabilities from IP may be inherited.

   o Tunnel setup and maintenance

     LSPs are set up and maintained by LDP (Label Distribution
     Protocol), RSVP (Resource Reservation Protocol) [RFC3209], or BGP.

   o Large MTUs and minimization of tunnel overhead.

     MPLS encapsulation adds four bytes per label.  VPN-2547BIS's
     [VPN-2547BIS] approach uses at least two labels for encapsulation
     and adds minimal overhead.

   o Encapsulation

     MPLS packets may optionally be encapsulated in IP or GRE, for cases
     where it is desirable to carry MPLS packets over an IP-only
     infrastructure.

   o Security

     MPLS encapsulation does not provide any significant security.  An
     SP which is providing VPN service can refuse to accept MPLS packets
     from outside its borders.  This provides the same level of
     assurance as would be obtained via IP address filtering when
     IP-based encapsulations are used.  If a VPN is jointly provided by
     multiple SPs, care should be taken to ensure that a labeled packet
     is accepted from a neighboring router in another SP only if its top
     label is one which was actually distributed to that router.








Callon & Suzuki              Informational                     [Page 50]

RFC 4110               A Framework for L3 PPVPNs               July 2005


   o Applicability

     MPLS is the only one of the encapsulation techniques that cannot be
     guaranteed to run over any IP network.  Hence it would not be
     applicable when transparency to the Internet is a requirement.

     If the VPN backbone consists of several cooperating SP networks
     which support MPLS, then the adjacent networks may support MPLS at
     their interconnects.  If two cooperating SP networks which support
     MPLS are separated by a third which does not support MPLS, then
     MPLS-in-IP or MPLS-in-IPsec tunneling may be done between them.

4.4.  PE-PE Distribution of VPN Routing Information

   In layer 3 PE-based VPNs, PE devices examine the IP headers of
   packets they receive from the customer networks.  Forwarding is based
   on routing information received from the customer network.  This
   implies that the PE devices need to participate in some manner in
   routing for the customer network.  Section 3.3 discussed how routing
   would be done in the customer network, including the customer
   interface.  In this section, we discuss ways in which the routing
   information from a particular VPN may be passed, over the shared VPN
   backbone, among the set of PEs attaching to that VPN.

   The PEs needs to distribute two types of routing information to each
   other: (i) Public Routing: routing information which specifies how to
   reach addresses on the VPN backbone (i.e., "public addresses"); call
   this "public routing information" (ii) VPN Routing: routing
   information obtained from the CEs, which specifies how to reach
   addresses ("private addresses") that are in the VPNs.

   The way in which routing information in the first category is
   distributed is outside the scope of this document; we discuss only
   the distribution of routing information in the second category.  Of
   course, one of the requirements for distributing VPN routing
   information is that it be kept separate and distinct from the public
   information.  Another requirement is that the distribution of VPN
   routing information not destabilize or otherwise interfere with the
   distribution of public routing information.

   Similarly, distribution of VPN routing information associated with
   one VPN should not destabilize or otherwise interfere with the
   operation of other VPNs.  These requirements are, for example,
   relevant in the case that a private network might be suffering from
   instability or other problems with its internal routing, which might
   be propagated to the VPN used to support that private network.





Callon & Suzuki              Informational                     [Page 51]

RFC 4110               A Framework for L3 PPVPNs               July 2005


   Note that this issue does not arise in CE-based VPNs, as in CE-based
   VPNs, the PE devices do not see packets from the VPN until after the
   packets haven been encapsulated in an outer header that has only
   public addresses.

4.4.1.  Options for VPN Routing in the SP

   The following technologies can be used for exchanging VPN routing
   information discussed in sections 3.3.1.3 and 4.1.

   o Static routing

   o RIP [RFC2453]

   o OSPF [RFC2328]

   o BGP-4 [RFC1771]

4.4.2.  VPN Forwarding Instances (VFIs)

   In layer 3 PE-based VPNs, the PE devices receive unencapsulated IP
   packets from the CE devices, and the PE devices use the IP
   destination addresses in these packets to help make their forwarding
   decisions.  In order to do this properly, the PE devices must obtain
   routing information from the customer networks.  This implies that
   the PE device participates in some manner in the customer network's
   routing.

   In layer 3 PE-based VPNs, a single PE device connected to several CE
   devices that are in the same VPN, and it may also be connected to CE
   devices of different VPNs.  The route which the PE chooses for a
   given IP destination address in a given packet will depend on the VPN
   from which the packet was received.  A PE device must therefore have
   a separate forwarding table for each VPN to which it is attached.  We
   refer to these forwarding tables as "VPN Forwarding Instances"
   (VFIs), as defined in section 2.1.

   A VFI contains routes to locally attached VPN sites, as well as
   routes to remote VPN sites.  Section 4.4 discusses the way in which
   routes to remote sites are obtained.

   Routes to local sites may be obtained in several ways.  One way is to
   explicitly configure static routes into the VFI.  This can be useful
   in simple deployments, but it requires that one or more devices in
   the customer's network be configured with static routes (perhaps just
   a default route), so that traffic will be directed from the site to
   the PE device.




Callon & Suzuki              Informational                     [Page 52]

RFC 4110               A Framework for L3 PPVPNs               July 2005


   Another way is to have the PE device be a routing peer of the CE
   device, in a routing algorithm such as RIP, OSPF, or BGP.  Depending
   on the deployment scenario, the PE might need to advertise a large
   number of routes to each CE (e.g., all the routes which the PE
   obtained from remote sites in the CE's VPN), or it might just need to
   advertise a single default route to the CE.

   A PE device uses some resources in proportion to the number of VFIs
   that it has, particularly if a distinct dynamic routing protocol
   instance is associated with each VFI.  A PE device also uses some
   resources in proportion to the total number of routes it supports,
   where the total number of routes includes all the routes in all its
   VFIs, and all the public routes.  These scaling factors will limit
   the number of VPNs which a single PE device can support.

   When dynamic routing is used between a PE and a CE, it is not
   necessarily the case that each VFI is associated with a single
   routing protocol instance.  A single routing protocol instance may
   provide routing information for multiple VFIs, and/or multiple
   routing protocol instances might provide information for a single
   VFI.  See sections 4.4.3, 4.4.4, 3.3.1, and 3.3.1.3 for details.

   There are several options for how VPN routes are carried between the
   PEs, as discussed below.

4.4.3.  Per-VPN Routing

   One option is to operate separate instances of routing protocols
   between the PEs, one instance for each VPN.  When this is done,
   routing protocol packets for each customer network need to be
   tunneled between PEs.  This uses the same tunneling method, and
   optionally the same tunnels, as is used for transporting VPN user
   data traffic between PEs.

   With per-VPN routing, a distinct routing instance corresponding to
   each VPN exists within the corresponding PE device.  VPN-specific
   tunnels are set up between PE devices (using the control mechanisms
   that were discussed in sections 3 and 4).  Logically these tunnels
   are between the VFIs which are within the PE devices.  The tunnels
   then used as if they were normal links between normal routers.
   Routing protocols for each VPN operate between VFIs and the routers
   within the customer network.

   This approach establishes, for each VPN, a distinct "control plane"
   operating across the VPN backbone.  There is no sharing of control
   plane by any two VPNs, nor is there any sharing of control plane by





Callon & Suzuki              Informational                     [Page 53]

RFC 4110               A Framework for L3 PPVPNs               July 2005


   the VPN routing and the public routing.  With this approach each PE
   device can logically be thought of as consisting of multiple
   independent routers.

   The multiple routing instances within the PE device may be separate
   processes, or may be in the same process with different data
   structures.  Similarly, there may be mechanisms internal to the PE
   devices to partition memory and other resources between routing
   instances.  The mechanisms for implementing multiple routing
   instances within a single physical PE are outside of the scope of
   this framework document, and are also outside of the scope of other
   standards documents.

   This approach tends to minimize the explicit interactions between
   different VPNs, as well as between VPN routing and public routing.
   However, as long as the independent logical routers share the same
   hardware, there is some sharing of resources, and interactions are
   still possible.  Also, each independent control plane has its
   associated overheads, and this can raise issues of scale.  For
   example, the PE device must run a potentially large number of
   independent routing "decision processes," and must also maintain a
   potentially very large number of routing adjacencies.

4.4.4.  Aggregated Routing Model

   Another option is to use one single instance of a routing protocol
   for carrying VPN routing information between the PEs.  In this
   method, the routing information for multiple different VPNs is
   aggregated into a single routing protocol.

   This approach greatly reduces the number of routing adjacencies which
   the PEs must maintain, since there is no longer any need to maintain
   more than one such adjacency between a given pair of PEs.  If the
   single routing protocol supports a hierarchical route distribution
   mechanism (such as BGP's "route reflectors"), the PE-PE adjacencies
   can be completely eliminated, and the number of backbone adjacencies
   can be made into a small constant which is independent of the number
   of PE devices.  This improves the scaling properties.

   Additional routing instances may still be needed to support the
   exchange of routing information between the PE and its locally
   attached CEs.  These can be eliminated, with a consequent further
   improvement in scalability, by using static routing on the PE-CE
   interfaces, or possibly by having the PE-CE routing interaction use
   the same protocol instance that is used to distribute VPN routes
   across the VPN backbone (see section 4.4.4.2 for a way to do this).





Callon & Suzuki              Informational                     [Page 54]

RFC 4110               A Framework for L3 PPVPNs               July 2005


   With this approach, the number of routing protocol instances in a PE
   device does not depend on the number of CEs supported by the PE
   device, if the routing between PE and CE devices is static or BGP-4.
   However, CE and PE devices in a VPN exchange route information inside
   a VPN using a routing protocol except for BGP-4, the number of
   routing protocol entities in a PE device depends on the number of CEs
   supported by the PE device.

   In principle it is possible for routing to be aggregated using either
   BGP or on an IGP.

4.4.4.1.  Aggregated Routing with OSPF or IS-IS

   When supporting VPNs, it is likely that there can be a large number
   of VPNs supported within any given SP network.  In general only a
   small number of PE devices will be interested in the operation of any
   one VPN.  Thus while the total amount of routing information related
   to the various customer networks will be very large, any one PE needs
   to know about only a small number of such networks.

   Generally SP networks use OSPF or IS-IS for interior routing within
   the SP network.  There are very good reasons for this choice, which
   are outside of the scope of this document.

   Both OSPF and IS-IS are link state routing protocols.  In link state
   routing, routing information is distributed via a flooding protocol.
   The set of routing peers is in general not fully meshed, but there is
   a path from any router in the set to any other.  Flooding ensures
   that routing information from any one router reaches all the others.
   This requires all routers in the set to maintain the same routing
   information.  One couldn't withhold any routing information from a
   particular peer unless it is known that none of the peers further
   downstream will need that information, and in general this cannot be
   known.

   As a result, if one tried to do aggregated routing by using OSPF,
   with all the PEs in the set of routing peers, all the PEs would end
   up with the exact same routing information; there is no way to
   constrain the distribution of routing information to a subset of the
   PEs.  Given the potential magnitude of the total routing information
   required for supporting a large number of VPNs, this would have
   unfortunate scaling implications.

   In some cases VPNs may span multiple areas within a provider, or span
   multiple providers.  If VPN routing information were aggregated into
   the IGP used within the provider, then some method would need to be
   used to extend the reach of IGP routing information between areas and
   between SPs.



Callon & Suzuki              Informational                     [Page 55]

RFC 4110               A Framework for L3 PPVPNs               July 2005


4.4.4.2.  Aggregated Routing with BGP

   In order to use BGP for aggregated routing, the VPN routing
   information must be clearly distinguished from the public Internet
   routing information.  This is typically done by making use of BGP's
   capability of handling multiple address families, and treating the
   VPN routes as being in a different address family than the public
   Internet routes.  Typically a VPN route also carries attributes which
   depend on the particular VPN or VPNs to which that route belongs.

   When BGP is used for carrying VPN information, the total amount of
   information carried in BGP (including the Internet routes and VPN
   routes) may be quite large.  As noted above, there may be a large
   number of VPNs which are supported by any particular provider, and
   the total amount of routing information associated with all VPNs may
   be quite large.  However, any one PE will in general only need to be
   aware of a small number of VPNs.  This implies that where VPN routing
   information is aggregated into BGP, it is desirable to be able to
   limit which VPN information is distributed to which PEs.

   In "Interior BGP" (IBGP), routing information is not flooded; it is
   sent directly, over a TCP connection, to the peer routers (or to a
   route reflector).  These peer routers (unless they are route
   reflectors) are then not even allowed to redistribute the information
   to each other.  BGP also has a comprehensive set of mechanisms for
   constraining the routing information that any one peer sends to
   another, based on policies established by the network administration.
   Thus IBGP satisfies one of the requirements for aggregated routing
   within a single SP network - it makes it possible to ensure that
   routing information relevant to a particular VPN is processed only by
   the PE devices that attach to that VPN.  All that is necessary is
   that each VPN route be distributed with one or more attributes which
   identify the distribution policies.  Then distribution can be
   constrained by filtering against these attributes.

   In "Exterior BGP" (EBGP), routing peers do redistribute routing
   information to each other.  However, it is very common to constrain
   the distribution of particular items of routing information so that
   they only go to those exterior peers who have a "need to know,"
   although this does require a priori knowledge of which paths may
   validly lead to which addresses.  In the case of VPN routing, if a
   VPN is provided by a small set of cooperating SPs, such constraints
   can be applied to ensure that the routing information relevant to
   that VPN does not get distributed anywhere it doesn't need to be.  To
   the extent that a particular VPN is supported by a small number of
   cooperating SPs with private peering arrangements, this is





Callon & Suzuki              Informational                     [Page 56]

RFC 4110               A Framework for L3 PPVPNs               July 2005


   particularly straightforward, as the set of EBGP neighbors which need
   to know the routing information from a particular VPN is easier to
   determine.

   BGP also has mechanisms (such as "Outbound Route Filtering," ORF)
   which enable the proper set of VPN routing distribution constraints
   to be dynamically distributed.  This reduces the management burden of
   setting up the constraints, and hence improves scalability.

   Within a single routing domain (in the layer 3 VPN context, this
   typically means within a single SP's network), it is common to have
   the IBGP routers peer directly with one or two route reflectors,
   rather than having them peer directly with each other.  This greatly
   reduces the number of IBGP adjacencies which any one router must
   support.  Further, a route reflector does not merely redistribute
   routing information, it "digests" the information first, by running
   its own decision processes.  Only routes which survive the decision
   process are redistributed.

   As a result, when route reflectors are used, the amount of routing
   information carried around the network, and in particular, the amount
   of routing information which any given router must receive and
   process, is greatly reduced.  This greatly increases the scalability
   of the routing distribution system.

   It has already been stated that a given PE has VPN routing
   information only for those PEs to which it is directly attached.  It
   is similarly important, for scalability, to ensure that no single
   route reflector should have to have all the routing information for
   all VPNs.  It is after all possible for the total number of VPN
   routes (across all VPNs supported by an SP) to exceed the number
   which can be supported by a single route reflector.  Therefore, the
   VPN routes may themselves be partitioned, with some route reflectors
   carrying one subset of the VPN routes and other route reflectors
   carrying a different subset.  The route reflectors which carry the
   public Internet routes can also be completely separate from the route
   reflectors that carry the VPN routes.

   The use of outbound route filters allows any one PE and any one route
   reflector to exchange information about only those VPNs which the PE
   and route reflector are both interested in.  This in turn ensures
   that each PE and each route reflector receives routing information
   only about the VPNs which it is directly supporting.  Large SPs which
   support a large number of VPNs therefore can partition the
   information which is required for support of those VPNs.






Callon & Suzuki              Informational                     [Page 57]

RFC 4110               A Framework for L3 PPVPNs               July 2005


   Generally a PE device will be restricted in the total number of
   routes it can support, whether those are public Internet routes or
   VPN routes.  As a result, a PE device may be able to be attached to a
   larger number of VPNs if it does not also need to support Internet
   routes.

   The way in which VPN routes are partitioned among PEs and/or route
   reflectors is a deployment issue.  With suitable deployment
   procedures, the limited capacity of these devices will not limit the
   number of VPNs that can be supported.

   Similarly, whether a given PE and/or route reflector contains
   Internet routes as well as VPN routes is a deployment issue.  If the
   customer networks served by a particular PE do not need the Internet
   access, then that PE does not need to be aware of the Internet
   routes.  If some or all of the VPNs served by a particular PE do need
   the Internet access, but the PE does not contain Internet routes,
   then the PE can maintain a default route that routes all the Internet
   traffic from that PE to a different router within the SP network,
   where that other router holds the full the Internet routing table.
   With this approach the PE device needs only a single default route
   for all the Internet routes.

   For the reasons given above, the BGP protocol seems to be a
   reasonable protocol to use for distributing VPN routing information.
   Additional reasons for the use of BGP are:

   o BGP has been proven to be useful for distributing very large
     amounts of routing information; there isn't any routing
     distribution protocol which is known to scale any better.

   o The same BGP instance that is used for PE-PE distribution of VPN
     routes can be used for PE-CE route distribution, if CE-PE routing
     is static or BGP.  PEs and CEs are really parts of distinct
     Autonomous Systems, and BGP is particularly well-suited for
     carrying routing information between Autonomous Systems.

   On the other hand, BGP is also used for distributing public Internet
   routes, and it is crucially important that VPN route distributing not
   compromise the distribution of public Internet routes in any way.
   This issue is discussed in the following section.










Callon & Suzuki              Informational                     [Page 58]

RFC 4110               A Framework for L3 PPVPNs               July 2005


4.4.5.  Scalability and Stability of Routing with Layer 3 PE-based VPNs

   For layer 3 PE-based VPNs, there are likely to be cases where a
   service provider supports Internet access over the same link that is
   used for VPN service.  Thus, a particular CE to PE link may carry
   both private network IP packets (for transmission between sites of
   the private network using VPN services) as well as public Internet
   traffic (for transmission from the private site to the Internet, and
   for transmission to the private site from the Internet).  This
   section looks at the scalability and stability of routing in this
   case.  It is worth noting that this sort of issue may be applicable
   where per-VPN routing is used, as well as where aggregated routing is
   used.

   For layer 3 PE-based VPNs, it is necessary for the PE devices to be
   able to forward IP packets using the addresses spaces of the
   supported private networks, as well as using the full Internet
   address space.  This implies that PE devices might in some cases
   participate in routing for the private networks, as well as for the
   public Internet.

   In some cases the routing demand on the PE might be low enough, and
   the capabilities of the PE, might be great enough, that it is
   reasonable for the PE to participate fully in routing for both
   private networks and the public Internet.  For example, the PE device
   might participate in normal operation of BGP as part of the global
   Internet.  The PE device might also operate routing protocols (or in
   some cases use static routing) to exchange routes with CE devices.

   For large installations, or where PE capabilities are more limited,
   it may be undesirable for the PE to fully participate in routing for
   both VPNs as well as the public Internet.  For example, suppose that
   the total volume of routes and routing instances supported by one PE
   across multiple VPNs is very large.  Suppose furthermore that one or
   more of the private networks suffers from routing instabilities, for
   example resulting in a large number of routing updates being
   transmitted to the PE device.  In this case it is important to
   prevent such routing from causing any instability in the routing used
   in the global Internet.

   In these cases it may be necessary to partition routing, so that the
   PE does not need to maintain as large a collection of routes, and so
   that the PE is not able to adversely effect Internet routing.  Also,
   given that the total number of route prefixes and the total number of
   routing instances which the PE needs to maintain might be very large,
   it may be desirable to limit the participation in Internet routing
   for those PEs which are supporting a large number of VPNs or which
   are supporting large VPNs.



Callon & Suzuki              Informational                     [Page 59]

RFC 4110               A Framework for L3 PPVPNs               July 2005


   Consider a case where a PE is supporting a very large number of VPNs,
   some of which have a large number of sites.  To pick a VERY large
   example, let's suppose 1000 VPNs, with an average of 100 sites each,
   plus 10 prefixes per site on average.  Consider that the PE also
   needs to be able to route traffic to the Internet in general.  In
   this example the PE might need to support approximately 1,000,000
   prefixes for the VPNs, plus more than 100,000 prefixes for the
   Internet.  If augmented and aggregated routing is used, then this
   implies a large number of routes which may be advertised in a single
   routing protocol (most likely BGP).  If the VR approach is used, then
   there are also 100,000 neighbor adjacencies in the various per-VPN
   routing protocol instances.  In some cases this number of routing
   prefixes and/or this number of adjacencies might be difficult to
   support in one device.

   In this case, an alternate approach is to limit the PE's
   participation in Internet routing to the absolute minimum required:
   Specifically the PE will need to know which Internet address prefixes
   are reachable via directly attached CE devices.  All other Internet
   routes may be summarized into a single default route pointing to one
   or more P routers.  In many cases the P routers to which the default
   routes are directed may be the P routers to which the PE device is
   directly attached (which are the ones which it needs to use for
   forwarding most Internet traffic).  Thus if there are M CE devices
   directly connected to the PE, and if these M CE devices are the next
   hop for a total of N globally addressable Internet address prefixes,
   then the PE device would maintain N+1 routes corresponding to
   globally routable Internet addresses.

   In this example, those PE devices which provide VPN service run
   routing to compute routes for the VPNs, but don't operate Internet
   routing, and instead use only a default route to route traffic to all
   Internet destinations (not counting the addresses which are reachable
   via directly attached CE devices).  The P routers need to maintain
   Internet routes, and therefore take part in Internet routing
   protocols.  However, the P routers don't know anything about the VPN
   routes.

   In some cases the maximum number of routes and/or routing instances
   supportable via a single PE device may limit the number of VPNs which
   can be supported by that PE.  For example, in some cases this might
   require that two different PE devices be used to support VPN services
   for a set of multiple CEs, even if one PE might have had sufficient
   throughput to handle the data traffic from the full set of CEs.
   Similarly, the amount of resources which any one VPN is permitted to
   use in a single PE might be restricted.





Callon & Suzuki              Informational                     [Page 60]

RFC 4110               A Framework for L3 PPVPNs               July 2005


   There will be cases where it is not necessary to partition the
   routing, since the PEs will be able to maintain all VPN routes and
   all Internet routes without a problem.  However, it is important that
   VPN approaches allow partitioning to be used where needed in order to
   prevent future scaling problems.  Again, making the system scalable
   is a matter of proper deployment.

   It may be wondered whether it is ever desirable to have both Internet
   routing and VPN routing running in a single PE device or route
   reflector.  In fact, if there is even a single system running both
   Internet routing and VPN routing, doesn't that raise the possibility
   that a disruption within the VPN routing system will cause a
   disruption within the Internet routing system?

   Certainly this possibility exists in theory.  To minimize that
   possibility, BGP implementations which support multiple address
   families should be organized so as to minimize the degree to which
   the processing and distribution of one address family affects the
   processing and distribution of another.  This could be done, for
   example, by suitable partitioning of resources.  This partitioning
   may be helpful both to protect Internet routing from VPN routing, and
   to protect well behaved VPN customers from "mis-behaving" VPNs.  Or
   one could try to protect the Internet routing system from the VPN
   routing system by giving preference to the Internet routing.  Such
   implementation issues are outside the scope of this document.  If one
   has inadequate confidence in an implementation, deployment procedures
   can be used, as explained above, to separate the Internet routing
   from the VPN routing.

4.5.  Quality of Service, SLAs, and IP Differentiated Services

   The following technologies for QoS/SLA may be applicable to PPVPNs.

4.5.1.  IntServ/RSVP [RFC2205] [RFC2208] [RFC2210] [RFC2211] [RFC2212]

   Integrated services, or IntServ for short, is a mechanism for
   providing QoS/SLA by admission control.  RSVP is used to reserve
   network resources.  The network needs to maintain a state for each
   reservation.  The number of states in the network increases in
   proportion to the number of concurrent reservations.

   In some cases, IntServ on the edge of a network (e.g., over the
   customer interface) may be mapped to DiffServ in the SP network.








Callon & Suzuki              Informational                     [Page 61]

RFC 4110               A Framework for L3 PPVPNs               July 2005


4.5.2.  DiffServ [RFC2474] [RFC2475]

   IP differentiated service, or DiffServ for short, is a mechanism for
   providing QoS/SLA by differentiating traffic.  Traffic entering a
   network is classified into several behavior aggregates at the network
   edge and each is assigned a corresponding DiffServ codepoint.  Within
   the network, traffic is treated according to its DiffServ codepoint.
   Some behavior aggregates have already been defined.  Expedited
   forwarding behavior [RFC3246] guarantees the QoS, whereas assured
   forwarding behavior [RFC2597] differentiates traffic packet
   precedence values.

   When DiffServ is used, network provisioning is done on a
   per-traffic-class basis.  This ensures a specific class of service
   can be achieved for a class (assuming that the traffic load is
   controlled).  All packets within a class are then treated equally
   within an SP network.  Policing is done at input to prevent any one
   user from exceeding their allocation and therefore defeating the
   provisioning for the class as a whole.  If a user exceeds their
   traffic contract, then the excess packets may optionally be
   discarded, or may be marked as "over contract".  Routers throughout
   the network can then preferentially discard over contract packets in
   response to congestion, in order to ensure that such packets do not
   defeat the service guarantees intended for in contract traffic.

4.6.  Concurrent Access to VPNs and the Internet

   In some scenarios, customers will need to concurrently have access to
   their VPN network and to the public Internet.

   Two potential problems are identified in this scenario: the use of
   private addresses and the potential security threads.

   o The use of private addresses

     The IP addresses used in the customer's sites will possibly belong
     to a private routing realm, and as such be unusable in the public
     Internet.  This means that a network address translation function
     (e.g., NAT) will need to be implemented to allow VPN customers to
     access the Public Internet.

     In the case of layer 3 PE-based VPNs, this translation function
     will be implemented in the PE to which the CE device is connected.
     In the case of layer 3 provider-provisioned CE-based VPNs, this
     translation function will be implemented on the CE device itself.






Callon & Suzuki              Informational                     [Page 62]

RFC 4110               A Framework for L3 PPVPNs               July 2005


   o Potential security threat

     As portions of the traffic that flow to and from the public
     Internet are not necessarily under the SP's nor the customer's
     control, some traffic analyzing function (e.g., a firewall
     function) will be implemented to control the traffic entering and
     leaving the VPN.

     In the case of layer 3 PE-based VPNs, this traffic analyzing
     function will be implemented in the PE device (or in the VFI
     supporting a specific VPN), while in the case of layer 3 provider
     provisioned CE-based VPNs, this function will be implemented in the
     CE device.

   o Handling of a customer IP packet destined for the Internet

     In the case of layer 3 PE-based VPNs, an IP packet coming from a
     customer site will be handled in the corresponding VFI.  If the IP
     destination address in the packet's IP header belongs to the
     Internet, multiple scenarios are possible, based on the adapted
     policy.  As a first possibility, when Internet access is not
     allowed, the packet will be dropped.  As a second possibility, when
     (controlled) Internet access is allowed, the IP packet will go
     through the translation function and eventually through the traffic
     analyzing function before further processing in the PE's global
     Internet forwarding table.

   Note that different implementation choices are possible.  One can
   choose to implement the translation and/or the traffic analyzing
   function in every VFI (or CE device in the context of layer 3
   provider-provisioned CE-based VPNs), or alternatively in a subset or
   even in only one VPN network element.  This would mean that the
   traffic to/from the Internet from/to any VPN site needs to be routed
   through that single network element (this is what happens in a hub
   and spoke topology for example).

4.7.  Network and Customer Management of VPNs

4.7.1.  Network and Customer Management

   Network and customer management systems responsible for managing VPN
   networks have several challenges depending on the type of VPN network
   or networks they are required to manage.

   For any type of provider-provisioned VPN it is useful to have one
   place where the VPN can be viewed and optionally managed as a whole.
   The NMS may therefore be a place where the collective instances of a
   VPN are brought together into a cohesive picture to form a VPN.  To



Callon & Suzuki              Informational                     [Page 63]

RFC 4110               A Framework for L3 PPVPNs               July 2005


   be more precise, the instances of a VPN on their own do not form the
   VPN; rather, the collection of disparate VPN sites together forms the
   VPN.  This is important because VPNs are typically configured at the
   edges of the network (i.e., PEs) either through manual configuration
   or auto-configuration.  This results in no state information being
   kept in within the "core" of the network.  Sometimes little or no
   information about other PEs is configured at any particular PE.

   Support of any one VPN may span a wide range of network equipment,
   potentially including equipment from multiple implementors.  Allowing
   a unified network management view of the VPN therefore is simplified
   through use of standard management interfaces and models.  This will
   also facilitate customer self-managed (monitored) network devices or
   systems.

   In cases where significant configuration is required whenever a new
   service is provisioned, it is important for scalability reasons that
   the NMS provide a largely automated mechanism for this operation.
   Manual configuration of VPN services (i.e., new sites, or
   re-provisioning existing ones), could lead to scalability issues, and
   should be avoided.  It is thus important for network operators to
   maintain visibility of the complete picture of the VPN through the
   NMS system.  This must be achieved using standard protocols such as
   SNMP, XML, or LDAP.  Use of proprietary command-line interfaces has
   the disadvantage that proprietary interfaces do not lend themselves
   to standard representations of managed objects.

   To achieve the goals outlined above for network and customer
   management, device implementors should employ standard management
   interfaces to expose the information required to manage VPNs.  To
   this end, devices should utilize standards-based mechanisms such as
   SNMP, XML, or LDAP to achieve this goal.

4.7.2.  Segregated Access of VPN Information

   Segregated access of VPNs information is important in that customers
   sometimes require access to information in several ways.  First, it
   is important for some customers (or operators) to access PEs, CEs or
   P devices within the context of a particular VPN on a per-VPN-basis
   in order to access statistics, configuration or status information.
   This can either be under the guise of general management,
   operator-initiated provisioning, or SLA verification (SP, customer or
   operator).








Callon & Suzuki              Informational                     [Page 64]

RFC 4110               A Framework for L3 PPVPNs               July 2005


   Where users outside of the SP have access to information from PE or P
   devices, managed objects within the managed devices must be
   accessible on a per-VPN basis in order to provide the customer, the
   SP or the third party SLA verification agent with a high degree of
   security and convenience.

   Security may require authentication or encryption of network
   management commands and information.  Information hiding may use
   encryption or may isolate information through a mechanism that
   provides per-VPN access.  Authentication or encryption of both
   requests and responses for managed objects within a device may be
   employed.  Examples of how this can be achieved include IPsec
   tunnels, SNMPv3 encryption for SNMP-based management, or encrypted
   telnet sessions for CLI-based management.

   In the case of information isolation, any one customer should only be
   able to view information pertaining to its own VPN or VPNs.
   Information isolation can also be used to partition the space of
   managed objects on a device in such a way as to make it more
   convenient for the SP to manage the device.  In certain deployments,
   it is also important for the SP to have access to information
   pertaining to all VPNs, thus it may be important for the SP to create
   virtual VPNs within the management domain which overlap across
   existing VPNs.

   If the user is allowed to change the configuration of their VPN, then
   in some cases customers may make unanticipated changes or even
   mistakes, thereby causing their VPN to mis-behave.  This in turn may
   require an audit trail to allow determination of what went wrong and
   some way to inform the carrier of the cause.

   The segregation and security access of information on a per-VPN basis
   is also important when the carrier of carrier's paradigm is employed.
   In this case it may be desirable for customers (i.e., sub-carriers or
   VPN wholesalers) to manage and provision services within their VPNs
   on their respective devices in order to reduce the management
   overhead cost to the carrier of carrier's SP.  In this case, it is
   important to observe the guidelines detailed above with regard to
   information hiding, isolation and encryption.  It should be noted
   that there may be many flavors of information hiding and isolation
   employed by the carrier of carrier's SP.  If the carrier of carriers
   SP does not want to grant the sub-carrier open access to all of the
   managed objects within their PEs or P routers, it is necessary for
   devices to provide network operators with secure and scalable per-VPN
   network management access to their devices.  For the reasons outlined
   above, it therefore is desirable to provide standard mechanisms for
   achieving these goals.




Callon & Suzuki              Informational                     [Page 65]

RFC 4110               A Framework for L3 PPVPNs               July 2005


5.  Interworking Interface

   This section describes interworking between different layer 3 VPN
   approaches.  This may occur either within a single SP network, or at
   an interface between SP networks.

5.1.  Interworking Function

   Figure 2.5 (see section 2.1.3) illustrates a case where one or more
   PE devices sits at the logical interface between two different layer
   3 VPN approaches.  With this approach the interworking function
   occurs at a PE device which participates in two or more layer 3 VPN
   approaches.  This might be physically located at the boundary between
   service providers, or might occur at the logical interface between
   different approaches within a service provider.

   With layer 3 VPNs, the PE devices are in general layer 3 routers, and
   are able to forward layer 3 packets on behalf of one or more private
   networks.  For example, it may be common for a PE device supporting
   layer 3 VPNs to contain multiple logical VFIs (sections 1, 2, 3.3.1,
   4.4.2) each of which supports forwarding and routing for a private
   network.

   The PE which implements an interworking function needs to participate
   in the normal manner in the operation of multiple approaches for
   supporting layer 3 VPNs.  This involves the functions discussed
   elsewhere in this document, such as VPN establishment and
   maintenance, VPN tunneling, routing for the VPNs, and QoS
   maintenance.

   VPN establishment and maintenance information, as well as VPN routing
   information will need to be passed between VPN approaches.  This
   might involve passing of information between approaches as part of
   the interworking function.  Optionally this might involve manual
   configuration so that, for example, all of the participants in the
   VPN on one side of the interworking function considers the PE
   performing the interworking function to be the point to use to
   contact a large number of systems (comprising all systems supported
   by the VPN located on the other side of the interworking function).

5.2.  Interworking Interface

   Figure 2.6 (see section 2.1.3) illustrates a case where interworking
   is performed by use of tunnels between PE devices.  In this case each
   PE device participates in the operation of one layer 3 VPN approach.
   Interworking between approaches makes use of per-VPN tunnels set up
   between PE.  Each PEs operates as if it is a normal PEs, and
   considers each tunnel to be associated with a particular VPN.



Callon & Suzuki              Informational                     [Page 66]

RFC 4110               A Framework for L3 PPVPNs               July 2005


   Information can then be transmitted over the interworking interface
   in the same manner that it is transmitted over a CE to PE interface.

   In some cases establishment of the interworking interfaces may
   require manual configuration, for example to allow each PE to
   determine which tunnels should be set up, and which private network
   is associated with each tunnel.

5.2.1.  Tunnels at the Interworking Interface

   In order to implement an interworking interface between two SP
   networks for supporting one or more PPVPN spanning both SP networks,
   a mechanism for exchanging customer data as well as associated
   control data (e.g., routing data) should be provided.

   Since PEs of SP networks to be interworked may only communicate over
   a network cloud, an appropriate tunnel established through the
   network cloud will be used for exchanging data associated with the
   PPVPN realized by interworked SP networks.

   In this way, each interworking tunnel is assigned to an associated
   layer 3 PE-based VPN; in other words, a tunnel is terminated by a VFI
   (associated with the PPVPN) in a PE device.  This scenario results in
   implementation of traffic isolation for PPVPNs supported by an
   Interworking Interface and spanning multiple SP networks (in each SP
   network, there is no restriction in applied technology for providing
   PPVPN so that both sides may adopt different technologies).  The way
   of the assignment of each tunnel for a PE-based VPN is specific to
   implementation technology used by the SP network that is
   inter-connected to the tunnel at the PE device.

   The identifier of layer 3 PE-based VPN at each end is meaningful only
   in the context of the specific technology of an SP network and need
   not be understood by another SP network interworking through the
   tunnel.

   The following tunneling mechanisms may be used at the interworking
   interface.  Available tunneling mechanisms include (but are not
   limited to): GRE, IP-in-IP, IP over ATM, IP over FR, IPsec, and MPLS.

   o GRE

     The tunnels at interworking interface may be provided by GRE
     [RFC2784] with key and sequence number extensions [RFC2890].







Callon & Suzuki              Informational                     [Page 67]

RFC 4110               A Framework for L3 PPVPNs               July 2005


   o IP-in-IP

     The tunnels at interworking interface may be provided by IP-in-IP
     [RFC2003] [RFC2473].

   o IP over ATM AAL5

     The tunnels at interworking interface may be provided by IP over
     ATM AAL5 [RFC2684] [RFC2685].

   o IP over FR

     The tunnels at interworking interface may be provided by IP over
     FR.

   o IPsec

     The tunnels at interworking interface may be provided by IPsec
     [RFC2401] [RFC2402].

   o MPLS

     The tunnels at interworking interface may be provided by MPLS
     [RFC3031] [RFC3035].

5.3.  Support of Additional Services

   This subsection describes additional usages for supporting QoS/SLA,
   customer visible routing, and customer visible multicast routing, as
   services of layer 3 PE-based VPNs spanning multiple SP networks.

   o QoS/SLA

     QoS/SLA management mechanisms for GRE, IP-in-IP, IPsec, and MPLS
     tunnels were discussed in sections 4.3.6 and 4.5.  See these
     sections for details.  FR and ATM are capable of QoS guarantee.
     Thus, QoS/SLA may also be supported at the interworking interface.

   o Customer visible routing

     As described in section 3.3, customer visible routing enables the
     exchange of unicast routing information between customer sites
     using a routing protocol such as OSPF, IS-IS, RIP, and BGP-4.  On
     the interworking interface, routing packets, such as OSPF packets,
     are transmitted through a tunnel associated with a layer 3 PE-based
     VPN in the same manner as that for user data packets within the
     VPN.




Callon & Suzuki              Informational                     [Page 68]

RFC 4110               A Framework for L3 PPVPNs               July 2005


   o Customer visible multicast routing

     Customer visible multicast routing enables the exchange of
     multicast routing information between customer sites using a
     routing protocol such as DVMRP and PIM.  On the interworking
     interface, multicast routing packets are transmitted through a
     tunnel associated with a layer 3 PE-based VPN in the same manner as
     that for user data packets within the VPN.  This enables a
     multicast tree construction within the layer 3 PE-based VPN.

5.4.  Scalability Discussion

   This subsection discusses scalability aspect of the interworking
   scenario.

   o Number of routing protocol instances

     In the interworking scenario discussed in this section, the number
     of routing protocol instances and that of layer 3 PE-based VPNs are
     the same.  However, the number of layer 3 PE-based VPNs in a PE
     device is limited due to resource amount and performance of the PE
     device.  Furthermore, each tunnel is expected to require some
     bandwidth, but total of the bandwidth is limited by the capacity of
     a PE device; thus, the number of the tunnels is limited by the
     capabilities of the PE.  This limit is not a critical drawback.

   o Performance of packet transmission

     The interworking scenario discussed in this section does not place
     any additional burden on tunneling technologies used at
     interworking interface.  Since performance of packet transmission
     depends on a tunneling technology applied, it should be carefully
     selected when provisioning interworking.  For example, IPsec places
     computational requirements for encryption/decryption.

6.  Security Considerations

   Security is one of the key requirements concerning VPNs.  In network
   environments, the term security currently covers many different
   aspects of which the most important from a networking perspective are
   shortly discussed hereafter.

   Note that the Provider-Provisioned VPN requirements document explains
   the different security requirements for Provider-Provisioned VPNs in
   more detail.






Callon & Suzuki              Informational                     [Page 69]

RFC 4110               A Framework for L3 PPVPNs               July 2005


6.1.  System Security

   Like in every network environment, system security is the most
   important security aspect that must be enforced.  Care must be taken
   that no unauthorized party can gain access to the network elements
   that control the VPN functionality (e.g., PE and CE devices).

   As the VPN customers are making use of the shared SP's backbone, the
   SP must ensure the system security of its network elements and
   management systems.

6.2.  Access Control

   When a network or parts of a network are private, one of the
   requirements is that access to that network (part) must be restricted
   to a limited number of well-defined customers.  To accomplish this
   requirement, the responsible authority must control every possible
   access to the network.

   In the context of PE-based VPNs, the access points to a VPN must be
   limited to the interfaces that are known by the SP.

6.3.  Endpoint Authentication

   When one receives data from a certain entity, one would like to be
   sure of the identity of the sending party.  One would like to be sure
   that the sending entity is indeed whom he or she claims to be, and
   that the sending entity is authorized to reach a particular
   destination.

   In the context of layer 3 PE-based VPNs, both the data received by
   the PEs from the customer sites via the SP network and destined for a
   customer site should be authenticated.

   Note that different methods for authentication exist.  In certain
   circumstances, identifying incoming packets with specific customer
   interfaces might be sufficient.  In other circumstances, (e.g., in
   temporary access (dial-in) scenarios), a preliminary authentication
   phase might be requested.  For example, when PPP is used.  Or
   alternatively, an authentication process might need to be present in
   every data packet transmitted (e.g., in remote access via IPsec).

   For layer 3 PE-based VPNs, VPN traffic is tunneled from PE to PE and
   the VPN tunnel endpoint will check the origin of the transmitted
   packet.  When MPLS is used for VPN tunneling, the tunnel endpoint






Callon & Suzuki              Informational                     [Page 70]

RFC 4110               A Framework for L3 PPVPNs               July 2005


   checks whether the correct labels are used.  When IPsec is used for
   VPN tunneling, the tunnel endpoint can make use of the IPsec
   authentication mechanisms.

   In the context of layer 3 provider-provisioned CE-based VPNs, the
   endpoint authentication is enforced by the CE devices.

6.4.  Data Integrity

   When information is exchanged over a certain part of a network, one
   would like to be sure that the information that is received by the
   receiving party of the exchange is identical to the information that
   was sent by the sending party of the exchange.

   In the context of layer 3 PE-based VPNs, the SP assures the data
   integrity by ensuring the system security of every network element.
   Alternatively, explicit mechanisms may be implemented in the used
   tunneling technique (e.g., IPsec).

   In the context of layer 3 provider-provisioned CE-based VPNs, the
   underlying network that will tunnel the encapsulated packets will not
   always be of a trusted nature, and the CE devices that are
   responsible for the tunneling will also ensure the data integrity,
   e.g., by making use of the IPsec architecture.

6.5.  Confidentiality

   One would like that the information that is being sent from one party
   to another is not received and not readable by other parties.  With
   traffic flow confidentiality one would like that even the
   characteristics of the information sent is hidden from third parties.
   Data privacy is the confidentiality of the user data.

   In the context of PPVPNs, confidentiality is often seen as the basic
   service offered, as the functionalities of a private network are
   offered over a shared infrastructure.

   In the context of layer 3 PE-based VPNs, as the SP network (and more
   precisely the PE devices) participates in the routing and forwarding
   of the customer VPN data, it is the SP's responsibility to ensure
   confidentiality.  The technique used in PE-based VPN solutions is the
   ensuring of PE to PE data separation.  By implementing VFI's in the
   PE devices and by tunneling VPN packets through the shared network
   infrastructure between PE devices, the VPN data is always kept in a
   separate context and thus separated from the other data.






Callon & Suzuki              Informational                     [Page 71]

RFC 4110               A Framework for L3 PPVPNs               July 2005


   In some situations, this data separation might not be sufficient.
   Circumstances where the VPN tunnel traverses other than only trusted
   and SP controlled network parts require stronger confidentiality
   measures such as cryptographic data encryption.  This is the case in
   certain inter-SP VPN scenarios or when the considered SP is on itself
   a client of a third party network provider.

   For layer 3 provider-provisioned CE-based VPNs, the SP network does
   not bare responsibility for confidentiality assurance, as the SP just
   offers IP connectivity.  The confidentiality will then be enforced at
   the CE and will lie in the tunneling (data separation) or in the
   cryptographic encryption (e.g., using IPsec) by the CE device.

   Note that for very sensitive user data (e.g., used in banking
   operations) the VPN customer may not outsource his data privacy
   enforcement to a trusted SP.  In those situations, PE-to-PE
   confidentiality will not be sufficient and end-to-end cryptographic
   encryption will be implemented by the VPN customer on its own private
   equipment (e.g., using CE-based VPN technologies or cryptographic
   encryption over the provided VPN connectivity).

6.6.  User Data and Control Data

   An important remark is the fact that both the user data and the VPN
   control data must be protected.

   Previous subsections were focused on the protection of the user data,
   but all the control data (e.g., used to set up the VPN tunnels, used
   to configure the VFI's or the CE devices (in the context of layer 3
   provider-provisioned CE-based VPNs)) will also be secured by the SP
   to prevent deliberate misconfiguration of provider-provisioned VPNs.

6.7.  Security Considerations for Inter-SP VPNs

   In certain scenarios, a single VPN will need to cross multiple SPs.

   The fact that the edge-to-edge part of the data path does not fall
   under the control of the same entity can have security implications,
   for example with regards to endpoint authentication.

   Another point is that the SPs involved must closely interact to avoid
   conflicting configuration information on VPN network elements (such
   as VFIs, PEs, CE devices) connected to the different SPs.








Callon & Suzuki              Informational                     [Page 72]

RFC 4110               A Framework for L3 PPVPNs               July 2005


Appendix A: Optimizations for Tunnel Forwarding

A.1.  Header Lookups in the VFIs

   If layer 3 PE-based VPNs are implemented in the most straightforward
   manner, then it may be necessary for PE devices to perform multiple
   header lookups in order to forward a single data packet.  This
   section discusses an example of how multiple lookups might be needed
   with the most straightforward implementation.  Optimizations which
   might optionally be used to reduce the number of lookups are
   discussed in the following sections.

   As an example, in many cases a tunnel may be set up between VFIs
   within PEs for support of a given VPN.  When a packet arrives at the
   egress PE, the PE may need to do a lookup on the outer header to
   determine which VFI the packet belongs to.  The PE may then need to
   do a second lookup on the packet that was encapsulated across the VPN
   tunnel, using the forwarding table specific to that VPN, before
   forwarding the packet.

   For scaling reasons it may be desired in some cases to set up VPN
   tunnels, and then multiplex multiple VPN-specific tunnels within the
   VPN tunnels.

   This implies that in the most straightforward implementation three
   header lookups might be necessary in a single PE device: One lookup
   may identify that this is the end of the VPN tunnel (implying the
   need to strip off the associated header).  A second lookup may
   identify that this is the end of the VPN-specific tunnel.  This
   lookup will result in stripping off the second encapsulating header,
   and will identify the VFI context for the final lookup.  The last
   lookup will make use of the IP address space associated with the VPN,
   and will result in the packet being forwarded to the correct CE
   within the correct VPN.

A.2.  Penultimate Hop Popping for MPLS

   Penultimate hop popping is an optimization which is described in the
   MPLS architecture document [RFC3031].

   Consider the egress node of any MPLS LSP.  The node looks at the
   label, and discovers that it is the last node.  It then strips off
   the label header, and looks at the next header in the packet (which
   may be an IP header, or which may have another MPLS header in the
   case that hierarchical nesting of LSPs is used).  For the last node
   on the LSP, the outer MPLS header doesn't actually convey any useful
   information (except for one situation discussed below).




Callon & Suzuki              Informational                     [Page 73]

RFC 4110               A Framework for L3 PPVPNs               July 2005


   For this reason, the MPLS standards allow the egress node to request
   that the penultimate node strip the MPLS header.  If requested, this
   implies that the penultimate node does not have a valid label for the
   LSP, and must strip the MPLS header.  In this case, the egress node
   receives the packet with the corresponding MPLS header already
   stripped, and can forward the packet properly without needing to
   strip the header for the LSP which ends at that egress node.

   There is one case in which the MPLS header conveys useful
   information: This is in the case of a VPN-specific LSP terminating at
   a PE device.  In this case, the value of the label tells the PE which
   LSP the packet is arriving on, which in turn is used to determine
   which VFI is used for the packet (i.e., which VPN-specific forwarding
   table needs to be used to forward the packet).

   However, consider the case where multiple VPN-specific LSPs are
   multiplexed inside one PE-to-PE LSP.  Also, let's suppose that in
   this case the egress PE has chosen all incoming labels (for all LSPs)
   to be unique in the context of that PE.  This implies that the label
   associated with the PE-to-PE LSP is not needed by the egress node.
   Rather, it can determine which VFI to use based on the VPN-specific
   LSP.  In this case, the egress PE can request that the penultimate
   LSR performs penultimate label popping for the PE-to-PE LSP.  This
   eliminates one header lookup in the egress LSR.

   Note that penultimate node label popping is only applicable for VPN
   standards which use multiple levels of LSPs.  Even in this case
   penultimate node label popping is only done when the egress node
   specifically requests it from the penultimate node.

A.3.  Demultiplexing to Eliminate the Tunnel Egress VFI Lookup

   Consider a VPN standard which makes use of MPLS as the tunneling
   mechanism.  Any standard for encapsulating VPN traffic inside LSPs
   needs to specify what degree of granularity is available in terms of
   the manner in which user data traffic is assigned to LSPs.  In other
   words, for any given LSP, the ingress or egress PE device needs to
   know which LSPs need to be set up, and the ingress PE needs to know
   which set of VPN packets are allowed to be mapped to any particular
   LSP.

   Suppose that a VPN standard allows some flexibility in terms of the
   mapping of packets to LSPs, and suppose that the standard allows the
   egress node to determine the granularity.  In this case the egress
   node would need to have some way to indicate the granularity to the
   ingress node, so that the ingress node will know which packets can be
   mapped to each LSP.




Callon & Suzuki              Informational                     [Page 74]

RFC 4110               A Framework for L3 PPVPNs               July 2005


   In this case, the egress node might decide to have packets mapped to
   LSPs in a manner which simplifies the header lookup function at the
   egress node.  For example, the egress node could determine which set
   of packets it will forward to a particular neighbor CE device.  The
   egress node can then specify that the set of IP packets which are to
   use a particular LSP correspond to that specific set of packets.  For
   packets which arrive on the specified LSP, the egress node does not
   need to do a header lookup on the VPN's customer address space: It
   can just pop the MPLS header and forward the packet to the
   appropriate CE device.  If all LSPs are set up accordingly, then the
   egress node does not need to do any lookup for VPN traffic which
   arrives on LSPs from other PEs (in other words, the PE device will
   not need to do a second lookup in its role as an egress node).

   Note that PE devices will most likely also be an ingress routers for
   traffic going in the other direction.  The PE device will need to do
   an address lookup in the customer network's address space in its role
   as an ingress node.  However, in this direction the PE still needs to
   do only a single header lookup.

   When used with MPLS tunnels, this optional optimization reduces the
   need for header lookups, at the cost of possibly increasing the
   number of label values which need to be assigned (since one label
   would need to be assigned for each next-hop CE device, rather than
   just one label for every VFI).

   The same approach is also possible when other encapsulations are
   used, such as GRE [RFC2784] [RFC2890], IP-in-IP [RFC2003] [RFC2473],
   or IPsec [RFC2401] [RFC2402].  This requires that distinct values are
   used for the multiplexing field in the tunneling protocol.  See
   section 4.3.2 for detail.

Acknowledgments

   This document is output of the framework document design team of the
   PPVPN WG.  The members of the design team are listed in the
   "contributors" and "author's addresses" sections below.

   However, sources of this document are based on various inputs from
   colleagues of authors and contributors.  We would like to thank
   Junichi Sumimoto, Kosei Suzuki, Hiroshi Kurakami, Takafumi Hamano,
   Naoto Makinae, Kenichi Kitami, Rajesh Balay, Anoop Ghanwani, Harpreet
   Chadha, Samir Jain, Lianghwa Jou, Vijay Srinivasan, and Abbie
   Matthews.

   We would also like to thank Yakov Rekhter, Scott Bradner, Dave
   McDysan, Marco Carugi, Pascal Menezes, Thomas Nadeau, and Alex Zinin
   for their valuable comments and suggestions.



Callon & Suzuki              Informational                     [Page 75]

RFC 4110               A Framework for L3 PPVPNs               July 2005


Normative References

   [PPVPN-REQ]    Nagarajan, A., Ed., "Generic Requirements for Provider
                  Provisioned Virtual Private Networks (PPVPN)", RFC
                  3809, June 2004.

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

Informative References

   [BGP-COM]      Sangli, S., et al., "BGP Extended Communities
                  Attribute", Work In Progress, February 2005.

   [MPLS-DIFF-TE] Le Faucheur, F., Ed., "Protocol extensions for support
                  of Differentiated-Service-aware MPLS Traffic
                  Engineering", Work In Progress, December 2004.

   [VPN-2547BIS]  Rosen, E., et al., "BGP/MPLS VPNs", Work In Progress.

   [VPN-BGP-OSPF] Rosen, E., et al., "OSPF as the Provider/Customer Edge
                  Protocol for BGP/MPLS IP VPNs", Work In Progress, May
                  2005.

   [VPN-CE]       De Clercq, J., et al., "An Architecture for Provider
                  Provisioned CE-based Virtual Private Networks using
                  IPsec", Work In Progress.

   [VPN-DISC]     Ould-Brahim, H., et al., "Using BGP as an Auto-
                  Discovery Mechanism for Layer-3 and Layer-2 VPNs,"
                  Work In Progress.

   [VPN-L2]       Andersson, L. and E. Rosen, Eds., "Framework for Layer
                  2 Virtual Private Networks (L2VPNs)", Work In
                  Progress.

   [VPN-VR]       Knight, P., et al., "Network based IP VPN Architecture
                  Using Virtual Routers", Work In Progress, July 2002.

   [RFC1195]      Callon, R., "Use of OSI IS-IS for Routing in TCP/IP
                  and Dual Environments", RFC 1195, December 1990.









Callon & Suzuki              Informational                     [Page 76]

RFC 4110               A Framework for L3 PPVPNs               July 2005


   [RFC1771]      Rekhter, Y. and T. Li, "A Border Gateway Protocol 4
                  (BGP-4)", RFC 1771, March 1995.

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

   [RFC1966]      Bates, T., "BGP Route Reflection: An alternative to
                  full mesh IBGP", RFC 1966, June 1996.

   [RFC1997]      Chandra, R., Traina, P., and T. Li, "BGP Communities
                  Attribute", RFC 1997, February 2001.

   [RFC2003]      Perkins, C., "IP Encapsulation within IP", RFC 2003,
                  October 1996.

   [RFC2205]      Braden, R., Zhang, L., Berson, S., Herzog, S., and S.
                  Jamin, "Resource ReSerVation Protocol (RSVP) --
                  Version 1 Functional Specification", RFC 2205,
                  September 1997.

   [RFC2208]      Mankin, A., Ed., Baker, F., Braden, B., Bradner, S.,
                  O'Dell, M., Romanow, A., Weinrib, A., and L. Zhang,
                  "Resource ReSerVation Protocol (RSVP) Version 1
                  Applicability Statement Some Guidelines on
                  Deployment", RFC 2208, September 1997.

   [RFC2210]      Wroclawski, J., "The Use of RSVP with IETF Integrated
                  Services", RFC 2210, September 1997.

   [RFC2211]      Wroclawski, J., "Specification of the Controlled-Load
                  Network Element Service", RFC 2211, September 1997.

   [RFC2212]      Shenker, S., Partridge, C., and R. Guerin,
                  "Specification of Guaranteed Quality of Service", RFC
                  2212, September 1997.

   [RFC2207]      Berger, L. and T. O'Malley, "RSVP Extensions for IPSEC
                  Data Flows", RFC 2207, September 1997.

   [RFC2328]      Moy, J., "OSPF Version 2", STD 54, RFC 2328, April
                  1998.

   [RFC2401]      Kent, S. and R. Atkinson, "Security Architecture for
                  the Internet Protocol", RFC 2401, November 1998.

   [RFC2402]      Kent, S. and R. Atkinson, "IP Authentication Header",
                  RFC 2402, November 1998.



Callon & Suzuki              Informational                     [Page 77]

RFC 4110               A Framework for L3 PPVPNs               July 2005


   [RFC2406]      Kent, S. and R. Atkinson, "IP Encapsulating Security
                  Payload (ESP)", RFC 2406, November 1998.

   [RFC2409]      Harkins, D. and D. Carrel, "The Internet Key Exchange
                  (IKE)", RFC 2409, November 1998.

   [RFC2453]      Malkin, G., "RIP Version 2", STD 56, RFC 2453,
                  November 1994.

   [RFC2473]      Conta, A. and S. Deering, "Generic Packet Tunneling in
                  IPv6 Specification", RFC 2473, December 1998.

   [RFC2474]      Nichols, K., Blake, S., Baker, F., and D. Black,
                  "Definition of the Differentiated Services Field (DS
                  Field) in the IPv4 and IPv6 Headers", RFC 2474,
                  December 1998.

   [RFC2475]      Blake, S., Black, D., Carlson, M., Davies, E., Wang,
                  Z., and W. Weiss, "An architecture for Differentiated
                  Services", RFC 2475, December 1998.

   [RFC2597]      Heinanen, J., Baker, F., Weiss, W., and J. Wroclawski,
                  "Assured Forwarding PHB Group", RFC 2597, June 1999.

   [RFC2661]      Townsley, W., Valencia, A., Rubens, A., Pall, G.,
                  Zorn, G., and B. Palter, "Layer Two Tunneling Protocol
                  'L2TP'", RFC 2661, August 1999.

   [RFC2684]      Grossman, D. and J. Heinanen, "Multiprotocol
                  Encapsulation Over ATM Adaptation Layer 5", RFC 2684,
                  September 1999.

   [RFC2685]      Fox B. and B. Gleeson, "Virtual Private Networks
                  Identifier," RFC 2685, September 1999.

   [RFC2746]      Terzis, A., Krawczyk, J., Wroclawski, J., and L.
                  Zhang, "RSVP Operation Over IP Tunnels", RFC 2746,
                  January 2000.

   [RFC2764]      Gleeson, B., Lin, A., Heinanen, J., Armitage, G., and
                  A. Malis, "A Framework for IP Based Virtual Private
                  Networks", RFC 2764, February 2000.

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





Callon & Suzuki              Informational                     [Page 78]

RFC 4110               A Framework for L3 PPVPNs               July 2005


   [RFC2890]      Dommety, G., "Key and Sequence Number Extensions to
                  GRE", RFC 2890, September 2000.

   [RFC2858]      Bates, T., Rekhter, Y., Chandra, R., and D. Katz,
                  "Multiprotocol Extensions for BGP-4", RFC 2858, June
                  2000.

   [RFC2983]      Black, D., "Differentiated Services and Tunnels", RFC
                  2983, October 2000.

   [RFC3031]      Rosen, E., Viswanathan, A., and R. Callon,
                  "Multiprotocol Label Switching Architecture", RFC
                  3031, January 2001.

   [RFC3032]      Rosen E., Tappan, D., Fedorkow, G., Rekhter, Y.,
                  Farinacci, D., Li, T., and A. Conta, "MPLS Label Stack
                  Encoding", RFC 3032, January 2001.

   [RFC3035]      Davie, B., Lawrence, J., McCloghrie, K., Rosen, E.,
                  Swallow, G., Rekhter, Y., and P. Doolan, "MPLS using
                  LDP and ATM VC Switching", RFC 3035, January 2001.

   [RFC3065]      Traina, P., McPherson, D., and J. Scudder, "Autonomous
                  System Confederations for BGP", RFC 3065, June 1996.

   [RFC3209]      Awduche, D., Berger, L., Gan, D., Li, T., Srinivasan,
                  V., and G. Swallow, "RSVP-TE: Extensions to RSVP for
                  LSP Tunnels", RFC 3209, December 2001.

   [RFC3246]      Davie, B., Charny, A., Bennet, J.C.R., Benson, K., Le
                  Boudec, J.Y., Courtney, W., Davari, S., Firoiu, V.,
                  and D. Stiliadis, "An Expedited Forwarding PHB (Per-
                  Hop Behavior)", RFC 3246, March 2002.

   [RFC3270]      Le Faucheur, F., Wu, L., Davie, B., Davari, S.,
                  Vaananen, P., Krishnan, R., Cheval, P., and J.
                  Heinanen, "Multi-Protocol Label Switching (MPLS)
                  Support of Differentiated Services", RFC 3270, May
                  2002.

   [RFC3377]      Hodges, J. and R. Morgan, "Lightweight Directory
                  Access Protocol (v3): Technical Specification", RFC
                  3377, September 2002.








Callon & Suzuki              Informational                     [Page 79]

RFC 4110               A Framework for L3 PPVPNs               July 2005


Contributors' Addresses

   Jeremy De Clercq
   Alcatel
   Fr. Wellesplein 1,
   2018 Antwerpen, Belgium

   EMail: jeremy.de_clercq@alcatel.be


   Bryan Gleeson
   Nokia
   313 Fairchild Drive,
   Mountain View, CA 94043  USA.

   EMail: bryan.gleeson@nokia.com


   Andrew G. Malis
   Tellabs
   90 Rio Robles Drive
   San Jose, CA 95134  USA

   EMail: andy.malis@tellabs.com


   Karthik Muthukrishnan
   Lucent Technologies
   1 Robbins Road
   Westford, MA 01886, USA

   EMail: mkarthik@lucent.com


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

   EMail: erosen@cisco.com


   Chandru Sargor
   Redback Networks
   300 Holger Way
   San Jose, CA 95134, USA

   EMail: apricot+l3vpn@redback.com



Callon & Suzuki              Informational                     [Page 80]

RFC 4110               A Framework for L3 PPVPNs               July 2005


   Jieyun Jessica Yu
   University of California, Irvine
   5201 California Ave., Suite 150,
   Irvine, CA, 92697  USA

   EMail: jyy@uci.edu

Authors' Addresses

   Ross Callon
   Juniper Networks
   10 Technology Park Drive
   Westford, MA 01886-3146, USA

   EMail: rcallon@juniper.net


   Muneyoshi Suzuki
   NTT Information Sharing Platform Labs.
   3-9-11, Midori-cho,
   Musashino-shi, Tokyo 180-8585, Japan

   EMail: suzuki.muneyoshi@lab.ntt.co.jp




























Callon & Suzuki              Informational                     [Page 81]

RFC 4110               A Framework for L3 PPVPNs               July 2005


Full Copyright Statement

   Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2005).

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

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

Intellectual Property

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

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

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

Acknowledgement

   Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the
   Internet
   gement






Callon & Suzuki              Informational                     [Page 82]

