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

Jeff Tantsura <jefftant.ietf@gmail.com> Fri, 06 July 2018 20:19 UTC

Return-Path: <jefftant.ietf@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: rtgwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rtgwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 90D5A130F0D; Fri, 6 Jul 2018 13:19:56 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.008
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.008 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, HTTPS_HTTP_MISMATCH=1.989, MIME_QP_LONG_LINE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id DC74UTpK_DuU; Fri, 6 Jul 2018 13:19:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-it0-x243.google.com (mail-it0-x243.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c0b::243]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 68DA8130DD8; Fri, 6 Jul 2018 13:19:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-it0-x243.google.com with SMTP id 188-v6so18753281ita.5; Fri, 06 Jul 2018 13:19:53 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=MtLJSNgv4iH7Ry/jSynz3zFZ75GELfEox5kvaa3XRTw=; b=Qr+fT08ls8Rsk3Io8kvwSN79oVEHOWay8/A9pTpNrjiqISd0T2k1dTgTqAXQSGJufl nZ5yZ7J09HVein61lkLQPSlAEGdTaDq/F5yhUcN8sges+wx05WadRDoIXbRp8AF3A7dm sYjahapzZMwKSpRKp0Fv509HVE9UDbnv1I1/eCOztLCEkOVZXisXCLaRiKlc4fyaW+1X wsoovsLd8JBHO1I543M71LShA7M/F+rlvwqCMlplw1P1TJZ+1rB7D8+rUYmtfmRAgdKK dY0vxf502KWZ0x2HVG//GtdsNgTHDtQGLJj+cgvT7jVH1LjtObLp1zwUKrlyC9quOnbl zOHA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=MtLJSNgv4iH7Ry/jSynz3zFZ75GELfEox5kvaa3XRTw=; b=TgpOnqSZvwbuQ3TYdwhTH5UrIKLCgxJIK5kaBKHByskcabT1RUpu8Hsq+ekfNIbN4e Yvl0cEa9sxjiXkIcPtPWlywciRMM98jI3nmOLlp9RS0eaHKioBuqk30Klgxz3J2ReBnn /BjeRelRO3DMQuXaDPNAv/oySA/Bn/+RpZdvlVHxPLgZUspPbuSxQ0b5X/bOWUgFrjyo +vS4X5jFds5rCqUaW9M+7Pbr3tW8udHZrnDbwLu4Lvasss/X9+M/53GJJBrROdCiJW7Q PBmWfrQw/jhOTIaDTxfoKlHekqlM+sNBwjKM8MAbworZImFqWgbCGNOqHCrCJXMgxs+T HitQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: APt69E1jS+NL3NRLJWJYfUnc7uGHnGWrzDYjN4EmF2TiSx3UfX75bV+N cylqeo+kA2GJjdoanaN3paiju6az
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AAOMgpe+i6av+SbPzzI2mW+9VZ4fIIBugun9uY5/t3eGhhOnq+MDfeTVfquWZLp5KVlAPd/Uig9VVw==
X-Received: by 2002:a24:2581:: with SMTP id g123-v6mr2563082itg.59.1530908392493; Fri, 06 Jul 2018 13:19:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.0.122] (47-36-65-40.dhcp.reno.nv.charter.com. [47.36.65.40]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id b127-v6sm4903827iti.31.2018.07.06.13.19.51 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Fri, 06 Jul 2018 13:19:51 -0700 (PDT)
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=Apple-Mail-3629633B-C750-4402-B334-382E03E847AE
Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0)
Subject: Re: [bess] comments and suggestions to draft-rosen-bess-secure-l3vpn-01
From: Jeff Tantsura <jefftant.ietf@gmail.com>
X-Mailer: iPhone Mail (15F79)
In-Reply-To: <CA+b+ERnwvYF4JdoiHhPPBYds-Tm9EPyZm6vPLdscjNtKhqTY4A@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 6 Jul 2018 13:19:50 -0700
Cc: Linda Dunbar <linda.dunbar@huawei.com>, Ron Bonica <rbonica@juniper.net>, "bess@ietf.org" <bess@ietf.org>, Eric Rosen <erosen@juniper.net>, RTGWG <rtgwg@ietf.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-Id: <49131D01-708D-4A17-9521-F0DEA6891FC9@gmail.com>
References: <4A95BA014132FF49AE685FAB4B9F17F66B07E161@sjceml521-mbs.china.huawei.com> <DM2PR05MB4485047CBE1ABF17FBE7083AE470@DM2PR05MB448.namprd05.prod.outlook.com> <4A95BA014132FF49AE685FAB4B9F17F66B07EB23@sjceml521-mbs.china.huawei.com> <CA+b+ERnwvYF4JdoiHhPPBYds-Tm9EPyZm6vPLdscjNtKhqTY4A@mail.gmail.com>
To: Robert Raszuk <robert@raszuk.net>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtgwg/1U21lf5LL9n38V0ByZdhzAK3bsE>
X-BeenThere: rtgwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.26
Precedence: list
List-Id: Routing Area Working Group <rtgwg.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/rtgwg>, <mailto:rtgwg-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/rtgwg/>
List-Post: <mailto:rtgwg@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:rtgwg-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg>, <mailto:rtgwg-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 06 Jul 2018 20:19:57 -0000

Robert/Linda,

RTGWG chairs have been thinking of starting SD-WAN discussion in RTGWG.
Service data modeling(data modeling in general)is an obvious candidate (at ONUG we started, there’s some early effort, but IETF help is needed).
Control plane interworking is another interesting topic.
Please bring your ideas, I’m still working on agenda


Regards,
Jeff

> On Jul 6, 2018, at 13:12, Robert Raszuk <robert@raszuk.net> wrote:
> 
> 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 <linda.dunbar@huawei.com> 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:
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> Do I explain well? If not, can we talk face to face in Montreal?
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> Thanks, Linda Dunbar
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> From: Ron Bonica [mailto:rbonica@juniper.net] 
>> Sent: Friday, July 06, 2018 1:25 PM
>> To: Linda Dunbar <linda.dunbar@huawei.com>om>; Eric Rosen <erosen@juniper.net>et>; bess@ietf.org
>> 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 <linda.dunbar@huawei.com> 
>> Sent: Thursday, July 5, 2018 11:53 AM
>> To: Eric Rosen <erosen@juniper.net>et>; Ron Bonica <rbonica@juniper.net>et>; bess@ietf.org
>> 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:
>> 
>> p  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/
>> 
>> Appreciate your comments and suggestions to our gap analysis.
>> 
>>  
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> Thanks, Linda Dunbar
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> BESS mailing list
>> BESS@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess
>> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> BESS mailing list
> BESS@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess