Re: [bess] comments and suggestions to draft-rosen-bess-secure-l3vpn-01

[Linda Dunbar <[e-mail]>]

Robert,

Two parts:

-        Exchange between SD-WAN Local controller & CPEs for resolving Tunnel end point, Tunnel Auto Configuration,

-        Peer CPEs exchange routes of VPN route and Internet Route. We are talking about CPE based VPN.

It seems to us that draft-rosen-bess-secure-l3vpn is to address Peer CPEs have both VPN paths and Internet paths. Therefore, we are hoping it can cover SD-WAN case when each CPE have multiple WAN paths and are controlled by local controller (instead of factory default central controller which is only used for Zero Touch Provisioning).

Linda


From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Robert Raszuk
Sent: Friday, July 06, 2018 3:13 PM
To: Linda Dunbar <[e-mail]>
Cc: Ron Bonica <[e-mail]>; Eric Rosen <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]
Subject: Re: [bess] comments and suggestions to draft-rosen-bess-secure-l3vpn-01

Hi Linda,

What you are expressing is very clear and in fact happens today on any good SD-WAN controller.

But in the context of this discussion are you bringing it here to suggest that draft-rosen-bess-secure-l3vpn should have such functionality build in ?

Personally I don't think it really belongs in this draft as perfect sweet spot for it still IMHO resides on a SD-WAN controller. Pushing all that logic into BGP may be a bit excessive ...

Many thx,
R.


On Fri, Jul 6, 2018 at 9:32 PM, Linda Dunbar <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
Ron,

This is referring to a Managed Overlay WAN services with many CPEs (large scale SD-WAN) and where

-        there are many CPEs at each location and multiple WAN ports on each CPE

-        SD-WAN Controller needs to detour a path between Site -A-&  Site-B via another site (e.g. Site-C) for reasons like Performance, Regulatory,  or others. Instead of designating to specific CPE of the site-C.

It is preferable to partition CPEs to clusters, as shown in the figure below:

[cid:image002.png@01D4153D.3CD88C40]

Do I explain well? If not, can we talk face to face in Montreal?

Thanks, Linda Dunbar

From: Ron Bonica [mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>]
Sent: Friday, July 06, 2018 1:25 PM
To: Linda Dunbar <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>; Eric Rosen <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>; [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: comments and suggestions to draft-rosen-bess-secure-l3vpn-01

Hi Linda,

I’m not sure that I understand what you mean when you say, “aggregate CPE-based VPN routes with internet routes that interconnect the CPEs”. Could you elaborate?

                                                            Ron


From: Linda Dunbar <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Sent: Thursday, July 5, 2018 11:53 AM
To: Eric Rosen <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>; Ron Bonica <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>; [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
Subject: comments and suggestions to draft-rosen-bess-secure-l3vpn-01

Eric and Ron,

We think that the method described in your draft is useful for CPE based EVPN, especially for SD-WAN between CPEs.
But, it misses some aspects to aggregate CPE-based VPN routes with internet routes that interconnect the CPEs.

Question to you: Would you like to expand your draft to cover the scenario of aggregating CPE-based VPN routes with internet routes that interconnect the CPEs?

If yes, we think the following areas are needed:


•        For RR communication with CPE, this draft only mentioned IPSEC. Are there any reasons that TLS/DTLS are not added?

•        The draft assumes that C-PE “register” with the RR. But it doesn’t say how. Should “NHRP” (modified version) be considered?

•        It assumes that C-PE and RR are connected by IPsec tunnel. With zero touch provisioning, we need an automatic way to synchronize the IPSec SA between C-PE and RR. The draft assumes:

•  A C-PE must also be provisioned with whatever additional information is needed in order to set up an IPsec SA with each of the red RRs

•        IPsec requires periodic refreshment of the keys. How to synchronize the refreshment among multiple nodes?

•        IPsec usually only send configuration parameters to two end points and let the two end points to negotiate the KEY. Now we assume that RR is responsible for creating the KEY for all end points. When one end point is confiscated, all other connections are impacted.

If you are open to expand your draft to cover SD-WAN, we can help providing the sections to address the bullets mentioned above.

We have a draft analyzing the technological gaps when using SD-WAN to interconnect workloads & apps hosted in various locations: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-dm-net2cloud-gap-analysis/<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__datatracker.ietf.org_doc_draft-2Ddm-2Dnet2cloud-2Dgap-2Danalysis_&d=DwMFAg&c=HAkYuh63rsuhr6Scbfh0UjBXeMK-ndb3voDTXcWzoCI&r=Fch9FQ82sir-BoLx84hKuKwl-AWF2EfpHcAwrDThKP8&m=zU9RrstHx08_qwVE-_wbaPcJUwA0Cx7W9wg4K6cDAOs&s=1SH5CDBkEFKTyKPWRpPpy-dfxkl19-hrgXiR7nRkq50&e=>
Appreciate your comments and suggestions to our gap analysis.


Thanks, Linda Dunbar


_______________________________________________
BESS mailing list
[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess