| < draft-ietf-rtgwg-net2cloud-problem-statement-01.txt | draft-ietf-rtgwg-net2cloud-problem-statement-02.txt > | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Network Working Group L. Dunbar | Network Working Group L. Dunbar | |||
| Internet Draft A. Malis | Internet Draft A. Malis | |||
| Intended status: Informational Futurewei | Intended status: Informational Futurewei | |||
| Expires: Dec 2019 C. Jacquenet | Expires: Dec 2019 C. Jacquenet | |||
| Orange | Orange | |||
| M. Toy | M. Toy | |||
| Verizon | Verizon | |||
| June 5, 2019 | June 17, 2019 | |||
| Seamless Interconnect Underlay to Cloud Overlay Problem Statement | Dynamic Networks to Hybrid Cloud DCs Problem Statement | |||
| draft-ietf-rtgwg-net2cloud-problem-statement-01 | draft-ietf-rtgwg-net2cloud-problem-statement-02 | |||
| Abstract | Abstract | |||
| This document describes the problems that enterprises face today | This document describes the problems that enterprises face today | |||
| when connecting their branch offices to dynamic workloads in third | when connecting their branch offices to dynamic workloads in third | |||
| party data centers (a.k.a. Cloud DCs). | party data centers (a.k.a. Cloud DCs). | |||
| It examines some of the approaches interconnecting cloud DCs with | It examines some of the approaches interconnecting cloud DCs with | |||
| enterprises' on-premises DCs & branch offices. This document also | enterprises' on-premises DCs & branch offices. This document also | |||
| describes some of the (network) problems that many enterprises face | describes some of the network problems that many enterprises face | |||
| when they have workloads & applications & data split among hybrid | when they have workloads & applications & data split among hybrid | |||
| data centers, especially for those enterprises with multiple sites | data centers, especially for those enterprises with multiple sites | |||
| that are already interconnected by VPNs (e.g., MPLS L2VPN/L3VPN). | that are already interconnected by VPNs (e.g., MPLS L2VPN/L3VPN). | |||
| Current operational problems are examined to determine whether there | Current operational problems are examined to determine whether there | |||
| is a need to improve existing protocols or whether a new protocol is | is a need to improve existing protocols or whether a new protocol is | |||
| necessary to solve them. | necessary to solve them. | |||
| Status of this Memo | Status of this Memo | |||
| skipping to change at page 2, line 13 ¶ | skipping to change at page 2, line 13 ¶ | |||
| months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents | months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents | |||
| at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as | at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as | |||
| reference material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." | reference material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." | |||
| The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at | The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at | |||
| http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt | http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt | |||
| The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at | The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at | |||
| http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html | http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html | |||
| This Internet-Draft will expire on December 5, 2019. | This Internet-Draft will expire on December 17, 2019. | |||
| Copyright Notice | Copyright Notice | |||
| Copyright (c) 2019 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the | Copyright (c) 2019 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the | |||
| document authors. All rights reserved. | document authors. All rights reserved. | |||
| This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal | This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal | |||
| Provisions Relating to IETF Documents | Provisions Relating to IETF Documents | |||
| (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of | (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of | |||
| publication of this document. Please review these documents | publication of this document. Please review these documents | |||
| skipping to change at page 2, line 38 ¶ | skipping to change at page 2, line 38 ¶ | |||
| warranty as described in the Simplified BSD License. | warranty as described in the Simplified BSD License. | |||
| Table of Contents | Table of Contents | |||
| 1. Introduction...................................................3 | 1. Introduction...................................................3 | |||
| 1.1. On the evolution of Cloud DC connectivity.................3 | 1.1. On the evolution of Cloud DC connectivity.................3 | |||
| 1.2. The role of SD-WAN techniques in Cloud DC connectivity....4 | 1.2. The role of SD-WAN techniques in Cloud DC connectivity....4 | |||
| 2. Definition of terms............................................4 | 2. Definition of terms............................................4 | |||
| 3. Current Practices in Interconnecting Enterprise Sites with Cloud | 3. Current Practices in Interconnecting Enterprise Sites with Cloud | |||
| DCs...............................................................5 | DCs...............................................................5 | |||
| 3.1. Interconnect to Cloud DCs.................................5 | 3.1. Multiple connection to workloads in a Cloud DC............5 | |||
| 3.2. Interconnect to Hybrid Cloud DCs..........................8 | 3.2. Interconnect to Hybrid Cloud DCs..........................7 | |||
| 3.3. Connecting workloads among hybrid Cloud DCs...............8 | 3.3. Connecting workloads among hybrid Cloud DCs...............8 | |||
| 4. Desired Properties for Networks that interconnect Hybrid Clouds9 | 4. Desired Properties for Networks that interconnect Hybrid Clouds9 | |||
| 5. Problems with MPLS-based VPNs extending to Hybrid Cloud DCs...10 | 5. Problems with MPLS-based VPNs extending to Hybrid Cloud DCs....9 | |||
| 6. Problem with using IPsec tunnels to Cloud DCs.................11 | 6. Problem with using IPsec tunnels to Cloud DCs.................11 | |||
| 6.1. Complexity of multi-point any-to-any interconnection.....12 | 6.1. Complexity of multi-point any-to-any interconnection.....11 | |||
| 6.2. Poor performance over long distance......................12 | 6.2. Poor performance over long distance......................12 | |||
| 6.3. Scaling Issues with IPsec Tunnels........................13 | 6.3. Scaling Issues with IPsec Tunnels........................12 | |||
| 7. Problems of Using SD-WAN to connect to Cloud DCs..............13 | 7. Problems of Using SD-WAN to connect to Cloud DCs..............13 | |||
| 7.1. SD-WAN among branch offices vs. interconnect to Cloud DCs13 | 7.1. SD-WAN among branch offices vs. interconnect to Cloud DCs13 | |||
| 8. End-to-End Security Concerns for Data Flows...................16 | 8. End-to-End Security Concerns for Data Flows...................16 | |||
| 9. Requirements for Dynamic Cloud Data Center VPNs...............16 | 9. Requirements for Dynamic Cloud Data Center VPNs...............16 | |||
| 10. Security Considerations......................................17 | 10. Security Considerations......................................17 | |||
| Solution drafts resulting from this work will address security | ||||
| concerns inherent to the solution(s), including both protocol | ||||
| aspects and the importance (for example) of securing workloads in | ||||
| cloud DCs and the use of secure interconnection mechanisms.......17 | ||||
| 11. IANA Considerations..........................................17 | 11. IANA Considerations..........................................17 | |||
| 12. References...................................................17 | 12. References...................................................17 | |||
| 12.1. Normative References....................................17 | 12.1. Normative References....................................17 | |||
| 12.2. Informative References..................................17 | 12.2. Informative References..................................17 | |||
| 13. Acknowledgments..............................................18 | 13. Acknowledgments..............................................18 | |||
| 1. Introduction | 1. Introduction | |||
| 1.1. On the evolution of Cloud DC connectivity | 1.1. On the evolution of Cloud DC connectivity | |||
| skipping to change at page 4, line 9 ¶ | skipping to change at page 4, line 7 ¶ | |||
| L3VPNs. Then connecting to the cloud-hosted resources may not be | L3VPNs. Then connecting to the cloud-hosted resources may not be | |||
| straightforward if the provider of the VPN service does not have | straightforward if the provider of the VPN service does not have | |||
| direct connections to the corresponding cloud DCs. Under those | direct connections to the corresponding cloud DCs. Under those | |||
| circumstances, the enterprise can upgrade the CPEs deployed in its | circumstances, the enterprise can upgrade the CPEs deployed in its | |||
| various premises to utilize SD-WAN techniques to reach cloud | various premises to utilize SD-WAN techniques to reach cloud | |||
| resources (without any assistance from the VPN service provider), or | resources (without any assistance from the VPN service provider), or | |||
| wait for their VPN service provider to make new agreements with data | wait for their VPN service provider to make new agreements with data | |||
| center providers to connect to the cloud resources. Either way has | center providers to connect to the cloud resources. Either way has | |||
| additional infrastructure and operational costs. | additional infrastructure and operational costs. | |||
| In addition, it is an uptrend with more enterprises instantiating | In addition, more enterprises are moving towards hybrid cloud DCs, | |||
| their apps & workloads in different cloud DCs to maximize the | i.e. owned or operated by different Cloud operators, to maximize the | |||
| benefits of geographical proximity, elasticity and special features | benefits of geographical proximity, elasticity and special features | |||
| offered by different cloud DCs. | offered by different cloud DCs. | |||
| 1.2. The role of SD-WAN techniques in Cloud DC connectivity | 1.2. The role of SD-WAN techniques in Cloud DC connectivity | |||
| This document discusses issues raised by the connection of | This document discusses the issues associated with connecting | |||
| enterprise premises to third party data centers (a.k.a. Cloud DCs) | enterprise to their workloads/applications instantiated in multiple | |||
| for reaching dynamic workloads. | third-party data centers (a.k.a. Cloud DCs). Very often, the actual | |||
| Cloud DCs that host the workloads/applications can be transient. . | ||||
| SD-WAN, initially launched to maximize bandwidths between locations | SD-WAN, initially launched to maximize bandwidths between locations | |||
| by aggregating multiple paths managed by different service | by aggregating multiple paths managed by different service | |||
| providers, has expanded to include flexible, on-demand, application- | providers, has expanded to include flexible, on-demand, application- | |||
| based connections established over any networks to access dynamic | based connections established over any networks to access dynamic | |||
| workloads in Cloud DCs. | workloads in Cloud DCs. | |||
| As a consequence, this document discusses the use of SD-WAN | As a consequence, this document discusses the use of SD-WAN | |||
| techniques as a means to improve enterprise-to-cloud DC | techniques as a means to improve enterprise-to-cloud DC | |||
| connectivity. | connectivity. | |||
| skipping to change at page 5, line 7 ¶ | skipping to change at page 5, line 5 ¶ | |||
| Controller: Used interchangeably with SD-WAN controller to manage | Controller: Used interchangeably with SD-WAN controller to manage | |||
| SD-WAN overlay path creation/deletion and monitoring the | SD-WAN overlay path creation/deletion and monitoring the | |||
| path conditions between two or more sites. | path conditions between two or more sites. | |||
| DSVPN: Dynamic Smart Virtual Private Network. DSVPN is a secure | DSVPN: Dynamic Smart Virtual Private Network. DSVPN is a secure | |||
| network that exchanges data between sites without | network that exchanges data between sites without | |||
| needing to pass traffic through an organization's | needing to pass traffic through an organization's | |||
| headquarter virtual private network (VPN) server or | headquarter virtual private network (VPN) server or | |||
| router. | router. | |||
| Heterogeneous Cloud: applications & workloads split among Cloud DCs | Heterogeneous Cloud: applications and workloads split among Cloud | |||
| owned & managed by different operators. | DCs owned or managed by different operators. | |||
| Hybrid Clouds: Hybrid Clouds (usually plural) refer to enterprises | Hybrid Clouds: Hybrid Clouds refers to an enterprise using its own | |||
| using their own premises DCs in addition to Cloud | on-premises DCs in addition to Cloud services provided | |||
| services provided by multiple cloud operators. For | by one or more cloud operators. (e.g. AWS, Azure, | |||
| example, an enterprise not only have applications | Google, Salesforces, SAP, etc). | |||
| running in their own DCs, but also have applications | ||||
| hosted in multiple third party cloud DCs ((AWS, Azure, | ||||
| Google, Salesforces, SAP, etc). . ONUG also has a | ||||
| notion of heterogeneous cloud, refers to enterprises | ||||
| does not have its own DC, only uses services by 3rd | ||||
| party cloud operators. | ||||
| SD-WAN: Software Defined Wide Area Network. In this document, | SD-WAN: Software Defined Wide Area Network. In this document, | |||
| "SD-WAN" refers to the solutions of pooling WAN | "SD-WAN" refers to the solutions of pooling WAN | |||
| bandwidth from multiple underlay networks to get better | bandwidth from multiple underlay networks to get better | |||
| WAN bandwidth management, visibility & control. When the | WAN bandwidth management, visibility & control. When the | |||
| underlay networks are private networks, traffic can | underlay networks are private networks, traffic can | |||
| traverse without additional encryption; when the | traverse without additional encryption; when the | |||
| underlay networks are public, such as Internet, some | underlay networks are public, such as Internet, some | |||
| traffic needs to be encrypted when traversing through | traffic needs to be encrypted when traversing through | |||
| (depending on user provided policies). | (depending on user provided policies). | |||
| VPC: Virtual Private Cloud. A service offered by Cloud DC | VPC: Virtual Private Cloud. A service offered by Cloud DC | |||
| operators to allocate logically-isolated cloud | operators to allocate logically-isolated cloud | |||
| resources, including compute, networking and storage. | resources, including compute, networking and storage. | |||
| 3. Current Practices in Interconnecting Enterprise Sites with Cloud DCs | 3. Current Practices in Interconnecting Enterprise Sites with Cloud DCs | |||
| 3.1. Interconnect to Cloud DCs | 3.1. Multiple connection to workloads in a Cloud DC | |||
| Most Cloud operators offer some type of network gateway through | Most Cloud operators offer some type of network gateway through | |||
| which an enterprise can reach their workloads hosted in the Cloud | which an enterprise can reach their workloads hosted in the Cloud | |||
| DCs. For example, AWS (Amazon Web Services) offers the following | DCs. For example, AWS (Amazon Web Services) offers the following | |||
| options to reach workloads in AWS Cloud DCs: | options to reach workloads in AWS Cloud DCs: | |||
| - Internet gateway for any external entities to reach the | - AWS Internet gateway allows communication between instances in | |||
| workloads hosted in AWS Cloud DC via the Internet. | AWS VPC and the internet. | |||
| - Virtual gateway (vGW) where IPsec tunnels [RFC6071] are | - AWS Virtual gateway (vGW) where IPsec tunnels [RFC6071] are | |||
| established between an enterprise's own gateway and AWS vGW, so | established between an enterprise's own gateway and AWS vGW, so | |||
| that the communications between those gateways can be secured | that the communications between those gateways can be secured | |||
| from the underlay (which might be the public Internet). | from the underlay (which might be the public Internet). | |||
| - Direct Connect, which allows enterprises to purchase direct | - AWS Direct Connect, which allows enterprises to purchase direct | |||
| connect from network service providers to get a private leased | connect from network service providers to get a private leased | |||
| line interconnecting the enterprises gateway(s) and the AWS | line interconnecting the enterprises gateway(s) and the AWS | |||
| Direct Connect routers. Via Direct Connect, an AWS Transit | Direct Connect routers. In addition, an AWS Transit Gateway can | |||
| Gateway can be used to interconnect multiple VPCs in different | be used to interconnect multiple VPCs in different Availability | |||
| Availability Zones. | Zones. | |||
| CPEs at one Enterprise branch office are connected to the Internet | As an example, some branch offices of an enterprise can connect to | |||
| to reach AWS's vGW via IPsec tunnels. Other ports of such CPEs are | over the Internet to reach AWS's vGW via IPsec tunnels. Other branch | |||
| connected to AWS DirectConnect via a private network (without any | offices of the same enterprise can connect to AWS DirectConnect via | |||
| encryption). | a private network (without any encryption). ). It is important for | |||
| enterprises to be able to observe the specific behaviors when | ||||
| connected by different connections. | ||||
| Figure below shows an example of some tenants' workloads are | ||||
| accessible via a virtual router connected by AWS Internet Gateway; | ||||
| some are accessible via AWS vGW, and others are accessible via AWS | ||||
| Direct Connect. The vR1 can have its own IPsec capability for secure | ||||
| tunnel over the internet to bypass paying additional price for the | ||||
| IPsec features provided by AWS vGW. Some tenants can deploy separate | ||||
| virtual routers to connect to internet traffic and to traffic from | ||||
| the secure channels from vGW and DirectConnect, e.g. vR1 & vR2. | ||||
| Others may have one virtual router connecting to both types of | ||||
| traffic. Customer Gateway can be customer owned router or ports | ||||
| physically connected to AWS Direct Connect GW. | ||||
| +------------------------+ | +------------------------+ | |||
| | ,---. ,---. | | | ,---. ,---. | | |||
| | (TN-1 ) ( TN-2)| | | (TN-1 ) ( TN-2)| | |||
| | `-+-' +--+ `-+-' | | | `-+-' +---+ `-+-' | | |||
| | +----|vR|-----+ | | | +----|vR1|----+ | | |||
| | ++-+ | | | ++--+ | | |||
| | | +-+----+ | | | +-+----+ | |||
| | | /Internet\ For External | | | /Internet\ For External | |||
| | +-------+ Gateway +---------------------- | | +-------+ Gateway +---------------------- | |||
| | \ / to reach via Internet | | \ / to reach via Internet | |||
| | +-+----+ | | +-+----+ | |||
| | | | | | | |||
| +------------------------+ | ||||
| +------------------------+ | ||||
| | ,---. ,---. | | | ,---. ,---. | | |||
| | (TN-1 ) ( TN-2)| | | (TN-1 ) ( TN-2)| | |||
| | `-+-' +--+ `-+-' | | | `-+-' +---+ `-+-' | | |||
| | +----|vR|-----+ | | | +----|vR2|----+ | | |||
| | ++-+ | | | ++--+ | | |||
| | | +-+----+ | | | +-+----+ | |||
| | | / virtual\ For IPsec Tunnel | | | / virtual\ For IPsec Tunnel | |||
| | +-------+ Gateway +---------------------- | | +-------+ Gateway +---------------------- | |||
| | \ / termination | | | \ / termination | |||
| | +-+----+ | | | +-+----+ | |||
| | | | | | | | |||
| +------------------------+ | ||||
| +------------------------+ | ||||
| | ,---. ,---. | | ||||
| | (TN-1 ) ( TN-2)| | ||||
| | `-+-' +--+ `-+-' | | ||||
| | +----|vR|-----+ | | ||||
| | ++-+ | | ||||
| | | +-+----+ +------+ | | | +-+----+ +------+ | |||
| | | / \ For Direct /customer\ | | | / \ For Direct /customer\ | |||
| | +-------+ Gateway +----------+ gateway | | | +-------+ Gateway +----------+ gateway | | |||
| | \ / Connect \ / | | \ / Connect \ / | |||
| | +-+----+ +------+ | | +-+----+ +------+ | |||
| | | | | | | |||
| +------------------------+ | +------------------------+ | |||
| Figure 1: Examples of Cloud DC connections. | Figure 1: Examples of Multiple Cloud DC connections. | |||
| 3.2. Interconnect to Hybrid Cloud DCs | 3.2. Interconnect to Hybrid Cloud DCs | |||
| According to Gartner, by 2020 "hybrid will be the most common usage | Hybrid will be the most common usage of the cloud as more | |||
| of the cloud" as more enterprises see the benefits of integrating | enterprises see the benefits of integrating public and private cloud | |||
| public and private cloud infrastructures. However, enabling the | infrastructures. However, enabling the growth of hybrid cloud | |||
| growth of hybrid cloud deployments in the enterprise requires fast | deployments in the enterprise requires fast and safe interconnection | |||
| and safe interconnection between public and private cloud services. | between public and private cloud services. | |||
| For an enterprise to connect to applications & workloads hosted in | For an enterprise to connect to applications & workloads hosted in | |||
| multiple Cloud DCs, the enterprise can use IPsec tunnels established | multiple Cloud DCs, the enterprise can use IPsec tunnels established | |||
| over the Internet or a (virtualized) leased line service to connect | over the Internet or a (virtualized) leased line service to connect | |||
| its on-premises gateways to each of the Cloud DC's gateways, virtual | its on-premises gateways to each of the Cloud DC's gateways, virtual | |||
| routers instantiated in the Cloud DCs, or any other suitable design | routers instantiated in the Cloud DCs, or any other suitable design | |||
| (including a combination thereof). | (including a combination thereof). | |||
| Some enterprises prefer to instantiate their own virtual | Some enterprises prefer to instantiate their own virtual | |||
| CPEs/routers inside the Cloud DC to connect the workloads within the | CPEs/routers inside the Cloud DC to connect the workloads within the | |||
| Cloud DC. Then an overlay path is established between customer | Cloud DC. Then an overlay path is established between customer | |||
| gateways to the virtual CPEs/routers for reaching the workloads | gateways to the virtual CPEs/routers for reaching the workloads | |||
| inside the cloud DC. | inside the cloud DC. | |||
| 3.3. Connecting workloads among hybrid Cloud DCs | 3.3. Connecting workloads among hybrid Cloud DCs | |||
| There are multiple approaches to interconnect workloads among | There are multiple approaches to interconnect workloads among | |||
| different Cloud DCs: | different Cloud DCs: | |||
| - Utilize Cloud DC provided transit gateways, which usually does | a) Utilize Cloud DC provided transit gateways. | |||
| not work if Cloud DCs are owned and managed by different Cloud | b) Hairpin all the traffic through the customer gateway, or | |||
| providers. | c) Establish direct tunnels among different VPCs (Virtual Private | |||
| - Hairpin all the traffic through the customer gateway, which | ||||
| creates additional transmission delay & incurs cost when | ||||
| exiting Cloud DCs, or | ||||
| - Establish direct tunnels among different VPCs (Virtual Private | ||||
| Clouds) via client's own virtual routers instantiated within | Clouds) via client's own virtual routers instantiated within | |||
| Cloud DCs. DMVPN (Dynamic Multipoint Virtual Private Network) | Cloud DCs. DMVPN (Dynamic Multipoint Virtual Private Network) | |||
| or DSVPN (Dynamic Smart VPN) techniques can be used to | or DSVPN (Dynamic Smart VPN) techniques can be used to | |||
| establish direct Multi-point-to-Point or multi-point-to multi- | establish direct Multi-point-to-Point or multi-point-to multi- | |||
| point tunnels among those client's own virtual routers. | point tunnels among those client's own virtual routers. | |||
| DMVPN & DSVPN use NHRP (Next Hop Resolution Protocol) [RFC2735] so | Approach a) usually does not work if Cloud DCs are owned and managed | |||
| that spoke nodes can register their IP addresses & WAN ports with | by different Cloud providers. | |||
| the hub node. The IETF ION (Internetworking over NBMA (non-broadcast | ||||
| multiple access) WG standardized NHRP for connection-oriented NBMA | Approach b) creates additional transmission delay plus incurring | |||
| network (such as ATM) network address resolution more than two | cost when exiting Cloud DCs. | |||
| decades ago. | ||||
| For the Approach c), DMVPN or DSVPN use NHRP (Next Hop Resolution | ||||
| Protocol) [RFC2735] so that spoke nodes can register their IP | ||||
| addresses & WAN ports with the hub node. The IETF ION | ||||
| (Internetworking over NBMA (non-broadcast multiple access) WG | ||||
| standardized NHRP for connection-oriented NBMA network (such as ATM) | ||||
| network address resolution more than two decades ago. | ||||
| There are many differences between virtual routers in Public Cloud | There are many differences between virtual routers in Public Cloud | |||
| DCs and the nodes in an NBMA network. NHRP & DSVPN are not cannot be | DCs and the nodes in an NBMA network. NHRP cannot be used for | |||
| used for registering virtual routers in Cloud DCs unless an | registering virtual routers in Cloud DCs unless an extension of such | |||
| extension of such protocols is developed for that purpose. Other | protocols is developed for that purpose. Therefore, DMVPN and/or | |||
| protocols such as BGP can be used, as described in [BGP-SDWAN]. | DSVPN cannot be used directly for connecting workloads in hybrid | |||
| Cloud DCs. | ||||
| Other protocols such as BGP can be used, as described in [BGP- | ||||
| SDWAN]. | ||||
| 4. Desired Properties for Networks that interconnect Hybrid Clouds | 4. Desired Properties for Networks that interconnect Hybrid Clouds | |||
| The networks that interconnect hybrid cloud DCs must address the | The networks that interconnect hybrid cloud DCs must address the | |||
| following requirements: | following requirements: | |||
| - High availability at any time, whatever the duration of the | - High availability to access all workloads in the desired cloud | |||
| connection to the cloud DC. | DCs. | |||
| Many enterprises include cloud infrastructures in their | Many enterprises include cloud infrastructures in their | |||
| disaster recovery strategy, e.g., by enforcing periodic backup | disaster recovery strategy, e.g., by enforcing periodic backup | |||
| policies within the cloud, or by running backup applications in | policies within the cloud, or by running backup applications in | |||
| the Cloud, etc. Therefore, the connection to the cloud DCs may | the Cloud, etc. Therefore, the connection to the cloud DCs may | |||
| not be permanent, but rather needs to be on-demand. | not be permanent, but rather needs to be on-demand. | |||
| - Global reachability from different geographical zones, thereby | - Global reachability from different geographical zones, thereby | |||
| facilitating the proximity of applications as a function of the | facilitating the proximity of applications as a function of the | |||
| end users' location, to improve latency. | end users' location, to improve latency. | |||
| - Elasticity and mobility, to instantiate additional applications | - Elasticity: prompt connection to newly instantiated | |||
| at Cloud DCs when end-users' usages increase and shut down | applications at Cloud DCs when end-users' usages increase and | |||
| applications at locations when there are fewer end-users. | prompt release of connection after applications at locations | |||
| being removed when demands change. | ||||
| Some enterprises have front-end web portals running in cloud | Some enterprises have front-end web portals running in cloud | |||
| DCs and database servers in their on-premises DCs. Those Front- | DCs and database servers in their on-premises DCs. Those Front- | |||
| end web portals need to be reachable from the public Internet. | end web portals need to be reachable from the public Internet. | |||
| The backend connection to the sensitive data in database | The backend connection to the sensitive data in database | |||
| servers hosted in the on-premises DCs might need secure | servers hosted in the on-premises DCs might need secure | |||
| connections. | connections. | |||
| - Scalable security management. IPsec is commonly used to | - Scalable security management. IPsec is commonly used to | |||
| interconnect cloud gateways with CPEs deployed in the | interconnect cloud gateways with CPEs deployed in the | |||
| enterprise premises. For enterprises with a large number or | enterprise premises. For enterprises with a large number or | |||
| skipping to change at page 11, line 7 ¶ | skipping to change at page 10, line 40 ¶ | |||
| One of the main drivers for moving workloads into the cloud is | One of the main drivers for moving workloads into the cloud is | |||
| the widely available cloud DCs at geographically diverse | the widely available cloud DCs at geographically diverse | |||
| locations, where apps can be instantiated so that they can be | locations, where apps can be instantiated so that they can be | |||
| as close to their end-users as possible. When the user base | as close to their end-users as possible. When the user base | |||
| changes, the applications may be migrated to a new cloud DC | changes, the applications may be migrated to a new cloud DC | |||
| location closest to the new user base. | location closest to the new user base. | |||
| - Most of the cloud DCs do not expose their internal networks, so | - Most of the cloud DCs do not expose their internal networks, so | |||
| the MPLS-based VPNs can only reach Cloud DC's Gateways, not to | the MPLS-based VPNs can only reach Cloud DC's Gateways, not to | |||
| the workloads hosted inside. | the workloads hosted inside. Even with AWS DirectConnect, the | |||
| connection only reaches the AWS DirectConnect Gateway. | ||||
| - Many cloud DCs use an overlay to connect their gateways to the | - Extensive usage of Overlay by Cloud DCs: | |||
| workloads located inside the DC. There is currently no standard | ||||
| that specifies the interworking between the Cloud Overlay and | Many cloud DCs use an overlay to connect their gateways to the | |||
| the enterprise' existing underlay networks. One of the | workloads located inside the DC. There is currently no standard | |||
| characteristics of overlay networks is that some of the WAN | that specifies the interworking between the Cloud Overlay and the | |||
| rd ports of the edge nodes connect to 3 party networks. There is | enterprise' existing underlay networks. One of the | |||
| therefore a need to propagate WAN port information to remote | characteristics of overlay networks is that some of the WAN ports rd of the edge nodes connect to 3 party networks. There is | |||
| rd authorized peers in 3 party network domains in addition to | therefore a need to propagate WAN port information to remote rd authorized peers in 3 party network domains in addition to route | |||
| route propagation. Such an exchange cannot happen before | propagation. Such an exchange cannot happen before communication | |||
| communication between peers is properly secured. | between peers is properly secured. | |||
| Another roadblock is the lack of a standard way to express and | Another roadblock is the lack of a standard way to express and | |||
| enforce consistent security policies for workloads that not only use | enforce consistent security policies for workloads that not only use | |||
| virtual addresses, but in which are also very likely hosted in | virtual addresses, but in which are also very likely hosted in | |||
| different locations within the Cloud DC [RFC8192]. The current VPN | different locations within the Cloud DC [RFC8192]. The current VPN | |||
| path computation and bandwidth allocation schemes may not be | path computation and bandwidth allocation schemes may not be | |||
| flexible enough to address the need for enterprises to rapidly | flexible enough to address the need for enterprises to rapidly | |||
| connect to dynamically instantiated (or removed) workloads and | connect to dynamically instantiated (or removed) workloads and | |||
| applications regardless of their location/nature (i.e., third party | applications regardless of their location/nature (i.e., third party | |||
| cloud DCs). | cloud DCs). | |||
| skipping to change at page 15, line 13 ¶ | skipping to change at page 15, line 13 ¶ | |||
| description, let's call such CPEs asymmetrically-managed CPEs). | description, let's call such CPEs asymmetrically-managed CPEs). | |||
| - Cloud DCs may have different entry points (or devices) with one | - Cloud DCs may have different entry points (or devices) with one | |||
| entry point that terminates a private direct connection (based | entry point that terminates a private direct connection (based | |||
| upon a leased line for example) and other entry points being | upon a leased line for example) and other entry points being | |||
| devices terminating the IPsec tunnels, as shown in Figure 2. | devices terminating the IPsec tunnels, as shown in Figure 2. | |||
| Therefore, the SD-WAN design becomes asymmetric. | Therefore, the SD-WAN design becomes asymmetric. | |||
| +------------------------+ | +------------------------+ | |||
| | ,---. ,---. | | | ,---. ,---. | | |||
| | (TN-1 ) ( TN-2)| | | (TN-1 ) ( TN-2)| TN: Tenant applications/workloads | |||
| | `-+-' +---+ `-+-' | | | `-+-' +---+ `-+-' | | |||
| | +----|vR1|----+ | | | +----|vR1|----+ | | |||
| | ++--+ | | | ++--+ | | |||
| | | +-+----+ | | | +-+----+ | |||
| | | /Internet\ One path via | | | /Internet\ One path via | |||
| | +-------+ Gateway +---------------------+ | | +-------+ Gateway +---------------------+ | |||
| | \ / Internet \ | | \ / Internet \ | |||
| | +-+----+ \ | | +-+----+ \ | |||
| +------------------------+ \ | +------------------------+ \ | |||
| \ | \ | |||
| +------------------------+ native traffic \ | +------------------------+ native traffic \ | |||
| | ,---. ,---. | without encryption| | | ,---. ,---. | without encryption| | |||
| | (TN-3 ) ( TN-4)| | | | (TN-3 ) ( TN-4)| | | |||
| | `-+-' +--+ `-+-' | | +------+ | | `-+-' +--+ `-+-' | | +------+ | |||
| | +----|vR|-----+ | +------+ CPE | | | +----|vR|-----+ | +--+ CPE | | |||
| | ++-+ | | +------+ | | ++-+ | | +------+ | |||
| | | +-+----+ | | | | +-+----+ | | |||
| | | / virtual\ One path via IPsec Tunnel | | | | / virtual\ One path via IPsec Tunnel | | |||
| | +-------+ Gateway +-------------------------- + | | +-------+ Gateway +-------------------------- + | |||
| | \ / Encrypted traffic over| | | \ / Encrypted traffic over| | |||
| | +-+----+ public network | | | +-+----+ public network | | |||
| +------------------------+ | | +------------------------+ | | |||
| | | | | |||
| +------------------------+ | | +------------------------+ | | |||
| | ,---. ,---. | Native traffic | | | ,---. ,---. | Native traffic | | |||
| | (TN-5 ) ( TN-6)| without encryption | | | (TN-5 ) ( TN-6)| without encryption | | |||
| | `-+-' +--+ `-+-' | over secure network| | | `-+-' +--+ `-+-' | over secure network| | |||
| | +----|vR|-----+ | | | | +----|vR|-----+ | | | |||
| | ++-+ | | | | ++-+ | | | |||
| | | +-+----+ +------+ | | | | +-+----+ +------+ | | |||
| | | / \ Via Direct /customer\ | | | | / \ Via Direct /customer\ | | |||
| | +-------+ Gateway +----------+ gateway |-----+ | | +-------+ Gateway +----------+ gateway |-----+ | |||
| | \ / Connect \ / | | \ / Connect \ / | |||
| | +-+----+ +------+ | | +-+----+ +------+ | |||
| +------------------------+ | +------------------------+ Customer GW has physical connection to AWS GW. | |||
| Figure 2: Different Underlays to Reach Cloud DC | Figure 2: Different Underlays to Reach Cloud DC | |||
| 8. End-to-End Security Concerns for Data Flows | 8. End-to-End Security Concerns for Data Flows | |||
| When IPsec tunnels established from enterprise on-premises CPEs | When IPsec tunnels established from enterprise on-premises CPEs | |||
| are terminated at the Cloud DC gateway where the workloads or | are terminated at the Cloud DC gateway where the workloads or | |||
| applications are hosted, some enterprises have concerns regarding | applications are hosted, some enterprises have concerns regarding | |||
| traffic to/from their workload being exposed to others behind the | traffic to/from their workload being exposed to others behind the | |||
| data center gateway (e.g., exposed to other organizations that | data center gateway (e.g., exposed to other organizations that | |||
| skipping to change at page 18, line 14 ¶ | skipping to change at page 18, line 14 ¶ | |||
| [RFC4664] L. Andersson and E. Rosen, "Framework for Layer 2 Virtual | [RFC4664] L. Andersson and E. Rosen, "Framework for Layer 2 Virtual | |||
| Private Networks (L2VPNs)", Sept 2006. | Private Networks (L2VPNs)", Sept 2006. | |||
| [BGP-SDWAN] L. Dunbar, et al. "BGP Extension for SDWAN Overlay | [BGP-SDWAN] L. Dunbar, et al. "BGP Extension for SDWAN Overlay | |||
| Networks", draft-dunbar-idr-bgp-sdwan-overlay-ext-03, | Networks", draft-dunbar-idr-bgp-sdwan-overlay-ext-03, | |||
| work-in-progress, Nov 2018. | work-in-progress, Nov 2018. | |||
| 13. Acknowledgments | 13. Acknowledgments | |||
| Many thanks to Ignas Bagdonas, Michael Huang, Liu Yuan Jiao, | Many thanks to Chris Bowers, Ignas Bagdonas, Michael Huang, Liu Yuan | |||
| Katherine Zhao, and Jim Guichard for the discussion and | Jiao, Katherine Zhao, and Jim Guichard for the discussion and | |||
| contributions. | contributions. | |||
| Authors' Addresses | Authors' Addresses | |||
| Linda Dunbar | Linda Dunbar | |||
| Futurewei | Futurewei | |||
| Email: Linda.Dunbar@huawei.com | Email: Linda.Dunbar@futurewei.com | |||
| Andrew G. Malis | Andrew G. Malis | |||
| Futurewei | Futurewei | |||
| Email: agmalis@gmail.com | Email: agmalis@gmail.com | |||
| Christian Jacquenet | Christian Jacquenet | |||
| Orange | Orange | |||
| Rennes, 35000 | Rennes, 35000 | |||
| France | France | |||
| Email: Christian.jacquenet@orange.com | Email: Christian.jacquenet@orange.com | |||
| End of changes. 36 change blocks. | ||||
| 111 lines changed or deleted | 113 lines changed or added | |||
This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.48. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/ | ||||