Re: [bess] New Version Notification for draft-rosen-bess-secure-l3vpn-00.txt

[<[e-mail]>]

Hi Robert,

Thanks for sharing your point of view. I think we just have a different reading/understanding of the goals.
I do not disagree with what you say.

I was not seeing this as an SD-WAN like solution. At least it is not presented this way.
I understood the draft as how can I overcome some security concerns today with PPVPN.

I’m fine to build automated VPNs over a public infra like Internet ☺
If we want to make this solution more SDWAN like (I do not mean a full SDWAN solution), we need to involve more automation, especially setup of RRs and BGP sessions…

Again, as I mentioned, the multitenancy is more a nice to have: most of customers do not need this.


Brgds,

Stephane



From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Robert Raszuk
Sent: Thursday, June 14, 2018 11:13
To: LITKOWSKI Stephane OBS/OINIS
Cc: Ron Bonica; [e-mail]
Subject: Re: [bess] New Version Notification for draft-rosen-bess-secure-l3vpn-00.txt

Hello Stephane,

I read the draft with deep interest. In my opinion I completely have opposite view to yours - "niche use case" - quite contrary connecting customer sites over open infrastructure have already started to happen in large scale globally.

It is not about adding IPSec tunnel here and there - the crux is about automating it to accommodate very large scale deployments. Perhaps your comment is based on this specific point that IPSec today created manually is a niche and therefor automating it does not make sense. But this is not about it. It is about transition from SP operated L3VPNs into an alternative L3VPN paradigm.

Yes I understand that the draft may not be very comfortable for SPs who's review comes from locking customer to MPLS-L3VPN backbone just like in the old days they were locking customer to Frame Relay or ATM backbones :).

Maybe our definitions of niche is a bit different, but when I look at the market cap of SD-WAN vendors it seems like if you would call as niche an ant in the forest here we are watching an army of elephants entering the woods.

Yes the draft is just first important step towards standards based open infra secure interconnects - it can not be treated as full SD-WAN spec as it is missing a lot of important functionalities today addressed in more or less proprietary way by any such vendor.

The technology is not new too ...  since day one we had Carrier's Carrier solution when customers could exchange their routes directly. We also had tunnel encapsulation attribute in place where we could signal various parameters of given encap. However putting it all together as Eric did in this document is IMHO a very important step fwd especially coming under the umbrella of one specific affiliation :).

I do support this work and I hope this is just one brick which we can start build on going forward standards based interoperable secure connectivity over open public IP infrastructure.

Kind regards,
Robert.








On Thu, Jun 14, 2018 at 8:17 AM, <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
Hi Ron,

I have read quickly the document.
I think the use case of having secure L3VPNs is valid and we already have all (or most of) the technology building blocks to do it.
Now the draft takes a complete upside down approach comparing to our well known L3VPNs which are provider provisioned VPNs as you propose to build them at the CE side.
This could be a valid approach but isn't it a niche use case ?

Customer sites connected over the Internet is for sure a use case to handle, and we already to it today by establishing an IPSec tunnel towards an SP-PE, the tunnel ends in the customer VRF.
Customer data must not be exposed: also a valid use case. We have some customers doing IPSec transport within MPLS VPN for some specific traffic. On the other hand, from an SP point of view, when core links are not fully trusted, MACSEC or IPSec are also options.

I'm less convinced by the routing that should not be exposed. I agree that this is a possibility and a valid use case but I do not think that this is a big deal for most of customers (even those requiring more security). The good thing of MPLS VPN is the routing complexity is almost pushed to the SP and the customer has few things to do and they are happy with that.

The last case of the multitenancy on the customer side is also valid, but I also think that it is a niche use case.

My point is that the draft is currently focusing on one scenario which in my opinion addresses a niche use case while there may be intermediate scenarios (like no multitenancy and/or no need of routing protection) that could be more widely applicable.

Brgds,

Stephane


-----Original Message-----
From: BESS [mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>] On Behalf Of Ron Bonica
Sent: Monday, June 11, 2018 21:56
To: [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
Subject: [bess] FW: New Version Notification for draft-rosen-bess-secure-l3vpn-00.txt

Folks,

Please review and comment on this draft.

                                          Ron


-----Original Message-----
From: [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]> <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Sent: Monday, June 11, 2018 3:49 PM
To: Ron Bonica <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>; Eric Rosen <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>; Eric Rosen <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Subject: New Version Notification for draft-rosen-bess-secure-l3vpn-00.txt


A new version of I-D, draft-rosen-bess-secure-l3vpn-00.txt
has been successfully submitted by Eric C. Rosen and posted to the IETF repository.

Name:           draft-rosen-bess-secure-l3vpn
Revision:       00
Title:          Augmenting RFC 4364 Technology to Provide Secure Layer L3VPNs over Public Infrastructure
Document date:  2018-06-11
Group:          Individual Submission
Pages:          19
URL:         https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-rosen-bess-secure-l3vpn-00
Status:     https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-rosen-bess-secure-l3vpn/
Htmlized:  https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-rosen-bess-secure-l3vpn-00
Htmlized:  https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-rosen-bess-secure-l3vpn


Abstract:
   The Layer 3 Virtual Private Network (VPN) technology described in RFC
   4364 is focused on the scenario in which a network Service Provider
   (SP) maintains a secure backbone network and offers VPN service over
   that network to its customers.  Customers access the SP's network by
   attaching "Customer Edge" (CE) routers to "Provider Edge" (PE)
   routers, and exchanging cleartext IP packets.  PE routers generally
   serve multiple customers, and prevent unauthorized communication
   among customers.  Customer data sent across the backbone (from one PE
   to another) is encapsulated in MPLS, using an MPLS label to associate
   a given packet with a given customer.  The labeled packets are then
   sent across the backbone network in the clear, using MPLS transport.
   However, many customers want a VPN service that is secure enough to
   run over the public Internet, and which does not require them to send
   cleartext IP packets to a service provider.  Often they want to
   connect directly to edge nodes of the public Internet, which does not
   provide MPLS support.  Each customer may itself have multiple tenants
   who are not allowed to intercommunicate with each other freely.  In
   this case, the customer many need to provide a VPN service for the
   tenants.  This document describes a way in which this can be achieved
   using the technology of RFC 4364.  The functionality assigned therein
   to a PE router can be placed instead in Customer Premises Equipment.
   This functionality can be augmented by transmitting MPLS packets
   through IPsec Security Associations.  The BGP control plane sessions
   can also be protected by IPsec.  This allows a customer to use RFC
   4364 technology to provide VPN service to its internal departments,
   while sending only IPsec-protected packets to the Internet or other
   backbone network, and eliminating the need for MPLS transport in the
   backbone.




Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org<http://tools.ietf.org>.

The IETF Secretariat

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

Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc
pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler
a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration,
Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou falsifie. Merci.

This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged information that may be protected by law;
they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation.
If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this message and its attachments.
As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been modified, changed or falsified.
Thank you.

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


_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc
pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler
a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration,
Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou falsifie. Merci.

This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged information that may be protected by law;
they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation.
If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this message and its attachments.
As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been modified, changed or falsified.
Thank you.