1 Solving the Softwire Mesh Problem Chris Metz, [email protected]@cisco.com IETF Softwire WG...
-
Upload
cory-dennis -
Category
Documents
-
view
227 -
download
0
Transcript of 1 Solving the Softwire Mesh Problem Chris Metz, [email protected]@cisco.com IETF Softwire WG...
![Page 1: 1 Solving the Softwire Mesh Problem Chris Metz, chmetz@cisco.comchmetz@cisco.com IETF Softwire WG Interim Meeting Hong Kong February 2006.](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062610/56649dbc5503460f94aad93e/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
1
Solving the Softwire Mesh Problem
Chris Metz, [email protected]
IETF Softwire WG Interim Meeting
Hong Kong
February 2006
![Page 2: 1 Solving the Softwire Mesh Problem Chris Metz, chmetz@cisco.comchmetz@cisco.com IETF Softwire WG Interim Meeting Hong Kong February 2006.](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062610/56649dbc5503460f94aad93e/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
2
Contents
• Some Terminology
• Basic Problem to Solve
• Similarities with L3VPN
• Solution Overview– Encapsulations– BGP Protocol Elements
• Examples
• References
![Page 3: 1 Solving the Softwire Mesh Problem Chris Metz, chmetz@cisco.comchmetz@cisco.com IETF Softwire WG Interim Meeting Hong Kong February 2006.](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062610/56649dbc5503460f94aad93e/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
3
Terminology (1)
• AF(i) Transit Core – single AF IPv4 or IPv6 backbone network• AFBR – Address Family Border Routers, dual-stack (I,j)• AF(j) Access Islands – single AF(j) or dual-stack (i,j) access
networks connected to AFBR
AF = Address Family
![Page 4: 1 Solving the Softwire Mesh Problem Chris Metz, chmetz@cisco.comchmetz@cisco.com IETF Softwire WG Interim Meeting Hong Kong February 2006.](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062610/56649dbc5503460f94aad93e/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
4
Terminology (2): What it looks like with IPv4 and IPv6 Plugged In …
![Page 5: 1 Solving the Softwire Mesh Problem Chris Metz, chmetz@cisco.comchmetz@cisco.com IETF Softwire WG Interim Meeting Hong Kong February 2006.](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062610/56649dbc5503460f94aad93e/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
5
So what is the problem we need to solve?
• Support inter-AF(j) island routing and forwarding across a single AF(i) transit core.
![Page 6: 1 Solving the Softwire Mesh Problem Chris Metz, chmetz@cisco.comchmetz@cisco.com IETF Softwire WG Interim Meeting Hong Kong February 2006.](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062610/56649dbc5503460f94aad93e/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
6
Problem to Solve? IPv4 Islands across an IPv6 Core and …
![Page 7: 1 Solving the Softwire Mesh Problem Chris Metz, chmetz@cisco.comchmetz@cisco.com IETF Softwire WG Interim Meeting Hong Kong February 2006.](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062610/56649dbc5503460f94aad93e/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
7
… IPv6 Islands across an IPv4 Core
![Page 8: 1 Solving the Softwire Mesh Problem Chris Metz, chmetz@cisco.comchmetz@cisco.com IETF Softwire WG Interim Meeting Hong Kong February 2006.](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062610/56649dbc5503460f94aad93e/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
8
Some quick observations of what is needed here (1)
• Multi-AF Route Distribution– ex. so that routers in AF(j) Access Island-1(including AFBR-1)
learn about AF(j) prefixes located in other AF(j) access islands reachable thru AFBR-2, .. AFBR-N
![Page 9: 1 Solving the Softwire Mesh Problem Chris Metz, chmetz@cisco.comchmetz@cisco.com IETF Softwire WG Interim Meeting Hong Kong February 2006.](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062610/56649dbc5503460f94aad93e/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
9
Some quick observations of what is needed here (2)
• AF(i) Encapsulation of AF(j) Packets– ex. AFBR-1 encapsulates AF(j) packet in AF(i) “wrapper” so that packet can be forwarded across AF(i) core; wrapper is then removed at egress AFBR– also need to figure out how AFBRs agree on what “wrappers” to use and how to correlate this with the AFBR and AF(j) reachability …
![Page 10: 1 Solving the Softwire Mesh Problem Chris Metz, chmetz@cisco.comchmetz@cisco.com IETF Softwire WG Interim Meeting Hong Kong February 2006.](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062610/56649dbc5503460f94aad93e/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
10
So big picture at this point ..
• We have:– requirement to distribute multi-AF routes (IPv4 or
IPv6) between AF access islands connected to a single AF backbone network
– requirement to use that reachability information to forward AF packets (IPv4 or IPv6) across that backbone network from one access island network to another
– requirement to encapsulate AF island-sourced IPv4 or IPv6 packets for transport across AF backbone network
• This has similarities to the classic L3VPN problem and solution space. Let’s take a look …
![Page 11: 1 Solving the Softwire Mesh Problem Chris Metz, chmetz@cisco.comchmetz@cisco.com IETF Softwire WG Interim Meeting Hong Kong February 2006.](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062610/56649dbc5503460f94aad93e/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
11
Classic MPLS VPN (1)
• Define a new IPv4 VPN address family (VPNv4) to identify and store customer VPN IPv4 routes inside VPN routing tables (VRFs) on PE nodes
• Use MP-BGP to distribute VPNv4 routes, VPN labels, Next-Hop information, etc. between PE nodes only
MP-BGP = multi-protocol BGPVRF = VPN Routing/Forwarding Table
![Page 12: 1 Solving the Softwire Mesh Problem Chris Metz, chmetz@cisco.comchmetz@cisco.com IETF Softwire WG Interim Meeting Hong Kong February 2006.](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062610/56649dbc5503460f94aad93e/html5/thumbnails/12.jpg)
12
Classic MPLS VPN (2)
• Native IPv4 customer VPN packets are encapsulated in MPLS labels for transport across the MPLS backbone– IGP label(s) provide the label switched path (LSP) from PE-1 to PE-2– VPN label identifies which destination customer site to forward IPv4 packet to
![Page 13: 1 Solving the Softwire Mesh Problem Chris Metz, chmetz@cisco.comchmetz@cisco.com IETF Softwire WG Interim Meeting Hong Kong February 2006.](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062610/56649dbc5503460f94aad93e/html5/thumbnails/13.jpg)
13
Classic MPLS VPN (3)• Defined in RFC2547/RFC4364• Many interoperable implementations and deployments• Can even support IPv6 VPNs
– draft-ietf-l3vpn-bgp-ipv6-07.txt• Extended for Multicast VPN
– draft-ietf-l3vpn-2547bis-mcast-01.txt– only IPv4 at the moment
• Scalability– Per-PE routing table: O(# of Internet Routes + # of VPN routes for
attached customers)– per-PE peering: O(# of remote PEs + # of attached customer routers)– per-local PE-to-remote PE paths: O(# of remote PEs)
• Security– Discussed in RFC4111, “Security Framework for Provider-
Provisioned Virtual Private Networks (PPVPNs)”
![Page 14: 1 Solving the Softwire Mesh Problem Chris Metz, chmetz@cisco.comchmetz@cisco.com IETF Softwire WG Interim Meeting Hong Kong February 2006.](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062610/56649dbc5503460f94aad93e/html5/thumbnails/14.jpg)
14
Classic MPLS VPN (4)
• What happens if the backbone IS NOT MPLS? Can we still do MPLS VPNs?
• Yes, we can nail up inter-PE IP tunnels (e.g. GRE) and then tunnel the VPN-labeled customer packets thru or …
![Page 15: 1 Solving the Softwire Mesh Problem Chris Metz, chmetz@cisco.comchmetz@cisco.com IETF Softwire WG Interim Meeting Hong Kong February 2006.](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062610/56649dbc5503460f94aad93e/html5/thumbnails/15.jpg)
15
MPLS VPN over IP (1)
• Extend MP-BGP to advertise IP tunnel info along with VPNv4 prefixes, VPN labels, etc.– ex. now PE-1 learns of remote VPNv4 prefixes, the VPN labels, the next_hop and an IPv4
tunnel to use to reach that next_hop
![Page 16: 1 Solving the Softwire Mesh Problem Chris Metz, chmetz@cisco.comchmetz@cisco.com IETF Softwire WG Interim Meeting Hong Kong February 2006.](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062610/56649dbc5503460f94aad93e/html5/thumbnails/16.jpg)
16
MPLS VPN over IP (2)
• Native IPv4 customer VPN packets encapsulated in VPN label and IP Tunnel Header (e.g. GRE, L2TPv3, IPsec) for transport across IP backbone
• Current deployments include:– static GRE tunnels between PE nodes; BGP-advertised L2TPv3 tunnel encaps
![Page 17: 1 Solving the Softwire Mesh Problem Chris Metz, chmetz@cisco.comchmetz@cisco.com IETF Softwire WG Interim Meeting Hong Kong February 2006.](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062610/56649dbc5503460f94aad93e/html5/thumbnails/17.jpg)
17
Building the solution with some of these pieces …
• MP-BGP – efficient and scalable one (egress AFBR) to
many (ingress AFBR) delivery of multi-AF reachabililty and IP tunnel information
• Standard Encapsulation Techniques– IP/IP, GRE, L2TPv3, MPLS-in-IP, IPsec, etc.
• Interoperable L3VPN deployments– VPNv4 over MPLS and IP– VPNv6 over MPLS
![Page 18: 1 Solving the Softwire Mesh Problem Chris Metz, chmetz@cisco.comchmetz@cisco.com IETF Softwire WG Interim Meeting Hong Kong February 2006.](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062610/56649dbc5503460f94aad93e/html5/thumbnails/18.jpg)
18
One more bit of Terminology - Softwire
• Defined as a logical pt-pt (or pt-mpt) tunnel established between participating AFBR nodes
• Purpose is to transport packets of AF(j) across the AF(i) backbone
![Page 19: 1 Solving the Softwire Mesh Problem Chris Metz, chmetz@cisco.comchmetz@cisco.com IETF Softwire WG Interim Meeting Hong Kong February 2006.](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062610/56649dbc5503460f94aad93e/html5/thumbnails/19.jpg)
19
Solution Overview (1)Basic Idea
• Leverage and reuse existing L3VPN functions and protocols where appropriate
• Identify/develop a set of Softwire encapsulations using standard/existing encapsulations
• Extend MP-BGP to– enable egress AFBR(s) to advertise their softwire
tunnel capabilties, encapsulation parameters and preferences to participating ingress AFBR nodes … thus forming the softwire mesh
– enable egress AFBR(s) to advertise AF prefixes and associated softwire(s) to use to reach those prefixes
![Page 20: 1 Solving the Softwire Mesh Problem Chris Metz, chmetz@cisco.comchmetz@cisco.com IETF Softwire WG Interim Meeting Hong Kong February 2006.](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062610/56649dbc5503460f94aad93e/html5/thumbnails/20.jpg)
20
Solution Overview (2) A Picture
![Page 21: 1 Solving the Softwire Mesh Problem Chris Metz, chmetz@cisco.comchmetz@cisco.com IETF Softwire WG Interim Meeting Hong Kong February 2006.](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062610/56649dbc5503460f94aad93e/html5/thumbnails/21.jpg)
21
Solution Overview (3)
• AF Access Islands can be single or dual-stack• AFBR may support more than one softwire type
– ex. egress AFBR-2 may support GRE and L2TPv3 encaps and will tell other AFBRs about this along with which one AFBR-2 would prefer to be used.
• No new AF/SAF needed to define IPv4 and IPv6 addresses for transport in MP-BGP
![Page 22: 1 Solving the Softwire Mesh Problem Chris Metz, chmetz@cisco.comchmetz@cisco.com IETF Softwire WG Interim Meeting Hong Kong February 2006.](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062610/56649dbc5503460f94aad93e/html5/thumbnails/22.jpg)
22
Solution Overview (4)
• Establishment of inter-AFBR softwires is decoupled from the distribution of AF reachability information– advertise softwire tunnel encapsulation and preferences once
and then many AF prefixes and which softwire tunnel to use. – more efficient BGP packing and processing by eliminating
advertisement of duplicate softwire tunnel info for each prefix– enables policy control on AFBR for softwire installation and
selection
• Not mandated to store AF prefixes in VRFs on AFBR– only needed to support overlapping address requirement or if
operator prefers this configuration
![Page 23: 1 Solving the Softwire Mesh Problem Chris Metz, chmetz@cisco.comchmetz@cisco.com IETF Softwire WG Interim Meeting Hong Kong February 2006.](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062610/56649dbc5503460f94aad93e/html5/thumbnails/23.jpg)
23
Note on VRF and Global Tables
• AF Island prefixes VRFs– MP-BGP advertises as VPN:AF with VPN label, RT, etc.
• AF Island prefixes Global– MP-BGP advertises as AF
• In either case:– softwire tunnels setup is separate from AF island prefix distribution– AF island prefix distribution (VPN or Global) can include softwire tunnel ID
![Page 24: 1 Solving the Softwire Mesh Problem Chris Metz, chmetz@cisco.comchmetz@cisco.com IETF Softwire WG Interim Meeting Hong Kong February 2006.](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062610/56649dbc5503460f94aad93e/html5/thumbnails/24.jpg)
24
Softwire Encapsulation Possibilities(over IPv4 Transit)
• IP – IPv6/IPv4 – IPv6/VPN label/IPv4 -
• UDP/IP – IPv6/UDP/IPv4
• GRE– IPv6/GRE/IPv4– IPv6/VPN Label/GRE/IPv4
• IPsec– IPv6/IPsec/IPv4
• MPLS– if IPv4 transit is MPLS-
enabled then MPLS label may be pushed on top or replace outer IPv4 header
• L2TPv3– IPv6/L2TPv3/IPv4– IPv6/VPN label/L2TPv3/IPv4– IPv6/L2TPv3/IPsec/IPv4– IPv6/VPN
label/L2TPv3/IPsec/IPv4– IPv6/L2TPv3/UDP/IPv4
![Page 25: 1 Solving the Softwire Mesh Problem Chris Metz, chmetz@cisco.comchmetz@cisco.com IETF Softwire WG Interim Meeting Hong Kong February 2006.](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062610/56649dbc5503460f94aad93e/html5/thumbnails/25.jpg)
25
Softwire Encapsulation Possibilities(over IPv6 Transit)
• IPv6 only– IPv4/IPv6 – IPv4/VPN label/IPv6
• UDP/IP only– IPv4/UDP/IPv6
• GRE– IPv4/GRE/IPv6– IPv4/VPN Label/GRE/IPv6
• IPsec– IPv4/IPsec/IPv6
• MPLS– if IPv6 transit is MPLS-
enabled then MPLS label may be pushed on top or replace outer IPv6 header
• L2TPv3– IPv4/L2TPv3/IPv6– IPv4/VPN label/L2TPv3/IPv6– IPv4/L2TPv3/IPsec/IPv6– IPv4/VPN
label/L2TPv3/IPsec/IPv6– IPv4/L2TPv3/UDP/IPv6
![Page 26: 1 Solving the Softwire Mesh Problem Chris Metz, chmetz@cisco.comchmetz@cisco.com IETF Softwire WG Interim Meeting Hong Kong February 2006.](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062610/56649dbc5503460f94aad93e/html5/thumbnails/26.jpg)
26
Quick MP-BGP NoteMP_REACH_NLRI Attribute
IPv4=1, IPv6=2
Unicast=1Multicast=2....Tunnel SAFI=64MPLS VPN=128
http://www.iana.org/numbers.html
![Page 27: 1 Solving the Softwire Mesh Problem Chris Metz, chmetz@cisco.comchmetz@cisco.com IETF Softwire WG Interim Meeting Hong Kong February 2006.](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062610/56649dbc5503460f94aad93e/html5/thumbnails/27.jpg)
27
BGP Solution Elements
1. Distribution of Softwire Tunnel capabilities, encapsulation(s) types, parameters and preferences
2. Distribution of AF Island Prefixes
3. Distribution of Softwire Tunnel IDs
![Page 28: 1 Solving the Softwire Mesh Problem Chris Metz, chmetz@cisco.comchmetz@cisco.com IETF Softwire WG Interim Meeting Hong Kong February 2006.](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062610/56649dbc5503460f94aad93e/html5/thumbnails/28.jpg)
28
BGP Solution Elements (1a)
• How does egress AFBR tell (N number of) candidate ingress AFBR(s) what softwire tunnel types, parameters and preferences it can support?
• Answer: BGP Tunnel SAFI
BGP RR = BGP Route Reflector
![Page 29: 1 Solving the Softwire Mesh Problem Chris Metz, chmetz@cisco.comchmetz@cisco.com IETF Softwire WG Interim Meeting Hong Kong February 2006.](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062610/56649dbc5503460f94aad93e/html5/thumbnails/29.jpg)
29
BGP Solution Elements (1b)BGP Tunnel SAFI
• MP_REACH_NLRI attribute with a SAFI=64 indicates tunnel attributes are present– AFI=1 and SAFI=64 point to IPv4-specific parameters– AFI=2 and SAFI=64 point to IPv6-specific parameters
• NLRI of Tunnel SAFI contains address of tunnel end-point on AFBR– same address can be used by many different tunnels
thus conserving address space on the AFBR that terminates the tunnel
• draft-nalawade-kapoor-tunnel-safi-04.txt
![Page 30: 1 Solving the Softwire Mesh Problem Chris Metz, chmetz@cisco.comchmetz@cisco.com IETF Softwire WG Interim Meeting Hong Kong February 2006.](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062610/56649dbc5503460f94aad93e/html5/thumbnails/30.jpg)
30
BGP Solution Elements (1c)Tunnel Encapsulation Attribute
• Also present when Tunnel SAFI=64 are one (or more) Tunnel Encapsulation Attributes (TLVs)– egress AFBR-2 tells the peering ingress AFBR(s) (1-N) what
parameters and preferences of specific encap types it can support• Defined values so far:
– Type 1: L2TPv3 Tunnel information– Type 2: mGRE Tunnel information– Type 3: IPSec Tunnel information– Type 4: MPLS Tunnel information– Type 5: L2TPv3 in IPSEC Tunnel information– Type 6: mGRE in IPSEC Tunnel information
• Includes a preference field that indicates the egress AFBR’s preferred ordering of softwire encapsulations that the ingress AFBR should consider when selecting a softwire tunnel.
• draft-nalawade-kapoor-tunnel-safi-04.txt
![Page 31: 1 Solving the Softwire Mesh Problem Chris Metz, chmetz@cisco.comchmetz@cisco.com IETF Softwire WG Interim Meeting Hong Kong February 2006.](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062610/56649dbc5503460f94aad93e/html5/thumbnails/31.jpg)
31
BGP Solution Elements (1d)Tunnel SAFI + Tunn Encapsulation Attributes
10.1.2.1
10.1.2.1
• AFBR-2 is telling the other AFBRs that– it can terminate an L2TPv3/IPv4
softwire at 10.1.2.1
![Page 32: 1 Solving the Softwire Mesh Problem Chris Metz, chmetz@cisco.comchmetz@cisco.com IETF Softwire WG Interim Meeting Hong Kong February 2006.](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062610/56649dbc5503460f94aad93e/html5/thumbnails/32.jpg)
32
BGP Solution Elements (1e)After BGP Tunnel SAFI
• Softwire established to AFBR-2– it is possible to establish more than one softwire to an egress AFBR
![Page 33: 1 Solving the Softwire Mesh Problem Chris Metz, chmetz@cisco.comchmetz@cisco.com IETF Softwire WG Interim Meeting Hong Kong February 2006.](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062610/56649dbc5503460f94aad93e/html5/thumbnails/33.jpg)
33
BGP Solution Elements (2)• Used existing MP-BGP protocols to distribute native or VPN-
specific AF Island Prefixes between AFBR nodes
Prefix Type Received Into:
AF SAF Reference
Island IPv4 native
Global 1 1 RFC2858
Island IPv4 native
VRF 1 128 RFC4364
Island IPv6 native
Global 2 1 RFC2858
Island IPv6 native
VRF 2 128 draft-ietf-l3vpn-bgp-ipv6-07.txt
![Page 34: 1 Solving the Softwire Mesh Problem Chris Metz, chmetz@cisco.comchmetz@cisco.com IETF Softwire WG Interim Meeting Hong Kong February 2006.](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062610/56649dbc5503460f94aad93e/html5/thumbnails/34.jpg)
34
BGP Solution Elements (3a)
• Final piece is for egress AFBR to advertise specific tunnel identifier that ingress AFBR(s) should use to reach a particular destination AF island prefix– ingress AFBR uses this to determine which tunnel to forward
packets through to reach the advertised destination
• Use BGP Connector Attribute. Defined value are:– Type 1 = IPv4 address (for inter-as MDT case)– Type 2 = Tunnel ID: Tunnel End-Point Address (IPv4/6 address)– Type 3 = Tree ID: Tunnel End-Point Address (IPv4/6 address)
(for multicast case)
• draft-nalawade-l3vpn-bgp-connector-00.txt
![Page 35: 1 Solving the Softwire Mesh Problem Chris Metz, chmetz@cisco.comchmetz@cisco.com IETF Softwire WG Interim Meeting Hong Kong February 2006.](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062610/56649dbc5503460f94aad93e/html5/thumbnails/35.jpg)
35
BGP Solution Elements (3b)
• BGP AF island prefix advertisement includes connector attribute that informs ingress AFBRs which softwire tunnel to use
![Page 36: 1 Solving the Softwire Mesh Problem Chris Metz, chmetz@cisco.comchmetz@cisco.com IETF Softwire WG Interim Meeting Hong Kong February 2006.](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062610/56649dbc5503460f94aad93e/html5/thumbnails/36.jpg)
36
BGP Solution Elements
1. BGP Updates contains Tunnel SAFI and tunnel encapsulation TLV to announce softwirecapabilities, encapsulation parameters and preferences
2. BGP updates include AF Island Prefix and Connector Attribute that points to softwire to use.
![Page 37: 1 Solving the Softwire Mesh Problem Chris Metz, chmetz@cisco.comchmetz@cisco.com IETF Softwire WG Interim Meeting Hong Kong February 2006.](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062610/56649dbc5503460f94aad93e/html5/thumbnails/37.jpg)
37
Examples
1. Native IPv6 over IPv4 Core
2. VPNv6 over L2TPv3/IPv4 Core
3. VPNv4 over GRE IPv6 Core
![Page 38: 1 Solving the Softwire Mesh Problem Chris Metz, chmetz@cisco.comchmetz@cisco.com IETF Softwire WG Interim Meeting Hong Kong February 2006.](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062610/56649dbc5503460f94aad93e/html5/thumbnails/38.jpg)
38
Example 1a: IPv6 over GRE/IPv4
16410.1.2.1Type 2 (GRE)99
10.1.2.1 GRE
IPv4
GRE
IPv4
![Page 39: 1 Solving the Softwire Mesh Problem Chris Metz, chmetz@cisco.comchmetz@cisco.com IETF Softwire WG Interim Meeting Hong Kong February 2006.](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062610/56649dbc5503460f94aad93e/html5/thumbnails/39.jpg)
39
Example 1b: IPv6 over GRE/IPv4
3FFE:1234:1111/48IPv6
10.1.2.1
3FFE:1234:1111/48noneegress AFBRtunn ID: 10.1.2.1 (type 2)
IPv4GREnoneIPv6IPv6 IPv6
IPv6 glbl glblIPv4
![Page 40: 1 Solving the Softwire Mesh Problem Chris Metz, chmetz@cisco.comchmetz@cisco.com IETF Softwire WG Interim Meeting Hong Kong February 2006.](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062610/56649dbc5503460f94aad93e/html5/thumbnails/40.jpg)
40
Example 2a: VPNv6 over L2TPv3/IPv4
16410.1.2.1Type 1 (L2TPv3)99
10.1.2.1 L2TPv3
IPv4
L2TPv3
IPv4
![Page 41: 1 Solving the Softwire Mesh Problem Chris Metz, chmetz@cisco.comchmetz@cisco.com IETF Softwire WG Interim Meeting Hong Kong February 2006.](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062610/56649dbc5503460f94aad93e/html5/thumbnails/41.jpg)
41
Example 2b: VPNv6 over L2TPv3/IPv4
3FFE:1234:1111/48IPv6
10.1.2.1
RD:3FFE:1234:1111/4855egress AFBRtunn ID: 10.1.2.1 (type 2)
IPv4L2TPv3
55IPv6IPv6 IPv6
IPv6 VRF VRFIPv4
![Page 42: 1 Solving the Softwire Mesh Problem Chris Metz, chmetz@cisco.comchmetz@cisco.com IETF Softwire WG Interim Meeting Hong Kong February 2006.](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062610/56649dbc5503460f94aad93e/html5/thumbnails/42.jpg)
42
Example 3a: IPv4 over GRE/IPv6
2642002:1111::1Type 2 (GRE)99
GRE
IPv6
GRE
IPv6
2002:1111::1
![Page 43: 1 Solving the Softwire Mesh Problem Chris Metz, chmetz@cisco.comchmetz@cisco.com IETF Softwire WG Interim Meeting Hong Kong February 2006.](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062610/56649dbc5503460f94aad93e/html5/thumbnails/43.jpg)
43
Example 3b: IPv4 over GRE/IPv6
200.1/20IPv4
200.1/20noneegress AFBRtunn ID: 2002:1111::1(Type 2)
IPv6GRE
noneIPv4IPv4 IPv4
IPv4 GBL GBLIPv6
2002:1111::1
![Page 44: 1 Solving the Softwire Mesh Problem Chris Metz, chmetz@cisco.comchmetz@cisco.com IETF Softwire WG Interim Meeting Hong Kong February 2006.](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062610/56649dbc5503460f94aad93e/html5/thumbnails/44.jpg)
44
Additional Functions
• Inter-AS– advertise softwire tunnel attributes and AF
reachability (to egress AFBR) across AS boundaries then …
– advertise AF prefixes and connector attributes using MP-eBGP across AS boundaries
• Two options for Multicast: – Traditional IPv4 or IPv6 multicast tunneled across
softwire mesh– Extend mVPNv4 model to include multicast IPv6
reachability and forwarding over inclusive and selective P-multicast service interfaces (PMSI)
![Page 45: 1 Solving the Softwire Mesh Problem Chris Metz, chmetz@cisco.comchmetz@cisco.com IETF Softwire WG Interim Meeting Hong Kong February 2006.](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062610/56649dbc5503460f94aad93e/html5/thumbnails/45.jpg)
45
Summarizing Key Aspects of this Solution (1)
• Leverages existing and deployed L3VPN protocols (e.g. MP-BGP) and IP encapsulation techniques (e.g. GRE, L2TPv3)
• Scalability:– Per-AFBR routing table: O(# of Internet Routes + # of AF island
prefixes of attached islands)– per-AFBR peering: O(# of remote AFBRs + # of attached AF
island routers)– per-local AFBR-to-remote AFBR paths: O(# of remote AFBRs)
• Security:– RFC4111 provides framework– Control Plane: BGP/TCP MD5, BGP/TCPoIPsec– Data Plane: GRE keys, L2TPv3 cookie, IPsec
• Multicast:– traditional multicast over softwire tunnels– mVPN extensions
![Page 46: 1 Solving the Softwire Mesh Problem Chris Metz, chmetz@cisco.comchmetz@cisco.com IETF Softwire WG Interim Meeting Hong Kong February 2006.](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062610/56649dbc5503460f94aad93e/html5/thumbnails/46.jpg)
46
Summarizing Key Aspects of this Solution (2)
• OAM– can employ existing (e.g. Netflow, interface counters per softwire)
accounting mechanisms– feasible to run tunnel “health probes” (e.g. LSP Ping/VCCV/BFD) along
with the usual ICMP ping/trace• Multihoming
– no problem with multihoming from AF island into multiple AFBRs announcing same AF prefix
• Multi-Softwire Support– AFBR can announce different softwires (e.g. GRE and L2TPv3/IPsec), a
preference for one over the other and even can have specific prefixes use different softwires if desired
• L2VPN– pseudowires could provide the signaling and encapsulation to transport
L2-encapsulated IPv4 or IPv6 packets between AFBRs– but there is O(N2) provisioning to consider plus O(N) of L2 interfaces per
AFBR
![Page 47: 1 Solving the Softwire Mesh Problem Chris Metz, chmetz@cisco.comchmetz@cisco.com IETF Softwire WG Interim Meeting Hong Kong February 2006.](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062610/56649dbc5503460f94aad93e/html5/thumbnails/47.jpg)
47
In Conclusion
• BGP-based VPNs (IPv4 and IPv6) as deployed and in operation today form the foundation for a softwire mesh solution
• Modest extensions– support global and VRF tables– agree on set of softwire encaps and add to
BGP Tunnel SAFI – support BGP Connector Attribute
• Done
![Page 48: 1 Solving the Softwire Mesh Problem Chris Metz, chmetz@cisco.comchmetz@cisco.com IETF Softwire WG Interim Meeting Hong Kong February 2006.](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062610/56649dbc5503460f94aad93e/html5/thumbnails/48.jpg)
48
Question?
• Currently Tunnel SAFI and Connector Attribute are not Inter-domain Routing (IDR) WG documents.
Should we do the work here in Softwires or take it to IDR?
Quick Note on this: Review of Paris and Vancouver IDR meeting notes implies that IDR would review and bless the encodings once some other WG (e.g. L3VPN, now softwires) figured out what application and solution and proposes encodings– References: http://www3.ietf.org/proceedings/05nov/index.html,
http://www3.ietf.org/proceedings/05aug/index.html
![Page 49: 1 Solving the Softwire Mesh Problem Chris Metz, chmetz@cisco.comchmetz@cisco.com IETF Softwire WG Interim Meeting Hong Kong February 2006.](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062610/56649dbc5503460f94aad93e/html5/thumbnails/49.jpg)
49
References• RFCs:
– RFC2858 - Multiprotocol Extensions for BGP-4– RFC4364 - BGP/MPLS IP Virtual Private Networks (VPNs)– RFC4023 - Encapsulating MPLS in IP or Generic Routing Encapsulation
(GRE)
• Internet Drafts:– draft-ietf-l3vpn-gre-ip-2547-05, Use of PE-PE GRE or IP in BGP/MPLS
IP Virtual Private Networks– draft-ietf-l3vpn-bgp-ipv6-07.txt, BGP-MPLS IP VPN extension for IPv6
VPN– draft-nalawade-kapoor-tunnel-safi-04.txt, Tunnel SAFI– draft-nalawade-l3vpn-bgp-connector-00.txt, BGP Connector Attribute– draft-townsley-l2tpv3-mpls-02.txt, Encapsulation of MPLS over Layer 2
Tunneling Protocol Version 3 (expired)
![Page 50: 1 Solving the Softwire Mesh Problem Chris Metz, chmetz@cisco.comchmetz@cisco.com IETF Softwire WG Interim Meeting Hong Kong February 2006.](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062610/56649dbc5503460f94aad93e/html5/thumbnails/50.jpg)
50
Backup Notes follow …
![Page 51: 1 Solving the Softwire Mesh Problem Chris Metz, chmetz@cisco.comchmetz@cisco.com IETF Softwire WG Interim Meeting Hong Kong February 2006.](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062610/56649dbc5503460f94aad93e/html5/thumbnails/51.jpg)
51
Notes (1)
• Advantages of this solution– employs well-understood, deployed BGP protocol– more efficient BGP processing/packing as AF NLRIs DO NOT
carry softwire tunnel header information; there is a decoupling of the softwire tunnel header distribution from AF reachability distribution
– multiple softwires can be set up between ingress and egress AFBR pair and egress AFBR can express a preference for one over the other; also possible to have one set of NLRIs use one softwire and another set of NLRIs use a different softwire
– extensible to accommodate existing and future address families, softwire tunnel encapsulation attributes, preferences, etc.
– Enables “3rd party” operation where “tunnel broker” injects BGP Tunnel SAFI into system identifying softwire tunnel encaps, end-points, etc.
![Page 52: 1 Solving the Softwire Mesh Problem Chris Metz, chmetz@cisco.comchmetz@cisco.com IETF Softwire WG Interim Meeting Hong Kong February 2006.](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062610/56649dbc5503460f94aad93e/html5/thumbnails/52.jpg)
52
Notes (2)
• Disadvantages of this solution– might be viewed as cumbersome by some to
associate different connector attributes for each (set of) AF NLRIs
![Page 53: 1 Solving the Softwire Mesh Problem Chris Metz, chmetz@cisco.comchmetz@cisco.com IETF Softwire WG Interim Meeting Hong Kong February 2006.](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062610/56649dbc5503460f94aad93e/html5/thumbnails/53.jpg)
53
Notes (3)
• Why not just advertise AF NLRI with different AF next_hop?– violates BGP spec which says NLRI and
next_hop must be same address family– can’t communicate softwire tunnel encap
parameters and preferences in next_hop– major change to BGP implementations
![Page 54: 1 Solving the Softwire Mesh Problem Chris Metz, chmetz@cisco.comchmetz@cisco.com IETF Softwire WG Interim Meeting Hong Kong February 2006.](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062610/56649dbc5503460f94aad93e/html5/thumbnails/54.jpg)
54
Notes (4)• What about the Extended Communities approach?
– idea is to advertise AF NLRI reachability along with a new Extended Community that carries IP tunnel capabilities
– therefore each egress AFBR must advertise the same tunnel information O(# of AF updates) times. Example: if AFBR advertises 1000 BGP updates for prefixes in that AF, then same IP tunnel information is advertised 1000 times. This is 999 more times than is necessary.
– Extended community only defines a bit-mask indicating the type of tunnel supported. No means exists to define a set of tunnels, the encapsulation parameters of the tunnels in the set or, the order of preference of tunnels in the set.
– also assumes that IP tunnel end-point is the same as the BGP next_hop. True when using MPLS LSP but perhaps not true when using IP tunnels. In fact IPsec will likely use an IP address that is completely different from BGP next_hop. Therefore IPSec protection will clearly require special tunnel capability advertisements that identify the IPSec tunnel end-points which Extended Communities does not support
– References: draft-raggarwa-l3vpn-tunnel-attribute-00.txt