draft-ietf-lisp-eid-block-05.txt   draft-ietf-lisp-eid-block-06.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: March 2, 2014 Cisco Systems, Inc. Expires: April 21, 2014 Cisco Systems, Inc.
D. Meyer D. Meyer
Brocade Brocade
V. Fuller V. Fuller
August 29, 2013 October 18, 2013
LISP EID Block LISP EID Block
draft-ietf-lisp-eid-block-05.txt draft-ietf-lisp-eid-block-06.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 38 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 March 2, 2014. This Internet-Draft will expire on April 21, 2014.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2013 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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
4. Expected use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 4. Expected use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
5. Block Dimension . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 5. Block Dimension . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
6. Action Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 6. 3+3 Allocation Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
7. Routing Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 7. Routing Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
8. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 8. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
9. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 9. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
10. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 10. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
11. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 11. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
11.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 11.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
11.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 11.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Appendix A. Document Change Log . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 Appendix A. LISP Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 Appendix B. Document Change Log . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
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 - [RFC6830]), LISP Map with the Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP - [RFC6830]), LISP Map
Server ([RFC6833]), LISP Alternative Topology (LISP+ALT - [RFC6836]) Server ([RFC6833]), LISP Alternative Topology (LISP+ALT - [RFC6836])
(or other) mapping system, and LISP Interworking ([RFC6832]). (or other) mapping system, and LISP Interworking ([RFC6832]).
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 The present document does not introduce any new term with respect to
elements. This section provides high-level definitions of the LISP the set of LISP Specifications ( [RFC6830], [RFC6831], [RFC6832],
name spaces and network elements and as such, it must not be [RFC6833], [RFC6834], [RFC6835], [RFC6836], [RFC6837]). To help the
considered as an authoritative source. The reference to the reading of the present document the terminology introduced by LISP is
authoritative document for each term is included in every term summarized in Appendix A.
description.
Legacy Internet: The portion of the Internet that does not run LISP
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
are under a single technical administration. LISP routers that
reside in the edge network are the demarcation points to separate
the edge network from the core network. See [RFC6830] for more
details.
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
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
are prepended only when the packet reaches an Ingress Tunnel
Router (ITR) on the data path to the destination EID. The source
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-
prefix block associated with the site where the host is located.
See [RFC6830] for more details.
EID-prefix: A power-of-two block of EIDs that are allocated to a
site by an address allocation authority. See [RFC6830] for more
details.
EID-Prefix Aggregate: A set of EID-prefixes said to be aggregatable
in the [RFC4632] sense. That is, an EID-Prefix aggregate is
defined to be a single contiguous power-of-two EID-prefix block.
A prefix and a length characterize such a block. See [RFC6830]
for more details.
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-
RLOC mapping lookup. An EID maps to one or more RLOCs.
Typically, RLOCs are numbered from topologically aggregatable
blocks that are assigned to a site at each point to which it
attaches to the global Internet; where the topology is defined by
the connectivity of provider networks, RLOCs can be thought of as
Provider Aggregatable (PA) addresses. See [RFC6830] for more
details.
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
"mapping" always refers to an EID-to-RLOC mapping. See [RFC6830]
for more details.
Ingress Tunnel Router (ITR): An Ingress Tunnel Router (ITR) is a
router that accepts receives IP packets from site end-systems on
one side and sends LISP-encapsulated IP packets toward the
Internet on the other side. The router treats the "inner" IP
destination address as an EID and performs an EID-to-RLOC mapping
lookup. The router then prepends an "outer" IP header with one of
its globally routable RLOCs in the source address field and the
result of the mapping lookup in the destination address field.
See [RFC6830] for more details.
Egress Tunnel Router (ETR): An Egress Tunnel Router (ETR) receives
LISP-encapsulated IP packets from the Internet on one side and
sends decapsulated IP packets to site end-systems on the other
side. An ETR router accepts an IP packet where the destination
address in the "outer" IP header is one of its own RLOCs. The
router strips the "outer" header and forwards the packet based on
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
behalf of non-LISP sites which send packets to destinations at
LISP sites. See [RFC6832] for more details.
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-
LISP sites. See [RFC6832] for more details.
Map Server (MS): A network infrastructure component that learns EID-
to-RLOC mapping entries from an authoritative source (typically an
ETR). A Map Server publishes these mappings in the distributed
mapping system. See [RFC6833] for more details.
Map Resolver (MR): A network infrastructure component that accepts
LISP Encapsulated Map-Requests, typically from an ITR, quickly
determines whether or not the destination IP address is part of
the EID namespace; if it is not, a Negative Map-Reply is
immediately returned. Otherwise, the Map Resolver finds the
appropriate EID-to-RLOC mapping by consulting the distributed
mapping database system. See [RFC6833] for more details.
The LISP Alternative Logical Topology (ALT): The virtual overlay 3. Rationale and Intent
network made up of tunnels between LISP+ALT Routers. The Border
Gateway Protocol (BGP) runs between ALT Routers and is used to
carry reachability information for EID-prefixes. The ALT provides
a way to forward Map-Requests toward the ETR that "owns" an EID-
prefix. See [RFC6836] for more details.
ALT Router: The device on which runs the ALT. The ALT is a static Discussion within the LISP Working Group led to identify several
network built using tunnels between ALT Routers. These routers scenarios in which the existence of a LISP specific address block
are deployed in a roughly-hierarchical mesh in which routers at brings technical benefits. Hereafter the most relevant scenarios are
each level in the topology are responsible for aggregating EID- described:
Prefixes learned from those logically "below" them and advertising
summary prefixes to those logically "above" them. Prefix learning
and propagation between ALT Routers is done using BGP. When an
ALT Router receives an ALT Datagram, it looks up the destination
EID in its forwarding table (composed of EID-Prefix routes it
learned from neighboring ALT Routers) and forwards it to the
logical next-hop on the overlay network. The primary function of
LISP+ALT routers is to provide a lightweight forwarding
infrastructure for LISP control-plane messages (Map-Request and
Map-Reply), and to transport data packets when the packet has the
same destination address in both the inner (encapsulating)
destination and outer destination addresses ((i.e., a Data Probe
packet). See [RFC6836] for more details.
3. Rationale and Intent Early LISP destination detection: With the current specifications,
there is no direct way to detect whether or not a certain
destination is in a LISP domain or not without performing a
LISP mapping lookup. For instance, if an ITR is sending to all
types of destinations (i.e., non-LISP destinations, LISP
destinations not in 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 to perform a cache lookup
and, in case of a LISP Cache miss, send a Map-Request to the
mapping system. In the meanwhile, packets may be dropped.
With the current specifications, if an ITR is sending to all types of Avoid penalize non-LISP traffic: In certain circumstances it might
destinations (i.e., non-LISP destinations, LISP destinations not in be desirable to configure a router using LISP features to
the IPv6 EID Block, and LISP destinations in the IPv6 EID Block) the natively forward all packets that have not a destination
only way to understand whether or not to encapsulate the traffic is address in the block, hence, no lookup whatsoever is performed
to perform a cache lookup and, in case of cache-miss, send a Map- and packets destined to non-LISP sites are not penalized in any
Request to the mapping system. In the meanwhile, packets may be manner.
dropped.
There are several use cases for this address block, for instance: Avoid excessive stretch: In some deployment scenarios and in order
to avoid packet drops, in case of LISP Cache miss packets are
forwarded toward a PETR while a mapping lookup is performed
over the LISP mapping system. Once a mapping is obtained
packets are not forwarded anymore toward the PETR, they are
LISP encapsulated and forwarded according to the LISP
specifications. The existence of a LISP specific EID block
would allow to avoid scenarios with excessive overhead, where
the destination is a LISP EID and where (while the mapping is
looked up) packets are forwarded over paths like
Source->ITR->PETR->PITR->ETR->Destination, which may show an
excessive stretch factor and degraded performance.
o In certain circumstances it is possible to configure the router so Traffic Engineering: In some deployment scenarios it might be
to natively forward all packets that have not a destination desirable to apply different traffic engineering policies for
address in the block, without performing any lookup whatsoever. LISP and non-LISP traffic. A LISP specific EID block would
allow improved traffic engineering capabilities with respect to
LISP vs. non-LISP traffic. In particular, LISP traffic might
be identified without having to use DPI techniques in order to
parse the encapsulated packet, performing instead a simple
inspection of the outer header is sufficient.
o In some scenarios, in case of cache-miss packets, are routed Transition Mechanism: The existence of an LISP specific EID Block
toward a PETR until a mapping is obtained, if the destination is may prove useful in transition scenarios. A non-LISP domain
in a specific EID space packets may be dropped in order to avoid would ask an allocation in the LISP EID Block and use it to
forwarding paths like ITR->PETR->PITR->ETR, avoiding the related deploy LISP in its network. Such allocation will not be
overhead. announced in the BGP routing infrastructure (cf., Section 4).
This approach will avoid non-LISP domains to fragment their
already allocated non-LISP addressing space, which may lead to
BGP routing table inflation since it may (rightfully) be
announced in the BGP routing infrastructure.
o Improved traffic engineering capabilities with respect to LISP vs. Limit the impact on BGP routing infrastructure: As described in the
non-LISP traffic. previous scenario, LISP adopters will avoid fragmenting their
addressing space, which would negatively impact the BGP routing
infrastructure. Adopters will use addressing space from the
EID block which might be announced in large aggregates and in a
tightly controlled manner only by proxy xTRs.
Is worth to mention that new use cases can arise in the future, due Is worth to mention that new use cases can arise in the future, due
to new and unforeseen scenarios. furthermore, this will give a to new and unforeseen scenarios.
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 Furthermore, this will give a tighter control, especially filtering,
recommended not to hard-code in any way the IPv6 EID Block in the over the traffic in the initial experimental phase, while
router hardware. This allows avoiding locking out sites that may facilitating its large-scale deployment.
want to switch to LISP while keeping their own IPv6 prefix, which is
not in the IPv6 EID Block. [RFC3692] considers assigning experimental and testing numbers
useful, and the request of a reserved IPv6 EID prefix is a perfect
match of such practice. The present document follows the guidelines
provided in [RFC3692], with one exception. [RFC3692] suggests the
use of values similar to those called "Private Use" in [RFC2434],
which by definition are not unique. One of the purposes of the
present request to IANA is to guarantee uniqueness to the EID block.
The lack thereof would result in a lack of real utility of a reserved
IPv6 EID prefix.
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 and registered to one or more Map Server(s).
To guarantee reachability from the Legacy Internet the prefix could To guarantee reachability from the Legacy Internet the prefix may be
be announced in the BGP routing infrastructure by one or more announced in the BGP routing infrastructure by one or more PITR(s) as
PITR(s). The use of PxTRs allow to aggregate several prefixes; the part of larger aggregates (ideally just the entire LISP EID block).
deployment model for this element is described in [RFC6832] and Indeed, the use of PxTRs allow EID prefix aggregation; the deployment
model for this element is described in [RFC6832] and
[I-D.ietf-lisp-deployment]. [I-D.ietf-lisp-deployment].
As the LISP adoption progress, the EID prefix space will potentially As the LISP adoption progress, the EID prefix space will potentially
help in reducing the impact on the BGP routing infrastructure with help in reducing the impact on the BGP routing infrastructure with
respect to the case of the same number of adopters using global respect to the case of the same number of adopters using global
unicast space allocated by RIRs ([MobiArch2007]). From a short-term unicast space allocated by RIRs ([MobiArch2007]). From a short-term
perspective, the EID space offers potentially large aggregation perspective, the EID space offers potentially large aggregation
capabilities since it is announced by PxTRs possibly concentrating capabilities since it is announced by PxTRs possibly concentrating
several contiguous prefixes. Such trend should continue with even several contiguous prefixes. Such trend should continue with even
lower impact from a long-term perspective, since more aggressive lower impact from a long-term perspective, since more aggressive
aggregation can be used, potentially leading at using few PxTRs aggregation can be used, potentially leading at using few PxTRs
announcing the whole EID space ([FIABook2010]). announcing the whole EID space ([FIABook2010]).
The prefix is not supposed to be used as normal prefix announced in The EID Block will be used only at configuration level, it is
the BGP routing infrastructure without the use of LISP. recommended not to hard-code in any way the IPv6 EID Block in the
router hardware. This allows avoiding locking out sites that may
want to switch to LISP while keeping their own IPv6 prefix, which is
not in the IPv6 EID Block.
The prefix must not be used as normal prefix and announced in the BGP
routing infrastructure.
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 40 skipping to change at page 6, line 33
o The /16 size and alignment allows the use to current policies to o The /16 size and alignment allows the use to current policies to
allocate and distribute prefixes out of this space, without the allocate and distribute prefixes out of this space, without the
need to introduce any new specific address management policy. need to introduce any new specific address management policy.
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.
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]).
a useful practice ([RFC3692]).
6. Action Plan 6. 3+3 Allocation Plan
This document requests IANA to initially assign 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). Separation Protocol).
It is suggested to IANA to temporarily avoid allocating any other It is suggested to IANA to temporarily avoid allocating any other
address block the same /12 prefix the EID /16 prefix belongs to. address block the same /12 prefix the EID /16 prefix belongs to.
This is to accommodate future requests of EID space without This is to accommodate future requests of EID space without
fragmenting the EID addressing space. This will also help from an fragmenting the EID addressing space. This will also help from an
operational point of view, since it will be sufficient to change the operational point of view, since it will be sufficient to change the
subnet mask length in existing deployments. If in the future there subnet mask length in existing deployments. If in the future there
will be need for a larger EID Block the address space adjacent the will be need for a larger EID Block the address space adjacent the
EID Block could be allocate by IANA according to the current EID Block could be allocate by IANA according to the current
policies. policies.
IANA should assign the requested address space by September 2013 for IANA should assign the requested address space by beginning 2014 for
a duration of 10 (ten) years (through September 2023). By the end of a duration of 3 (three) initial years (through December 2017), with
this period, the IETF will provide a decision on whether to transform an option to extend this period by 3 (three) more years (until
the prefix in a permanent assignment or to put it back in the free December 2020). By the end of the first period, the IETF will
pool. 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 In the first case, i.e., if the IETF decides to transform the block
detailed in a separate document. in a permanent allocation, the EID block allocation period will be
extended for three years (until December 2020) so to give time to the
IETF to define the final size of the EID block, the transition phase,
and the allocation and management policies.
In the latter case, i.e., if the IETF decides to stop the EID block
experimental use, by December 2017 all temporary prefix allocations
in such address range must expire and be released, so that by January
2018 the entire /12 is returned to the free pool.
The allocation and management of the Global EID Space for the initial
3 years period (and the optional 3 more years) is detailed in
[I-D.iannone-lisp-eid-block-mgmnt].
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 (ideally one single large
be deployed. By doing so, PITRs will attract traffic destined to aggregate) of the IPv6 EID Block could be deployed. By doing so,
LISP sites in order to encapsulate and forward it toward the specific PITRs will attract traffic destined to LISP sites in order to
destination LISP site. Routers in the Legacy Internet must treat encapsulate and forward it toward the specific destination LISP site.
announcements of prefixes from the IPv6 EID Block as normal Routers in the Legacy Internet must treat announcements of prefixes
announcements, applying best current practice for traffic engineering from the IPv6 EID Block as normal announcements, applying best
and security. current practice for traffic engineering and security.
Even in a LISP site, not all routers need to run LISP elements. In Even in a LISP site, not all routers need to run LISP elements. In
particular, routers that are not at the border of the local domain, particular, routers that are not at the border of the local domain,
used only for intra-domain routing, do not need to provide any used only for intra-domain routing, do not need to provide any
specific LISP functionality but must be able to route traffic using specific LISP functionality but must be able to route traffic using
addresses in the IPv6 EID Block. addresses in the IPv6 EID Block.
For the above-mentioned reasons, routers that do not run any LISP For the above-mentioned reasons, routers that do not run any LISP
element, must not include any special handling code or hardware for element, must not include any special handling code or hardware for
addresses in the IPv6 EID Block. In particular, it is recommended addresses in the IPv6 EID Block. In particular, it is recommended
that the default router configuration does not handle such addresses that the default router configuration does not handle such addresses
in any special way. Doing differently could prevent communication in any special way. Doing differently could prevent communication
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.
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. IANA Considerations
Special thanks to Roque Gagliano for his suggestions and pointers.
Thanks to Brian Carpenter, Roger Jorgensen, Terry Manderson, Brian
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
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] and summarized in Table 1. outlined in [RFC5226] and summarized in Table 1.
+----------------------+--------------------+ +----------------------+--------------------+
| Attribute | Value | | Attribute | Value |
+----------------------+--------------------+ +----------------------+--------------------+
| Address Block | XXX0::/16 [1] | | Address Block | XXX0::/16 [1] |
| Name | EID Space for LISP | | Name | EID Space for LISP |
skipping to change at page 10, line 32 skipping to change at page 9, line 32
Table 2: Reserved for Future Use as Global EID Space Table 2: Reserved for Future Use as Global EID Space
This document does not specify any specific value for the requested This document does not specify any specific value for the requested
address block but suggests that should come from the 2000::/3 Global address block but suggests that should come from the 2000::/3 Global
Unicast Space. Furthermore, it is suggested to assign the /16 prefix 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 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 requested to issue a AS0 ROA, since the Global EID Space will be used
for routing purposes. for routing purposes.
The reserved address space is requested for a period of time of ten The reserved address space is requested for a period of time of three
years starting in September 2013 and ending in September 2023. initial years starting in beginning 2014 (until December 2017), with
Following the policies outlined in [RFC5226], upon IETF Review, by an option to extend it by three years (until December 2020) up on
September 2023 decision should be made on whether to keep the decision of the IETF. Following the policies outlined in [RFC5226],
assignment making the reserved prefix assignment permanent (this upon IETF Review, by December 2017 decision should be made on whether
includes final decision on the size of the prefix). If the IETF to keep the assignment making the reserved prefix assignment
review outcome will be that is not worth to have a reserved prefix as permanent (this includes final decision on the size of the prefix).
global EID space, the whole /12 (and all sub-block assigned out of If the IETF review outcome will be that is not worth to have a
it) will be took out from the IPv6 Special Purpose Address Registry reserved prefix as global EID space, the whole /12 (and all sub-block
and put back in the free pool managed by IANA. assigned out of it) will be taken out from the IPv6 Special Purpose
Address Registry and put back in the free pool managed by IANA by end
of January 2018.
Allocation and management of the Global EID Space is detailed in a Allocation and management of the Global EID Space is detailed in a
different document. Nevertheless, all prefix allocations out this different document. Nevertheless, all prefix allocations out of this
space must be temporary and no allocation must go beyond September space must be temporary and no allocation must go beyond December
2023 unless the upon IETF Review the GLobal EID Space is permanently 2017 unless the IETF Review decides that the Global EID Space is
assigned. permanently assigned.
10. Acknowledgments
Special thanks to Roque Gagliano for his suggestions and pointers.
Thanks to David Conrad, Scott Bradner, John Curran, Paul Wilson,
Geoff Huston, Wes George, Arturo Servin, Sander Steffann, Brian
Carpenter, Roger Jorgensen, Terry Manderson, Brian Haberman, Adrian
Farrel, Job Snijders, Marla Azinger, Chris Morrow, and Peter
Schoenmaker, for their insightful comments. Thanks as well to all
participants to the fruitful discussions on the IETF mailing list.
11. References 11. References
11.1. Normative References 11.1. Normative References
[I-D.iannone-lisp-eid-block-mgmnt]
Iannone, L., Jorgensen, R., and D. Conrad, "LISP EID Block
Management Guidelines",
draft-iannone-lisp-eid-block-mgmnt-03 (work in progress),
October 2013.
[RFC2434] Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an
IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 2434,
October 1998.
[RFC3692] Narten, T., "Assigning Experimental and Testing Numbers
Considered Useful", BCP 82, RFC 3692, January 2004.
[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 [RFC6830] Farinacci, D., Fuller, V., Meyer, D., and D. Lewis, "The
Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP)", RFC 6830, Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP)", RFC 6830,
January 2013. January 2013.
[RFC6831] Farinacci, D., Meyer, D., Zwiebel, J., and S. Venaas, "The
Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP) for Multicast
Environments", RFC 6831, January 2013.
[RFC6832] Lewis, D., Meyer, D., Farinacci, D., and V. Fuller, [RFC6832] Lewis, D., Meyer, D., Farinacci, D., and V. Fuller,
"Interworking between Locator/ID Separation Protocol "Interworking between Locator/ID Separation Protocol
(LISP) and Non-LISP Sites", RFC 6832, January 2013. (LISP) and Non-LISP Sites", RFC 6832, January 2013.
[RFC6833] Fuller, V. and D. Farinacci, "Locator/ID Separation [RFC6833] Fuller, V. and D. Farinacci, "Locator/ID Separation
Protocol (LISP) Map-Server Interface", RFC 6833, Protocol (LISP) Map-Server Interface", RFC 6833,
January 2013. January 2013.
[RFC6834] Iannone, L., Saucez, D., and O. Bonaventure, "Locator/ID
Separation Protocol (LISP) Map-Versioning", RFC 6834,
January 2013.
[RFC6835] Farinacci, D. and D. Meyer, "The Locator/ID Separation
Protocol Internet Groper (LIG)", RFC 6835, January 2013.
[RFC6836] Fuller, V., Farinacci, D., Meyer, D., and D. Lewis, [RFC6836] Fuller, V., Farinacci, D., Meyer, D., and D. Lewis,
"Locator/ID Separation Protocol Alternative Logical "Locator/ID Separation Protocol Alternative Logical
Topology (LISP+ALT)", RFC 6836, January 2013. Topology (LISP+ALT)", RFC 6836, January 2013.
[RFC6837] Lear, E., "NERD: A Not-so-novel Endpoint ID (EID) to
Routing Locator (RLOC) Database", RFC 6837, 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".
[FIABook2010] [FIABook2010]
L. Iannone, T. Leva, "Modeling the economics of Loc/ID L. Iannone, T. Leva, "Modeling the economics of Loc/ID
Separation for the Future Internet.", Towards the Future Separation for the Future Internet.", Towards the Future
Internet - Emerging Trends from the European Research, Internet - Emerging Trends from the European Research,
Pages 11-20, ISBN: 9781607505389, IOS Press , May 2010. Pages 11-20, ISBN: 9781607505389, IOS Press , May 2010.
[I-D.ietf-lisp-deployment] [I-D.ietf-lisp-deployment]
Jakab, L., Cabellos-Aparicio, A., Coras, F., Domingo- Jakab, L., Cabellos-Aparicio, A., Coras, F., Domingo-
Pascual, J., and D. Lewis, "LISP Network Element Pascual, J., and D. Lewis, "LISP Network Element
skipping to change at page 12, line 8 skipping to change at page 11, line 49
[MobiArch2007] [MobiArch2007]
B. Quoitin, L. Iannone, C. de Launois, O. Bonaventure, B. Quoitin, L. Iannone, C. de Launois, O. Bonaventure,
"Evaluating the Benefits of the Locator/Identifier "Evaluating the Benefits of the Locator/Identifier
Separation", The 2nd ACM-SIGCOMM International Workshop on Separation", The 2nd ACM-SIGCOMM International Workshop on
Mobility in the Evolving Internet Architecture Mobility in the Evolving Internet Architecture
(MobiArch'07) , August 2007. (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 Appendix A. LISP Terminology
Considered Useful", BCP 82, RFC 3692, January 2004.
Appendix A. Document Change Log LISP operates on two name spaces and introduces several new network
elements. To facilitate the reading, this section provides high-
level definitions of the LISP name spaces and network elements and,
as such, it must not be considered as an authoritative source. The
reference to the authoritative document for each term is included in
every term description.
Legacy Internet: The portion of the Internet that does not run LISP
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
are under a single technical administration. LISP routers that
reside in the edge network are the demarcation points to separate
the edge network from the core network. See [RFC6830] for more
details.
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
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
are prepended only when the packet reaches an Ingress Tunnel
Router (ITR) on the data path to the destination EID. The source
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-
prefix block associated with the site where the host is located.
See [RFC6830] for more details.
EID-prefix: A power-of-two block of EIDs that are allocated to a
site by an address allocation authority. See [RFC6830] for more
details.
EID-Prefix Aggregate: A set of EID-prefixes said to be aggregatable
in the [RFC4632] sense. That is, an EID-Prefix aggregate is
defined to be a single contiguous power-of-two EID-prefix block.
A prefix and a length characterize such a block. See [RFC6830]
for more details.
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-
RLOC mapping lookup. An EID maps to one or more RLOCs.
Typically, RLOCs are numbered from topologically aggregatable
blocks that are assigned to a site at each point to which it
attaches to the global Internet; where the topology is defined by
the connectivity of provider networks, RLOCs can be thought of as
Provider Aggregatable (PA) addresses. See [RFC6830] for more
details.
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
"mapping" always refers to an EID-to-RLOC mapping. See [RFC6830]
for more details.
Ingress Tunnel Router (ITR): An Ingress Tunnel Router (ITR) is a
router that accepts receives IP packets from site end-systems on
one side and sends LISP-encapsulated IP packets toward the
Internet on the other side. The router treats the "inner" IP
destination address as an EID and performs an EID-to-RLOC mapping
lookup. The router then prepends an "outer" IP header with one of
its globally routable RLOCs in the source address field and the
result of the mapping lookup in the destination address field.
See [RFC6830] for more details.
Egress Tunnel Router (ETR): An Egress Tunnel Router (ETR) receives
LISP-encapsulated IP packets from the Internet on one side and
sends decapsulated IP packets to site end-systems on the other
side. An ETR router accepts an IP packet where the destination
address in the "outer" IP header is one of its own RLOCs. The
router strips the "outer" header and forwards the packet based on
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
behalf of non-LISP sites which send packets to destinations at
LISP sites. See [RFC6832] for more details.
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-
LISP sites. See [RFC6832] for more details.
Map Server (MS): A network infrastructure component that learns EID-
to-RLOC mapping entries from an authoritative source (typically an
ETR). A Map Server publishes these mappings in the distributed
mapping system. See [RFC6833] for more details.
Map Resolver (MR): A network infrastructure component that accepts
LISP Encapsulated Map-Requests, typically from an ITR, quickly
determines whether or not the destination IP address is part of
the EID namespace; if it is not, a Negative Map-Reply is
immediately returned. Otherwise, the Map Resolver finds the
appropriate EID-to-RLOC mapping by consulting the distributed
mapping database system. See [RFC6833] for more details.
The LISP Alternative Logical Topology (ALT): The virtual overlay
network made up of tunnels between LISP+ALT Routers. The Border
Gateway Protocol (BGP) runs between ALT Routers and is used to
carry reachability information for EID-prefixes. The ALT provides
a way to forward Map-Requests toward the ETR that "owns" an EID-
prefix. See [RFC6836] for more details.
ALT Router: The device on which runs the ALT. The ALT is a static
network built using tunnels between ALT Routers. These routers
are deployed in a roughly-hierarchical mesh in which routers at
each level in the topology are responsible for aggregating EID-
Prefixes learned from those logically "below" them and advertising
summary prefixes to those logically "above" them. Prefix learning
and propagation between ALT Routers is done using BGP. When an
ALT Router receives an ALT Datagram, it looks up the destination
EID in its forwarding table (composed of EID-Prefix routes it
learned from neighboring ALT Routers) and forwards it to the
logical next-hop on the overlay network. The primary function of
LISP+ALT routers is to provide a lightweight forwarding
infrastructure for LISP control-plane messages (Map-Request and
Map-Reply), and to transport data packets when the packet has the
same destination address in both the inner (encapsulating)
destination and outer destination addresses ((i.e., a Data Probe
packet). See [RFC6836] for more details.
Appendix B. Document Change Log
Version 06 Posted October 2013.
o Clarified the rationale and intent of the EID block request with
respect to [RFC3692], as suggested by S. Bradner and J. Curran.
o Extended Section 3 by adding the transion scenario (as suggested
by J. Curran) and the TE scenario. The other scenarios have been
also edited.
o Section 6 has been re-written to introduce the 3+3 allocation plan
as suggested by B. Haberman and discussed during 86th IETF.
o Section 9 has also been updated to the 3+3 years allocation plan.
o Moved Section 10 at the end of the document.
o Changed the original Definition of terms to an appendix.
Version 05 Posted September 2013.
o No changes.
Version 04 Posted February 2013. Version 04 Posted February 2013.
o Added Table 1 and Table 2 as requested by IANA. o Added Table 1 and Table 2 as requested by IANA.
o Transformed the prefix request in a temporary request as suggested o Transformed the prefix request in a temporary request as suggested
by various comments during IETF Last Call. by various comments during IETF Last Call.
o Added discussion about short/long term impact on BGP in Section 4 o Added discussion about short/long term impact on BGP in Section 4
as requested by B. Carpenter. as requested by B. Carpenter.
 End of changes. 39 change blocks. 
210 lines changed or deleted 331 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/