Virtual Machine Mobility Solutions for L2 and L3 Overlay Networks

The information below is for an old version of the document
Document Type Active Internet-Draft (nvo3 WG)
Authors Linda Dunbar  , Behcet Sarikaya  , Bhumip Khasnabish  , Tom Herbert  , Saumya Dikshit 
Last updated 2020-04-01 (latest revision 2020-03-30)
Replaces draft-sarikaya-nvo3-vmm-dmm-pmip
Stream IETF
Intended RFC status Informational
Formats pdf htmlized (tools) htmlized bibtex
Stream WG state WG Consensus: Waiting for Write-Up
Doc Shepherd Follow-up Underway
Document shepherd Matthew Bocci
IESG IESG state I-D Exists
Consensus Boilerplate Yes
Telechat date
Responsible AD (None)
Send notices to Matthew Bocci <>
Network Working Group                                      L. Dunbar
Internet Draft                                             Futurewei
Intended status: Informational                           B. Sarikaya
Expires: October 1, 2020                         Denpel Informatique
                                                          T. Herbert
                                                          S. Dikshit
                                                       April 1, 2020

     Virtual Machine Mobility Solutions for L2 and L3 Overlay Networks


   This document describes virtual machine mobility solutions commonly
   used in data centers built with overlay-based network. This document
   is intended for describing the solutions and the impact of moving
   VMs (or applications) from one Rack to another connected by the
   Overlay networks.

   For layer 2, it is based on using an NVA (Network Virtualization
   Authority) - NVE (Network Virtualization Edge) protocol to update
   ARP (Address Resolution Protocol) table or neighbor cache entries
   after a VM (virtual machine) moves from an Old NVE to a New NVE.
   For Layer 3, it is based on address and connection migration after
   the move.

Status of this Memo

   This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
   provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.

   This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
   provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. This document may not be modified,
   and derivative works of it may not be created, except to publish it
   as an RFC and to translate it into languages other than English.

xxx, et al.            Expires October 1, 2020                 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft           VM Mobility Solution         April 1, 2020

   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
   Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups.  Note that
   other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-

   Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six
   months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents
   at any time.  It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as
   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 Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at

   This Internet-Draft will expire on September 30, 2020.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2020 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors. All rights reserved.

   This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
   Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
   ( in effect on the date of
   publication of this document. Please review these documents
   carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with
   respect to this document. Code Components extracted from this
   document must include Simplified BSD License text as described in
   Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without
   warranty as described in the Simplified BSD License.

Table of Contents

   1. Introduction...................................................3
   2. Conventions used in this document..............................4
   3. Requirements...................................................5
   4. Overview of the VM Mobility Solutions..........................6
      4.1. Inter-VNs and External Communication......................6

Dunbar, et al.         Expires October 1, 2020                 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft           VM Mobility Solution         April 1, 2020

      4.2. VM Migration in Layer 2 Network...........................6
      4.3. VM Migration in Layer-3 Network...........................8
      4.4. Address and Connection Management in VM Migration.........9
   5. Handling Packets in Flight....................................10
   6. Moving Local State of VM......................................11
   7. Handling of Hot, Warm and Cold VM Mobility....................11
   8. Other Options.................................................12
   9. VM Lifecycle Management.......................................13
   10. Security Considerations......................................13
   11. IANA Considerations..........................................14
   12. Acknowledgments..............................................14
   13. Change Log...................................................14
   14. References...................................................14
      14.1. Normative References....................................15
      14.2. Informative References..................................16

1. Introduction
     This document describes the overlay-based data center networks
     solutions in supporting multitenancy and VM (Virtual Machine)
     mobility. Being able to move VMs dynamically, from one server to
     another, makes it possible for dynamic load balancing or work
     distribution. Therefore, dynamic VM Mobility is highly desirable
     for large scale multi-tenant DCs.
     This document is strictly within the DCVPN, as defined by the NVO3
     Framework [RFC 7365]. The intent is to describe Layer 2 and Layer
     3 Network behavior when VMs are moved from one NVE to another.
     This document assumes that the VMs move is initiated by VM
     management system, i.e. planed move. How and when to move VM are
     out of the scope of this document. RFC7666 already has the
     description of the MIB for VMs controlled by Hypervisor. The
     impact of VM mobility on higher layer protocols and applications
     is outside its scope.
     Many large DCs (Data Centers), especially Cloud DCs, host tasks
     (or workloads) for multiple tenants. A tenant can be a department
     of one organization or an organization. There are communications
     among tasks belonging to one tenant and communications among tasks
     belonging to different tenants or with external entities.
     Server Virtualization, which is being used in almost all of
     today's data centers, enables many VMs to run on a single physical
     computer or server sharing the processor/memory/storage.  Network
     connectivity among VMs is provided by the network virtualization
     edge (NVE) [RFC8014].  It is highly desirable [RFC7364] to allow
     VMs to be moved dynamically (live, hot, or cold move) from one

Dunbar, et al.         Expires October 1, 2020                 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft           VM Mobility Solution         April 1, 2020

     server to another for dynamic load balancing or optimized work
     There are many challenges and requirements related to VM mobility
     in large data centers, including dynamic attaching/detaching VMs
     to/from Virtual Network Edges (VNEs).  In addition, retaining IP
     addresses after a move is a key requirement [RFC7364].  Such a
     requirement is needed in order to maintain existing transport
     In traditional Layer-3 based networks, retaining IP addresses
     after a move is generally not recommended because the frequent
     move will cause fragmented IP addresses, which introduces
     complexity in IP address management.
     In view of many VM mobility schemes that exist today, there is a
     desire to document comprehensive VM mobility solutions that cover
     both IPv4 and IPv6. The large Data Center networks can be
     organized as one large Layer-2 network geographically distributed
     in several buildings/cities or Layer-3 networks with large number
     of host routes that cannot be aggregated as the result of frequent
     moves from one location to another without changing their IP
     addresses.  The connectivity between Layer 2 boundaries can be
     achieved by the network virtualization edge (NVE) functioning as
     Layer 3 gateway routing across bridging domain such as in
     Warehouse Scale Computers (WSC).

2. Conventions used in this document

      This document uses the terminology defined in [RFC7364].  In
      addition, we make the following definitions:

      VM:    Virtual Machine

      Tasks:  Task is a program instantiated or running on a virtual
               machine or container.  Tasks in virtual machines or
               containers can be migrated from one server to another.
               We use task, workload and virtual machine
               interchangeably in this document.

      Hot VM Mobility: A given VM could be moved from one server to
               another in running state.

Dunbar, et al.         Expires October 1, 2020                 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft           VM Mobility Solution         April 1, 2020

     Warm VM Mobility:  In case of warm VM mobility, the VM states are
               mirrored to the secondary server (or domain) at a
               predefined (configurable) regular intervals.  This
               reduces the overheads and complexity, but this may also
               lead to a situation when both servers may not contain
               the exact same data (state information)

      Cold VM Mobility:  A given VM could be moved from one server to
               another in stopped or suspended state.

      Old NVE:  refers to the old NVE where packets were forwarded to
               before migration.

      New NVE: refers to the new NVE after migration.

      Packets in flight: refers to the packets received by the Old NVE
               sent by the correspondents that have old ARP or neighbor
               cache entry before VM or task migration.

      Users of VMs in diskless systems or systems not using
               configuration files are called end user clients.

      Cloud DC:  Third party data centers that host applications,
               tasks or workloads owned by different organizations or

3. Requirements

   This section states requirements on data center network virtual
   machine mobility.

   Data center network should support both IPv4 and IPv6 VM mobility.

   Virtual machine (VM) mobility should not require changing VMs' IP
   addresses after the move.

   There is "Hot Migration" with transport service continuing, and
   "Cold Migration" with transport service restarted, i.e. the task
   running is stopped on the Old NVE, moved to the New NVE and the task
   is restarted. Not all DCs support "Hot Migration. DCs that only
   support Cold Migration should make their customers aware of the
   potential service interruption during the Cold Migration.

Dunbar, et al.         Expires October 1, 2020                 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft           VM Mobility Solution         April 1, 2020

   VM mobility solutions/procedures should minimize triangular routing
   except for handling packets in flight.

   VM mobility solutions/procedures should not need to use tunneling
   except for handling packets in flight.

4. Overview of the VM Mobility Solutions

     Layer 2 and Layer 3 mobility solutions are described respectively
     in the following sections.

4.1. Inter-VNs and External Communication

     Inter VNs (Virtual Networks) communication refers to communication
     among tenants (or hosts) belonging to different VNs. Those tenants
     can be attached to the NVEs co-located in the same Data Center or
     in different Data centers. When a VM communicates with an external
     entity, the VM is effectively communicating with a peer in a
     different network or a globally reachable host.

     This document assumes that the inter-VNs communication and
     the communication with external entities are via NVO3 Gateway
     functionality as described in Section 5.3 of RFC 8014
     [RFC8014]. NVO3 Gateways relay traffic onto and off of a virtual
     network, enabling communication both across different VNs and with
     external entities.

     NVO3 Gateway functionality enforces appropriate policies to
     control communication among VNs and with external entities (e.g.,

     After a VM is moved to a new NVE, the VM's corresponding Gateway
     may need to change as well. If there is no other entity (or node)
     to take over the corresponding NVO3 Gateway function for the VM
     under the new NVE, the network path between the VM and the
     external entities needs to be hair-pinned to the NVO3 Gateway used
     prior to the VM move.

4.2. VM Migration in Layer 2 Network

     In a Layer-2 based approach, VM moving to another NVE does not
     change its IP address. But this VM is now under a new NVE,
     previously communicating NVEs may continue sending their packets

Dunbar, et al.         Expires October 1, 2020                 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft           VM Mobility Solution         April 1, 2020

     to the Old NVE.  Therefore, Address Resolution Protocol (ARP)
     cache in IPv4 [RFC0826] or neighbor cache in IPv6 [RFC4861] in the
     NVEs that have attached VMs communicating with the VM being moved
     need to be updated promptly. If the VM being moved has
     communication with external entities, the NVO3 gateway needs to be
     notified of the new NVE where the VM is moved to.

     In IPv4, the VM immediately after the move should send a
     gratuitous ARP request message containing its IPv4 and Layer 2 MAC
     address in its new NVE.  Upon receiving this message, the New NVE
     can update its ARP cache. The New NVE should send a notification
     of the newly attached VM to the central directory [RFC7067]
     embedded in the NVA to update the mapping of the IPv4 address &
     MAC address of the moving VM along with the new NVE address.  An
     NVE-to-NVA protocol is used for this purpose [RFC8014]. The old
     NVE, upon a VM is moved away, should send an ARP scan to all its
     attached VMs to refresh its ARP Cache.

     Reverse ARP (RARP) which enables the host to discover its IPv4
     address when it boots from a local server [RFC0903], is not used
     by VMs if the VM already knows its IPv4 address (most common
     scenario). Next, we describe a case where RARP is used.

     There are some vendor deployments (diskless systems or systems
     without configuration files) wherein the VM's user, i.e. end-user
     client askes for the same MAC address upon migration.  This can be
     achieved by the clients sending RARP request message which carries
     the MAC address looking for an IP address allocation.  The server,
     in this case the new NVE needs to communicate with NVA, just like
     in the gratuitous ARP case to ensure that the same IPv4 address is
     assigned to the VM.  NVA uses the MAC address as the key in the
     search of ARP cache to find the IP address and informs this to the
     new NVE which in turn sends RARP reply message.  This completes IP
     address assignment to the migrating VM.

     Other NVEs that have attached VMs or the NVO3 Gateway that have
     external entities communicating with this VM may still have the
     old ARP entry. To avoid old ARP entries being used by other NVEs,
     the old NVE upon discovering a VM is detached should send a
     notification to all other NVEs and its NVO3 Gateway to time out
     the ARP cache for the VM [RFC8171]. When an NVE (including the old
     NVE) receives packet or ARP request destined towards a VM (its MAC
     or IP address) that is not in the NVE's ARP cache, the NVE should
     send query to NVA's Directory Service to get the associated NVE
     address for the VM. This is how the Old NVE tunneling these in-
     flight packets to the New NVE to avoid packets loss.

Dunbar, et al.         Expires October 1, 2020                 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft           VM Mobility Solution         April 1, 2020

     When VM address is IPv6, the operation is similar:

     In IPv6, after the move, the VM immediately sends an unsolicited
     neighbor advertisement message containing its IPv6 address and
     Layer-2 MAC address to its new NVE. This message is sent to the
     IPv6 Solicited Node Multicast Address corresponding to the target
     address which is the VM's IPv6 address. The NVE receiving this
     message should send request to update VM's neighbor cache entry in
     the central directory of the NVA.  The NVA's neighbor cache entry
     should include IPv6 address of the VM, MAC address of the VM and
     the NVE IPv6 address.  An NVE-to-NVA protocol is used for this
     purpose [RFC8014].

     To avoid other NVEs communicating with this VM using the old
     neighbor cache entry, the old NVE upon discovering a VM being
     moved or VM management system which initiates the VM move should
     send a notification to all NVEs to timeout the ND cache for the VM
     being moved.  When a ND cache entry for those VMs times out, their
     corresponding NVEs should send query to the NVA for an update.

4.3. VM Migration in Layer-3 Network

     Traditional Layer-3 based data center networks usually have all
     hosts (tasks) within one subnet attached to one NVE. By this
     design, the NVE becomes the default route for all hosts (tasks)
     within the subnet. But this design requires IP address of a host
     (task) to change after the move to comply with the prefixes of the
     IP address under the new NVE.

     A VM migration in Layer 3 Network solution is to allow IP
     addresses staying the same after moving to different locations.
     The Identifier Locator Addressing or ILA [I-D.herbert-intarea-ila]
     is one of such solutions.

     Because broadcasting is not available in Layer-3 based networks,
     multicast of neighbor solicitations in IPv6 and ARP for IPv4 would
     need to be emulated. Scalability of the multicast (such as IPv6 ND
     and IPv4 ARP) can become problematic because the hosts belonging
     to one subnet (or one VLAN) can span across many NVEs. Sending
     broadcast traffic to all NVEs can cause unnecessary traffic in the
     DCN if the hosts belonging to one subnet are only attached to a
     very small number of NVEs. It is preferable to have a directory
     [RFC7067] or NVA to manage the updates to an NVE of the potential
     other NVEs a specific subnet may be attached and get periodic

Dunbar, et al.         Expires October 1, 2020                 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft           VM Mobility Solution         April 1, 2020

     reports from an NVE of all the subnets being attached/detached, as
     described by RFC8171.

     Hot VM Migration in Layer 3 involves coordination among many
     entities, such as VM management system and NVA. Cold task
     migration, which is a common practice in many data centers,
     involves the following steps:

     - Stop running the task.
     - Package the runtime state of the job.
     - Send the runtime state of the task to the New NVE where the
        task is to run.
     - Instantiate the task's state on the new machine.
     - Start the tasks for the task continuing from the point at which
        it was stopped.

     RFC7666 has the more detailed description of the State Machine of
     VMs controlled by Hypervisor

4.4. Address and Connection Management in VM Migration

     Since the VM attached to the New NVE needs to be assigned with the
     same address as VM attached to the Old NVE, extra processing or
     configuration is needed, such as:

     - Configure IPv4/v6 address on the target VM/NVE.
     - Suspend use of the address on the old NVE.  This includes the
        old NVE sending query to NVA upon receiving packets destined
        towards the VM being moved away. If there is no response from
        NVA for the new NVE for the VM, the old NVE can only drop the
        packets. Referring to the VM State Machine described in
     - Trigger NVA to push the new NVE-VM mapping to other NVEs which
        have the attached VMs communicating with the VM being moved.

     Connection management for the applications running on the VM being
     moved involves reestablishing existing TCP connections in the new

     The simplest course of action is to drop all TCP connections to
     the applications running on the VM during a migration.  If the
     migrations are relatively rare events in a data center, impact is
     relatively small when TCP connections are automatically closed in

Dunbar, et al.         Expires October 1, 2020                 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft           VM Mobility Solution         April 1, 2020

     the network stack during a migration event.  If the applications
     running are known to handle this gracefully (i.e. reopen dropped
     connections) then this approach may be viable.

     More involved approach to connection migration entails a proxy to
     the application (or the application itself) to pause the
     connection, package connection state and send to target,
     instantiate connection state in the peer stack, and restarting the
     connection.  From the time the connection is paused to the time it
     is running again in the new stack, packets received for the
     connection could be silently dropped.  For some period of time,
     the old stack will need to keep a record of the migrated
     connection.  If it receives a packet, it can either silently drop
     the packet or forward it to the new location, as described in
     Section 5.

5. Handling Packets in Flight

     The Old NVE may receive packets from the VM's ongoing
     communications. These packets should not be lost; they should be
     sent to the New NVE to be delivered to the VM.  The steps involved
     in handling packets in flight are as follows:

     Preparation Step:  It takes some time, possibly a few seconds for
     a VM to move from its Old NVE to a New NVE. During this period, a
     tunnel needs to be established so that the Old NVE can forward
     packets to the New NVE. Old NVE gets New NVE address from its NVA
     assuming that the NVA gets the notification when a VM is moved
     from one NVE to another. It is out of the scope of this document
     on which entity manages the VM move and how NVA gets notified of
     the move. The Old NVE can store the New NVE address for the VM
     with a timer. When the timer expired, the entry for the New NVE
     for the VM can be deleted.

     Tunnel Establishment - IPv6:  Inflight packets are tunneled to the
     New NVE using the encapsulation protocol such as VXLAN in IPv6.

     Tunnel Establishment - IPv4:  Inflight packets are tunneled to the
     New NVE using the encapsulation protocol such as VXLAN in IPv4.

     Tunneling Packets - IPv6:  IPv6 packets received for the migrating
     VM are encapsulated in an IPv6 header at the Old NVE.  New NVE
     decapsulates the packet and sends IPv6 packet to the migrating VM.

     Tunneling Packets - IPv4:  IPv4 packets received for the migrating
     VM are encapsulated in an IPv4 header at the Old NVE. New NVE
     decapsulates the packet and sends IPv4 packet to the migrating VM.

Dunbar, et al.         Expires October 1, 2020                [Page 10]
Internet-Draft           VM Mobility Solution         April 1, 2020

     Stop Tunneling Packets:  When the Timer for storing the New NVE
     address for the VM expires. The Timer should be long enough for
     all other NVEs that need to communicate with the VM to get their
     NVE-VM cache entries updated.

6. Moving Local State of VM
     In addition to the VM mobility related signaling (VM Mobility
     Registration Request/Reply), the VM state needs to be transferred
     to the New NVE.  The state includes its memory and file system if
     the VM cannot access the memory and the file system after moving
     to the New NVE.

     The mechanism of transferring VM States and file system is out of
     the scope of this document. Referring to RFC7666 for detailed

7. Handling of Hot, Warm and Cold VM Mobility
     Both Cold and Warm VM mobility (or migration) refers to the VM
     being completely shut down at the Old NVE before restarted at the
     New NVE. Therefore, all transport services to the VM are

     In this document, all VM mobility is initiated by VM Management
     System.  The Cold VM mobility only exchange the needed states
     between the Old NVE and the New NVE after the VM attached to the
     Old NVE is completely shut down. There is time delay before the
     new VM is launched. The cold mobility option can be used for non-
     critical applications and services that can tolerate interrupted
     TCP connections.

     The Warm VM mobility refers to having the functional components
     under the new NVE to receive running status of the VM at frequent
     intervals, so that it can take less time to launch the VM under
     the new NVE and other NVEs that communicate with the VM can be
     notified of the VM move more promptly.  The duration of the
     interval determines the effectiveness (or benefit) of Warm VM
     mobility.  The larger the duration, the less effective the Warm VM
     mobility option becomes.

     For Hot VM Mobility, once a VM moves to a New NVE, the VM IP
     address does not change and the VM should be able to continue to
     receive packets to its address(es). The VM needs to send a
     gratuitous Address Resolution message or unsolicited Neighbor
     Advertisement message upstream after each move.

Dunbar, et al.         Expires October 1, 2020                [Page 11]
Internet-Draft           VM Mobility Solution         April 1, 2020

     Upon starting at the New NVE, the VM should send an ARP or
     Neighbor Discovery message. Cold VM mobility also allows the Old
     NVE and all communicating NVEs to time out ARP/neighbor cache
     entries of the VM.  It is necessary for the NVA to push the
     updated ARP/neighbor cache entry to NVEs or for NVEs to pull the
     updated ARP/neighbor cache entry from NVA.

8. Other Options
     VM Hot mobility is to enable uninterrupted running of the
     application or workload instantiated on the VM when the VM running
     conditions changes, such as utilization overload, hardware running
     condition changes, or others. Hot, Warm and Cold mobility are
     planned activities which are managed by VM management system.

     For unexpected events, such as unexpected failure, a VM might need
     to move to a new NVE, which is called Hot VM Failover in this
     document. For Hot VM Failover, there are redundant primary and
     secondary VMs whose states are synchronized by means that are
     outside the scope of this draft. If the VM in the primary NVE
     fails, there is no need to actively move the VM to the secondary
     NVE because the VM in the secondary NVE can immediately pick up
     the processing.

     The VM Failover to the new NVE is transparent to the peers that
     communicate with this VM. This can be achieved by both active VM
     and standby VM share the same TCP port and same IP address, and
     using distributed load balancing functionality that controls which
     VM responds to each service request. In the absence of a failure,
     the new VM can pick up providing service while the sender (peer)
     still continues to receive Ack from the old VM. If the situation
     (loading condition of the primary responding VM) changes the
     secondary responding VM may start providing service to the sender
     (peers).  On failure, the sender (peer) may have to retry the
     request, so this structure is limited to requests that can be
     safely retried.

     If load balancing functionality is not used, the VM Failover can
     be made transparent to the sender (peers) without relying on
     request retry by using techniques described in section 4 that do
     not depend on the primary VM or its associated NVE doing anything
     after the failure.  This restriction is necessary because a
     failure that affects the primary VM may also cause its associated
     NVE to fail (e.g., if the NVE is located in the hypervisor
     that hosts the primary VM and the underlying physical server
     fails, both the primary VM and the hypervisor that contains the
     NVE fail as a consequence).

Dunbar, et al.         Expires October 1, 2020                [Page 12]
Internet-Draft           VM Mobility Solution         April 1, 2020

     The Hot VM Failover option is the costliest mechanism, and hence
     this option is utilized only for mission-critical applications and

9. VM Lifecycle Management
     The VM lifecycle management is a complicated task, which is beyond
     the scope of this document. Not only it involves monitoring server
     utilization, balanced distribution of workload, etc., but also
     needs to manage seamlessly VM migration from one server to

10. Security Considerations
     Security threats for the data and control plane for overlay
     networks are discussed in [RFC8014].  ARP (IPv4) and ND (IPv6) are
     not secure, especially if they can be sent gratuitously across
     tenant boundaries in a multi-tenant environment.

     In overlay data center networks, ARP and ND messages can be used
     to mount address spoofing attacks from untrusted VMs and/or other
     untrusted sources. Examples of untrusted VMs include running third
     party applications (i.e., applications not written by the tenant
     who controls the VM). Those untrusted VMs can send falsified ARP
     (IPv4) and ND (IPv6) messages, causing NVE, NVO3 Gateway, and NVA
     to be overwhelmed and not able to perform legitimate functions.
     The attacker can intercept, modify, or even stop data in-transit
     ARP/ND messages intended for other VNs and initiate DDOS attacks
     to other VMs attached to the same NVE. A simple black-hole attacks
     can be mounted by sending a falsified ARP/ND message to indicate
     that the victim's IP address has moved to the attacker's VM.  That
     technique can also be used to mount man-in-the-middle attacks with
     some more effort to ensure that the intercepted traffic is
     eventually delivered to the victim.

     The locator-identifier mechanism given as an example (ILA) doesn't
     include secure binding. It doesn't discuss how to securely bind
     the new locator to the identifier.

     Because of those threats, VM management system needs to apply
     stronger security mechanisms when add a VM to an NVE. Some tenants
     may have requirement that prohibit their VMs to be co-attached to
     the NVEs with other tenants. Some Data Centers deploy additional
     functionality in their NVO3 Gateways for mitigation of ARP/ND
     threats, e.g., periodically sending each Gateway's ARP/ND cache

Dunbar, et al.         Expires October 1, 2020                [Page 13]
Internet-Draft           VM Mobility Solution         April 1, 2020

     contents to the NVA or other central control system to check for
     ARP/ND cache entries that are not consistent with the locations of
     VMs and their IP addresses indicated by the VM Management System.

11. IANA Considerations

       This document makes no request to IANA.

12. Acknowledgments

   The authors are grateful to Bob Briscoe, David Black, Dave R.
   Worley, Qiang Zu, Andrew Malis for helpful comments.

13. Change Log

  . submitted version -00 as a working group draft after adoption

  . submitted version -01 with these changes: references are updated,
       o added packets in flight definition to Section 2

  . submitted version -02 with updated address.

  . submitted version -03 to fix the nits.

  . submitted version -04 in reference to the WG Last call comments.

  . Submitted version - 05, 06, 07, 08, 09, 10, 11, 12 to address IETF
     LC comments from TSV area.

14. References

Dunbar, et al.         Expires October 1, 2020                [Page 14]
Internet-Draft           VM Mobility Solution         April 1, 2020

14.1. Normative References

   [RFC0826]  Plummer, D., "An Ethernet Address Resolution Protocol: Or
             Converting Network Protocol Addresses to 48.bit Ethernet
             Address for Transmission on Ethernet Hardware", STD 37,
             RFC 826, DOI 10.17487/RFC0826, November 1982,

    [RFC0903]  Finlayson, R., Mann, T., Mogul, J., and M. Theimer, "A
             Reverse Address Resolution Protocol", STD 38, RFC 903,
             DOI 10.17487/RFC0903, June 1984, <https://www.rfc-

    [RFC2119]  Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
             Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.

    [RFC2629]  Rose, M., "Writing I-Ds and RFCs using XML", RFC 2629,
             DOI 10.17487/RFC2629, June 1999,  <https://www.rfc-

    [RFC4861]  Narten, T., Nordmark, E., Simpson, W., and H. Soliman,
             "Neighbor Discovery for IP version 6 (IPv6)", RFC 4861,
             DOI 10.17487/RFC4861, September 2007,  <https://www.rfc-

    [RFC7067] L. Dunbar, D. Eastlake, R. Perlman, I. Gashinsky,
             "directory Assistance Problem and High Level Design
             Proposal", RFC7067, Nov. 2013

   [RFC7348]  Mahalingam, M., Dutt, D., Duda, K., Agarwal, P., Kreeger,
             L., Sridhar, T., Bursell, M., and C. Wright, "Virtual
             eXtensible Local Area Network (VXLAN): A Framework for
             Overlaying Virtualized Layer 2 Networks over Layer 3
             Networks", RFC 7348, DOI 10.17487/RFC7348, August 2014,

Dunbar, et al.         Expires October 1, 2020                [Page 15]
Internet-Draft           VM Mobility Solution         April 1, 2020

    [RFC7364]  Narten, T., Ed., Gray, E., Ed., Black, D., Fang, L.,
             Kreeger, L., and M. Napierala, "Problem Statement:
             Overlays for Network Virtualization", RFC 7364,  DOI
             10.17487/RFC7364, October 2014,  <https://www.rfc-

    [RFC7666] H. Asai, et al, "Management Information Base for Virtual
             Machines Controlled by a Hypervisor", RFC7666, Oct 2015.

   [RFC8014]  Black, D., Hudson, J., Kreeger, L., Lasserre, M., and T.
             Narten, "An Architecture for Data-Center Network
             Virtualization over Layer 3 (NVO3)", RFC 8014,  DOI
             10.17487/RFC8014, December 2016, <https://www.rfc-

   [RFC8171] D. Eastlake, L. Dunbar, R. Perlman, Y. Li, "Edge Directory
             Assistance Mechanisms", RFC 8171, June 2017
14.2. Informative References

    [I-D.herbert-intarea-ila] Herbert, T. and P. Lapukhov, "Identifier-
             locator addressing for IPv6", draft-herbert-intarea-ila -
             04 (work in progress), March 2017.

Dunbar, et al.         Expires October 1, 2020                [Page 16]
Internet-Draft           VM Mobility Solution         April 1, 2020

Authors' Addresses

   Linda Dunbar

   Behcet Sarikaya
   Denpel Informatique

   Bhumip Khasnabish

   Tom Herbert

   Saumya Dikshit
   Bangalore, India

Dunbar, et al.         Expires October 1, 2020                [Page 17]