Re: [IPsec] Some comments / questions on draft-ietf-ipsecme-ad-vpn-problem

[Lou Berger <[e-mail]>]

Sounds like a plan.  Thanks for the quick response(s).

Lou


On 11/16/2012 2:10 PM, Vishwas Manral wrote:
> Thanks Lou,
> 
> Let me heard back from the WG on this, if they have any opinion. If not
> we can go ahead with your suggestion.
> 
> -Vishwas
> 
> On Fri, Nov 16, 2012 at 11:00 AM, Lou Berger <[e-mail]
> <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
> 
>     Vishwas,
> 
>     On 11/16/2012 1:48 PM, Vishwas Manral wrote:
>     > Hi Lou,
>     >
>     > Got it. Can you suggest some text for this? I will try to incorporate
>     > the same into the document.
> 
>     Assuming you don't like my prior attempt:
>     X.  The solution SHOULD support BGP/MPLS IP VPNs, see [RFC4364].
> 
>     How about something like:
>     X. The solution MUST support Provider Edge (PE) based VPNs.
> 
>     Note that this phrasing doesn't indicate a specific solutions which is
>     why I now suggest "MUST" vs "SHOULD".
> 
>     Lou
> 
>     >
>     > Thanks,
>     > Vishwas
>     >
>     > On Fri, Nov 16, 2012 at 10:44 AM, Lou Berger <[e-mail]
>     <mailto:[e-mail]>
>     > <mailto:[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>> wrote:
>     >
>     >     Vishwas,
>     >             Sure, but it's the BGP information that indicates what
>     IPsec
>     >     tunnels
>     >     are needed / when the SAs get established...
>     >
>     >     Again, I just asking for language that points to this use
>     case, not
>     >     implementation details.
>     >
>     >     Thanks,
>     >     Lou
>     >
>     >     On 11/16/2012 1:34 PM, Vishwas Manral wrote:
>     >     > Hi Lou,
>     >     >
>     >     >> I'm not sure I agree with this statement.  Let's say you have
>     >     >> a BGP VPN that uses IPsec tunnels between the PEs (which
>     >     >> was described in a couple of expired drafts and can be
>     supported
>     >     >> using RFC5566), and then wants to be able to use dynamic PE
>     >     >> to PE IPsec tunnels.  Does this fit your "2 different layer"
>     >     >> perspective?
>     >     > IPsec with ADVPN secures the tunnel and creates the mesh
>     underlay on
>     >     > need basis/ or automatically. L3VPN creates the overlay,
>     >     identifies the
>     >     > tenant/ customer a packet belongs to and passes the packet on.
>     >     >
>     >     > Where do we see the need for tighter integration here? Is it
>     allowing
>     >     > the ability to create groups of ADVPN instances?
>     >     >
>     >     > Thanks,
>     >     > Vishwas
>     >     >
>     >     > On Fri, Nov 16, 2012 at 10:16 AM, Lou Berger
>     <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>     >     <mailto:[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>
>     >     > <mailto:[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>     <mailto:[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>>> wrote:
>     >     >
>     >     >     Vishwas,
>     >     >
>     >     >     Please see below.
>     >     >
>     >     >     On 11/16/2012 12:49 PM, Vishwas Manral wrote:
>     >     >     > Hi Lou,
>     >     >     >
>     >     >     > Thanks for the quick reply. Just a few comments prefixed
>     >     with a "VM>":
>     >     >     >
>     >     >     >     >
>     >     >     >     > We can add something in the lines of additional
>     protocols
>     >     >     are run over
>     >     >     >     > the IPsec tunnels and the solution should make an
>     >     effort to
>     >     >     allow for
>     >     >     >     > additional protocols like OSPF to be run
>     optimally without
>     >     >     too many
>     >     >     >     > changes in configuration.
>     >     >     >     >
>     >     >     >     > Infact we have a requirement to the effect in
>     section 4.1
>     >     >     >
>     >     >     >     yes, this is what I referred to as 4.2 below, and
>     >     suggested some
>     >     >     >     replacement text...
>     >     >     >
>     >     >     > OK got it.
>     >     >     >
>     >     >     >     >
>     >     >     >     >     Gateways MUST allow tunnel binding, such that
>     >     >     applications like
>     >     >     >     >    Routing using the tunnels can work seamlessly
>     >     without any
>     >     >     >     updates to
>     >     >     >     >    the higher level application configuration
>     i.e.  OSPF
>     >     >     >     configuration.
>     >     >     >     >
>     >     >     >     >     - In section 4.2, how about:
>     >     >     >     >        (replacement text)
>     >     >     >     >        3.  Gateways MUST allow for the operation of
>     >     >     tunneling and
>     >     >     >     >        routing protocols operating over
>     spoke-to-spoke
>     >     IPsec
>     >     >     Tunnels
>     >     >     >     >        with minimal, or no, configuration impact.
>     >     >     >
>     >     >     > VM> Ok will specifically specify tunnels and routing
>     protocols.
>     >     >     >
>     >     >
>     >     >     Great.
>     >     >
>     >     >     >
>     >     >     >     >
>     >     >     >     >
>     >     >     >     >        X.  The solution SHOULD support BGP/MPLS IP
>     >     VPNs, see
>     >     >     >     [RFC4364].
>     >     >     >     >
>     >     >     >     >     If you want, you can make the "SHOULD" a
>     "MUST", and
>     >     >     "support"
>     >     >     >     could be
>     >     >     >     >     "be compatible with".
>     >     >     >     >
>     >     >     >     > I do not want to go ahead into details of what other
>     >     routing
>     >     >     solutions
>     >     >     >     > it should support.
>     >     >     >     >
>     >     >     >     > With that said I am not sure what you mean by
>     having BGP
>     >     >     MPLS VPN
>     >     >     >     in an
>     >     >     >     > ADVPN scenario. BGP MPLS VPN is a provider
>     provisioned VPN
>     >     >     solution,
>     >     >     >     > this is a customer provisioned one.
>     >     >     >
>     >     >     >     Ahh, interesting point.  When I read the document
>     I was
>     >     >     looking to see
>     >     >     >     if it was scoped purely to CE/customer based
>     solutions.
>     >     >      Reading section
>     >     >     >     2 (intro) and 2.2, I saw no such restriction.  So
>     I think
>     >     >     section 2.2
>     >     >     >     should be explicit on this point either way. Which
>     is why I
>     >     >     proposed the
>     >     >     >     text "There is also the case when L3VPNs operate
>     over IPsec
>     >     >     Tunnels."
>     >     >     >     (To explicitly include this case.)  If the WG
>     wants this
>     >     case
>     >     >     excluded,
>     >     >     >     that's fine too.
>     >     >     >
>     >     >     > VM> It is not scoped purely as a CE device scenario, and
>     >     after seeing
>     >     >     > your comment I see no reason to leave that out of scope
>     >     (though if I
>     >     >     > understand your concern better I may feel otherwise).
>     L3VPN
>     >     can work
>     >     >     > over GRE tunnels/ L2TP tunnels, which can themselves
>     use IPsec.
>     >     >     Again in
>     >     >     > my view the L3VPN and the IPsec VPN are 2 different layers
>     >     in the
>     >     >     stack
>     >     >     > if they run on the same device.
>     >     >
>     >     >     I'm not sure I agree with this statement.  Let's say you
>     have
>     >     a BGP VPN
>     >     >     that uses IPsec tunnels between the PEs (which was described
>     >     in a couple
>     >     >     of expired drafts and can be supported using RFC5566), and
>     >     then wants to
>     >     >     be able to use dynamic PE to PE IPsec tunnels.  Does
>     this fit
>     >     your "2
>     >     >     different layer" perspective?
>     >     >
>     >     >     Either way, I think such usage should be explicitly in scope
>     >     as it is a
>     >     >     very different model / use case from CE-based IPsec VPNs.
>     >     >
>     >     >     > Do you see a reason to explicitly
>     >     >     > mention L3VPN in this case?
>     >     >
>     >     >     I'm open to different ways to cover the above.
>     >     >
>     >     >     Much thanks,
>     >     >     Lou
>     >     >     >
>     >     >     > Thanks,
>     >     >     > Vishwas
>     >     >     >
>     >     >     >
>     >     >     >
>     >     >     >     > I see the 2 working in different
>     >     >     >     > layers, and interacting only in edge gateways
>     where both
>     >     >     solutions
>     >     >     >     have
>     >     >     >     > an edge.
>     >     >     >
>     >     >     >     Sure, but the problem exists for both.
>     >     >     >
>     >     >     >     Thanks,
>     >     >     >     Lou
>     >     >     >     >
>     >     >     >     >
>     >     >     >     >     I also have a few more minor comments:
>     >     >     >     >
>     >     >     >     > I am ok with the minor suggestions you have.
>     >     >     >     >
>     >     >     >     > Thanks,
>     >     >     >     > Vishwas
>     >     >     >     >
>     >     >     >     >
>     >     >     >     >
>     >     >     >     >     - In section 2.1, you introduce the term "NAT
>     >     gateway" and
>     >     >     >     then later
>     >     >     >     >     use just "gateway" when I suspect you mean "NAT
>     >     gateway".  I
>     >     >     >     suggest
>     >     >     >     >     using the term "NAT" and thereby not introduce
>     >     possible
>     >     >     confusion
>     >     >     >     >     between the gateway term defined in section 1.1
>     >     and "NAT
>     >     >     >     gateways".
>     >     >     >     >
>     >     >     >     >     - In section 2.2, s/occupies/requires
>     >     >     >     >
>     >     >     >     >     - In sections 2.2, and Section 3.2 you say
>     dynamic
>     >     >     addresses makes
>     >     >     >     >     static configuration impossible.  This
>     doesn't reflect
>     >     >     the use of
>     >     >     >     >     dynamic dns to handle this issues (and is
>     currently
>     >     >     supported
>     >     >     >     by some
>     >     >     >     >     vendors.)
>     >     >     >     >
>     >     >     >     >     Let me know what you think,
>     >     >     >     >     Lou
>     >     >     >     >     _______________________________________________
>     >     >     >     >     IPsec mailing list
>     >     >     >     >     [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>     <mailto:[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>
>     >     <mailto:[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>     <mailto:[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>>
>     >     >     <mailto:[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>     <mailto:[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>
>     >     <mailto:[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>     <mailto:[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>>>
>     >     >     <mailto:[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>     <mailto:[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>
>     >     <mailto:[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>     <mailto:[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>>
>     >     >     >     <mailto:[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>     <mailto:[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>
>     >     <mailto:[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>     <mailto:[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>>>>
>     >     >     >     >     https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec
>     >     >     >     >
>     >     >     >     >
>     >     >     >     >
>     >     >     >
>     >     >     >
>     >     >
>     >     >
>     >
>     >
> 
>