idnits 2.17.1 draft-ietf-lisp-eid-block-05.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 (August 29, 2013) is 3892 days in the past. Is this intentional? Checking references for intended status: Informational ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- Looks like a reference, but probably isn't: '1' on line 414 -- Looks like a reference, but probably isn't: '2' on line 414 -- Looks like a reference, but probably isn't: '3' on line 387 ** 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RFC 6830 (Obsoleted by RFC 9300, RFC 9301) ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 6833 (Obsoleted by RFC 9301) == Outdated reference: A later version (-12) exists of draft-ietf-lisp-deployment-10 Summary: 3 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 2 warnings (==), 4 comments (--).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 D. Lewis 5 Expires: March 2, 2014 Cisco Systems, Inc. 6 D. Meyer 7 Brocade 8 V. Fuller 9 August 29, 2013 11 LISP EID Block 12 draft-ietf-lisp-eid-block-05.txt 14 Abstract 16 This is a direction to IANA to allocate a /16 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 March 2, 2014. 39 Copyright Notice 41 Copyright (c) 2013 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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 59 4. Expected use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 60 5. Block Dimension . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 61 6. Action Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 62 7. Routing Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 63 8. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 64 9. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 65 10. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 66 11. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 67 11.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 68 11.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 69 Appendix A. Document Change Log . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 70 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 72 1. Introduction 74 This document directs the IANA to allocate a /16 IPv6 prefix for use 75 with the Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP - [RFC6830]), LISP Map 76 Server ([RFC6833]), LISP Alternative Topology (LISP+ALT - [RFC6836]) 77 (or other) mapping system, and LISP Interworking ([RFC6832]). 79 This block will be used as global Endpoint IDentifier (EID) space 80 (Section 2). 82 2. Definition of Terms 84 LISP operates on two name spaces and introduces several new network 85 elements. This section provides high-level definitions of the LISP 86 name spaces and network elements and as such, it must not be 87 considered as an authoritative source. The reference to the 88 authoritative document for each term is included in every term 89 description. 91 Legacy Internet: The portion of the Internet that does not run LISP 92 and does not participate in LISP+ALT or any other mapping system. 94 LISP site: A LISP site is a set of routers in an edge network that 95 are under a single technical administration. LISP routers that 96 reside in the edge network are the demarcation points to separate 97 the edge network from the core network. See [RFC6830] for more 98 details. 100 Endpoint ID (EID): An EID is a 32-bit (for IPv4) or 128-bit (for 101 IPv6) value used in the source and destination address fields of 102 the first (most inner) LISP header of a packet. A packet that is 103 emitted by a system contains EIDs in its headers and LISP headers 104 are prepended only when the packet reaches an Ingress Tunnel 105 Router (ITR) on the data path to the destination EID. The source 106 EID is obtained via existing mechanisms used to set a host's 107 "local" IP address. An EID is allocated to a host from an EID- 108 prefix block associated with the site where the host is located. 109 See [RFC6830] for more details. 111 EID-prefix: A power-of-two block of EIDs that are allocated to a 112 site by an address allocation authority. See [RFC6830] for more 113 details. 115 EID-Prefix Aggregate: A set of EID-prefixes said to be aggregatable 116 in the [RFC4632] sense. That is, an EID-Prefix aggregate is 117 defined to be a single contiguous power-of-two EID-prefix block. 118 A prefix and a length characterize such a block. See [RFC6830] 119 for more details. 121 Routing LOCator (RLOC): A RLOC is an IPv4 or IPv6 address of an 122 egress tunnel router (ETR). A RLOC is the output of an EID-to- 123 RLOC mapping lookup. An EID maps to one or more RLOCs. 124 Typically, RLOCs are numbered from topologically aggregatable 125 blocks that are assigned to a site at each point to which it 126 attaches to the global Internet; where the topology is defined by 127 the connectivity of provider networks, RLOCs can be thought of as 128 Provider Aggregatable (PA) addresses. See [RFC6830] for more 129 details. 131 EID-to-RLOC Mapping: A binding between an EID-Prefix and the RLOC- 132 set that can be used to reach the EID-Prefix. The general term 133 "mapping" always refers to an EID-to-RLOC mapping. See [RFC6830] 134 for more details. 136 Ingress Tunnel Router (ITR): An Ingress Tunnel Router (ITR) is a 137 router that accepts receives IP packets from site end-systems on 138 one side and sends LISP-encapsulated IP packets toward the 139 Internet on the other side. The router treats the "inner" IP 140 destination address as an EID and performs an EID-to-RLOC mapping 141 lookup. The router then prepends an "outer" IP header with one of 142 its globally routable RLOCs in the source address field and the 143 result of the mapping lookup in the destination address field. 144 See [RFC6830] for more details. 146 Egress Tunnel Router (ETR): An Egress Tunnel Router (ETR) receives 147 LISP-encapsulated IP packets from the Internet on one side and 148 sends decapsulated IP packets to site end-systems on the other 149 side. An ETR router accepts an IP packet where the destination 150 address in the "outer" IP header is one of its own RLOCs. The 151 router strips the "outer" header and forwards the packet based on 152 the next IP header found. See [RFC6830] for more details. 154 Proxy ITR (PITR): A Proxy-ITR (PITR) acts like an ITR but does so on 155 behalf of non-LISP sites which send packets to destinations at 156 LISP sites. See [RFC6832] for more details. 158 Proxy ETR (PETR): A Proxy-ETR (PETR) acts like an ETR but does so on 159 behalf of LISP sites which send packets to destinations at non- 160 LISP sites. See [RFC6832] for more details. 162 Map Server (MS): A network infrastructure component that learns EID- 163 to-RLOC mapping entries from an authoritative source (typically an 164 ETR). A Map Server publishes these mappings in the distributed 165 mapping system. See [RFC6833] for more details. 167 Map Resolver (MR): A network infrastructure component that accepts 168 LISP Encapsulated Map-Requests, typically from an ITR, quickly 169 determines whether or not the destination IP address is part of 170 the EID namespace; if it is not, a Negative Map-Reply is 171 immediately returned. Otherwise, the Map Resolver finds the 172 appropriate EID-to-RLOC mapping by consulting the distributed 173 mapping database system. See [RFC6833] for more details. 175 The LISP Alternative Logical Topology (ALT): The virtual overlay 176 network made up of tunnels between LISP+ALT Routers. The Border 177 Gateway Protocol (BGP) runs between ALT Routers and is used to 178 carry reachability information for EID-prefixes. The ALT provides 179 a way to forward Map-Requests toward the ETR that "owns" an EID- 180 prefix. See [RFC6836] for more details. 182 ALT Router: The device on which runs the ALT. The ALT is a static 183 network built using tunnels between ALT Routers. These routers 184 are deployed in a roughly-hierarchical mesh in which routers at 185 each level in the topology are responsible for aggregating EID- 186 Prefixes learned from those logically "below" them and advertising 187 summary prefixes to those logically "above" them. Prefix learning 188 and propagation between ALT Routers is done using BGP. When an 189 ALT Router receives an ALT Datagram, it looks up the destination 190 EID in its forwarding table (composed of EID-Prefix routes it 191 learned from neighboring ALT Routers) and forwards it to the 192 logical next-hop on the overlay network. The primary function of 193 LISP+ALT routers is to provide a lightweight forwarding 194 infrastructure for LISP control-plane messages (Map-Request and 195 Map-Reply), and to transport data packets when the packet has the 196 same destination address in both the inner (encapsulating) 197 destination and outer destination addresses ((i.e., a Data Probe 198 packet). See [RFC6836] for more details. 200 3. Rationale and Intent 202 With the current specifications, if an ITR is sending to all types of 203 destinations (i.e., non-LISP destinations, LISP destinations not in 204 the IPv6 EID Block, and LISP destinations in the IPv6 EID Block) the 205 only way to understand whether or not to encapsulate the traffic is 206 to perform a cache lookup and, in case of cache-miss, send a Map- 207 Request to the mapping system. In the meanwhile, packets may be 208 dropped. 210 There are several use cases for this address block, for instance: 212 o In certain circumstances it is possible to configure the router so 213 to natively forward all packets that have not a destination 214 address in the block, without performing any lookup whatsoever. 216 o In some scenarios, in case of cache-miss packets, are routed 217 toward a PETR until a mapping is obtained, if the destination is 218 in a specific EID space packets may be dropped in order to avoid 219 forwarding paths like ITR->PETR->PITR->ETR, avoiding the related 220 overhead. 222 o Improved traffic engineering capabilities with respect to LISP vs. 223 non-LISP traffic. 225 Is worth to mention that new use cases can arise in the future, due 226 to new and unforeseen scenarios. furthermore, this will give a 227 tighter control over the traffic in the initial experimental phase, 228 while facilitating its large-scale deployment. 230 The EID Block will be used only at configuration level, it is 231 recommended not to hard-code in any way the IPv6 EID Block in the 232 router hardware. This allows avoiding locking out sites that may 233 want to switch to LISP while keeping their own IPv6 prefix, which is 234 not in the IPv6 EID Block. 236 4. Expected use 238 Sites planning to deploy LISP may request a prefix in the IPv6 EID 239 Block. Such prefix will be used for routing and endpoint 240 identification inside the site requesting it. Mappings related to 241 such prefix, or part of it, will be made available through the 242 mapping system in use or registered to one or more Map Server(s). 244 To guarantee reachability from the Legacy Internet the prefix could 245 be announced in the BGP routing infrastructure by one or more 246 PITR(s). The use of PxTRs allow to aggregate several prefixes; the 247 deployment model for this element is described in [RFC6832] and 248 [I-D.ietf-lisp-deployment]. 250 As the LISP adoption progress, the EID prefix space will potentially 251 help in reducing the impact on the BGP routing infrastructure with 252 respect to the case of the same number of adopters using global 253 unicast space allocated by RIRs ([MobiArch2007]). From a short-term 254 perspective, the EID space offers potentially large aggregation 255 capabilities since it is announced by PxTRs possibly concentrating 256 several contiguous prefixes. Such trend should continue with even 257 lower impact from a long-term perspective, since more aggressive 258 aggregation can be used, potentially leading at using few PxTRs 259 announcing the whole EID space ([FIABook2010]). 261 The prefix is not supposed to be used as normal prefix announced in 262 the BGP routing infrastructure without the use of LISP. 264 5. Block Dimension 266 The working group reached consensus on an initial allocation of a /16 267 prefix out of a /12 block which is asked to remain reserved for 268 future use as EID space. The reason of such consensus is manifold: 270 o The working group agreed that /16 prefix is sufficiently large to 271 cover initial allocation and requests for prefixes in the EID 272 space in the next few years for very large-scale experimentation 273 and deployment. 275 o As a comparison, it is worth mentioning that the current LISP Beta 276 Network ([BETA]) is using a /32 prefix, with more than 250 sites 277 using a /48 sub prefix. Hence, a /16 prefix looks as sufficiently 278 large to allow the current deployment to scale up and be open for 279 interoperation with independent deployments using EIDs space in 280 the new /16 prefix. 282 o A /16 prefix is sufficiently large to only allow deployment of 283 independent (commercial) LISP enabled networks by third parties, 284 but may as well boost LISP experimentation and deployment. 286 o The /16 size and alignment allows the use to current policies to 287 allocate and distribute prefixes out of this space, without the 288 need to introduce any new specific address management policy. 290 o The proposed alignment provides as well a natural support for DNS. 291 In particular, reverse DNS for IPv6 in the special ip6.arpa domain 292 is represented as sequence of nibbles. A different alignment 293 would force to a binary representation. 295 o The use of a /16 prefix is in line with previous similar prefix 296 allocation for tunnelling protocols ([RFC3056]) and is considered 297 a useful practice ([RFC3692]). 299 6. Action Plan 301 This document requests IANA to initially assign a /16 prefix out of 302 the IPv6 addressing space for use as EID in LISP (Locator/ID 303 Separation protocol). 305 It is suggested to IANA to temporarily avoid allocating any other 306 address block the same /12 prefix the EID /16 prefix belongs to. 308 This is to accommodate future requests of EID space without 309 fragmenting the EID addressing space. This will also help from an 310 operational point of view, since it will be sufficient to change the 311 subnet mask length in existing deployments. If in the future there 312 will be need for a larger EID Block the address space adjacent the 313 EID Block could be allocate by IANA according to the current 314 policies. 316 IANA should assign the requested address space by September 2013 for 317 a duration of 10 (ten) years (through September 2023). By the end of 318 this period, the IETF will provide a decision on whether to transform 319 the prefix in a permanent assignment or to put it back in the free 320 pool. 322 The allocation and management of the Global EID Space will be 323 detailed in a separate document. 325 7. Routing Considerations 327 In order to provide connectivity between the Legacy Internet and LISP 328 sites, PITRs announcing large aggregates of the IPv6 EID Block could 329 be deployed. By doing so, PITRs will attract traffic destined to 330 LISP sites in order to encapsulate and forward it toward the specific 331 destination LISP site. Routers in the Legacy Internet must treat 332 announcements of prefixes from the IPv6 EID Block as normal 333 announcements, applying best current practice for traffic engineering 334 and security. 336 Even in a LISP site, not all routers need to run LISP elements. In 337 particular, routers that are not at the border of the local domain, 338 used only for intra-domain routing, do not need to provide any 339 specific LISP functionality but must be able to route traffic using 340 addresses in the IPv6 EID Block. 342 For the above-mentioned reasons, routers that do not run any LISP 343 element, must not include any special handling code or hardware for 344 addresses in the IPv6 EID Block. In particular, it is recommended 345 that the default router configuration does not handle such addresses 346 in any special way. Doing differently could prevent communication 347 between the Legacy Internet and LISP sites or even break local intra- 348 domain connectivity. 350 8. Security Considerations 352 This document does not introduce new security threats in the LISP 353 architecture nor in the Legacy Internet architecture. 355 9. Acknowledgments 357 Special thanks to Roque Gagliano for his suggestions and pointers. 358 Thanks to Brian Carpenter, Roger Jorgensen, Terry Manderson, Brian 359 Haberman, Adrian Farrel, Job Snijders, Marla Azinger, Chris Morrow, 360 and Peter Schoenmaker, for their insightful comments. Thanks as well 361 John Curran, Paul Wilson, Geoff Huston, Wes George, Arturo Servin, 362 Sander Steffann, and to all participants to the fruitful discussion 363 on the IETF mailing list. 365 10. IANA Considerations 367 This document instructs the IANA to assign a /16 IPv6 prefix for use 368 as the global LISP EID space using a hierarchical allocation as 369 outlined in [RFC5226] and summarized in Table 1. 371 +----------------------+--------------------+ 372 | Attribute | Value | 373 +----------------------+--------------------+ 374 | Address Block | XXX0::/16 [1] | 375 | Name | EID Space for LISP | 376 | RFC | [This Document] | 377 | Allocation Date | September 2013 | 378 | Termination Date | September 2023 | 379 | Source | True [2] | 380 | Destination | True | 381 | Forwardable | True | 382 | Global | True | 383 | Reserved-by-protocol | True [3] | 384 +----------------------+--------------------+ 386 [1] XXX value to be provided by IANA before published as RFC. [2] Can 387 be used as a multicast source as well. [3] To be used as EID space by 388 LISP [RFC6830] enabled routers. 390 Table 1: Global EID Space 392 During the discussion related to this document, the LISP Working 393 Group agreed in suggesting to IANA to reserve adjacent addressing 394 space, more specifically the /12 covering the assigned /16 prefix, 395 for future use as EID space if needs come. Table 2 summarizes the 396 request. Following the policies outlined in [RFC5226], such space 397 will be assigned only upon IETF Review. 399 +----------------------+----------------------+ 400 | Attribute | Value | 401 +----------------------+----------------------+ 402 | Address Block | XXX0::/12 [1] | 403 | Name | ) EID Space for LISP | 404 | RFC | [This Document] | 405 | Allocation Date | September 2013 | 406 | Termination Date | September 2023 | 407 | Source | False | 408 | Destination | False | 409 | Forwardable | False | 410 | Global | False | 411 | Reserved-by-protocol | True [2] | 412 +----------------------+----------------------+ 414 [1] XXX value to be provided by IANA before published as RFC. [2] To 415 be used as EID space by LISP [RFC6830] enabled routers. 417 Table 2: Reserved for Future Use as Global EID Space 419 This document does not specify any specific value for the requested 420 address block but suggests that should come from the 2000::/3 Global 421 Unicast Space. Furthermore, it is suggested to assign the /16 prefix 422 from the first /16 block out of the reserved /12 prefix. IANA is not 423 requested to issue a AS0 ROA, since the Global EID Space will be used 424 for routing purposes. 426 The reserved address space is requested for a period of time of ten 427 years starting in September 2013 and ending in September 2023. 428 Following the policies outlined in [RFC5226], upon IETF Review, by 429 September 2023 decision should be made on whether to keep the 430 assignment making the reserved prefix assignment permanent (this 431 includes final decision on the size of the prefix). If the IETF 432 review outcome will be that is not worth to have a reserved prefix as 433 global EID space, the whole /12 (and all sub-block assigned out of 434 it) will be took out from the IPv6 Special Purpose Address Registry 435 and put back in the free pool managed by IANA. 437 Allocation and management of the Global EID Space is detailed in a 438 different document. Nevertheless, all prefix allocations out this 439 space must be temporary and no allocation must go beyond September 440 2023 unless the upon IETF Review the GLobal EID Space is permanently 441 assigned. 443 11. References 444 11.1. Normative References 446 [RFC4632] Fuller, V. and T. Li, "Classless Inter-domain Routing 447 (CIDR): The Internet Address Assignment and Aggregation 448 Plan", BCP 122, RFC 4632, August 2006. 450 [RFC5226] Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an 451 IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 5226, 452 May 2008. 454 [RFC6830] Farinacci, D., Fuller, V., Meyer, D., and D. Lewis, "The 455 Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP)", RFC 6830, 456 January 2013. 458 [RFC6832] Lewis, D., Meyer, D., Farinacci, D., and V. Fuller, 459 "Interworking between Locator/ID Separation Protocol 460 (LISP) and Non-LISP Sites", RFC 6832, January 2013. 462 [RFC6833] Fuller, V. and D. Farinacci, "Locator/ID Separation 463 Protocol (LISP) Map-Server Interface", RFC 6833, 464 January 2013. 466 [RFC6836] Fuller, V., Farinacci, D., Meyer, D., and D. Lewis, 467 "Locator/ID Separation Protocol Alternative Logical 468 Topology (LISP+ALT)", RFC 6836, January 2013. 470 11.2. Informative References 472 [BETA] LISP Beta Network, "http://www.lisp4.net", 2008-2011. 474 [FIABook2010] 475 L. Iannone, T. Leva, "Modeling the economics of Loc/ID 476 Separation for the Future Internet.", Towards the Future 477 Internet - Emerging Trends from the European Research, 478 Pages 11-20, ISBN: 9781607505389, IOS Press , May 2010. 480 [I-D.ietf-lisp-deployment] 481 Jakab, L., Cabellos-Aparicio, A., Coras, F., Domingo- 482 Pascual, J., and D. Lewis, "LISP Network Element 483 Deployment Considerations", draft-ietf-lisp-deployment-10 484 (work in progress), August 2013. 486 [MobiArch2007] 487 B. Quoitin, L. Iannone, C. de Launois, O. Bonaventure, 488 "Evaluating the Benefits of the Locator/Identifier 489 Separation", The 2nd ACM-SIGCOMM International Workshop on 490 Mobility in the Evolving Internet Architecture 491 (MobiArch'07) , August 2007. 493 [RFC3056] Carpenter, B. and K. Moore, "Connection of IPv6 Domains 494 via IPv4 Clouds", RFC 3056, February 2001. 496 [RFC3692] Narten, T., "Assigning Experimental and Testing Numbers 497 Considered Useful", BCP 82, RFC 3692, January 2004. 499 Appendix A. Document Change Log 501 Version 04 Posted February 2013. 503 o Added Table 1 and Table 2 as requested by IANA. 505 o Transformed the prefix request in a temporary request as suggested 506 by various comments during IETF Last Call. 508 o Added discussion about short/long term impact on BGP in Section 4 509 as requested by B. Carpenter. 511 Version 03 Posted November 2012. 513 o General review of Section 5 as requested by T. Manderson and B. 514 Haberman. 516 o Dropped RFC 2119 Notation, as requested by A. Farrel and B. 517 Haberman. 519 o Changed "IETF Consensus" to "IETF Review" as pointed out by Roque 520 Gagliano. 522 o Changed every occurrence of "Map-Server" and "Map-Resolver" with 523 "Map Server" and "Map Resolver" to make the document consistent 524 with [RFC6833]. Thanks to Job Snijders for pointing out the 525 issue. 527 Version 02 Posted April 2012. 529 o Fixed typos, nits, references. 531 o Deleted reference to IANA allocation policies. 533 Version 01 Posted October 2011. 535 o Added Section 5. 537 Version 00 Posted July 2011. 539 o Updated section "IANA Considerations" 541 o Added section "Rationale and Intent" explaining why the EID block 542 allocation is useful. 544 o Added section "Expected Use" explaining how sites can request and 545 use a prefix in the IPv6 EID Block. 547 o Added section "Action Plan" suggesting IANA to avoid allocating 548 address space adjacent the allocated EID block in order to 549 accommodate future EID space requests. 551 o Added section "Routing Consideration" describing how routers not 552 running LISP deal with the requested address block. 554 o Added the present section to keep track of changes. 556 o Rename of draft-meyer-lisp-eid-block-02.txt. 558 Authors' Addresses 560 Luigi Iannone 561 Telecom ParisTech 563 Email: luigi.iannone@telecom-paristech.fr 565 Darrel Lewis 566 Cisco Systems, Inc. 568 Email: darlewis@cisco.com 570 David Meyer 571 Brocade 573 Email: dmm@1-4-5.net 575 Vince Fuller 577 Email: vaf@vaf.net