draft-ietf-lisp-eid-block-03.txt   draft-ietf-lisp-eid-block-04.txt 
Network Working Group L. Iannone Network Working Group L. Iannone
Internet-Draft Telecom ParisTech Internet-Draft Telecom ParisTech
Intended status: Informational D. Lewis Intended status: Informational D. Lewis
Expires: May 11, 2013 Cisco Systems, Inc. Expires: August 29, 2013 Cisco Systems, Inc.
D. Meyer D. Meyer
Brocade Brocade
V. Fuller V. Fuller
Cisco Systems, Inc. February 25, 2013
November 7, 2012
LISP EID Block LISP EID Block
draft-ietf-lisp-eid-block-03.txt draft-ietf-lisp-eid-block-04.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 for local intra-domain routing and global endpoint used for local intra-domain routing and global endpoint
identification, by sites deploying LISP as EID (Endpoint IDentifier) identification, by sites deploying LISP as EID (Endpoint IDentifier)
addressing space. addressing space.
Status of this Memo Status of this Memo
skipping to change at page 1, line 39 skipping to change at page 1, line 38
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 11, 2013. This Internet-Draft will expire on August 29, 2013.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2012 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2013 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. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Definition of Terms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2. Definition of Terms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. Rationale and Intent . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 3. Rationale and Intent . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4. Expected use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 4. Expected use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
5. Block Dimension . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 5. Block Dimension . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
6. Action Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 6. Action Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
7. Routing Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 7. Routing Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
8. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 8. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
9. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 9. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
10. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 10. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
11. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 11. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
11.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 11.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
11.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 11.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Appendix A. Document Change Log . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Appendix A. Document Change Log . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
1. Introduction 1. 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
with the Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP - [I-D.ietf-lisp]), with the Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP - [RFC6830]), LISP Map
LISP Map Server ([I-D.ietf-lisp-ms]), LISP Alternative Topology Server ([RFC6833]), LISP Alternative Topology (LISP+ALT - [RFC6836])
(LISP+ALT - [I-D.ietf-lisp-alt]) (or other) mapping system, and LISP (or other) mapping system, and LISP Interworking ([RFC6832]).
Interworking ([I-D.ietf-lisp-interworking]).
This block will be used as global Endpoint IDentifier (EID) space This block will be used as global Endpoint IDentifier (EID) space
(Section 2). (Section 2).
2. Definition of Terms 2. 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 that 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 [RFC6830] for more
more details. 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
the first (most inner) LISP header of a packet. A packet that is the first (most inner) LISP header of a packet. A packet that is
emitted by a system contains EIDs in its headers and LISP headers emitted by a system contains EIDs in its headers and LISP headers
are prepended only when the packet reaches an Ingress Tunnel are prepended only when the packet reaches an Ingress Tunnel
Router (ITR) on the data path to the destination EID. The source Router (ITR) on the data path to the destination EID. The source
EID is obtained via existing mechanisms used to set a host's EID is obtained via existing mechanisms used to set a host's
"local" IP address. An EID is allocated to a host from an EID- "local" IP address. An EID is allocated to a host from an EID-
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 [RFC6830] 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 [RFC6830] for more
more details. 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.
A prefix and a length characterize such a block. See A prefix and a length characterize such a block. See [RFC6830]
[I-D.ietf-lisp] for more details. 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 [RFC6830] for more
more details. details.
EID-to-RLOC Mapping: A binding between an EID-Prefix and the RLOC- EID-to-RLOC Mapping: A binding between an EID-Prefix and the RLOC-
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 [RFC6830]
[I-D.ietf-lisp] for more details. 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 [RFC6830] 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 [RFC6830] for more details.
Proxy ITR (PITR): A Proxy-ITR (PITR) acts like an ITR but does so on Proxy ITR (PITR): A Proxy-ITR (PITR) acts like an ITR but does so on
behalf of non-LISP sites which send packets to destinations at behalf of non-LISP sites which send packets to destinations at
LISP sites. See [I-D.ietf-lisp-interworking] for more details. LISP sites. See [RFC6832] for more details.
Proxy ETR (PETR): A Proxy-ETR (PETR) acts like an ETR but does so on Proxy ETR (PETR): A Proxy-ETR (PETR) acts like an ETR but does so on
behalf of LISP sites which send packets to destinations at non- behalf of LISP sites which send packets to destinations at non-
LISP sites. See [I-D.ietf-lisp-interworking] for more details. LISP sites. See [RFC6832] for more details.
Map Server (MS): A network infrastructure component that learns EID- Map Server (MS): A network infrastructure component that learns EID-
to-RLOC mapping entries from an authoritative source (typically an to-RLOC mapping entries from an authoritative source (typically an
ETR). A Map Server publishes these mappings in the distributed ETR). A Map Server publishes these mappings in the distributed
mapping system. See [I-D.ietf-lisp-ms] for more details. mapping system. See [RFC6833] for more details.
Map Resolver (MR): A network infrastructure component that accepts Map Resolver (MR): A network infrastructure component that accepts
LISP Encapsulated Map-Requests, typically from an ITR, quickly LISP Encapsulated Map-Requests, typically from an ITR, quickly
determines whether or not the destination IP address is part of determines whether or not the destination IP address is part of
the EID namespace; if it is not, a Negative Map-Reply is the EID namespace; if it is not, a Negative Map-Reply is
immediately returned. Otherwise, the Map Resolver finds the immediately returned. Otherwise, the Map Resolver finds the
appropriate EID-to-RLOC mapping by consulting the distributed appropriate EID-to-RLOC mapping by consulting the distributed
mapping database system. See [I-D.ietf-lisp-ms] for more details. mapping database system. See [RFC6833] for more details.
The LISP Alternative Logical Topology (ALT): The virtual overlay The LISP Alternative Logical Topology (ALT): The virtual overlay
network made up of tunnels between LISP+ALT Routers. The Border network made up of tunnels between LISP+ALT Routers. The Border
Gateway Protocol (BGP) runs between ALT Routers and is used to Gateway Protocol (BGP) runs between ALT Routers and is used to
carry reachability information for EID-prefixes. The ALT provides carry reachability information for EID-prefixes. The ALT provides
a way to forward Map-Requests toward the ETR that "owns" an EID- a way to forward Map-Requests toward the ETR that "owns" an EID-
prefix. See [I-D.ietf-lisp-alt] for more details. prefix. See [RFC6836] for more details.
ALT Router: The device on which runs the ALT. The ALT is a static ALT Router: The device on which runs the ALT. The ALT is a static
network built using tunnels between ALT Routers. These routers network built using tunnels between ALT Routers. These routers
are deployed in a roughly-hierarchical mesh in which routers at are deployed in a roughly-hierarchical mesh in which routers at
each level in the topology are responsible for aggregating EID- each level in the topology are responsible for aggregating EID-
Prefixes learned from those logically "below" them and advertising Prefixes learned from those logically "below" them and advertising
summary prefixes to those logically "above" them. Prefix learning summary prefixes to those logically "above" them. Prefix learning
and propagation between ALT Routers is done using BGP. When an and propagation between ALT Routers is done using BGP. When an
ALT Router receives an ALT Datagram, it looks up the destination ALT Router receives an ALT Datagram, it looks up the destination
EID in its forwarding table (composed of EID-Prefix routes it EID in its forwarding table (composed of EID-Prefix routes it
learned from neighboring ALT Routers) and forwards it to the learned from neighboring ALT Routers) and forwards it to the
logical next-hop on the overlay network. The primary function of logical next-hop on the overlay network. The primary function of
LISP+ALT routers is to provide a lightweight forwarding LISP+ALT routers is to provide a lightweight forwarding
infrastructure for LISP control-plane messages (Map-Request and infrastructure for LISP control-plane messages (Map-Request and
Map-Reply), and to transport data packets when the packet has the Map-Reply), and to transport data packets when the packet has the
same destination address in both the inner (encapsulating) same destination address in both the inner (encapsulating)
destination and outer destination addresses ((i.e., a Data Probe destination and outer destination addresses ((i.e., a Data Probe
packet). See [I-D.ietf-lisp-alt] for more details. packet). See [RFC6836] for more details.
3. Rationale and Intent 3. Rationale and Intent
With the current specifications, if an ITR is sending to all types of With the current specifications, if an ITR is sending to all types of
destinations (i.e., non-LISP destinations, LISP destinations not in destinations (i.e., non-LISP destinations, LISP destinations not in
the IPv6 EID Block, and LISP destinations in the IPv6 EID Block) the the IPv6 EID Block, and LISP destinations in the IPv6 EID Block) the
only way to understand whether or not to encapsulate the traffic is only way to understand whether or not to encapsulate the traffic is
to perform a cache lookup and, in case of cache-miss, send a Map- to perform a cache lookup and, in case of cache-miss, send a Map-
Request to the mapping system. In the meanwhile, packets can be Request to the mapping system. In the meanwhile, packets may be
dropped. dropped.
By defining an IPv6 EID Block is possible to configure the router so There are several use cases for this address block, for instance:
to natively forward all packets that have not a destination address
in the block, without performing any lookup whatsoever. This will o In certain circumstances it is possible to configure the router so
give a tighter control over the traffic in the initial experimental to natively forward all packets that have not a destination
phase, while facilitating its large-scale deployment. address in the block, without performing any lookup whatsoever.
o In some scenarios, in case of cache-miss packets, are routed
toward a PETR until a mapping is obtained, if the destination is
in a specific EID space packets may be dropped in order to avoid
forwarding paths like ITR->PETR->PITR->ETR, avoiding the related
overhead.
o Improved traffic engineering capabilities with respect to LISP vs.
non-LISP traffic.
Is worth to mention that new use cases can arise in the future, due
to new and unforeseen scenarios. furthermore, this will give a
tighter control over the traffic in the initial experimental 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 avoiding 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.
4. Expected use 4. 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
To 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). The use of PxTRs allow to aggregate several prefixes; the
prefixes of several sites. deployment model for this element is described in [RFC6832] and
[I-D.ietf-lisp-deployment].
As the LISP adoption progress, the EID prefix space will potentially
help in reducing the impact on the BGP routing infrastructure with
respect to the case of the same number of adopters using global
unicast space allocated by RIRs ([MobiArch2007]). From a short-term
perspective, the EID space offers potentially large aggregation
capabilities since it is announced by PxTRs possibly concentrating
several contiguous prefixes. Such trend should continue with even
lower impact from a long-term perspective, since more aggressive
aggregation can be used, potentially leading at using few PxTRs
announcing the whole EID space ([FIABook2010]).
The prefix is not supposed to be used as normal prefix announced in
the BGP routing infrastructure without the use of LISP.
5. Block Dimension 5. 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 space. The reason of such consensus is manifold: future use as EID space. The reason of such consensus is manifold:
o The working group agreed that /16 prefix is sufficiently large to o The working group agreed that /16 prefix is sufficiently large to
cover initial allocation and requests for prefixes in the EID cover initial allocation and requests for prefixes in the EID
space in the next few years for very large-scale experimentation space in the next few years for very large-scale experimentation
skipping to change at page 7, line 20 skipping to change at page 7, line 45
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.
o The use of a /16 prefix is in line with previous similar prefix o The use of a /16 prefix is in line with previous similar prefix
allocation for tunnelling protocols ([RFC3056]) and is considered allocation for tunnelling protocols ([RFC3056]) and is considered
a useful practice ([RFC3692]). a useful practice ([RFC3692]).
6. Action Plan 6. Action Plan
This document requests IANA to initially allocate a /16 prefix out of This document requests IANA to initially assign 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
Separation protocol). It is suggested to IANA to temporarily avoid Separation protocol).
allocating any other address block the same /12 prefix the EID /16
prefix belongs to. This is to accommodate future requests of EID
space without fragmenting the EID addressing space. This will also
help from an operational point of view, since it will be sufficient
to change the subnet mask length in existing deployments.
If in the future there will be need for a larger EID Block the It is suggested to IANA to temporarily avoid allocating any other
address space adjacent the EID Block could be allocate by IANA address block the same /12 prefix the EID /16 prefix belongs to.
according to the current policies.
This is to accommodate future requests of EID space without
fragmenting the EID addressing space. This will also help from an
operational point of view, since it will be sufficient to change the
subnet mask length in existing deployments. If in the future there
will be need for a larger EID Block the address space adjacent the
EID Block could be allocate by IANA according to the current
policies.
IANA should assign the requested address space by September 2013 for
a duration of 10 (ten) years (through September 2023). By the end of
this period, the IETF will provide a decision on whether to transform
the prefix in a permanent assignment or to put it back in the free
pool.
The allocation and management of the Global EID Space will be
detailed in a separate document.
7. Routing Considerations 7. Routing Considerations
In order to provide connectivity between the Legacy Internet and LISP In order to provide connectivity between the Legacy Internet and LISP
sites, PITRs announcing large aggregates of the IPv6 EID Block could sites, PITRs announcing large aggregates of the IPv6 EID Block could
be deployed. By doing so, PITRs will attract traffic destined to be deployed. By doing so, PITRs will attract traffic destined to
LISP sites in order to encapsulate and forward it toward the specific LISP sites in order to encapsulate and forward it toward the specific
destination LISP site. Routers in the Legacy Internet must treat destination LISP site. Routers in the Legacy Internet must treat
announcements of prefixes from the IPv6 EID Block as normal announcements of prefixes from the IPv6 EID Block as normal
announcements, applying best current practice for traffic engineering announcements, applying best current practice for traffic engineering
skipping to change at page 8, line 19 skipping to change at page 9, line 8
domain connectivity. domain connectivity.
8. Security Considerations 8. 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.
9. Acknowledgments 9. Acknowledgments
Special thanks to Roque Gagliano for his suggestions and pointers. Special thanks to Roque Gagliano for his suggestions and pointers.
Thanks to Marla Azinger, Chris Morrow, and Peter Schoenmaker, all Thanks to Brian Carpenter, Roger Jorgensen, Terry Manderson, Brian
made insightful comments on early versions of this draft. Haberman, Adrian Farrel, Job Snijders, Marla Azinger, Chris Morrow,
and Peter Schoenmaker, for their insightful comments. Thanks as well
John Curran, Paul Wilson, Geoff Huston, Wes George, Arturo Servin,
Sander Steffann, and to all participants to the fruitful discussion
on the IETF mailing list.
10. IANA Considerations 10. 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 a hierarchical allocation as as the global LISP EID space using a hierarchical allocation as
outlined in [RFC5226]. During the discussion related to this outlined in [RFC5226] and summarized in Table 1.
document, the LISP Working Group agreed in suggesting to IANA to
reserve adjacent addressing space for future use as EID space if
needs come. Following the policies outlined in [RFC5226], such space
will be assigned only upon IETF Review. This document does not
specify any specific value for the requested address block.
11. References +----------------------+--------------------+
| Attribute | Value |
+----------------------+--------------------+
| Address Block | XXX0::/16 [1] |
| Name | EID Space for LISP |
| RFC | [This Document] |
| Allocation Date | September 2013 |
| Termination Date | September 2023 |
| Source | True [2] |
| Destination | True |
| Forwardable | True |
| Global | True |
| Reserved-by-protocol | True [3] |
+----------------------+--------------------+
11.1. Normative References [1] XXX value to be provided by IANA before published as RFC. [2] Can
be used as a multicast source as well. [3] To be used as EID space by
LISP [RFC6830] enabled routers.
[I-D.ietf-lisp] Table 1: Global EID Space
Farinacci, D., Fuller, V., Meyer, D., and D. Lewis,
"Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP)",
draft-ietf-lisp-23 (work in progress), May 2012.
[I-D.ietf-lisp-alt] During the discussion related to this document, the LISP Working
Fuller, V., Farinacci, D., Meyer, D., and D. Lewis, "LISP Group agreed in suggesting to IANA to reserve adjacent addressing
Alternative Topology (LISP+ALT)", draft-ietf-lisp-alt-10 space, more specifically the /12 covering the assigned /16 prefix,
(work in progress), December 2011. for future use as EID space if needs come. Table 2 summarizes the
request. Following the policies outlined in [RFC5226], such space
will be assigned only upon IETF Review.
[I-D.ietf-lisp-interworking] +----------------------+----------------------+
Lewis, D., Meyer, D., Farinacci, D., and V. Fuller, | Attribute | Value |
"Interworking LISP with IPv4 and IPv6", +----------------------+----------------------+
draft-ietf-lisp-interworking-06 (work in progress), | Address Block | XXX0::/12 [1] |
March 2012. | Name | ) EID Space for LISP |
| RFC | [This Document] |
| Allocation Date | September 2013 |
| Termination Date | September 2023 |
| Source | False |
| Destination | False |
| Forwardable | False |
| Global | False |
| Reserved-by-protocol | True [2] |
+----------------------+----------------------+
[I-D.ietf-lisp-ms] [1] XXX value to be provided by IANA before published as RFC. [2] To
Fuller, V. and D. Farinacci, "LISP Map Server Interface", be used as EID space by LISP [RFC6830] enabled routers.
draft-ietf-lisp-ms-16 (work in progress), March 2012.
Table 2: Reserved for Future Use as Global EID Space
This document does not specify any specific value for the requested
address block but suggests that should come from the 2000::/3 Global
Unicast Space. Furthermore, it is suggested to assign the /16 prefix
from the first /16 block out of the reserved /12 prefix. IANA is not
requested to issue a AS0 ROA, since the Global EID Space will be used
for routing purposes.
The reserved address space is requested for a period of time of ten
years starting in September 2013 and ending in September 2023.
Following the policies outlined in [RFC5226], upon IETF Review, by
September 2023 decision should be made on whether to keep the
assignment making the reserved prefix assignment permanent (this
includes final decision on the size of the prefix). If the IETF
review outcome will be that is not worth to have a reserved prefix as
global EID space, the whole /12 (and all sub-block assigned out of
it) will be took out from the IPv6 Special Purpose Address Registry
and put back in the free pool managed by IANA.
Allocation and management of the Global EID Space is detailed in a
different document. Nevertheless, all prefix allocations out this
space must be temporary and no allocation must go beyond September
2023 unless the upon IETF Review the GLobal EID Space is permanently
assigned.
11. References
11.1. Normative References
[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 [RFC5226] Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an
IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 5226, IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 5226,
May 2008. May 2008.
[RFC6830] Farinacci, D., Fuller, V., Meyer, D., and D. Lewis, "The
Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP)", RFC 6830,
January 2013.
[RFC6832] Lewis, D., Meyer, D., Farinacci, D., and V. Fuller,
"Interworking between Locator/ID Separation Protocol
(LISP) and Non-LISP Sites", RFC 6832, January 2013.
[RFC6833] Fuller, V. and D. Farinacci, "Locator/ID Separation
Protocol (LISP) Map-Server Interface", RFC 6833,
January 2013.
[RFC6836] Fuller, V., Farinacci, D., Meyer, D., and D. Lewis,
"Locator/ID Separation Protocol Alternative Logical
Topology (LISP+ALT)", RFC 6836, January 2013.
11.2. Informative References 11.2. Informative References
[BETA] LISP Beta Network, "http://www.lisp4.net", 2008-2011. [BETA] LISP Beta Network, "http://www.lisp4.net", 2008-2011.
[FIABook2010]
L. Iannone, T. Leva, "Modeling the economics of Loc/ID
Separation for the Future Internet.", Towards the Future
Internet - Emerging Trends from the European Research,
Pages 11-20, ISBN: 9781607505389, IOS Press , May 2010.
[I-D.ietf-lisp-deployment]
Jakab, L., Cabellos-Aparicio, A., Coras, F., Domingo-
Pascual, J., and D. Lewis, "LISP Network Element
Deployment Considerations", draft-ietf-lisp-deployment-06
(work in progress), January 2013.
[MobiArch2007]
B. Quoitin, L. Iannone, C. de Launois, O. Bonaventure,
"Evaluating the Benefits of the Locator/Identifier
Separation", The 2nd ACM-SIGCOMM International Workshop on
Mobility in the Evolving Internet Architecture
(MobiArch'07) , August 2007.
[RFC3056] Carpenter, B. and K. Moore, "Connection of IPv6 Domains [RFC3056] Carpenter, B. and K. Moore, "Connection of IPv6 Domains
via IPv4 Clouds", RFC 3056, February 2001. via IPv4 Clouds", RFC 3056, February 2001.
[RFC3692] Narten, T., "Assigning Experimental and Testing Numbers [RFC3692] Narten, T., "Assigning Experimental and Testing Numbers
Considered Useful", BCP 82, RFC 3692, January 2004. Considered Useful", BCP 82, RFC 3692, January 2004.
Appendix A. Document Change Log Appendix A. Document Change Log
Version 04 Posted February 2013.
o Added Table 1 and Table 2 as requested by IANA.
o Transformed the prefix request in a temporary request as suggested
by various comments during IETF Last Call.
o Added discussion about short/long term impact on BGP in Section 4
as requested by B. Carpenter.
Version 03 Posted November 2012. Version 03 Posted November 2012.
o General review of Section 5 as requested by T. Manderson and B. o General review of Section 5 as requested by T. Manderson and B.
Haberman. Haberman.
o Dropped RFC 2119 Notation, as requested by A. Farrel and B. o Dropped RFC 2119 Notation, as requested by A. Farrel and B.
Haberman. Haberman.
o Changed "IETF Consensus" to "IETF Review" as pointed out by Roque o Changed "IETF Consensus" to "IETF Review" as pointed out by Roque
Gagliano. Gagliano.
o Changed every occurrence of "Map-Server" and "Map-Resolver" with o Changed every occurrence of "Map-Server" and "Map-Resolver" with
"Map Server" and "Map Resolver" to make the document consistent "Map Server" and "Map Resolver" to make the document consistent
with [I-D.ietf-lisp-ms]. Thanks to Job Snijders for pointing out with [RFC6833]. Thanks to Job Snijders for pointing out the
the issue. issue.
Version 02 Posted April 2012. Version 02 Posted April 2012.
o Fixed typos, nits, references. o Fixed typos, nits, references.
o Deleted reference to IANA allocation policies. o Deleted reference to IANA allocation policies.
Version 01 Posted October 2011. Version 01 Posted October 2011.
o Added Section 5. o Added Section 5.
skipping to change at page 11, line 4 skipping to change at page 13, line 35
Luigi Iannone Luigi Iannone
Telecom ParisTech Telecom ParisTech
Email: luigi.iannone@telecom-paristech.fr Email: luigi.iannone@telecom-paristech.fr
Darrel Lewis Darrel Lewis
Cisco Systems, Inc. Cisco Systems, Inc.
Email: darlewis@cisco.com Email: darlewis@cisco.com
David Meyer David Meyer
Brocade Brocade
Email: dmm@1-4-5.net Email: dmm@1-4-5.net
Vince Fuller Vince Fuller
Cisco Systems, Inc.
Email: vaf@cisco.com Email: vaf@vaf.net
 End of changes. 45 change blocks. 
86 lines changed or deleted 220 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/