Tech-invite3GPPspecsGlossariesIETFRFCsGroupsSIPABNFsWorld Map

RFC 4031


Service Requirements for Layer 3 Provider Provisioned Virtual Private Networks (PPVPNs)

Part 2 of 3, p. 15 to 36
Prev RFC Part       Next RFC Part


prevText      Top      Up      ToC       Page 15 
5.  Customer Requirements

   This section captures additional requirements from a customer

5.1.  VPN Membership (Intranet/Extranet)

   When an extranet is formed, a customer agent from each of the
   organizations first approves addition of a site to an extranet VPN as
   a business decision between the parties involved.  The solution
   SHOULD provide a means for these organizations to control extranet
   communication involving the L3VPN exchange of traffic and routing

Top      Up      ToC       Page 16 
5.2.  Service Provider Independence

   Customers MAY require VPN service that spans multiple administrative
   domains or service provider networks.  Therefore, a VPN service MUST
   be able to span multiple AS and SP networks, but still act and appear
   as a single, homogeneous VPN from a customer point of view.

   A customer might also start with a VPN provided in a single AS with a
   certain SLA but then ask for an expansion of the service, spanning
   multiple ASes/SPs.  In this case, as well as for all kinds of multi-
   AS/SP VPNs, VPN service SHOULD be able to deliver the same SLA to all
   sites in a VPN regardless of the AS/SP to which it homes.

5.3.  Addressing

   A customer requires support from an L3VPN for the following
   addressing IP assignment schemes:

   o  Customer-assigned, non-unique, or [RFC1918] private addresses
   o  Globally unique addresses obtained by the customer
   o  Globally unique addresses statically assigned by the L3VPN service
   o  On-demand, dynamically assigned IP addresses (e.g., DHCP),
      irrespective of whether the access is temporary (e.g., remote) or
      permanent (e.g., dedicated)

   In the case of combined L3VPN service with non-unique or private
   addresses and Internet access, mechanisms that permit the exchange of
   traffic between the customer's address space and the global unique
   Internet address space MAY be supported.  For example, NAT is
   employed by many customers and by some service providers today to
   meet this need.  A preferred solution would be to assign unique
   addresses, either IPv4 or IPv6; however, some customers do not want
   to renumber their networks.

5.4.  Routing Protocol Support

   There SHOULD be no restriction on the routing protocols used between
   CE and PE routers, or between CE routers.  At least the following
   protocols MUST be supported: static routing, IGP protocols such as
   RIP, OSPF, IS-IS, and BGP [L3VPN-FR].

5.5.  Quality of Service and Traffic Parameters

   QoS is expected to be an important aspect of an L3VPN service for
   some customers.  QoS requirements cover scenarios involving an
   intranet, an extranet, and shared access between a VPN site and the

Top      Up      ToC       Page 17 
5.5.1.  Application-Level QoS Objectives

   A customer is concerned primarily that the L3VPN service provides his
   or her applications with the QoS and level of traffic so that the
   applications perform acceptably.  Voice, interactive video, and
   multimedia applications are expected to require the most stringent
   QoS.  These real-time applications are sensitive to delay, delay
   variation, loss, availability, and/or reliability.  Another set of
   applications, including some multimedia and interactive video
   applications, high-performance web browsing, and file transfer
   intensive applications, requires near real time performance.
   Finally, best effort applications are not sensitive to degradation,
   that is they are elastic and can adapt to conditions of degraded

   The selection of appropriate QoS and service type to meet specific
   application requirements is particularly important to deal with
   periods of congestion in an SP network.  Sensitive applications will
   likely select per-flow Integrated service (Intserv) with precise SLA
   guarantees measured on a per-flow basis.  On the other hand, non-
   sensitive applications will likely rely on a Diffserv class-based

   The fundamental customer application requirement is that an L3VPN
   solution MUST support both the Intserv QoS model for selected
   individual flows and Diffserv for aggregated flows.

   A customer application SHOULD experience consistent QoS independent
   of the access network technology used at different sites connected to
   the same VPN.

5.5.2.  DSCP Transparency

   The Diffserv Code Point (DSCP) set by a user as received by the
   ingress CE SHOULD be capable of being relayed transparently to the
   egress CE (see section 2.6.2 of [RFC3270] and [Y.1311.1]).  Although
   RFC 2475 states that interior or boundary nodes within a DS domain
   can change the DSCP, customer VPNs MAY have other requirements, such

   o  applications that use the DSCP in a manner differently from the
      DSCP solution supported by the SP network(s),
   o  customers using more DSCPs within their sites than the SP
      network(s) supports,
   o  support for a carrier's carrier service in which one SP is the
      customer of another L3VPN SP.  Such an SP should be able to resell
      VPN service to his or her VPN customers independently of the DSCP
      mapping solution supported by the carrier's carrier SP.

Top      Up      ToC       Page 18 
   Note that support for DSCP transparency has no implication on the QoS
   or SLA requirements.  If an SP supports DSCP transparency, then that
   SP needs to carry only the DSCP values across its domain but MAY map
   the received DSCP to some other value for QoS support across its

5.6.  Service-Level Specification/Agreement

   Most customers simply want their applications to perform well.  An
   SLA is a vehicle for customer recourse in the event that SP(s) do not
   perform or manage a VPN service well in a measurable sense.
   Therefore, when purchasing service under an SLA, a customer agent

   MUST have access to the measures from the SP(s) that support the SLA.

5.7.  Customer Management of a VPN

   A customer MUST have a means to view the topology, operational state,
   order status, and other parameters associated with his or her VPN.

   Most aspects of management information about CE devices and customer
   attributes of an L3VPN manageable by an SP SHOULD be capable of being
   configured and maintained by an authenticated, authorized customer
   agent.  However, some aspects, such as encryption keys, SHALL NOT be
   readable nor writable by management systems.

   A customer agent SHOULD be able to make dynamic requests for changes
   to traffic parameters.  A customer SHOULD be able to receive real-
   time response from the SP network in response to these requests.  One
   example of such service is a "Dynamic Bandwidth management"
   capability that enables real-time response to customer requests for
   changes of allocated bandwidth allocated to his or her VPN

   A customer who may not be able to afford the resources to manage his
   own sites SHOULD be able to outsource the management of the entire
   VPN to the SP(s) supporting the VPN network.

5.8.  Isolation

   These features include traffic and routing information exchange
   isolation, similar to that obtained in VPNs based on Layer 1 and
   Layer 2 (e.g., private lines, FR, or ATM) [MPLSSEC].

Top      Up      ToC       Page 19 
5.9.  Security

   The suite of L3VPN solutions SHOULD support a range of security
   related features.  Higher levels of security services, such as edge-
   to-edge encryption, authentication, or replay attack, should be
   supported.  More details on customer requirements for security are
   described in [VPNSEC].

   Security in an L3VPN service SHOULD be as transparent as possible to
   the customer, with the obvious exception of support for remote or
   temporary user access, as detailed in section 5.11.2.

   L3VPN customers MUST be able to deploy their own internal security
   mechanisms in addition to those deployed by the SP, in order to
   secure specific applications or traffic at a granularity finer than
   that on a site-to-site basis.

   If a customer requires QoS support in an L3VPN, then this request
   MUST be communicated to the SP either by using unencrypted fields or
   via an agreed security association.  For example, applications could
   send RSVP messages in support of Intserv either in the clear or
   encrypted with a key negotiated with the SP.  Another case is that
   where applications using an IPsec tunnel could copy the DSCP from the
   encrypted IP header to the header of the tunnel's IP header.

5.10.  Migration Impact

   Often, customers are migrating from an already deployed private
   network toward one or more L3VPN solutions.  A typical private
   network scenario is CE routers connected via real or virtual
   circuits.  Ideally, minimal incremental cost SHOULD result during the
   migration period.  Furthermore, if necessary, any disruption of
   service SHOULD also be minimized.

   A range of scenarios of customer migration MUST be supported.  Full
   migration of all sites MUST be supported.  Support for cases of
   partial migration is highly desirable [Y.1311.1] -  that is, legacy
   private network sites that belong to the L3VPN service SHOULD still
   have L3 reachability to the sites that migrate to the L3VPN service.

5.11.  Network Access

   Every L3 packet exchanged between the customer and the SP over the
   access connection MUST appear as it would on a private network
   providing an equivalent service to that offered by the L3VPN.

Top      Up      ToC       Page 20 
5.11.1.  Physical/Link Layer Technology

   L3VPNs SHOULD support a broad range of physical and link-layer access
   technologies, such as PSTN, ISDN, xDSL, cable modem, leased line,
   Ethernet, Ethernet VLAN, ATM, Frame Relay, Wireless local loop, and
   mobile radio access.  The capacity and QoS achievable may be
   dependent on the specific access technology in use.

5.11.2.  Temporary Access

   The VPN service offering SHOULD allow both permanent and temporary
   access to one or more L3VPNs for authenticated users across a broad
   range of access technologies.  Support for remote or temporary VPN
   access SHOULD include ISDN, PSTN dial-in, xDSL, or access via another
   SP network.  The customer SHOULD be able to choose from alternatives
   for authentication of temporary access users.  Choices for access
   authentication are SP-provided, third-party, or customer-provided

   A significant number of VPN users may not be permanently attached to
   one VPN site: in order to limit access to a VPN to authorized users,
   it is first necessary to authenticate them.  Authentication SHALL
   apply as configured by the customer agent and/or SP where a specific
   user may be part of one or more VPNs.  The authentication function
   SHOULD be used to invoke all actions necessary to join a user to the
   VPN automatically.

   A user SHOULD be able to access an L3VPN via a network having generic
   Internet access.

   Mobile users may move within an L3VPN site.  Mobile users may also
   have temporary connections to different L3VPN sites within the same
   VPN.  Authentication SHOULD be provided in both of these cases.

5.11.3.  Sharing of the Access Network

   In a PE-based L3VPN, if the site shares the access network with other
   traffic (e.g., access to the Internet), then data security in the
   access network is the responsibility of the L3VPN customer.

5.11.4.  Access Connectivity

   Various types of physical connectivity scenarios MUST be supported,
   such as multi-homed sites, backdoor links between customer sites, and
   devices homed to two or more SP networks.  L3VPN solutions SHOULD
   support at least the types of physical or link-layer connectivity
   arrangements shown in Figure 2.1.  Support for other physical
   connectivity scenarios with arbitrary topology is desirable.

Top      Up      ToC       Page 21 
   Access arrangements with multiple physical or logical paths from a CE
   to other CEs and PEs MUST support redundancy and SHOULD support load
   balancing.  Resiliency uses redundancy to provide connectivity
   between a CE site and other CE sites and, optionally, other services.
   Load balancing provides a means to perform traffic engineering so
   that capacity on redundant links is used to achieve improved
   performance during periods when the redundant component(s) are

   For multi-homing to a single SP, load balancing capability SHOULD be
   supported by the PE across the CE to PE links.  For example, in case
   (a), load balancing SHOULD be provided by the two PEs over the two
   links connecting to the single CE.  In case (c), load balancing
   SHOULD be provided by the two PEs over the two links connecting to
   the two CEs.

   In addition, the load-balancing parameters (e.g., the ratio of
   traffic on the multiple load-balanced links, or the preferred link)
   SHOULD be provisionable based on customer's requirements.  The load-
   balancing capability may also be used to achieve resiliency in the
   event of access connectivity failures.  For example, in case (b) a CE
   may connect to two different SPs via diverse access networks.
   Resiliency MAY be further enhanced as shown in case (d), where CEs
   connected via a "back door" connection connect to different SPs.
   Furthermore, arbitrary combinations of the above methods, with a few
   examples shown in cases (e) and (f), should be supportable by any
   L3VPN approach.

   For multi-homing to multiple SPs, load balancing capability MAY also
   be supported by the PEs in the different SPs (clearly, this is a more
   complex type of load balancing to realize, requiring policy and
   service agreements between the SPs to interoperate).

Top      Up      ToC       Page 22 
                   +----------------                    +---------------
                   |                                    |
                +------+                            +------+
      +---------|  PE  |                  +---------|  PE  |
      |         |router|                  |         |router| SP network
      |         +------+                  |         +------+
   +------+         |                  +------+         |
   |  CE  |         |                  |  CE  |         +---------------
   |device|         |   SP network     |device|         +---------------
   +------+         |                  +------+         |
      |         +------+                  |         +------+
      |         |  PE  |                  |         |  PE  |
      +---------|router|                  +---------|router| SP network
                +------+                            +------+
                    |                                   |
                    +----------------                   +---------------
                   (a)                                 (b)
                    +----------------                  +---------------
                    |                                  |
   +------+     +------+               +------+     +------+
   |  CE  |-----|  PE  |               |  CE  |-----|  PE  |
   |device|     |router|               |device|     |router| SP network
   +------+     +------+               +------+     +------+
      |             |                     |             |
      | Backdoor    |                     | Backdoor    +---------------
      | link        |   SP network        | link        +---------------
      |             |                     |             |
   +------+     +------+               +------+     +------+
   |  CE  |     |  PE  |               |  CE  |     |  PE  |
   |device|-----|router|               |device|-----|router| SP network
   +------+     +------+               +------+     +------+
                    |                                   |
                    +----------------                   +---------------
                   (c)                                  (d)

Top      Up      ToC       Page 23 
                   +----------------                    +---------------
                   |                                    |
  +------+     +------+                +------+     +------+
  |  CE  |-----|  PE  |                |  CE  |-----|  PE  |
  |device|     |router|                |device|     |router| SP network
  +------+\\   +------+                +------+\\   +------+
     |     \\       |                     |     \\       |
     |Back  \\      |                     |Back  \\
     |door   \\     |   SP network        |door   \\
     |link    \\    |                     |link    \\    |
  +------+     +------+               +------+     +------+
  |  CE  |     |  PE  |               |  CE  |     |  PE  |
  |device|-----|router|               |device|-----|router| SP network
  +------+     +------+               +------+     +------+
                   |                                   |
                   +----------------                   +---------------
                  (e)                                 (f)

         Figure 2.1.  Representative types of access arrangements

5.12.  Service Access

   Customers MAY also require access to other services, as described in
   this section.

5.12.1.  Internet Access

   Customers SHOULD be able to have L3VPN and Internet access across the
   same access network for one or more of the customer's sites.

   Customers SHOULD be able to direct Internet traffic from the set of
   sites in the L3VPN to one or more customer sites that have firewalls,
   other security-oriented devices, and/or NATs that process all traffic
   between the Internet and the customer's VPN.

   L3 VPN Customers SHOULD be able to receive traffic from the Internet
   addressed to a publicly accessible resource that is not part of the
   VPN, such as an enterprise's public web server.

   As stated in section 5.3, if a customer L3VPN employs private or
   non-unique IP addresses, then network address translation (NAT) or a
   similar mechanism MUST be provided either by the customer or the SP
   in order to allow traffic exchange with devices outside the
   customer's L3VPN.

Top      Up      ToC       Page 24 
5.12.2.  Hosting, Application Service Provider

   A customer SHOULD be able to access hosting, other application
   services, or other Application Service Providers (ASP) over an L3
   L3VPN service.  This MAY require that an ASP participate in one or
   more VPNs with the customers that use such a service.

5.12.3.  Other Services

   In conjunction with a VPN service, a customer MAY also wish to have
   access to other services, such as DNS, FTP, HTTP, NNTP, SMTP, LDAP,
   VoIP, NAT, LDAP, Videoconferencing, Application sharing, E-business,
   Streaming, E-commerce, Directory, Firewall, etc.  The resources that
   implement these services could be physically dedicated to each VPN.
   If the resources are logically shared, then they MUST have access
   separated and isolated between VPNs in a manner consistent with the
   L3VPN solution to meet this requirement.

5.13.  Hybrid VPN Service Scenarios

   Intranet or extranet customers have a number of reasons for wanting
   hybrid networks that involve more than one VPN solution type.  These
   include migration, mergers, extranet customers with different VPN
   types, the need for different capabilities between different sets of
   sites, temporary access, and different availability of VPN solutions
   as provided by different service providers.

   The framework and solution approaches SHOULD include provisions for
   interworking, interconnection, and/or reachability between different

   L3VPN solutions in a way that does not overly complicate
   provisioning, management, scalability, or performance.

6.  Service Provider Network Requirements

   This section describes requirements from a service provider

6.1.  Scalability

   [RFC3809] lists projections of L3VPN sizing and scalability
   requirements and metrics related to specific solutions.

Top      Up      ToC       Page 25 
6.2.  Addressing

   As described in section 4.2, SPs MUST have support for public and
   private IP addresses, IPv4 and IPv6, for both unicast and multicast.
   In order to support this range of addressing schemes, SPs require the
   following support from L3VPN solutions.

   An L3VPN solution MUST be able to assign blocks of addresses from its
   own public IP address space to L3VPN customer sites so that
   advertisement of routes to other SPs and other sites aggregates

   An L3VPN solution MUST be able to use address assignments made by a
   customer.  These customer-assigned addresses may be public or

   If private IP addresses are used, an L3VPN solution MUST provide a
   means for an SP to translate such addresses to public IP addresses
   for communication with other VPNs by using overlapping addresses or
   the Internet.

6.3.  Identifiers

   A number of identifiers MAY be necessary for SP use in management,
   control, and routing protocols.  Requirements for at least the
   following identifiers are known.

   An SP domain MUST be uniquely identified at least within the set of
   all interconnected SP networks when supporting a VPN that spans
   multiple SPs.  Ideally, this identifier should be globally unique
   (e.g., an AS number).

   An identifier for each VPN SHOULD be unique, at least within each
   SP's network.  Ideally, the VPN identifier SHOULD be globally unique
   to support the case where a VPN spans multiple SPs (e.g., [RFC2685]).

   A CE device SHOULD have a unique identifier, at least within each
   SP's network.

   A PE device SHOULD have a unique identifier, at least within each
   SP's network.

   The identifier of a device interconnecting SP networks MUST be unique
   within the set of aforementioned networks.

   Each site interface SHOULD have a unique identifier, at least within
   each PE router supporting such an interface.

Top      Up      ToC       Page 26 
   Each tunnel SHOULD have a unique identifier, at least within each
   router supporting the tunnel.

6.4.  Discovering VPN Related Information

   Configuration of CE and PE devices is a significant task for a
   service provider.  Solutions SHOULD strive to contain methods that
   dynamically allow VPN information to be discovered (or learned) by
   the PE and/or CE to reduce configuration complexity.  The following
   specific requirements apply to intra- and inter-provider VPNs

   Every device involved in a VPN SHALL be able to identify and
   authenticate itself to other devices in the VPN.  After learning the
   VPN membership, the devices SHOULD be able to exchange configuration
   information securely.  The VPN information MUST include at least the
   IP address of the PE and may be extensible to provide additional

   Each device in a VPN SHOULD be able to determine which other devices
   belong to the same VPN.  Such a membership discovery scheme MUST
   prevent unauthorized access and allow authentication of the source.

   Distribution of VPN information SHOULD be limited to those devices
   involved in that VPN.

   In the case of a PE-based VPN, a solution SHOULD support the means
   for attached CEs to authenticate each other and verify that the SP's
   VPN network is correctly configured.

   The mechanism SHOULD respond to VPN membership changes in a timely
   manner.  This is no longer than the provisioning timeframe, typically
   on the order of minutes, and could be as short as the timeframe
   required for "rerouting", typically on the order of seconds.

   Dynamically creating, changing, and managing multiple VPN assignments
   to sites and/or customers is another aspect of membership that MUST
   be addressed in an L3VPN solution.

6.5.  SLA and SLS Support

   Typically, a Service Provider offering an L3VPN service commits to
   specific Service Level Specifications (SLS) as part of a contract
   with the customer, as described in section 4.4 and [RFC3809].  Such a
   Service Level Agreement (SLA) implies SP requirements for measuring
   Specific Service Level Specifications (SLS) for quality,
   availability, response time, and configuration intervals.

Top      Up      ToC       Page 27 
6.6.  Quality of Service (QoS) and Traffic Engineering

   A significant aspect of an L3VPN is support for QoS.  Since an SP has
   control over the provisioning of resources and configuration of
   parameters in at least the PE and P devices and, in some cases, in
   the CE device as well, the onus is on the SP to provide either
   managed QoS access service, or edge-to-edge QoS service, as defined
   in section 4.3.2.

   Each L3VPN approach MUST describe the traffic engineering techniques
   available for an SP to meet the QoS objectives.  These descriptions
   of traffic engineering techniques SHOULD quantify scalability and
   achievable efficiency.  Traffic engineering support MAY be on an
   aggregate or per-VPN basis.

   QoS policies MUST not be impacted by security mechanisms.  For
   example, Diffserv policies MUST not be impacted by the use of IPSec
   tunnels using the mechanisms explained in RFC 2983 [RFC2983].

   As stated in RFC 2475, a mapping function from customer provided
   Diffserv marking to marking used in an SP network should be provided
   for L3 VPN services.

   If a customer requires DSCP transparency, as described in section
   5.5.2, an L3VPN service MUST deliver the same value of DSCP field in
   the IP header received from the customer to the egress demarcation of
   the destination.

6.7.  Routing

   The distribution of reachability and routing policy SHOULD be
   constrained to the sites that are members of the VPN.

   Optionally, the exchange of such information MAY use some form of
   authentication (e.g., MD5).

   Functions to isolate the SP network and customer VPNs from anomalous
   routing behavior from a specific set of customer sites SHOULD be
   provided.  Examples of such functions are controls for route flap
   dampening, filters that accept only prefixes configured for a
   specific CE, a maximum number of routes accepted for each CE, or a
   maximum rate at which route updates can be received from a CE.

   When VPN customers use overlapping non-unique IP addresses, the
   solution MUST define a means to distinguish between such overlapping
   addresses on a per-VPN basis.

Top      Up      ToC       Page 28 
   Furthermore, the solution SHOULD provide an option that either allows
   or prevents advertisement of VPN routes to the Internet.

   Ideally, the choice of an SP's IGP SHOULD not depend on the routing
   protocol(s) used between PE and CE routers in a PE-based VPN.

   Furthermore, it is desirable that an SP SHOULD have a choice
   regarding the IGP routing protocol.

   The additional routing burden that an SP must carry should be
   articulated in each specific L3VPN solution.

6.8.  Isolation of Traffic and Routing

   The internal structure of an L3VPN network SHOULD not be visible to
   outside networks (e.g., the Internet or any connected VPN).

   From a high-level SP perspective, a PE-based L3VPN MUST isolate the
   exchange of traffic and routing information to only those sites that
   are authenticated and authorized members of a VPN.

   In a CE-based VPN, the tunnels that connect the sites effectively
   meet this isolation requirement if both traffic and routing
   information flow over the tunnels.

   An L3VPN solution SHOULD provide a means to meet L3VPN QoS SLA
   requirements that isolates VPN traffic from the effects of traffic
   offered by non-VPN customers.  Also, L3VPN solutions SHOULD provide a
   means to isolate the effects that traffic congestion produced by
   sites as part of one VPN can have on another VPN.

6.9.  Security

   This section contains requirements related to securing customer
   flows; providing authentication services for temporary, remote, or
   mobile users; and protecting service provider resources involved in
   supporting an L3VPN.  More detailed security requirements are
   provided in [VPNSEC].

6.9.1.  Support for Securing Customer Flows

   In order to meet the general requirement for providing a range of
   security options to a customer, each L3VPN solution MUST clearly
   spell out the configuration options that can work together and how
   they can do so.

Top      Up      ToC       Page 29 
   When a VPN solution operates over a part of the Internet, it should
   support a configurable option to support one or more of the following
   standard IPsec methods for securing a flow for a specified subset of
   a customer's VPN traffic:

   o  Confidentiality, so that only authorized devices can decrypt it
   o  Integrity, to ensure that the data has not been altered
   o  Authentication, to ensure that the sender is indeed who he or she
      claims to be
   o  Replay attack prevention.

   The above functions SHOULD be applicable to "data traffic" of the
   customer, which includes the traffic exchanged between sites between
   temporary users and sites, and even between temporary users.  It
   SHOULD also be possible to apply these functions to "control
   traffic", such as routing protocol exchanges, that are not
   necessarily perceived by the customer but are nevertheless essential
   to maintain his or her VPN.

   Furthermore, such security methods MUST be configurable between
   different end points, such as CE-CE, PE-PE, and CE-PE.  It is also
   desirable to configure security on a per-route or per-VPN basis

   A VPN solution MAY support one or more encryption schemes, including
   AES, and 3DES.  Encryption, decryption, and key management SHOULD be
   included in profiles as part of the security management system.

6.9.2.  Authentication Services

   A service provider MUST provide authentication services in support of
   temporary user access requirements, as described in section 5.11.2.

   Furthermore, traffic exchanged within the scope of VPN MAY involve
   several categories of equipment that must cooperate to provide the
   service [Y.1311.1].  These network elements can be CE, PE, firewalls,
   backbone routers, servers, management stations, etc.  These network
   elements learn about each other's identity, either via manual
   configuration or via discovery protocols, as described in section
   6.4. When network elements must cooperate, these network elements
   SHALL authenticate peers before providing the requested service.
   This authentication function MAY also be used to control access to
   network resources.

   The peer identification and authentication function described above
   applies only to network elements participating in the VPN.  Examples

Top      Up      ToC       Page 30 
   -  traffic between a CE and a PE,
   -  traffic between CEs belonging to the same VPN,
   -  CE or PE routers dealing with route announcements for a VPN,
   -  policy decision point [RFC3198] and a network element, and
   -  management station and an SNMP agent.

   For a peer authentication function, each L3VPN solution SHOULD
   describe where necessary, how it shall be implemented, how secure it
   must be, and the way to deploy and maintain identification and
   authentication information necessary to operate the service.

6.9.3.  Resource Protection

   Recall from the definitions in section 3.3 that a site can be part of
   an intranet with sites from the only same organization, can be part
   of an extranet involving sites from other organizations, can have
   access to the Internet, or can have any combination of these scopes
   of communication.  Within these contexts, a site might be subject to
   various attacks coming from different sources.  Potential sources of
   attack include:

   -  users connected to the supporting public IP backbone,
   -  users from the Internet, and
   -  users from temporary sites belonging to the intranet and/or
      extranet VPN the site is part of.

   Security threats and risks that a site may encounter include the

   -  Denial of service, for example mail spamming, access connection
      congestion, TCP SYN attacks, and ping attacks
   -  Intrusion attempts, which may eventually lead to denial of service
      (e.g., a Trojan horse attack).

   Additional threat scenarios are defined in [VPNSEC].  An L3VPN
   solution MUST state how it addresses each potential threat scenario.

   The devices in the L3VPN network must provide some means of reporting
   intrusion attempts to the service provider resources.

6.10.  Inter-AS (SP)VPNs

   The scenario for VPNs spanning multiple Autonomous Systems (AS) or
   Service Providers (SP) requires standard solutions.  The scenario
   where multiple ASes are involved is the most general case and is
   therefore the one described here.  The scenarios of concern are the
   CE-based and PE-based L3VPNs defined in section 3.

Top      Up      ToC       Page 31 
   In each scenario, all applicable SP requirements, such as traffic and
   routing isolation, SLAs, management, security, and provisioning.
   MUST be preserved across adjacent ASes.  The solutions MUST describe
   the inter-SP network interface, encapsulation method(s), routing
   protocol(s), and all applicable parameters [VPNIW].

   An essential pre-condition for an inter-AS VPN is an agreement
   between the ASes involved that spells out at least trust, economic,
   and management responsibilities.

   The overall scalability of the VPN service MUST allow the L3VPN
   service to be offered across potentially hundreds of SPs, with the
   overall scaling parameters per SP given in [RFC3809].

6.10.1.  Routing Protocols

   If the link between ASes is not trusted, routing protocols running
   between those ASes MUST support some form of authentication.  For
   example, the TCP option for carrying an MD5 digest may be used to
   enhance security for BGP [RFC2385].

   BGP MUST be supported as the standard inter-AS routing protocol to
   control the path taken by L3VPN traffic.

6.10.2.  Management

   The general requirements for managing a single AS apply to a
   concatenation of ASes.  A minimum subset of such capabilities as

   - Diagnostic tools (e.g., ping, traceroute)
   - Secured access to one AS management system by another
   - Configuration request and status query tools
   - Fault notification and trouble-tracking tools

6.10.3.  Bandwidth and QoS Brokering

   When a VPN spans multiple ASes, a brokering mechanism is desired that
   requests certain SLA parameters, such as bandwidth and QoS, from the
   other domains and/or networks involved in transferring traffic to
   various sites.  Although bandwidth and QoS brokering across multiple
   ASes is not common in today's networks, these may be desirable for
   maintaining SLAs in inter-AS VPNs.  This section describes
   requirements for features that would facilitate these mechanisms.
   The objective is that a solution SHOULD be able to determine whether
   a set of ASes can establish and guarantee uniform QoS in support of
   an L3VPN.

Top      Up      ToC       Page 32 
   The brokering mechanism can be a manual one, for example, in which
   one provider requests from another a specific set of bandwidth and
   QoS parameters for traffic going to and from a specific set of sites.
   The mechanism could also be an automated one where a device
   dynamically requests and receives certain bandwidth and SLA/QoS
   parameters.  For instance, in the case of an L3VPN over MPLS, a PE
   may negotiate the label for different traffic classes to reach a PE
   residing in a neighboring AS.  Or, it might be a combination of both.
   For additional detailed requirements on the automated approach, see

   Brokering on a per VPN basis is not desirable as this approach would
   not scale.  A solution MUST provide some means to aggregate QoS and
   bandwidth brokering requests between ASes.  One method could be for
   SPs to make an agreement specifying the maximum amount of bandwidth
   for specific QoS parameters for all VPN customers using the SP
   network.  Alternatively, such aggregation might be on a per
   hierarchical tunnel basis between PE routers in different ASes
   supporting an L3VPN service [TE-INTERAS].

6.10.4.  Security Considerations

   If a tunnel traverses multiple SP networks and passes through an
   unsecured SP, POP, NAP, or IX, then security mechanisms MUST be
   employed.  These security mechanisms include encryption,
   authentication, and resource protection, as described in section 6.9,
   and security management, as covered in section 7.5.  For example, a
   provider should consider using both authentication and encryption for
   a tunnel used as part of an L3VPN that traverses another service
   provider's network.

6.11.  L3VPN Wholesale

   The architecture MUST support the possibility of one service provider
   offering VPN service to another service provider.  Another example is
   when one service provider sells L3VPN service at wholesale to another
   service provider, who then resells that VPN service to his or her

   The wholesaler's VPN MUST be transparent to the addressing and
   routing used by the reseller.

   Support for additional levels of hierarchy (for example, three levels
   at which a reseller can again resell the VPN service to yet another
   VPN provider) SHOULD be provided.

   The Carrier's Carrier scenario is the term used in this document for
   this category of L3VPN wholesale (although some scenarios of Inter-

Top      Up      ToC       Page 33 
   AS/Inter-Provider VPN could possibly fall in this L3VPN wholesale
   category, too).  Various carrier's carrier scenarios should be
   supported, such as when

   -  the customer carriers do not operate L3VPN services for their
   -  the customer carriers operate L3VPN services for their clients,
      but these services are not linked with the L3VPN service offered
      by the Carrier's Carrier and
   -  the customer carriers operate L3VPN services for their clients,
      and these services are linked with the L3VPN service offered by
      the Carrier's Carrier ("Hierarchical VPNs" scenario).

6.12.  Tunneling Requirements

   Connectivity between CE sites or PE devices in the backbone SHOULD
   use a range of tunneling technologies, such as L2TP, IPSEC, GRE, IP-
   in-IP, and MPLS.

   To set up tunnels between routers, every router MUST support static
   configuration for tunneling and MAY support a tunnel setup protocol.
   If employed, a tunnel establishment protocol SHOULD be capable of
   conveying information such as the following:

     - Relevant identifiers
     - QoS/SLA parameters
     - Restoration parameters
     - Multiplexing identifiers
     - Security parameters

   There MUST be a means to monitor the following aspects of tunnels:

   -  Statistics, such as amount of time spent in the up and down state.
   -  Count of transitions between the up and down state.
   -  Events, such as transitions between the up and down states.

   The tunneling technology used by the VPN Service Provider and its
   associated mechanisms for tunnel establishment, multiplexing, and
   maintenance MUST meet the requirements on scaling, isolation,
   security, QoS, manageability, etc.

6.13.  Support for Access and Backbone Technologies

   This section describes requirements for aspects of access and
   backbone network technologies from an SP point of view.

Top      Up      ToC       Page 34 
   Some SPs MAY desire that a single network infrastructure suffices for
   all services, public IP, VPNs, traffic engineering, and
   differentiated services [L2VPN].

6.13.1.  Dedicated Access Networks

   Ideally, the L3VPN service SHOULD be independent of physical, link
   layer, or even network technology of the access network.  However,
   the characteristics of access networks MUST be accounted for when the
   QoS aspects of SLAs for VPN service offerings are specified.

6.13.2.  On-Demand Access Networks

   Service providers SHOULD be able to support temporary user access, as
   described in section 5.11.2, by using dedicated or dial-in access
   network technology.

   L3VPN solutions MUST support the case where a VPN user directly
   accesses the VPN service through an access network connected to the
   service provider.  They MUST also describe how they can support the
   case where one or more other service provider networks are used for
   access to the service provider supporting the L3VPN service.

   Ideally, all information necessary to identify and authenticate users
   for an intranet SHOULD be stored and maintained by the customer.  In
   an extranet, one customer SHOULD be able to maintain the
   authentication server, or the customers involved in the extranet MAY
   choose to outsource the function to a service provider.

   Identification and authentication information could be made available
   to the service provider for controlling access, or the service
   provider may query a customer maintained server.  Furthermore, one SP
   may act as access for the SP providing the VPN service.  If the
   access SP performs identification and authentication on behalf of the
   VPN SP, an agreement MUST be reached on a common specification.

   Support for at least the following authentication protocols SHALL be
   supported: PAP, CHAP, and EAP, as they are currently used in a wide
   range of equipment and services.

Top      Up      ToC       Page 35 
6.13.3.  Backbone Networks

   Ideally, the backbone interconnecting SP, PE, and P devices SHOULD be
   independent of physical and link layer technology.  Nevertheless, the
   characteristics of backbone technology MUST be taken into account
   when specifying the QoS aspects of SLAs for VPN service offerings.

6.14.  Protection, Restoration

   When primary and secondary access connections are available, an L3VPN
   solution MUST provide restoration of access connectivity whenever the
   primary access link from a CE site to a PE fails.  This capability
   SHOULD be as automatic as possible, that is, the traffic should be
   directed over the secondary link soon after failure of the primary
   access link is detected.  Furthermore, reversion to the primary link
   SHOULD be dynamic, if configured to do so [VPN-NEEDS].

   As mentioned in section 5.11.4, in the case of multi-homing, the load
   balancing capability MAY be used to achieve a degree of redundancy in
   the network.  In the case of failure of one or more (but not all) of
   the multi-homed links, the load balancing parameters MAY be
   dynamically adjusted to redirect the traffic rapidly from the failed
   link(s) to the surviving links.  Once the failed link(s) is (are)
   restored, the original provisioned load balancing ratio SHOULD be
   restored to its value prior to the failure.

   An SP SHOULD be able to deploy protection and restoration mechanisms
   within his or her backbone infrastructure to increase reliability and
   fault tolerance of the VPN service offering.  These techniques SHOULD
   be scalable, and therefore should strive not to perform such function
   in the backbone on a per-VPN basis.

   Appropriate measurements and alarms that indicate how well network
   protection and restoration mechanisms are performing MUST be

6.15.  Interoperability

   Service providers are interested in interoperability in at least the
   following scenarios:

   -  Facilitating use of PE and managed CE devices within a single SP
   -  Implementing L3VPN services across two or more interconnected SP

Top      Up      ToC       Page 36 
   -  Achieving interworking or interconnection between customer sites
      using different L3VPN approaches or different implementations of
      the same approach.

   Each approach MUST describe whether any of the above objectives can
   be met.  If an objective can be met, the approach MUST describe how
   such interoperability could be achieved.  In particular, the approach
   MUST describe the inter-solution network interface, encapsulation
   method(s), routing protocol(s), security, isolation, management, and
   all other applicable aspects of the overall VPN solution provided

6.16.  Migration Support

   Service providers MUST have a graceful means to migrate a customer
   with minimal service disruption on a site-by-site basis to an L3VPN

   If L3VPN approaches can interwork or interconnect, then service
   providers MUST have a graceful means to migrate a customer with
   minimal service disruption on a site-by-site basis whenever
   interworking or interconnection is changed.

(page 36 continued on part 3)

Next RFC Part