Network Working Group                                      L. Dunbar
Internet Draft                                             Futurewei
Intended status: Informational                           B. Sarikaya
Expires: December 15, 2020                       Denpel Informatique
                                                          T. Herbert
                                                          S. Dikshit
                                                       June 15, 2020

     Virtual Machine Mobility Solutions for L2 and L3 Overlay Networks


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

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

Status of this Memo

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

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

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

xxx, et al.           Expires December 15, 2020                [Page 1]

Internet-Draft           VM Mobility Solution         June 15, 2020

   other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-

   Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six
   months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents
   at any time.  It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as
   reference material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."

   The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at

   The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at

   This Internet-Draft will expire on December 10, 2020.

Copyright Notice

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

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

Table of Contents

   1. Introduction...................................................3
   2. Conventions used in this document..............................4
   3. Requirements...................................................5
   4. Overview of the VM Mobility Solutions..........................6
      4.1. Inter-VN and External Communication.......................6
      4.2. VM Migration in a Layer 2 Network.........................6
      4.3. VM Migration in Layer-3 Network...........................8
      4.4. Address and Connection Management in VM Migration.........9

Dunbar, et al.        Expires December 15, 2020                [Page 2]

Internet-Draft           VM Mobility Solution         June 15, 2020

   5. Handling Packets in Flight....................................10
   6. Moving Local State of VM......................................10
   7. Handling of Hot, Warm and Cold VM Mobility....................11
   8. Other Options.................................................12
   9. VM Lifecycle Management.......................................13
   10. Security Considerations......................................13
   11. IANA Considerations..........................................14
   12. Acknowledgments..............................................14
   13. Change Log...................................................14
   14. References...................................................14
      14.1. Normative References....................................14
      14.2. Informative References..................................16

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

Dunbar, et al.        Expires December 15, 2020                [Page 3]

Internet-Draft           VM Mobility Solution         June 15, 2020

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

2. Conventions used in this document

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

      VM:    Virtual Machine

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

      Hot VM Mobility: A given VM could be moved from one server to
               another in a running state without terminating the VM.

     Warm VM Mobility:  In case of warm VM mobility, the VM states are
               mirrored to the secondary server (or domain) at
               predefined regular intervals.  This reduces the

Dunbar, et al.        Expires December 15, 2020                [Page 4]

Internet-Draft           VM Mobility Solution         June 15, 2020

               overheads and complexity, but this may also lead to a
               situation when both servers may not contain the exact
               same data (state information)

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

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

      New NVE: refers to the new NVE after migration.

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

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

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

3. Requirements

   This section states requirements on data center network VM mobility.

      - Data center network should support both IPv4 and IPv6 VM mobility.
      - VM mobility should not require changing an VM's IP address(es) after
        the move.
      -  "Hot Migration" requires the transport service continuity across the
        move, while in "Cold Migration" the transport service is restarted,
        i.e. the task is stopped on the old NVE, is moved to the new NVE and
        then restarted. Not all DCs support "Hot Migration. DCs that only
        support Cold Migration should make their customers aware of the
        potential service interruption during a Cold Migration.
      - VM mobility solutions/procedures should minimize triangular routing
        except for handling packets in flight.
      - VM mobility solutions/procedures should not need to use tunneling
        except for handling packets in flight.

Dunbar, et al.        Expires December 15, 2020                [Page 5]

Internet-Draft           VM Mobility Solution         June 15, 2020

4. Overview of the VM Mobility Solutions

4.1. Inter-VN and External Communication

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

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

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

     Moving a VM to a new NVE may move the VM away from the NVO3
     Gateway(s) used by the VM's traffic, e.g., some traffic may be
     better handled by an NVO3 Gateway that is closer to the new NVE
     than the NVO3 Gateway that was used before the VM move.  If NVO3
     Gateway changes are not possible for some reason, then the VM's
     traffic can continue to use the prior NVO3 Gateway(s), which may
     have some drawbacks, e.g., longer network paths.

4.2. VM Migration in a Layer 2 Network

     In a Layer-2 based approach, a VM moving to another NVE does not
     change its IP address. But this VM is now under a new NVE,
     previously communicating NVEs may continue sending their packets
     to the old NVE.  Therefore, the previously communicating NVEs need
     to promptly update their Address Resolution Protocol (ARP) caches
     of IPv4 [RFC0826] or neighbor caches of IPv6 [RFC4861] . If the VM
     being moved has communication with external entities, the NVO3
     gateway needs to be notified of the new NVE where the VM is moved

     In IPv4, the VM immediately after the move should send a
     gratuitous ARP request message containing its IPv4 and Layer 2 MAC
     address in its new NVE.  Upon receiving this message, the new NVE

Dunbar, et al.        Expires December 15, 2020                [Page 6]

Internet-Draft           VM Mobility Solution         June 15, 2020

     can update its ARP cache. The new NVE should send a notification
     of the newly attached VM to the central directory [RFC7067]
     embedded in the NVA to update the mapping of the IPv4 address &
     MAC address of the moving VM along with the new NVE address.  An
     NVE-to-NVA protocol is used for this purpose [RFC8014]. The old
     NVE, upon a VM is moved away, should send an ARP scan to all its
     attached VMs to refresh its ARP Cache.

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

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

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

     When VM address is IPv6, the operation is similar:

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

Dunbar, et al.        Expires December 15, 2020                [Page 7]

Internet-Draft           VM Mobility Solution         June 15, 2020

     the NVE IPv6 address.  An NVE-to-NVA protocol is used for this
     purpose [RFC8014].

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

4.3. VM Migration in Layer-3 Network

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

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

     Because broadcasting is not available in Layer-3 based networks,
     multicast of neighbor solicitations in IPv6 and ARP for IPv4 would
     need to be emulated. Scalability of the multicast (such as IPv6 ND
     and IPv4 ARP) can become problematic because the hosts belonging
     to one subnet (or one VLAN) can span across many NVEs. Sending
     broadcast traffic to all NVEs can cause unnecessary traffic in the
     DCN if the hosts belonging to one subnet are only attached to a
     very small number of NVEs. It is preferable to have a directory
     [RFC7067] or NVA to manage the updates to an NVE of the potential
     other NVEs a specific subnet may be attached and get periodic
     reports from an NVE of all the subnets being attached/detached, as
     described by RFC8171.

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

     - Stop running the task.
     - Package the runtime state of the job.

Dunbar, et al.        Expires December 15, 2020                [Page 8]

Internet-Draft           VM Mobility Solution         June 15, 2020

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

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

4.4. Address and Connection Management in VM Migration

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

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

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

     The simplest course of action is to drop all TCP connections to
     the applications running on the VM during a migration.  If the
     migrations are relatively rare events in a data center, impact is
     relatively small when TCP connections are automatically closed in
     the network stack during a migration event.  If the applications
     running are known to handle this gracefully (i.e. reopen dropped
     connections) then this approach may be viable.

     More involved approach to connection migration entails a proxy to
     the application (or the application itself) to pause the
     connection, package connection state and send to target,
     instantiate connection state in the peer stack, and restarting the
     connection.  From the time the connection is paused to the time it
     is running again in the new stack, packets received for the
     connection could be silently dropped.  For some period of time,

Dunbar, et al.        Expires December 15, 2020                [Page 9]

Internet-Draft           VM Mobility Solution         June 15, 2020

     the old stack will need to keep a record of the migrated
     connection.  If it receives a packet, it can either silently drop
     the packet or forward it to the new location, as described in
     Section 5.

5. Handling Packets in Flight

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

6. Moving Local State of VM
     In addition to the VM mobility related signaling (VM Mobility
     Registration Request/Reply), the VM state needs to be transferred
     to the new NVE.  The state includes its memory and file system if

Dunbar, et al.        Expires December 15, 2020               [Page 10]

Internet-Draft           VM Mobility Solution         June 15, 2020

     the VM cannot access the memory and the file system after moving
     to the new NVE.

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

7. Handling of Hot, Warm and Cold VM Mobility
     Both Cold and Warm VM mobility (or migration) refer to the
     complete shut down of the VM at the  old NVE before restarting the
     VM at the new NVE. Therefore, all transport services to the VM
     need to be   restarted.

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

     For Hot VM Mobility, a VM moving to a new NVE does not change its
     IP address and the service running on the VM is not interrupted.
     The VM needs to send a gratuitous Address Resolution message or
     unsolicited Neighbor Advertisement message upstream after each

     In case of  Warm VM mobility,    the functional components of the
     new NVE   receive the running status of the VM at frequent
     intervals., Consequently it   takes less time to launch the VM
     under the new NVE.Other NVEs that communicate with the VM can be
     notified promptly about the VM migration c.  The duration of the
     time interval determines the effectiveness (or benefit) of Warm VM
     mobility.  The larger the time duration, the less effective the
     Warm VM mobility becomes.

     In case of Cold VM mobility,  the VM on the old NVE is completely
     shut down and the VM is launched on the new NVE. To minimize the
     chance of the previously communicating NVEs sending packets to the
     old NVE, the NVA should push the updated ARP/neighbor cache entry
     to all previously communicating NVEs when the VM is started on the
     new NVE. Alternatively, all NVEs can periodically pull the updated
     ARP/neighbor cache entry from the NVA to shorten the time span
     that packets are sent to the old NVE.

Dunbar, et al.        Expires December 15, 2020               [Page 11]

Internet-Draft           VM Mobility Solution         June 15, 2020

     Upon starting at the new NVE, the VM should send an ARP or
     Neighbor Discovery message.

8. Other Options
     Hot, Warm and Cold mobility are planned activities which are
     managed by VM management system.

     For unexpected events, such as overloads and failure, a VM might
     need to move to a new NVE without any service interruption, and
     this  is called Hot VM Failover in this document. In such case,
     there are redundant primary and secondary VMs whose states are
     continuously synchronized by using methods that are outside the
     scope of this draft. If the VM in the primary NVE fails, there is
     no need to actively move the VM to the secondary NVE because the
     VM in the secondary NVE can immediately pick up and continue
     processing the applications/services.

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

     If the load balancing functionality is not used, the Hot VM
     Failover can be made transparent to the sender (peers) without
     relying on request retry and by using the techniques that are
     described in section 4. This does not depend on the primary VM or
     its associated NVE doing anything after the failure.  This
     restriction is necessary because a failure that affects the
     primary VM may also cause its associated NVE to fail. For example,
     a physical server failure can cause the VM and its NVE to fail.

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

Dunbar, et al.        Expires December 15, 2020               [Page 12]

Internet-Draft           VM Mobility Solution         June 15, 2020

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

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

     In overlay data center networks, ARP and ND messages can be used
     to mount address spoofing attacks from untrusted VMs and/or other
     untrusted sources. Examples of untrusted VMs are the VMs
     instantiated with the third party applications that are not
     written by the tenant of the VMs. Those untrusted VMs can send
     false ARP (IPv4) and ND (IPv6) messages, causing significant
     overloads in NVEs, NVO3 Gateways, and NVAs. The attacker can
     intercept, modify, or even stop data in-transit ARP/ND messages
     intended for other VNs and initiate DDOS attacks to other VMs
     attached to the same NVE. A simple black-hole attacks can be
     mounted by sending a false ARP/ND message to indicate that the
     victim's IP address has moved to the attacker's VM.  That
     technique can also be used to mount man-in-the-middle attacks.
     Additional effort are required to ensure that the intercepted
     traffic can be eventually delivered to the impacted VMs.

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

     Because of those threats, VM management system needs to apply
     stronger security mechanisms when adding a VM to an NVE. Some
     tenants may have requirements that prohibit their VMs to be co-
     attached to the NVEs with other tenants. Some Data Centers deploy
     additional functionality in their NVO3 Gateways to mitigate the
     ARP/ND threats. These may include periodically sending each
     Gateway's ARP/ND cache contents to the NVA or other central
     control system. The objective is to identify the ARP/ND cache
     entries that are not consistent with the locations of VMs and
     their IP addresses indicated by the VM Management System.

Dunbar, et al.        Expires December 15, 2020               [Page 13]

Internet-Draft           VM Mobility Solution         June 15, 2020

11. IANA Considerations

       This document makes no request to IANA.

12. Acknowledgments

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

13. Change Log

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

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

  . submitted version -02 with updated address.

  . submitted version -03 to fix the nits.

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

  . Submitted version - 05, 06, 07, 08, 09, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14 to
     address IETF LC comments from TSV area.

14. References

14.1. Normative References

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

Dunbar, et al.        Expires December 15, 2020               [Page 14]

Internet-Draft           VM Mobility Solution         June 15, 2020

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dunbar, et al.        Expires December 15, 2020               [Page 15]

Internet-Draft           VM Mobility Solution         June 15, 2020

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

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

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

Dunbar, et al.        Expires December 15, 2020               [Page 16]

Internet-Draft           VM Mobility Solution         June 15, 2020

Authors' Addresses

   Linda Dunbar

   Behcet Sarikaya
   Denpel Informatique

   Bhumip Khasnabish

   Tom Herbert

   Saumya Dikshit
   Bangalore, India

Dunbar, et al.        Expires December 15, 2020               [Page 17]