--- 1/draft-ietf-lisp-eid-block-06.txt 2013-11-27 06:14:26.577015627 -0800 +++ 2/draft-ietf-lisp-eid-block-07.txt 2013-11-27 06:14:26.609016480 -0800 @@ -1,47 +1,47 @@ Network Working Group L. Iannone Internet-Draft Telecom ParisTech Intended status: Informational D. Lewis -Expires: April 21, 2014 Cisco Systems, Inc. +Expires: May 31, 2014 Cisco Systems, Inc. D. Meyer Brocade V. Fuller - October 18, 2013 + November 27, 2013 LISP EID Block - draft-ietf-lisp-eid-block-06.txt + draft-ietf-lisp-eid-block-07.txt 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 used for local intra-domain routing and global endpoint identification, by sites deploying LISP as EID (Endpoint IDentifier) addressing space. Status of this Memo This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference 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 (c) 2013 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the document authors. All rights reserved. This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document. Please review these documents @@ -53,39 +53,38 @@ Table of Contents 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2. Definition of Terms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 3. Rationale and Intent . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 4. Expected use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 5. Block Dimension . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 6. 3+3 Allocation Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 7. Routing Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 - 8. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 - 9. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 - 10. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 - 11. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 - 11.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 - 11.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 + 8. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 + 9. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 + 10. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 + 11. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 + 11.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 + 11.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 Appendix A. LISP Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 - Appendix B. Document Change Log . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 - Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 + Appendix B. Document Change Log . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 + Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 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 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 - (Section 2). + This block will be used as global Endpoint IDentifier (EID) space. 2. Definition of Terms The present document does not introduce any new term with respect to the set of LISP Specifications ( [RFC6830], [RFC6831], [RFC6832], [RFC6833], [RFC6834], [RFC6835], [RFC6836], [RFC6837]). To help the reading of the present document the terminology introduced by LISP is summarized in Appendix A. 3. Rationale and Intent @@ -139,21 +138,21 @@ may prove useful in transition scenarios. A non-LISP domain would ask an allocation in the LISP EID Block and use it to deploy LISP in its network. Such allocation will not be 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. 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 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 to new and unforeseen scenarios. Furthermore, this will give a tighter control, especially filtering, over the traffic in the initial experimental phase, while @@ -192,92 +191,85 @@ capabilities since it is announced by PxTRs possibly concentrating several contiguous prefixes. Such trend should continue with even lower impact from a long-term perspective, since more aggressive aggregation can be used, potentially leading at using few PxTRs announcing the whole EID space ([FIABook2010]). The 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 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. + 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 routing infrastructure. +in the BGP + routing infrastructure. + 5. Block Dimension - 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 - future use as EID space. The reason of such consensus is manifold: + The working group reached consensus on an initial allocation of a /32 + prefix. 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 space in the next few years for very large-scale experimentation and deployment. 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 - 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 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, but may as well boost LISP experimentation and deployment. - o The /16 size and alignment allows the use to current policies to - allocate and distribute prefixes out of this space, without the - 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]). + o The use of a /32 prefix is in line with previous similar prefix + allocation for tunneling protocols ([RFC3056]). 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 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 a duration of 3 (three) initial years (through December 2017), with an option to extend this period by 3 (three) more years (until December 2020). By the end of the first period, the IETF will provide a decision on whether to transform the prefix in a permanent assignment or to put it back in the free pool. 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 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. + IETF to define the final size of the EID block and create a + 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 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. + 2018 the entire /32 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 In order to provide connectivity between the Legacy Internet and LISP sites, PITRs announcing large aggregates (ideally one single large aggregate) of the IPv6 EID Block could be deployed. By doing so, @@ -301,122 +293,102 @@ between the Legacy Internet and LISP sites or even break local intra- domain connectivity. 8. Security Considerations This document does not introduce new security threats in the LISP architecture nor in the Legacy Internet architecture. 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 outlined in [RFC5226] and summarized in Table 1. +----------------------+--------------------+ | Attribute | Value | +----------------------+--------------------+ - | Address Block | XXX0::/16 [1] | + | Address Block | XXXX:YYYY::/32 [1] | | Name | EID Space for LISP | | RFC | [This Document] | - | Allocation Date | September 2013 | - | Termination Date | September 2023 | - | Source | True [2] | + | Allocation Date | 2014 [2] | + | Termination Date | December 2017 [3] | + | Source | True [4] | | Destination | True | | Forwardable | 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 - be used as a multicast source as well. [3] To be used as EID space by - LISP [RFC6830] enabled routers. + [1] XXXX and YYYY values to be provided by IANA before published as + RFC. [2] The actual allocation date to be provided by IANA. [3] + 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 - 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 address block but suggests that should come from the 2000::/3 Global - Unicast Space. Furthermore, it is suggested to assign the /16 prefix - from the first /16 block out of the reserved /12 prefix. IANA is not - requested to issue a AS0 ROA, since the Global EID Space will be used - for routing purposes. + Unicast Space. IANA is not requested to issue an 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 initial years starting in beginning 2014 (until December 2017), with an option to extend it by three years (until December 2020) up on - decision of the IETF. Following the policies outlined in [RFC5226], - upon IETF Review, by December 2017 decision should be made on whether - to keep the assignment making the reserved prefix assignment - permanent (this includes final decision on the size of the prefix). + decision of the IETF (see Section 6). Following the policies + outlined in [RFC5226], upon IETF Review, by December 2017 decision + should be made on whether to have a permanent EID block assignment. If the IETF review outcome will be that is not worth to have a - reserved prefix as global EID space, the whole /12 (and all sub-block - assigned out of it) will be taken out from the IPv6 Special Purpose - Address Registry and put back in the free pool managed by IANA by end - of January 2018. + reserved prefix as global EID space, the whole /32 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 different document. Nevertheless, all prefix allocations out of this space must be temporary and no allocation must go beyond December - 2017 unless the IETF Review decides that the Global EID Space is - permanently assigned. + 2017 unless the IETF Review decides for a permanent Global EID Space + assignment. 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. + 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 11.1. 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. + [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 Considered Useful", BCP 82, RFC 3692, January 2004. [RFC4632] Fuller, V. and T. Li, "Classless Inter-domain Routing (CIDR): The Internet Address Assignment and Aggregation Plan", BCP 122, RFC 4632, August 2006. [RFC5226] Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 5226, May 2008. @@ -590,20 +562,25 @@ 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 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. 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 @@ -614,21 +591,21 @@ 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. - 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 by various comments during IETF Last Call. o Added discussion about short/long term impact on BGP in Section 4 as requested by B. Carpenter. Version 03 Posted November 2012. o General review of Section 5 as requested by T. Manderson and B.