draft-ietf-lisp-eid-block-13.txt   rfc7954.txt 
Network Working Group L. Iannone Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) L. Iannone
Internet-Draft Telecom ParisTech Request for Comments: 7954 Telecom ParisTech
Intended status: Experimental D. Lewis Category: Experimental D. Lewis
Expires: August 29, 2016 Cisco Systems, Inc. ISSN: 2070-1721 Cisco Systems, Inc.
D. Meyer D. Meyer
Brocade Brocade
V. Fuller V. Fuller
February 26, 2016 September 2016
LISP EID Block Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP) Endpoint Identifier (EID) Block
draft-ietf-lisp-eid-block-13.txt
Abstract Abstract
This is a direction to IANA to allocate a /32 IPv6 prefix for use This document directs IANA to allocate a /32 IPv6 prefix for use with
with the Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP). The prefix will be the Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP). The prefix will be used
used for local intra-domain routing and global endpoint for local intra-domain routing and global endpoint identification, by
identification, by sites deploying LISP as EID (Endpoint IDentifier) sites deploying LISP as Endpoint Identifier (EID) addressing space.
addressing space.
Status of this Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the Status of This Memo
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering This document is not an Internet Standards Track specification; it is
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute published for examination, experimental implementation, and
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- evaluation.
Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months This document defines an Experimental Protocol for the Internet
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any community. This document is a product of the Internet Engineering
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference Task Force (IETF). It represents the consensus of the IETF
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." community. It has received public review and has been approved for
publication by the Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG). Not
all documents approved by the IESG are a candidate for any level of
Internet Standard; see Section 2 of RFC 7841.
This Internet-Draft will expire on August 29, 2016. Information about the current status of this document, any errata,
and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at
http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7954.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2016 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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
5. Block Dimension . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 5. Block Dimension . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
6. 3+3 Allocation Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 6. 3+3 Allocation Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
7. Allocation Lifetime . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 7. Allocation Lifetime . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
8. Routing Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 8. Routing Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
9. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 9. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
10. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 10. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
11. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 11. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
12. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 11.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
12.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 11.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
12.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Appendix A. Document Change Log . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
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 terms with respect to
the set of LISP Specifications ( [RFC6830], [RFC6831], [RFC6832], the set of LISP Specifications ([RFC6830], [RFC6831], [RFC6832],
[RFC6833], [RFC6834], [RFC6835], [RFC6836], [RFC6837]), but assumes [RFC6833], [RFC6834], [RFC6835], [RFC6836], [RFC6837]), but it
that the reader is familiar with the LISP terminology. assumes that the reader is familiar with the LISP terminology.
[I-D.ietf-lisp-introduction] provides an introduction to the LISP [LISP-INTRO] provides an introduction to the LISP technology,
technology, including its terminology. 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 the identification of
scenarios in which the existence of a LISP specific address block several scenarios in which the existence of a LISP-specific address
brings technical benefits. Hereafter the most relevant scenarios are block brings technical benefits. The most relevant scenarios are
described: described below:
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 without performing a LISP
LISP mapping lookup. For instance, if an ITR is sending to all mapping lookup. For instance, if an Ingress Tunnel Router
types of destinations (i.e., non-LISP destinations, LISP (ITR) is sending packets to all types of destinations (i.e.,
destinations not in the IPv6 EID block, and LISP destinations non-LISP destinations, LISP destinations not in the IPv6 EID
in the IPv6 EID block) the only way to understand whether or block, and LISP destinations in the IPv6 EID block), the only
not to encapsulate the traffic is to perform a cache lookup way to understand whether or not to encapsulate the traffic is
and, in case of a LISP Cache miss, send a Map-Request to the to perform a cache lookup and, in case of a LISP cache miss,
mapping system. In the meanwhile (waiting the Map-Reply), send a Map-Request to the mapping system. In the meanwhile
packets may be dropped in order to avoid excessive buffering. (while waiting for the Map-Reply), packets may be dropped to
avoid excessive buffering.
Avoid penalizing non-LISP traffic: In certain circumstances it might Avoid penalizing non-LISP traffic: In certain circumstances, it
be desirable to configure a router using LISP features to might be desirable to configure a router using LISP features to
natively forward all packets that have not a destination natively forward all packets that do not have a destination
address in the block, hence, no lookup whatsoever is performed address in the block and, hence, no lookup whatsoever is
and packets destined to non-LISP sites are not penalized in any performed and packets destined to non-LISP sites are not
manner. penalized in any 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 Deep Packet Inspection
parse the encapsulated packet, performing instead a simple (DPI) techniques in order to parse the encapsulated packet.
inspection of the outer header is sufficient. Instead, performing a simple 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 for an allocation in the LISP EID block and use it to ask for 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 would not be
announced in the BGP routing infrastructure (cf., Section 4). announced in the BGP routing infrastructure (cf. Section 4).
This approach will allow non-LISP domains to avoid fragmenting This approach will allow non-LISP domains to avoid fragmenting
their already allocated non-LISP addressing space, which may their already allocated non-LISP addressing space, which may
lead to BGP routing table inflation since it may (rightfully) lead to BGP routing table inflation since it may (rightfully)
be announced in the BGP routing infrastructure. be announced in the BGP routing infrastructure.
Limit the impact on BGP routing infrastructure: As described in the Limit the impact on the BGP routing infrastructure: As described in
previous scenario, LISP adopters will avoid fragmenting their the previous scenario, LISP adopters will avoid fragmenting
addressing space, since fragmentation would negatively impact their addressing space, since fragmentation would negatively
the BGP routing infrastructure. Adopters will use addressing impact the BGP routing infrastructure. Adopters will use
space from the EID block, which might be announced in large addressing space from the EID block, which might be announced
aggregates and in a tightly controlled manner only by proxy in large aggregates and in a tightly controlled manner only by
xTRs. Proxy Tunnel Routers (PxTRs).
Is worth mentioning that new use cases can arise in the future, due It is worth mentioning that new use cases may arise in the future,
to new and unforeseen scenarios. due 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 allows for tighter
control, especially filtering, over the traffic in the initial control over the traffic in the initial experimental phase
experimental phase, while facilitating its large-scale deployment. (especially filtering), 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; having a reserved IPv6 prefix enables this practice. The
of such practice. The present document follows the guidelines present document follows the guidelines provided in [RFC3692], with
provided in [RFC3692], with one exception. [RFC3692] suggests the one exception. [RFC3692] suggests the use of values similar to those
use of values similar to those called "Private Use" in [RFC5226], called "Private Use" in [RFC5226], which by definition are not
which by definition are not unique. One of the purposes of the unique. One purpose of the present request to IANA is to guarantee
present request to IANA is to guarantee uniqueness to the EID block. uniqueness to the EID block. The lack thereof would result in a lack
The lack thereof would result in a lack of real utility of a reserved 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 prefixes 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 a 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]. the techniques described in [RFC6832] and [RFC7215].
As the LISP adoption progresses, the EID block may potentially have a As the LISP adoption progresses, the EID block may potentially have a
reduced impact on the BGP routing infrastructure, compared to the reduced impact on the BGP routing infrastructure, compared to the
case of having 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 Regional Internet Registries (RIRs) ([MobiArch2007]).
the EID block offers potentially large aggregation capabilities since From a short-term perspective, the EID block offers potentially large
it is announced by PxTRs possibly concentrating several contiguous aggregation capabilities since it is announced by Proxy Tunnel
prefixes. This trend should continue with even lower impact from a Routers (PxTRs), possibly concentrating several contiguous prefixes.
long-term perspective, since more aggressive aggregation can be used, This trend should continue with even lower impact from a long-term
potentially leading at using few PxTRs announcing the whole EID block perspective, because more aggressive aggregation can be used,
([FIABook2010]). potentially leading to using fewer PxTRs announcing the whole EID
block ([FIABook2010]).
The EID block will be used only at configuration level, it is The EID block will be used only at the configuration level, so it is
recommended not to hard-code in any way the IPv6 EID block in the recommended not to hard-code the IPv6 EID block in the router
router hardware. This allows avoiding locking out sites that may hardware in any way. This prevents locking out sites that may want
want to switch to LISP while keeping their own IPv6 prefix, which is to switch to LISP while keeping their own IPv6 prefix, which is not
not in the IPv6 EID block. Furthermore, in the case of a future 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 in Section 8) prefixes out With the exception of the Proxy Ingress Tunnel Router (PITR) case
of the EID block must not be announced in the BGP routing (described in Section 8), prefixes out of the EID block must not be
infrastructure. 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 the /32 prefix is sufficiently large
cover initial allocation and requests for prefixes in the EID to 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 appears 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 the EIDs in the
/32 prefix. new /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 Per this document, IANA has initially assigned 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.
Separation Protocol).
IANA allocates the requested address space by MMMM/YYYY0 for a
duration of 3 (three) initial years (through MMMM/YYYY3), with an
option to extend this period by 3 (three) more years (until MMMM/
YYYY6). By the end of the first period, the IETF will provide a
decision on whether to transform the prefix in a permanent assignment
or to put it back in the free pool (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 IANA allocated the requested address space in September 2016 for a
document with the year of publication as RFC plus 6 years, e.g., if duration of 3 (three) years (through September 2019), with an option
published in 2016 then put 2022.] to extend this period by 3 (three) more years (until September 2022).
By the end of the first period, the IETF will provide a decision on
whether to transform the prefix into a permanent assignment or to put
it back in the free pool (see Section 7 for more information).
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 into a permanent allocation, the EID block allocation period will be
extended for three years (until MMMM/YYYY6) so to give time to the extended for three years (until September 2022) to give the IETF time
IETF to define the final size of the EID block and create a to define the final size of the EID block and create a transition
transition plan. The transition of the EID block into a permanent plan. The transition of the EID block into a permanent allocation
allocation has the potential to pose policy issues (as recognized in might pose policy issues (as recognized in [RFC2860], Section 4.3);
[RFC2860], section 4.3) and hence discussion with the IANA, the RIR therefore, discussion with the IANA, the RIR communities, and the
communities, and the IETF community will be necessary to determine IETF community will be necessary to determine the appropriate policy
appropriate policy for permanent EID block allocation and management. for permanent EID-block allocation and management. Note as well that
Note as well that the final permanent allocation may differ from the the final permanent allocation may differ from the initial
initial experimental assignment, hence, it is recommended not to experimental assignment; hence, it is recommended not to hard-code
hard-code in any way the experimental EID block on LISP-capable the experimental EID block on LISP-capable devices in any way.
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 terminate the
experimental use, by MMMM/YYYY3 all temporary prefix allocations in experimental-use EID block, all temporary prefix allocations in this
such address range must expire and be released, so that the entire address range must expire and be released by September 2019, so that
/32 is returned to the free pool. the entire /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-year
years period (and the optional 3 more years) is detailed in period (and the optional 3 more years) is detailed in [RFC7955].
[I-D.ietf-lisp-eid-block-mgmnt].
7. Allocation Lifetime 7. Allocation Lifetime
If no explicit action is carried out by the end of the experiment (by If no explicit action is carried out by the end of the experiment (by
MMMM/YYYY3) it is automatically considered that there was no September 2019), it is automatically considered that there was not
sufficient interest in having a permanent allocation and the address sufficient interest in having a permanent allocation; therefore, the
block will be returned to the free pool. address block will be returned to the free pool.
Otherwise, if the LISP Working Group recognizes that there is value Otherwise, if the LISP working group recognizes that there is value
in having a permanent allocation then explicit action is needed. in having a permanent allocation, then explicit action is needed.
In order to trigger the process for a permanent allocation a document In order to trigger the process for a permanent allocation, a
is required. Such document has to articulate the rationale why a document is required. Such a document has to articulate the
permanent allocation would be beneficial. More specifically, the rationale for why a permanent allocation would be beneficial. More
document has to detail the experience gained during experimentation specifically, the document has to detail the experience gained during
and all of the technical benefits provided by the use of a LISP experimentation and all of the technical benefits provided by the use
specific prefix. Such technical benefits are expected to lay in the of a LISP-specific prefix. Such technical benefits are expected to
scenarios described in Section 3, however, new unforeseen benefits lay in the scenarios described in Section 3. However, new and
may appear during experimentation. The description should be unforeseen benefits may appear during experimentation. The
sufficiently articulate so to allow to provide an estimation of what description should be sufficiently articulate that the needed size of
should be the size of the permanent allocation. Note however that, the permanent allocation can be estimated. However, note that, as
as explained in Section 6, it is up to IANA to decide which address 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 block will be used as a permanent allocation and that such a block
different from the temporary experimental allocation. may be different from the temporary experimental allocation.
8. Routing Considerations 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 for 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 practices 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 not handle such addresses in
in any special way. Doing differently could prevent communication 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.
9. 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.
10. IANA Considerations 10. IANA Considerations
This document instructs the IANA to assign a /32 IPv6 prefix for use IANA has assigned a /32 IPv6 prefix for use as the global EID space
as the global LISP EID space using a hierarchical allocation as for LISP using a hierarchical allocation as outlined in [RFC5226] and
outlined in [RFC5226] and summarized in Table 1. summarized in Table 1. The assigned block is from the 2001:5 global
unicast space.
This document does not specify any specific value for the requested IANA is not requested to issue an AS0 Route Origin Attestation (ROA
address block but suggests that should come from the 2000::/3 Global [RFC6491]), because the global EID space is be used for routing
Unicast Space. IANA is not requested to issue an AS0 ROA (Route purposes.
Origin Attestation [RFC6491]), since the Global EID Space will be
used for routing purposes.
+----------------------+--------------------+ +----------------------+--------------------+
| Attribute | Value | | Attribute | Value |
+----------------------+--------------------+ +----------------------+--------------------+
| Address Block | 2001:5::/32 | | Address Block | 2001:5::/32 |
| Name | EID Space for LISP | | Name | EID Space for LISP |
| RFC | [This Document] | | RFC | RFC 7954 |
| Allocation Date | 2015 | | Allocation Date | September 2016 |
| Termination Date | MMMM/YYYY3 [1] | | Termination Date | September 2019 [1] |
| Source | True [2] | | Source | True [2] |
| Destination | True | | Destination | True |
| Forwardable | True | | Forwardable | True |
| Global | True | | Global | True |
| Reserved-by-protocol | True [3] | | Reserved-by-protocol | True [3] |
+----------------------+--------------------+ +----------------------+--------------------+
[1] According to the 3+3 Plan outlined in this document termination [1] According to the 3+3 Plan outlined in this document, the
date can be postponed to MMMM/YYYY6. [2] Can be used as a multicast termination date can be postponed to September 2022.
source as well. [3] To be used as EID space by LISP [RFC6830] enabled [2] Can be used as a multicast source as well.
routers. [3] To be used as EID space by routers enabled by LISP [RFC6830].
Table 1: Global EID Space
[IANA: Please update the Termination Date and footnote [1] in the Table 1: Global EID Space
Special-Purpose Address Registry when the I-D is published as RFC.]
The reserved address space is requested for a period of time of three The reserved address space is requested for an initial 3-year period
initial years starting in MMMM/YYYY0 (until MMMM/YYYY3), with an starting in September 2016 (until September 2019), with an option to
option to extend it by three years (until MMMM/YYYY6) up on decision extend it by three years (until September 2022) upon the decision of
of the IETF (see Section 6 and Section 7). Following the policies the IETF (see Sections 6 and 7). Following the policies outlined in
outlined in [RFC5226], upon IETF Review, by MMMM/YYYY3 decision [RFC5226], upon IETF Review, the decision should be made on whether
should be made on whether to have a permanent EID block assignment. to have a permanent EID block assignment by September 2019. If no
If no explicit action is taken or if the IETF review outcome will be explicit action is taken or, if the IETF Review outcome is that it is
that is not worth to have a reserved prefix as global EID space, the not worth having a reserved prefix as a global EID space, the whole
whole /32 will be taken out from the IPv6 Special Purpose Address /32 will be taken out from the "IANA IPv6 Special-Purpose Address
Registry and put back in the free pool managed by IANA. 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
different document. Nevertheless, all prefix allocations out of this [RFC7955]. Nevertheless, all prefix allocations out of this space
space must be temporary and no allocation must go beyond MMMM/YYYY3 must be temporary and no allocation must go beyond September 2019
unless the IETF Review decides for a permanent Global EID Space unless the IETF Review decides for a permanent global EID space
assignment. assignment.
11. Acknowledgments 11. References
Special thanks to Roque Gagliano for his suggestions and pointers.
Thanks to Alvaro Retana, Deborah Brungard, Ron Bonica, Damien Saucez,
David Conrad, Scott Bradner, John Curran, Paul Wilson, Geoff Huston,
Wes George, Arturo Servin, Sander Steffann, Brian Carpenter, Roger
Jorgensen, Terry Manderson, Brian Haberman, Adrian Farrel, Job
Snijders, Marla Azinger, Chris Morrow, and Peter Schoenmaker, for
their insightful comments. Thanks as well to all participants to the
fruitful discussions on the IETF mailing list.
The work of Luigi Iannone has been partially supported by the ANR-13-
INFR-0009 LISP-Lab Project (www.lisp-lab.org) and the EIT KIC ICT-
Labs SOFNETS Project.
12. References
12.1. Normative References
[I-D.ietf-lisp-eid-block-mgmnt] 11.1. Normative References
Iannone, L., Jorgensen, R., Conrad, D., and G. Huston,
"LISP EID Block Management Guidelines",
draft-ietf-lisp-eid-block-mgmnt-06 (work in progress),
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, Internet Assigned Numbers Authority", RFC 2860,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2860, June 2000, DOI 10.17487/RFC2860, June 2000,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2860>. <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, DOI 10.17487/ Considered Useful", BCP 82, RFC 3692,
RFC3692, January 2004, DOI 10.17487/RFC3692, January 2004,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3692>. <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3692>.
[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,
DOI 10.17487/RFC5226, May 2008, DOI 10.17487/RFC5226, May 2008,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5226>. <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,
DOI 10.17487/RFC6830, January 2013, DOI 10.17487/RFC6830, January 2013,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6830>. <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, DOI 10.17487/RFC6831, Environments", RFC 6831, DOI 10.17487/RFC6831, January
January 2013, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6831>. 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, DOI 10.17487/ (LISP) and Non-LISP Sites", RFC 6832,
RFC6832, January 2013, DOI 10.17487/RFC6832, January 2013,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6832>. <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,
DOI 10.17487/RFC6833, January 2013, DOI 10.17487/RFC6833, January 2013,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6833>. <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,
DOI 10.17487/RFC6834, January 2013, DOI 10.17487/RFC6834, January 2013,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6834>. <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, DOI 10.17487/ Protocol Internet Groper (LIG)", RFC 6835,
RFC6835, January 2013, DOI 10.17487/RFC6835, January 2013,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6835>. <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, DOI 10.17487/RFC6836, Topology (LISP+ALT)", RFC 6836, DOI 10.17487/RFC6836,
January 2013, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/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, DOI 10.17487/ Routing Locator (RLOC) Database", RFC 6837,
RFC6837, January 2013, DOI 10.17487/RFC6837, January 2013,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6837>. <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6837>.
12.2. Informative References [RFC7955] Iannone, L., Jorgensen, R., Conrad, D., and G. Huston,
"Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP) Endpoint Identifier
(EID) Block Management Guidelines", RFC 7955,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7955, September 2016,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7955>.
[BETA] LISP Beta Network, "http://www.lisp4.net". 11.2. Informative References
[BETA] LISP Beta Network, "Locator/ID Separation Protocol",
<http://www.lisp4.net>.
[FIABook2010] [FIABook2010]
L. Iannone, T. Leva, "Modeling the economics of Loc/ID Iannone, L. and 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, Pages 11-20, ISBN: 9781607505389, IOS Press,
Pages 11-20, ISBN: 9781607505389, IOS Press , May 2010. DOI 10.3233/978-1-60750-539-6-11, May 2010.
[I-D.ietf-lisp-introduction] [LISP-INTRO]
Cabellos-Aparicio, A. and D. Saucez, "An Architectural Cabellos-Aparicio, A. and D. Saucez, "An Architectural
Introduction to the Locator/ID Separation Protocol Introduction to the Locator/ID Separation Protocol
(LISP)", draft-ietf-lisp-introduction-13 (work in (LISP)", Work in Progress, draft-ietf-lisp-introduction-
progress), April 2015. 13, April 2015.
[MobiArch2007] [MobiArch2007]
B. Quoitin, L. Iannone, C. de Launois, O. Bonaventure, Quoitin, B., Iannone, L., de Launois, C., and O.
"Evaluating the Benefits of the Locator/Identifier Bonaventure, "Evaluating the Benefits of the Locator/
Separation", The 2nd ACM-SIGCOMM International Workshop on Identifier Separation", The 2nd ACM-SIGCOMM International
Mobility in the Evolving Internet Architecture Workshop on Mobility in the Evolving Internet
(MobiArch'07) , August 2007. Architecture (MobiArch'07), DOI 10.1145/1366919.1366926,
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, DOI 10.17487/RFC3056, via IPv4 Clouds", RFC 3056, DOI 10.17487/RFC3056, February
February 2001, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3056>. 2001, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3056>.
[RFC6491] Manderson, T., Vegoda, L., and S. Kent, "Resource Public [RFC6491] Manderson, T., Vegoda, L., and S. Kent, "Resource Public
Key Infrastructure (RPKI) Objects Issued by IANA", Key Infrastructure (RPKI) Objects Issued by IANA",
RFC 6491, DOI 10.17487/RFC6491, February 2012, RFC 6491, DOI 10.17487/RFC6491, February 2012,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6491>. <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, DOI 10.17487/RFC7215, Considerations", RFC 7215, DOI 10.17487/RFC7215, April
April 2014, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7215>. 2014, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7215>.
Appendix A. Document Change Log
[RFC Editor: Please remove this section on publication as RFC]
Version 13 Posted MMMM 2016.
o Changed I-D type from "Informational" to "Experimental" as
requested by A. Retana during IESG review.
o Dropped the appendix "LISP Terminology"; replaced by pointer to
the LISP Introduction document.
o Added Section 7 to clarify the process after the 3 years
experimental allocation.
o Modified the dates, introducing variables, so to allow RFC Editor
to easily update dates by publication as RFC.
Version 12 Posted May 2015.
o Fixed typos and references as suggested by the Gen-ART and OPS-DIR
review.
Version 11 Posted April 2015.
o In Section 4, deleted contradictory text on EID prefix
advertisement in non-LISP inter-domain routing environments.
o In Section 3 deleted the "Avoid excessive strech" bullet, because
confusing.
o Deleted last bullet of the list in Section 3 because retundant
w.r.t. global content of the document.
Version 10 Posted January 2015.
o Keep alive version
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.
o Modified Section 4 as suggested by G. Houston.
Version 07 Posted November 2013.
o Modified the document so to request a /32 allocation, as for the
consensus reached during IETF 88th.
Version 06 Posted October 2013.
o Clarified the rationale and intent of the EID block request with
respect to [RFC3692], as suggested by S. Bradner and J. Curran.
o Extended Section 3 by adding the transion scenario (as suggested
by J. Curran) and the TE scenario. The other scenarios have been
also edited.
o Section 6 has been re-written to introduce the 3+3 allocation plan
as suggested by B. Haberman and discussed during 86th IETF.
o Section 10 has also been updated to the 3+3 years allocation plan.
o Moved Section 11 at the end of the document.
o Changed the original Definition of terms to an appendix.
Version 05 Posted September 2013.
o No changes.
Version 04 Posted February 2013.
o Added Table 1 as requested by IANA.
o Transformed the prefix request in a temporary request as suggested
by various comments during IETF Last Call.
o Added discussion about short/long term impact on BGP in Section 4
as requested by B. Carpenter.
Version 03 Posted November 2012.
o General review of Section 5 as requested by T. Manderson and B.
Haberman.
o Dropped RFC 2119 Notation, as requested by A. Farrel and B.
Haberman.
o Changed "IETF Consensus" to "IETF Review" as pointed out by Roque
Gagliano.
o Changed every occurrence of "Map-Server" and "Map-Resolver" with
"Map Server" and "Map Resolver" to make the document consistent
with [RFC6833]. Thanks to Job Snijders for pointing out the
issue.
Version 02 Posted April 2012.
o Fixed typos, nits, references.
o Deleted reference to IANA allocation policies.
Version 01 Posted October 2011.
o Added Section 5.
Version 00 Posted July 2011.
o Updated section "IANA Considerations"
o Added section "Rationale and Intent" explaining why the EID block
allocation is useful.
o Added section "Expected Use" explaining how sites can request and
use a prefix in the IPv6 EID Block.
o Added section "Action Plan" suggesting IANA to avoid allocating
address space adjacent the allocated EID block in order to
accommodate future EID space requests.
o Added section "Routing Consideration" describing how routers not Acknowledgments
running LISP deal with the requested address block.
o Added the present section to keep track of changes. Special thanks to Roque Gagliano for his suggestions and pointers.
Thanks to Alvaro Retana, Deborah Brungard, Ron Bonica, Damien Saucez,
David Conrad, Scott Bradner, John Curran, Paul Wilson, Geoff Huston,
Wes George, Arturo Servin, Sander Steffann, Brian Carpenter, Roger
Jorgensen, Terry Manderson, Brian Haberman, Adrian Farrel, Job
Snijders, Marla Azinger, Chris Morrow, and Peter Schoenmaker for
their insightful comments. Thanks as well to all participants for
the fruitful discussions on the IETF mailing list.
o Rename of draft-meyer-lisp-eid-block-02.txt. The work of Luigi Iannone has been partially supported by the
ANR-13-INFR-0009 LISP-Lab Project <www.lisp-lab.org> and the EIT KIC
ICT-Labs SOFNETS Project.
Authors' Addresses Authors' Addresses
Luigi Iannone Luigi Iannone
Telecom ParisTech Telecom ParisTech
Email: ggx@gigix.net Email: ggx@gigix.net
Darrel Lewis Darrel Lewis
Cisco Systems, Inc. Cisco Systems, Inc.
 End of changes. 71 change blocks. 
406 lines changed or deleted 253 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.45. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/