Skip to main content

A Framework for Enhanced Virtual Private Networks (VPN+) Services
draft-ietf-teas-enhanced-vpn-05

The information below is for an old version of the document.
Document Type
This is an older version of an Internet-Draft whose latest revision state is "Active".
Authors Jie Dong , Stewart Bryant , Zhenqiang Li , Takuya Miyasaka , Young Lee
Last updated 2020-02-18 (Latest revision 2020-01-23)
Replaces draft-dong-teas-enhanced-vpn
RFC stream Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF)
Formats
Reviews
Additional resources Mailing list discussion
Stream WG state WG Document
Document shepherd (None)
IESG IESG state I-D Exists
Consensus boilerplate Unknown
Telechat date (None)
Responsible AD (None)
Send notices to (None)
draft-ietf-teas-enhanced-vpn-05
TEAS working group                                            J. Dong 
Internet-Draft                                                 Huawei 
Intended status: Informational                              S. Bryant 
Expires: July 2020                                          Futurewei 
                                                                Z. Li 
                                                         China Mobile 
                                                          T. Miyasaka 
                                                     KDDI Corporation 
                                                                Y.Lee 
                                            Sung Kyun Kwan University
                                                    February 18, 2020                                                   

                                                                                                        
    A Framework for Enhanced Virtual Private Networks (VPN+) Services 
                                      
                      draft-ietf-teas-enhanced-vpn-05 

Abstract 

   This document describes the framework for Enhanced Virtual Private 
   Network (VPN+) service.  The purpose is to support the needs of new 
   applications, particularly applications that are associated with 5G 
   services, by utilizing an approach that is based on existing VPN and 
   TE technologies and adds features that specific services require 
   over and above traditional VPNs. 

   Typically, VPN+ will be used to form the underpinning of network 
   slicing, but could also be of use in its own right providing 
   enhanced connectivity services between customer sites. 

   It is envisaged that enhanced VPNs will be delivered using a 
   combination of existing, modified, and new networking technologies. 
   This document provides an overview of relevant technologies and 
   identifies some areas for potential new work. 

   It is not envisaged that quite large numbers of VPN+ services will be 
   deployed in a network and, in particular, it is not intended that 
   all VPNs supported by a network will use VPN+ related techniques. 

Status of This Memo 

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

   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering 
   Task Force (IETF).  Note that other groups may also distribute 
   working documents as Internet-Drafts.  The list of current Internet-
   Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. 

 
 
 
Dong, et al.           Expires August 18, 2020                [Page 1] 


Internet-Draft             VPN+ Framework                February 2020 
    

   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." 

   This Internet-Draft will expire on August 18, 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 
   (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) 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. Terminologies ............................................... 6 
   3. Overview of the Requirements  ............................... 7 
      3.1. Isolation between Enhanced VPN Services ................ 7 
         3.1.1. A Pragmatic Approach to Isolation ................. 8 
      3.2. Performance Guarantee .................................. 9 
      3.3. Integration ........................................... 11 
         3.3.1. Abstraction ...................................... 11 
      3.4. Dynamic Management .................................... 12 
      3.5. Customized Control .................................... 12 
      3.6. Applicability ......................................... 13 
      3.7. Inter-Domain and Inter-Layer Network .................. 13 
   4. Architecture of Enhanced VPN ............................... 13 
      4.1. Layered Architecture  ................................. 15 
      4.2. Multi-Point to Multi-Point (MP2MP) Connectivity ....... 17 
      4.3. Application Specific Network Types .................... 18 
      4.4. Scaling Considerations ................................ 18 
   5. Candidate Technologies ..................................... 19 
      5.1. Layer-Two Data Plane .................................. 19 
         5.1.1. Flexible Ethernet ................................ 19 
         5.1.2. Dedicated Queues ................................. 20 

 
 
Dong, et al.           Expires August 18, 2020                [Page 2] 


Internet-Draft             VPN+ Framework                February 2020 
    

         5.1.3. Time Sensitive Networking ........................ 20 
      5.2. Layer-Three Data Plane ................................ 21 
         5.2.1. Deterministic Networking ......................... 21 
         5.2.2. MPLS Traffic Engineering (MPLS-TE) ............... 21 
         5.2.3. Segment Routing .................................. 21 
      5.3. Non-Packet Data Plane ................................. 22 
      5.4. Control Plane ......................................... 22 
      5.5. Management Plane ...................................... 23 
      5.6. Applicability of Service Data Models to Enhanced VPN .. 23 
         5.6.1. Enhanced VPN Delivery in the ACTN Architecture ... 24 
         5.6.2. Enhanced VPN Features with Service Data Models ... 25 
         5.6.3. 5G Transport Service Delivery via Coordinated Data 
         Modules ................................................. 27 
   6. Scalability Considerations ................................. 29 
      6.1. Maximum Stack Depth of SR ............................. 30 
      6.2. RSVP Scalability ...................................... 30 
      6.3. SDN Scaling ........................................... 30 
   7. OAM Considerations ......................................... 30 
   8. Telemetry Considerations ................................... 31 
   9. Enhanced Resiliency ........................................ 31 
   10. Operational Considerations ................................ 33 
   11. Security Considerations ................................... 33 
   12. IANA Considerations ....................................... 33 
   13. Contributors .............................................. 34 
   14. Acknowledgments ........................................... 34 
   15. References ................................................ 34 
      15.1. Normative References ................................. 34 
      15.2. Informative References ............................... 36 
   Authors' Addresses ............................................ 40 
    
1. Introduction 

   Virtual private networks (VPNs) have served the industry well as a 
   means of providing different groups of users with logically isolated 
   connectivity over a common network.  The common or base network that 
   is used to provide the VPNs is often referred to as the underlay, 
   and the VPN is often called an overlay. 

   Customers of a network operator may request a connectivity services 
   with advanced characteristics such as enhanced isolation from other 
   services so that changes in some other service (such as changes in 
   network load, or events such as congestion or outages) have no or 
   acceptable effect on the throughput or latency of the services 
   provided to the customer. These services are "enhanced VPNs" (known 
   as VPN+) in that they are similar to VPN services as they provide 

 
 
Dong, et al.           Expires August 18, 2020                [Page 3] 


Internet-Draft             VPN+ Framework                February 2020 
    

   the customer with required connectivity, but have enhanced 
   characteristics. 

   Driven largely by needs surfacing from 5G, the concept of network 
   slicing has gained traction [NGMN-NS-Concept] [TS23501] [TS28530] 
   [BBF-SD406]. According to [TS28530], a 5G end-to-end network slice 
   consists of three major types network segments: Radio Access Network 
   (RAN), Transport Network (TN) and Mobile Core Network (CN).  The 
   transport network provides the required connectivity between 
   different entities in RAN and CN segments of an end-to-end network 
   slice, with specific performance commitment. 

   A transport network slice is a virtual (logical) network with a 
   particular network topology and a set of shared or dedicated network 
   resources, which are used to provide the network slice consumer with 
   the required connectivity, appropriate isolation and specific 
   Service Level Agreement (SLA) or Service Level Objective (SLO). 

   A transport network slice could span multiple technologies (such as 
   IP or Optical) and multiple administrative domains. Depending on the 
   consumer's requirement, a transport network slice could be isolated 
   from other, often concurrent transport network slices in terms of 
   data plane, control plane, and management plane resources. 

   In this document the term "network slice" refers to a transport 
   network slice, and is considered as one typical use case of enhanced 
   VPN. 

   Network slicing builds on the concept of resource management, 
   network virtualization, and abstraction to provide performance 
   assurance, flexibility, programmability and modularity.  It may use 
   techniques such as Software Defined Networking (SDN) [RFC7149], 
   network abstraction [RFC7926] and Network Function Virtualization 
   (NFV) [RFC8172] [RFC8568] to create multiple logical (virtual) 
   networks, each tailored for a set of services or a particular tenant 
   or a group of tenants that share the same or similar set of 
   requirements, on top of a common network.  How the network slices 
   are engineered can be deployment-specific. 

   VPN+ could be used to form the underpinning of transport network 
   slice, but could also be of use in general cases providing enhanced 
   connectivity services between customer sites. 

    

 
 
Dong, et al.           Expires August 18, 2020                [Page 4] 


Internet-Draft             VPN+ Framework                February 2020 
    

   The requirement of enhanced VPN services cannot be met by simple 
   overlay networks, as they require tighter coordination and 
   integration between the underlay and the overlay network. VPN+ is 
   built from a VPN overlay and a underlying Virtual Transport Network 
   (VTN) which has a customized network topology and a set of dedicated 
   or shared network resources.  It may optionally include a set of 
   invoked service functions allocated from the underlay network.  Thus 
   an enhanced VPN can achieve greater isolation with strict 
   performance guarantees.  These new properties, which have general 
   applicability, may also be of interest as part of a network slicing 
   solution. It is not envisaged that VPN+ services will replace 
   traditional VPN services that can continue to be deployed using pre-
   existing mechanisms.  
   
   This document specifies a framework for using 
   existing, modified, and potential new technologies as components to 
   provide a VPN+ service. Specifically we are concerned with: 

      o  The design of the enhanced data plane. 

      o  The necessary protocols in both the underlay and the overlay 
   of the enhanced VPN. 

      o  The mechanisms to achieve integration between overlay and 
   underlay. 

      o  The necessary Operation, Administration, and Management (OAM) 
   methods to instrument an enhanced VPN to make sure that the required 
   Service Level Agreement (SLA) is met, and to take any corrective 
   action to avoid SLA violation, such as switching to an alternate 
   path. 

   The required layered network structure to achieve this is shown in 
   Section 4.1. 

   Note that, in this document, the relationship of the four terms 
   "VPN", "Enhanced VPN" (or "VPN+"), "Virtual Transport Network (VTN)", 
   and "Network Slice" are described as below: 

      o  An enhanced VPN (VPN+) can be considered as an evolution of 
   VPN service, but with additional service-specific commitments.  Thus, 
   care must be taken with the term "VPN" to distinguish normal or 
   legacy VPNs from VPN+ services. 

      o  A Virtual Transport Network (VTN) is a virtual underlay 
   network that connects customer edge points with the additional 
   capability of providing the isolation and performance 
   characteristics required by an enhanced VPN customer. 
 
 
Dong, et al.           Expires August 18, 2020                [Page 5] 


Internet-Draft             VPN+ Framework                February 2020 
    

      o  An enhanced VPN (VPN+) is made by integrating an overlay VPN 
   and an VTN with a set of network resources allocated in the underlay 
   network. 

      o  A network slice in transport network could be provided with an 
   enhanced VPN (VPN+). 

2. Terminologies 

   The following terms are used in this document. Some of them are 
   newly defined, some others reference existing definitions: 

   ACTN:  Abstraction and Control of TE Networks [RFC8453] 

   Detnet:  Deterministic Networking [DETNET] 

   FlexE:  Flexible Ethernet [FLEXE] 

   TSN:  Time Sensitive Networking [TSN] 

   VN:  Virtual Network [I-D.ietf-teas-actn-vn-yang] 

   VPN:  Virtual Private Network. IPVPN is defined in [RFC2764], L2VPN 
   is defined in [RFC4664] 

   VPN+:  Enhanced VPN service. An enhanced VPN service (VPN+) can be 
   considered as an evolution of VPN service, but with additional 
   service-specific commitments such as enhanced isolation and 
   performance guarantee. 

   VTP:  Virtual Transport Path. A VTP is a virtual underlay path which 
   connects two customer edge points with the capability of providing 
   the isolation and performance characteristics required by an 
   enhanced VPN customer. A VTP usually has a customized path with a 
   set of reserved network resources along the path. 

   VTN:  Virtual Transport Network. A VTN is a virtual underlay network 
   that connects customer edge points with the capability of providing 
   the isolation and performance characteristics required by an 
   enhanced VPN customer. A VTN usually has a customized topology and a 
   set of dedicated or shared network resources. 

    

 
 
Dong, et al.           Expires August 18, 2020                [Page 6] 


Internet-Draft             VPN+ Framework                February 2020 
    

3. Overview of the Requirements 

   In this section we provide an overview of the requirements of an 
   enhanced VPN service. 

3.1. Isolation between Enhanced VPN Services 

   One element of the SLA demanded for an enhanced VPN is a guarantee 
   that the service offered to the customer will not be perturbed by 
   any other traffic flows in the network.  One way for a service 
   provider to guarantee the customer's SLA is by controlling the 
   degree of isolation from other services in the network.  Isolation 
   is a feature that can be requested by customers. There are different 
   grades of how isolation may be enabled by a network operator and 
   that may result in different levels of service perceived by the 
   customer.  These range from simple separation of service traffic on 
   delivery (ensuring that traffic is not delivered to the wrong 
   customer), all the way to complete separation within the underlay so 
   that the traffic from different services use distinct network 
   resources. 

   The terms hard and soft isolation are used to identify different 
   levels of isolation.  A VPN has soft isolation if the traffic of one 
   VPN cannot be received by the customers of another VPN.  Both IP and 
   MPLS VPNs are examples of VPNs with soft isolation: the network 
   delivers the traffic only to the required VPN endpoints. However, 
   with soft isolation, traffic from VPNs and regular non-VPN traffic 
   may congest the network resulting in packet loss and delay for other 
   VPNs operating normally.  The ability for a VPN service or a group 
   of VPN services to be sheltered from this effect is called hard 
   isolation, and this property is required by some applications.  Hard 
   isolation is needed so that applications with exacting requirements 
   can function correctly, despite other demands (perhaps a burst of 
   traffic in another VPN) competing for the underlying resources.  In 
   practice isolation may be offered as a spectrum between soft and 
   hard, and in some cases soft and hard isolation may be used in a 
   hierarchical manner.  An operator may offer its customers a choice 
   of different degrees of isolation ranging from soft isolation up to 
   hard isolation. 

   An example of the requirement for hard isolation is a network 
   supporting both emergency services and public broadband multi-media 
   services.  During a major incident the VPNs supporting these 
   services would both be expected to experience high data volumes, and 
   it is important that both make progress in the transmission of their 
   data. In these circumstances the VPN services would require an 

 
 
Dong, et al.           Expires August 18, 2020                [Page 7] 


Internet-Draft             VPN+ Framework                February 2020 
    

   appropriate degree of isolation to be able to continue to operate 
   acceptably.  On the other hand, VPNs servicing ordinary bulk data 
   may expect to contest for network resources and queue packets so 
   that traffic is delivered within SLAs, but with some potential 
   delays and interference. 

   In order to provide the required level of isolation, resources may 
   have to be reserved in the data plane of the underlay network and 
   dedicated to traffic from a specific VPN or a specific group of VPNs 
   to form different enhanced VPNs in the network.  This may introduce 
   scalability concerns, thus some trade-off needs to be considered to 
   provide the required isolation between some enhanced VPNs while 
   still allowing reasonable sharing. 

   An optical layer can offer a high degree of isolation, at the cost 
   of allocating resources on a long term and end-to-end basis.  On the 
   other hand, where adequate isolation can be achieved at the packet 
   layer, this permits the resources to be shared amongst a group of 
   services and only dedicated to a service on a temporary basis. 

   There are several new technologies that provide some assistance with 
   these data plane issues.  Firstly there is the IEEE project on Time 
   Sensitive Networking [TSN] which introduces the concept of packet 
   scheduling of delay and loss sensitive packets.  Then there is 
   [FLEXE] which provides the ability to multiplex multiple channels 
   over one or more Ethernet links in a way that provides hard 
   isolation.  Finally there are advanced queueing approaches which 
   allow the construction of virtual sub-interfaces, each of which is 
   provided with dedicated resource in a shared physical interface. 
   These approaches are described in more detail later in this document. 

   Section 3.1.1 explores pragmatic approaches to isolation in packet 
   networks. 

3.1.1. A Pragmatic Approach to Isolation 

   A key question is whether it is possible to achieve hard isolation 
   in packet networks that were never designed to support hard 
   isolation. On the contrary, they were designed to provide 
   statistical multiplexing, a significant economic advantage when 
   compared to a dedicated, or a Time Division Multiplexing (TDM) 
   network.  However, there is no need to provide any harder isolation 
   than is required by the applications.  An approximation to this 
   requirement is sufficient in most cases.  Pseudowires [RFC3985] 
   emulate services that would have had hard isolation in their native 
   form. 

 
 
Dong, et al.           Expires August 18, 2020                [Page 8] 


Internet-Draft             VPN+ Framework                February 2020 
    

      This spectrum of isolation is shown in Figure 1: 

    

           O=================================================O 
           |          \---------------v---------------/ 
       Statistical                Pragmatic             Absolute 
       Multiplexing               Isolation            Isolation 
      (Traditional VPNs)        (Enhanced VPN)     (Dedicated Network) 
    
                    Figure 1 The Spectrum of Isolation 

   Figure 1 shows the spectrum of isolation that may be delivered by a 
   network.  At one end of the figure, we have traditional statistical 
   multiplexing technologies that support VPNs.  This is a service type 
   that has served the industry well and will continue to do so.  At 
   the opposite end of the spectrum, we have the absolute isolation 
   provided by dedicated transport networks.  The goal of enhanced VPNs 
   is "pragmatic isolation".  This is isolation that is better than is 
   obtainable from pure statistical multiplexing, more cost effective 
   and flexible than a dedicated network, but which is a practical 
   solution that is good enough for the majority of applications. 
   Mechanisms for both soft isolation and hard isolation would be 
   needed to meet different levels of service requirement. 

3.2. Performance Guarantee 

   There are several kinds of performance guarantee, including 
   guaranteed maximum packet loss, guaranteed maximum delay, and 
   guaranteed delay variation.  Note that these guarantees apply to 
   conformance traffic, out-of-profile traffic will be handled 
   according to other requirements. 

   Guaranteed maximum packet loss is a common parameter, and is usually 
   addressed by setting packet priorities, queue size, and discard 
   policy.  However this becomes more difficult when the requirement is 
   combined with latency requirements.  The limiting case is zero 
   congestion loss, and that is the goal of the Deterministic 
   Networking work that the IETF [DETNET] and IEEE [TSN] are pursuing.  
   In modern optical networks, loss due to transmission errors already 
   approaches zero, but there are the possibilities of failure of the 
   interface or the fiber itself.  This can only be addressed by some 
   form of signal duplication and transmission over diverse paths. 

   Guaranteed maximum latency is required in a number of applications 
   particularly real-time control applications and some types of 

 
 
Dong, et al.           Expires August 18, 2020                [Page 9] 


Internet-Draft             VPN+ Framework                February 2020 
    

   virtual reality applications.  The work of the IETF Deterministic 
   Networking (DetNet) Working Group [DETNET] is relevant; however 
   additional methods of enhancing the underlay to better support the 
   delay guarantees may be needed, and these methods will need to be 
   integrated with the overall service provisioning mechanisms. 

   Guaranteed maximum delay variation is a service that may also be 
   needed.  [RFC8578] calls up a number of cases where this is needed, 
   for example in electrical utilities. Time transfer is one example of 
   a service that needs this, although it is in the nature of time that 
   the service might be delivered by the underlay as a shared service 
   and not provided through different enhanced VPNs.  Alternatively a 
   dedicated enhanced VPN may be used to provide this as a shared 
   service. 

   This suggests that a spectrum of service guarantee be considered 
   when deploying an enhanced VPN.  As a guide to understanding the 
   design requirements we can consider four types: 

      o  Best effort 

      o  Assured bandwidth 

      o  Guaranteed latency 

      o  Enhanced delivery 

   Best effort service is the basic service that current VPNs provide. 

   An assured bandwidth service is one in which the bandwidth over some 
   period of time is assured.  This can be achieved either simply based 
   on best effort with over-capacity provisioning, or it can be based 
   on TE-LSPs with bandwidth reservation.  The instantaneous bandwidth 
   is however, not necessarily assured, depending on the technique used. 
   Providing assured bandwidth to VPNs, for example by using per-VPN 
   TE-LSPs, is not widely deployed at least partially due to 
   scalability concerns. 

   Guaranteed latency and enhanced delivery are not yet integrated with 
   VPNs. A guaranteed latency service has a latency upper bound 
   provided by the network.  Assuring the upper bound is sometimes more 
   important than minimizing latency. 

   There are several new technologies that provide some assistance with 
   performance guarantee.  Firstly there is the IEEE project on Time 
   Sensitive Networking [TSN] which introduces the concept of packet 

 
 
Dong, et al.           Expires August 18, 2020               [Page 10] 


Internet-Draft             VPN+ Framework                February 2020 
    

   scheduling of delay and loss sensitive packets. Then the DetNet work 
   is also of greater relevance in assuring upper bound of end-to-end 
   packet latency. Flex Ethernet [FLEXE] is also useful to provide 
   these guarantees. 

   An enhanced delivery service is one in which the underlay network 
   (at Layer 3) attempts to deliver the packet through multiple paths 
   in the hope of eliminating packet loss due to equipment or media 
   failures. 

   It is these last two characteristics (guaranteed upper bound to 
   latency and elimination of packet loss) that an enhanced VPN adds to 
   a VPN service. 

3.3. Integration 

   The only way to achieve the enhanced characteristics provided by an 
   enhanced VPN (such as guaranteed or predicted performance) is by 
   integrating the overlay VPN with a particular set of network 
   resources in the underlay network which are allocated to meet the 
   service requirement.  This needs be done in a flexible and scalable 
   way so that it can be widely deployed in operator networks to 
   support a reasonable number of enhanced VPN customers. 

   Taking mobile networks and in particular 5G into consideration, the 
   integration of network and the service functions is a likely 
   requirement.  The work in IETF SFC working group [SFC] provides a 
   foundation for this integration. 

3.3.1. Abstraction 

   Integration of the overlay VPN and the underlay network resources 
   does not need to be a tight mapping.  As described in [RFC7926], 
   abstraction is the process of applying policy to a set of 
   information about a TE network to produce selective information that 
   represents the potential ability to connect across the network.  The 
   process of abstraction presents the connectivity graph in a way that 
   is independent of the underlying network technologies, capabilities, 
   and topology so that the graph can be used to plan and deliver 
   network services in a uniform way. 

   Virtual networks can be built on top of an abstracted topology that
   represents the connectivity capabilities of the underlay network as 
   described in the framework for Abstraction and Control of TE Networks
   (ACTN) [RFC8453] as discussed further in Section 5.5. 
   

 
 
Dong, et al.           Expires August 18, 2020               [Page 11] 


Internet-Draft             VPN+ Framework                February 2020 
    

3.4. Dynamic Management 

   Enhanced VPNs need to be created, modified, and removed from the 
   network according to service demand.  An enhanced VPN that requires   
   hard isolation (section 3.1) must not be disrupted by the 
   instantiation or modification of another enhanced VPN.  Determining 
   whether modification of an enhanced VPN can be disruptive to that 
   VPN, and in particular whether the traffic in flight will be 
   disrupted can be a difficult problem. 

   The data plane aspects of this problem are discussed further in 
   Sections 5.1, 5.2, and 5.3. 

   The control plane aspects of this problem are discussed further in 
   Section 5.4. 

   The management plane aspects of this problem are discussed further 
   in Section 5.5. 

   Dynamic changes both to the VPN and to the underlay transport 
   network need to be managed to avoid disruption to services that are 
   sensitive to the change of network performance. 

   In addition to non-disruptively managing the network as a result of 
   gross change such as the inclusion of a new VPN endpoint or a change 
   to a link, VPN traffic might need to be moved as a result of traffic 
   volume changes. 

3.5. Customized Control 

   In some cases it is desirable that an enhanced VPN has a customized 
   control plane, so that the tenant of the enhanced VPN can have some 
   control of how the resources and functions allocated to this 
   enhanced VPN are used.  For example, the tenant may be able to 
   specify the service paths in his own enhanced VPN.  Depending on the 
   requirement, an enhanced VPN may have its own dedicated controller, 
   which may be provided with an interface to the control system 
   provided by the network operator. Note that such control is within 
   the scope of the tenant's enhanced VPN, any change beyond that would 
   require some intervention of the operator.   

   A description of the control plane aspects of this problem are 
   discussed further in Section 5.4.  A description of the management 
   plane aspects of this feature can be found in Section 5.5. 

 
 
Dong, et al.           Expires August 18, 2020               [Page 12] 


Internet-Draft             VPN+ Framework                February 2020 
    

3.6. Applicability 

   The technologies described in this document should be applicable to 
   a number of types of VPN services such as: 

      o  Layer 2 point-to-point services such as pseudowires [RFC3985] 

      o  Layer 2 VPNs [RFC4664] 

      o  Ethernet VPNs [RFC7209] 

      o  Layer 3 VPNs [RFC4364], [RFC2764] 

   Where such VPN types need enhanced isolation and delivery 
   characteristics, the technologies described in section 5 can be used 
   to provide an underlay with the required enhanced performance. 

3.7. Inter-Domain and Inter-Layer Network 

   In some scenarios, an enhanced VPN services may span multiple 
   network domains.  A domain is considered to be any collection of 
   network elements within a common realm of address space or path 
   computation responsibility [RFC5151].  In some domains the operator 
   may manage a multi-layered network, for example, a packet network 
   over an optical network.  When enhanced VPNs are provisioned in such 
   network scenarios, the technologies used in different network planes 
   (data plane, control plane, and management plane) need to provide 
   mechanisms to support multi-domain and multi-layer coordination and 
   integration, so as to provide the required service characteristics 
   for different enhanced VPNs, and improve network efficiency and 
   operational simplicity. 

4. Architecture of Enhanced VPN 

   A number of enhanced VPN services will typically be provided by a 
   common network infrastructure.  Each enhanced VPN consists of both 
   the overlay and a corresponding VTN with a specific set of network 
   resources and functions allocated in the underlay to satisfy the 
   needs of the VPN tenant.  The integration between overlay and 
   various underlay resources ensures the required isolation between 
   different enhanced VPNs, and achieves the guaranteed performance for 
   different services. 

   An enhanced VPN needs to be designed with consideration given to: 

    o  An enhanced data plane 

 
 
Dong, et al.           Expires August 18, 2020               [Page 13] 


Internet-Draft             VPN+ Framework                February 2020 
    

    o  A control plane to create enhanced VPNs, making use of the 
   data plane isolation and performance guarantee techniques 

    o  A management plane for enhanced VPN service life-cycle 
   management.  

   These required characteristics are expanded below: 

    o  Enhanced data plane 

       *  Provides the required resource isolation capability, e.g. 
   bandwidth guarantee. 

       *  Provides the required packet latency and jitter 
   characteristics. 

       *  Provides the required packet loss characteristics. 

       *  Provides the mechanism to associate a packet with the set 
   of resources allocated to the enhanced VPN which the packet belongs. 

    o  Control plane 

       *  Collect information about the underlying network topology 
   and resources available and export this to nodes in the network 
   and/or the centralized controller as required. 

       *  Create the required virtual transport networks (VTNs) with 
   the resource and properties needed by the enhanced VPN services that 
   are assigned to them. 

       *  Determine the risk of SLA violation and take appropriate 
   avoiding action. 

       *  Determine the right balance of per-packet and per-node 
   state according to the needs of enhanced VPN service to scale to the 
   required size. 

   o  Management plane 

       *  Provides an interface between the enhanced VPN provider 
   (e.g., the Transport Network Manager) and the enhanced VPN clients 
   (e.g., the 3GPP Management System) such that some of the operation 
   requests can be met without interfering with the enhanced VPN of 
   other clients. 

 
 
Dong, et al.           Expires August 18, 2020               [Page 14] 


Internet-Draft             VPN+ Framework                February 2020 
    

       *  Provides an interface between the enhanced VPN provider and 
   the enhanced VPN clients to expose transport network capability 
   information toward the enhanced VPN client. 

       *  Provides the service life-cycle management and operation of 
   enhanced VPN (e.g. creation, modification, assurance/monitoring and 
   decommissioning). 

   o  Operations, Administration, and Maintenance (OAM) 

       *  Provides the OAM tools to verify the connectivity and 
   performance of the enhanced VPN. 

       *  Provide the OAM tools to verify whether the underlay 
   network resources are correctly allocated and operated properly. 

   o  Telemetry 

       *  Provides the mechanism to collect data plane, control plane, 
   and management plane information about the network.  More 
   specifically: 

          +  Provides the mechanism to collect network data from the 
   underlay network for overall performance evaluation and the enhanced 
   VPN service planning. 

          +  Provides the mechanism to collect network data about 
   each enhanced VPN for monitoring and analytics of the 
   characteristics and SLA fulfilment of enhanced VPN services. 

    

4.1. Layered Architecture 

   The layered architecture of an enhanced VPN is shown in Figure 2. 

   Underpinning everything is the physical network infrastructure layer 
   which provide the underlying resources used to provision the 
   separated virtual transport networks (VTNs). This includes the 
   partitioning of link and/or node resources. Each subset of link or 
   node resource can be considered as a virtual link or virtual node 
   used to build the VTNs. 

 
 
Dong, et al.           Expires August 18, 2020               [Page 15] 


Internet-Draft             VPN+ Framework                February 2020 
    

                              A 
                             | | 
                    +-------------------+       Centralized   
                    | Network Controller|    Control& Management    
                    +-------------------+     
                              || 
                              \/ 
                      
                   __________________________    
                  /       o----o----o       /      
                 /       /         /       /      VTN-1  
                / o-----o-----o----o----o /       
               /_________________________/  
                   __________________________ 
                  /       o----o            /    
                 /       /    /  \         /      VTN-2 
                / o-----o----o----o-----o /       
               /_________________________/ 
                         ......                    ... 
                  ___________________________       
                 /             o----o       /              
                /             /    /       /      VTN-3   
               /  o-----o----o----o-----o /       
              /__________________________/  
    
             
             
                 ++++   ++++   ++++                         
                 +--+===+--+===+--+             
                 +--+===+--+===+--+             
                 ++++   +++\\  ++++            Physical 
                  ||     || \\  ||             
                  ||     ||  \\ ||              Network    
          ++++   ++++   ++++  \\+++   ++++          
          +--+===+--+===+--+===+--+===+--+  Infrastructure 
          +--+===+--+===+--+===+--+===+--+  
          ++++   ++++   ++++   ++++   ++++            
    
       O    Virtual Node 
        
       --   Virtual Link 
          
      ++++     
      +--+ Physical Node with resource partition 
      +--+ 
      ++++
 
 
Dong, et al.           Expires August 18, 2020               [Page 16] 


Internet-Draft             VPN+ Framework                February 2020 
    

      
    
       ==  Physical Link with resource partition 
        
                     Figure 2 The Layered Architecture 

   Various components and techniques discussed in Section 5 can be used 
   to enable resource partition, such as FlexE, Time Sensitive 
   Networking, Deterministic Networking, Dedicated queues, etc. These 
   partitions may be physical, or virtual so long as the SLA required 
   by the higher layers is met. 

   Based on the network resources provided by the physical network 
   infrastructure, multiple VTNs can be provisioned, each with 
   customized topology and other attributes to meet the requirement of 
   different enhanced VPNs or different groups of enhanced VPNs. To get 
   the required characteristic, each VTN needs to be mapped to a set of 
   network nodes and links in the network infrastructure. And on each 
   node or link, the VTN is associated with a set of resources which 
   are allocated for the processing of traffic in the VTN. VTN provides 
   the integration between the virtual network topology and the 
   required underlying network resources. 

   The centralized controller is used to create the VTN, and to 
   instruct the network nodes to allocate the required resources to 
   each VTN and to provision the enhanced VPN services on the VTNs.  A 
   distributed control plane may also be used for the distribution of 
   the VTN topology and attribute information between nodes within the 
   VTNs. 

   The process used to create VTNs and to allocate network resources 
   for use by VTNs needs to take a holistic view of the needs of all of 
   its tenants (i.e., of all customers and their associated VTNs), and 
   to partition the resources accordingly.  However, within a VTN these 
   resources can, if required, be managed via a dynamic control plane.  
   This provides the required scalability and isolation. 

4.2. Multi-Point to Multi-Point (MP2MP) Connectivity 

   At the VPN service level, the required connectivity is usually mesh 
   or partial-mesh.  To support such kinds of VPN service, the 
   corresponding VTN in underlay is also an abstract MP2MP medium. 
   Other service requirements may be expressed at different granularity, 
   some of which can be applicable to the whole service, while some 
   others may be only applicable to some pairs of end points. For 
   example,    when particular level of performance guarantee is 

 
 
Dong, et al.           Expires August 18, 2020               [Page 17] 


Internet-Draft             VPN+ Framework                February 2020 
    

   required, the point-to-point path through the underlay of the 
   enhanced VPN may need to be specifically engineered to meet the 
   required performance guarantee. 

4.3. Application Specific Network Types 

   Although a lot of the traffic that will be carried over the enhanced 
   VPN will likely be IPv4 or IPv6, the design has to be capable of 
   carrying other traffic types, in particular Ethernet traffic.  This 
   is easily accomplished through the various pseudowire (PW) 
   techniques [RFC3985].  Where the underlay is MPLS, Ethernet can be 
   carried over the enhanced VPN encapsulated according to the method 
   specified in [RFC4448].  Where the underlay is IP, Layer Two 
   Tunneling Protocol - Version 3 (L2TPv3) [RFC3931] can be used with 
   Ethernet traffic carried according to [RFC4719].  Encapsulations 
   have been defined for most of the common Layer 2 types for both PW 
   over MPLS and for L2TPv3. 

4.4. Scaling Considerations 

   VPNs are instantiated as overlays on top of an operator's network 
   and offered as services to the operator's customers.  An important 
   feature of overlays is that they are able to deliver services 
   without placing per-service state in the core of the underlay 
   network. 

   Enhanced VPNs may need to install some additional state within the 
   network to achieve the additional features that they require. 
   Solutions must consider minimizing and controlling the scale of such 
   state, and deployment architectures should constrain the number of 
   enhanced VPNs that would exist where such services would place 
   additional state in the network.  It is expected that the number of 
   enhanced VPN would be small in the beginning, and even in future the 
   number of enhanced VPN will be much fewer than traditional VPNs, 
   because pre-existing VPN techniques are be good enough to meet the 
   needs of most existing VPN-type services. 

   In general, it is not required that the state in the network be 
   maintained in a 1:1 relationship with the VPN+ services.  It will 
   usually be possible to aggregate a set of VPN+ services so that they 
   share the same VTN and the same set of network resources (much in 
   the way that current VPNs are aggregated over transport tunnels) so 
   that collections of enhanced VPNs that require the same behaviour 
   from the network in terms of resource reservation, latency bounds, 
   resiliency, etc. are able to be grouped together.  This is an 

 
 
Dong, et al.           Expires August 18, 2020               [Page 18] 


Internet-Draft             VPN+ Framework                February 2020 
    

   important feature to assist with the scaling characteristics of VPN+ 
   deployments. 

   See Section 6 for a further discussion of scalability considerations. 

5. Candidate Technologies 

   A VPN is a network created by applying a demultiplexing technique to 
   the underlying network (the underlay) in order to distinguish the 
   traffic of one VPN from that of another.  A VPN path that travels by 
   other than the shortest path through the underlay normally requires 
   state in the underlay to specify that path.  State is normally 
   applied to the underlay through the use of the RSVP signaling 
   protocol, or directly through the use of an SDN controller, although 
   other techniques may emerge as this problem is studied.  This state 
   gets harder to manage as the number of VPN paths increases. 
   Furthermore, as we increase the coupling between the underlay and 
   the overlay to support the enhanced VPN service, this state will 
   increase further. 

   In an enhanced VPN different subsets of the underlay resources can 
   be dedicated to different enhanced VPNs or different groups of 
   enhanced VPNs.  An enhanced VPN solution thus needs tighter coupling 
   with underlay than is the case with existing VPNs.  We cannot, for 
   example, share the network resource between enhanced VPNs which 
   require hard isolation. 

5.1. Layer-Two Data Plane 

   A number of candidate Layer 2 packet or frame-based data plane 
   solutions which can be used provide the required isolation and 
   guarantees are described in following sections. 

5.1.1. Flexible Ethernet 

   FlexE [FLEXE] provides the ability to multiplex channels over an 
   Ethernet link to create point-to-point fixed-bandwidth connections 
   in a way that provides hard isolation.  FlexE also supports bonding 
   links to create larger links out of multiple low capacity links. 

   However, FlexE is only a link level technology.  When packets are 
   received by the downstream node, they need to be processed in a way 
   that preserves that isolation in the downstream node.  This in turn 
   requires a queuing and forwarding implementation that preserves the 
   end-to-end isolation. 

 
 
Dong, et al.           Expires August 18, 2020               [Page 19] 


Internet-Draft             VPN+ Framework                February 2020 
    

   If different FlexE channels are used for different services, then no 
   sharing is possible between the FlexE channels.  This means that it 
   may be difficult to dynamically redistribute unused bandwidth to 
   lower priority services in another FlexE channel. If one FlexE 
   channel is used by one tenant, the tenant can use some methods to 
   manage the relative priority of his own traffic in the FlexE channel. 

5.1.2. Dedicated Queues 

   DiffServ based queuing systems are described in [RFC2475] and 
   [RFC4594].  This is considered insufficient to provide isolation for 
   enhanced VPNs because DiffServ does not always provide enough 
   markers to differentiate between traffic of many enhanced VPNs, or 
   offer the range of service classes that each VPN needs to provide to 
   its tenants.  This problem is particularly acute with an MPLS 
   underlay, because MPLS only provides eight Traffic Classes. 

   In addition, DiffServ, as currently implemented, mainly provides 
   per-hop priority-based scheduling, and it is difficult to use it to 
   achieve quantitive resource reservation. 

   In order to address these problems and to reduce the potential 
   interference between enhanced VPNs, it would be necessary to steer 
   traffic to dedicated input and output queues per enhanced VPN: some 
   routers have a large number of queues and sophisticated queuing 
   systems, which could support this, while some routers may struggle 
   to provide the granularity and level of isolation required by the 
   applications of enhanced VPN. 

5.1.3. Time Sensitive Networking 

   Time Sensitive Networking (TSN) [TSN] is an IEEE project that is 
   designing a method of carrying time sensitive information over 
   Ethernet.  It introduces the concept of packet scheduling where a 
   packet stream may be given a time slot guaranteeing that it 
   experiences no queuing delay or increase in latency.  The mechanisms 
   defined in TSN can be used to meet the requirements of time 
   sensitive services of an enhanced VPN. 

   Ethernet can be emulated over a Layer 3 network using an IP or MPLS 
   pseudowire. However, a TSN Ethernet payload would be opaque to the 
   underlay and thus not treated specifically as time sensitive data.  
   The preferred method of carrying TSN over a Layer 3 network is 
   through the use of deterministic networking as explained in Section 
   5.2.1. 

 
 
Dong, et al.           Expires August 18, 2020               [Page 20] 


Internet-Draft             VPN+ Framework                February 2020 
    

5.2. Layer-Three Data Plane 

   We now consider the problem of slice differentiation and resource 
   representation in the network layer. 

5.2.1. Deterministic Networking 

   Deterministic Networking (DetNet) [RFC8655] is a technique being 
   developed in the IETF to enhance the ability of Layer 3 networks to 
   deliver packets more reliably and with greater control over the 
   delay.  The design cannot use re-transmission techniques such as TCP 
   since that can exceed the delay tolerated by the applications.  Even 
   the delay improvements that are achieved with Stream Control 
   Transmission Protocol Partial Reliability Extension (SCTP-PR) 
   [RFC3758] do not meet the bounds set by application demands.  DetNet 
   pre-emptively sends copies of the packet over various paths to 
   minimize the chance of all copies of a packet being lost.  It also 
   seeks to set an upper bound on latency, but the goal is not to 
   minimize latency. 

5.2.2. MPLS Traffic Engineering (MPLS-TE) 

   MPLS-TE [RFC2702] [RFC3209] introduces the concept of reserving end-
   to-end bandwidth for a TE-LSP, which can be used to provide point-
   to-point Virtual Transport Path (VTP) across the underlay network to 
   support VPNs. VPN traffic can be carried over dedicated TE-LSPs to 
   provide reserved bandwidth for each specific connection in a VPN, 
   and VPNs with similar behaviour requirements may be multiplexed onto 
   the same TE-LSPs.  Some network operators have concerns about the 
   scalability and management overhead of MPLS-TE system, and this has 
   lead them to consider other solutions for their networks. 

5.2.3. Segment Routing 

   Segment Routing (SR) [RFC8402] is a method that prepends 
   instructions to packets at the head-end of a path.  These 
   instructions are used to specify the nodes and links to be traversed 
   and allow the packets to be routed on paths other than the shortest 
   path.  By encoding the state in the packet, per-path state is 
   transitioned out of the network. 

   An SR traffic engineered path operates with a granularity of a link 
   with hints about priority provided through the use of the traffic 
   class (TC) or Differentiated Services Code Point (DSCP) field in the 
   header.  However to achieve the latency and isolation 
   characteristics that are sought by the enhanced VPN users, steering 

 
 
Dong, et al.           Expires August 18, 2020               [Page 21] 


Internet-Draft             VPN+ Framework                February 2020 
    

   packets through specific queues and resources will likely be 
   required.  With SR, it is possible to introduce such fine-grained 
   packet steering by specifying the queues and resources through an SR 
   instruction list. 

   Note that the concept of queue is a useful abstraction for different 
   types of underlay mechanism that may be used to provide enhanced 
   isolation and latency support.  How the queue satisfies the 
   requirement is implementation specific and is transparent to the 
   layer-3 data plane and control plane mechanisms used. 

   With Segment Routing, the SR instruction list could be used to build 
   a P2P path, a group of SR SIDs could also be used to represent a MP2MP 
   network. Thus the SR based mechanism could be used to provide both 
   Virtual Transport Path (VTP) and Virtual Transport Network (VTN) for 
   enhanced VPN services. 

5.3. Non-Packet Data Plane 

   Non-packet underlay data plane technologies often have TE properties 
   and behaviours, and meet many of the key requirements in particular 
   for bandwidth guarantees, traffic isolation (with physical isolation 
   often being an integral part of the technology), highly predictable 
   latency and jitter characteristics, measurable loss characteristics, 
   and ease of identification of flows. The cost is the resources are 
   allocated on a long term and end-to-end basis.  Such an arrangement 
   means that the full cost of the resources has be borne by the 
   service that is allocated with the resources. 

5.4. Control Plane 

   Enhanced VPN would likely be based on a hybrid control mechanism, 
   which takes advantage of the logically centralized controller for 
   on-demand provisioning and global optimization, whilst still relying 
   on a distributed control plane to provide scalability, high 
   reliability, fast reaction, automatic failure recovery, etc.  
   Extension to and optimization of the distributed control plane is 
   needed to support the enhanced properties of VPN+. 

   RSVP-TE [RFC3209] provides the signaling mechanism for establishing 
   a TE-LSP in an MPLS network with end-to-end resource reservation. 
   This can be seen as a Virtual Transport Path (VTP), which could be 
   used to bind the VPN to specific network resources allocated within 
   the underlay, but there remain scalability concerns mentioned in 
   Section 5.2.2. 

 
 
Dong, et al.           Expires August 18, 2020               [Page 22] 


Internet-Draft             VPN+ Framework                February 2020 
    

   The control plane of SR [RFC8665] [RFC8667] [I-D.ietf-idr-bgp-ls-
   segment-routing-ext] does not have the capability of signaling 
   resource reservations along the path.  On the other hand, the SR 
   approach provides a potential way of binding the underlay network 
   resource and the enhanced VPN service without requiring per-path 
   state to be maintained in the network.  A centralized controller can 
   perform resource planning and reservation for enhanced VPNs, while 
   it needs to ensure that resources are correctly allocated in network 
   nodes for the enhanced VPN service. 

5.5. Management Plane 

   The management plane provides the interface between the enhanced VPN 
   provider and the clients for the service life-cycle management (e.g. 
   creation, modification, assurance/monitoring and decommissioning). 
   It relies on a set of service data models for the description of the 
   information and operations needed on the interface.  

   In the context of 5G end-to-end network slicing [TS28530], the 
   management of enhanced VPNs is considered as the management of the 
   transport network part of the end-to-end network slice. 3GPP 
   management system may provide the connectivity and performance 
   related parameters as requirements to the management plane of the 
   transport network.  It may also require the transport network to 
   expose the capability and status of the transport network slice.  
   Thus, an interface between the enhanced VPN management plane and the 
   3GPP network slice management system, and relevant service data 
   models are needed for the coordination of end-to-end network slice 
   management. 

   The management plane interface and data models for enhanced VPN can 
   be based on the service models described in Section 5.6. 

5.6. Applicability of Service Data Models to Enhanced VPN 

   ACTN supports operators in viewing and controlling different domains 
   and presenting virtualized networks to their customers.  The ACTN 
   framework [RFC8453] highlights how: 

   o  Abstraction of the underlying network resources is provided to 
   higher-layer applications and customers. 

   o  Underlying resources are virtualized allocating those resources 
   for the customer, application, or service. 

 
 
Dong, et al.           Expires August 18, 2020               [Page 23] 


Internet-Draft             VPN+ Framework                February 2020 
    

   o  A virtualized environment is created allowing operators to view 
   and control multi-domain networks as a single virtualized network. 

   o  Networks can be presented to customers as a virtual network via 
   open and programmable interfaces. 

   The type of network virtualization enabled by ACTN managed 
   infrastructure provides customers and applications (tenants) with 
   the capability to utilize and independently control allocated 
   virtual network resources as if they were physically their own 
   resources.  Service Data models are used to represent, monitor, and 
   manage the virtual networks and services enabled by ACTN. The 
   Customer VPN model (e.g.  L3SM [RFC8299]) or an ACTN Virtual Network 
   (VN) [I-D.ietf-teas-actn-vn-yang] model is a customer view of the 
   ACTN managed infrastructure, and is presented by the ACTN provider 
   as a set of abstracted services or resources.  The L3VPN network 
   model [I-D.ietf-opsawg-l3sm-l3nm] and the TE tunnel model [I-D.ietf-
   teas-yang-te] provide a network view of the ACTN managed 
   infrastructure presented by the ACTN provider as a set of transport 
   resources. 

5.6.1. Enhanced VPN Delivery in the ACTN Architecture 

   ACTN provides VPN connections between multiple sites as requested 
   via the Customer Network Controller (CNC).  The CNC is managed by 
   the customer themselves, and interacts with the network provider's 
   Multi-Domain Service Controller (MDSC).  The Provisioning Network 
   Controllers (PNC) are responsible for network resource management, 
   thus the PNCs are remain entirely under the management of the 
   network provider and are not visible to the customer so that 
   management is mostly performed by the network provider, with some 
   flexibility delegated to the customer-managed CNC. 

   Figure 3 presents a more general representation of how multiple 
   enhanced VPNs may be created from the resources of multiple physical 
   networks using the CNC, MDSC, and PNC components of the ACTN 
   architecture.  Each enhanced VPN is controlled by its own CNC.  The 
   CNCs send requests to the provider's MDSC.  The provider manages two 
   different physical networks each under the control of PNC.  The MDSC 
   asks the PNCs to allocate and provision resources to achieve the 
   enhanced VPNs.  In this figure, one enhanced VPN is constructed 
   solely from the resources of one of the physical networks, while the 
   the VPN uses resources from both physical networks. 

 
 
Dong, et al.           Expires August 18, 2020               [Page 24] 


Internet-Draft             VPN+ Framework                February 2020 
    

                  ---------------           (           ) 
                  |    CNC      |---------->(    VPN+   ) 
                  --------^------           (           ) 
                          |                _(_________ _) 
               ---------------            (           ) ^ 
               |    CNC      |----------->(    VPN+   ) : 
               ------^--------            (           ) : 
                     |    |               (___________) : 
                     |    |                   ^    ^    : 
   Boundary          |    |                   :    :    : 
   Between ==========|====|===================:====:====:======== 
   Customer &        |    |                   :    :    : 
   Network Provider  |    |                   :    :    : 
                     v    v                   :    :    : 
               ---------------                :    :....: 
               |    MDSC     |                :         : 
               ---------------                :         : 
                     ^                     ---^------    ... 
                     |                    (          )      . 
                     v                   (  Physical  )      . 
                ----------------         ( Network  )        . 
                |     PNC      |<-------->(        )      ---^------ 
                  ---------------- |           --------     (          ) 
                |              |--                        (  Physical  ) 
                |    PNC       |<------------------------->( Network  ) 
                ---------------                             (        ) 
                                                            -------- 
    
          Figure 3 Generic VPN+ Delivery in the ACTN Architecture 

5.6.2. Enhanced VPN Features with Service Data Models 

   This section discusses how the service data models can fulfil the 
   enhanced VPN requirements described earlier in this document within 
   the scope of the ACTN architecture. 

5.6.2.1. Isolation Between VPNs 

   The VN YANG model [I-D.ietf-teas-actn-vn-yang] and the TE-service 
   mapping model [I-D.ietf-teas-te-service-mapping-yang] fulfil the VPN 
   isolation requirement by providing the following features for the 
   VPNs: 

      o  Each VPN is identified with a unique identifier (vpn-id) and 
   can be mapped to a specific VN.  Multiple VPNs may mapped to the 
   same VN according to service requirements and operator's policy. 

 
 
Dong, et al.           Expires August 18, 2020               [Page 25] 


Internet-Draft             VPN+ Framework                February 2020 
    

      o  Each VPN is managed and controlled independent of other VPNs. 

      o  Each VPN is instantiated with an isolation requirement 
   described by the TE-service mapping model [I-D.ietf-teas-te-service-
   mapping-yang].  This mapping supports all levels of isolation (hard 
   isolation with deterministic characteristics, hard isolation, soft 
   isolation, or no isolation). 

5.6.2.2. Guaranteed Performance 

   Performance objectives of a VPN [RFC8299][RFC8466] are expressed 
   through a QoS profile including the following properties: 

      o  Rate-limit 

      o  Bandwidth 

      o  Latency 

      o  Jitter 

   [I-D.ietf-teas-actn-vn-yang] and [I-D.ietf-teas-yang-te-topo] allow 
   configuration of several TE parameters that may help to meet the VPN 
   performance objectives as follows: 

      o  Bandwidth 

      o  Objective function (e.g., min cost path, min load path, etc.) 

      o  Metric Types and their threshold: 

         *  TE cost, IGP cost, Hop count, or Unidirectional Delay (e.g., 
   can set all path delay <= threshold) 

   Once these requests are instantiated, the resources are committed 
   and guaranteed through the life cycle of the VPN. 

5.6.2.3. Integration 

   The L3VPN network model provides mechanism to correlate customer's 
   VPN and the VPN service related resources (e.g., RT and RD) 
   allocated in the provider's network. 

   The VPN/Network performance monitoring model [I-D.www-bess-yang-vpn-
   service-pm] provides mechanisms to monitor and manage network 

 
 
Dong, et al.           Expires August 18, 2020               [Page 26] 


Internet-Draft             VPN+ Framework                February 2020 
    

   Performance on the topology at different layer or the overlay 
   topology between VPN sites. 

   These two models provide mechanisms to correlate the customer's VPN 
   and the actual TE tunnels instantiated in the provider's network. 

   Service function integration with network topology (L3 and TE 
   topology) is in progress in [I-D.ietf-teas-sf-aware-topo-model] 
   which addresses a number of use-cases that show how TE topology 
   supports various service functions. 

5.6.2.4. Dynamic and Customized Management 

   The ACTN architecture allows the CNC to interact with the provider's 
   MDSC.  This gives the customer dynamic control of their VPNs. 

   For example, the ACTN VN model [I-D.ietf-teas-actn-vn-yang] allows 
   life-cycle management to create, modify, and delete VNs on demand.  
   Customers may also be allowed more customized control of the VN 
   topology by provisioning tunnels to connect their endpoints, and 
   even configuring the paths of those tunnels. 

   Another example is the L3VPN service model [RFC8299] which allows 
   VPN lifecycle management such as VPN creation, modification, and 
   deletion on demand. 

5.6.3. 5G Transport Service Delivery via Coordinated Data Modules 

   The overview of network slice structure as defined in the 3GPP 5GS 
   is shown in Figure 4.  The terms are described in specific 3GPP 
   documents [TS23501] [TS28530]. 

 
 
Dong, et al.           Expires August 18, 2020               [Page 27] 


Internet-Draft             VPN+ Framework                February 2020 
    

   <==================          E2E-NSI       =======================> 
                :                 :                  :           :  : 
                :                 :                  :           :  : 
   <======  RAN-NSSI  ======><=TN-NSSI=><====== CN-NSSI  ======>VL[APL] 
       :        :        :        :         :       :        :   :  : 
       :        :        :        :         :       :        :   :  : 
   RW[NFs ]<=TRN-NSSI=>[NFs ]<=TN-NSSI=>[NFs ]<=TRN-NSSI=>[NFs ]VL[APL] 
      . . . . . . . . . . . . ..         . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 
      .,----.   ,----.   ,----..  ,----. .,----.  ,----.  ,----.. 
   UE--|RAN |---| TN |---|RAN |---| TN |--|CN  |--| TN |--|CN  |--[APL] 
      .|NFs |   `----'   |NFs |.  `----' .|NFs |  `----'  |NFs |. 
        .`----'            `----'.       .`----'          `----'. 
        . . . . . . . . . . . . ..       . . . . . . . . . . . .. 
    
    RW         RAN                MBH               CN              DN 
 
*Legends 
   UE: User Equipment 
   RAN: Radio Access Network 
   CN: Core Network 
   DN: Data Network 
   TN: Transport Network 
   MBH: Mobile Backhaul 
   RW: Radio Wave 
   NF: Network Function 
   APL: Application Server 
   NSI: Network Slice Instance 
   NSSI: Network Slice Subnet Instance 
 
        Figure 4 Overview of Structure of Network Slice in 3GPP 5GS 

   The L3VPN service model [RFC8299] and TEAS VN model [I-D.ietf-teas-
   actn-vn-yang] can both be used to describe the 5G MBB Transport 
   Service or connectivity service.  The L3VPN service model is used to 
   describe end-to-end IP connectivity service, while the TEAS VN model 
   is used to describe TE connectivity service between VPN sites or 
   between RAN NFs and Core network NFs. 

   A VN in the TEAS VN model with its support of point-to-point or 
   multipoint-to-multipoint connectivity services can be seen as one 
   example of a network slice. 

   The TE Service mapping model can be used to map L3VPN service 
   requests onto underlying network resource and TE models to get the 
   TE network provisioned. 

 
 
Dong, et al.           Expires August 18, 2020               [Page 28] 


Internet-Draft             VPN+ Framework                February 2020 
    

   For IP VPN service provisioning, the service parameters in the L3VPN 
   service model [RFC8299] can be decomposed into a set of 
   configuration parameters described in the L3VPN network model [I-
   D.ietf-opsawg-l3sm-l3nm] which will get the VPN network provisioned. 

6. Scalability Considerations 

   Enhanced VPN provides performance guaranteed services in packet 
   networks, but with the potential cost of introducing additional 
   states into the network.  There are at least three ways that this 
   additional state might be presented in the network: 

      o  Introduce the complete state into the packet, as is done in SR. 
   This allows the controller to specify a detailed series of 
   forwarding and processing instructions for the packet as it transits 
   the network.  The cost of this is an increase in the packet header 
   size.  The cost is also that systems will have capabilities enabled 
   in case they are called upon by a service. This is a type of latent 
   state, and increases as we more precisely specify the path and 
   resources that need to be exclusively available to a VPN. 

      o  Introduce the state to the network.  This is normally done by 
   creating a path using RSVP-TE, which can be extended to introduce 
   any element that needs to be specified along the path, for example 
   explicitly specifying queuing policy.  It is possible to use other 
   methods to introduce path state, such as via a Software Defined 
   Network (SDN) controller, or possibly by modifying a routing 
   protocol.  With this approach there is state per path, per path 
   characteristic that needs to be maintained over its life-cycle.  
   This is more state than is needed using SR, but the packets are 
   shorter. 

       o  Provide a hybrid approach. One example is based on using 
   binding SIDs [RFC8402] to create path fragments, and bind them 
   together with SR. Dynamic creation of a VPN service path using SR 
   requires less state maintenance in the network core at the expense 
   of larger packet headers.  The packet size can be lower if a form of 
   loose source routing is used (using a few nodal SIDs), and it will 
   be lower if no specific functions or resources on the routers are 
   specified. 

   Reducing the state in the network is important to enhanced VPN, as 
   it requires the overlay to be more closely integrated with the 
   underlay than with traditional VPNs.  This tighter coupling would 
   normally mean that more state needed to be created and maintained in 
   the network, as the state about fine granularity processing would 

 
 
Dong, et al.           Expires August 18, 2020               [Page 29] 


Internet-Draft             VPN+ Framework                February 2020 
    

   need to be loaded and maintained in the routers.  However, a segment 
   routed approach allows much of this state to be spread amongst the 
   network ingress nodes, and transiently carried in the packets as 
   SIDs. 

6.1. Maximum Stack Depth of SR 

   One of the challenges with SR is the stack depth that nodes are able 
   to impose on packets [RFC8491].  This leads to a difficult balance 
   between adding state to the network and minimizing stack depth, or 
   minimizing state and increasing the stack depth. 

6.2. RSVP Scalability 

   The traditional method of creating a resource allocated path through 
   an MPLS network is to use the RSVP protocol.  However there have 
   been concerns that this requires significant continuous state 
   maintenance in the network.  Work to improve the scalability of 
   RSVP-TE LSPs in the control plane can be found in [RFC8370]. 

   There is also concern at the scalability of the forwarder footprint 
   of RSVP as the number of paths through an LSR grows. [RFC8577] 
   proposes to address this by employing SR within a tunnel established 
   by RSVP-TE. 

6.3. SDN Scaling 

   The centralized approach of SDN requires state to be stored in the 
   network, but does not have the overhead of also requiring control 
   plane state to be maintained.  Each individual network node may need 
   to maintain a communication channel with the SDN controller, but 
   that compares favourably with the need for a control plane to 
   maintain communication with all neighbors. 

   However, SDN may transfer some of the scalability concerns from the 
   network to the centralized controller.  In particular, there may be 
   a heavy processing burden at the controller, and a heavy load in the 
   network surrounding the controller. 

7. OAM Considerations 

   The enhanced VPN OAM design needs to consider the following 
   requirements: 

 
 
Dong, et al.           Expires August 18, 2020               [Page 30] 


Internet-Draft             VPN+ Framework                February 2020 
    

   o  Instrumentation of the underlay so that the network operator can 
   be sure that the resources committed to a tenant are operating 
   correctly and delivering the required performance.  

   o  Instrumentation of the overlay by the tenant.  This is likely to 
   be transparent to the network operator and to use existing methods.  
   Particular consideration needs to be given to the need to verify the 
   isolation and the various committed performance characteristics. 

   o  Instrumentation of the overlay by the network provider to 
   proactively demonstrate that the committed performance is being 
   delivered.  This needs to be done in a non-intrusive manner, 
   particularly when the tenant is deploying a performance sensitive 
   application.  

   o  Verification of the conformity of the path to the service 
   requirement.  This may need to be done as part of a commissioning 
   test. 

   A study of OAM in SR networks has been documented in [RFC8403]. 

8. Telemetry Considerations 

   Network visibility is essential for network operation.  Network 
   telemetry has been considered as an ideal means to gain sufficient 
   network visibility with better flexibility, scalability, accuracy, 
   coverage, and performance than conventional OAM technologies. 

   As defined in [I-D.ietf-opsawg-ntf], the purpose of Network 
   Telemetry is to acquire network data remotely for network monitoring 
   and operation.  It is a general term for a large set of network 
   visibility techniques and protocols.  Network telemetry addresses 
   the current network operation issues and enables smooth evolution 
   toward intent-driven autonomous networks.  Telemetry can be applied 
   on the forwarding plane, the control plane, and the management plane 
   in a network. 

   How the telemetry mechanisms could be used or extended for the 
   enhanced VPN service will be described in a separate document. 

9. Enhanced Resiliency 

   Each enhanced VPN has a life-cycle, and may need modification during 
   deployment as the needs of its tenant change.  Additionally, as the 
   network as a whole evolves, there may need to be garbage collection 
   performed to consolidate resources into usable quanta. 

 
 
Dong, et al.           Expires August 18, 2020               [Page 31] 


Internet-Draft             VPN+ Framework                February 2020 
    

   Systems in which the path is imposed such as SR, or some form of 
   explicit routing tend to do well in these applications, because it 
   is possible to perform an atomic transition from one path to another. 
   This is a single action by the head-end changes the path without the 
   need for coordinated action by the routers along the path.  However, 
   implementations and the monitoring protocols need to make sure that 
   the new path is up and meets the required SLA before traffic is 
   transitioned to it.  It is possible for deadlocks to arise as a 
   result of the network becoming fragmented over time, such that it is 
   impossible to create a new path or to modify an existing path 
   without impacting the SLA of other paths.  Resolution of this 
   situation is as much a commercial issue as it is a technical issue 
   and is outside the scope of this document. 

   There are, however, two manifestations of the latency problem that 
   are for further study in any of these approaches: 

   o  The problem of packets overtaking one and other if a path latency 
   reduces during a transition. 

   o  The problem of transient variation in latency in either direction 
   as a path migrates. 

   There is also the matter of what happens during failure in the 
   underlay infrastructure.  Fast reroute is one approach, but that 
   still produces a transient loss with a normal goal of rectifying 
   this within 50ms [RFC5654].  An alternative is some form of N+1 
   delivery such as has been used for many years to support protection 
   from service disruption.  This may be taken to a different level 
   using the techniques proposed by the IETF deterministic network work 
   with multiple in-network replication and the culling of later 
   packets [RFC8655]. 

   In addition to the approach used to protect high priority packets, 
   consideration has to be given to the impact of best effort traffic 
   on the high priority packets during a transient.  Specifically if a 
   conventional re-convergence process is used there will inevitably be 
   micro-loops and whilst some form of explicit routing will protect 
   the high priority traffic, lower priority traffic on best effort 
   shortest paths will micro-loop without the use of a loop prevention 
   technology.  To provide the highest quality of service to high 
   priority traffic, either this traffic must be shielded from the 
   micro-loops, or micro-loops must be prevented. 

 
 
Dong, et al.           Expires August 18, 2020               [Page 32] 


Internet-Draft             VPN+ Framework                February 2020 
    

10. Operational Considerations 

   It is likely that enhanced VPN service will be introduced in 
   networks which already have traditional VPN services deployed. 
   Depends on service requirement, the tenants or the operator may 
   choose to use traditional VPN or enhanced VPN to fulfil the service 
   requirement. The information and parameters to assist such decision 
   needs to be reflected on the management interface between the 
   tenants and the operator. 

11. Security Considerations 

   All types of virtual network require special consideration to be 
   given to the isolation of traffic belonging to different tenants.  
   That is, traffic belonging to one VPN must not be delivered to end 
   points outside that VPN.  In this regard enhanced VPNs neither 
   introduce, no experience a greater security risks than other VPNs.   

   However, in an enhanced Virtual Private Network service the 
   additional service requirements need to be considered.  For example, 
   if a service requires a specific upper bound to latency then it can 
   be damaged by simply delaying the packets through the activities of 
   another tenant, i.e., by introducing bursts of traffic for other 
   services. 

   The measures to address these dynamic security risks must be 
   specified as part to the specific solution are form part of the 
   isolation requirements of a service. 

   While an enhanced VPN service may be sold as offering encryption and 
   other security features as part of the service, customers would be 
   well advised to take responsibility for their own security 
   requirements themselves possibly by encrypting traffic before 
   handing it off to the service provider. 

   The privacy of enhanced VPN service customers must be preserved.  It 
   should not be possible for one customer to discover the existence of 
   another customer, nor should the sites that are members of an 
   enhanced VPN be externally visible.  

12. IANA Considerations 

   There are no requested IANA actions. 

 
 
Dong, et al.           Expires August 18, 2020               [Page 33] 


Internet-Draft             VPN+ Framework                February 2020 
    

13. Contributors 

   Daniel King 
   Email: daniel@olddog.co.uk 
    
   Adrian Farrel 
   Email: adrian@olddog.co.uk 
    
   Jeff Tansura 
   Email: jefftant.ietf@gmail.com 
    
   Qin Wu 
   Email: bill.wu@huawei.com 
    
   Daniele Ceccarelli 
   Email: daniele.ceccarelli@ericsson.com 
    
   Mohamed Boucadair 
   Email: mohamed.boucadair@orange.com 
    
   Sergio Belotti 
   Email: sergio.belotti@nokia.com 
    
   Haomian Zheng 
   Email: zhenghaomian@huawei.com 
   
   Zhenbin Li
   Email: lizhenbin@huawei.com
    
14. Acknowledgments 

   The authors would like to thank Charlie Perkins, James N Guichard, 
   John E Drake and Shunsuke Homma for their review and valuable 
   comments.  

   This work was supported in part by the European Commission funded 
   H2020-ICT-2016-2 METRO-HAUL project (G.A. 761727). 

15. References 

15.1. Normative References 

   [I-D.ietf-teas-actn-vn-yang] Lee, Y., Dhody, D., Ceccarelli, D., 
             Bryskin, I., and B. Yoon, "A Yang Data Model for VN 
             Operation", draft-ietf-teas-actn-vn-yang-07 (work in 
             progress), October 2019. 

 
 
Dong, et al.           Expires August 18, 2020               [Page 34] 


Internet-Draft             VPN+ Framework                February 2020 
    

   [I-D.ietf-teas-te-service-mapping-yang] Lee, Y., Dhody, D., Fioccola, 
             G., Wu, Q., Ceccarelli, D., and J. Tantsura, "Traffic 
             Engineering (TE) and Service Mapping Yang Model", draft-
             ietf-teas-te-service-mapping-yang-02 (work in progress), 
             September 2019. 

   [RFC2764] Gleeson, B., Lin, A., Heinanen, J., Armitage, G., and A. 
             Malis, "A Framework for IP Based Virtual Private Networks", 
             RFC 2764, DOI 10.17487/RFC2764, February 2000, 
             <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2764>. 

   [RFC3209] Awduche, D., Berger, L., Gan, D., Li, T., Srinivasan, V., 
             and G. Swallow, "RSVP-TE: Extensions to RSVP for LSP 
             Tunnels", RFC 3209, DOI 10.17487/RFC3209, December 2001, 
             <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3209>. 

   [RFC3985] Bryant, S., Ed. and P. Pate, Ed., "Pseudo Wire Emulation 
             Edge-to-Edge (PWE3) Architecture", RFC 3985, DOI 
             10.17487/RFC3985, March 2005, <https://www.rfc-
             editor.org/info/rfc3985>. 

   [RFC4664] Andersson, L., Ed. and E. Rosen, Ed., "Framework for Layer 
             2 Virtual Private Networks (L2VPNs)", RFC 4664, DOI 
             10.17487/RFC4664, September 2006, <https://www.rfc-
             editor.org/info/rfc4664> 

   [RFC8299] Wu, Q., Ed., Litkowski, S., Tomotaki, L., and K. Ogaki, 
             "YANG Data Model for L3VPN Service Delivery", RFC 8299, 
             DOI 10.17487/RFC8299, January 2018, <https://www.rfc-
             editor.org/info/rfc8299>. 

   [RFC8402] Filsfils, C., Ed., Previdi, S., Ed., Ginsberg, L., 
             Decraene, B., Litkowski, S., and R. Shakir, "Segment 
             Routing Architecture", RFC 8402, DOI 10.17487/RFC8402, 
             July 2018, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8402>. 

   [RFC8453] Ceccarelli, D., Ed. and Y. Lee, Ed., "Framework for 
             Abstraction and Control of TE Networks (ACTN)", RFC 8453, 
             DOI 10.17487/RFC8453, August 2018, <https://www.rfc-
             editor.org/info/rfc8453>. 

   [RFC8466] Wen, B., Fioccola, G., Ed., Xie, C., and L. Jalil, "A YANG 
             Data Model for Layer 2 Virtual Private Network (L2VPN) 
             Service Delivery", RFC 8466, DOI 10.17487/RFC8466, October 
             2018, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8466>. 

 
 
Dong, et al.           Expires August 18, 2020               [Page 35] 


Internet-Draft             VPN+ Framework                February 2020 
    

15.2. Informative References 

   [BBF-SD406] "BBF SD-406: End-to-End Network Slicing", 2016, 
             <https://wiki.broadband-forum.org/display/BBF/SD-406+End- 
             to-End+Network+Slicing>. 

   [DETNET] "Deterministic Networking", March , 
             <https://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/detnet/about/>. 

   [FLEXE] "Flex Ethernet Implementation Agreement", March 2016, 
             <https://www.oiforum.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/OIF-
             FLEXE-01.0.pdf>. 

   [I-D.ietf-idr-bgp-ls-segment-routing-ext] Previdi, S., Talaulikar, 
             K., Filsfils, C., Gredler, H., and M. Chen, "BGP Link-
             State extensions for Segment Routing", draft-ietf-idr-bgp-
             ls-segment-routing-ext-16 (work in progress), June 2019. 

   [I-D.ietf-opsawg-l3sm-l3nm] Aguado, A., Dios, O., Lopezalvarez, V., 
             daniel.voyer@bell.ca, d., and L. Munoz, "Layer 3 VPN 
             Network Model", draft-ietf-opsawg-l3sm-l3nm-01, (work in 
             progress), November 2019. 

   [I-D.ietf-opsawg-ntf] Song, H., Qin, F., Martinez-Julia, P., 
             Ciavaglia, L., and A. Wang, "Network Telemetry Framework", 
             draft-ietf-opsawg-ntf-02 (work in progress), October 2019. 

   [I-D.ietf-teas-sf-aware-topo-model] Bryskin, I., Liu, X., Lee, Y., 
             Guichard, J., Contreras, L., Ceccarelli, D., and J. 
             Tantsura, "SF Aware TE Topology YANG Model", draft-ietf-
             teas-sf-aware-topo-model-04 (work in progress), November 
             2019. 

   [I-D.ietf-teas-yang-te] Saad, T., Gandhi, R., Liu, X., Beeram, V., 
             and I. Bryskin, "A YANG Data Model for Traffic Engineering 
             Tunnels and Interfaces", draft-ietf-teas-yang-te-22 (work 
             in progress), November 2019. 

   [I-D.ietf-teas-yang-te-topo] Liu, X., Bryskin, I., Beeram, V., Saad, 
             T., Shah, H., and O. Dios, "YANG Data Model for Traffic 
             Engineering (TE) Topologies", draft-ietf-teas-yang-te-
             topo-22 (work in progress), June 2019. 

 
 
Dong, et al.           Expires August 18, 2020               [Page 36] 


Internet-Draft             VPN+ Framework                February 2020 
    

   [I-D.www-bess-yang-vpn-service-pm] Wang, Z., Wu, Q., Even, R., Wen, 
             B., and C. Liu, "A YANG Model for Network and VPN Service 
             Performance Monitoring", draft-www-bess-yang-vpn-service-
             pm-04 (work in progress), November 2019. 

   [NGMN-NS-Concept] "NGMN NS Concept", 2016, 
             <https://www.ngmn.org/fileadmin/user_upload/161010_NGMN_Ne
             twork_Slicing_framework_v1.0.8.pdf>. 

   [RFC2475] Blake, S., Black, D., Carlson, M., Davies, E., Wang, Z., 
             and W. Weiss, "An Architecture for Differentiated 
             Services", RFC 2475, DOI 10.17487/RFC2475, December 1998, 
             <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2475>. 

   [RFC2992] Hopps, C., "Analysis of an Equal-Cost Multi-Path 
             Algorithm", RFC 2992, DOI 10.17487/RFC2992, November 2000, 
             <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2992>. 

   [RFC3758] Stewart, R., Ramalho, M., Xie, Q., Tuexen, M., and P. 
             Conrad, "Stream Control Transmission Protocol (SCTP) 
             Partial Reliability Extension", RFC 3758, DOI 
             10.17487/RFC3758, May 2004, <https://www.rfc-
             editor.org/info/rfc3758>. 

   [RFC3931] Lau, J., Ed., Townsley, M., Ed., and I. Goyret, Ed., 
             "Layer Two Tunneling Protocol - Version 3 (L2TPv3)", RFC 
             3931, DOI 10.17487/RFC3931, March 2005, <https://www.rfc-
             editor.org/info/rfc3931>. 

   [RFC4364] Rosen, E. and Y. Rekhter, "BGP/MPLS IP Virtual Private 
             Networks (VPNs)", RFC 4364, DOI 10.17487/RFC4364, February 
             2006, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4364>. 

   [RFC4448] Martini, L., Ed., Rosen, E., El-Aawar, N., and G. Heron, 
             "Encapsulation Methods for Transport of Ethernet over MPLS 
             Networks", RFC 4448, DOI 10.17487/RFC4448, April 2006, 
             <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4448>. 

   [RFC4594] Babiarz, J., Chan, K., and F. Baker, "Configuration 
             Guidelines for DiffServ Service Classes", RFC 4594, DOI 
             10.17487/RFC4594, August 2006, <https://www.rfc-
             editor.org/info/rfc4594>. 

 
 
Dong, et al.           Expires August 18, 2020               [Page 37] 


Internet-Draft             VPN+ Framework                February 2020 
    

   [RFC4719] Aggarwal, R., Ed., Townsley, M., Ed., and M. Dos Santos, 
             Ed., "Transport of Ethernet Frames over Layer 2 Tunneling 
             Protocol Version 3 (L2TPv3)", RFC 4719, DOI 
             10.17487/RFC4719, November 2006, <https://www.rfc-
             editor.org/info/rfc4719>. 

   [RFC5151] Farrel, A., Ed., Ayyangar, A., and JP. Vasseur, "Inter-
             Domain MPLS and GMPLS Traffic Engineering - Resource 
             Reservation Protocol-Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) 
             Extensions", RFC 5151, DOI 10.17487/RFC5151, February 2008, 
             <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5151>. 

   [RFC5654] Niven-Jenkins, B., Ed., Brungard, D., Ed., Betts, M., Ed., 
             Sprecher, N., and S. Ueno, "Requirements of an MPLS 
             Transport Profile", RFC 5654, DOI 10.17487/RFC5654, 
             September 2009, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5654> 

   [RFC7149] Boucadair, M. and C. Jacquenet, "Software-Defined 
             Networking: A Perspective from within a Service Provider 
             Environment", RFC 7149, DOI 10.17487/RFC7149, March 2014, 
             <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7149>. 

   [RFC7209] Sajassi, A., Aggarwal, R., Uttaro, J., Bitar, N., 
             Henderickx, W., and A. Isaac, "Requirements for Ethernet 
             VPN (EVPN)", RFC 7209, DOI 10.17487/RFC7209, May 2014, 
             <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7209>. 

   [RFC7926] Farrel, A., Ed., Drake, J., Bitar, N., Swallow, G., 
             Ceccarelli, D., and X. Zhang, "Problem Statement and 
             Architecture for Information Exchange between 
             Interconnected Traffic-Engineered Networks", BCP 206, RFC 
             7926, DOI 10.17487/RFC7926, July 2016, <https://www.rfc-
             editor.org/info/rfc7926>. 

   [RFC8172] Morton, A., "Considerations for Benchmarking Virtual 
             Network Functions and Their Infrastructure", RFC 8172, DOI 
             10.17487/RFC8172, July 2017, <https://www.rfc-
             editor.org/info/rfc8172>. 

   [RFC8370] Beeram, V., Ed., Minei, I., Shakir, R., Pacella, D., and T. 
             Saad, "Techniques to Improve the Scalability of RSVP-TE 
             Deployments", RFC 8370, DOI 10.17487/RFC8370, May 2018, 
             <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8370>. 

 
 
Dong, et al.           Expires August 18, 2020               [Page 38] 


Internet-Draft             VPN+ Framework                February 2020 
    

   [RFC8403] Geib, R., Ed., Filsfils, C., Pignataro, C., Ed., and N. 
             Kumar, "A Scalable and Topology-Aware MPLS Data-Plane 
             Monitoring System", RFC 8403, DOI 10.17487/RFC8403, July 
             2018, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8403>. 

   [RFC8491]  Tantsura, J., Chunduri, U., Aldrin, S., and L. Ginsberg, 
             "Signaling Maximum SID Depth (MSD) Using IS-IS", RFC 8491, 
             DOI 10.17487/RFC8491, November 2018, <https://www.rfc-
             editor.org/info/rfc8491>. 

   [RFC8568] Bernardos, CJ., Rahman, A., Zuniga, JC., Contreras, LM., 
             Aranda, P., and P. Lynch, "Network Virtualization Research 
             Challenges", RFC 8568, DOI 10.17487/RFC8568, April 2019, 
             <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8568>. 

   [RFC8577] Sitaraman, H., Beeram, V., Parikh, T., and T. Saad, 
             "Signaling RSVP-TE Tunnels on a Shared MPLS Forwarding 
             Plane", RFC 8577, DOI 10.17487/RFC8577, April 2019, 
             <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8577>. 

   [RFC8578] Grossman, E., Ed., "Deterministic Networking Use Cases", 
             RFC 8578, DOI 10.17487/RFC8578, May 2019, 
             <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8578>. 

   [RFC8655] Finn, N., Thubert, P., Varga, B., and J. Farkas, 
             "Deterministic Networking Architecture", RFC 8655, DOI 
             10.17487/RFC8655, October 2019, <https://www.rfc-
             editor.org/info/rfc8655>. 

   [RFC8665] Psenak, P., Previdi, S., Filsfils, C., Gredler, H., Shakir, 
             R., Henderickx, W., and J. Tantsura, "OSPF Extensions for 
             Segment Routing", RFC 8665, DOI 10.17487/RFC8665, December 
             2019, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8665>. 

   [RFC8667] Previdi, S., Ginsberg, L., Filsfils, C., Bashandy, A., 
             Gredler, H., and B. Decraene, "IS-IS Extensions for 
             Segment Routing", RFC 8667, DOI 10.17487/RFC8667, December 
             2019, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8667>. 

   [SFC] "Service Function Chaining", 
             <https://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/sfc/about>. 

   [TS23501] "3GPP TS23.501", 2019,              
             <https://portal.3gpp.org/desktopmodules/Specifications/Spe
             cificationDetails.aspx?specificationId=3144>. 

 
 
Dong, et al.           Expires August 18, 2020               [Page 39] 


Internet-Draft             VPN+ Framework                February 2020 
    

   [TS28530] "3GPP TS28.530", 2019, 
             <https://portal.3gpp.org/desktopmodules/Specifications/ 
             SpecificationDetails.aspx?specificationId=3273>. 

   [TSN] "Time-Sensitive Networking", <https://1.ieee802.org/tsn/>. 

Authors' Addresses 

   Jie Dong  
   Huawei  
          
   Email: jie.dong@huawei.com  
        
        
   Stewart Bryant 
   Futurewei 
          
   Email: stewart.bryant@gmail.com 
    
    
   Zhenqiang Li 
   China Mobile 
    
   Email: lizhenqiang@chinamobile.com 
    
    
   Takuya Miyasaka 
   KDDI Corporation 
    
   Email: ta-miyasaka@kddi.com 
    
    
   Young Lee 
   Sung Kyun Kwan University 
    
   Email: younglee.tx@gmail.com 

 
 
Dong, et al.           Expires August 18, 2020               [Page 40]