An extended IP VPN Architecture
draft-casey-vpn-extns-00
| Document | Type |
Expired Internet-Draft
(individual)
Expired & archived
|
|
|---|---|---|---|
| Author | Dr. Liam Casey | ||
| Last updated | 1998-11-18 | ||
| RFC stream | (None) | ||
| Intended RFC status | (None) | ||
| Formats | |||
| Stream | Stream state | (No stream defined) | |
| Consensus boilerplate | Unknown | ||
| RFC Editor Note | (None) | ||
| IESG | IESG state | Expired | |
| Telechat date | (None) | ||
| Responsible AD | (None) | ||
| Send notices to | (None) |
This Internet-Draft is no longer active. A copy of the expired Internet-Draft is available in these formats:
Abstract
This Internet Draft extends the framework for IP VPN's, as, for example, described by Heinanen et al.[1] and Gleeson et al [2], to include the concept of VPN Areas. VPN areas relate to the scoping of the mechanisms (membership dissemination, tunneling etc.) used to provide IP VPN service. VPN areas are a partitioning of the shared service provider's network. In general, all sites within a VPN area are one tunneled hop from each other, but multiple tunneled hops will be required for traffic between sites served by different VPN areas. Two reasons why Service Providers might partition their IP network into areas in support of VPN's are to achieve scalability, and to match administrative domain. VPN areas also facilitate the use of different IP VPN mechanisms in different parts of the network. There are multiple proposals for tunnel technology and discovery mechanisms for IP VPN's. The VPN area concept allows them to co-exist in one provider's network as well as smoothing migration to new mechanisms. This draft also examines the impact that VPN areas have on the IP VPN framework mechanisms described in [2]. The conclusion reached is that the best mechanism for intra-VPN reachability dissemination is a full routing protocol run by Virtual Routers.
Authors
(Note: The e-mail addresses provided for the authors of this Internet-Draft may no longer be valid.)