idnits 2.17.1 draft-iannone-lisp-eid-block-mgmnt-03.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 : ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ** The abstract seems to contain references ([I-D.ietf-lisp-eid-block]), which it shouldn't. Please replace those with straight textual mentions of the documents in question. Miscellaneous warnings: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == The copyright year in the IETF Trust and authors Copyright Line does not match the current year -- The document date (October 21, 2013) is 3833 days in the past. Is this intentional? Checking references for intended status: Informational ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == Outdated reference: A later version (-13) exists of draft-ietf-lisp-eid-block-05 ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 5226 (Obsoleted by RFC 8126) == Outdated reference: A later version (-12) exists of draft-ietf-weirds-rdap-sec-05 -- Obsolete informational reference (is this intentional?): RFC 6830 (Obsoleted by RFC 9300, RFC 9301) -- Obsolete informational reference (is this intentional?): RFC 6833 (Obsoleted by RFC 9301) -- Obsolete informational reference (is this intentional?): RFC 6834 (Obsoleted by RFC 9302) Summary: 2 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 3 warnings (==), 4 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 R. Jorgensen 5 Expires: April 24, 2014 Bredbandsfylket Troms 6 D. Conrad 7 Virtualized, LLC 8 October 21, 2013 10 LISP EID Block Management Guidelines 11 draft-iannone-lisp-eid-block-mgmnt-03.txt 13 Abstract 15 This document proposes an allocation framework for the management of 16 the LISP EID address prefix (requested in [I-D.ietf-lisp-eid-block]). 17 The framework described relies on hierarchical distribution of the 18 address space with sub-prefixes allocated on a temporary basis to 19 requesting organizations. 21 Status of this Memo 23 This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the 24 provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. 26 Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering 27 Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute 28 working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- 29 Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. 31 Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months 32 and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any 33 time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference 34 material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." 36 This Internet-Draft will expire on April 24, 2014. 38 Copyright Notice 40 Copyright (c) 2013 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the 41 document authors. All rights reserved. 43 This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal 44 Provisions Relating to IETF Documents 45 (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of 46 publication of this document. Please review these documents 47 carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect 48 to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must 49 include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of 50 the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as 51 described in the Simplified BSD License. 53 Table of Contents 55 1. Requirements Notation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 56 2. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 57 3. Definition of Terms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 58 4. EID Prefix Allocation Policy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 59 5. EID Prefixes Allocation Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 60 6. EID Prefix Request Template . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 61 7. General Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 62 8. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 63 9. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 64 10. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 65 11. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 66 11.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 67 11.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 68 Appendix A. LISP Terms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 69 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 71 1. Requirements Notation 73 The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", 74 "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this 75 document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119]. 77 2. Introduction 79 The Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP - [RFC6830]) and related 80 mechanisms ([RFC6831], [RFC6832], [RFC6833], [RFC6834], [RFC6835], 81 [RFC6836], [RFC6837]) separates the IP addressing space into two 82 logical spaces, the End-point IDentifier (EID) space and the Routing 83 LOCator (RLOC) space. The first space is used to identify 84 communication end-points, while the second is used to locate EIDs in 85 the Internet routing infrastructure topology. 87 The document [I-D.ietf-lisp-eid-block] requested an IPv6 address 88 block to be reserved for exclusive use for EID prefix allocation and 89 assignment. The rationale, intent, size, and usage of the EID 90 address block are described in [I-D.ietf-lisp-eid-block]. 92 This document proposes an allocation framework for the EID address 93 block based on temporary allocation of portions of the block to 94 different requesting organizations. 96 3. Definition of Terms 98 The present document does not introduce any new term with respect to 99 the set of LISP Specifications ( [RFC6830], [RFC6831], [RFC6832], 100 [RFC6833], [RFC6834], [RFC6835], [RFC6836], [RFC6837]). To help the 101 reading of the present document the terminology introduced by LISP is 102 summarized in Appendix A. 104 4. EID Prefix Allocation Policy 106 The allocation of EID prefixes MUST respect the following policies: 108 1. EID addressing prefixes are made available in the reserved space 109 on a temporary basis and for experimental uses. The requester of 110 an experimental prefix MUST provide a short description of the 111 intended use or experiment that will be carried out (see 112 Section 6). If the prefix will be used for activities not 113 documented in the original description, the renewal of the 114 allocation may be denied or withdrawn (see Section 5). 116 2. EID prefixes are allocated on a lease/license basis for a limited 117 period of time (which can be renewed). The lease/license period 118 SHOULD NOT be longer than one year. 120 3. Exception to the previous rule may be granted in cases in which 121 the prefix has been delegated to an organization that will act as 122 a registry for further sub-allocations. Sub-allocations MUST 123 respect this present list of policies as well as the allocation 124 requirements outlined in Section 5. Requests for a prefix 125 delegation that will be used for further sub-allocations MUST 126 clearly state such intent in the short description of the 127 intended use document. 129 4. All of the allocations (renewed or not, including delegations and 130 sub-allocations) MUST end by 31 December 2017, in accordance to 131 the 3+3 years experimental allocation plan outlined in 132 [I-D.ietf-lisp-eid-block]. 134 5. Upon IETF review before 31 December 2017, the EID prefix space 135 may become a permanent allocation. In this case existing 136 allocations CAN be renewed and new allocations granted (still on 137 a yearly temporary basis). All allocations (renewed or not, 138 including delegations and sub-allocations) MUST end by 31 139 December 2020, in accordance to the 3+3 years plan outlined in 140 [I-D.ietf-lisp-eid-block]. During the second 3 years phase of 141 the experiment, the IETF will decide the final EID prefix block 142 size and elaborate the allocation and management policies that 143 will be applied starting 1 January 2021. 145 6. When an allocation is freed because of non-renewal or the 146 termination of an experiment, the address space is returned to 147 the global pool of free EID prefixes. This freed allocation MUST 148 NOT be announced through registration on Map Servers in the LISP 149 mapping system for at least 72 hours to ensure expiration of all 150 cached map entries in the global LISP infrastructure. 152 7. The EID prefix of an allocation that is not renewed (or whose 153 renewal has been denied) can be re-used after no less than one 154 week from the date when the EID prefix is freed. This delay will 155 provide sufficient time for all cached map entries in the global 156 LISP infrastructure to expire and will allow any management 157 process for re-allocation to be dealt with. 159 8. EID prefix allocations can be revoked as a result of abuse, 160 unjustified usage (e.g., not conforming the intended use provided 161 at request time), failure to pay maintenance fees, legal court 162 orders, etc. Withdrawal can be enforced by filtering on Map 163 Servers so to prevent map registration. 165 If/When the EID block experiment changes status (e.g., to not being 166 "experimental"), and following the policies outlined in [RFC5226], 167 the EID block will change status as well and will be converted to a 168 permanent allocation. The IETF will define the transition process 169 from the policies and requirements outlined in this document to a new 170 set of policies and requirements. This transition process will 171 include mechanisms that will allow for requests to convert existing 172 temporary allocations (without renumbering) to permanent allocations. 174 5. EID Prefixes Allocation Requirements 176 All EID prefix allocations (and delegations) MUST respect the 177 following requirements: 179 1. Allocations MUST be globally unique. 181 2. Requirements for allocation MUST be the same globally. No 182 regional/national/local variations are permitted. 184 3. The minimum allocated prefix size MUST be a /48. An allocation 185 may be larger (i.e., shorter prefix) provided that the requester 186 is able to justify the intended size in their request 187 description. 189 4. Registration information MUST be maintained and made publicly 190 available through a searchable interface, preferably RDAP 191 ([I-D.ietf-weirds-rdap-sec]) and optionally whois, http, or 192 similar. 194 5. If fees are charged for EID allocation and registration services, 195 those fees MUST be no more than the cost of providing those 196 services. 198 6. Requesters obtaining an allocation SHOULD provide Reverse DNS 199 service. 201 7. Requesters obtaining a delegation, hence acting as registries, 202 MUST provide Reverse DNS service. 204 8. The service SHOULD be available 99% of the time. 206 9. Anyone, private persons, companies, or other entities can request 207 EID space and those requests MUST be granted, provided that they 208 can show a clear intent in carrying out LISP experimentation. 210 6. EID Prefix Request Template 212 Future versions of this document will include a detailed allocation 213 (and delegation) request template to ensure a uniform process. An 214 example of a similar template/process is the IANA Private Enterprise 215 Number online request form 216 (http://pen.iana.org/pen/PenApplication.page). The EID Prefix 217 Request template MUST at minimum contain: 219 o Requester Information (e.g., company name) 221 o Requester Referral Person (and Contact Information) 223 o Requested EID prefix size 225 o Request Rationale 227 7. General Considerations 229 This document is a starting point for discussion aiming to address 230 the concerns raised during the IETF Review of 231 [I-D.ietf-lisp-eid-block], more specifically the lack of guidelines 232 concerning the EID Block allocation and management. 234 Discussion with IANA, the RIR communities, and the IETF community 235 should be carried out in order to verify compatibility of the 236 proposed policy and agree upon the process for EID prefix allocation 237 and management. 239 8. Security Considerations 241 This document does not introduce new security threats in the LISP 242 architecture nor in the Legacy Internet architecture. 244 For accountability reasons, and in line with the security 245 considerations in [RFC7020], each allocation request MUST contain 246 accurate information on the requesting entity (company, institution, 247 individual, etc.) and valid and accurate contact information of a 248 referral person (see Section 6). 250 9. Acknowledgments 252 Thanks to J. Curran, A. Severin, B. Haberman, T. Manderson, D. Lewis, 253 D. Farinacci, for their helpful comments. 255 10. IANA Considerations 257 This document provides only management guidelines for the reserved 258 LISP EID prefix requested and allocated in [I-D.ietf-lisp-eid-block]. 260 There is an operational requirement for an EID allocation service 261 that ensures uniqueness of EIDs allocated according to the 262 requirements described in Section 5. Furthermore, there is an 263 operational requirement for EID registration service that allows a 264 lookup of the contact information of the entity to which the EID was 265 allocated. 267 IANA must ensure both of these services are provided, for the space 268 directly allocated by IANA, in a globally uniform fashion for the 269 duration of the experiment. 271 11. References 273 11.1. Normative References 275 [I-D.ietf-lisp-eid-block] 276 Iannone, L., Lewis, D., Meyer, D., and V. Fuller, "LISP 277 EID Block", draft-ietf-lisp-eid-block-05 (work in 278 progress), August 2013. 280 [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate 281 Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. 283 [RFC4632] Fuller, V. and T. Li, "Classless Inter-domain Routing 284 (CIDR): The Internet Address Assignment and Aggregation 285 Plan", BCP 122, RFC 4632, August 2006. 287 [RFC5226] Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an 288 IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 5226, 289 May 2008. 291 11.2. Informative References 293 [I-D.ietf-weirds-rdap-sec] 294 Hollenbeck, S. and N. Kong, "Security Services for the 295 Registration Data Access Protocol", 296 draft-ietf-weirds-rdap-sec-05 (work in progress), 297 August 2013. 299 [RFC6830] Farinacci, D., Fuller, V., Meyer, D., and D. Lewis, "The 300 Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP)", RFC 6830, 301 January 2013. 303 [RFC6831] Farinacci, D., Meyer, D., Zwiebel, J., and S. Venaas, "The 304 Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP) for Multicast 305 Environments", RFC 6831, January 2013. 307 [RFC6832] Lewis, D., Meyer, D., Farinacci, D., and V. Fuller, 308 "Interworking between Locator/ID Separation Protocol 309 (LISP) and Non-LISP Sites", RFC 6832, January 2013. 311 [RFC6833] Fuller, V. and D. Farinacci, "Locator/ID Separation 312 Protocol (LISP) Map-Server Interface", RFC 6833, 313 January 2013. 315 [RFC6834] Iannone, L., Saucez, D., and O. Bonaventure, "Locator/ID 316 Separation Protocol (LISP) Map-Versioning", RFC 6834, 317 January 2013. 319 [RFC6835] Farinacci, D. and D. Meyer, "The Locator/ID Separation 320 Protocol Internet Groper (LIG)", RFC 6835, January 2013. 322 [RFC6836] Fuller, V., Farinacci, D., Meyer, D., and D. Lewis, 323 "Locator/ID Separation Protocol Alternative Logical 324 Topology (LISP+ALT)", RFC 6836, January 2013. 326 [RFC6837] Lear, E., "NERD: A Not-so-novel Endpoint ID (EID) to 327 Routing Locator (RLOC) Database", RFC 6837, January 2013. 329 [RFC7020] Housley, R., Curran, J., Huston, G., and D. Conrad, "The 330 Internet Numbers Registry System", RFC 7020, August 2013. 332 Appendix A. LISP Terms 334 LISP operates on two name spaces and introduces several new network 335 elements. This section provides high-level definitions of the LISP 336 name spaces and network elements and as such, it must not be 337 considered as an authoritative source. The reference to the 338 authoritative document for each term is included in every term 339 description. 341 Legacy Internet: The portion of the Internet that does not run LISP 342 and does not participate in LISP+ALT or any other mapping system. 344 LISP site: A LISP site is a set of routers in an edge network that 345 are under a single technical administration. LISP routers that 346 reside in the edge network are the demarcation points to separate 347 the edge network from the core network. See [RFC6830] for more 348 details. 350 Endpoint ID (EID): An EID is a 32-bit (for IPv4) or 128-bit (for 351 IPv6) value used in the source and destination address fields of 352 the first (most inner) LISP header of a packet. A packet that is 353 emitted by a system contains EIDs in its headers and LISP headers 354 are prepended only when the packet reaches an Ingress Tunnel 355 Router (ITR) on the data path to the destination EID. The source 356 EID is obtained via existing mechanisms used to set a host's 357 "local" IP address. An EID is allocated to a host from an EID- 358 prefix block associated with the site where the host is located. 359 See [RFC6830] for more details. 361 EID-prefix: A power-of-two block of EIDs that are allocated to a 362 site by an address allocation authority. See [RFC6830] for more 363 details. 365 EID-Prefix Aggregate: A set of EID-prefixes said to be aggregatable 366 in the [RFC4632] sense. That is, an EID-Prefix aggregate is 367 defined to be a single contiguous power-of-two EID-prefix block. 368 A prefix and a length characterize such a block. See [RFC6830] 369 for more details. 371 Routing LOCator (RLOC): A RLOC is an IPv4 or IPv6 address of an 372 egress tunnel router (ETR). A RLOC is the output of an EID-to- 373 RLOC mapping lookup. An EID maps to one or more RLOCs. 374 Typically, RLOCs are numbered from topologically aggregatable 375 blocks that are assigned to a site at each point to which it 376 attaches to the global Internet; where the topology is defined by 377 the connectivity of provider networks, RLOCs can be thought of as 378 Provider Aggregatable (PA) addresses. See [RFC6830] for more 379 details. 381 EID-to-RLOC Mapping: A binding between an EID-Prefix and the RLOC- 382 set that can be used to reach the EID-Prefix. The general term 383 "mapping" always refers to an EID-to-RLOC mapping. See [RFC6830] 384 for more details. 386 Ingress Tunnel Router (ITR): An Ingress Tunnel Router (ITR) is a 387 router that accepts receives IP packets from site end-systems on 388 one side and sends LISP-encapsulated IP packets toward the 389 Internet on the other side. The router treats the "inner" IP 390 destination address as an EID and performs an EID-to-RLOC mapping 391 lookup. The router then prepends an "outer" IP header with one of 392 its globally routable RLOCs in the source address field and the 393 result of the mapping lookup in the destination address field. 394 See [RFC6830] for more details. 396 Egress Tunnel Router (ETR): An Egress Tunnel Router (ETR) receives 397 LISP-encapsulated IP packets from the Internet on one side and 398 sends decapsulated IP packets to site end-systems on the other 399 side. An ETR router accepts an IP packet where the destination 400 address in the "outer" IP header is one of its own RLOCs. The 401 router strips the "outer" header and forwards the packet based on 402 the next IP header found. See [RFC6830] for more details. 404 Proxy ITR (PITR): A Proxy-ITR (PITR) acts like an ITR but does so on 405 behalf of non-LISP sites which send packets to destinations at 406 LISP sites. See [RFC6832] for more details. 408 Proxy ETR (PETR): A Proxy-ETR (PETR) acts like an ETR but does so on 409 behalf of LISP sites which send packets to destinations at non- 410 LISP sites. See [RFC6832] for more details. 412 Map Server (MS): A network infrastructure component that learns EID- 413 to-RLOC mapping entries from an authoritative source (typically an 414 ETR). A Map Server publishes these mappings in the distributed 415 mapping system. See [RFC6833] for more details. 417 Map Resolver (MR): A network infrastructure component that accepts 418 LISP Encapsulated Map-Requests, typically from an ITR, quickly 419 determines whether or not the destination IP address is part of 420 the EID namespace; if it is not, a Negative Map-Reply is 421 immediately returned. Otherwise, the Map Resolver finds the 422 appropriate EID-to-RLOC mapping by consulting the distributed 423 mapping database system. See [RFC6833] for more details. 425 The LISP Alternative Logical Topology (ALT): The virtual overlay 426 network made up of tunnels between LISP+ALT Routers. The Border 427 Gateway Protocol (BGP) runs between ALT Routers and is used to 428 carry reachability information for EID-prefixes. The ALT provides 429 a way to forward Map-Requests toward the ETR that "owns" an EID- 430 prefix. See [RFC6836] for more details. 432 ALT Router: The device on which runs the ALT. The ALT is a static 433 network built using tunnels between ALT Routers. These routers 434 are deployed in a roughly-hierarchical mesh in which routers at 435 each level in the topology are responsible for aggregating EID- 436 Prefixes learned from those logically "below" them and advertising 437 summary prefixes to those logically "above" them. Prefix learning 438 and propagation between ALT Routers is done using BGP. When an 439 ALT Router receives an ALT Datagram, it looks up the destination 440 EID in its forwarding table (composed of EID-Prefix routes it 441 learned from neighboring ALT Routers) and forwards it to the 442 logical next-hop on the overlay network. The primary function of 443 LISP+ALT routers is to provide a lightweight forwarding 444 infrastructure for LISP control-plane messages (Map-Request and 445 Map-Reply), and to transport data packets when the packet has the 446 same destination address in both the inner (encapsulating) 447 destination and outer destination addresses ((i.e., a Data Probe 448 packet). See [RFC6830] for more details. 450 Authors' Addresses 452 Luigi Iannone 453 Telecom ParisTech 455 Email: luigi.iannone@telecom-paristech.fr 457 Roger Jorgensen 458 Bredbandsfylket Troms 460 Email: rogerj@gmail.com 462 David Conrad 463 Virtualized, LLC 465 Email: drc@virtualized.org