idnits 2.17.1 draft-ietf-lisp-eid-block-06.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 (October 18, 2013) is 3843 days in the past. Is this intentional? Checking references for intended status: Informational ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- Looks like a reference, but probably isn't: '1' on line 358 -- Looks like a reference, but probably isn't: '2' on line 358 -- Looks like a reference, but probably isn't: '3' on line 331 ** 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reference: RFC 6833 (Obsoleted by RFC 9301) ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 6834 (Obsoleted by RFC 9302) == Outdated reference: A later version (-12) exists of draft-ietf-lisp-deployment-10 Summary: 5 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 2 warnings (==), 4 comments (--).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: April 21, 2014 Cisco Systems, Inc. 6 D. Meyer 7 Brocade 8 V. Fuller 9 October 18, 2013 11 LISP EID Block 12 draft-ietf-lisp-eid-block-06.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 April 21, 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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 59 4. Expected use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 60 5. Block Dimension . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 61 6. 3+3 Allocation Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 62 7. Routing Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 63 8. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 64 9. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 65 10. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 66 11. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 67 11.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 68 11.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 69 Appendix A. LISP Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 70 Appendix B. Document Change Log . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 71 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 73 1. Introduction 75 This document directs the IANA to allocate a /16 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 system, and LISP Interworking ([RFC6832]). 80 This block will be used as global Endpoint IDentifier (EID) space 81 (Section 2). 83 2. Definition of Terms 85 The present document does not introduce any new term with respect to 86 the set of LISP Specifications ( [RFC6830], [RFC6831], [RFC6832], 87 [RFC6833], [RFC6834], [RFC6835], [RFC6836], [RFC6837]). To help the 88 reading of the present document the terminology introduced by LISP is 89 summarized in Appendix A. 91 3. Rationale and Intent 93 Discussion within the LISP Working Group led to identify several 94 scenarios in which the existence of a LISP specific address block 95 brings technical benefits. Hereafter the most relevant scenarios are 96 described: 98 Early LISP destination detection: With the current specifications, 99 there is no direct way to detect whether or not a certain 100 destination is in a LISP domain or not without performing a 101 LISP mapping lookup. For instance, if an ITR is sending to all 102 types of destinations (i.e., non-LISP destinations, LISP 103 destinations not in the IPv6 EID Block, and LISP destinations 104 in the IPv6 EID Block) the only way to understand whether or 105 not to encapsulate the traffic is to perform a cache lookup 106 and, in case of a LISP Cache miss, send a Map-Request to the 107 mapping system. In the meanwhile, packets may be dropped. 109 Avoid penalize non-LISP traffic: In certain circumstances it might 110 be desirable to configure a router using LISP features to 111 natively forward all packets that have not a destination 112 address in the block, hence, no lookup whatsoever is performed 113 and packets destined to non-LISP sites are not penalized in any 114 manner. 116 Avoid excessive stretch: In some deployment scenarios and in order 117 to avoid packet drops, in case of LISP Cache miss packets are 118 forwarded toward a PETR while a mapping lookup is performed 119 over the LISP mapping system. Once a mapping is obtained 120 packets are not forwarded anymore toward the PETR, they are 121 LISP encapsulated and forwarded according to the LISP 122 specifications. The existence of a LISP specific EID block 123 would allow to avoid scenarios with excessive overhead, where 124 the destination is a LISP EID and where (while the mapping is 125 looked up) packets are forwarded over paths like 126 Source->ITR->PETR->PITR->ETR->Destination, which may show an 127 excessive stretch factor and degraded performance. 129 Traffic Engineering: In some deployment scenarios it might be 130 desirable to apply different traffic engineering policies for 131 LISP and non-LISP traffic. A LISP specific EID block would 132 allow improved traffic engineering capabilities with respect to 133 LISP vs. non-LISP traffic. In particular, LISP traffic might 134 be identified without having to use DPI techniques in order to 135 parse the encapsulated packet, performing instead a simple 136 inspection of the outer header is sufficient. 138 Transition Mechanism: The existence of an LISP specific EID Block 139 may prove useful in transition scenarios. A non-LISP domain 140 would ask an allocation in the LISP EID Block and use it to 141 deploy LISP in its network. Such allocation will not be 142 announced in the BGP routing infrastructure (cf., Section 4). 143 This approach will avoid non-LISP domains to fragment their 144 already allocated non-LISP addressing space, which may lead to 145 BGP routing table inflation since it may (rightfully) be 146 announced in the BGP routing infrastructure. 148 Limit the impact on BGP routing infrastructure: As described in the 149 previous scenario, LISP adopters will avoid fragmenting their 150 addressing space, which would negatively impact the BGP routing 151 infrastructure. Adopters will use addressing space from the 152 EID block which might be announced in large aggregates and in a 153 tightly controlled manner only by proxy xTRs. 155 Is worth to mention that new use cases can arise in the future, due 156 to new and unforeseen scenarios. 158 Furthermore, this will give a tighter control, especially filtering, 159 over the traffic in the initial experimental phase, while 160 facilitating its large-scale deployment. 162 [RFC3692] considers assigning experimental and testing numbers 163 useful, and the request of a reserved IPv6 EID prefix is a perfect 164 match of such practice. The present document follows the guidelines 165 provided in [RFC3692], with one exception. [RFC3692] suggests the 166 use of values similar to those called "Private Use" in [RFC2434], 167 which by definition are not unique. One of the purposes of the 168 present request to IANA is to guarantee uniqueness to the EID block. 169 The lack thereof would result in a lack of real utility of a reserved 170 IPv6 EID prefix. 172 4. Expected use 174 Sites planning to deploy LISP may request a prefix in the IPv6 EID 175 Block. Such prefix will be used for routing and endpoint 176 identification inside the site requesting it. Mappings related to 177 such prefix, or part of it, will be made available through the 178 mapping system in use and registered to one or more Map Server(s). 180 To guarantee reachability from the Legacy Internet the prefix may be 181 announced in the BGP routing infrastructure by one or more PITR(s) as 182 part of larger aggregates (ideally just the entire LISP EID block). 183 Indeed, the use of PxTRs allow EID prefix aggregation; the deployment 184 model for this element is described in [RFC6832] and 185 [I-D.ietf-lisp-deployment]. 187 As the LISP adoption progress, the EID prefix space will potentially 188 help in reducing the impact on the BGP routing infrastructure with 189 respect to the case of the same number of adopters using global 190 unicast space allocated by RIRs ([MobiArch2007]). From a short-term 191 perspective, the EID space offers potentially large aggregation 192 capabilities since it is announced by PxTRs possibly concentrating 193 several contiguous prefixes. Such trend should continue with even 194 lower impact from a long-term perspective, since more aggressive 195 aggregation can be used, potentially leading at using few PxTRs 196 announcing the whole EID space ([FIABook2010]). 198 The EID Block will be used only at configuration level, it is 199 recommended not to hard-code in any way the IPv6 EID Block in the 200 router hardware. This allows avoiding locking out sites that may 201 want to switch to LISP while keeping their own IPv6 prefix, which is 202 not in the IPv6 EID Block. 204 The prefix must not be used as normal prefix and announced in the BGP 205 routing infrastructure. 207 5. Block Dimension 209 The working group reached consensus on an initial allocation of a /16 210 prefix out of a /12 block which is asked to remain reserved for 211 future use as EID space. The reason of such consensus is manifold: 213 o The working group agreed that /16 prefix is sufficiently large to 214 cover initial allocation and requests for prefixes in the EID 215 space in the next few years for very large-scale experimentation 216 and deployment. 218 o As a comparison, it is worth mentioning that the current LISP Beta 219 Network ([BETA]) is using a /32 prefix, with more than 250 sites 220 using a /48 sub prefix. Hence, a /16 prefix looks as sufficiently 221 large to allow the current deployment to scale up and be open for 222 interoperation with independent deployments using EIDs space in 223 the new /16 prefix. 225 o A /16 prefix is sufficiently large to only allow deployment of 226 independent (commercial) LISP enabled networks by third parties, 227 but may as well boost LISP experimentation and deployment. 229 o The /16 size and alignment allows the use to current policies to 230 allocate and distribute prefixes out of this space, without the 231 need to introduce any new specific address management policy. 233 o The proposed alignment provides as well a natural support for DNS. 234 In particular, reverse DNS for IPv6 in the special ip6.arpa domain 235 is represented as sequence of nibbles. A different alignment 236 would force to a binary representation. 238 o The use of a /16 prefix is in line with previous similar prefix 239 allocation for tunnelling protocols ([RFC3056]). 241 6. 3+3 Allocation Plan 243 This document requests IANA to initially assign a /16 prefix out of 244 the IPv6 addressing space for use as EID in LISP (Locator/ID 245 Separation Protocol). 247 It is suggested to IANA to temporarily avoid allocating any other 248 address block the same /12 prefix the EID /16 prefix belongs to. 249 This is to accommodate future requests of EID space without 250 fragmenting the EID addressing space. This will also help from an 251 operational point of view, since it will be sufficient to change the 252 subnet mask length in existing deployments. If in the future there 253 will be need for a larger EID Block the address space adjacent the 254 EID Block could be allocate by IANA according to the current 255 policies. 257 IANA should assign the requested address space by beginning 2014 for 258 a duration of 3 (three) initial years (through December 2017), with 259 an option to extend this period by 3 (three) more years (until 260 December 2020). By the end of the first period, the IETF will 261 provide a decision on whether to transform the prefix in a permanent 262 assignment or to put it back in the free pool. 264 In the first case, i.e., if the IETF decides to transform the block 265 in a permanent allocation, the EID block allocation period will be 266 extended for three years (until December 2020) so to give time to the 267 IETF to define the final size of the EID block, the transition phase, 268 and the allocation and management policies. 270 In the latter case, i.e., if the IETF decides to stop the EID block 271 experimental use, by December 2017 all temporary prefix allocations 272 in such address range must expire and be released, so that by January 273 2018 the entire /12 is returned to the free pool. 275 The allocation and management of the Global EID Space for the initial 276 3 years period (and the optional 3 more years) is detailed in 277 [I-D.iannone-lisp-eid-block-mgmnt]. 279 7. Routing Considerations 281 In order to provide connectivity between the Legacy Internet and LISP 282 sites, PITRs announcing large aggregates (ideally one single large 283 aggregate) of the IPv6 EID Block could be deployed. By doing so, 284 PITRs will attract traffic destined to LISP sites in order to 285 encapsulate and forward it toward the specific destination LISP site. 286 Routers in the Legacy Internet must treat announcements of prefixes 287 from the IPv6 EID Block as normal announcements, applying best 288 current practice for traffic engineering and security. 290 Even in a LISP site, not all routers need to run LISP elements. In 291 particular, routers that are not at the border of the local domain, 292 used only for intra-domain routing, do not need to provide any 293 specific LISP functionality but must be able to route traffic using 294 addresses in the IPv6 EID Block. 296 For the above-mentioned reasons, routers that do not run any LISP 297 element, must not include any special handling code or hardware for 298 addresses in the IPv6 EID Block. In particular, it is recommended 299 that the default router configuration does not handle such addresses 300 in any special way. Doing differently could prevent communication 301 between the Legacy Internet and LISP sites or even break local intra- 302 domain connectivity. 304 8. Security Considerations 306 This document does not introduce new security threats in the LISP 307 architecture nor in the Legacy Internet architecture. 309 9. IANA Considerations 311 This document instructs the IANA to assign a /16 IPv6 prefix for use 312 as the global LISP EID space using a hierarchical allocation as 313 outlined in [RFC5226] and summarized in Table 1. 315 +----------------------+--------------------+ 316 | Attribute | Value | 317 +----------------------+--------------------+ 318 | Address Block | XXX0::/16 [1] | 319 | Name | EID Space for LISP | 320 | RFC | [This Document] | 321 | Allocation Date | September 2013 | 322 | Termination Date | September 2023 | 323 | Source | True [2] | 324 | Destination | True | 325 | Forwardable | True | 326 | Global | True | 327 | Reserved-by-protocol | True [3] | 328 +----------------------+--------------------+ 330 [1] XXX value to be provided by IANA before published as RFC. [2] Can 331 be used as a multicast source as well. [3] To be used as EID space by 332 LISP [RFC6830] enabled routers. 334 Table 1: Global EID Space 336 During the discussion related to this document, the LISP Working 337 Group agreed in suggesting to IANA to reserve adjacent addressing 338 space, more specifically the /12 covering the assigned /16 prefix, 339 for future use as EID space if needs come. Table 2 summarizes the 340 request. Following the policies outlined in [RFC5226], such space 341 will be assigned only upon IETF Review. 343 +----------------------+----------------------+ 344 | Attribute | Value | 345 +----------------------+----------------------+ 346 | Address Block | XXX0::/12 [1] | 347 | Name | ) EID Space for LISP | 348 | RFC | [This Document] | 349 | Allocation Date | September 2013 | 350 | Termination Date | September 2023 | 351 | Source | False | 352 | Destination | False | 353 | Forwardable | False | 354 | Global | False | 355 | Reserved-by-protocol | True [2] | 356 +----------------------+----------------------+ 358 [1] XXX value to be provided by IANA before published as RFC. [2] To 359 be used as EID space by LISP [RFC6830] enabled routers. 361 Table 2: Reserved for Future Use as Global EID Space 363 This document does not specify any specific value for the requested 364 address block but suggests that should come from the 2000::/3 Global 365 Unicast Space. Furthermore, it is suggested to assign the /16 prefix 366 from the first /16 block out of the reserved /12 prefix. IANA is not 367 requested to issue a AS0 ROA, since the Global EID Space will be used 368 for routing purposes. 370 The reserved address space is requested for a period of time of three 371 initial years starting in beginning 2014 (until December 2017), with 372 an option to extend it by three years (until December 2020) up on 373 decision of the IETF. Following the policies outlined in [RFC5226], 374 upon IETF Review, by December 2017 decision should be made on whether 375 to keep the assignment making the reserved prefix assignment 376 permanent (this includes final decision on the size of the prefix). 377 If the IETF review outcome will be that is not worth to have a 378 reserved prefix as global EID space, the whole /12 (and all sub-block 379 assigned out of it) will be taken out from the IPv6 Special Purpose 380 Address Registry and put back in the free pool managed by IANA by end 381 of January 2018. 383 Allocation and management of the Global EID Space is detailed in a 384 different document. Nevertheless, all prefix allocations out of this 385 space must be temporary and no allocation must go beyond December 386 2017 unless the IETF Review decides that the Global EID Space is 387 permanently assigned. 389 10. Acknowledgments 391 Special thanks to Roque Gagliano for his suggestions and pointers. 392 Thanks to David Conrad, Scott Bradner, John Curran, Paul Wilson, 393 Geoff Huston, Wes George, Arturo Servin, Sander Steffann, Brian 394 Carpenter, Roger Jorgensen, Terry Manderson, Brian Haberman, Adrian 395 Farrel, Job Snijders, Marla Azinger, Chris Morrow, and Peter 396 Schoenmaker, for their insightful comments. Thanks as well to all 397 participants to the fruitful discussions on the IETF mailing list. 399 11. References 401 11.1. Normative References 403 [I-D.iannone-lisp-eid-block-mgmnt] 404 Iannone, L., Jorgensen, R., and D. Conrad, "LISP EID Block 405 Management Guidelines", 406 draft-iannone-lisp-eid-block-mgmnt-03 (work in progress), 407 October 2013. 409 [RFC2434] Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an 410 IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 2434, 411 October 1998. 413 [RFC3692] Narten, T., "Assigning Experimental and Testing Numbers 414 Considered Useful", BCP 82, RFC 3692, January 2004. 416 [RFC4632] Fuller, V. and T. Li, "Classless Inter-domain Routing 417 (CIDR): The Internet Address Assignment and Aggregation 418 Plan", BCP 122, RFC 4632, August 2006. 420 [RFC5226] Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an 421 IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 5226, 422 May 2008. 424 [RFC6830] Farinacci, D., Fuller, V., Meyer, D., and D. Lewis, "The 425 Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP)", RFC 6830, 426 January 2013. 428 [RFC6831] Farinacci, D., Meyer, D., Zwiebel, J., and S. Venaas, "The 429 Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP) for Multicast 430 Environments", RFC 6831, January 2013. 432 [RFC6832] Lewis, D., Meyer, D., Farinacci, D., and V. Fuller, 433 "Interworking between Locator/ID Separation Protocol 434 (LISP) and Non-LISP Sites", RFC 6832, January 2013. 436 [RFC6833] Fuller, V. and D. Farinacci, "Locator/ID Separation 437 Protocol (LISP) Map-Server Interface", RFC 6833, 438 January 2013. 440 [RFC6834] Iannone, L., Saucez, D., and O. Bonaventure, "Locator/ID 441 Separation Protocol (LISP) Map-Versioning", RFC 6834, 442 January 2013. 444 [RFC6835] Farinacci, D. and D. Meyer, "The Locator/ID Separation 445 Protocol Internet Groper (LIG)", RFC 6835, January 2013. 447 [RFC6836] Fuller, V., Farinacci, D., Meyer, D., and D. Lewis, 448 "Locator/ID Separation Protocol Alternative Logical 449 Topology (LISP+ALT)", RFC 6836, January 2013. 451 [RFC6837] Lear, E., "NERD: A Not-so-novel Endpoint ID (EID) to 452 Routing Locator (RLOC) Database", RFC 6837, January 2013. 454 11.2. Informative References 456 [BETA] LISP Beta Network, "http://www.lisp4.net". 458 [FIABook2010] 459 L. Iannone, T. Leva, "Modeling the economics of Loc/ID 460 Separation for the Future Internet.", Towards the Future 461 Internet - Emerging Trends from the European Research, 462 Pages 11-20, ISBN: 9781607505389, IOS Press , May 2010. 464 [I-D.ietf-lisp-deployment] 465 Jakab, L., Cabellos-Aparicio, A., Coras, F., Domingo- 466 Pascual, J., and D. Lewis, "LISP Network Element 467 Deployment Considerations", draft-ietf-lisp-deployment-10 468 (work in progress), August 2013. 470 [MobiArch2007] 471 B. Quoitin, L. Iannone, C. de Launois, O. Bonaventure, 472 "Evaluating the Benefits of the Locator/Identifier 473 Separation", The 2nd ACM-SIGCOMM International Workshop on 474 Mobility in the Evolving Internet Architecture 475 (MobiArch'07) , August 2007. 477 [RFC3056] Carpenter, B. and K. Moore, "Connection of IPv6 Domains 478 via IPv4 Clouds", RFC 3056, February 2001. 480 Appendix A. LISP Terminology 482 LISP operates on two name spaces and introduces several new network 483 elements. To facilitate the reading, this section provides high- 484 level definitions of the LISP name spaces and network elements and, 485 as such, it must not be considered as an authoritative source. The 486 reference to the authoritative document for each term is included in 487 every term description. 489 Legacy Internet: The portion of the Internet that does not run LISP 490 and does not participate in LISP+ALT or any other mapping system. 492 LISP site: A LISP site is a set of routers in an edge network that 493 are under a single technical administration. LISP routers that 494 reside in the edge network are the demarcation points to separate 495 the edge network from the core network. See [RFC6830] for more 496 details. 498 Endpoint ID (EID): An EID is a 32-bit (for IPv4) or 128-bit (for 499 IPv6) value used in the source and destination address fields of 500 the first (most inner) LISP header of a packet. A packet that is 501 emitted by a system contains EIDs in its headers and LISP headers 502 are prepended only when the packet reaches an Ingress Tunnel 503 Router (ITR) on the data path to the destination EID. The source 504 EID is obtained via existing mechanisms used to set a host's 505 "local" IP address. An EID is allocated to a host from an EID- 506 prefix block associated with the site where the host is located. 507 See [RFC6830] for more details. 509 EID-prefix: A power-of-two block of EIDs that are allocated to a 510 site by an address allocation authority. See [RFC6830] for more 511 details. 513 EID-Prefix Aggregate: A set of EID-prefixes said to be aggregatable 514 in the [RFC4632] sense. That is, an EID-Prefix aggregate is 515 defined to be a single contiguous power-of-two EID-prefix block. 516 A prefix and a length characterize such a block. See [RFC6830] 517 for more details. 519 Routing LOCator (RLOC): A RLOC is an IPv4 or IPv6 address of an 520 egress tunnel router (ETR). A RLOC is the output of an EID-to- 521 RLOC mapping lookup. An EID maps to one or more RLOCs. 522 Typically, RLOCs are numbered from topologically aggregatable 523 blocks that are assigned to a site at each point to which it 524 attaches to the global Internet; where the topology is defined by 525 the connectivity of provider networks, RLOCs can be thought of as 526 Provider Aggregatable (PA) addresses. See [RFC6830] for more 527 details. 529 EID-to-RLOC Mapping: A binding between an EID-Prefix and the RLOC- 530 set that can be used to reach the EID-Prefix. The general term 531 "mapping" always refers to an EID-to-RLOC mapping. See [RFC6830] 532 for more details. 534 Ingress Tunnel Router (ITR): An Ingress Tunnel Router (ITR) is a 535 router that accepts receives IP packets from site end-systems on 536 one side and sends LISP-encapsulated IP packets toward the 537 Internet on the other side. The router treats the "inner" IP 538 destination address as an EID and performs an EID-to-RLOC mapping 539 lookup. The router then prepends an "outer" IP header with one of 540 its globally routable RLOCs in the source address field and the 541 result of the mapping lookup in the destination address field. 542 See [RFC6830] for more details. 544 Egress Tunnel Router (ETR): An Egress Tunnel Router (ETR) receives 545 LISP-encapsulated IP packets from the Internet on one side and 546 sends decapsulated IP packets to site end-systems on the other 547 side. An ETR router accepts an IP packet where the destination 548 address in the "outer" IP header is one of its own RLOCs. The 549 router strips the "outer" header and forwards the packet based on 550 the next IP header found. See [RFC6830] for more details. 552 Proxy ITR (PITR): A Proxy-ITR (PITR) acts like an ITR but does so on 553 behalf of non-LISP sites which send packets to destinations at 554 LISP sites. See [RFC6832] for more details. 556 Proxy ETR (PETR): A Proxy-ETR (PETR) acts like an ETR but does so on 557 behalf of LISP sites which send packets to destinations at non- 558 LISP sites. See [RFC6832] for more details. 560 Map Server (MS): A network infrastructure component that learns EID- 561 to-RLOC mapping entries from an authoritative source (typically an 562 ETR). A Map Server publishes these mappings in the distributed 563 mapping system. See [RFC6833] for more details. 565 Map Resolver (MR): A network infrastructure component that accepts 566 LISP Encapsulated Map-Requests, typically from an ITR, quickly 567 determines whether or not the destination IP address is part of 568 the EID namespace; if it is not, a Negative Map-Reply is 569 immediately returned. Otherwise, the Map Resolver finds the 570 appropriate EID-to-RLOC mapping by consulting the distributed 571 mapping database system. See [RFC6833] for more details. 573 The LISP Alternative Logical Topology (ALT): The virtual overlay 574 network made up of tunnels between LISP+ALT Routers. The Border 575 Gateway Protocol (BGP) runs between ALT Routers and is used to 576 carry reachability information for EID-prefixes. The ALT provides 577 a way to forward Map-Requests toward the ETR that "owns" an EID- 578 prefix. See [RFC6836] for more details. 580 ALT Router: The device on which runs the ALT. The ALT is a static 581 network built using tunnels between ALT Routers. These routers 582 are deployed in a roughly-hierarchical mesh in which routers at 583 each level in the topology are responsible for aggregating EID- 584 Prefixes learned from those logically "below" them and advertising 585 summary prefixes to those logically "above" them. Prefix learning 586 and propagation between ALT Routers is done using BGP. When an 587 ALT Router receives an ALT Datagram, it looks up the destination 588 EID in its forwarding table (composed of EID-Prefix routes it 589 learned from neighboring ALT Routers) and forwards it to the 590 logical next-hop on the overlay network. The primary function of 591 LISP+ALT routers is to provide a lightweight forwarding 592 infrastructure for LISP control-plane messages (Map-Request and 593 Map-Reply), and to transport data packets when the packet has the 594 same destination address in both the inner (encapsulating) 595 destination and outer destination addresses ((i.e., a Data Probe 596 packet). See [RFC6836] for more details. 598 Appendix B. Document Change Log 600 Version 06 Posted October 2013. 602 o Clarified the rationale and intent of the EID block request with 603 respect to [RFC3692], as suggested by S. Bradner and J. Curran. 605 o Extended Section 3 by adding the transion scenario (as suggested 606 by J. Curran) and the TE scenario. The other scenarios have been 607 also edited. 609 o Section 6 has been re-written to introduce the 3+3 allocation plan 610 as suggested by B. Haberman and discussed during 86th IETF. 612 o Section 9 has also been updated to the 3+3 years allocation plan. 614 o Moved Section 10 at the end of the document. 616 o Changed the original Definition of terms to an appendix. 618 Version 05 Posted September 2013. 620 o No changes. 622 Version 04 Posted February 2013. 624 o Added Table 1 and Table 2 as requested by IANA. 626 o Transformed the prefix request in a temporary request as suggested 627 by various comments during IETF Last Call. 629 o Added discussion about short/long term impact on BGP in Section 4 630 as requested by B. Carpenter. 632 Version 03 Posted November 2012. 634 o General review of Section 5 as requested by T. Manderson and B. 635 Haberman. 637 o Dropped RFC 2119 Notation, as requested by A. Farrel and B. 638 Haberman. 640 o Changed "IETF Consensus" to "IETF Review" as pointed out by Roque 641 Gagliano. 643 o Changed every occurrence of "Map-Server" and "Map-Resolver" with 644 "Map Server" and "Map Resolver" to make the document consistent 645 with [RFC6833]. Thanks to Job Snijders for pointing out the 646 issue. 648 Version 02 Posted April 2012. 650 o Fixed typos, nits, references. 652 o Deleted reference to IANA allocation policies. 654 Version 01 Posted October 2011. 656 o Added Section 5. 658 Version 00 Posted July 2011. 660 o Updated section "IANA Considerations" 662 o Added section "Rationale and Intent" explaining why the EID block 663 allocation is useful. 665 o Added section "Expected Use" explaining how sites can request and 666 use a prefix in the IPv6 EID Block. 668 o Added section "Action Plan" suggesting IANA to avoid allocating 669 address space adjacent the allocated EID block in order to 670 accommodate future EID space requests. 672 o Added section "Routing Consideration" describing how routers not 673 running LISP deal with the requested address block. 675 o Added the present section to keep track of changes. 677 o Rename of draft-meyer-lisp-eid-block-02.txt. 679 Authors' Addresses 681 Luigi Iannone 682 Telecom ParisTech 684 Email: luigi.iannone@telecom-paristech.fr 686 Darrel Lewis 687 Cisco Systems, Inc. 689 Email: darlewis@cisco.com 691 David Meyer 692 Brocade 694 Email: dmm@1-4-5.net 696 Vince Fuller 698 Email: vaf@vaf.net