draft-ietf-lisp-eid-block-08.txt   draft-ietf-lisp-eid-block-09.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: August 4, 2014 Cisco Systems, Inc. Expires: January 2, 2015 Cisco Systems, Inc.
D. Meyer D. Meyer
Brocade Brocade
V. Fuller V. Fuller
January 31, 2014 July 1, 2014
LISP EID Block LISP EID Block
draft-ietf-lisp-eid-block-08.txt draft-ietf-lisp-eid-block-09.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 August 4, 2014. This Internet-Draft will expire on January 2, 2015.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2014 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
skipping to change at page 3, line 34 skipping to change at page 3, line 34
Discussion within the LISP Working Group led to identify several Discussion within the LISP Working Group led to identify several
scenarios in which the existence of a LISP specific address block scenarios in which the existence of a LISP specific address block
brings technical benefits. Hereafter the most relevant scenarios are brings technical benefits. Hereafter the most relevant scenarios are
described: described:
Early LISP destination detection: With the current specifications, Early LISP destination detection: With the current specifications,
there is no direct way to detect whether or not a certain there is no direct way to detect whether or not a certain
destination is in a LISP domain or not without performing a destination is in a LISP domain or not without performing a
LISP mapping lookup. For instance, if an ITR is sending to all LISP mapping lookup. For instance, if an ITR is sending to all
types of destinations (i.e., non-LISP destinations, LISP types of destinations (i.e., non-LISP destinations, LISP
destinations not in the IPv6 EID Block, and LISP destinations destinations not in the IPv6 EID block, and LISP destinations
in the IPv6 EID Block) the only way to understand whether or in the IPv6 EID block) the only way to understand whether or
not to encapsulate the traffic is to perform a cache lookup not to encapsulate the traffic is to perform a cache lookup
and, in case of a LISP Cache miss, send a Map-Request to the and, in case of a LISP Cache miss, send a Map-Request to the
mapping system. In the meanwhile, packets may be dropped. mapping system. In the meanwhile (waiting the Map-Reply),
packets may be dropped in order to avoid excessive buffering.
Avoid penalize non-LISP traffic: In certain circumstances it might Avoid penalize non-LISP traffic: In certain circumstances it might
be desirable to configure a router using LISP features to be desirable to configure a router using LISP features to
natively forward all packets that have not a destination natively forward all packets that have not a destination
address in the block, hence, no lookup whatsoever is performed address in the block, hence, no lookup whatsoever is performed
and packets destined to non-LISP sites are not penalized in any and packets destined to non-LISP sites are not penalized in any
manner. manner.
Avoid excessive stretch: In some deployment scenarios and in order Avoid excessive stretch: In some deployment scenarios, in order to
to avoid packet drops, in case of LISP Cache miss packets are avoid packet drops, packets triggering a LISP Cache miss are
forwarded toward a PETR while a mapping lookup is performed forwarded toward a PETR, during the time necessary to perform a
over the LISP mapping system. Once a mapping is obtained mapping lookup over the LISP mapping system. Once a mapping is
packets are not forwarded anymore toward the PETR, they are obtained packet are not forwarded anymore toward the PETR, they
LISP encapsulated and forwarded according to the LISP are LISP encapsulated and forwarded according to the LISP
specifications. The existence of a LISP specific EID block specifications. The existence of a LISP specific EID block
would allow to avoid scenarios with excessive overhead, where would allow to avoid scenarios with excessive overhead, where
the destination is a LISP EID and where (while the mapping is the destination is a LISP EID and where (while the mapping is
looked up) packets are forwarded over paths like looked up) packets are forwarded over paths like
Source->ITR->PETR->PITR->ETR->Destination, which may show an Source->ITR->PETR->PITR->ETR->Destination, which may show an
excessive stretch factor and degraded performance. excessive stretch factor and degraded performance.
Traffic Engineering: In some deployment scenarios it might be Traffic Engineering: In some deployment scenarios it might be
desirable to apply different traffic engineering policies for desirable to apply different traffic engineering policies for
LISP and non-LISP traffic. A LISP specific EID block would LISP and non-LISP traffic. A LISP specific EID block would
allow improved traffic engineering capabilities with respect to allow improved traffic engineering capabilities with respect to
LISP vs. non-LISP traffic. In particular, LISP traffic might LISP vs. non-LISP traffic. In particular, LISP traffic might
be identified without having to use DPI techniques in order to be identified without having to use DPI techniques in order to
parse the encapsulated packet, performing instead a simple parse the encapsulated packet, performing instead a simple
inspection of the outer header is sufficient. inspection of the outer header is sufficient.
Transition Mechanism: The existence of an LISP specific EID Block Transition Mechanism: The existence of an LISP specific EID block
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 fragmenting their
addressing space, which would negatively impact the BGP routing addressing space, which would negatively impact the BGP routing
skipping to change at page 4, line 47 skipping to change at page 4, line 52
a 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, the use of a dedicated address block will give a tighter Furthermore, the use of a dedicated address block will give a tighter
control, especially filtering, over the traffic in the initial control, especially filtering, over the traffic in the initial
experimental phase, while 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 prefix is a perfect match
match of such practice. The present document follows the guidelines 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 [RFC5226],
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 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 provide reachability from the non-LISP Internet, EID prefixes may To provide reachability from the non-LISP Internet, EID prefixes may
be restrictively announced in the BGP routing infrastructure by one be restrictively announced in the BGP routing infrastructure by one
or more PITR(s) as more specifics. The intended scope of these more or more PITR(s) as more specifics (longer mask length). The intended
specific prefix advertisements may be deliberated limited by the PITR scope of these more specific prefix advertisements may be deliberated
to reflect local routing policies. limited by the PITR to reflect local routing policies.
The EID block must be used for LISP experimentation and must not be The EID block must be used for LISP experimentation and must not be
advertised in the form of more specific route advertisements in the advertised in the form of more specific route advertisements in the
non-LISP inter-domain routing environment. Interworking between the non-LISP inter-domain routing environment. Interworking between the
EID block sub-prefixes and the non-LISP Internet is done according to EID block sub-prefixes and the non-LISP Internet is done according to
[RFC6832] and [I-D.ietf-lisp-deployment]. [RFC6832] and [RFC7215].
As the LISP adoption progress, the EID prefix space will potentially As the LISP adoption progress, the EID block will potentially help in
help in reducing the impact on the BGP routing infrastructure with reducing the impact on the BGP routing infrastructure with respect to
respect to the case of the same number of adopters using global the case of the same number of adopters using global unicast space
unicast space allocated by RIRs ([MobiArch2007]). From a short-term allocated by RIRs ([MobiArch2007]). From a short-term perspective,
perspective, the EID space offers potentially large aggregation the EID block offers potentially large aggregation capabilities since
capabilities since it is announced by PxTRs possibly concentrating it is announced by PxTRs possibly concentrating several contiguous
several contiguous prefixes. Such trend should continue with even prefixes. Such trend should continue with even lower impact from a
lower impact from a long-term perspective, since more aggressive long-term perspective, since more aggressive aggregation can be used,
aggregation can be used, potentially leading at using few PxTRs potentially leading at using few PxTRs announcing the whole EID block
announcing the whole EID space ([FIABook2010]). ([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 during the experimentation experimental temporary prefix allocated during the experimentation
phase. phase.
The prefix must not be used as normal prefix and announced in the BGP With the exception of PITR case (described above) prefixes out of the
routing infrastructure. EID block must not be announced 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.
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 /32 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 in the new
the new /32 prefix. /32 prefix.
o A /32 prefix is sufficiently large to 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 use of a /32 prefix is in line with previous similar prefix o The use of a /32 prefix is in line with previous similar prefix
allocation for tunneling protocols ([RFC3056]). allocation for tunneling protocols ([RFC3056]).
6. 3+3 Allocation Plan 6. 3+3 Allocation Plan
This document requests IANA to initially assign a /32 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).
IANA should assign the requested address space by beginning 2014 for IANA should assign the requested address space by beginning 2015 for
a duration of 3 (three) initial years (through December 2017), with a duration of 3 (three) initial years (through December 2018), 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 2021). 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 2021) so to give time to the
IETF to define the final size of the EID block and create a IETF to define the final size of the EID block and create a
transition plan. The transition of the EID block into a permanent transition plan. The transition of the EID block into a permanent
allocation has the potential to pose policy issues (as recognized in allocation has the potential to pose policy issues (as recognized in
[RFC2860], section 4.3) and hence discussion with the IANA, the RIR [RFC2860], section 4.3) and hence discussion with the IANA, the RIR
communities, and the IETF community will be necessary to determine communities, and the IETF community will be necessary to determine
appropriate policy for permanent EID prefix allocation and appropriate policy for permanent EID block allocation and management.
management. Note as well that the final permanent allocation may Note as well that the final permanent allocation may differ from the
differ from the initial experimental assignment, hence, the initial experimental assignment, hence, it is recommended not to
experimental EID block should not be hard-coded in any way on LISP- hard-code in any way the experimental EID block on LISP-capable
capable devices. 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 2018 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 /32 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 EID block for the initial 3
3 years period (and the optional 3 more years) is detailed in years period (and the optional 3 more years) is detailed in
[I-D.iannone-lisp-eid-block-mgmnt]. [I-D.ietf-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,
PITRs will attract traffic destined to LISP sites in order to PITRs will attract traffic destined to LISP sites in order to
encapsulate and forward it toward the specific destination LISP site. encapsulate and forward it toward the specific destination LISP site.
Routers in the Legacy Internet must treat announcements of prefixes Routers in the Legacy Internet must treat announcements of prefixes
from the IPv6 EID Block as normal announcements, applying best from the IPv6 EID block as normal announcements, applying best
current practice for traffic engineering and security. current practice for traffic engineering and security.
Even in a LISP site, not all routers need to run LISP elements. In Even in a LISP site, not all routers need to run LISP elements. In
particular, routers that are not at the border of the local domain, particular, routers that are not at the border of the local domain,
used only for intra-domain routing, do not need to provide any used only for intra-domain routing, do not need to provide any
specific LISP functionality but must be able to route traffic using specific LISP functionality but must be able to route traffic using
addresses in the IPv6 EID Block. addresses in the IPv6 EID block.
For the above-mentioned reasons, routers that do not run any LISP For the above-mentioned reasons, routers that do not run any LISP
element, must not include any special handling code or hardware for element, must not include any special handling code or hardware for
addresses in the IPv6 EID Block. In particular, it is recommended addresses in the IPv6 EID block. In particular, it is recommended
that the default router configuration does not handle such addresses that the default router configuration does not handle such addresses
in any special way. Doing differently could prevent communication in any special way. Doing differently could prevent communication
between the Legacy Internet and LISP sites or even break local intra- between the Legacy Internet and LISP sites or even break local intra-
domain connectivity. domain connectivity.
8. Security Considerations 8. Security Considerations
This document does not introduce new security threats in the LISP This document does not introduce new security threats in the LISP
architecture nor in the Legacy Internet architecture. architecture nor in the Legacy Internet architecture.
skipping to change at page 8, line 17 skipping to change at page 8, line 17
This document instructs the IANA to assign a /32 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 | XXXX:YYYY::/32 [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 | 2014 [2] | | Allocation Date | 2015 [2] |
| Termination Date | December 2017 [3] | | Termination Date | December 2018 [3] |
| Source | True [4] | | Source | True [4] |
| Destination | True | | Destination | True |
| Forwardable | True | | Forwardable | True |
| Global | True | | Global | True |
| Reserved-by-protocol | True [5] | | Reserved-by-protocol | True [5] |
+----------------------+--------------------+ +----------------------+--------------------+
[1] XXXX and YYYY values to be provided by IANA before published as [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] RFC. [2] The actual allocation date to be provided by IANA. [3]
According to the 3+3 Plan outlined in this document termination date 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 can be postponed to December 2021. [4] Can be used as a multicast
source as well. [5] To be used as EID space by LISP [RFC6830] enabled source as well. [5] To be used as EID space by LISP [RFC6830] enabled
routers. routers.
Table 1: Global EID Space Table 1: 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. IANA is not requested to issue an AS0 ROA, since the Unicast Space. IANA is not requested to issue an AS0 ROA, since the
Global EID Space will be used for routing purposes. 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 2015 (until December 2018), with
an option to extend it by three years (until December 2020) up on an option to extend it by three years (until December 2021) up on
decision of the IETF (see Section 6). Following the policies decision of the IETF (see Section 6). Following the policies
outlined in [RFC5226], upon IETF Review, by December 2017 decision outlined in [RFC5226], upon IETF Review, by December 2018 decision
should be made on whether to have a permanent EID block assignment. 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 If the IETF review outcome will be that is not worth to have a
reserved prefix as global EID space, the whole /32 will be taken out 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 from the IPv6 Special Purpose Address Registry and put back in the
free pool managed by IANA by end of January 2018. free pool managed by IANA by end of January 2018.
Allocation and management of the Global EID Space is detailed in a Allocation and management of the Global EID Space is detailed in a
different document. Nevertheless, all prefix allocations out 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 for a permanent Global EID Space 2018 unless the IETF Review decides for a permanent Global EID Space
assignment. 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 Damien, Saucez, David Conrad, Scott Bradner, John Curran,
Geoff Huston, Wes George, Arturo Servin, Sander Steffann, Brian Paul Wilson, Geoff Huston, Wes George, Arturo Servin, Sander
Carpenter, Roger Jorgensen, Terry Manderson, Brian Haberman, Adrian Steffann, Brian Carpenter, Roger Jorgensen, Terry Manderson, Brian
Farrel, Job Snijders, Marla Azinger, Chris Morrow, and Peter Haberman, Adrian Farrel, Job Snijders, Marla Azinger, Chris Morrow,
Schoenmaker, for their insightful comments. Thanks as well to all and Peter Schoenmaker, for their insightful comments. Thanks as well
participants to the fruitful discussions on the IETF mailing list. 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- 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- INFR-0009 LISP-Lab Project (www.lisp-lab.org) and the EIT KIC ICT-
Labs SOFNETS Project. Labs SOFNETS Project.
11. References 11. References
11.1. Normative References 11.1. Normative References
[I-D.iannone-lisp-eid-block-mgmnt] [I-D.ietf-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-ietf-lisp-eid-block-mgmnt-01
draft-iannone-lisp-eid-block-mgmnt-03 (work in progress), (work in progress), February 2014.
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 [RFC2860] Carpenter, B., Baker, F., and M. Roberts, "Memorandum of
Understanding Concerning the Technical Work of the Understanding Concerning the Technical Work of the
Internet Assigned Numbers Authority", RFC 2860, June 2000. 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
skipping to change at page 10, line 45 skipping to change at page 10, line 41
11.2. Informative References 11.2. Informative References
[BETA] LISP Beta Network, "http://www.lisp4.net". [BETA] LISP Beta Network, "http://www.lisp4.net".
[FIABook2010] [FIABook2010]
L. Iannone, T. Leva, "Modeling the economics of Loc/ID L. Iannone, T. Leva, "Modeling the economics of Loc/ID
Separation for the Future Internet.", Towards the Future Separation for the Future Internet.", Towards the Future
Internet - Emerging Trends from the European Research, Internet - Emerging Trends from the European Research,
Pages 11-20, ISBN: 9781607505389, IOS Press , May 2010. Pages 11-20, ISBN: 9781607505389, IOS Press , May 2010.
[I-D.ietf-lisp-deployment]
Jakab, L., Cabellos-Aparicio, A., Coras, F., Domingo-
Pascual, J., and D. Lewis, "LISP Network Element
Deployment Considerations", draft-ietf-lisp-deployment-11
(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.
[RFC7215] Jakab, L., Cabellos-Aparicio, A., Coras, F., Domingo-
Pascual, J., and D. Lewis, "Locator/Identifier Separation
Protocol (LISP) Network Element Deployment
Considerations", RFC 7215, April 2014.
Appendix A. LISP Terminology Appendix A. LISP Terminology
LISP operates on two name spaces and introduces several new network LISP operates on two name spaces and introduces several new network
elements. To facilitate the reading, this section provides high- elements. To facilitate the reading, this section provides high-
level definitions of the LISP name spaces and network elements and, level definitions of the LISP name spaces and network elements and,
as such, it must not be considered as an authoritative source. The as such, it must not be considered as an authoritative source. The
reference to the authoritative document for each term is included in reference to the authoritative document for each term is included in
every term description. every term description.
Legacy Internet: The portion of the Internet that does not run LISP Legacy Internet: The portion of the Internet that does not run LISP
skipping to change at page 13, line 40 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 09 Posted July 2014.
o Few Editorial modifications as requested by D. Saucez, as
shepherd, during the write up of the document.
o Allocation date postponed to beginning 2015, as suggested by D.
Saucez.
Version 08 Posted January 2014. Version 08 Posted January 2014.
o Modified Section 4 as suggested by G. Houston. 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.
skipping to change at page 15, line 39 skipping to change at page 15, line 39
o Added the present section to keep track of changes. o Added the present section to keep track of changes.
o Rename of draft-meyer-lisp-eid-block-02.txt. o Rename of draft-meyer-lisp-eid-block-02.txt.
Authors' Addresses Authors' Addresses
Luigi Iannone Luigi Iannone
Telecom ParisTech Telecom ParisTech
Email: luigi.iannone@telecom-paristech.fr Email: ggx@gigix.net
Darrel Lewis Darrel Lewis
Cisco Systems, Inc. Cisco Systems, Inc.
Email: darlewis@cisco.com Email: darlewis@cisco.com
David Meyer David Meyer
Brocade Brocade
Email: dmm@1-4-5.net Email: dmm@1-4-5.net
 End of changes. 43 change blocks. 
86 lines changed or deleted 91 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/