Network Working Group L. Dunbar
Internet Draft A. Malis
Intended status: Informational Huawei
Expires: July 2019 C. Jacquenet
Orange
M. Toy
Verizon
February 6, 2019
Seamless Interconnect Underlay to Cloud Overlay Problem Statement
draft-dm-net2cloud-problem-statement-07
Abstract
This document describes the problems that enterprises face today
when connecting their branch offices to dynamic workloads in third
party data centers (a.k.a. Cloud DCs).
It examines some of the approaches interconnecting cloud DCs with
enterprises' on-premises DCs & branch offices. This document also
describes some of the (network) problems that many enterprises face
when they have workloads & applications & data split among hybrid
data centers, especially for those enterprises with multiple sites
that are already interconnected by VPNs (e.g., MPLS L2VPN/L3VPN).
Current operational problems are examined to determine whether there
is a need to improve existing protocols or whether a new protocol is
necessary to solve them.
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), its areas, and its working groups. Note that
other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-
Drafts.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six
months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents
xxx, et al. Expires August 6, 2019 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft Net2Cloud Problem Statement February 2019
at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as
reference material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt
The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html
This Internet-Draft will expire on August 6, 2019.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2019 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
(http://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. Definition of terms............................................4
3. Current Practices in Interconnecting Enterprise Sites with Cloud
DCs...............................................................5
3.1. Interconnect to Cloud DCs.................................5
3.2. Interconnect to Hybrid Cloud DCs..........................7
3.3. Connecting workloads among hybrid Cloud DCs...............7
4. Desired Properties for Networks that interconnect Hybrid Clouds8
5. Problems with MPLS-based VPNs extending to Hybrid Cloud DCs....9
6. Problem with using IPsec tunnels to Cloud DCs.................10
6.1. Complexity of multi-point any-to-any interconnection.....10
6.2. Poor performance over long distance......................11
6.3. Scaling Issues with IPsec Tunnels........................11
7. Problems of Using SD-WAN to connect to Cloud DCs..............12
7.1. SD-WAN among branch offices vs. interconnect to Cloud DCs12
Dunbar, et al. Expires Dec 6, 2019 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft Net2Cloud Problem Statement February 2019
8. End-to-End Security Concerns for Data Flows...................15
9. Requirements for Dynamic Cloud Data Center VPNs...............15
10. Security Considerations......................................16
Solution drafts resulting from this work will address security
concerns inherent to the solution(s), including both protocol
aspects and the importance (for example) of securing workloads in
cloud DCs and the use of secure interconnection mechanisms.......16
IANA Considerations..............................................16
11. References...................................................16
11.1. Normative References....................................16
11.2. Informative References..................................16
12. Acknowledgments..............................................17
1. Introduction
The ever-increasing use of cloud applications for communication
services change the way corporate business works and shares
information. Such cloud applications use resources hosted in third
party DCs that also host services for other customers.
With the advent of widely available third party cloud DCs in diverse
geographic locations and the advancement of tools for monitoring and
predicting application behaviors, it is technically feasible for
enterprises to instantiate applications and workloads in locations
that are geographically closest to their end-users. Such proximity
improves end-to-end latency and overall user experience. Conversely,
an enterprise can easily shutdown applications and workloads
whenever end-users are in motion (thereby modifying the networking
connection of subsequently relocated applications and workloads). In
addition, an enterprise may wish to take advantage of more and more
business applications offered by third party private cloud DCs.
Most of those enterprise branch offices & on-premises data centers
are already connected via VPNs, such as MPLS-based L2VPNs and
L3VPNs. Then connecting to the cloud-hosted resources may not be
straightforward if the provider of the VPN service does not have
direct connections to the corresponding cloud DCs. Under those
circumstances, the enterprise can upgrade the CPEs deployed in its
various premises to utilize SD-WAN techniques to reach cloud
resources (without any assistance from the VPN service provider), or
wait for their VPN service provider to make new agreements with data
Dunbar, et al. Expires Dec 6, 2019 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft Net2Cloud Problem Statement February 2019
center providers to connect to the cloud resources. Either way has
additional infrastructure and operational costs.
In addition, it is an uptrend with more enterprises instantiating
their apps & workloads in different cloud DCs to maximize the
benefits of geographical proximity, elasticity and special features
offered by different cloud DCs.
2. Definition of terms
Cloud DC: Third party Data Centers that usually host applications
and workload owned by different organizations or
tenants.
Controller: Used interchangeably with SD-WAN controller to manage
SD-WAN overlay path creation/deletion and monitoring the
path conditions between two or more sites.
DSVPN: Dynamic Smart Virtual Private Network. DSVPN is a secure
network that exchanges data between sites without
needing to pass traffic through an organization's
headquarter virtual private network (VPN) server or
router.
Heterogeneous Cloud: applications & workloads split among Cloud DCs
owned & managed by different operators.
Hybrid Clouds: Hybrid Clouds (usually plural) refer to enterprises
using their own premises DCs in addition to Cloud
services provided by multiple cloud operators. For
example, an enterprise not only have applications
running in their own DCs, but also have applications
hosted in multiple third party cloud DCs ((AWS, Azure,
Google, Salesforces, SAP, etc). . ONUG also has a
notion of heterogeneous cloud, refers to enterprises
does not have its own DC, only uses services by 3rd
party cloud operators.
SD-WAN: Software Defined Wide Area Network. In this document,
"SD-WAN" refers to the solutions specified by ONUG (Open
Network User Group), https://www.onug.net/software-
Dunbar, et al. Expires Dec 6, 2019 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft Net2Cloud Problem Statement February 2019
defined-wide-area-network-sd-wan/, which is about
pooling WAN bandwidth from multiple underlay networks to
get better WAN bandwidth management, visibility &
control. When the underlay networks are private
networks, traffic can traverse without additional
encryption; when the underlay networks are public, such
as Internet, some traffic needs to be encrypted when
traversing through (depending on user provided
policies).
VPC: Virtual Private Cloud. A service offered by Cloud DC
operators to allocate logically-isolated cloud
resources, including compute, networking and storage.
3. Current Practices in Interconnecting Enterprise Sites with Cloud DCs
3.1. Interconnect to Cloud DCs
Most Cloud operators offer some type of network gateway through
which an enterprise can reach their workloads hosted in the Cloud
DCs. For example, AWS (Amazon Web Services) offers the following
options to reach workloads in AWS Cloud DCs:
- Internet gateway for any external entities to reach the
workloads hosted in AWS Cloud DC via the Internet.
- Virtual gateway (vGW) where IPsec tunnels [RFC6071] are
established between an enterprise's own gateway and AWS vGW, so
that the communications between those gateways can be secured
from the underlay (which might be the public Internet).
- Direct Connect, which allows enterprises to purchase direct
connect from network service providers to get a private leased
line interconnecting the enterprises gateway(s) and the AWS
Direct Connect routers. Via Direct Connect, an AWS Transit
Gateway can be used to interconnect multiple VPCs in different
Availability Zones.
CPEs at one Enterprise branch office are connected to the Internet
to reach AWS's vGW via IPsec tunnels. Other ports of such CPEs are
connected to AWS DirectConnect via a private network (without any
encryption).
Dunbar, et al. Expires Dec 6, 2019 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft Net2Cloud Problem Statement February 2019
+------------------------+
| ,---. ,---. |
| (TN-1 ) ( TN-2)|
| `-+-' +--+ `-+-' |
| +----|vR|-----+ |
| ++-+ |
| | +-+----+
| | /Internet\ For External
| +-------+ Gateway +----------------------
| \ / to reach via Internet
| +-+----+
| |
+------------------------+
+------------------------+
| ,---. ,---. |
| (TN-1 ) ( TN-2)|
| `-+-' +--+ `-+-' |
| +----|vR|-----+ |
| ++-+ |
| | +-+----+
| | / virtual\ For IPsec Tunnel
| +-------+ Gateway +----------------------
| \ / termination
| +-+----+
| |
+------------------------+
+------------------------+
| ,---. ,---. |
| (TN-1 ) ( TN-2)|
| `-+-' +--+ `-+-' |
| +----|vR|-----+ |
| ++-+ |
| | +-+----+ +------+
| | / \ For Direct /customer\
| +-------+ Gateway +----------+ gateway |
| \ / Connect \ /
| +-+----+ +------+
| |
+------------------------+
Figure 1: Examples of Cloud DC connections.
Dunbar, et al. Expires Dec 6, 2019 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft Net2Cloud Problem Statement February 2019
3.2. Interconnect to Hybrid Cloud DCs
According to Gartner, by 2020 "hybrid will be the most common usage
of the cloud" as more enterprises see the benefits of integrating
public and private cloud infrastructures. However, enabling the
growth of hybrid cloud deployments in the enterprise requires fast
and safe interconnection between public and private cloud services.
For an enterprise to connect to applications & workloads hosted in
multiple Cloud DCs, the enterprise can use IPsec tunnels established
over the Internet or a (virtualized) leased line service to connect
its on-premises gateways to each of the Cloud DC's gateways, virtual
routers instantiated in the Cloud DCs, or any other suitable design
(including a combination thereof).
Some enterprises prefer to instantiate their own virtual
CPEs/routers inside the Cloud DC to connect the workloads within the
Cloud DC. Then an overlay path is established between customer
gateways to the virtual CPEs/routers for reaching the workloads
inside the cloud DC.
3.3. Connecting workloads among hybrid Cloud DCs
There are multiple approaches to interconnect workloads among
different Cloud DCs:
- Utilize Cloud DC provided transit gateways, which usually does
not work if Cloud DCs are owned and managed by different Cloud
providers.
- Hairpin all the traffic through the customer gateway, which
creates additional transmission delay & incurs cost when
exiting Cloud DCs, or
- Establish direct tunnels among different VPCs (Virtual Private
Clouds) via client's own virtual routers instantiated within
Cloud DCs. DMVPN (Dynamic Multipoint Virtual Private Network)
or DSVPN (Dynamic Smart VPN) techniques can be used to
establish direct Multi-point-to-Point or multi-point-to multi-
point tunnels among those client's own virtual routers.
DMVPN & DSVPN use NHRP (Next Hop Resolution Protocol) [RFC2735] so
that spoke nodes can register their IP addresses & WAN ports with
the hub node. The IETF ION (Internetworking over NBMA (non-broadcast
Dunbar, et al. Expires Dec 6, 2019 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft Net2Cloud Problem Statement February 2019
multiple access) WG standardized NHRP for connection-oriented NBMA
network (such as ATM) network address resolution more than two
decades ago.
There are many differences between virtual routers in Public Cloud
DCs and the nodes in an NBMA network. NHRP & DSVPN are not cannot be
used for registering virtual routers in Cloud DCs unless an
extension of such protocols is developed for that purpose. Other
protocols such as BGP can be used, as described in [BGP-SDWAN].
4. Desired Properties for Networks that interconnect Hybrid Clouds
The networks that interconnect hybrid cloud DCs must address the
following requirements:
- High availability at any time, whatever the duration of the
connection to the cloud DC.
Many enterprises include cloud infrastructures in their
disaster recovery strategy, e.g., by enforcing periodic backup
policies within the cloud, or by running backup applications in
the Cloud, etc. Therefore, the connection to the cloud DCs may
not be permanent, but rather needs to be on-demand.
- Global reachability from different geographical zones, thereby
facilitating the proximity of applications as a function of the
end users' location, to improve latency.
- Elasticity and mobility, to instantiate additional applications
at Cloud DCs when end-users' usages increase and shut down
applications at locations when there are fewer end-users.
Some enterprises have front-end web portals running in cloud
DCs and database servers in their on-premises DCs. Those Front-
end web portals need to be reachable from the public Internet.
The backend connection to the sensitive data in database
servers hosted in the on-premises DCs might need secure
connections.
- Scalable security management. IPsec is commonly used to
interconnect cloud gateways with CPEs deployed in the
enterprise premises. For enterprises with a large number or
branch offices, managing the IPsec's Security Associations
among many nodes can be very difficult.
Dunbar, et al. Expires Dec 6, 2019 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft Net2Cloud Problem Statement February 2019
5. Problems with MPLS-based VPNs extending to Hybrid Cloud DCs
Traditional MPLS-based VPNs have been widely deployed as an
effective way to support businesses and organizations that require
network performance and reliability. MPLS shifted the burden of
managing a VPN service from enterprises to service providers. The
CPEs attached to MPLS VPNs are also simpler and less expensive,
since they do not need to manage routes to remote sites; they simply
pass all outbound traffic to the MPLS VPN PEs to which the CPEs are
attached (albeit multi-homing scenarios require more processing
logic on CPEs). MPLS has addressed the problems of scale,
availability, and fast recovery from network faults, and
incorporated traffic-engineering capabilities.
However, traditional MPLS-based VPN solutions are sub-optimized for
connecting end-users to dynamic workloads/applications in cloud DCs
because:
- The Provider Edge (PE) nodes of the enterprise's VPNs might not
have direct connections to third party cloud DCs that are used
for hosting workloads with the goal of providing an easy access
to enterprises' end-users.
- It usually takes some time to deploy provider edge (PE) routers
at new locations. When enterprise's workloads are changed from
one cloud DC to another (i.e., removed from one DC and re-
instantiated to another location when demand changes), the
enterprise branch offices need to be connected to the new cloud
DC, but the network service provider might not have PEs located
at the new location.
One of the main drivers for moving workloads into the cloud is
the widely available cloud DCs at geographically diverse
locations, where apps can be instantiated so that they can be
as close to their end-users as possible. When the user base
changes, the applications may be migrated to a new cloud DC
location closest to the new user base.
Dunbar, et al. Expires Dec 6, 2019 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft Net2Cloud Problem Statement February 2019
- Most of the cloud DCs do not expose their internal networks, so
the MPLS-based VPNs can only reach Cloud DC's Gateways, not to
the workloads hosted inside.
- Many cloud DCs use an overlay to connect their gateways to the
workloads located inside the DC. There has not been any
standard to address the interworking between the Cloud Overlay
and the enterprise' existing underlay networks.
Another roadblock is the lack of a standard way to express and
enforce consistent security policies for workloads that not only use
virtual addresses, but in which are also very likely hosted in
different locations within the Cloud DC [RFC8192]. The current VPN
path computation and bandwidth allocation schemes may not be
flexible enough to address the need for enterprises to rapidly
connect to dynamically instantiated (or removed) workloads and
applications regardless of their location/nature (i.e., third party
cloud DCs).
6. Problem with using IPsec tunnels to Cloud DCs
As described in the previous section, many Cloud operators expose
their gateways for external entities (which can be enterprises
themselves) to directly establish IPsec tunnels. Enterprises can
also instantiate virtual routers within Cloud DCs to connect to
their on-premises devices via IPsec tunnels. If there is only one
enterprise location that needs to reach the Cloud DC, an IPsec
tunnel is a very convenient solution.
However, many medium-to-large enterprises usually have multiple
sites and multiple data centers. For workloads and apps hosted in
cloud DCs, multiple sites need to communicate securely with those
cloud workloads and apps. This section documents some of the issues
associated with using IPsec tunnels to connect enterprise premises
with cloud gateways.
6.1. Complexity of multi-point any-to-any interconnection
The dynamic workload instantiated in cloud DC needs to communicate
with multiple branch offices and on-premises data centers. Most
enterprises need multi-point interconnection among multiple
locations, which can be provided by means of MPLS L2/L3 VPNs.
Dunbar, et al. Expires Dec 6, 2019 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft Net2Cloud Problem Statement February 2019
Using IPsec overlay paths to connect all branches & on-premises data
centers to cloud DCs requires CPEs to manage routing among Cloud DCs
gateways and the CPEs located at other branch locations, which can
dramatically increase the complexity of the design, possibly at the
cost of jeopardizing the CPE performance.
The complexity of requiring CPEs to maintain routing among other
CPEs is one of the reasons why enterprises migrated from Frame Relay
based services to MPLS-based VPN services.
MPLS-based VPNs have their PEs directly connected to the CPEs.
Therefore, CPEs only need to forward all traffic to the directly
attached PEs, which are therefore responsible for enforcing the
routing policy within the corresponding VPNs. Even for multi-homed
CPEs, the CPEs only need to forward traffic among the directly
connected PEs. However, when using IPsec tunnels between CPEs and
Cloud DCs, the CPEs need to compute, select, establish and maintain
routes for traffic to be forwarded to Cloud DCs, to remote CPEs via
VPN, or directly.
6.2. Poor performance over long distance
When enterprise CPEs or gateways are far away from cloud DC gateways
or across country/continent boundaries, performance of IPsec tunnels
over the public Internet can be problematic and unpredictable. Even
though there are many monitoring tools available to measure delay
and various performance characteristics of the network, the
measurement for paths over the Internet is passive and past
measurements may not represent future performance.
Many cloud providers can replicate workloads in different available
zones. An App instantiated in a cloud DC closest to clients may have
to cooperate with another App (or its mirror image) in another
region or database server(s) in the on-premises DC. This kind of
coordination requires predicable networking behavior/performance
among those locations.
6.3. Scaling Issues with IPsec Tunnels
IPsec can achieve secure overlay connections between two locations
over any underlay network, e.g., between CPEs and Cloud DC Gateways.
If there is only one enterprise location connected to the cloud
gateway, a small number of IPsec tunnels can be configured on-demand
Dunbar, et al. Expires Dec 6, 2019 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft Net2Cloud Problem Statement February 2019
between the on-premises DC and the Cloud DC, which is an easy and
flexible solution.
However, for multiple enterprise locations to reach workloads hosted
in cloud DCs, the cloud DC gateway needs to maintain multiple IPsec
tunnels to all those locations (e.g., as a hub & spoke topology).
For a company with hundreds or thousands of locations, there could
be hundreds (or even thousands) of IPsec tunnels terminating at the
cloud DC gateway, which is not only very expensive (because Cloud
Operators usually charge their customers based on connections), but
can be very processing intensive for the gateway. Many cloud
operators only allow a limited number of (IPsec) tunnels & bandwidth
to each customer. Alternatively, you could use a solution like
group encryption where a single IPsec SA is necessary at the GW but
the drawback here is key distribution and maintenance of a key
server, etc.
7. Problems of Using SD-WAN to connect to Cloud DCs
SD-WAN can establish parallel paths over multiple underlay networks
between two locations on-demand, for example, to support the
connections established between two CPEs interconnected by a
traditional MPLS VPN ([RFC4364] or [RFC4664]) or by IPsec [RFC6071]
tunnels.
SD-WAN lets enterprises augment their current VPN network with cost-
effective, readily available Broadband Internet connectivity,
enabling some traffic offloading to paths over the Internet
according to differentiated, possibly application-based traffic
forwarding policies, or when the MPLS VPN connection between the two
locations is congested, or otherwise undesirable or unavailable.
7.1. SD-WAN among branch offices vs. interconnect to Cloud DCs
SD-WAN interconnection of branch offices is not as simple as it
appears. For an enterprise with multiple sites, using SD-WAN overlay
paths among sites requires each CPE to manage all the addresses that
local hosts have the potential to reach, i.e., map internal VPN
addresses to appropriate SD-WAN paths. This is similar to the
complexity of Frame Relay based VPNs, where each CPE needed to
maintain mesh routing for all destinations if they were to avoid an
extra hop through a hub router. Even though SD-WAN CPEs can get
assistance from a central controller (instead of running a routing
protocol) to resolve the mapping between destinations and SD-WAN
paths, SD-WAN CPEs are still responsible for routing table
Dunbar, et al. Expires Dec 6, 2019 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft Net2Cloud Problem Statement February 2019
maintenance as remote destinations change their attachments, e.g.,
the dynamic workload in other DCs are de-commissioned or added.
Even though originally envisioned for interconnecting branch
offices, SD-WAN offers a very attractive way for enterprises to
connect to Cloud DCs.
The SD-WAN for interconnecting branch offices and the SD-WAN for
interconnecting to Cloud DCs have some differences:
- SD-WAN for interconnecting branch offices usually have two end-
points (e.g., CPEs) controlled by one entity (e.g., a
controller or management system operated by the enterprise).
- SD-WAN for Cloud DC interconnects may consider CPEs owned or
managed by the enterprise, while remote end-points are being
managed or controlled by Cloud DCs (For the ease of
description, let's call such CPEs asymmetrically-managed CPEs).
Dunbar, et al. Expires Dec 6, 2019 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft Net2Cloud Problem Statement February 2019
- Cloud DCs may have different entry points (or devices) with one
entry point that terminates a private direct connection (based
upon a leased line for example) and other entry points being
devices terminating the IPsec tunnels, as shown in Figure 2.
Therefore, the SD-WAN design becomes asymmetric.
+------------------------+
| ,---. ,---. |
| (TN-1 ) ( TN-2)|
| `-+-' +---+ `-+-' |
| +----|vR1|----+ |
| ++--+ |
| | +-+----+
| | /Internet\ One path via
| +-------+ Gateway +---------------------+
| \ / Internet \
| +-+----+ \
+------------------------+ \
\
+------------------------+ native traffic \
| ,---. ,---. | without encryption|
| (TN-3 ) ( TN-4)| |
| `-+-' +--+ `-+-' | | +------+
| +----|vR|-----+ | +------+ CPE |
| ++-+ | | +------+
| | +-+----+ |
| | / virtual\ One path via IPsec Tunnel |
| +-------+ Gateway +-------------------------- +
| \ / Encrypted traffic over|
| +-+----+ public network |
+------------------------+ |
|
+------------------------+ |
| ,---. ,---. | Native traffic |
| (TN-5 ) ( TN-6)| without encryption |
| `-+-' +--+ `-+-' | over secure network|
| +----|vR|-----+ | |
| ++-+ | |
| | +-+----+ +------+ |
| | / \ Via Direct /customer\ |
| +-------+ Gateway +----------+ gateway |-----+
| \ / Connect \ /
| +-+----+ +------+
+------------------------+
Figure 2: Different Underlays to Reach Cloud DC
Dunbar, et al. Expires Dec 6, 2019 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft Net2Cloud Problem Statement February 2019
8. End-to-End Security Concerns for Data Flows
When IPsec tunnels established from enterprise on-premises CPEs
are terminated at the Cloud DC gateway where the workloads or
applications are hosted, some enterprises have concerns regarding
traffic to/from their workload being exposed to others behind the
data center gateway (e.g., exposed to other organizations that
have workloads in the same data center).
To ensure that traffic to/from workloads is not exposed to
unwanted entities, IPsec tunnels may go all the way to the
workload (servers, or VMs) within the DC.
9. Requirements for Dynamic Cloud Data Center VPNs
In order to address the aforementioned issues, any solution for
enterprise VPNs that includes connectivity to dynamic workloads or
applications in cloud data centers should satisfy a set of
requirements:
- The solution should allow enterprises to take advantage of the
current state-of-the-art in VPN technology, in both traditional
MPLS-based VPNs and IPsec-based VPNs (or any combination
thereof) that run over the public Internet.
- The solution should not require an enterprise to upgrade all
their existing CPEs.
- The solution should support scalable IPsec key management among
all nodes involved in DC interconnect schemes.
- The solution needs to support easy and fast, on-the-fly, VPN
connections to dynamic workloads and applications in third
party data centers, and easily allow these workloads to migrate
both within a data center and between data centers.
- Allow VPNs to provide bandwidth and other performance
guarantees.
- Be a cost-effective solution for enterprises to incorporate
dynamic cloud-based applications and workloads into their
existing VPN environment.
Dunbar, et al. Expires Dec 6, 2019 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft Net2Cloud Problem Statement February 2019
10. Security Considerations
The draft discusses security requirements as a part of the problem
space, particularly in sections 4, 5, and 8.
Solution drafts resulting from this work will address security
concerns inherent to the solution(s), including both protocol
aspects and the importance (for example) of securing workloads in
cloud DCs and the use of secure interconnection mechanisms.
IANA Considerations
This document requires no IANA actions. RFC Editor: Please remove
this section before publication.
11. References
11.1. Normative References
11.2. Informative References
[RFC2735] B. Fox, et al "NHRP Support for Virtual Private
networks". Dec. 1999.
[RFC8192] S. Hares, et al "Interface to Network Security Functions
(I2NSF) Problem Statement and Use Cases", July 2017
[ITU-T-X1036] ITU-T Recommendation X.1036, "Framework for creation,
storage, distribution and enforcement of policies for
network security", Nov 2007.
[RFC6071] S. Frankel and S. Krishnan, "IP Security (IPsec) and
Internet Key Exchange (IKE) Document Roadmap", Feb 2011.
[RFC4364] E. Rosen and Y. Rekhter, "BGP/MPLS IP Virtual Private
Networks (VPNs)", Feb 2006
Dunbar, et al. Expires Dec 6, 2019 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft Net2Cloud Problem Statement February 2019
[RFC4664] L. Andersson and E. Rosen, "Framework for Layer 2 Virtual
Private Networks (L2VPNs)", Sept 2006.
[BGP-SDWAN] L. Dunbar, et al. "BGP Extension for SDWAN Overlay
Networks", draft-dunbar-idr-bgp-sdwan-overlay-ext-03,
work-in-progress, Nov 2018.
12. Acknowledgments
Many thanks to Ignas Bagdonas, Michael Huang, Liu Yuan Jiao,
Katherine Zhao, and Jim Guichard for the discussion and
contributions.
Dunbar, et al. Expires Dec 6, 2019 [Page 17]
Internet-Draft Net2Cloud Problem Statement February 2019
Authors' Addresses
Linda Dunbar
Huawei
Email: Linda.Dunbar@huawei.com
Andrew G. Malis
Huawei
Email: agmalis@gmail.com
Christian Jacquenet
Orange
Rennes, 35000
France
Email: Christian.jacquenet@orange.com
Mehmet Toy
Verizon
One Verizon Way
Basking Ridge, NJ 07920
Email: mehmet.toy@verizon.com
Dunbar, et al. Expires Dec 6, 2019 [Page 18]