RE: VPN4DC at L3VPN in Taipei

["Luyuan Fang (lufang)" <[e-mail]>]

See my reply to Ben.
Luyuan

> -----Original Message-----
> From: UTTARO, JAMES [mailto:[e-mail]]
> Sent: Tuesday, October 11, 2011 4:31 PM
> To: 'Ben Niven-Jenkins'; Luyuan Fang (lufang)
> Cc: [e-mail]
> Subject: RE: VPN4DC at L3VPN in Taipei
> 
> +1 on Ben's comments in re what functionality is missing in the
current
> L3VPN specification. I believe a detailed set of requirements will go
a
> long way in making this work applicable..
> 
> Jim Uttaro
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf
> Of Ben Niven-Jenkins
> Sent: Tuesday, October 11, 2011 2:13 PM
> To: Luyuan Fang
> Cc: [e-mail]
> Subject: Re: VPN4DC at L3VPN in Taipei
> 
> Luyuan,
> 
> <hat="l3VPN chair">
> 
> Some comments inline.
> 
> On 11 Oct 2011, at 08:36, Luyuan Fang (lufang) wrote:
> 
> > As Marshall indicated last week: VPN4DC will be discussed in the
> L3VPN
> > WG meeting in Taipei per Routing ADs' arrangement.
> > There will be no BOF.
> > I am posting the VPN4DC BOF proposal (provided to AD on 10/2/2011)
> here
> > for the record.
> > Hope this helps to provide additional background information, and
> > attract more interested participants.
> 
> > VPN4DC BOF Proposal:
> >
> > Working Group Name: Virtual Private Networks for Data Centers
> (VPN4DC)
> > IETF Area: Routing Area
> > Routing Area Director: Stewart Bryant ([e-mail])
> > Description of the Working Group:
> >
> > The purpose of the VPN4DC is to define requirements and solutions
for
> > establishing end-to-end (host-to-host) connectivity through layer 3
> VPN
> > for Data Center and Cloud Services.
> >
> > (Note: The term layer 3 VPN here implies any type of IP technologies
> for
> > VPN. For example, IP VPN, BGP/MPLS VPN, or the combination of
> different
> > types of layer 3 VPNs to form end-to-end VPN solutions. These VPNs
> may
> > or may not be provisioned by Service Providers.)
> >
> > Today when Data Centers are inter-connected through VPNs or other
WAN
> > networks, the provisioning process for cloud services cross Service
> > Providers' and Enterprise's Data Centers, or cross different Service
> > Providers' Data Centers, is often manual, with long turn up time.
> > Security, scalability, and operational efficiency are issues due to
> lack
> > of standardized host-to-host VPN solutions.
> > Modern data-centers require multi-tenant support for applications.
> For
> > security and administrative reasons it is desirable to isolate the
> > resources associated with a particular tenant in a VPN. This
> workgroup
> > will propose standard mechanisms to provide Layer 3 VPN connectivity
> to
> > end-systems while meeting scaling and manageability goals. This WG
> will
> > define requirements and protocol solutions to enable hosts in a Data
> > Center to join a specific Layer 3 VPN automatically through control
> > protocols, using Layer 3 VPN to provide secure any to any
> connections.
> > The Layer 3 VPN Gateway function which provides seamless VPN
> > connectivity between the segments of the networks will be defined.
> >
> > In addition to proposing one or more layer 3 VPN technologies which
> > support(s) end-systems, the WG will focus on interoperability
between
> > inter and intra DC VPN technologies and in making the VPN network
> > topology information available and controllable by applications.
> >
> > Both of the following scenarios will be in scope:
> >
> > 1.	When VPN management system and Data Center management system can
> > communicate with each other,  the WG will identify the requirement
> and
> > protocols to automatically enable hosts in a Data Center to join a
> > specific VPN
> >
> > 2.	When VPN management system and Data Center management system
> > can't communicate (which is often the case), the WG will identify
the
> > requirement and protocols to automatically enable hosts in a Data
> Center
> > to join a specific VPN.
> > The scope of the charter is limited to Layer 3 VPN solutions for
Data
> > Center and Cloud Services with end-to-end connectivity.
> 
> I will admit I may not have read all the related drafts but IMO it
> would be good if the proposal or the drafts could be more explicit
with
> regard to what functionality is already performed by L3VPN, what
> functionality is missing but you think comes under the remit of L3VPN
> and what functionality is required but is (at least currently) out of
> scope for L3VPN.
> 
> For example, (and I may have got the wrong end of the stick here) but
> my understanding from what I have read is that the goal is to
> interconnect machines (virtual or physical) in data centers via L3VPNs
> to other machines (virtual or physical) in the same or different data
> centers while also considering that those machines may move over time
> due to any number of reasons.
> 
> Today a customer of a VPN service can advertise which IP addresses are
> in which sites attached to that VPN service using a routing protocol
> over the CE-PE link (e.g. via OSPF) and that information is reflected
> to the relevant   PEs in that VPN service using MP-BGP.
> 
> It would be useful IMO if you could describe why that is not
sufficient
> for your needs and how the current capabilities of L3VPNs map (or do
> not) to your needs. Is it just that the "CE" is no longer the access
> router for a VPN site but now starts to be implemented within a
> switch/router/hypervisor sat behind the access router? Is it that the
> CE (access router) still advertises routing to the PE as it would
today
> but you are proposing some additional mechanism for installing state
> into switches/routers/hypervisors behind that CE and for how those
> switches/routers/hypervisors advertise that state to the CE for onward
> advertisement (by existing L3VPN mechanisms) to the upstream PE for
> that VPN site? Is it that the existing CE-PE advertisement mechanisms
> are unsuitable for some reason and a new CE-PE protocol is required?
> etc.
> 
> >
> > Non-goals: Layer 2 connectivity, and layer 3 Multicast.
> >
> > The design principle for the protocols and solution development is
to
> > leverage existing layer 3 VPN technologies already defined in IETF
> > whenever possible, including various IP and MPLS technologies. This
> > charter supports the creation of new protocols, extension to
existing
> > protocols, and solutions proposed to use new and existing protocols.
> > When extending existing protocols, this WG will work with the WG(s)
> > responsible for the protocol being extended.
> >
> > BOF Agenda for IETF 82
> > November, 2011, Taibei
> > -	Discuss and agree on charter definitions: problems space, scope,
> > requirements, candidate solutions, general interests, encourage
> > participation from DC groups and from SP groups
> > -	Present initial draft of problem statements
> > -	Present initial draft of requirements
> > -	Present initial draft of use cases
> > -	Present one or more initial draft(s) of protocol solution(s)
> 
> While the topics above are valid topics to discuss I think it would
> also be beneficial to include specific aims for what you think the
> meeting should achieve beyond just presenting drafts and discussing
> material.
> 
> For example:
> - Is the aim to discuss the work in general and receive feedback on it
> from the IETF community but nothing further at this stage?
> - Is the aim to determine if there is consensus that the work is work
> that is required and should be taken on by IETF?
> - Is the aim to determine if the work does/does not fit within the
> scope of L3VPN?
> - etc (including some combination of the above).
> 
> 
> > Goals and Milestones for the proposed Working Group
> 
> I think this list is far too long and likely to end up with any
related
> discussion becoming unfocussed. Furthermore some of the milestones are
> pretty vague and essentially consist of "submit some more stuff for
> publication".
> 
> I'd suggest cutting it down considerably and focussing it on the most
> important items required to articulate the problem space, requirements
> & solutions in order to do something meaningful as a first step and
> have the scope/charter/problem space drafts describe why that initial
> focus is what you are proposing it should be in order to firstly help
> focus any discussions on the most important elements in order to
reduce
> the risk of significant tangential discussions and secondly in order
to
> demonstrate that there is a clear focus/outcome that you can envisage
> and that this is not intended to be an open ended project without
clear
> goals and without any definition of when an acceptable (first stage)
> "end game" result has been achieved.
> 
> I'm happy to work with you (and I'm sure Marshall is too) either on
the
> list of off-list (before bringing it back to the list to invite
> additional discussion on any changes) to iterate your proposal and the
> structure of the agenda/charter/milestones to try and ensure the
> discussion and outcome of the meeting is as fruitful as possible for
> you.
> 
> Ben
> 
> >
> > March 2012    Post strawman WG goals and charter description
> > March 2012    Identify and document a limited set of candidate L3
VPN
> > solutions for DC
> > March 2012    Build small design teams for each proposed solution
and
> > requirement doc
> > March 2012    Submit additional protocol definition draft(s)
> > July 2012	  Submit problem statements, use case, and requirement
> > drafts as WG documents
> > July 2012     Submit initial draft of Framework document
> > July 2012	  Submit protocol solutions as WG documents
> > July 2012	  Design teams to narrow down to small set of solutions
> > to be focused by WG
> > July 2012 	  Submit applicability statements for solutions
> proposed
> >
> > July 2012     Post modified WG goals and charter with more details
on
> > solutions and timelines
> > Nov. 2012     Submit problem statements, use cases, and requirements
> > draft to IESG for review
> > Nov. 2012	  Submit the protocol solutions to IESG for review
> > Nov. 2012	  Submit Framework document as WG document
> > Nov. 2012	  Submit applicability statements as WG documents
> > Nov. 2012     Submit more protocol solutions as WG documents
> > Nov. 2012     Submit initial OAM drafts
> > Nov. 2012     Submit initial discovery protocol drafts
> > Nov. 2012     Submit initial security framework draft
> > Nov. 2012     Submit initial MIB drafts
> > March 2013    Submit framework draft to IESG for review
> > March 2013	  Submit more protocol solutions and applicability
> > drafts to IESG for review
> > March 2013    Submit OAM drafts as WG document
> > March 2013    Submit more protocols and applicability drafts  as WG
> > document
> > March 2013    Post modified charter based on the progress of the WG
> > July 2013     Submit more protocol solutions and applicability
drafts
> to
> > IESG for review
> > July 2013     Submit more protocol solutions and applicability
drafts
> as
> > WG doc
> > July 2013     Submit security framework draft as WG document
> > July 2013	  Submit discovery protocol drafts as WG documents
> > July 2013	  Submit MIB drafts as WG documents
> > July 2013	  Submit more protocols and applicability drafts
> > Nov. 2013     Submit OAM drafts for IESG review
> > Nov. 2013     Submit discovery protocol drafts for IESG review
> > Nov. 2013	  Submit more protocol solutions and applicability
> > drafts to IESG for review
> > Nov. 2013     Submit more protocol solutions and applicability
drafts
> as
> > WG doc
> > Nov 2013      Submit Inter-op report
> > Nov 2013	  Post modified charter based on the progress of the WG
> > March 2014    Submit security framework draft for IESG review
> > March 2014	  Submit MIB drafts for IESG review
> > March 2014 	  Submit more protocol solutions and applicability
> > drafts to IESG for review
> >
> > In addition to the meeting in L3VPN WG session, we will also hold
Bar
> > BOF meeting(s) in Taipei for those who are interested working on the
> > subject to discuss and work together.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Luyuan
> >
> >
> >
> >>
--------------------------------------------------------------------
> --
> >>
> >> Message: 1
> >> Date: Tue, 4 Oct 2011 14:20:30 -0400
> >> From: Marshall Eubanks <[e-mail]>
> >> To: L3VPN <[e-mail]>, [e-mail],	Adrian Farrel
> >> 	<[e-mail]>
> >> Subject: VPN4DC at L3VPN in Taipei.
> >> Message-ID:
> >> 	<CAJNg7V+-
> >> [e-mail]>
> >> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
> >>
> >> Stewart Bryant has requested that we hold an L3VPN meeting at IETF
> 82
> >> to consider and discuss VPN4DC.
> >> Specifically, we would
> >>
> >> "need to emerge understanding the problem,
> >> the usage, the requirements, and the necessary charter changes."
> >>
> >> This would be preparation for VPN4DC becoming a BOF.
> >>
> >> Adrian set up some requirements for this meeting :
> >>
> >> The problem needs to be discussed on the L3VPN list.
> >>
> >> You need to have viable  -00 drafts before the cutoff.
> >>
> >> Luyuan Fang has promised a draft before the cutoff.
> >>
> >> If there is not significant discussion here on this issue, the
> session
> >> is likely to be canceled.
> >>
> >> Please keep discussion of VPN4DC here on the L3VPN list.
> >>
> >> Due to the tentative nature and special purpose of this meeting I
> >> don't think it is appropriate to make
> >> a general call for papers. However, if you would like to speak on
> >> VPN4DC, please prepare  a draft and let us (the WG Co-chairs) know.
> >>
> >> Regards
> >> Marshall
> >>
> >> P.S. Some background :
> >>
> >> http://www6.ietf.org/proceedings/81/slides/opsawg-3.pdf (page 17)
> >> http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-so-vdcs-01.txt
> >>
> >>
> >> ------------------------------
> >>
> >> Message: 2
> >> Date: Tue, 4 Oct 2011 13:36:06 -0500
> >> From: "Luyuan Fang (lufang)" <[e-mail]>
> >> To: "Marshall Eubanks" <[e-mail]>, "L3VPN"
> >> 	<[e-mail]>, 	"Adrian Farrel" <[e-mail]>
> >> Subject: RE: VPN4DC at L3VPN in Taipei.
> >> Message-ID:
> >> 	<[e-mail]>
> >> Content-Type: text/plain;	charset="us-ascii"
> >>
> >> Marshall,
> >>
> >> I forwarded your mail to folks currently working on / interested in
> >> vpn4dc project.
> >> Thanks,
> >> Luyuan
> >>
> >>
> >>> -----Original Message-----
> >>> From: Marshall Eubanks [mailto:[e-mail]]
> >>> Sent: Tuesday, October 04, 2011 2:21 PM
> >>> To: L3VPN; Luyuan Fang (lufang); Adrian Farrel
> >>> Subject: VPN4DC at L3VPN in Taipei.
> >>>
> >>> Stewart Bryant has requested that we hold an L3VPN meeting at IETF
> > 82
> >>> to consider and discuss VPN4DC.
> >>> Specifically, we would
> >>>
> >>> "need to emerge understanding the problem,
> >>> the usage, the requirements, and the necessary charter changes."
> >>>
> >>> This would be preparation for VPN4DC becoming a BOF.
> >>>
> >>> Adrian set up some requirements for this meeting :
> >>>
> >>> The problem needs to be discussed on the L3VPN list.
> >>>
> >>> You need to have viable  -00 drafts before the cutoff.
> >>>
> >>> Luyuan Fang has promised a draft before the cutoff.
> >>>
> >>> If there is not significant discussion here on this issue, the
> >> session
> >>> is likely to be canceled.
> >>>
> >>> Please keep discussion of VPN4DC here on the L3VPN list.
> >>>
> >>> Due to the tentative nature and special purpose of this meeting I
> >>> don't think it is appropriate to make
> >>> a general call for papers. However, if you would like to speak on
> >>> VPN4DC, please prepare  a draft and let us (the WG Co-chairs)
know.
> >>>
> >>> Regards
> >>> Marshall
> >>>
> >>> P.S. Some background :
> >>>
> >>> http://www6.ietf.org/proceedings/81/slides/opsawg-3.pdf (page 17)
> >>> http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-so-vdcs-01.txt
> >>
> >>
> >> ------------------------------
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> L3VPN mailing list
> >> [e-mail]
> >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/l3vpn
> >>
> >>
> >> End of L3VPN Digest, Vol 88, Issue 2
> >> ************************************