idnits 2.17.1 draft-ietf-lisp-eid-block-08.txt: Checking boilerplate required by RFC 5378 and the IETF Trust (see https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info): ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/1id-guidelines.txt: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist : ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Miscellaneous warnings: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == The copyright year in the IETF Trust and authors Copyright Line does not match the current year -- The document date (January 31, 2014) is 3731 days in the past. Is this intentional? Checking references for intended status: Informational ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- Looks like a reference, but probably isn't: '1' on line 325 -- Looks like a reference, but probably isn't: '2' on line 326 -- Looks like a reference, but probably isn't: '3' on line 326 -- Looks like a reference, but probably isn't: '4' on line 328 -- Looks like a reference, but probably isn't: '5' on line 329 ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 2434 (Obsoleted by RFC 5226) ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 5226 (Obsoleted by RFC 8126) ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 6830 (Obsoleted by RFC 9300, RFC 9301) ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 6833 (Obsoleted by RFC 9301) ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 6834 (Obsoleted by RFC 9302) == Outdated reference: A later version (-12) exists of draft-ietf-lisp-deployment-11 Summary: 5 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 2 warnings (==), 6 comments (--). Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about the items above. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2 Network Working Group L. Iannone 3 Internet-Draft Telecom ParisTech 4 Intended status: Informational D. Lewis 5 Expires: August 4, 2014 Cisco Systems, Inc. 6 D. Meyer 7 Brocade 8 V. Fuller 9 January 31, 2014 11 LISP EID Block 12 draft-ietf-lisp-eid-block-08.txt 14 Abstract 16 This is a direction to IANA to allocate a /32 IPv6 prefix for use 17 with the Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP). The prefix will be 18 used for local intra-domain routing and global endpoint 19 identification, by sites deploying LISP as EID (Endpoint IDentifier) 20 addressing space. 22 Status of this Memo 24 This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the 25 provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. 27 Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering 28 Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute 29 working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- 30 Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. 32 Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months 33 and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any 34 time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference 35 material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." 37 This Internet-Draft will expire on August 4, 2014. 39 Copyright Notice 41 Copyright (c) 2014 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the 42 document authors. All rights reserved. 44 This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal 45 Provisions Relating to IETF Documents 46 (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of 47 publication of this document. Please review these documents 48 carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect 49 to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must 50 include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of 51 the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as 52 described in the Simplified BSD License. 54 Table of Contents 56 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 57 2. Definition of Terms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 58 3. Rationale and Intent . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 59 4. Expected use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 60 5. Block Dimension . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 61 6. 3+3 Allocation Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 62 7. Routing Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 63 8. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 64 9. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 65 10. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 66 11. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 67 11.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 68 11.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 69 Appendix A. LISP Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 70 Appendix B. Document Change Log . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 71 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 73 1. Introduction 75 This document directs the IANA to allocate a /32 IPv6 prefix for use 76 with the Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP - [RFC6830]), LISP Map 77 Server ([RFC6833]), LISP Alternative Topology (LISP+ALT - [RFC6836]) 78 (or other) mapping systems, and LISP Interworking ([RFC6832]). 80 This block will be used as global Endpoint IDentifier (EID) space. 82 2. Definition of Terms 84 The present document does not introduce any new term with respect to 85 the set of LISP Specifications ( [RFC6830], [RFC6831], [RFC6832], 86 [RFC6833], [RFC6834], [RFC6835], [RFC6836], [RFC6837]). To help the 87 reading of the present document the terminology introduced by LISP is 88 summarized in Appendix A. 90 3. Rationale and Intent 92 Discussion within the LISP Working Group led to identify several 93 scenarios in which the existence of a LISP specific address block 94 brings technical benefits. Hereafter the most relevant scenarios are 95 described: 97 Early LISP destination detection: With the current specifications, 98 there is no direct way to detect whether or not a certain 99 destination is in a LISP domain or not without performing a 100 LISP mapping lookup. For instance, if an ITR is sending to all 101 types of destinations (i.e., non-LISP destinations, LISP 102 destinations not in the IPv6 EID Block, and LISP destinations 103 in the IPv6 EID Block) the only way to understand whether or 104 not to encapsulate the traffic is to perform a cache lookup 105 and, in case of a LISP Cache miss, send a Map-Request to the 106 mapping system. In the meanwhile, packets may be dropped. 108 Avoid penalize non-LISP traffic: In certain circumstances it might 109 be desirable to configure a router using LISP features to 110 natively forward all packets that have not a destination 111 address in the block, hence, no lookup whatsoever is performed 112 and packets destined to non-LISP sites are not penalized in any 113 manner. 115 Avoid excessive stretch: In some deployment scenarios and in order 116 to avoid packet drops, in case of LISP Cache miss packets are 117 forwarded toward a PETR while a mapping lookup is performed 118 over the LISP mapping system. Once a mapping is obtained 119 packets are not forwarded anymore toward the PETR, they are 120 LISP encapsulated and forwarded according to the LISP 121 specifications. The existence of a LISP specific EID block 122 would allow to avoid scenarios with excessive overhead, where 123 the destination is a LISP EID and where (while the mapping is 124 looked up) packets are forwarded over paths like 125 Source->ITR->PETR->PITR->ETR->Destination, which may show an 126 excessive stretch factor and degraded performance. 128 Traffic Engineering: In some deployment scenarios it might be 129 desirable to apply different traffic engineering policies for 130 LISP and non-LISP traffic. A LISP specific EID block would 131 allow improved traffic engineering capabilities with respect to 132 LISP vs. non-LISP traffic. In particular, LISP traffic might 133 be identified without having to use DPI techniques in order to 134 parse the encapsulated packet, performing instead a simple 135 inspection of the outer header is sufficient. 137 Transition Mechanism: The existence of an LISP specific EID Block 138 may prove useful in transition scenarios. A non-LISP domain 139 would ask an allocation in the LISP EID Block and use it to 140 deploy LISP in its network. Such allocation will not be 141 announced in the BGP routing infrastructure (cf., Section 4). 142 This approach will avoid non-LISP domains to fragment their 143 already allocated non-LISP addressing space, which may lead to 144 BGP routing table inflation since it may (rightfully) be 145 announced in the BGP routing infrastructure. 147 Limit the impact on BGP routing infrastructure: As described in the 148 previous scenario, LISP adopters will avoid fragmenting their 149 addressing space, which would negatively impact the BGP routing 150 infrastructure. Adopters will use addressing space from the 151 EID block, which might be announced in large aggregates and in 152 a tightly controlled manner only by proxy xTRs. 154 Is worth to mention that new use cases can arise in the future, due 155 to new and unforeseen scenarios. 157 Furthermore, the use of a dedicated address block will give a tighter 158 control, especially filtering, over the traffic in the initial 159 experimental phase, while facilitating its large-scale deployment. 161 [RFC3692] considers assigning experimental and testing numbers 162 useful, and the request of a reserved IPv6 EID prefix is a perfect 163 match of such practice. The present document follows the guidelines 164 provided in [RFC3692], with one exception. [RFC3692] suggests the 165 use of values similar to those called "Private Use" in [RFC2434], 166 which by definition are not unique. One of the purposes of the 167 present request to IANA is to guarantee uniqueness to the EID block. 168 The lack thereof would result in a lack of real utility of a reserved 169 IPv6 EID prefix. 171 4. Expected use 173 Sites planning to deploy LISP may request a prefix in the IPv6 EID 174 Block. Such prefix will be used for routing and endpoint 175 identification inside the site requesting it. Mappings related to 176 such prefix, or part of it, will be made available through the 177 mapping system in use and registered to one or more Map Server(s). 179 To provide reachability from the non-LISP Internet, EID prefixes may 180 be restrictively announced in the BGP routing infrastructure by one 181 or more PITR(s) as more specifics. The intended scope of these more 182 specific prefix advertisements may be deliberated limited by the PITR 183 to reflect local routing policies. 185 The EID block must be used for LISP experimentation and must not be 186 advertised in the form of more specific route advertisements in the 187 non-LISP inter-domain routing environment. Interworking between the 188 EID block sub-prefixes and the non-LISP Internet is done according to 189 [RFC6832] and [I-D.ietf-lisp-deployment]. 191 As the LISP adoption progress, the EID prefix space will potentially 192 help in reducing the impact on the BGP routing infrastructure with 193 respect to the case of the same number of adopters using global 194 unicast space allocated by RIRs ([MobiArch2007]). From a short-term 195 perspective, the EID space offers potentially large aggregation 196 capabilities since it is announced by PxTRs possibly concentrating 197 several contiguous prefixes. Such trend should continue with even 198 lower impact from a long-term perspective, since more aggressive 199 aggregation can be used, potentially leading at using few PxTRs 200 announcing the whole EID space ([FIABook2010]). 202 The EID Block will be used only at configuration level, it is 203 recommended not to hard-code in any way the IPv6 EID Block in the 204 router hardware. This allows avoiding locking out sites that may 205 want to switch to LISP while keeping their own IPv6 prefix, which is 206 not in the IPv6 EID Block. Furthermore, in the case of a future 207 permanent allocation, the allocated prefix may differ from the 208 experimental temporary prefix allocated during the experimentation 209 phase. 211 The prefix must not be used as normal prefix and announced in the BGP 212 routing infrastructure. 214 5. Block Dimension 216 The working group reached consensus on an initial allocation of a /32 217 prefix. The reason of such consensus is manifold: 219 o The working group agreed that /32 prefix is sufficiently large to 220 cover initial allocation and requests for prefixes in the EID 221 space in the next few years for very large-scale experimentation 222 and deployment. 224 o As a comparison, it is worth mentioning that the current LISP Beta 225 Network ([BETA]) is using a /32 prefix, with more than 250 sites 226 using a /48 sub prefix. Hence, a /32 prefix looks as sufficiently 227 large to allow the current deployment to scale up and be open for 228 interoperation with independent deployments using EIDs space in 229 the new /32 prefix. 231 o A /32 prefix is sufficiently large to allow deployment of 232 independent (commercial) LISP enabled networks by third parties, 233 but may as well boost LISP experimentation and deployment. 235 o The use of a /32 prefix is in line with previous similar prefix 236 allocation for tunneling protocols ([RFC3056]). 238 6. 3+3 Allocation Plan 240 This document requests IANA to initially assign a /32 prefix out of 241 the IPv6 addressing space for use as EID in LISP (Locator/ID 242 Separation Protocol). 244 IANA should assign the requested address space by beginning 2014 for 245 a duration of 3 (three) initial years (through December 2017), with 246 an option to extend this period by 3 (three) more years (until 247 December 2020). By the end of the first period, the IETF will 248 provide a decision on whether to transform the prefix in a permanent 249 assignment or to put it back in the free pool. 251 In the first case, i.e., if the IETF decides to transform the block 252 in a permanent allocation, the EID block allocation period will be 253 extended for three years (until December 2020) so to give time to the 254 IETF to define the final size of the EID block and create a 255 transition plan. The transition of the EID block into a permanent 256 allocation has the potential to pose policy issues (as recognized in 257 [RFC2860], section 4.3) and hence discussion with the IANA, the RIR 258 communities, and the IETF community will be necessary to determine 259 appropriate policy for permanent EID prefix allocation and 260 management. Note as well that the final permanent allocation may 261 differ from the initial experimental assignment, hence, the 262 experimental EID block should not be hard-coded in any way on LISP- 263 capable devices. 265 In the latter case, i.e., if the IETF decides to stop the EID block 266 experimental use, by December 2017 all temporary prefix allocations 267 in such address range must expire and be released, so that by January 268 2018 the entire /32 is returned to the free pool. 270 The allocation and management of the Global EID Space for the initial 271 3 years period (and the optional 3 more years) is detailed in 272 [I-D.iannone-lisp-eid-block-mgmnt]. 274 7. Routing Considerations 276 In order to provide connectivity between the Legacy Internet and LISP 277 sites, PITRs announcing large aggregates (ideally one single large 278 aggregate) of the IPv6 EID Block could be deployed. By doing so, 279 PITRs will attract traffic destined to LISP sites in order to 280 encapsulate and forward it toward the specific destination LISP site. 281 Routers in the Legacy Internet must treat announcements of prefixes 282 from the IPv6 EID Block as normal announcements, applying best 283 current practice for traffic engineering and security. 285 Even in a LISP site, not all routers need to run LISP elements. In 286 particular, routers that are not at the border of the local domain, 287 used only for intra-domain routing, do not need to provide any 288 specific LISP functionality but must be able to route traffic using 289 addresses in the IPv6 EID Block. 291 For the above-mentioned reasons, routers that do not run any LISP 292 element, must not include any special handling code or hardware for 293 addresses in the IPv6 EID Block. In particular, it is recommended 294 that the default router configuration does not handle such addresses 295 in any special way. Doing differently could prevent communication 296 between the Legacy Internet and LISP sites or even break local intra- 297 domain connectivity. 299 8. Security Considerations 301 This document does not introduce new security threats in the LISP 302 architecture nor in the Legacy Internet architecture. 304 9. IANA Considerations 306 This document instructs the IANA to assign a /32 IPv6 prefix for use 307 as the global LISP EID space using a hierarchical allocation as 308 outlined in [RFC5226] and summarized in Table 1. 310 +----------------------+--------------------+ 311 | Attribute | Value | 312 +----------------------+--------------------+ 313 | Address Block | XXXX:YYYY::/32 [1] | 314 | Name | EID Space for LISP | 315 | RFC | [This Document] | 316 | Allocation Date | 2014 [2] | 317 | Termination Date | December 2017 [3] | 318 | Source | True [4] | 319 | Destination | True | 320 | Forwardable | True | 321 | Global | True | 322 | Reserved-by-protocol | True [5] | 323 +----------------------+--------------------+ 325 [1] XXXX and YYYY values to be provided by IANA before published as 326 RFC. [2] The actual allocation date to be provided by IANA. [3] 327 According to the 3+3 Plan outlined in this document termination date 328 can be postponed to December 2020. [4] Can be used as a multicast 329 source as well. [5] To be used as EID space by LISP [RFC6830] enabled 330 routers. 332 Table 1: Global EID Space 334 This document does not specify any specific value for the requested 335 address block but suggests that should come from the 2000::/3 Global 336 Unicast Space. IANA is not requested to issue an AS0 ROA, since the 337 Global EID Space will be used for routing purposes. 339 The reserved address space is requested for a period of time of three 340 initial years starting in beginning 2014 (until December 2017), with 341 an option to extend it by three years (until December 2020) up on 342 decision of the IETF (see Section 6). Following the policies 343 outlined in [RFC5226], upon IETF Review, by December 2017 decision 344 should be made on whether to have a permanent EID block assignment. 345 If the IETF review outcome will be that is not worth to have a 346 reserved prefix as global EID space, the whole /32 will be taken out 347 from the IPv6 Special Purpose Address Registry and put back in the 348 free pool managed by IANA by end of January 2018. 350 Allocation and management of the Global EID Space is detailed in a 351 different document. Nevertheless, all prefix allocations out of this 352 space must be temporary and no allocation must go beyond December 353 2017 unless the IETF Review decides for a permanent Global EID Space 354 assignment. 356 10. Acknowledgments 358 Special thanks to Roque Gagliano for his suggestions and pointers. 359 Thanks to David Conrad, Scott Bradner, John Curran, Paul Wilson, 360 Geoff Huston, Wes George, Arturo Servin, Sander Steffann, Brian 361 Carpenter, Roger Jorgensen, Terry Manderson, Brian Haberman, Adrian 362 Farrel, Job Snijders, Marla Azinger, Chris Morrow, and Peter 363 Schoenmaker, for their insightful comments. Thanks as well to all 364 participants to the fruitful discussions on the IETF mailing list. 366 The work of Luigi Iannone has been partially supported by the ANR-13- 367 INFR-0009 LISP-Lab Project (www.lisp-lab.org) and the EIT KIC ICT- 368 Labs SOFNETS Project. 370 11. References 372 11.1. Normative References 374 [I-D.iannone-lisp-eid-block-mgmnt] 375 Iannone, L., Jorgensen, R., and D. Conrad, "LISP EID Block 376 Management Guidelines", 377 draft-iannone-lisp-eid-block-mgmnt-03 (work in progress), 378 October 2013. 380 [RFC2434] Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an 381 IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 2434, 382 October 1998. 384 [RFC2860] Carpenter, B., Baker, F., and M. Roberts, "Memorandum of 385 Understanding Concerning the Technical Work of the 386 Internet Assigned Numbers Authority", RFC 2860, June 2000. 388 [RFC3692] Narten, T., "Assigning Experimental and Testing Numbers 389 Considered Useful", BCP 82, RFC 3692, January 2004. 391 [RFC4632] Fuller, V. and T. Li, "Classless Inter-domain Routing 392 (CIDR): The Internet Address Assignment and Aggregation 393 Plan", BCP 122, RFC 4632, August 2006. 395 [RFC5226] Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an 396 IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 5226, 397 May 2008. 399 [RFC6830] Farinacci, D., Fuller, V., Meyer, D., and D. Lewis, "The 400 Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP)", RFC 6830, 401 January 2013. 403 [RFC6831] Farinacci, D., Meyer, D., Zwiebel, J., and S. Venaas, "The 404 Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP) for Multicast 405 Environments", RFC 6831, January 2013. 407 [RFC6832] Lewis, D., Meyer, D., Farinacci, D., and V. Fuller, 408 "Interworking between Locator/ID Separation Protocol 409 (LISP) and Non-LISP Sites", RFC 6832, January 2013. 411 [RFC6833] Fuller, V. and D. Farinacci, "Locator/ID Separation 412 Protocol (LISP) Map-Server Interface", RFC 6833, 413 January 2013. 415 [RFC6834] Iannone, L., Saucez, D., and O. Bonaventure, "Locator/ID 416 Separation Protocol (LISP) Map-Versioning", RFC 6834, 417 January 2013. 419 [RFC6835] Farinacci, D. and D. Meyer, "The Locator/ID Separation 420 Protocol Internet Groper (LIG)", RFC 6835, January 2013. 422 [RFC6836] Fuller, V., Farinacci, D., Meyer, D., and D. Lewis, 423 "Locator/ID Separation Protocol Alternative Logical 424 Topology (LISP+ALT)", RFC 6836, January 2013. 426 [RFC6837] Lear, E., "NERD: A Not-so-novel Endpoint ID (EID) to 427 Routing Locator (RLOC) Database", RFC 6837, January 2013. 429 11.2. Informative References 431 [BETA] LISP Beta Network, "http://www.lisp4.net". 433 [FIABook2010] 434 L. Iannone, T. Leva, "Modeling the economics of Loc/ID 435 Separation for the Future Internet.", Towards the Future 436 Internet - Emerging Trends from the European Research, 437 Pages 11-20, ISBN: 9781607505389, IOS Press , May 2010. 439 [I-D.ietf-lisp-deployment] 440 Jakab, L., Cabellos-Aparicio, A., Coras, F., Domingo- 441 Pascual, J., and D. Lewis, "LISP Network Element 442 Deployment Considerations", draft-ietf-lisp-deployment-11 443 (work in progress), December 2013. 445 [MobiArch2007] 446 B. Quoitin, L. Iannone, C. de Launois, O. Bonaventure, 447 "Evaluating the Benefits of the Locator/Identifier 448 Separation", The 2nd ACM-SIGCOMM International Workshop on 449 Mobility in the Evolving Internet Architecture 450 (MobiArch'07) , August 2007. 452 [RFC3056] Carpenter, B. and K. Moore, "Connection of IPv6 Domains 453 via IPv4 Clouds", RFC 3056, February 2001. 455 Appendix A. LISP Terminology 457 LISP operates on two name spaces and introduces several new network 458 elements. To facilitate the reading, this section provides high- 459 level definitions of the LISP name spaces and network elements and, 460 as such, it must not be considered as an authoritative source. The 461 reference to the authoritative document for each term is included in 462 every term description. 464 Legacy Internet: The portion of the Internet that does not run LISP 465 and does not participate in LISP+ALT or any other mapping system. 467 LISP site: A LISP site is a set of routers in an edge network that 468 are under a single technical administration. LISP routers that 469 reside in the edge network are the demarcation points to separate 470 the edge network from the core network. See [RFC6830] for more 471 details. 473 Endpoint ID (EID): An EID is a 32-bit (for IPv4) or 128-bit (for 474 IPv6) value used in the source and destination address fields of 475 the first (most inner) LISP header of a packet. A packet that is 476 emitted by a system contains EIDs in its headers and LISP headers 477 are prepended only when the packet reaches an Ingress Tunnel 478 Router (ITR) on the data path to the destination EID. The source 479 EID is obtained via existing mechanisms used to set a host's 480 "local" IP address. An EID is allocated to a host from an EID- 481 prefix block associated with the site where the host is located. 482 See [RFC6830] for more details. 484 EID-prefix: A power-of-two block of EIDs that are allocated to a 485 site by an address allocation authority. See [RFC6830] for more 486 details. 488 EID-Prefix Aggregate: A set of EID-prefixes said to be aggregatable 489 in the [RFC4632] sense. That is, an EID-Prefix aggregate is 490 defined to be a single contiguous power-of-two EID-prefix block. 491 A prefix and a length characterize such a block. See [RFC6830] 492 for more details. 494 Routing LOCator (RLOC): A RLOC is an IPv4 or IPv6 address of an 495 egress tunnel router (ETR). A RLOC is the output of an EID-to- 496 RLOC mapping lookup. An EID maps to one or more RLOCs. 497 Typically, RLOCs are numbered from topologically aggregatable 498 blocks that are assigned to a site at each point to which it 499 attaches to the global Internet; where the topology is defined by 500 the connectivity of provider networks, RLOCs can be thought of as 501 Provider Aggregatable (PA) addresses. See [RFC6830] for more 502 details. 504 EID-to-RLOC Mapping: A binding between an EID-Prefix and the RLOC- 505 set that can be used to reach the EID-Prefix. The general term 506 "mapping" always refers to an EID-to-RLOC mapping. See [RFC6830] 507 for more details. 509 Ingress Tunnel Router (ITR): An Ingress Tunnel Router (ITR) is a 510 router that accepts receives IP packets from site end-systems on 511 one side and sends LISP-encapsulated IP packets toward the 512 Internet on the other side. The router treats the "inner" IP 513 destination address as an EID and performs an EID-to-RLOC mapping 514 lookup. The router then prepends an "outer" IP header with one of 515 its globally routable RLOCs in the source address field and the 516 result of the mapping lookup in the destination address field. 517 See [RFC6830] for more details. 519 Egress Tunnel Router (ETR): An Egress Tunnel Router (ETR) receives 520 LISP-encapsulated IP packets from the Internet on one side and 521 sends decapsulated IP packets to site end-systems on the other 522 side. An ETR router accepts an IP packet where the destination 523 address in the "outer" IP header is one of its own RLOCs. The 524 router strips the "outer" header and forwards the packet based on 525 the next IP header found. See [RFC6830] for more details. 527 Proxy ITR (PITR): A Proxy-ITR (PITR) acts like an ITR but does so on 528 behalf of non-LISP sites which send packets to destinations at 529 LISP sites. See [RFC6832] for more details. 531 Proxy ETR (PETR): A Proxy-ETR (PETR) acts like an ETR but does so on 532 behalf of LISP sites which send packets to destinations at non- 533 LISP sites. See [RFC6832] for more details. 535 Map Server (MS): A network infrastructure component that learns EID- 536 to-RLOC mapping entries from an authoritative source (typically an 537 ETR). A Map Server publishes these mappings in the distributed 538 mapping system. See [RFC6833] for more details. 540 Map Resolver (MR): A network infrastructure component that accepts 541 LISP Encapsulated Map-Requests, typically from an ITR, quickly 542 determines whether or not the destination IP address is part of 543 the EID namespace; if it is not, a Negative Map-Reply is 544 immediately returned. Otherwise, the Map Resolver finds the 545 appropriate EID-to-RLOC mapping by consulting the distributed 546 mapping database system. See [RFC6833] for more details. 548 The LISP Alternative Logical Topology (ALT): The virtual overlay 549 network made up of tunnels between LISP+ALT Routers. The Border 550 Gateway Protocol (BGP) runs between ALT Routers and is used to 551 carry reachability information for EID-prefixes. The ALT provides 552 a way to forward Map-Requests toward the ETR that "owns" an EID- 553 prefix. See [RFC6836] for more details. 555 ALT Router: The device on which runs the ALT. The ALT is a static 556 network built using tunnels between ALT Routers. These routers 557 are deployed in a roughly-hierarchical mesh in which routers at 558 each level in the topology are responsible for aggregating EID- 559 Prefixes learned from those logically "below" them and advertising 560 summary prefixes to those logically "above" them. Prefix learning 561 and propagation between ALT Routers is done using BGP. When an 562 ALT Router receives an ALT Datagram, it looks up the destination 563 EID in its forwarding table (composed of EID-Prefix routes it 564 learned from neighboring ALT Routers) and forwards it to the 565 logical next-hop on the overlay network. The primary function of 566 LISP+ALT routers is to provide a lightweight forwarding 567 infrastructure for LISP control-plane messages (Map-Request and 568 Map-Reply), and to transport data packets when the packet has the 569 same destination address in both the inner (encapsulating) 570 destination and outer destination addresses ((i.e., a Data Probe 571 packet). See [RFC6836] for more details. 573 Appendix B. Document Change Log 575 Version 08 Posted January 2014. 577 o Modified Section 4 as suggested by G. Houston. 579 Version 07 Posted November 2013. 581 o Modified the document so to request a /32 allocation, as for the 582 consensus reached during IETF 88th. 584 Version 06 Posted October 2013. 586 o Clarified the rationale and intent of the EID block request with 587 respect to [RFC3692], as suggested by S. Bradner and J. Curran. 589 o Extended Section 3 by adding the transion scenario (as suggested 590 by J. Curran) and the TE scenario. The other scenarios have been 591 also edited. 593 o Section 6 has been re-written to introduce the 3+3 allocation plan 594 as suggested by B. Haberman and discussed during 86th IETF. 596 o Section 9 has also been updated to the 3+3 years allocation plan. 598 o Moved Section 10 at the end of the document. 600 o Changed the original Definition of terms to an appendix. 602 Version 05 Posted September 2013. 604 o No changes. 606 Version 04 Posted February 2013. 608 o Added Table 1 as requested by IANA. 610 o Transformed the prefix request in a temporary request as suggested 611 by various comments during IETF Last Call. 613 o Added discussion about short/long term impact on BGP in Section 4 614 as requested by B. Carpenter. 616 Version 03 Posted November 2012. 618 o General review of Section 5 as requested by T. Manderson and B. 619 Haberman. 621 o Dropped RFC 2119 Notation, as requested by A. Farrel and B. 622 Haberman. 624 o Changed "IETF Consensus" to "IETF Review" as pointed out by Roque 625 Gagliano. 627 o Changed every occurrence of "Map-Server" and "Map-Resolver" with 628 "Map Server" and "Map Resolver" to make the document consistent 629 with [RFC6833]. Thanks to Job Snijders for pointing out the 630 issue. 632 Version 02 Posted April 2012. 634 o Fixed typos, nits, references. 636 o Deleted reference to IANA allocation policies. 638 Version 01 Posted October 2011. 640 o Added Section 5. 642 Version 00 Posted July 2011. 644 o Updated section "IANA Considerations" 646 o Added section "Rationale and Intent" explaining why the EID block 647 allocation is useful. 649 o Added section "Expected Use" explaining how sites can request and 650 use a prefix in the IPv6 EID Block. 652 o Added section "Action Plan" suggesting IANA to avoid allocating 653 address space adjacent the allocated EID block in order to 654 accommodate future EID space requests. 656 o Added section "Routing Consideration" describing how routers not 657 running LISP deal with the requested address block. 659 o Added the present section to keep track of changes. 661 o Rename of draft-meyer-lisp-eid-block-02.txt. 663 Authors' Addresses 665 Luigi Iannone 666 Telecom ParisTech 668 Email: luigi.iannone@telecom-paristech.fr 670 Darrel Lewis 671 Cisco Systems, Inc. 673 Email: darlewis@cisco.com 674 David Meyer 675 Brocade 677 Email: dmm@1-4-5.net 679 Vince Fuller 681 Email: vaf@vaf.net