draft-ietf-lisp-eid-block-06.txt		draft-ietf-lisp-eid-block-07.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: April 21, 2014 Cisco Systems, Inc.		Expires: May 31, 2014 Cisco Systems, Inc.
	D. Meyer		D. Meyer
	Brocade		Brocade
	V. Fuller		V. Fuller
	October 18, 2013		November 27, 2013
	LISP EID Block		LISP EID Block
	draft-ietf-lisp-eid-block-06.txt		draft-ietf-lisp-eid-block-07.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 /32 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
	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 April 21, 2014.		This Internet-Draft will expire on May 31, 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
	skipping to change at page 2, line 18		skipping to change at page 2, line 18
	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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3		3. Rationale and Intent . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
	4. Expected use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5		4. Expected use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
	5. Block Dimension . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5		5. Block Dimension . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
	6. 3+3 Allocation Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6		6. 3+3 Allocation Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
	7. Routing Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7		7. Routing Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
	8. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8		8. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
	9. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8		9. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
	10. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10		10. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
	11. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10		11. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
	11.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10		11.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
	11.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11		11.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
	Appendix A. LISP Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11		Appendix A. LISP Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
	Appendix B. Document Change Log . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14		Appendix B. Document Change Log . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
	Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16		Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
	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 /32 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 systems, 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).
	2. Definition of Terms		2. Definition of Terms
	The present document does not introduce any new term with respect to		The present document does not introduce any new term with respect to
	the set of LISP Specifications ( [RFC6830], [RFC6831], [RFC6832],		the set of LISP Specifications ( [RFC6830], [RFC6831], [RFC6832],
	[RFC6833], [RFC6834], [RFC6835], [RFC6836], [RFC6837]). To help the		[RFC6833], [RFC6834], [RFC6835], [RFC6836], [RFC6837]). To help the
	reading of the present document the terminology introduced by LISP is		reading of the present document the terminology introduced by LISP is
	summarized in Appendix A.		summarized in Appendix A.
	3. Rationale and Intent		3. Rationale and Intent
	skipping to change at page 4, line 38		skipping to change at page 4, line 33
	may prove useful in transition scenarios. A non-LISP domain		may prove useful in transition scenarios. A non-LISP domain
	would ask an allocation in the LISP EID Block and use it to		would ask an allocation in the LISP EID Block and use it to
	deploy LISP in its network. Such allocation will not be		deploy LISP in its network. Such allocation will not be
	announced in the BGP routing infrastructure (cf., Section 4).		announced in the BGP routing infrastructure (cf., Section 4).
	This approach will avoid non-LISP domains to fragment their		This approach will avoid non-LISP domains to fragment their
	already allocated non-LISP addressing space, which may lead to		already allocated non-LISP addressing space, which may lead to
	BGP routing table inflation since it may (rightfully) be		BGP routing table inflation since it may (rightfully) be
	announced in the BGP routing infrastructure.		announced in the BGP routing infrastructure.
	Limit the impact on BGP routing infrastructure: As described in the		Limit the impact on BGP routing infrastructure: As described in the
	previous scenario, LISP adopters will avoid fragmenting their		previous scenario, LISP adopters will avoid frers will avoid fragmenting their
	addressing space, which would negatively impact the BGP routing		addressing space, which would negatively impact the BGP routing
	infrastructure. Adopters will use addressing space from the		infrastructure. Adopters will use addressing space from the
	EID block which might be announced in large aggregates and in a		EID block which might be announced in large aggregates and in a
	tightly controlled manner only by proxy xTRs.		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.		to new and unforeseen scenarios.
	Furthermore, this will give a tighter control, especially filtering,		Furthermore, this will give a tighter control, especially filtering,
	over the traffic in the initial experimental phase, while		over the traffic in the initial experimental phase, while
	skipping to change at page 5, line 42		skipping to change at page 5, line 42
	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 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. Furthermore, in the case of a future
			permanent allocation, the allocated prefix may differ from the
			experimental temporary prefix allocated by IANA.
	The prefix must not be used as normal prefix and announced in the BGP		The prefix must not be used as normal prefix and announced in the BGP
	routing infrastructure.		routing infrastructure.
			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 /32
	prefix out of a /12 block which is asked to remain reserved for		prefix. 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 /32 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
	and deployment.		and deployment.
	o As a comparison, it is worth mentioning that the current LISP Beta		o As a comparison, it is worth mentioning that the current LISP Beta
	Network ([BETA]) is using a /32 prefix, with more than 250 sites		Network ([BETA]) is using a /32 prefix, with more than 250 sites
	using a /48 sub prefix. Hence, a /16 prefix looks as sufficiently		using a /48 sub prefix. Hence, a /32 prefix looks as sufficiently
	large to allow the current deployment to scale up and be open for		large to allow the current deployment to scale up and be open for
	interoperation with independent deployments using EIDs space in		interoperation with independent deployments using EIDs space in
	the new /16 prefix.		the new /32 prefix.
	o A /16 prefix is sufficiently large to only allow deployment of		o A /32 prefix is sufficiently large to allow deployment of
	independent (commercial) LISP enabled networks by third parties,		independent (commercial) LISP enabled networks by third parties,
	but may as well boost LISP experimentation and deployment.		but may as well boost LISP experimentation and deployment.
	o The /16 size and alignment allows the use to current policies to		o The use of a /32 prefix is in line with previous similar prefix
	allocate and distribute prefixes out of this space, without the		allocation for tunneling protocols ([RFC3056]).
	need to introduce any new specific address management policy.
	o The proposed alignment provides as well a natural support for DNS.
	In particular, reverse DNS for IPv6 in the special ip6.arpa domain
	is represented as sequence of nibbles. A different alignment
	would force to a binary representation.
	o The use of a /16 prefix is in line with previous similar prefix
	allocation for tunnelling protocols ([RFC3056]).
	6. 3+3 Allocation 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 /32 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
	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 address space adjacent the
	EID Block could be allocate by IANA according to the current
	policies.
	IANA should assign the requested address space by beginning 2014 for		IANA should assign the requested address space by beginning 2014 for
	a duration of 3 (three) initial years (through December 2017), with		a duration of 3 (three) initial years (through December 2017), with
	an option to extend this period by 3 (three) more years (until		an option to extend this period by 3 (three) more years (until
	December 2020). By the end of the first period, the IETF will		December 2020). By the end of the first period, the IETF will
	provide a decision on whether to transform the prefix in a permanent		provide a decision on whether to transform the prefix in a permanent
	assignment or to put it back in the free pool.		assignment or to put it back in the free pool.
	In the first case, i.e., if the IETF decides to transform the block		In the first case, i.e., if the IETF decides to transform the block
	in a permanent allocation, the EID block allocation period will be		in a permanent allocation, the EID block allocation period will be
	extended for three years (until December 2020) so to give time to the		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,		IETF to define the final size of the EID block and create a
	and the allocation and management policies.		transition plan. The transition of the EID block into a permanent
			allocation has the potential to pose policy issues (as recognized in
			[RFC2860], section 4.3) and hence discussion with the IANA, the RIR
			communities, and the IETF community will be necessary to determine
			appropriate policy for permanent EID prefix allocation and
			management. Note as well that the final permanent allocation may
			differ from the initial experimental assignment, hence, the
			experimental EID block should not be hard-coded in any way on LISP-
			capable devices.
	In the latter case, i.e., if the IETF decides to stop the EID block		In the latter case, i.e., if the IETF decides to stop the EID block
	experimental use, by December 2017 all temporary prefix allocations		experimental use, by December 2017 all temporary prefix allocations
	in such address range must expire and be released, so that by January		in such address range must expire and be released, so that by January
	2018 the entire /12 is returned to the free pool.		2018 the entire /32 is returned to the free pool.
	The allocation and management of the Global EID Space for the initial		The allocation and management of the Global EID Space for the initial
	3 years period (and the optional 3 more years) is detailed in		3 years period (and the optional 3 more years) is detailed in
	[I-D.iannone-lisp-eid-block-mgmnt].		[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 (ideally one single large		sites, PITRs announcing large aggregates (ideally one single large
	aggregate) of the IPv6 EID Block could be deployed. By doing so,		aggregate) of the IPv6 EID Block could be deployed. By doing so,
	skipping to change at page 8, line 12		skipping to change at page 7, line 44
	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. IANA Considerations		9. IANA Considerations
	This document instructs the IANA to assign a /16 IPv6 prefix for use		This document instructs the IANA to assign a /32 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 | XXXX:YYYY::/32 [1] |
	| Name | EID Space for LISP |		| Name | EID Space for LISP |
	| RFC | [This Document] |		| RFC | [This Document] |
	| Allocation Date | September 2013 |		| Allocation Date | 2014 [2] |
	| Termination Date | September 2023 |		| Termination Date | December 2017 [3] |
	| Source | True [2] |		| Source | True [4] |
	| Destination | True |		| Destination | True |
	| Forwardable | True |		| Forwardable | True |
	| Global | True |		| Global | True |
	| Reserved-by-protocol | True [3] |		| Reserved-by-protocol | True [5] |
	+----------------------+--------------------+		+----------------------+--------------------+
	[1] XXX value to be provided by IANA before published as RFC. [2] Can		[1] XXXX and YYYY values to be provided by IANA before published as
	be used as a multicast source as well. [3] To be used as EID space by		RFC. [2] The actual allocation date to be provided by IANA. [3]
	LISP [RFC6830] enabled routers.		According to the 3+3 Plan outlined in this document termination date
			can be postponed to December 2020. [4] Can be used as a multicast
			source as well. [5] To be used as EID space by LISP [RFC6830] enabled
			routers.
	Table 1: Global EID Space		Table 1: Global EID Space
	During the discussion related to this document, the LISP Working
	Group agreed in suggesting to IANA to reserve adjacent addressing
	space, more specifically the /12 covering the assigned /16 prefix,
	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.
	+----------------------+----------------------+
	| Attribute | Value |
	+----------------------+----------------------+
	| Address Block | XXX0::/12 [1] |
	| 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] |
	+----------------------+----------------------+
	[1] XXX value to be provided by IANA before published as RFC. [2] To
	be used as EID space by LISP [RFC6830] enabled routers.
	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. IANA is not requested to issue an AS0 ROA, since the
	from the first /16 block out of the reserved /12 prefix. IANA is not		Global EID Space will be used for routing purposes.
	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 three		The reserved address space is requested for a period of time of three
	initial years starting in beginning 2014 (until December 2017), with		initial years starting in beginning 2014 (until December 2017), with
	an option to extend it by three years (until December 2020) up on		an option to extend it by three years (until December 2020) up on
	decision of the IETF. Following the policies outlined in [RFC5226],		decision of the IETF (see Section 6). Following the policies
	upon IETF Review, by December 2017 decision should be made on whether		outlined in [RFC5226], upon IETF Review, by December 2017 decision
	to keep the assignment making the reserved prefix assignment		should be made on whether to have a permanent EID block 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		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		reserved prefix as global EID space, the whole /32 will be taken out
	assigned out of it) will be taken out from the IPv6 Special Purpose		from the IPv6 Special Purpose Address Registry and put back in the
	Address Registry and put back in the free pool managed by IANA by end		free pool managed by IANA by end of January 2018.
	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 of this		different document. Nevertheless, all prefix allocations out of this
	space must be temporary and no allocation must go beyond December		space must be temporary and no allocation must go beyond December
	2017 unless the IETF Review decides that the Global EID Space is		2017 unless the IETF Review decides for a permanent Global EID Space
	permanently assigned.		assignment.
	10. Acknowledgments		10. Acknowledgments
	Special thanks to Roque Gagliano for his suggestions and pointers.		Special thanks to Roque Gagliano for his suggestions and pointers.
	Thanks to David Conrad, Scott Bradner, John Curran, Paul Wilson,		Thanks to David Conrad, Scott Bradner, John Curran, Paul Wilson,
	Geoff Huston, Wes George, Arturo Servin, Sander Steffann, Brian		Geoff Huston, Wes George, Arturo Servin, Sander Steffann, Brian
	Carpenter, Roger Jorgensen, Terry Manderson, Brian Haberman, Adrian		Carpenter, Roger Jorgensen, Terry Manderson, Brian Haberman, Adrian
	Farrel, Job Snijders, Marla Azinger, Chris Morrow, and Peter		Farrel, Job Snijders, Marla Azinger, Chris Morrow, and Peter
	Schoenmaker, for their insightful comments. Thanks as well to all		Schoenmaker, for their insightful comments. Thanks as well to all
	participants to the fruitful discussions on the IETF mailing list.		participants to the fruitful discussions on the IETF mailing list.
			The work of Luigi Iannone has been partially supported by the ANR-13-
			INFR-0009 LISP-Lab Project (www.lisp-lab.org) and the EIT KIC ICT-
			Labs SOFNETS Project.
	11. References		11. References
	11.1. Normative References		11.1. Normative References
	[I-D.iannone-lisp-eid-block-mgmnt]		[I-D.iannone-lisp-eid-block-mgmnt]
	Iannone, L., Jorgensen, R., and D. Conrad, "LISP EID Block		Iannone, L., Jorgensen, R., and D. Conrad, "LISP EID Block
	Management Guidelines",		Management Guidelines",
	draft-iannone-lisp-eid-block-mgmnt-03 (work in progress),		draft-iannone-lisp-eid-block-mgmnt-03 (work in progress),
	October 2013.		October 2013.
	[RFC2434] Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an		[RFC2434] Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an
	IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 2434,		IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 2434,
	October 1998.		October 1998.
			[RFC2860] Carpenter, B., Baker, F., and M. Roberts, "Memorandum of
			Understanding Concerning the Technical Work of the
			Internet Assigned Numbers Authority", RFC 2860, June 2000.
	[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.
	[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.
	skipping to change at page 14, line 27		skipping to change at page 13, line 32
	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 [RFC6836] for more details.		packet). See [RFC6836] for more details.
	Appendix B. Document Change Log		Appendix B. Document Change Log
			Version 07 Posted November 2013.
			o Modified the document so to request a /32 allocation, as for the
			consensus reached during IETF 88th.
	Version 06 Posted October 2013.		Version 06 Posted October 2013.
	o Clarified the rationale and intent of the EID block request with		o Clarified the rationale and intent of the EID block request with
	respect to [RFC3692], as suggested by S. Bradner and J. Curran.		respect to [RFC3692], as suggested by S. Bradner and J. Curran.
	o Extended Section 3 by adding the transion scenario (as suggested		o Extended Section 3 by adding the transion scenario (as suggested
	by J. Curran) and the TE scenario. The other scenarios have been		by J. Curran) and the TE scenario. The other scenarios have been
	also edited.		also edited.
	o Section 6 has been re-written to introduce the 3+3 allocation plan		o Section 6 has been re-written to introduce the 3+3 allocation plan
	skipping to change at page 15, line 5		skipping to change at page 14, line 15
	o Moved Section 10 at the end of the document.		o Moved Section 10 at the end of the document.
	o Changed the original Definition of terms to an appendix.		o Changed the original Definition of terms to an appendix.
	Version 05 Posted September 2013.		Version 05 Posted September 2013.
	o No changes.		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 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.
	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.
End of changes. 37 change blocks.
	102 lines changed or deleted		79 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/