draft-ietf-lisp-eid-block-12.txt   draft-ietf-lisp-eid-block-13.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: Experimental D. Lewis
Expires: November 20, 2015 Cisco Systems, Inc. Expires: August 29, 2016 Cisco Systems, Inc.
D. Meyer D. Meyer
Brocade Brocade
V. Fuller V. Fuller
May 19, 2015 February 26, 2016
LISP EID Block LISP EID Block
draft-ietf-lisp-eid-block-12.txt draft-ietf-lisp-eid-block-13.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 November 20, 2015. This Internet-Draft will expire on August 29, 2016.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2015 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2016 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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 4. Expected use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
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. Allocation Lifetime . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
8. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 8. Routing Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
9. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 9. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
10. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 10. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
11. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 11. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
11.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 12. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
11.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 12.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Appendix A. LISP Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 12.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Appendix B. Document Change Log . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 Appendix A. Document Change Log . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
This document directs the IANA to allocate a /32 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 systems, 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.
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]), but assumes
reading of the present document the terminology introduced by LISP is that the reader is familiar with the LISP terminology.
summarized in Appendix A. [I-D.ietf-lisp-introduction] provides an introduction to the LISP
technology, including its terminology.
3. Rationale and Intent 3. Rationale and Intent
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 (waiting the Map-Reply), mapping system. In the meanwhile (waiting the Map-Reply),
packets may be dropped in order to avoid excessive buffering. packets may be dropped in order to avoid excessive buffering.
Avoid penalize non-LISP traffic: In certain circumstances it might Avoid penalizing 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.
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 a LISP specific EID block may Transition Mechanism: The existence of a LISP specific EID block may
prove useful in transition scenarios. A non-LISP domain would prove useful in transition scenarios. A non-LISP domain would
ask an allocation in the LISP EID block and use it to deploy ask for an allocation in the LISP EID block and use it to
LISP in its network. Such allocation will not be announced in deploy LISP in its network. Such allocation will not be
the BGP routing infrastructure (cf., Section 4). This approach announced in the BGP routing infrastructure (cf., Section 4).
will avoid non-LISP domains to fragment their already allocated This approach will allow non-LISP domains to avoid fragmenting
non-LISP addressing space, which may lead to BGP routing table their already allocated non-LISP addressing space, which may
inflation since it may (rightfully) be announced in the BGP lead to BGP routing table inflation since it may (rightfully)
routing infrastructure. be 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, since fragmentation would negatively impact
infrastructure. Adopters will use addressing space from the the BGP routing infrastructure. Adopters will use addressing
EID block, which might be announced in large aggregates and in space from the EID block, which might be announced in large
a tightly controlled manner only by proxy xTRs. 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 Is worth mentioning 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 prefix is a perfect match useful, and the request of a reserved IPv6 prefix is a perfect 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 [RFC5226], 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 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 prefixes 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).
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 [RFC7215]. [RFC6832] and [RFC7215].
As the LISP adoption progress, the EID block will potentially help in As the LISP adoption progresses, the EID block may potentially have a
reducing the impact on the BGP routing infrastructure with respect to reduced impact on the BGP routing infrastructure, compared to the
the case of the same number of adopters using global unicast space case of having the same number of adopters using global unicast space
allocated by RIRs ([MobiArch2007]). From a short-term perspective, allocated by RIRs ([MobiArch2007]). From a short-term perspective,
the EID block offers potentially large aggregation capabilities since the EID block offers potentially large aggregation capabilities since
it is announced by PxTRs possibly concentrating several contiguous it is announced by PxTRs possibly concentrating several contiguous
prefixes. Such trend should continue with even lower impact from a prefixes. This trend should continue with even lower impact from a
long-term perspective, since more aggressive aggregation can be used, long-term perspective, since more aggressive aggregation can be used,
potentially leading at using few PxTRs announcing the whole EID block potentially leading at using few PxTRs announcing the whole EID block
([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.
With the exception of PITR case (described above) prefixes out of the With the exception of PITR case (described in Section 8) prefixes out
EID block must not be announced in the BGP routing infrastructure. of the 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 appears 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 in the new interoperation with independent deployments using EIDs in 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 2015 for IANA allocates the requested address space by MMMM/YYYY0 for a
a duration of 3 (three) initial years (through December 2018), with duration of 3 (three) initial years (through MMMM/YYYY3), with an
an option to extend this period by 3 (three) more years (until option to extend this period by 3 (three) more years (until MMMM/
December 2021). By the end of the first period, the IETF will YYYY6). By the end of the first period, the IETF will provide a
provide a decision on whether to transform the prefix in a permanent decision on whether to transform the prefix in a permanent assignment
assignment or to put it back in the free pool. or to put it back in the free pool (see Section 7 for more
information).
[RFC Editor: please replace MMMM and all its occurrences in the
document with the month of publication as RFC.]
[RFC Editor: please replace YYYY0 and all its occurrences in the
document with the year of publication as RFC.]
[RFC Editor: please replace YYYY3 and all its occurrences in the
document with the year of publication as RFC plus 3 years, e.g., if
published in 2016 then put 2019.]
[RFC Editor: please replace YYYY6 and all its occurrences in the
document with the year of publication as RFC plus 6 years, e.g., if
published in 2016 then put 2022.]
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 2021) so to give time to the extended for three years (until MMMM/YYYY6) 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 block allocation and management. appropriate policy for permanent EID block allocation and management.
Note as well that the final permanent allocation may differ from the Note as well that the final permanent allocation may differ from the
initial experimental assignment, hence, it is recommended not to initial experimental assignment, hence, it is recommended not to
hard-code in any way the experimental EID block on LISP-capable hard-code in any way the experimental EID block on LISP-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 2018 all temporary prefix allocations experimental use, by MMMM/YYYY3 all temporary prefix allocations in
in such address range must expire and be released, so that by January such address range must expire and be released, so that the entire
2018 the entire /32 is returned to the free pool. /32 is returned to the free pool.
The allocation and management of the EID block for the initial 3 The allocation and management of the EID block for the initial 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.ietf-lisp-eid-block-mgmnt]. [I-D.ietf-lisp-eid-block-mgmnt].
7. Routing Considerations 7. Allocation Lifetime
If no explicit action is carried out by the end of the experiment (by
MMMM/YYYY3) it is automatically considered that there was no
sufficient interest in having a permanent allocation and the address
block will be returned to the free pool.
Otherwise, if the LISP Working Group recognizes that there is value
in having a permanent allocation then explicit action is needed.
In order to trigger the process for a permanent allocation a document
is required. Such document has to articulate the rationale why a
permanent allocation would be beneficial. More specifically, the
document has to detail the experience gained during experimentation
and all of the technical benefits provided by the use of a LISP
specific prefix. Such technical benefits are expected to lay in the
scenarios described in Section 3, however, new unforeseen benefits
may appear during experimentation. The description should be
sufficiently articulate so to allow to provide an estimation of what
should be the size of the permanent allocation. Note however that,
as explained in Section 6, it is up to IANA to decide which address
block will be used as permanent allocation and that such block may be
different from the temporary experimental allocation.
8. 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.
skipping to change at page 7, line 30 skipping to change at page 8, line 23
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 9. 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 10. IANA Considerations
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.
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. IANA is not requested to issue an AS0 ROA (Route
Origin Attestation [RFC6491]), since the Global EID Space will be
used for routing purposes.
+----------------------+--------------------+ +----------------------+--------------------+
| Attribute | Value | | Attribute | Value |
+----------------------+--------------------+ +----------------------+--------------------+
| Address Block | XXXX:YYYY::/32 [1] | | Address Block | 2001:5::/32 |
| Name | EID Space for LISP | | Name | EID Space for LISP |
| RFC | [This Document] | | RFC | [This Document] |
| Allocation Date | 2015 [2] | | Allocation Date | 2015 |
| Termination Date | December 2018 [3] | | Termination Date | MMMM/YYYY3 [1] |
| Source | True [4] | | Source | True [2] |
| Destination | True | | Destination | True |
| Forwardable | True | | Forwardable | True |
| Global | True | | Global | True |
| Reserved-by-protocol | True [5] | | Reserved-by-protocol | True [3] |
+----------------------+--------------------+ +----------------------+--------------------+
[1] XXXX and YYYY values to be provided by IANA before published as [1] According to the 3+3 Plan outlined in this document termination
RFC. [2] The actual allocation date to be provided by IANA. [3] date can be postponed to MMMM/YYYY6. [2] Can be used as a multicast
According to the 3+3 Plan outlined in this document termination date source as well. [3] To be used as EID space by LISP [RFC6830] enabled
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
routers. routers.
Table 1: Global EID Space Table 1: Global EID Space
This document does not specify any specific value for the requested [IANA: Please update the Termination Date and footnote [1] in the
address block but suggests that should come from the 2000::/3 Global Special-Purpose Address Registry when the I-D is published as RFC.]
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 The reserved address space is requested for a period of time of three
initial years starting in beginning 2015 (until December 2018), with initial years starting in MMMM/YYYY0 (until MMMM/YYYY3), with an
an option to extend it by three years (until December 2021) up on option to extend it by three years (until MMMM/YYYY6) up on decision
decision of the IETF (see Section 6). Following the policies of the IETF (see Section 6 and Section 7). Following the policies
outlined in [RFC5226], upon IETF Review, by December 2018 decision outlined in [RFC5226], upon IETF Review, by MMMM/YYYY3 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 no explicit action is taken or if the IETF review outcome will be
reserved prefix as global EID space, the whole /32 will be taken out that is not worth to have a reserved prefix as global EID space, the
from the IPv6 Special Purpose Address Registry and put back in the whole /32 will be taken out from the IPv6 Special Purpose Address
free pool managed by IANA by end of January 2018. Registry and put back in the free pool managed by IANA.
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 MMMM/YYYY3
2018 unless the IETF Review decides for a permanent Global EID Space unless the IETF Review decides for a permanent Global EID Space
assignment. assignment.
10. Acknowledgments 11. Acknowledgments
Special thanks to Roque Gagliano for his suggestions and pointers. Special thanks to Roque Gagliano for his suggestions and pointers.
Thanks to Ron Bonica, Damien Saucez, David Conrad, Scott Bradner, Thanks to Alvaro Retana, Deborah Brungard, Ron Bonica, Damien Saucez,
John Curran, Paul Wilson, Geoff Huston, Wes George, Arturo Servin, David Conrad, Scott Bradner, John Curran, Paul Wilson, Geoff Huston,
Sander Steffann, Brian Carpenter, Roger Jorgensen, Terry Manderson, Wes George, Arturo Servin, Sander Steffann, Brian Carpenter, Roger
Brian Haberman, Adrian Farrel, Job Snijders, Marla Azinger, Chris Jorgensen, Terry Manderson, Brian Haberman, Adrian Farrel, Job
Morrow, and Peter Schoenmaker, for their insightful comments. Thanks Snijders, Marla Azinger, Chris Morrow, and Peter Schoenmaker, for
as well to all participants to the fruitful discussions on the IETF their insightful comments. Thanks as well to all participants to the
mailing list. 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 12. References
11.1. Normative References 12.1. Normative References
[I-D.ietf-lisp-eid-block-mgmnt] [I-D.ietf-lisp-eid-block-mgmnt]
Iannone, L., Jorgensen, R., Conrad, D., and G. Huston, Iannone, L., Jorgensen, R., Conrad, D., and G. Huston,
"LISP EID Block Management Guidelines", "LISP EID Block Management Guidelines",
draft-ietf-lisp-eid-block-mgmnt-04 (work in progress), draft-ietf-lisp-eid-block-mgmnt-06 (work in progress),
December 2014. August 2015.
[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,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2860, June 2000,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2860>.
[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, DOI 10.17487/
RFC3692, January 2004,
[RFC4632] Fuller, V. and T. Li, "Classless Inter-domain Routing <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3692>.
(CIDR): The Internet Address Assignment and Aggregation
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. DOI 10.17487/RFC5226, May 2008,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5226>.
[RFC6830] Farinacci, D., Fuller, V., Meyer, D., and D. Lewis, "The [RFC6830] Farinacci, D., Fuller, V., Meyer, D., and D. Lewis, "The
Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP)", RFC 6830, Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP)", RFC 6830,
January 2013. DOI 10.17487/RFC6830, January 2013,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6830>.
[RFC6831] Farinacci, D., Meyer, D., Zwiebel, J., and S. Venaas, "The [RFC6831] Farinacci, D., Meyer, D., Zwiebel, J., and S. Venaas, "The
Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP) for Multicast Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP) for Multicast
Environments", RFC 6831, January 2013. Environments", RFC 6831, DOI 10.17487/RFC6831,
January 2013, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6831>.
[RFC6832] Lewis, D., Meyer, D., Farinacci, D., and V. Fuller, [RFC6832] Lewis, D., Meyer, D., Farinacci, D., and V. Fuller,
"Interworking between Locator/ID Separation Protocol "Interworking between Locator/ID Separation Protocol
(LISP) and Non-LISP Sites", RFC 6832, January 2013. (LISP) and Non-LISP Sites", RFC 6832, DOI 10.17487/
RFC6832, January 2013,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6832>.
[RFC6833] Fuller, V. and D. Farinacci, "Locator/ID Separation [RFC6833] Fuller, V. and D. Farinacci, "Locator/ID Separation
Protocol (LISP) Map-Server Interface", RFC 6833, Protocol (LISP) Map-Server Interface", RFC 6833,
January 2013. DOI 10.17487/RFC6833, January 2013,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6833>.
[RFC6834] Iannone, L., Saucez, D., and O. Bonaventure, "Locator/ID [RFC6834] Iannone, L., Saucez, D., and O. Bonaventure, "Locator/ID
Separation Protocol (LISP) Map-Versioning", RFC 6834, Separation Protocol (LISP) Map-Versioning", RFC 6834,
January 2013. DOI 10.17487/RFC6834, January 2013,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6834>.
[RFC6835] Farinacci, D. and D. Meyer, "The Locator/ID Separation [RFC6835] Farinacci, D. and D. Meyer, "The Locator/ID Separation
Protocol Internet Groper (LIG)", RFC 6835, January 2013. Protocol Internet Groper (LIG)", RFC 6835, DOI 10.17487/
RFC6835, January 2013,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6835>.
[RFC6836] Fuller, V., Farinacci, D., Meyer, D., and D. Lewis, [RFC6836] Fuller, V., Farinacci, D., Meyer, D., and D. Lewis,
"Locator/ID Separation Protocol Alternative Logical "Locator/ID Separation Protocol Alternative Logical
Topology (LISP+ALT)", RFC 6836, January 2013. Topology (LISP+ALT)", RFC 6836, DOI 10.17487/RFC6836,
January 2013, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6836>.
[RFC6837] Lear, E., "NERD: A Not-so-novel Endpoint ID (EID) to [RFC6837] Lear, E., "NERD: A Not-so-novel Endpoint ID (EID) to
Routing Locator (RLOC) Database", RFC 6837, January 2013. Routing Locator (RLOC) Database", RFC 6837, DOI 10.17487/
RFC6837, January 2013,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6837>.
11.2. Informative References 12.2. 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-introduction]
Cabellos-Aparicio, A. and D. Saucez, "An Architectural
Introduction to the Locator/ID Separation Protocol
(LISP)", draft-ietf-lisp-introduction-13 (work in
progress), April 2015.
[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, DOI 10.17487/RFC3056,
February 2001, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3056>.
[RFC6491] Manderson, T., Vegoda, L., and S. Kent, "Resource Public
Key Infrastructure (RPKI) Objects Issued by IANA",
RFC 6491, DOI 10.17487/RFC6491, February 2012,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6491>.
[RFC7215] Jakab, L., Cabellos-Aparicio, A., Coras, F., Domingo- [RFC7215] Jakab, L., Cabellos-Aparicio, A., Coras, F., Domingo-
Pascual, J., and D. Lewis, "Locator/Identifier Separation Pascual, J., and D. Lewis, "Locator/Identifier Separation
Protocol (LISP) Network Element Deployment Protocol (LISP) Network Element Deployment
Considerations", RFC 7215, April 2014. Considerations", RFC 7215, DOI 10.17487/RFC7215,
April 2014, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7215>.
Appendix A. LISP Terminology
LISP operates on two name spaces and introduces several new network
elements. To facilitate the reading, this section provides high-
level definitions of the LISP name spaces and network elements and,
as such, it must not be considered as an authoritative source. The
reference to the authoritative document for each term is included in
every term description.
Legacy Internet: The portion of the Internet that does not run LISP
and does not participate in LISP+ALT or any other mapping system.
LISP site: A LISP site is a set of routers in an edge network that
are under a single technical administration. LISP routers that
reside in the edge network are the demarcation points to separate
the edge network from the core network. See [RFC6830] for more
details.
Endpoint ID (EID): An EID is a 32-bit (for IPv4) or 128-bit (for
IPv6) value used in the source and destination address fields of
the first (most inner) LISP header of a packet. A packet that is
emitted by a system contains EIDs in its headers and LISP headers
are prepended only when the packet reaches an Ingress Tunnel
Router (ITR) on the data path to the destination EID. The source
EID is obtained via existing mechanisms used to set a host's
"local" IP address. An EID is allocated to a host from an EID-
prefix block associated with the site where the host is located.
See [RFC6830] for more details.
EID-prefix: A power-of-two block of EIDs that are allocated to a
site by an address allocation authority. See [RFC6830] for more
details.
EID-Prefix Aggregate: A set of EID-prefixes said to be aggregatable
in the [RFC4632] sense. That is, an EID-Prefix aggregate is
defined to be a single contiguous power-of-two EID-prefix block.
A prefix and a length characterize such a block. See [RFC6830]
for more details.
Routing LOCator (RLOC): A RLOC is an IPv4 or IPv6 address of an
egress tunnel router (ETR). A RLOC is the output of an EID-to-
RLOC mapping lookup. An EID maps to one or more RLOCs.
Typically, RLOCs are numbered from topologically aggregatable
blocks that are assigned to a site at each point to which it
attaches to the global Internet; where the topology is defined by
the connectivity of provider networks, RLOCs can be thought of as
Provider Aggregatable (PA) addresses. See [RFC6830] for more
details.
EID-to-RLOC Mapping: A binding between an EID-Prefix and the RLOC-
set that can be used to reach the EID-Prefix. The general term
"mapping" always refers to an EID-to-RLOC mapping. See [RFC6830]
for more details.
Ingress Tunnel Router (ITR): An Ingress Tunnel Router (ITR) is a
router that accepts receives IP packets from site end-systems on
one side and sends LISP-encapsulated IP packets toward the
Internet on the other side. The router treats the "inner" IP
destination address as an EID and performs an EID-to-RLOC mapping
lookup. The router then prepends an "outer" IP header with one of
its globally routable RLOCs in the source address field and the
result of the mapping lookup in the destination address field.
See [RFC6830] for more details.
Egress Tunnel Router (ETR): An Egress Tunnel Router (ETR) receives
LISP-encapsulated IP packets from the Internet on one side and
sends decapsulated IP packets to site end-systems on the other
side. An ETR router accepts an IP packet where the destination
address in the "outer" IP header is one of its own RLOCs. The
router strips the "outer" header and forwards the packet based on
the next IP header found. See [RFC6830] for more details.
Proxy ITR (PITR): A Proxy-ITR (PITR) acts like an ITR but does so on Appendix A. Document Change Log
behalf of non-LISP sites which send packets to destinations at
LISP sites. See [RFC6832] for more details.
Proxy ETR (PETR): A Proxy-ETR (PETR) acts like an ETR but does so on [RFC Editor: Please remove this section on publication as RFC]
behalf of LISP sites which send packets to destinations at non-
LISP sites. See [RFC6832] for more details.
Map Server (MS): A network infrastructure component that learns EID- Version 13 Posted MMMM 2016.
to-RLOC mapping entries from an authoritative source (typically an
ETR). A Map Server publishes these mappings in the distributed
mapping system. See [RFC6833] for more details.
Map Resolver (MR): A network infrastructure component that accepts o Changed I-D type from "Informational" to "Experimental" as
LISP Encapsulated Map-Requests, typically from an ITR, quickly requested by A. Retana during IESG review.
determines whether or not the destination IP address is part of
the EID namespace; if it is not, a Negative Map-Reply is
immediately returned. Otherwise, the Map Resolver finds the
appropriate EID-to-RLOC mapping by consulting the distributed
mapping database system. See [RFC6833] for more details.
The LISP Alternative Logical Topology (ALT): The virtual overlay o Dropped the appendix "LISP Terminology"; replaced by pointer to
network made up of tunnels between LISP+ALT Routers. The Border the LISP Introduction document.
Gateway Protocol (BGP) runs between ALT Routers and is used to
carry reachability information for EID-prefixes. The ALT provides
a way to forward Map-Requests toward the ETR that "owns" an EID-
prefix. See [RFC6836] for more details.
ALT Router: The device on which runs the ALT. The ALT is a static o Added Section 7 to clarify the process after the 3 years
network built using tunnels between ALT Routers. These routers experimental allocation.
are deployed in a roughly-hierarchical mesh in which routers at
each level in the topology are responsible for aggregating EID-
Prefixes learned from those logically "below" them and advertising
summary prefixes to those logically "above" them. Prefix learning
and propagation between ALT Routers is done using BGP. When an
ALT Router receives an ALT Datagram, it looks up the destination
EID in its forwarding table (composed of EID-Prefix routes it
learned from neighboring ALT Routers) and forwards it to the
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 o Modified the dates, introducing variables, so to allow RFC Editor
to easily update dates by publication as RFC.
Version 12 Posted May 2015. Version 12 Posted May 2015.
o Fixed typos and references as suggested by the Gen-ART and OPS-DIR o Fixed typos and references as suggested by the Gen-ART and OPS-DIR
review. review.
Version 11 Posted April 2015. Version 11 Posted April 2015.
o In Section 4, deleted contradictory text on EID prefix o In Section 4, deleted contradictory text on EID prefix
advertisement in non-LISP inter-domain routing environments. advertisement in non-LISP inter-domain routing environments.
skipping to change at page 14, line 29 skipping to change at page 13, line 44
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
as suggested by B. Haberman and discussed during 86th IETF. as suggested by B. Haberman and discussed during 86th IETF.
o Section 9 has also been updated to the 3+3 years allocation plan. o Section 10 has also been updated to the 3+3 years allocation plan.
o Moved Section 10 at the end of the document. o Moved Section 11 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 as requested by IANA. o Added Table 1 as requested by IANA.
 End of changes. 60 change blocks. 
221 lines changed or deleted 188 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.42. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/