tech-invite   World Map     

IETF     RFCs     Groups     SIP     ABNFs    |    3GPP     Specs     Glossaries     Architecture     IMS     UICC    |    search     info

RFC 7954

Experimental
Pages: 12
Top     in Index     Prev     Next
in Group Index     Prev in Group     Next in Group     Group: LISP

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

 


Top       ToC       Page 1 
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.

[Page 2] 
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

Top      ToC       Page 3 
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.

Top      ToC       Page 4 
   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.

Top      ToC       Page 5 
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.

Top      ToC       Page 6 
   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].

Top      ToC       Page 7 
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.

Top      ToC       Page 8 
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.

Top      ToC       Page 9 
   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>.

Top      ToC       Page 10 
   [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.

Top      ToC       Page 11 
   [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.

Top      ToC       Page 12 
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