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/