Network Working Group L. Dunbar
Internet Draft A. Malis
Intended status: Informational Huawei
Expires: August 6, 2019 C. Jacquenet
Orange
February 12, 2019
Gap Analysis of Interconnecting Underlay with Cloud Overlay
draft-ietf-rtgwg-net2cloud-gap-analysis-00
Abstract
This document analyzes the technological gaps when using SD-WAN to
interconnect workloads & apps hosted in various locations,
especially cloud data centers when the network service providers do
not have or have limited physical infrastructure to reach the
locations [Net2Cloud-problem].
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
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 July 6, 2019.
xxx, et al. Expires August 6, 2019 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft Net2Cloud Gap Analysis February 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...................................................2
2. Conventions used in this document..............................3
3. Gap Analysis of C-PEs Registration Protocol....................4
4. Gap Analysis in aggregating VPN paths and Internet paths.......5
4.1. Gap analysis of Using BGP to cover SD-WAN paths...........6
4.2. Gaps in preventing attacks from Internet facing ports.....9
5. Gap analysis of CPEs not directly connected to VPN PEs........10
5.1. Gap Analysis of Floating PEs to connect to Remote CPEs...11
5.2. NAT Traversal............................................12
5.3. Complication of using BGP between PEs and remote CPEs via
Internet......................................................12
5.4. Designated Forwarder to the remote edges.................13
5.5. Traffic Path Management..................................13
6. Manageability Considerations..................................14
7. Security Considerations.......................................14
8. IANA Considerations...........................................14
9. References....................................................14
9.1. Normative References.....................................15
9.2. Informative References...................................15
10. Acknowledgments..............................................16
1. Introduction
[Net2Cloud-Problem] describes the problems that enterprises face
today in transitioning their IT infrastructure to support digital
Dunbar, et al. Expires August 6, 2019 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft Net2Cloud Gap Analysis February 2019
economy, such as connecting enterprises' branch offices to dynamic
workloads in different Cloud DCs.
This document analyzes the technological gaps to interconnect
dynamic workloads & apps hosted in various locations and in Cloud
DCs that the enterprise existing VPN service provider might not have
or have limited the physical infrastructure to reach. When
enterprise' VPN service providers do not have or have insufficient
bandwidth to reach a location, SD-WAN is emerged as way to aggregate
bandwidth of multiple networks, such as MPLS VPN, Public Internet,
etc. This document primarily focuses on the technological gaps of
SD-WAN.
For ease of description, SD-WAN edge, SD-WAN end points, C-PE, or
CPE are used interchangeably throughout this document.
2. Conventions used in this document
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 monitor the
path conditions between sites.
CPE-Based VPN: Virtual Private Secure network formed among CPEs.
This is to differentiate from most commonly used PE-
based VPNs a la RFC 4364.
OnPrem: On Premises data centers and branch offices
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-
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
Dunbar, et al. Expires August 6, 2019 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft Net2Cloud Gap Analysis February 2019
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).
3. Gap Analysis of C-PEs Registration Protocol
SD-WAN, conceived in ONUG (Open Network User Group) a few years ago
as a means to aggregate multiple connections between any two points,
has emerged as an on-demand technology to securely interconnect the
OnPrem branches with the workloads instantiated in Cloud DCs that do
not connect to BGP/MPLS VPN PEs or have very limited bandwidth.
Some SD-WAN networks use the NHRP protocol [RFC2332] to register SD-
WAN edges with a "Controller" (or NHRP server), which then has the
ability to map a private VPN address to a public IP address of the
destination node. DSVPN [DSVPN] or DMVPN [DMVPN] are used to
establish tunnels among SD-WAN edge nodes.
NHRP was originally intended for ATM address resolution, and as a
result, it misses many attributes that are necessary for dynamic
endpoint C-PE registration to controller, such as:
- Interworking with MPLS VPN control plane. A SD-WAN edge can have
some ports facing MPLS VPN network and some ports facing public
Internet that requires encryption for some sensitive data to
traverse.
- Scalability. NHRP/DSVPN/DMVPN works fine with small number of edge
nodes. When a network has more than 100 nodes, the protocol does
not work well.
- NHRP does not have the IPsec attributes, which are needed for peers to
build Security Associations over public internet.
- NHRP does not have field to indicate C-PE supported encapsulation types,
such as IPsec-GRE, IPsec-VxLAN, or others.
- NHRP does not have field to indicate C-PE Location identifier, such as
Site Identifier, System ID, and/or Port ID.
- NHRP does not have field to describe the gateway to which the C-PE
is attached. When a C-PE is instantiated in a Cloud DC, to
Dunbar, et al. Expires August 6, 2019 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft Net2Cloud Gap Analysis February 2019
establish connection to the C-PE, it is necessary to know the
Cloud DC operator's Gateway to which the CPE is attached.
- NHRP does not have field to describe C-PE's NAT properties if the
C-PE is using private addresses, such as the NAT type, Private
address, Public address, Private port, Public port, etc.
[BGP-SDWAN-EXT] describes how to use BGP for SD-WAN edge nodes to
register its properties to SD-WAN controller, which then
disseminates the information to other SD-WAN edge nodes that are
authenticated to communicate.
4. Gap Analysis in aggregating VPN paths and Internet paths
Most likely, enterprises especially large ones already have their
CPEs interconnected by providers' VPNs, such as EVPN, L2VPN, or
L3VPN. The VPN can be PE based or CPE based as shown in the
following diagram. The commonly used CPE-based VPNs have CPE
directly attached to PEs, therefore the communication is considered
as secure. BGP are used to distribute routes among CPEs, even though
sometimes routes among CPEs are statically configured.
+---+ EVPN MAC/IP BGP updates
+======+RR +===========+
// +---+ \\
// \\
// <-----EVPN-VxLAN------> \\
+-+--+ ++-+ ++-+ +--+-+
| CPE|--|PE| |PE+----+ CPE|
| 1 | |1 | |x | | x |
+-+--+ ++-+ ++-+ +----+
| |
| VPN +-+---+ +----+
| Network | PE3 | |CPE |
| | |- --| 3 |
+--------+ +--+--+ +-+---+ +----+
| CPE +----+ PE4 |--------+
| 4 | +---+-+
+--------+
=== or \\ indicates control plane communications
Figure 1: L2 or L3 VPNs over IP WAN
Dunbar, et al. Expires August 6, 2019 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft Net2Cloud Gap Analysis February 2019
To use SD-WAN to aggregate Internet routes with the VPN routes, the
C-PEs need to have some ports connected to PEs and other ports
connected to the Internet. It is necessary to have a registration
protocol for C-PEs to register with their SD-WAN Controllers to
establish secure tunnels among relevant C-PEs.
If using NHRP for registration, C-PEs need to participate in two
separate control planes: EVPN&BGP for CPE-based VPNs via links
directly attached to PEs and NHRP & DSVPN/DMVPN for ports connected
to internet. Two separate control planes not only add complexity to
C-PEs, but also increase operational cost.
+---------Internet paths--------------+
| |
| +---+ |
| |RR | |
| +======+---+===========+ |
| // \\ |
| // <-----EVPN-VxLAN----> \\ |
| +-+--+ ++-+ ++-+ +--+-+ (|)
| | CPE|--|PE| |PE+--+ CPE| (|)
+--| 1 | |1 | |x | | c |---+
+-+--+ ++-+ ++-+ +----+
| |
| VPN +-+---+ +----+
+--------+ | Network | PE3 | |CPE |
| CPE | | | |- --| 3 |
| c | +-----+ +-+---+ +----+
+------+-+-------+ PE4 |-----+
+---+-+
Figure 2: CPEs interconnected by VPN paths and Internet Paths
4.1. Gap analysis of Using BGP to cover SD-WAN paths
Since C-PE already supports BGP, it is desirable to consider using
BGP to control the SD-WAN instead of two separate control planes.
This section analyzes the gaps of using BGP to control SD-WAN.
As described [BGP-SDWAN-Usage], SD-WAN Overlay Control Plane has
three distinct functional tiers:
- SD-WAN node's private address and WAN Ports/Addresses
registration to the SD-WAN Controller.
Dunbar, et al. Expires August 6, 2019 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft Net2Cloud Gap Analysis February 2019
o It is for informing the SD-WAN controller and potential
peers of the underlay networks to which the C-PE is
connected.
- Controller Facilitated IPsec SA management and NAT information
distribution
o It is for SD-WAN controller to facilitate or manage the
IPsec configurations and peer authentications for all
IPsec tunnels terminated at the SDWAN nodes. For some
scenarios where the WAN ports are private addresses, this
step is for informing the type of NAT translating the
private addresses to public ones.
- Establishing and Managing the topology and reachability for
services attached to the client ports of SD-WAN nodes.
o This is for the overlay layer's routes distribution, so
that a C-PE can establish the overlay routing table that
identifies the next hop for reaching a specific
route/service attached to remote nodes. [SECURE-EVPN]
describes EVPN and other options.
RFC5512 and [Tunnel-Encap] describe methods for endpoints to
advertise tunnel information and to trigger tunnel establishment.
RFC5512 & [Tunnel-Encap] have the Endpoint Address to indicate IPv4
or IPv6 address format, the Tunnel Encapsulation attribute to
indicate different encapsulation formats, such as L2TPv3, GRE,
VxLAN, IP-in-IP, etc. There are sub-TLVs to describe the detailed
tunnel information for each of the encapsulations.
[Tunnel-Encap] removed SAFI =7 (which was specified by RFC5512) for
distributing encapsulation tunnel information. [Tunnel-Encap]
require Tunnels being associated with routes.
There is also the Color sub-TLV to describe customer-specified
information about the tunnels (which can be creatively used for SD-
WAN)
Here are some of the gaps using [Tunnel-Encap] to control SD-WAN:
- Lacking C-PE Registration functionality
- Lacking IPsec Tunnel type
Dunbar, et al. Expires August 6, 2019 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft Net2Cloud Gap Analysis February 2019
- [Tunnel-Encap] has Remote Address SubTLV, but does not have any
field to indicate the Tunnel originating interface, which was in
RFC5512.
- The mechanisms described by [Tunnel-Encap] cannot be effectively
used for SD-WAN overlay network because a SD-WAN Tunnel can be
between Internet facing WAN ports of two C-PEs and needs to be
established before data arrival because the tunnel establishment
can fail, e.g. two end points supporting different encryption
algorithms.
- Client traffic (e.g. an EVPN route) can have option of going
through MPLS network natively without encryption, or going through
the IPsec tunnels between the internet facing WAN ports of two C-
PEs.
- There is no routes to be associated with the SD-WAN Tunnel between
two C-PE's internet facing WAN ports, unless consider using the
interface facing WAN Port addresses assigned by ISP (Internet
Service Providers) as the route for the Tunnel.
There is a suggestion on using a "Fake Route" for a SD-WAN node to
use [Tunnel-Encap] to advertise its SD-WAN tunnel end-points
properties. However, using "Fake Route" can create deployment
complexity for large SD-WAN networks with many tunnels. For
example, for a SD-WAN network with hundreds of nodes, with each
node having many ports & many end-points to establish SD-WAN
tunnels to their corresponding peers, the node would need many
"fake addresses". For large SD-WAN networks (such as has more than
10000 nodes), each node might need 10's thousands of "fake
addresses", which is very difficult to manage and needs lots of
configuration to get the nodes provisioned.
- Does not have fields to carry detailed information of the remote
C-PE: such as Site-ID, System-ID, Port-ID
- Does not have the proper field to express IPsec attributes among
the SD-WAN edge nodes to establish proper IPsec Security
Associations.
- Does not have proper way for two peer CPEs to negotiate IPSec
keys, based on the configuration sent by the Controller.
- Does not have field to indicate the UDP NAT private address <->
public address mapping
- C-PEs tend to communicate with a few other CPEs, not all the C-PEs
need to form mesh connections. Without any BGP extension, many
Dunbar, et al. Expires August 6, 2019 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft Net2Cloud Gap Analysis February 2019
nodes can get dumped with too much information of other nodes that
they never need to communicate with.
[VPN-over-Internet] describes a way to securely interconnect C-PEs
via IPsec using BGP. This method is useful, however, it still misses
some aspects to aggregate CPE-based VPN routes with internet routes
that interconnect the CPEs. In addition:
- The draft does not have options of C-PE having both MPLS ports and
Internet ports.
- The draft assumes that CPE "registers" with the RR. However, it does not
say how. It assumes that the remote CPEs are pre-configured with the
IPsec SA manually. In SD-WAN, Zero Touch Provisioning is expected. It is
not acceptable to require manual configuration.
- For RR communication with CPE, this draft only mentioned IPSec. Missing
TLS/DTLS.
- The draft assumes that CPEs and RR are connected with an IPsec tunnel.
With zero touch provisioning, we need an automatic way to synchronize
the IPsec SA between CPE and RR. The draft assumes:
A CPE must also be provisioned with whatever additional information
is needed in order to set up an IPsec SA with each of the red RRs
- IPsec requires periodic refreshment of the keys. The draft hasn't
addressed how to synchronize the refreshment among multiple nodes.
- IPsec usually only sends configuration parameters to two endpoints
and let the two endpoints negotiate the KEY. Now we assume that RR
is responsible for creating the KEY for all endpoints. When one
endpoint is compromised, all other connections are impacted.
4.2. Gaps in preventing attacks from Internet facing ports
When C-PEs have ports facing Internet, it brings in the security
risks of potential DDoS attacks to the C-PEs from the ports facing
internet.
To mitigate security risks, in addition to requring Anti-DDoS
features on C-PEs to prevent major DDoS attacks, it is necessary to
have ways for C-PEs to validate traffic from remote peers to prevent
spoofed traffic.
Dunbar, et al. Expires August 6, 2019 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft Net2Cloud Gap Analysis February 2019
5. Gap analysis of CPEs not directly connected to VPN PEs
Because of the ephemeral property of the selected Cloud DCs, an
enterprise or its network service provider may not have the direct
links to the Cloud DCs that are optimal for hosting the enterprise's
specific workloads/Apps. Under those circumstances, SD-WAN is a very
flexible choice to interconnect the enterprise on-premises data
centers & branch offices to its desired Cloud DCs.
However, SD-WAN paths over public Internet can have unpredictable
performance, especially over long distances and across domains.
Therefore, it is highly desirable to place as much as possible the
portion of SD-WAN paths over service provider VPN (e.g.,
enterprise's existing VPN) that have guaranteed SLA to minimize the
distance/segments over public Internet.
MEF Cloud Service Architecture [MEF-Cloud] also describes a use case
of network operators needing to use SD-WAN over LTE or public
Internet for last mile accesses where they are not present.
Under those scenarios, one or both of the SD-WAN endpoints may not
directly be attached to the PEs of a VPN Domain.
Using SD-WAN to connect the enterprise existing sites with the
workloads in Cloud DC, the enterprise existing sites' CPEs have to
be upgraded to support SD-WAN. If the workloads in Cloud DC need to
be connected to many sites, the upgrade process can be very
expensive.
[Net2Cloud-Problem] describes a hybrid network approach that
integrates SD-WAN with traditional MPLS-based VPNs, to extend the
existing MPLS-based VPNs to the Cloud DC Workloads over the access
paths that are not under the VPN provider control. To make it work
properly, a small number of the PEs of the MPLS VPN can be
designated to connect to the remote workloads via SD-WAN secure
IPsec tunnels. Those designated PEs are shown as fPE (floating PE
or smart PE) in Figure 3. Once the secure IPsec tunnels are
established, the workloads in Cloud DC can be reached by the
enterprise's VPN without upgrading all of the enterprise's existing
CPEs. The only CPE that needs to support SD-WAN would be a
virtualized CPE instantiated within the cloud DC.
Dunbar, et al. Expires August 6, 2019 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft Net2Cloud Gap Analysis February 2019
+--------+ +--------+
| Host-a +--+ +----| Host-b |
| | | (') | |
+--------+ | +-----------+ ( ) +--------+
| +-+--+ ++-+ ++-+ +--+-+ (_)
| | CPE|--|PE| |PE+--+ CPE| |
+--| | | | | | | |---+
+-+--+ ++-+ ++-+ +----+
/ | |
/ | MPLS +-+---+ +--+-++--------+
+------+-+ | Network |fPE-1| |CPE || Host |
| Host | | | |- --| || d |
| c | +-----+ +-+---+ +--+-++--------+
+--------+ |fPE-2|-----+
+---+-+ (|)
(|) (|) SD-WAN
(|) (|) over any access
+=\======+=========+
// \ | Cloud DC \\
// \ ++-----+ \\
+Remote|
| CPE |
+-+----+
----+-------+-------+-----
| |
+---+----+ +---+----+
| Remote | | Remote |
| App-1 | | App-2 |
+--------+ +--------+
Figure 3: VPN Extension to Cloud DC
In Figure 3, the optimal Cloud DC to host the workloads (due to
proximity, capacity, pricing, or other criteria chosen by the
enterprises) does not happen to have a direct connection to the PEs
of the MPLS VPN that interconnects the enterprise's existing sites.
5.1. Gap Analysis of Floating PEs to connect to Remote CPEs
To extend MPLS VPNs to remote CPEs, it is necessary to establish
secure tunnels (such as IPsec tunnels) between the Floating PEs and
the remote CPEs.
Gap:
Dunbar, et al. Expires August 6, 2019 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft Net2Cloud Gap Analysis February 2019
Even though a set of PEs can be manually selected to act as the
floating PEs for a specific cloud data center, there are no standard
protocols for those PEs to interact with the remote CPEs (most
likely virtualized) instantiated in the third party cloud data
centers (such as exchanging performance or route information).
When there is more than one fPE available for use (as there should
be for resiliency or the ability to support multiple cloud DCs
scattered geographically), it is not straightforward to designate an
egress fPE to remote CPEs based on applications. There is too much
applications' traffic traversing PEs, and it is not feasible for PEs
to recognize applications from the payload of packets.
5.2. NAT Traversal
Most cloud DCs only assign private addresses to the workloads
instantiated. Therefore, traffic to/from the workload usually need
to traverse NAT.
A SD-WAN edge node can inquire STUN (Session Traversal of UDP
Through Network Address Translation RFC 3489) Server to get the NAT
property, the public IP address and the Public Port number to pass
to peers.
5.3. Complication of using BGP between PEs and remote CPEs via Internet
Even though an EBGP (external BGP) Multi-hop design can be used to
connect peers that are not directly connected to each other, there
are still some complications/gaps in extending BGP from MPLS VPN PEs
to remote CPEs via any access paths (e.g., Internet).
The path between the remote CPEs and VPN PE can traverse untrusted
nodes.
EBGP Multi-hop scheme requires static configuration on both peers.
To use EBGP between a PE and remote CPEs, the PE has to be manually
configured with the "next-hop" set to the IP addresses of the CPEs.
When remote CPEs, especially remote virtualized CPEs are dynamically
instantiated or removed, the configuration on the PE Multi-Hop EBGP
has to be changed accordingly.
Gap:
Dunbar, et al. Expires August 6, 2019 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft Net2Cloud Gap Analysis February 2019
Egress peering engineering (EPE) is not enough. Running BGP on
virtualized CPEs in Cloud DC requires GRE tunnels being
established first, which in turn requires address and key
management for the remote CPEs. RFC 7024 (Virtual Hub & Spoke) and
Hierarchical VPN is not enough.
Also there is a need for a method to automatically trigger
configuration changes on PE when remote CPEs' are instantiated or
moved (leading to an IP address change) or deleted.
EBGP Multi-hop scheme does not have an embedded security
mechanism. The PE and remote CPEs need secure communication
channels when connecting via the public Internet.
Remote CPEs, if instantiated in Cloud DC, might have to traverse NAT
to reach PE. It is not clear how BGP can be used between devices
outside the NAT and the entities behind the NAT. It is not clear how
to configure the Next Hop on the PEs to reach private IPv4
addresses.
5.4. Designated Forwarder to the remote edges
Among multiple floating PEs available for a remote CPE, multicast
traffic from the remote CPE towards the MPLS VPN can be forwarded
back to the remote CPE due to the PE receiving the multicast data
frame forwarding the multicast/broadcast frame to other PEs that in
turn send to all attached CPEs. This process may cause traffic loop.
Therefore, it is necessary to designate one floating PE as the CPE's
Designated Forwarder, similar to TRILL's Appointed Forwarders
[RFC6325].
Gap: the MPLS VPN does not have features like TRILL's Appointed
Forwarders.
5.5. Traffic Path Management
When there are multiple floating PEs that have established IPsec
tunnels to the remote CPE, the remote CPE can forward the outbound
traffic to the Designated Forwarder PE, which in turn forwards the
Dunbar, et al. Expires August 6, 2019 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft Net2Cloud Gap Analysis February 2019
traffic to egress PEs to the destinations. However, it is not
straightforward for the egress PE to send back the return traffic to
the Designated Forwarder PE.
Example of Return Path management using Figure 3 above.
- fPE-1 is DF for communication between App-1 <-> Host-a due to
latency, pricing or other criteria.
- fPE-2 is DF for communication between App-1 <-> Host-b.
6. Manageability Considerations
Zero touch provisioning of SD-WAN edge nodes is expected in SD-
WAN deployment. It is necessary for a newly powered up SD-WAN
edges to establish a secure connection (such as TLS, DTLS, etc.)
to its controller.
7. Security Considerations
The intention of this draft is to identify the gaps in current and
proposed SD-WAN approaches that can address requirements
identified in [Net2Cloud-problem].
Several of these approaches have gaps in meeting enterprise
security requirements when tunneling their traffic over the
Internet, as is the general intention of SD-WAN. See the
individual sections above for further discussion of these security
gaps.
8. IANA Considerations
This document requires no IANA actions. RFC Editor: Please remove
this section before publication.
9. References
Dunbar, et al. Expires August 6, 2019 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft Net2Cloud Gap Analysis February 2019
9.1. Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
9.2. Informative References
[RFC8192] S. Hares, et al, "Interface to Network Security Functions
(I2NSF) Problem Statement and Use Cases", July 2017
[RFC5521] P. Mohapatra, E. Rosen, "The BGP Encapsulation Subsequent
Address Family Identifier (SAFI) and the BGP Tunnel
Encapsulation Attribute", April 2009.
[BGP-SDWAN-EXT]L. Dunbar, "BGP Extension for SDWAN Overlay
Networks", draft-dunbar-idr-bgp-sdwan-overlay-ext-00, Oct
2018.
[BGP-SDWAN-Usage] L. Dunbar, et al, "Framework of Using BGP for
SDWAN Overlay Networks", draft-dunbar-idr-sdwan-framework-
00, work-in-progress, Feb 2019.
[Tunnel-Encap]E. Rosen, et al, "The BGP Tunnel Encapsulation
Attribute", draft-ietf-idr-tunnel-encaps-10, July 2018.
[VPN-over-Internet] E. Rosen, "Provide Secure Layer L3VPNs over
Public Infrastructure", draft-rosen-bess-secure-l3vpn-00,
work-in-progress, July 2018
[DMVPN] Dynamic Multi-point VPN:
https://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/products/security/dynamic-
multipoint-vpn-dmvpn/index.html
[DSVPN] Dynamic Smart VPN:
http://forum.huawei.com/enterprise/en/thread-390771-1-
1.html
Dunbar, et al. Expires August 6, 2019 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft Net2Cloud Gap Analysis February 2019
[ITU-T-X1036] ITU-T Recommendation X.1036, "Framework for creation,
storage, distribution and enforcement of policies for
network security", Nov 2007.
[Net2Cloud-Problem] L. Dunbar and A. Malis, "Seamless Interconnect
Underlay to Cloud Overlay Problem Statement", draft-dm-
net2cloud-problem-statement-02, June 2018
10. Acknowledgments
Acknowledgements to xxx for his review and contributions.
This document was prepared using 2-Word-v2.0.template.dot.
Dunbar, et al. Expires August 6, 2019 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft Net2Cloud Gap Analysis 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
Dunbar, et al. Expires August 6, 2019 [Page 17]
