Browse Prior Art Database

MECHANISMS TO SUPPORT A SINGLE INTERNET PROTOCOL ADDRESS IN REMOTE VIRTUAL CUSTOMER PREMISE EQUIPMENT ENVIRONMENTS

IP.com Disclosure Number: IPCOM000248390D
Publication Date: 2016-Nov-23
Document File: 13 page(s) / 14M

Publishing Venue

The IP.com Prior Art Database

Related People

Simon Spraggs: AUTHOR [+3]

Abstract

A set of mechanisms allows a single wide area network (WAN) Internet Protocol (IP) address to be allocated to virtual customer premise equipment (vCPE) such that the server operating system (OS) and virtual router (vRouter) can be managed via a single WAN IP address. If the vRouter is present, customer traffic can traverse the vRouter and utilize the WAN link. Mechanisms described herein utilize pre-existing and adapted pre-existing features. Aspects of these mechanisms include: sharing a common IP address and media access control (MAC) address between multiple entities; static address translation; control of forward and reverse path routing; and ensuring customer traffic does not interfere with the vCPE server OS.

This text was extracted from a PDF file.
This is the abbreviated version, containing approximately 20% of the total text.

Page 01 of 13

MECHANISMS TO SUPPORT A SINGLE INTERNET PROTOCOL ADDRESS IN REMOTE VIRTUAL CUSTOMER PREMISE EQUIPMENT ENVIRONMENTS

AUTHORS:

Simon Spraggs

 Jim Wicks
Taki Milionis

CISCO SYSTEMS, INC.

ABSTRACT

    A set of mechanisms allows a single wide area network (WAN) Internet Protocol (IP) address to be allocated to virtual customer premise equipment (vCPE) such that the server operating system (OS) and virtual router (vRouter) can be managed via a single WAN IP address. If the vRouter is present, customer traffic can traverse the vRouter and utilize the WAN link. Mechanisms described herein utilize pre-existing and adapted pre- existing features. Aspects of these mechanisms include: sharing a common IP address and media access control (MAC) address between multiple entities; static address translation; control of forward and reverse path routing; and ensuring customer traffic does not interfere with the vCPE server OS.

DETAILED DESCRIPTION

    
The traditional branch / home CPE environment consists of a physical routing device connected to a WAN link that is terminated on a "provider edge" (PE) router in the service provider (SP) network. Depending on the service environment, the service provider often allocates to the WAN link either: (1) an IPv4 subnet with a /30 mask; or
(2) an IPv4 subnet with a /32 mask.

    In the former case, there are two usable addresses (.1, .2). One address is allocated to the WAN link interface on the PE router and the other address is allocated to the CPE WAN link. The remaining addresses (0, 4) are used to designate the network and the broadcast address of the WAN link network.

    In the latter case, there is one usable address that is allocated to the CPE WAN link. This approach is often used in consumer environments where addresses are at a

Copyright 2016 Cisco Systems, Inc.

1


Page 02 of 13

premium. This WAN addressing approach works well when there is a physical router because WAN address allocation is highly efficient and the router and other entities can be accessed and managed via the IPv4 address allocated to the router WAN link interface while supporting customer data transfer.

    From a management and addressing perspective, vCPEs are different because there are two components that need to be contactable and manageable via the WAN link. The first is the vCPE OS (typically Linux), which runs the orchestration and virtualization environment. The second is the vRouter, which sends customer traffic into the wider Intranet / Internet. Ideally both of these components should be contactable via the single WAN link.

    One potential solution for utilizing this new environment efficiently is to increase the size of the subnet allocated to the WAN link from /30 to /29, and allocate an address to the PE router, the vCPE's operating system, and the vRouter when booted. However, this approach is difficult for a service provider (SP) to implement because (1) in many cases, the SP is not responsible for link addressing; and (2) the change...