draft-ietf-lisp-eid-block-07.txt   draft-ietf-lisp-eid-block-08.txt 
Network Working Group L. Iannone Network Working Group L. Iannone
Internet-Draft Telecom ParisTech Internet-Draft Telecom ParisTech
Intended status: Informational D. Lewis Intended status: Informational D. Lewis
Expires: May 31, 2014 Cisco Systems, Inc. Expires: August 4, 2014 Cisco Systems, Inc.
D. Meyer D. Meyer
Brocade Brocade
V. Fuller V. Fuller
November 27, 2013 January 31, 2014
LISP EID Block LISP EID Block
draft-ietf-lisp-eid-block-07.txt draft-ietf-lisp-eid-block-08.txt
Abstract Abstract
This is a direction to IANA to allocate a /32 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
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 May 31, 2014. This Internet-Draft will expire on August 4, 2014.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2013 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2014 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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 3. Rationale and Intent . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
4. Expected use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 4. Expected use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
5. Block Dimension . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 5. Block Dimension . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
6. 3+3 Allocation Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 6. 3+3 Allocation Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
7. Routing Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 7. Routing Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
8. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 8. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
9. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 9. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
10. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 10. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
11. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 11. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
11.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 11.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
11.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 11.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Appendix A. LISP Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 Appendix A. LISP Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Appendix B. Document Change Log . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 Appendix B. Document Change Log . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
skipping to change at page 4, line 33 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 frers will avoid fragmenting their previous scenario, LISP adopters 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
tightly controlled manner only by proxy xTRs. 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. to new and unforeseen scenarios.
Furthermore, this will give a tighter control, especially filtering, Furthermore, the use of a dedicated address block will give a tighter
over the traffic in the initial experimental phase, while control, especially filtering, over the traffic in the initial
facilitating its large-scale deployment. experimental phase, while facilitating its large-scale deployment.
[RFC3692] considers assigning experimental and testing numbers [RFC3692] considers assigning experimental and testing numbers
useful, and the request of a reserved IPv6 EID prefix is a perfect useful, and the request of a reserved IPv6 EID prefix is a perfect
match of such practice. The present document follows the guidelines match of such practice. The present document follows the guidelines
provided in [RFC3692], with one exception. [RFC3692] suggests the provided in [RFC3692], with one exception. [RFC3692] suggests the
use of values similar to those called "Private Use" in [RFC2434], use of values similar to those called "Private Use" in [RFC2434],
which by definition are not unique. One of the purposes of the which by definition are not unique. One of the purposes of the
present request to IANA is to guarantee uniqueness to the EID block. 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 The lack thereof would result in a lack of real utility of a reserved
IPv6 EID prefix. 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 and 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 may be To provide reachability from the non-LISP Internet, EID prefixes may
announced in the BGP routing infrastructure by one or more PITR(s) as be restrictively announced in the BGP routing infrastructure by one
part of larger aggregates (ideally just the entire LISP EID block). or more PITR(s) as more specifics. The intended scope of these more
Indeed, the use of PxTRs allow EID prefix aggregation; the deployment specific prefix advertisements may be deliberated limited by the PITR
model for this element is described in [RFC6832] and to reflect local routing policies.
[I-D.ietf-lisp-deployment].
The EID block must be used for LISP experimentation and must not be
advertised in the form of more specific route advertisements in the
non-LISP inter-domain routing environment. Interworking between the
EID block sub-prefixes and the non-LISP Internet is done according to
[RFC6832] and [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 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. Furthermore, in the case of a future not in the IPv6 EID Block. Furthermore, in the case of a future
permanent allocation, the allocated prefix may differ from the permanent allocation, the allocated prefix may differ from the
experimental temporary prefix allocated by IANA. experimental temporary prefix allocated during the experimentation
phase.
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 /32 The working group reached consensus on an initial allocation of a /32
prefix. The reason of such consensus is manifold: prefix. The reason of such consensus is manifold:
o The working group agreed that /32 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.
skipping to change at page 10, line 44 skipping to change at page 10, line 48
[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
Deployment Considerations", draft-ietf-lisp-deployment-10 Deployment Considerations", draft-ietf-lisp-deployment-11
(work in progress), August 2013. (work in progress), December 2013.
[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.
skipping to change at page 13, line 32 skipping to change at page 13, line 40
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 08 Posted January 2014.
o Modified Section 4 as suggested by G. Houston.
Version 07 Posted November 2013. Version 07 Posted November 2013.
o Modified the document so to request a /32 allocation, as for the o Modified the document so to request a /32 allocation, as for the
consensus reached during IETF 88th. 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.
 End of changes. 15 change blocks. 
25 lines changed or deleted 32 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/