GENWiki

Premier IT Outsourcing and Support Services within the UK

User Tools

Site Tools


rfc:rfc7954

Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) L. Iannone Request for Comments: 7954 Telecom ParisTech Category: Experimental D. Lewis ISSN: 2070-1721 Cisco Systems, Inc.

                                                              D. Meyer
                                                               Brocade
                                                             V. Fuller
                                                        September 2016

Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP) Endpoint Identifier (EID) Block

Abstract

 This document directs IANA to allocate a /32 IPv6 prefix for use with
 the Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP).  The prefix will be used
 for local intra-domain routing and global endpoint identification, by
 sites deploying LISP as Endpoint Identifier (EID) addressing space.

Status of This Memo

 This document is not an Internet Standards Track specification; it is
 published for examination, experimental implementation, and
 evaluation.
 This document defines an Experimental Protocol for the Internet
 community.  This document is a product of the Internet Engineering
 Task Force (IETF).  It represents the consensus of the IETF
 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.
 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.

Iannone, et al. Experimental [Page 1] RFC 7954 LISP EID Block September 2016

Copyright Notice

 Copyright (c) 2016 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
 document authors.  All rights reserved.
 This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
 Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
 (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
 publication of this document.  Please review these documents
 carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
 to this document.  Code Components extracted from this document must
 include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
 the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
 described in the Simplified BSD License.

Table of Contents

 1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
 2.  Definition of Terms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
 3.  Rationale and Intent  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
 4.  Expected Use  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
 5.  Block Dimension . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
 6.  3+3 Allocation Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
 7.  Allocation Lifetime . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
 8.  Routing Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
 9.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
 10. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
 11. References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
   11.1.  Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
   11.2.  Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
 Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
 Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12

Iannone, et al. Experimental [Page 2] RFC 7954 LISP EID Block September 2016

1. Introduction

 This document directs the IANA to allocate a /32 IPv6 prefix for use
 with the Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP [RFC6830]), LISP Map-
 Server ([RFC6833]), LISP Alternative Topology (LISP+ALT [RFC6836])
 (or other) mapping systems, and LISP Interworking ([RFC6832]).
 This block will be used as global Endpoint Identifier (EID) space.

2. Definition of Terms

 The present document does not introduce any new terms with respect to
 the set of LISP Specifications ([RFC6830], [RFC6831], [RFC6832],
 [RFC6833], [RFC6834], [RFC6835], [RFC6836], [RFC6837]), but it
 assumes that the reader is familiar with the LISP terminology.
 [LISP-INTRO] provides an introduction to the LISP technology,
 including its terminology.

3. Rationale and Intent

 Discussion within the LISP working group led to the identification of
 several scenarios in which the existence of a LISP-specific address
 block brings technical benefits.  The most relevant scenarios are
 described below:
 Early LISP destination detection:  With the current specifications,
       there is no direct way to detect whether or not a certain
       destination is in a LISP domain without performing a LISP
       mapping lookup.  For instance, if an Ingress Tunnel Router
       (ITR) is sending packets to all types of destinations (i.e.,
       non-LISP destinations, LISP destinations not in the IPv6 EID
       block, and LISP destinations in the IPv6 EID block), the only
       way to understand whether or 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 mapping system.  In the meanwhile
       (while waiting for the Map-Reply), packets may be dropped to
       avoid excessive buffering.
 Avoid penalizing non-LISP traffic:  In certain circumstances, it
       might be desirable to configure a router using LISP features to
       natively forward all packets that do not have a destination
       address in the block and, hence, no lookup whatsoever is
       performed and packets destined to non-LISP sites are not
       penalized in any manner.

Iannone, et al. Experimental [Page 3] RFC 7954 LISP EID Block September 2016

 Traffic Engineering:  In some deployment scenarios, it might be
       desirable to apply different traffic-engineering policies for
       LISP and non-LISP traffic.  A LISP-specific EID block would
       allow improved traffic-engineering capabilities with respect to
       LISP vs. non-LISP traffic.  In particular, LISP traffic might
       be identified without having to use Deep Packet Inspection
       (DPI) techniques in order to parse the encapsulated packet.
       Instead, performing a simple inspection of the outer header is
       sufficient.
 Transition Mechanism:  The existence of a LISP-specific EID block may
       prove useful in transition scenarios.  A non-LISP domain would
       ask for an allocation in the LISP EID block and use it to
       deploy LISP in its network.  Such allocation would not be
       announced in the BGP routing infrastructure (cf. Section 4).
       This approach will allow non-LISP domains to avoid fragmenting
       their already allocated non-LISP addressing space, which may
       lead to BGP routing table inflation since it may (rightfully)
       be announced in the BGP routing infrastructure.
 Limit the impact on the BGP routing infrastructure:  As described in
       the previous scenario, LISP adopters will avoid fragmenting
       their addressing space, since fragmentation would negatively
       impact the BGP routing infrastructure.  Adopters will use
       addressing space from the EID block, which might be announced
       in large aggregates and in a tightly controlled manner only by
       Proxy Tunnel Routers (PxTRs).
 It is worth mentioning that new use cases may arise in the future,
 due to new and unforeseen scenarios.
 Furthermore, the use of a dedicated address block allows for tighter
 control over the traffic in the initial experimental phase
 (especially filtering), while facilitating its large-scale
 deployment.
 [RFC3692] considers assigning experimental and testing numbers
 useful; having a reserved IPv6 prefix enables this practice.  The
 present document follows the guidelines provided in [RFC3692], with
 one exception.  [RFC3692] suggests the use of values similar to those
 called "Private Use" in [RFC5226], which by definition are not
 unique.  One purpose of the 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 IPv6 prefix.

Iannone, et al. Experimental [Page 4] RFC 7954 LISP EID Block September 2016

4. Expected Use

 Sites planning to deploy LISP may request a prefix in the IPv6 EID
 block.  Such prefixes will be used for routing and endpoint
 identification inside the site requesting it.  Mappings related to
 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).
 The EID block must be used for LISP experimentation and must not be
 advertised in the form of more specific route advertisements in the
 non-LISP inter-domain routing environment.  Interworking between the
 EID block sub-prefixes and the non-LISP Internet is done according to
 the techniques described in [RFC6832] and [RFC7215].
 As the LISP adoption progresses, the EID block may potentially have a
 reduced impact on the BGP routing infrastructure, compared to the
 case of having the same number of adopters using global unicast space
 allocated by Regional Internet Registries (RIRs) ([MobiArch2007]).
 From a short-term perspective, the EID block offers potentially large
 aggregation capabilities since it is announced by Proxy Tunnel
 Routers (PxTRs), possibly concentrating several contiguous prefixes.
 This trend should continue with even lower impact from a long-term
 perspective, because more aggressive aggregation can be used,
 potentially leading to using fewer PxTRs announcing the whole EID
 block ([FIABook2010]).
 The EID block will be used only at the configuration level, so it is
 recommended not to hard-code the IPv6 EID block in the router
 hardware in any way.  This prevents locking out sites that may 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
 permanent allocation, the allocated prefix may differ from the
 experimental temporary prefix allocated during the experimentation
 phase.
 With the exception of the Proxy Ingress Tunnel Router (PITR) case
 (described in Section 8), prefixes out of the EID block must not be
 announced in the BGP routing infrastructure.

5. Block Dimension

 The working group reached consensus on an initial allocation of a /32
 prefix.  The reason of such consensus is manifold:
 o  The working group agreed that the /32 prefix is sufficiently large
    to cover initial allocation and requests for prefixes in the EID
    space in the next few years for very large-scale experimentation
    and deployment.

Iannone, et al. Experimental [Page 5] RFC 7954 LISP EID Block September 2016

 o  As a comparison, it is worth mentioning that the current LISP Beta
    Network ([BETA]) is using a /32 prefix, with more than 250 sites
    using a /48 sub-prefix.  Hence, a /32 prefix appears sufficiently
    large to allow the current deployment to scale up and be open for
    interoperation with independent deployments using the EIDs in the
    new /32 prefix.
 o  A /32 prefix is sufficiently large to allow deployment of
    independent (commercial) LISP-enabled networks by third parties,
    but may as well boost LISP experimentation and deployment.
 o  The use of a /32 prefix is in line with previous similar prefix
    allocation for tunneling protocols ([RFC3056]).

6. 3+3 Allocation Plan

 Per this document, IANA has initially assigned a /32 prefix out of
 the IPv6 addressing space for use as EID in LISP.
 IANA allocated the requested address space in September 2016 for a
 duration of 3 (three) years (through September 2019), with an option
 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
 into a permanent allocation, the EID block allocation period will be
 extended for three years (until September 2022) to give the IETF time
 to define the final size of the EID block and create a transition
 plan.  The transition of the EID block into a permanent allocation
 might pose policy issues (as recognized in [RFC2860], Section 4.3);
 therefore, discussion with the IANA, the RIR communities, and the
 IETF community will be necessary to determine the appropriate policy
 for permanent EID-block allocation and management.  Note as well that
 the final permanent allocation may differ from the initial
 experimental assignment; hence, it is recommended not to hard-code
 the experimental EID block on LISP-capable devices in any way.
 In the latter case, i.e., if the IETF decides to terminate the
 experimental-use EID block, all temporary prefix allocations in this
 address range must expire and be released by September 2019, so that
 the entire /32 is returned to the free pool.
 The allocation and management of the EID block for the initial 3-year
 period (and the optional 3 more years) is detailed in [RFC7955].

Iannone, et al. Experimental [Page 6] RFC 7954 LISP EID Block September 2016

7. Allocation Lifetime

 If no explicit action is carried out by the end of the experiment (by
 September 2019), it is automatically considered that there was not
 sufficient interest in having a permanent allocation; therefore, 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 a document has to articulate the
 rationale for 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 and
 unforeseen benefits may appear during experimentation.  The
 description should be sufficiently articulate that the needed size of
 the permanent allocation can be estimated.  However, note that, as
 explained in Section 6, it is up to IANA to decide which address
 block will be used as a permanent allocation and that such a block
 may be different from the temporary experimental allocation.

8. Routing Considerations

 In order to provide connectivity between the Legacy Internet and LISP
 sites, PITRs announcing large aggregates (ideally one single, large
 aggregate) of the IPv6 EID block could be deployed.  By doing so,
 PITRs will attract traffic destined for LISP sites in order to
 encapsulate and forward it toward the specific destination LISP site.
 Routers in the Legacy Internet must treat announcements of prefixes
 from the IPv6 EID block as normal announcements, applying best
 current practices for traffic engineering and security.
 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,
 used only for intra-domain routing, do not need to provide any
 specific LISP functionality but must be able to route traffic using
 addresses in the IPv6 EID block.
 For the above-mentioned reasons, routers that do not run any LISP
 element must not include any special handling code or hardware for
 addresses in the IPv6 EID block.  In particular, it is recommended
 that the default router configuration not handle such addresses in
 any special way.  Doing differently could prevent communication
 between the Legacy Internet and LISP sites or even break local intra-
 domain connectivity.

Iannone, et al. Experimental [Page 7] RFC 7954 LISP EID Block September 2016

9. Security Considerations

 This document does not introduce new security threats in the LISP
 architecture nor in the legacy Internet architecture.

10. IANA Considerations

 IANA has assigned a /32 IPv6 prefix for use as the global EID space
 for LISP using a hierarchical allocation as outlined in [RFC5226] and
 summarized in Table 1.  The assigned block is from the 2001:5 global
 unicast space.
 IANA is not requested to issue an AS0 Route Origin Attestation (ROA
 [RFC6491]), because the global EID space is be used for routing
 purposes.
             +----------------------+--------------------+
             | Attribute            | Value              |
             +----------------------+--------------------+
             | Address Block        | 2001:5::/32        |
             | Name                 | EID Space for LISP |
             | RFC                  | RFC 7954           |
             | Allocation Date      | September 2016     |
             | Termination Date     | September 2019 [1] |
             | Source               | True [2]           |
             | Destination          | True               |
             | Forwardable          | True               |
             | Global               | True               |
             | Reserved-by-protocol | True [3]           |
             +----------------------+--------------------+
    [1] According to the 3+3 Plan outlined in this document, the
        termination date can be postponed to September 2022.
    [2] Can be used as a multicast source as well.
    [3] To be used as EID space by routers enabled by LISP [RFC6830].
                          Table 1: Global EID Space
 The reserved address space is requested for an initial 3-year period
 starting in September 2016 (until September 2019), with an option to
 extend it by three years (until September 2022) upon the decision of
 the IETF (see Sections 6 and 7).  Following the policies outlined in
 [RFC5226], upon IETF Review, the decision should be made on whether
 to have a permanent EID block assignment by September 2019.  If no
 explicit action is taken or, if the IETF Review outcome is that it is
 not worth having a reserved prefix as a global EID space, the whole
 /32 will be taken out from the "IANA IPv6 Special-Purpose Address
 Registry" and put back in the free pool managed by IANA.

Iannone, et al. Experimental [Page 8] RFC 7954 LISP EID Block September 2016

 Allocation and management of the global EID space is detailed in
 [RFC7955].  Nevertheless, all prefix allocations out of this space
 must be temporary and no allocation must go beyond September 2019
 unless the IETF Review decides for a permanent global EID space
 assignment.

11. References

11.1. Normative References

 [RFC2860]  Carpenter, B., Baker, F., and M. Roberts, "Memorandum of
            Understanding Concerning the Technical Work of the
            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
            Considered Useful", BCP 82, RFC 3692,
            DOI 10.17487/RFC3692, January 2004,
            <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3692>.
 [RFC5226]  Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an
            IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 5226,
            DOI 10.17487/RFC5226, May 2008,
            <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5226>.
 [RFC6830]  Farinacci, D., Fuller, V., Meyer, D., and D. Lewis, "The
            Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP)", RFC 6830,
            DOI 10.17487/RFC6830, January 2013,
            <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6830>.
 [RFC6831]  Farinacci, D., Meyer, D., Zwiebel, J., and S. Venaas, "The
            Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP) for Multicast
            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,
            "Interworking between Locator/ID Separation Protocol
            (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
            Protocol (LISP) Map-Server Interface", RFC 6833,
            DOI 10.17487/RFC6833, January 2013,
            <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6833>.

Iannone, et al. Experimental [Page 9] RFC 7954 LISP EID Block September 2016

 [RFC6834]  Iannone, L., Saucez, D., and O. Bonaventure, "Locator/ID
            Separation Protocol (LISP) Map-Versioning", RFC 6834,
            DOI 10.17487/RFC6834, January 2013,
            <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6834>.
 [RFC6835]  Farinacci, D. and D. Meyer, "The Locator/ID Separation
            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,
            "Locator/ID Separation Protocol Alternative Logical
            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
            Routing Locator (RLOC) Database", RFC 6837,
            DOI 10.17487/RFC6837, January 2013,
            <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6837>.
 [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>.

11.2. Informative References

 [BETA]     LISP Beta Network, "Locator/ID Separation Protocol",
            <http://www.lisp4.net>.
 [FIABook2010]
            Iannone, L. and T. Leva, "Modeling the economics of Loc/ID
            Separation for the Future Internet", Towards the Future
            Internet, Pages 11-20, ISBN: 9781607505389, IOS Press,
            DOI 10.3233/978-1-60750-539-6-11, May 2010.
 [LISP-INTRO]
            Cabellos-Aparicio, A. and D. Saucez, "An Architectural
            Introduction to the Locator/ID Separation Protocol
            (LISP)", Work in Progress, draft-ietf-lisp-introduction-
            13, April 2015.

Iannone, et al. Experimental [Page 10] RFC 7954 LISP EID Block September 2016

 [MobiArch2007]
            Quoitin, B., Iannone, L., de Launois, C., and O.
            Bonaventure, "Evaluating the Benefits of the Locator/
            Identifier Separation", The 2nd ACM-SIGCOMM International
            Workshop on Mobility in the Evolving Internet
            Architecture (MobiArch'07), DOI 10.1145/1366919.1366926,
            August 2007.
 [RFC3056]  Carpenter, B. and K. Moore, "Connection of IPv6 Domains
            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-
            Pascual, J., and D. Lewis, "Locator/Identifier Separation
            Protocol (LISP) Network Element Deployment
            Considerations", RFC 7215, DOI 10.17487/RFC7215, April
            2014, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7215>.

Acknowledgments

 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.
 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.

Iannone, et al. Experimental [Page 11] RFC 7954 LISP EID Block September 2016

Authors' Addresses

 Luigi Iannone
 Telecom ParisTech
 Email: ggx@gigix.net
 Darrel Lewis
 Cisco Systems, Inc.
 Email: darlewis@cisco.com
 David Meyer
 Brocade
 Email: dmm@1-4-5.net
 Vince Fuller
 Email: vaf@vaf.net

Iannone, et al. Experimental [Page 12]

/data/webs/external/dokuwiki/data/pages/rfc/rfc7954.txt · Last modified: 2016/09/21 23:07 by 127.0.0.1

Donate Powered by PHP Valid HTML5 Valid CSS Driven by DokuWiki