draft-ietf-lisp-eid-block-01.txt   draft-ietf-lisp-eid-block-02.txt 
Network Working Group L. Iannone Network Working Group L. Iannone
Internet-Draft Telekom Innovation Laboratories Internet-Draft Telecom ParisTech
Intended status: Informational D. Lewis Intended status: Informational D. Lewis
Expires: May 3, 2012 D. Meyer Expires: October 26, 2012 D. Meyer
V. Fuller V. Fuller
Cisco Systems, Inc. Cisco Systems, Inc.
October 31, 2011 April 24, 2012
LISP EID Block LISP EID Block
draft-ietf-lisp-eid-block-01.txt draft-ietf-lisp-eid-block-02.txt
Abstract Abstract
This is a direction to IANA to allocate a /16 IPv6 prefix for use This is a direction to IANA to allocate a /16 IPv6 prefix for use
with the Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP). The prefix will be with the Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP). The prefix will be
used by sites deploying LISP as EID (Endpoint IDentifier) addressing used for local intra-domain routing and global endpoint
space for local intra-domain routing and global endpoint identification, by sites deploying LISP as EID (Endpoint IDentifier)
identification. addressing space.
Status of this Memo Status of this Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on May 3, 2012. This Internet-Draft will expire on October 26, 2012.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2011 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2012 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved. document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents publication of this document. Please review these documents
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License. described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents Table of Contents
1. Requirements Notation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1. Requirements Notation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. Definition of Terms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 3. Definition of Terms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
4. Rationale and Intent . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 4. Rationale and Intent . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
5. Expected use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 5. Expected use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
6. Block Dimension . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 6. Block Dimension . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
7. Action Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 7. Action Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
8. Routing Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 8. Routing Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
9. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 9. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
10. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 10. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
11. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 11. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
12. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 12. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
12.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 12.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
12.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 12.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Appendix A. Document Change Log . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Appendix A. Document Change Log . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
1. Requirements Notation 1. Requirements Notation
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119]. document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119].
2. Introduction 2. Introduction
This document directs the IANA to allocate a /16 IPv6 prefix for use This document directs the IANA to allocate a /16 IPv6 prefix for use
skipping to change at page 3, line 31 skipping to change at page 3, line 31
3. Definition of Terms 3. Definition of Terms
LISP operates on two name spaces and introduces several new network LISP operates on two name spaces and introduces several new network
elements. This section provides high-level definitions of the LISP elements. This section provides high-level definitions of the LISP
name spaces and network elements and as such, it MUST NOT be name spaces and network elements and as such, it MUST NOT be
considered as an authoritative source. The reference to the considered as an authoritative source. The reference to the
authoritative document for each term is included in every term authoritative document for each term is included in every term
description. description.
Legacy Internet: The portion of the Internet which does not run LISP Legacy Internet: The portion of the Internet that does not run LISP
and does not participate in LISP+ALT or any other mapping system. and does not participate in LISP+ALT or any other mapping system.
LISP site: A LISP site is a set of routers in an edge network that LISP site: A LISP site is a set of routers in an edge network that
are under a single technical administration. LISP routers that are under a single technical administration. LISP routers that
reside in the edge network are the demarcation points to separate reside in the edge network are the demarcation points to separate
the edge network from the core network. See [I-D.ietf-lisp] for the edge network from the core network. See [I-D.ietf-lisp] for
more details. more details.
Endpoint ID (EID): An EID is a 32-bit (for IPv4) or 128-bit (for Endpoint ID (EID): An EID is a 32-bit (for IPv4) or 128-bit (for
IPv6) value used in the source and destination address fields of IPv6) value used in the source and destination address fields of
skipping to change at page 4, line 12 skipping to change at page 4, line 12
prefix block associated with the site where the host is located. prefix block associated with the site where the host is located.
See [I-D.ietf-lisp] for more details. See [I-D.ietf-lisp] for more details.
EID-prefix: A power-of-two block of EIDs that are allocated to a EID-prefix: A power-of-two block of EIDs that are allocated to a
site by an address allocation authority. See [I-D.ietf-lisp] for site by an address allocation authority. See [I-D.ietf-lisp] for
more details. more details.
EID-Prefix Aggregate: A set of EID-prefixes said to be aggregatable EID-Prefix Aggregate: A set of EID-prefixes said to be aggregatable
in the [RFC4632] sense. That is, an EID-Prefix aggregate is in the [RFC4632] sense. That is, an EID-Prefix aggregate is
defined to be a single contiguous power-of-two EID-prefix block. defined to be a single contiguous power-of-two EID-prefix block.
Such a block is characterized by a prefix and a length. See A prefix and a length characterize such a block. See
[I-D.ietf-lisp] for more details. [I-D.ietf-lisp] for more details.
Routing LOCator (RLOC): A RLOC is an IPv4 or IPv6 address of an Routing LOCator (RLOC): A RLOC is an IPv4 or IPv6 address of an
egress tunnel router (ETR). A RLOC is the output of an EID-to- egress tunnel router (ETR). A RLOC is the output of an EID-to-
RLOC mapping lookup. An EID maps to one or more RLOCs. RLOC mapping lookup. An EID maps to one or more RLOCs.
Typically, RLOCs are numbered from topologically aggregatable Typically, RLOCs are numbered from topologically aggregatable
blocks that are assigned to a site at each point to which it blocks that are assigned to a site at each point to which it
attaches to the global Internet; where the topology is defined by attaches to the global Internet; where the topology is defined by
the connectivity of provider networks, RLOCs can be thought of as the connectivity of provider networks, RLOCs can be thought of as
Provider Aggregatable (PA) addresses. See [I-D.ietf-lisp] for Provider Aggregatable (PA) addresses. See [I-D.ietf-lisp] for
skipping to change at page 4, line 36 skipping to change at page 4, line 36
set that can be used to reach the EID-Prefix. The general term set that can be used to reach the EID-Prefix. The general term
"mapping" always refers to an EID-to-RLOC mapping. See "mapping" always refers to an EID-to-RLOC mapping. See
[I-D.ietf-lisp] for more details. [I-D.ietf-lisp] for more details.
Ingress Tunnel Router (ITR): An Ingress Tunnel Router (ITR) is a Ingress Tunnel Router (ITR): An Ingress Tunnel Router (ITR) is a
router that accepts receives IP packets from site end-systems on router that accepts receives IP packets from site end-systems on
one side and sends LISP-encapsulated IP packets toward the one side and sends LISP-encapsulated IP packets toward the
Internet on the other side. The router treats the "inner" IP Internet on the other side. The router treats the "inner" IP
destination address as an EID and performs an EID-to-RLOC mapping destination address as an EID and performs an EID-to-RLOC mapping
lookup. The router then prepends an "outer" IP header with one of lookup. The router then prepends an "outer" IP header with one of
its globally-routable RLOCs in the source address field and the its globally routable RLOCs in the source address field and the
result of the mapping lookup in the destination address field. result of the mapping lookup in the destination address field.
See [I-D.ietf-lisp] for more details. See [I-D.ietf-lisp] for more details.
Egress Tunnel Router (ETR): An Egress Tunnel Router (ETR) receives Egress Tunnel Router (ETR): An Egress Tunnel Router (ETR) receives
LISP-encapsulated IP packets from the Internet on one side and LISP-encapsulated IP packets from the Internet on one side and
sends decapsulated IP packets to site end-systems on the other sends decapsulated IP packets to site end-systems on the other
side. An ETR router accepts an IP packet where the destination side. An ETR router accepts an IP packet where the destination
address in the "outer" IP header is one of its own RLOCs. The address in the "outer" IP header is one of its own RLOCs. The
router strips the "outer" header and forwards the packet based on router strips the "outer" header and forwards the packet based on
the next IP header found. See [I-D.ietf-lisp] for more details. the next IP header found. See [I-D.ietf-lisp] for more details.
skipping to change at page 6, line 17 skipping to change at page 6, line 17
dropped. dropped.
By defining an IPv6 EID Block is possible to configure the router so By defining an IPv6 EID Block is possible to configure the router so
to natively forward all packets that have not a destination address to natively forward all packets that have not a destination address
in the block, without performing any lookup whatsoever. This will in the block, without performing any lookup whatsoever. This will
give a tighter control over the traffic in the initial experimental give a tighter control over the traffic in the initial experimental
phase, while facilitating its large-scale deployment. phase, while facilitating its large-scale deployment.
The EID Block will be used only at configuration level, it is The EID Block will be used only at configuration level, it is
RECOMMENDED not to hard-code in any way the IPv6 EID Block in the RECOMMENDED not to hard-code in any way the IPv6 EID Block in the
router hardware. This allows to avoid locking out sites that may router hardware. This allows avoiding locking out sites that may
want to switch to LISP while keeping their own IPv6 prefix, which is want to switch to LISP while keeping their own IPv6 prefix, which is
not in the IPv6 EID Block. not in the IPv6 EID Block.
5. Expected use 5. Expected use
Sites planning to deploy LISP may request a prefix in the IPv6 EID Sites planning to deploy LISP may request a prefix in the IPv6 EID
Block. Such prefix will be used for routing and endpoint Block. Such prefix will be used for routing and endpoint
identification inside the site requesting it. Mappings related to identification inside the site requesting it. Mappings related to
such prefix, or part of it, will be made available through the such prefix, or part of it, will be made available through the
mapping system in use or registered to one or more Map-Server(s). mapping system in use or registered to one or more Map-Server(s).
Too guarantee reachability from the Legacy Internet the prefix could Too guarantee reachability from the Legacy Internet the prefix could
be announced in the BGP routing infrastructure by one or more be announced in the BGP routing infrastructure by one or more
PITR(s), possibly as part of a larger prefix, aggregating several PITR(s), possibly as part of a larger prefix, aggregating several
prefixes of several sites. prefixes of several sites.
6. Block Dimension 6. Block Dimension
The working group reached consensus on an initial allocation of a /16 The working group reached consensus on an initial allocation of a /16
prefix out of a /12 block which is asked to remain reserved for prefix out of a /12 block which is asked to remain reserved for
future use as EID b space. The reason of such consensus is manifold: future use as EID space. The reason of such consensus is manifold:
o A /16 prefix is suffiently large to cover initial allocation and o A /16 prefix is sufficiently large to cover initial allocation and
requests for prefoxes in the EID space in the next few years for requests for prefixes in the EID space in the next few years for
very large scale experimentation and deployment. As a comparison very large-scale experimentation and deployment. As a comparison
is worth to mention that the current LISP Beta Network ([BETA]) is is worth to mention that the current LISP Beta Network ([BETA]) is
using a /32 prefix, hence a /16 should be sufficiently large to using a /32 prefix, hence a /16 should be sufficiently large to
accomodate growth in the near future. accommodate growth in the near future.
o The request to reserve the /12 prefix covering the initial /16
allocation is in line with IANA policies that fix to /12 the
minimum IPv6 allocation.
o The proposed alignment provides as well a natural support for DNS. o The proposed alignment provides as well a natural support for DNS.
In particular, reverse DNS for IPv6 in the special ip6.arpa domain In particular, reverse DNS for IPv6 in the special ip6.arpa domain
is represented as sequence of nibbles. A different alignment is represented as sequence of nibbles. A different alignment
would force to a binary representation. would force to a binary representation.
7. Action Plan 7. Action Plan
This document requests IANA to initially allocate a /16 prefix out of This document requests IANA to initially allocate a /16 prefix out of
the IPv6 addressing space for use as EID in LISP (Locator/ID the IPv6 addressing space for use as EID in LISP (Locator/ID
skipping to change at page 8, line 12 skipping to change at page 8, line 7
between the Legacy Internet and LISP sites or even break local intra- between the Legacy Internet and LISP sites or even break local intra-
domain connectivity. domain connectivity.
9. Security Considerations 9. Security Considerations
This document does not introduce new security threats in the LISP This document does not introduce new security threats in the LISP
architecture nor in the Legacy Internet architecture. architecture nor in the Legacy Internet architecture.
10. Acknowledgments 10. Acknowledgments
Special thanks to Roque Gagliano for his suggestions and pointers to Special thanks to Roque Gagliano for his suggestions and pointers.
the IANA allocation policies. Thanks to Marla Azinger, Chris Morrow, Thanks to Marla Azinger, Chris Morrow, and Peter Schoenmaker, all
and Peter Schoenmaker, all made insightful comments on early versions made insightful comments on early versions of this draft.
of this draft.
11. IANA Considerations 11. IANA Considerations
This document instructs the IANA to assign a /16 IPv6 prefix for use This document instructs the IANA to assign a /16 IPv6 prefix for use
as the global LISP EID space using an hierarchical allocation as as the global LISP EID space using a hierarchical allocation as
outlined in [RFC2434]. During the discussion related to this outlined in [RFC5226]. During the discussion related to this
document, the LISP Working Group agreed in suggesting to IANA to document, the LISP Working Group agreed in suggesting to IANA to
reserve adjacent addressing space for future use as EID space if reserve adjacent addressing space for future use as EID space if
needs come. Following the policies outlined in [RFC2434], such space needs come. Following the policies outlined in [RFC5226], such space
will be assigned only upon IETF Consensus. This document does not will be assigned only upon IETF Consensus. This document does not
specify any specific value for the requested address block. specify any specific value for the requested address block.
12. References 12. References
12.1. Normative References 12.1. Normative References
[I-D.ietf-lisp] [I-D.ietf-lisp]
Farinacci, D., Fuller, V., Meyer, D., and D. Lewis, Farinacci, D., Fuller, V., Meyer, D., and D. Lewis,
"Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP)", "Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP)",
draft-ietf-lisp-15 (work in progress), July 2011. draft-ietf-lisp-22 (work in progress), February 2012.
[I-D.ietf-lisp-alt] [I-D.ietf-lisp-alt]
Fuller, V., Farinacci, D., Meyer, D., and D. Lewis, "LISP Fuller, V., Farinacci, D., Meyer, D., and D. Lewis, "LISP
Alternative Topology (LISP+ALT)", draft-ietf-lisp-alt-06 Alternative Topology (LISP+ALT)", draft-ietf-lisp-alt-10
(work in progress), March 2011. (work in progress), December 2011.
[I-D.ietf-lisp-interworking] [I-D.ietf-lisp-interworking]
Lewis, D., Meyer, D., Farinacci, D., and V. Fuller, Lewis, D., Meyer, D., Farinacci, D., and V. Fuller,
"Interworking LISP with IPv4 and IPv6", "Interworking LISP with IPv4 and IPv6",
draft-ietf-lisp-interworking-02 (work in progress), draft-ietf-lisp-interworking-06 (work in progress),
June 2011. March 2012.
[I-D.ietf-lisp-ms] [I-D.ietf-lisp-ms]
Fuller, V. and D. Farinacci, "LISP Map Server Interface", Fuller, V. and D. Farinacci, "LISP Map Server Interface",
draft-ietf-lisp-ms-12 (work in progress), October 2011. draft-ietf-lisp-ms-16 (work in progress), March 2012.
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[RFC2434] Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an
IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 2434,
October 1998.
[RFC4632] Fuller, V. and T. Li, "Classless Inter-domain Routing [RFC4632] Fuller, V. and T. Li, "Classless Inter-domain Routing
(CIDR): The Internet Address Assignment and Aggregation (CIDR): The Internet Address Assignment and Aggregation
Plan", BCP 122, RFC 4632, August 2006. Plan", BCP 122, RFC 4632, August 2006.
[RFC5226] Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an
IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 5226,
May 2008.
12.2. Informative References 12.2. Informative References
[BETA] LISP Beta Network, "http://www.lisp4.net", 2008-2011. [BETA] LISP Beta Network, "http://www.lisp4.net", 2008-2011.
Appendix A. Document Change Log Appendix A. Document Change Log
Version 02 Posted April 2012.
o Fixed typos, nits, references.
o Deleted reference to IANA allocation policies.
Version 01 Posted October 2011. Version 01 Posted October 2011.
o Added Section 6. o Added Section 6.
Version 00 Posted July 2011. Version 00 Posted July 2011.
o Updated section "IANA Considerations" o Updated section "IANA Considerations"
o Added section "Rationale and Intent" explaining why the EID block o Added section "Rationale and Intent" explaining why the EID block
allocation is useful. allocation is useful.
skipping to change at page 10, line 8 skipping to change at page 10, line 8
o Added section "Routing Consideration" describing how routers not o Added section "Routing Consideration" describing how routers not
running LISP deal with the requested address block. running LISP deal with the requested address block.
o Added the present section to keep track of changes. o Added the present section to keep track of changes.
o Rename of draft-meyer-lisp-eid-block-02.txt. o Rename of draft-meyer-lisp-eid-block-02.txt.
Authors' Addresses Authors' Addresses
Luigi Iannone Luigi Iannone
Telekom Innovation Laboratories Telecom ParisTech
Email: luigi@net.t-labs.tu-berlin.de Email: ggx@gigix.net
Darrel Lewis Darrel Lewis
Cisco Systems, Inc. Cisco Systems, Inc.
Email: darlewis@cisco.com Email: darlewis@cisco.com
David Meyer David Meyer
Cisco Systems, Inc. Cisco Systems, Inc.
Email: dmm@cisco.com Email: dmm@cisco.com
 End of changes. 27 change blocks. 
57 lines changed or deleted 58 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.41. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/