Network Working Group                                         L. Dunbar
Internet Draft                                                Futurewei
Intended status: Informational                                 A. Malis
Expires: September 9, 2023                             Malis Consulting
                                                           C. Jacquenet
                                                                 M. Toy
                                                            K. Majumdar
                                                          March 9, 2023

        Dynamic Networks to Hybrid Cloud DCs: Problem Statement and
                           Mitigation Practices


   This document describes the network-related problems enterprises
   face today when interconnecting their branch offices with dynamic
   workloads in third-party data centers (a.k.a. Cloud DCs) and some
   mitigation practices. There can be many problems associated with
   connecting to or among Cloud DCs; the Net2Cloud problem statements
   are mainly for enterprises that already have traditional MPLS
   services and are interested in leveraging those networks (instead of
   altogether abandoning them). Other problems are out of the scope of
   this document.

   This document also describes the mitigation practices for getting
   around the identified problems and discusses the benefits vs. costs
   of the practices.

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-

xxx, et al.                                                    [Page 1]

Internet-Draft        Net2Cloud Problem Statement

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

   The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at

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

   This Internet-Draft will expire on September 9, 2023.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2023 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. Definition of terms............................................3
   3. Issues and Mitigation Methods of Connecting to Cloud DCs.......4
      3.1. Increased BGP errors and Mitigation Methods...............4
      3.2. Site failures and Methods to Minimize Impacts.............5
      3.3. Optimal Paths to Cloud DC locations.......................6
      3.4. Network Issues for 5G Edge Clouds and Mitigation Methods..7
      3.5. Security Issues and Methods to Minimize impacts...........7
      3.6. DNS Practices for Hybrid Workloads........................8
      3.7. NAT Practice for Accessing Cloud Services.................9
      3.8. Cloud Discovery Practices................................10
   4. Dynamic Interconnecting Enterprise Sites with Cloud DCs.......10

Dunbar, et al.                                                 [Page 2]

Internet-Draft        Net2Cloud Problem Statement

      4.1. Sites to Cloud DC........................................11
      4.2. Inter-Cloud Connection...................................13
      4.3. Extending MPLS-based VPNs to Hybrid Cloud DCs............14
   5. Methods to Scale IPsec tunnels to Cloud DCs...................15
      5.1. Scaling Issues with IPsec Tunnels........................15
      5.2. Poor performance when overlay public internet............16
   6. Requirements for Dynamic Cloud Data Center VPNs...............16
   7. Security Considerations.......................................17
   8. IANA Considerations...........................................17
   9. References....................................................17
      9.1. Normative References.....................................17
      9.2. Informative References...................................18
   10. Acknowledgments..............................................18

1. Introduction
   With the advent of widely available third-party cloud DCs and
   services in diverse geographic locations and the advancement of
   tools for monitoring and predicting application behaviors, it is
   very attractive for enterprises to instantiate applications and
   workloads in locations that are geographically closest to their end-
   users. Such proximity can improve 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).
   Key characteristics of Cloud Services are on-demand, scalable,
   highly available, and usage-based billing. Cloud Services, such as,
   compute, storage, network functions (most likely virtual), third
   party managed applications, etc. are usually hosted and managed by
   third party Cloud Operators. Here are some examples of Cloud network
   functions: Virtual Firewall services, Virtual private network
   services, Virtual PBX services including voice and video
   conferencing systems, etc. Cloud Data Center (DC) is shared
   infrastructure that hosts the Cloud Services to many customers.

2. Definition of terms

   Cloud DC:   Third party Data Centers that usually host applications
               and workload owned by different organizations or

Dunbar, et al.                                                 [Page 3]

Internet-Draft        Net2Cloud Problem Statement

   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

   Heterogeneous Cloud: applications and workloads split among Cloud
               DCs owned or managed by different operators.

   Hybrid Clouds: Hybrid Clouds refers to an enterprise using its own
               on-premises DCs in addition to Cloud services provided
               by one or more cloud operators. (e.g. AWS, Azure,
               Google, Salesforces, SAP, etc).

   VPC:        Virtual Private Cloud is a virtual network dedicated to
               one client account. It is logically isolated from other
               virtual networks in a Cloud DC. Each client can launch
               his/her desired resources, such as compute, storage, or
               network functions into his/her VPC. Most Cloud
               operators' VPCs only support private addresses, some
               support IPv4 only, others support IPv4/IPv6 dual stack.

3. Issues and Mitigation Methods of Connecting to Cloud DCs

   There are many problems associated with connecting to hybrid Cloud
   Services, many of which are out of the IETF scope. This section is
   to identify some of the high-level problems that can be addressed by
   IETF, especially by Routing area. Other problems are out of the
   scope of this document. By no means has this section covered all
   problems for connecting to Hybrid Cloud Services, e.g., difficulty
   in managing cloud spending is not discussed here.

3.1. Increased BGP errors and Mitigation Methods

   Traditional network service providers usually have prior negotiated
   peering policies with their BGP peers over fixed interfaces. Cloud
   GWs need to peer with more variety of parties, via private circuits

Dunbar, et al.                                                 [Page 4]

Internet-Draft        Net2Cloud Problem Statement

   or IPsec over public internet. Many of those peering parties may not
   be traditional network service providers. Their BGP configurations
   practices might not be consistent, and some are done by less
   experienced personnel. All those can contribute to increased BGP
   peering errors, such as capability mismatch, BGP ceasing
   notification, unwanted route leaks, missing Keepalives, etc.
   Capability mismatch can cause BGP sessions not established properly.
   If a BGP speaker receives from its peer a capability that it does
   not itself support or recognize, it MUST ignore that capability and
   the BGP session MUST NOT be terminated per RFC5492. When receiving a
   BGP UPDATE with a malformed attribute, the revised BGP error
   handling procedure [RFC7606] should be followed instead of session

   Many Cloud DCs don't support multi hop eBGP peering with external
   devices. To get around this limitation, it is necessary for
   enterprises GWs to establish IP tunnels to the Cloud GWs to form IP

   Some Cloud DC eBGP peering only supports limited number of routes
   from external entities. To get around this limitation, on-premises
   DCs need to set up default routes to be exchanged with the Cloud DC
   eBGP peers. When inbound routes exceed the maximum routes threshold
   for a peer, the current common practice is generating out of band
   alerts (e.g., Syslog) via management system to the peer if the BGP
   session is not ceased. If the BGP session is terminated when
   exceeding the maximum routes from a peer, cease notification
   messages [RFC 4486] must be sent.

3.2. Site failures and Methods to Minimize Impacts

   Site failures include, but not limited to, a site capacity
   degradation or entire site going down caused by a variety of
   reasons, such as fiber cut connecting to the site or among pods
   within the site, cooling failures, insufficient backup power, cyber
   threat attacks, too many changes outside of the maintenance window,
   etc. Fiber-cut is not uncommon within a Cloud site or between sites.

   As described in RFC7938, Cloud DC BGP might not have an IGP to route
   around link/node failures within the ASes.

   When those failure events happen, the Cloud DC GW which is visible
   to clients are running fine. Therefore, the Client GW can't use BFD
   to detect the failures.

Dunbar, et al.                                                 [Page 5]

Internet-Draft        Net2Cloud Problem Statement

   When a site capacity degrades or goes dark, there are massive
   numbers of routes needing to be changed.

   The large number of routes switching over to another site can also
   cause overloading that triggers more failures.

   In addition, the routes (IP addresses) in a Cloud DC cannot be
   aggregated nicely, triggering very large number of BGP UPDATE
   messages when a failure occurs.

   It might be more effective to do mass reroute, similar to EVPN
   [RFC7432] defined mass withdraw mechanism to signal a large number
   of routes being changed to remote PE nodes as quickly as possible.

3.3. Optimal Paths to Cloud DC locations

   Many applications have multiple instances instantiated in different
   Cloud DCs. The current state of the art solutions is typically based
   on DNS assisted with load balancer by responding to a FQDN (Fully
   Qualified Domain Name) inquiry with an IP address of the closest or
   lowest cost DC that can reach the instance. Here are some problems
   associated with DNS based solutions:
     - Dependent on client behavior
          - Misbehaving client can cache results indefinitely.
          - Client may not receive service even though there are
             servers available in other Cloud DCs because the failing
             IP address is still cached in the DNS resolver and has not
             expired yet.
     - No inherent leverage of proximity information present in the
        network (routing) layer, resulting in loss of performance.
     - Inflexible traffic control:
        Local DNS resolver become the unit of traffic management. This
        requires DNS to receive periodical update of the network
        condition, which is difficult.

   To address the problems listed above, ANYCAST addresses can be
   utilized so that network proximity and conditions can be inherently
   considered in optimal path selection.

Dunbar, et al.                                                 [Page 6]

Internet-Draft        Net2Cloud Problem Statement

3.4. Network Issues for 5G Edge Clouds and Mitigation Methods

   The 5G edge clouds may host edge computing servers (virtual or
   physical) for Ultra-low latency services that must be near the UEs
   (User equipment). Those edge computing applications have low latency
   connections to the UEs and regular connections to backend servers or
   databases in other locations.

   The low latency services traffic to/from the edge Clouds are
   transported through the 5G Local Data Networks (LDN) and 5G UPFs to
   the UEs. The LDN's ingress routers, directly connected to the UPFs,
   might be co-located with 5G Core functions in the edge Cloud data
   centers. The 5G Core functions include Radio Control Functions,
   Session Management Functions (SMF), Access Mobility Functions (AMF),
   User Plane Functions (UPF), etc.

   Here are some network problems with connecting the services in the
   5G Edge Cloud DCs:

       1) The difference of routing distances to multiple server
          instances in different edge Cloud is relatively small.
       2) Capacity status at the Edge Cloud DC might play a bigger role
          for E2E performance.
       3) Source (UEs) can ingress from different LDN Ingress routers
          due to mobility.

   To get around those problems, the ingress routers can incorporate
   the destination site's capabilities with the routing distance in
   computing the optimal paths.

3.5. Security Issues and Methods to Minimize impacts

   There are many aspects of security issues in terms of networking to

     - Service instances in Cloud DCs are connected to users
        (enterprises) via Public IP ports which are exposed to the
        following security risks:

        a) Potential DDoS attack to the ports facing the untrusted
        network (e.g., the public internet), which may propagate to the
        cloud edge resources.                                   To mitigate such security risk, it is

Dunbar, et al.                                                 [Page 7]

Internet-Draft        Net2Cloud Problem Statement

        necessary for the ports facing internet to enable Anti-DDoS

        b) Potential risk of augmenting the attack surface with inter-
        Cloud DC connection by means of identity spoofing, man-in-the-
        middle, eavesdropping or DDoS attacks. One example of
        mitigating such attacks is using DTLS to authenticate and
        encrypt MPLS-in-UDP encapsulation (RFC 7510).

     - Potential attacks from service instances within the cloud. For
        example, data breaches, compromised credentials, and broken
        authentication, hacked interfaces and APIs, account hijacking.

     - When IPsec tunnels established from enterprise on-premises CPEs
        are terminated at the Cloud DC gateway where the workloads or
        applications are hosted, traffic to/from an enterprise's
        workload can be 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.

   Many Cloud operators offer monitoring services for data stored in
   Clouds, such as AWS CloudTrail, Azure Monitor, and many third-party
   monitoring tools to improve visibility to data stored in Clouds.
   More diligent security procedures need to be considered to mitigate
   all those security issues.

3.6. DNS Practices for Hybrid Workloads

   DNS name resolution is essential for on-premises and cloud-based
   resources. For customers with hybrid workloads, which include on-
   premises and cloud-based resources, extra steps are necessary to
   configure DNS to work seamlessly across both environments.

   Cloud operators have their own DNS to resolve resources within their
   Cloud DCs and to well-known public domains. Cloud's DNS can be
   configured to forward queries to customer managed authoritative DNS
   servers hosted on-premises and to respond to DNS queries forwarded
   by on-premises DNS servers.

Dunbar, et al.                                                 [Page 8]

Internet-Draft        Net2Cloud Problem Statement

   For enterprises utilizing Cloud services by different cloud
   operators, it is necessary to establish policies and rules on
   how/where to forward DNS queries. When applications in one Cloud
   need to communicate with applications hosted in another Cloud, DNS
   queries from one Cloud DC could be forwarded to the enterprises' on-
   premises DNS, which in turn be forwarded to the DNS service in
   another Cloud. Configuration can be complex depending on the
   application communication patterns.

   However, even with carefully managed policies and configurations,
   collisions can still occur. If an organization uses an internal name
   like .internal and then want your services to be available via or
   within some other cloud provider which also uses .internal, then
   collisions might occur. Therefore, it is better to use the global
   domain name even when an organization does not make all its
   namespace globally resolvable. An organization's globally unique DNS
   can include subdomains that cannot be resolved outside certain
   restricted paths, zones that resolve differently based on the origin
   of the query, and zones that resolve the same globally for all
   queries from any source.

   Globally unique names do not equate to globally resolvable names or
   even global names that resolve the same way from every perspective.
   Globally unique names can prevent any possibility of collisions at
   present or in the future, and they make DNSSEC trust manageable.
   Consider using a registered and fully qualified domain name (FQDN)
   from global DNS as the root for enterprise and other internal

3.7. NAT Practice for Accessing Cloud Services

   Cloud resources, such as VM instances, are usually assigned private
   IP addresses. By configuration, some private subnets can have the
   NAT function to reach out to external networks, and some private
   subnets are internal to Cloud only.

   Different Cloud operators support different levels of NAT functions.
   For example, AWS NAT Gateway does not currently support connections
   towards, or from VPC Endpoints, VPN, AWS Direct Connect, or VPC
   nat-gateway.html#nat-gateway-other-services. AWS Direct
   Connect/VPN/VPC Peering does not currently support any NAT

   Google's Cloud NAT allows Google Cloud virtual machine (VM)
   instances without external IP addresses and private Google

Dunbar, et al.                                                 [Page 9]

Internet-Draft        Net2Cloud Problem Statement

   Kubernetes Engine (GKE) clusters to connect to the Internet. Cloud
   NAT implements outbound NAT in conjunction with a default route to
   allow instances to reach the Internet. It does not implement inbound
   NAT. Hosts outside the VPC network can only respond to established
   connections initiated by instances inside the Google Cloud; they
   cannot initiate new connections to Cloud instances via NAT.

   For enterprises with applications running in different Cloud DCs,
   proper configuration of NAT must be performed in Cloud DCs and their
   on-premises DC.

3.8. Cloud Discovery Practices

   One of the concerns of using Cloud services is not aware of where
   the resource is located, especially Cloud operators can move
   application instances from one place to another. When applications
   in Cloud communicate with on-premises applications, it may not be
   clear where the Cloud applications are located or to which VPCs they

   Being able to detect Cloud services location can help on-premises
   gateways (routers) to switch the services to a more optimal site
   when the current cloud site encounters failures or degradation. A
   significant difference is that cloud discovery uses the cloud
   vendor's API to extract data on your cloud services rather than the
   direct access used in scanning your on-premises infrastructure.

   For enterprises that instantiate virtual routers in Cloud DCs,
   metadata can be attached (e.g., GENEVE header or IPv6 optional
   header) to indicate Geo-location of the Cloud DCs.

4. Dynamic Interconnecting Enterprise Sites with Cloud DCs

   For many enterprises with established VPNs (e.g., MPLS-based L2VPN
   or L3VPN) interconnecting branch offices & on-premises data centers,
   connecting to Cloud services will be mixed of different types of
   networks. When an enterprise's existing VPN service providers do not
   have direct connections to the desired cloud DCs that the enterprise
   prefers to use, the enterprise faces additional infrastructure and
   operational costs to utilize the Cloud services.

   This section describes practices to connect to Cloud services.

Dunbar, et al.                                                [Page 10]

Internet-Draft        Net2Cloud Problem Statement

4.1. Sites to Cloud DC

   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:

     - AWS Internet gateway allows communication between instances in
        AWS VPC and the internet.
     - AWS 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).
     - AWS 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. In addition, an AWS Transit Gateway can
        be used to interconnect multiple VPCs in different Availability
        Zones. AWS Transit Gateway acts as a hub that controls how
        traffic is forwarded among all the connected networks which act
        like spokes.

   Microsoft's ExpressRoute allows extension of a private network to
   any of the Microsoft cloud services, including Azure and Office365.
   ExpressRoute is configured using Layer 3 routing. Customers can opt
   for redundancy by provisioning dual links from their location to two
   Microsoft Enterprise edge routers (MSEEs) located within a third-
   party ExpressRoute peering location. The BGP routing protocol is
   then setup over WAN links to provide redundancy to the cloud. This
   redundancy is maintained from the peering data center into
   Microsoft's cloud network.

   Google's Cloud Dedicated Interconnect offers similar network
   connectivity options as AWS and Microsoft. One distinct difference,
   however, is that Google's service allows customers access to the
   entire global cloud network by default. It does this by connecting
   the on-premises network with the Google Cloud using BGP and Google
   Cloud Routers to provide optimal paths to the different regions of
   the global cloud infrastructure.

   Figure below shows an example of some of a tenant's workloads are
   accessible via a virtual router connected by AWS Internet Gateway;

Dunbar, et al.                                                [Page 11]

Internet-Draft        Net2Cloud Problem Statement

   some are accessible via AWS vGW, and others are accessible via AWS
   Direct Connect.

   Different types of access require different level of security
   functions. Sometimes it is not visible to end customers which type
   of network access is used for a specific application instance.  To
   get better visibility, separate virtual routers (e.g., vR1 & vR2)
   can be deployed to differentiate traffic to/from different cloud
   GWs. It is important for some enterprises to be able to observe the
   specific behaviors when connected by different connections.

   Customer Gateway can be customer owned router or ports physically
   connected to AWS Direct Connect GW.
     |    ,---.         ,---. |
     |   (TN-1 )       ( TN-2)|
     |    `-+-'  +---+  `-+-' |
     |      +----|vR1|----+   |
     |           ++--+        |
     |            |         +-+----+
     |            |        /Internet\ For External
     |            +-------+ Gateway  +----------------------
     |                     \        / to reach via Internet
     |                      +-+----+
     |                        |
     |    ,---.         ,---. |
     |   (TN-1 )       ( TN-2)|
     |    `-+-'  +---+  `-+-' |
     |      +----|vR2|----+   |
     |           ++--+        |
     |            |         +-+----+
     |            |        / virtual\ For IPsec Tunnel
     |            +-------+ Gateway  +----------------------
     |            |        \        /  termination
     |            |         +-+----+
     |            |           |
     |            |         +-+----+              +------+
     |            |        /        \ For Direct /customer\
     |            +-------+ Gateway  +----------+ gateway  |
     |                     \        /  Connect   \        /
     |                      +-+----+              +------+
     |                        |

     Figure 1: Examples of Multiple Cloud DC connections.

Dunbar, et al.                                                [Page 12]

Internet-Draft        Net2Cloud Problem Statement

4.2. Inter-Cloud Connection

   The connectivity options to Cloud DCs described in the previous
   section are for reaching Cloud providers' DCs, but not between cloud
   DCs. When applications in AWS Cloud need to communicate with
   applications in Azure, today's practice requires a third-party
   gateway (physical or virtual) to interconnect the AWS's Layer 2
   DirectConnect path with Azure's Layer 3 ExpressRoute.

   Enterprises can also instantiate their own virtual routers in
   different Cloud DCs and administer IPsec tunnels among them, which
   by itself is not a trivial task. For example, open-source VPN
   software such as strongSwan can be leveraged to create an IPSec
   connection to the Azure gateway using a shared key. The StrongSwan
   instance within AWS not only can connect to Azure but can also be
   used to facilitate traffic to other nodes within the AWS VPC by
   configuring forwarding and using appropriate routing rules for the

   Most Cloud operators, such as AWS VPC or Azure VNET, use non-
   globally routable CIDR from private IPv4 address ranges as specified
   by RFC1918. To establish IPsec tunnel between two Cloud DCs, it is
   necessary to exchange Public routable addresses for applications in
   different Cloud DCs.

   In summary, here are some approaches, available now to interconnect
   workloads among different Cloud DCs:

     a) Utilize Cloud DC provided inter/intra-cloud connectivity
        services (e.g., AWS Transit Gateway) to connect workloads
        instantiated in multiple VPCs. Such services are provided with
        the cloud gateway to connect to external networks (e.g., AWS
        DirectConnect Gateway).
     b) Hairpin all traffic through the customer gateway, meaning all
        workloads are directly connected to the customer gateway, so
        that communications among workloads within one Cloud DC must
        traverse through the customer gateway.
     c) Establish direct tunnels among different VPCs (AWS' Virtual
        Private Clouds) and VNET (Azure's Virtual Networks) 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.

Dunbar, et al.                                                [Page 13]

Internet-Draft        Net2Cloud Problem Statement

   Approach a) usually does not work if Cloud DCs are owned and managed
   by different Cloud providers.

   Approach b) creates additional transmission delay plus incurring
   cost when exiting Cloud DCs.

   For the Approach c), DMVPN or 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 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 cannot be used for
   registering virtual routers in Cloud DCs unless an extension of such
   protocols is developed for that purpose, e.g. taking NAT or dynamic
   addresses into consideration. Therefore, DMVPN and/or DSVPN cannot
   be used directly for connecting workloads in hybrid Cloud DCs.

4.3. Extending MPLS-based VPNs 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 simpler and less expensive because
   they do not need to manage routes to remote sites; they 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
   dynamically connecting to workloads/applications in cloud DCs. The
   Provider Edge (PE) nodes of the enterprise's VPNs might not have
   direct connections to the third-party cloud DCs used by the
   enterprise to provide easy access to its end users. When the user
   base changes, the enterprise's workloads/applications may be
   migrated to a new cloud DC location closest to the new user base.
   The existing MPLS VPN provider might not have PEs at the new

Dunbar, et al.                                                [Page 14]

Internet-Draft        Net2Cloud Problem Statement

   location. Deploying PEs routers at new locations is not trivial,
   which defeats one of the benefits of Clouds' geographically diverse
   locations allowing workloads to be as close to their end-users as

   To mitigate those problems, IPsec tunnels can be used to dynamically
   connecting MPLS PEs with the desired Cloud DCs. As MPLS VPN provide
   more secure and higher quality services, it is desirable to locate
   the PEs with the least cost (including routing distance and capacity
   cost) for the dynamic IPsec tunnels to the Cloud DC GW.

   An enterprise can connect to multiple Cloud DC locations and
   establish different BGP peers with Cloud GW routers at different
   locations. As multiple Cloud DCs are interconnected by the Cloud
   provider's own internal network, the Cloud GW BGP session might
   advertise all of the prefixes of the enterprise's VPC, regardless of
   which Cloud DC a given prefix is actually in. This can result in
   inefficient routing for the end-to-end data path. To get around this
   problem, virtual routers in Cloud DCs can be used to attach metadata
   (e.g., GENEVE header or IPv6 optional header) to indicate Geo-
   location of the Cloud DCs.

5. Methods to Scale IPsec tunnels to Cloud DCs
   As described in Section 4.3, IPsec tunnels can be used to
   dynamically establish connection between MPLS VPN PEs with Cloud GW.
   Enterprises can also instantiate virtual routers within Cloud DCs to
   connect to their on-premises devices via IPsec tunnels.

5.1. Scaling Issues with IPsec Tunnels

   IPsec tunnels are a very convenient solution for an enterprise with
   limited locations to reach a Cloud DC.

   However, for a medium-to-large enterprise with multiple sites and
   data centers to connect to multiple cloud DCs, there are N*N number
   of IPsec tunnels among Cloud DC gateways and all those sites. Each
   of those IPsec Tunnels requires pair-wise periodic key refreshment.
   For a company with hundreds or thousands of locations, managing
   hundreds (or even thousands) of IPsec tunnels can be very processing
   intensive. That is why many Cloud operators only allow a limited
   number of (IPsec) tunnels & bandwidth to each customer.

Dunbar, et al.                                                [Page 15]

Internet-Draft        Net2Cloud Problem Statement

   To scale the IPsec key management, a solution like group encryption
   where a single IPsec SA is necessary at the GW can be considered.
   But the drawback is key distribution and maintenance of a key
   server, etc.

5.2. Poor performance when overlay public internet

   When large number of IPSec encap & decap are needed, the performance
   is degraded. NAT also adds performance burden.

   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. Requirements for Dynamic Cloud Data Center VPNs

   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:
     - Global reachability from different geographical zones, thereby
        facilitating the proximity of applications as a function of the
        end users' location, to improve latency.
     - Elasticity: prompt connection to newly instantiated
        applications at Cloud DCs when usages increase and prompt
        release of connection after applications at locations being
        removed when demands change.
     - Scalable policy management: apply the appropriate polices to
        the newly instantiated application instances at any Cloud DC
     - The solution should allow enterprises to take advantage of the
        current state-of-the-art in VPN technology, in both traditional

Dunbar, et al.                                                [Page 16]

Internet-Draft        Net2Cloud Problem Statement

        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
     - Be a cost-effective solution for enterprises to incorporate
        dynamic cloud-based applications and workloads into their
        existing VPN environment.

7. Security Considerations

   The draft discusses security requirements as a part of the problem
   space, particularly in sections 3.

   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.

8. IANA Considerations

   This document requires no IANA actions. RFC Editor: Please remove
   this section before publication.

9. References

9.1. Normative References

   [RFC2735] B. Fox, et al "NHRP Support for Virtual Private networks".
   Dec. 1999.

   [RFC4271] Y. Rekhter, et al "BGP-4". Jan 2006

Dunbar, et al.                                                [Page 17]

Internet-Draft        Net2Cloud Problem Statement

   [RFC5492] J. Scudder, R. Chandra "Capabilities Advertisement with
   BGP-4". Feb 2009

   [RFC7606] E. Chen, et al "Revised Error Handling for BGP UPDATE
   Messages". Aug 2015.

   [RFC7938]   P. Lapukkov, et al "Use of BGP for Routing in Large-
   Scale Data Centers", Aug. 2016

9.2. Informative References

   [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

   [RFC4664] L. Andersson and E. Rosen, "Framework for Layer 2 Virtual
             Private Networks (L2VPNs)", Sept 2006.

10. Acknowledgments

   Many thanks to Adrian Farrel, Alia Atlas, Chris Bowers, Paul Vixie,
   Paul Ebersman, Timothy Morizot, Ignas Bagdonas, Donald Eastlake,
   Michael Huang, Liu Yuan Jiao, Katherine Zhao, and Jim Guichard for
   the discussion and contributions.

Dunbar, et al.                                                [Page 18]

Internet-Draft        Net2Cloud Problem Statement

Authors' Addresses

   Linda Dunbar

   Andrew G. Malis
   Malis Consulting

   Christian Jacquenet
   Rennes, 35000

   Mehmet Toy
   One Verizon Way
   Basking Ridge, NJ 07920

   Kausik Majumdar
   Microsoft Azure

Dunbar, et al.                                                [Page 19]