Cisco Systems' Private VLANs: Scalable Security in a Multi-Client Environment
draft-sanjib-private-vlan-10
The information below is for an old version of the document that is already published as an RFC.
| Document | Type |
This is an older version of an Internet-Draft that was ultimately published as RFC 5517.
|
|
|---|---|---|---|
| Authors | Marco Foschiano , Sanjib HomChaudhuri | ||
| Last updated | 2018-12-20 (Latest revision 2008-08-19) | ||
| RFC stream | Independent Submission | ||
| Intended RFC status | Informational | ||
| Formats | |||
| Stream | ISE state | (None) | |
| Consensus boilerplate | Unknown | ||
| Document shepherd | (None) | ||
| IESG | IESG state | Became RFC 5517 (Informational) | |
| Action Holders |
(None)
|
||
| Telechat date | (None) | ||
| Responsible AD | Mark Townsley | ||
| Send notices to | (None) |
draft-sanjib-private-vlan-10
Internet Engineering Task Force S. HomChaudhuri
Internet Draft M. Foschiano
Category: Informational Cisco Systems
Expires: February 2009 August 2008
Cisco Systems' Private VLANs:
Scalable Security in a Multi-Client Environment
draft-sanjib-private-vlan-10.txt
Status of this Memo
By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any
applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware
have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes
aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of 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.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2008).
Private VLANs February 2009
Abstract
This document describes a mechanism to achieve device isolation
through the application of special Layer 2 forwarding constraints.
Such mechanism allows end devices to share the same IP subnet while
being Layer 2 isolated, which in turn allows network designers to
employ larger subnets and so reduce the address management overhead.
Some of the numerous deployment scenarios of the aforementioned
mechanism (which range from data center designs to Ethernet-to-the-
home basement networks) are mentioned in the following to exemplify
its possible usages; however, this document is not intended to cover
all such deployment scenarios nor delve into their details.
HomChaudhuri, Foschiano [Page 2]
Private VLANs February 2009
Table of Contents
1. Introduction................................................4
1.1 Security Concerns with Sharing a VLAN.....................4
1.2 The Traditional Solution and its Related Problems.........5
2. Private VLANs Architecture..................................5
2.1 VLAN Pairings and Their Port-related Characteristics......9
3. Extending Private VLANs across Switches....................10
4. A More Flexible IP Addressing Scheme.......................11
5. Routing Considerations.....................................12
Security Considerations.........................................12
IANA Considerations.............................................13
Changes from the Previous Version...............................13
Acknowledgements................................................13
Normative References ...........................................13
Informative References..........................................13
Authors' Addresses..............................................14
IPR Notice......................................................14
Full Copyright Notice...........................................15
HomChaudhuri, Foschiano [Page 3]
Private VLANs February 2009
1. Introduction
In an Ethernet switch a VLAN is a broadcast domain, in which hosts
can establish direct communication with one another at Layer 2. If
untrusted devices are introduced into a VLAN, security issues may
arise because trusted and untrusted devices end up sharing the same
broadcast domain.
The traditional solution to this kind of problem is to assign a
separate VLAN to each user concerned about Layer 2 security issues.
However, the IEEE 802.1Q standard [802.1Q] specifies that the VLAN
ID field in an Ethernet frame is 12 bits wide. That allows for a
theoretical maximum of 4094 VLANs in an Ethernet network (VLAN
numbers 0 and 4095 are reserved). If the network administrator
assigns one VLAN per user, then that equates to a maximum of 4094
users that can be supported. The private VLANs technology described
in this memo addresses this scalability problem by offering more
granular and more flexible Layer 2 segregation, as explained in the
following sections.
1.1 Security Concerns with Sharing a VLAN
Companies who have Internet presence can either host their servers
in their own premises or, alternatively, they can locate their
servers at the Internet Service Provider's premises. A typical ISP
would have a server farm that offers web hosting functionality for a
number of customers. Co-locating the servers in a server farm
offers ease of management but at the same time may raise security
concerns.
Let us assume that the ISP puts all the servers in one big VLAN.
Servers residing in the same VLAN can listen to Layer 2 broadcasts
from other servers. Once a server learns the MAC address associated
to the IP address of another computer in the same VLAN, it can
establish direct Layer 2 communication with that device without
having to go through a Layer 3 gateway/firewall. If for example an
attacker gets access to one of the servers, he or she can use that
compromised host to launch an attack on other servers in the server
farm. To protect themselves from malicious attacks, ISP customers
want their machines to be isolated from other machines in the same
server farm.
The security concerns become even more apparent in metropolitan area
networks. Metropolitan Service Providers may want to provide Layer
2 Ethernet access to homes, rental communities, businesses, etc. In
this scenario, the subscriber next door could very well be a
malicious network user.
HomChaudhuri, Foschiano [Page 4]
Private VLANs February 2009
It is therefore very important to offer Layer 2 traffic isolation
among customers. Customer A would not want his Layer 2 frames being
broadcast to customer B, who happens to be in the same VLAN. Also,
customer A would not want customer B to bypass a router or a
firewall and establish direct Layer 2 communication with him/her.
1.2 The Traditional Solution and its Related Problems
The traditional solution would be to assign a separate VLAN to each
customer. That way, each user would be assured of Layer 2 isolation
from devices belonging to other users.
However, with the VLAN-per-customer model if for instance an ISP
wanted to offer web-hosting services to, say, 4000 customers it
would consume 4000 VLANs. Theoretically, the maximum number of
VLANs that an 802.1Q-compliant networking device can support is 4094.
In reality, many devices support a much lesser number of active
VLANs. Even if all devices supported all 4094 VLANs, there would
still be a scalability problem when the 4095th customer signed up.
A second problem with assigning a separate VLAN per customer is
management of IP addresses. Since each VLAN requires a separate
subnet, there can be potential wastage of IP addresses in each
subnet. This issue has been described by RFC 3069 [RFC3069] and
will not be discussed in detail in this document.
2. Private VLANs Architecture
The private VLANs architecture is similar but more elaborate than
the aggregated VLAN model proposed in RFC 3069. The concepts of
'super VLAN' and 'sub VLAN' used in that RFC are functionally
similar to the concepts of 'primary VLAN' and 'secondary VLAN' used
in this document.
On the other hand, the private VLANs technology differs from the
mechanism described in [RFC4562] because instead of using a MAC-
address-based 'forced forwarding' scheme it uses a VLAN-based one.
A regular VLAN is a single broadcast domain. The private VLAN
technology partitions a larger VLAN broadcast domain into smaller
sub-domains. So far two kinds of special sub-domains specific to
the private VLAN technology have been defined: an 'isolated' sub-
domain and a 'community' sub-domain. Each sub-domain is defined by
assigning a proper designation to a group of switch ports.
HomChaudhuri, Foschiano [Page 5]
Private VLANs February 2009
Within a private VLAN domain three separate port designations exist.
Each port designation has its own unique set of rules which regulate
a connected endpoint's ability to communicate with other connected
endpoints within the same private VLAN domain. The three port
designations are: promiscuous, isolated, and community.
An endpoint connected to a promiscuous port has the ability to
communicate with any endpoint within the private VLAN. Multiple
promiscuous ports may be defined within a single private VLAN domain.
In most networks, Layer 3 default gateways or network management
stations are commonly connected to promiscuous ports.
Isolated ports are typically used for those endpoints that only
require access to a limited number of outgoing interfaces on a
private-VLAN-enabled device. An endpoint connected to an isolated
port will only possess the ability to communicate with those
endpoints connected to promiscuous ports. Endpoints connected to
adjacent isolated ports cannot communicate with one another. For
example, within a web hosting environment, isolated ports can be
used to connect hosts that require access only to default gateways.
A community port is a port that is part of a private VLAN community,
which is a grouping of ports connected to devices belonging to the
same entity (for example, a group of hosts of the same ISP customer
or a pool of servers in a data center). Within a community,
endpoints can communicate with one another and can also communicate
with any configured promiscuous port. Endpoints belonging to one
community cannot instead communicate with endpoints belonging to a
different community or with endpoints connected to isolated ports.
The aforementioned three port designations directly correspond to
three different VLAN types (primary, isolated and community VLAN
types) with well-defined port-related characteristics, which are
described in detail in section 2.1 below.
Figure 1 below illustrates the private VLAN model from a switch port
classification perspective.
HomChaudhuri, Foschiano [Page 6]
Private VLANs February 2009
-----------
| R |
-----------
|
|
|
----------------------------------------
| p1 |
| |
=====| t1 |
| switch |
| |
| |
|i1 i2 c1 c2 |
----------------------------------------
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
A B C D
A, B - Isolated devices
C, D - Community devices
R - Router (or other L4-L7 device)
i1, i2 - Isolated switch ports
c1, c2 - Community switch ports
p1 - Promiscuous switch port
t1 - Inter-switch link port (a VLAN-aware port)
Fig 1. Private VLAN classification of switch ports
--------------------------------------------------
With reference to Figure 1 each of the port types is described below.
Isolated ports: An isolated port, e.g., i1 or i2, cannot talk to any
other port in the private VLAN domain except for promiscuous ports
(e.g., p1). If a customer device needs to have access only to a
gateway router, then it should be attached to an isolated port.
Community ports: A community port, e.g., c1 or c2, is part of a
group of ports. The ports within a community can have Layer 2
communications with one another and can also talk to any promiscuous
port. If an ISP customer has, say, 2 devices that he/she wants to
be isolated from other customers' devices but to be able to
communicate among themselves, then community ports should be used.
HomChaudhuri, Foschiano [Page 7]
Private VLANs February 2009
Promiscuous ports: As the name suggests, a promiscuous port (p1) can
talk to all other types of ports. A promiscuous port can talk to
isolated ports as well as community ports and vice versa. Layer 3
gateways, DHCP servers and other 'trusted' devices that need to
communicate with the customer endpoints are typically connected via
promiscuous ports.
Please note that isolated, community and promiscuous ports can be
either access ports or hybrid/trunk ports (according to the
terminology presented in Annex D of the IEEE 802.1Q specification up
to its 2004 revision).
The table below summarizes the communication privileges between the
different private VLAN port types.
Table 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------
| | isolat-| promis-| commu-| commu-| interswitch |
| | ted | cuous | nity1 | nity2 | link port |
---------------------------------------------------------------
| isolated | deny | permit | deny | deny | permit |
---------------------------------------------------------------
| promiscuous | permit | permit | permit| permit| permit |
---------------------------------------------------------------
| community1 | deny | permit | permit| deny | permit |
---------------------------------------------------------------
| community2 | deny | permit | deny | permit| permit |
---------------------------------------------------------------
| interswitch | | | | | |
| link port | deny(*)| permit | permit| permit| permit |
---------------------------------------------------------------
(*) Please note that this asymmetric behavior is for traffic
traversing inter-switch link ports over an isolated VLAN only.
Traffic from an inter-switch link port to an isolated port will be
denied if it is in the isolated VLAN. Traffic from an inter-switch
link port to an isolated port will be permitted if it is in the
primary VLAN (see below for the different VLAN characteristics).
N.B.: An interswitch link port is simply a regular port that
connects two switches (and that happens to carry two or more VLANs).
HomChaudhuri, Foschiano [Page 8]
Private VLANs February 2009
2.1 VLAN Pairings and Their Port-related Characteristics
In practice, the Layer-2 communication constraints described in the
table above can be enforced by creating sub-domains within the same
VLAN domain. However, a sub-domain within a VLAN domain cannot be
easily implemented with only one VLAN ID. Instead, a mechanism of
pairing of VLAN IDs can be used to achieve this notion.
Specifically, sub-domains can be represented by pairs of VLAN
numbers:
<Vp,Vs> Vp is the primary VLAN ID ------
Vs is the secondary VLAN ID | Vp |
------
where Vs can be: / \
- Vi (an isolated VLAN) / \
- Vc (a community VLAN) / \
------ ------
| Vi | | Vc |
------ ------
<Vp,Vi> <Vp,Vc>
Fig 2. A private VLAN domain can be implemented with one
or more VLAN ID pairs
---------------------------------------------------------
A private VLAN domain is built with at least one pair of VLAN IDs:
one (and only one) primary VLAN ID (Vp) plus one or more secondary
VLAN IDs (Vs). Secondary VLANs can be of two types: isolated VLANs
(Vi) or community VLANs (Vc).
A primary VLAN is the unique and common VLAN identifier of the whole
Private VLAN domain and of all its VLAN ID pairs.
An isolated VLAN is a secondary VLAN whose distinctive
characteristic is that all hosts connected to its ports are isolated
at Layer 2. Therefore, its primary quality is that it allows a
design based on Private VLANs to use a total of only two VLAN
identifiers (i.e., a single Private VLAN pairing) to provide port
isolation and serve any number of end users (vs. a traditional
design in which one separate plain VLAN ID would be assigned to each
port).
A community VLAN is a secondary VLAN that is associated to a group
of ports that connects to a certain "community" of end devices with
mutual trust relationships.
HomChaudhuri, Foschiano [Page 9]
Private VLANs February 2009
While only one isolated VLAN is allowed in a private VLAN domain,
there can be multiple distinct community VLANs.
Please note that this VLAN pairing scheme simply requires that all
traffic transported within primary and secondary VLANs be tagged
according to the IEEE 802.1Q standard (see for example [802.1Q]
section B.1.3), with at most a single standard VLAN tag. No special
double-tagging is necessary due to the 1:1 correspondence between a
secondary VLAN and its associated primary VLAN.
(Also note that this document makes use of the "traditional" VLAN
terminology whereas the IEEE 802.1ag standard [802.1ag] amends key
sections of IEEE 802.1Q-2005 to make the distinction between "VLANs"
and "VLAN IDs" so that every "VLAN" can be assigned one or more VLAN
IDs, similarly to the pairing scheme described in this document.)
The ports in a private VLAN domain derive their special
characteristics (as described in section 2) from the VLAN pairing(s)
they are configured with. In particular, a promiscuous port is a
port that can communicate with all other Private VLAN port types via
the primary VLAN and any associated secondary VLAN, whereas isolated
or community ports can communicate over their respective secondary
VLANs only.
For example, with reference to Figure 1, a router R connected to the
promiscuous port can have Layer 2 communication with a device A
connected to an isolated port and also with a device C connected to
a community port. Devices C and D can also have Layer 2
communication between themselves, since they are part of the same
community VLAN. However, devices A and B cannot communicate at
Layer 2 due to the special port segregation property of the isolated
VLAN. Also, devices A and C cannot communicate at Layer 2 since
they belong to different secondary VLANs.
The impact of these enforced forwarding restrictions is two-fold.
Firstly, service providers can assign multiple customers to the same
isolated VLAN, thereby conserving VLAN IDs. Secondly, end users can
be assured that their Layer 2 traffic cannot be sniffed by other end
users sharing the same isolated VLAN or connected to a different
secondary VLAN.
3. Extending Private VLANs across Switches
Some switch vendors have attempted to provide a port isolation
feature within a VLAN by implementing special logic at the port
level. However, when implemented at the port level, the isolation
behavior is restricted to a single switch.
HomChaudhuri, Foschiano [Page 10]
Private VLANs February 2009
When a VLAN spans multiple switches, there is no standard mechanism
to propagate port-level isolation information to other switches and,
consequently, the isolation behavior fails in other switches.
In this document, the proposal is to implement the port isolation
information implicitly at the VLAN level. A particular VLAN ID can
be configured to be the isolated VLAN. All switches in the network
would give special "isolated VLAN" treatment to frames tagged with
this particular VLAN ID. Thereby, the isolated VLAN behavior can be
maintained consistently across all switches in a Layer 2 network.
In general, isolated, community and primary VLANs can all span
multiple switches, just like regular VLANs. Inter-switch link ports
need not be aware of the special VLAN type and will carry frames
tagged with these VLANs just like they do any other frames.
One of the objectives of the private VLAN architecture is to ensure
that traffic from an isolated port in one switch does not reach
another isolated or community port in a different switch even after
traversing an inter-switch link. By implicitly embedding the
isolation information at the VLAN level and by transporting it along
with the packet, it is possible to maintain a consistent behavior
throughout the network. Therefore, the mechanism discussed in
section 2, which will restrict Layer 2 communication between two
isolated ports in the same switch, will also restrict Layer 2
communication between two isolated ports in two different switches.
4. A More Flexible IP Addressing Scheme
The common practice of deploying multiple VLANs in a network for
security reasons and of allocating a subnet to each VLAN has led to
a certain number of inefficiencies in network designs, such as the
suboptimal utilization of the IP addressing space (as exemplified
in the introduction of RFC 3069 [RFC3069]). Moreover, each subnet
requires addresses to be set aside for internetworking purposes (a
subnetwork address, a directed broadcast address, default gateway
address(es), etc.). So a high number of used VLANs traditionally
translates into a significant number of special addresses to be
consumed.
On the other hand, in a private VLAN domain all members can share a
common address space which is part of a single subnet associated to
the primary VLAN. An end device can be assigned an IP address
statically or by using a DHCP server connected to a promiscuous port.
Since IP addresses are no longer allocated on a smaller subnet basis
but are assigned from a larger address pool shared by all members in
the private VLAN domain, address allocation becomes much more
efficient: fewer addresses are consumed for internetworking purposes
HomChaudhuri, Foschiano [Page 11]
Private VLANs February 2009
while most of the address space is allotted to end devices, leaving
ample flexibility in the way available addresses are (re-)assigned.
5. Routing Considerations
The entire private VLAN architecture confines secondary VLANs within
the 2nd layer of the OSI model. With reference to Figure 2, the
secondary VLANs are internal to a private VLAN domain. Layer 3
entities are not directly aware of their existence: to them it
appears as if all the end devices are part of the primary VLAN.
With reference to Figure 1, the isolation behavior between devices A
and B is at the Layer 2 level only. Devices A and B can still
communicate at the layer 3 level via the router R. Since A and B
are part of the same subnet, the router assumes that they should be
able to talk directly to each other. That however is prevented by
the isolated VLAN's specific behavior. So, in order to enable A and
B to communicate via the router, a proxy-ARP-like functionality
needs to be supported on the router interface.
With regard to the specific version of the IP protocol in use, all
routing considerations apply to both IPv4 and IPv6 for the case of
unicast traffic. On the other hand, due to their complexity,
considerations about multicast bridging and routing within a Private
VLAN domain transcend the scope of this introductory document, and
are therefore omitted.
Security Considerations
In a heterogeneous Layer 2 network that is built with switches from
multiple vendors, the private VLANs feature should be supported and
configured on all the switches. If a switch S in that network does
not support this feature, then there may be undesired forwarding of
packets including permanent flooding of Layer 2 unicast frames.
That is because switch S is not aware of the association between
primary and secondary VLANs and consequently cannot apply the
segregation rules and constraints characteristic of the private VLAN
architecture (an example of one such constraint is explained in
[802.1Q] section B.1.3). This impact is limited to traffic within
the private VLAN domain and will not affect the regular Layer 2
forwarding behavior on other VLANs.
If the private VLANs feature is properly deployed, it can be used to
segregate at Layer 2 individual users or groups of users from each
other: this segregation allows a network designer to more
effectively constrain Layer 2 forwarding so as to, for instance,
block or contain unwanted inter-device communication like port scans
or ARP poisoning attacks.
HomChaudhuri, Foschiano [Page 12]
Private VLANs February 2009
IANA Considerations
This document has no actions for IANA.
Changes from the Previous Version
This version incorporates edits derived from comments received
during the IESG review process.
Acknowledgements
Many people have contributed to the Private VLANs architecture. We
would particularly like to thank, in alphabetical order, Senthil
Arunachalam, Jason Chen, Tom Edsall, Michael Fine, Herman Hou,
Milind Kulkarni, Kannan Kothandaraman, Prasanna Parthasarathy, Heng-
Hsin Liao, Tom Nosella, Ramesh Santhanakrishnan, Mukundan Sudarsan,
Charley Wen and Zhong Xu for their significant contributions.
Normative References
[802.1Q] Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, "IEEE
Std 802.1Q 2005 Edition, Virtual Bridged Local Area
Networks", IEEE Standard 802.1Q, 2005 Edition, May 2006
[802.1ag] Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, "IEEE
Std 802.1ag 2007 Edition, Connectivity Fault Management",
IEEE Standard 802.1ag, 2007 Edition, December 2007
Informative References
[RFC3069] McPherson, D. and B. Dykes, "VLAN Aggregation for
Efficient IP Address Allocation", RFC 3069, February 2001
[RFC4562] Melsen, T and Blake S., "MAC-Forced Forwarding: A Method
for Subscriber Separation on an Ethernet Access Network",
RFC 4562, June 2006
HomChaudhuri, Foschiano [Page 13]
Private VLANs February 2009
Authors' Addresses
Marco Foschiano
Cisco Systems, Inc.
Via Torri Bianche 7, Vimercate, MI, 20059, Italy
Email address: foschia@cisco.com
Alternate email address: mfoschiano@gmail.com
Sanjib HomChaudhuri
Email address: sanjibhc@gmail.com
IPR Notice
The IETF has been notified of intellectual property rights claimed
in regard to some or all of the specification contained in this
document. For more information consult the online list of claimed
rights.
The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed
to pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described
in this document or the extent to which any license under such
rights might or might not be available; nor does it represent that
it has made any independent effort to identify any such rights.
Information on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC
documents can be found in BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any
assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an
attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use
of such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this
specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository
at http://www.ietf.org/ipr.
The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any
copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary
rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement
this standard. Please address the information to the IETF at ietf-
ipr@ietf.org.
HomChaudhuri, Foschiano [Page 14]
Private VLANs February 2009
Full Copyright Notice
Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2008).
This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions
contained in BCP 78, and except as set forth therein, the authors
retain all their rights.
This document and the information contained herein are provided on
an "AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE
REPRESENTS OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY, THE
IETF TRUST AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL
WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY
WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE
ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS
FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
Acknowledgement
Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the
Internet Society.
This Internet-Draft will expire in February 2009.
HomChaudhuri, Foschiano [Page 15]