idnits 2.17.1 draft-ietf-lisp-eid-block-07.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: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == The page length should not exceed 58 lines per page, but there was 1 longer page, the longest (page 5) being 66 lines Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist : ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ** There is 1 instance of too long lines in the document, the longest one being 15 characters in excess of 72. Miscellaneous warnings: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == The copyright year in the IETF Trust and authors Copyright Line does not match the current year -- The document date (November 27, 2013) is 3800 days in the past. Is this intentional? Checking references for intended status: Informational ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- Looks like a reference, but probably isn't: '1' on line 322 -- Looks like a reference, but probably isn't: '2' on line 323 -- Looks like a reference, but probably isn't: '3' on line 323 -- Looks like a reference, but probably isn't: '4' on line 325 -- Looks like a reference, but probably isn't: '5' on line 326 ** 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reference: RFC 6833 (Obsoleted by RFC 9301) ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 6834 (Obsoleted by RFC 9302) == Outdated reference: A later version (-12) exists of draft-ietf-lisp-deployment-10 Summary: 6 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 3 warnings (==), 6 comments (--).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: May 31, 2014 Cisco Systems, Inc. 6 D. Meyer 7 Brocade 8 V. Fuller 9 November 27, 2013 11 LISP EID Block 12 draft-ietf-lisp-eid-block-07.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 May 31, 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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 64 9. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 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 frers 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 a 152 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, this will give a tighter control, especially filtering, 158 over the traffic in the initial experimental phase, while 159 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 guarantee reachability from the Legacy Internet the prefix may be 180 announced in the BGP routing infrastructure by one or more PITR(s) as 181 part of larger aggregates (ideally just the entire LISP EID block). 182 Indeed, the use of PxTRs allow EID prefix aggregation; the deployment 183 model for this element is described in [RFC6832] and 184 [I-D.ietf-lisp-deployment]. 186 As the LISP adoption progress, the EID prefix space will potentially 187 help in reducing the impact on the BGP routing infrastructure with 188 respect to the case of the same number of adopters using global 189 unicast space allocated by RIRs ([MobiArch2007]). From a short-term 190 perspective, the EID space offers potentially large aggregation 191 capabilities since it is announced by PxTRs possibly concentrating 192 several contiguous prefixes. Such trend should continue with even 193 lower impact from a long-term perspective, since more aggressive 194 aggregation can be used, potentially leading at using few PxTRs 195 announcing the whole EID space ([FIABook2010]). 197 The EID Block will be used only at configuration level, it is 198 recommended not to hard-code in any way the IPv6 EID Block in the 199 router hardware. This allows avoiding locking out sites that may 200 want to switch to LISP while keeping their own IPv6 prefix, which is 201 not in the IPv6 EID Block. Furthermore, in the case of a future 202 permanent allocation, the allocated prefix may differ from the 203 experimental temporary prefix allocated by IANA. 205 The prefix must not be used as normal prefix and announced in the BGP 206 routing infrastructure. 208 in the BGP 209 routing infrastructure. 211 5. Block Dimension 213 The working group reached consensus on an initial allocation of a /32 214 prefix. The reason of such consensus is manifold: 216 o The working group agreed that /32 prefix is sufficiently large to 217 cover initial allocation and requests for prefixes in the EID 218 space in the next few years for very large-scale experimentation 219 and deployment. 221 o As a comparison, it is worth mentioning that the current LISP Beta 222 Network ([BETA]) is using a /32 prefix, with more than 250 sites 223 using a /48 sub prefix. Hence, a /32 prefix looks as sufficiently 224 large to allow the current deployment to scale up and be open for 225 interoperation with independent deployments using EIDs space in 226 the new /32 prefix. 228 o A /32 prefix is sufficiently large to allow deployment of 229 independent (commercial) LISP enabled networks by third parties, 230 but may as well boost LISP experimentation and deployment. 232 o The use of a /32 prefix is in line with previous similar prefix 233 allocation for tunneling protocols ([RFC3056]). 235 6. 3+3 Allocation Plan 237 This document requests IANA to initially assign a /32 prefix out of 238 the IPv6 addressing space for use as EID in LISP (Locator/ID 239 Separation Protocol). 241 IANA should assign the requested address space by beginning 2014 for 242 a duration of 3 (three) initial years (through December 2017), with 243 an option to extend this period by 3 (three) more years (until 244 December 2020). By the end of the first period, the IETF will 245 provide a decision on whether to transform the prefix in a permanent 246 assignment or to put it back in the free pool. 248 In the first case, i.e., if the IETF decides to transform the block 249 in a permanent allocation, the EID block allocation period will be 250 extended for three years (until December 2020) so to give time to the 251 IETF to define the final size of the EID block and create a 252 transition plan. The transition of the EID block into a permanent 253 allocation has the potential to pose policy issues (as recognized in 254 [RFC2860], section 4.3) and hence discussion with the IANA, the RIR 255 communities, and the IETF community will be necessary to determine 256 appropriate policy for permanent EID prefix allocation and 257 management. Note as well that the final permanent allocation may 258 differ from the initial experimental assignment, hence, the 259 experimental EID block should not be hard-coded in any way on LISP- 260 capable devices. 262 In the latter case, i.e., if the IETF decides to stop the EID block 263 experimental use, by December 2017 all temporary prefix allocations 264 in such address range must expire and be released, so that by January 265 2018 the entire /32 is returned to the free pool. 267 The allocation and management of the Global EID Space for the initial 268 3 years period (and the optional 3 more years) is detailed in 269 [I-D.iannone-lisp-eid-block-mgmnt]. 271 7. Routing Considerations 273 In order to provide connectivity between the Legacy Internet and LISP 274 sites, PITRs announcing large aggregates (ideally one single large 275 aggregate) of the IPv6 EID Block could be deployed. By doing so, 276 PITRs will attract traffic destined to LISP sites in order to 277 encapsulate and forward it toward the specific destination LISP site. 278 Routers in the Legacy Internet must treat announcements of prefixes 279 from the IPv6 EID Block as normal announcements, applying best 280 current practice for traffic engineering and security. 282 Even in a LISP site, not all routers need to run LISP elements. In 283 particular, routers that are not at the border of the local domain, 284 used only for intra-domain routing, do not need to provide any 285 specific LISP functionality but must be able to route traffic using 286 addresses in the IPv6 EID Block. 288 For the above-mentioned reasons, routers that do not run any LISP 289 element, must not include any special handling code or hardware for 290 addresses in the IPv6 EID Block. In particular, it is recommended 291 that the default router configuration does not handle such addresses 292 in any special way. Doing differently could prevent communication 293 between the Legacy Internet and LISP sites or even break local intra- 294 domain connectivity. 296 8. Security Considerations 298 This document does not introduce new security threats in the LISP 299 architecture nor in the Legacy Internet architecture. 301 9. IANA Considerations 303 This document instructs the IANA to assign a /32 IPv6 prefix for use 304 as the global LISP EID space using a hierarchical allocation as 305 outlined in [RFC5226] and summarized in Table 1. 307 +----------------------+--------------------+ 308 | Attribute | Value | 309 +----------------------+--------------------+ 310 | Address Block | XXXX:YYYY::/32 [1] | 311 | Name | EID Space for LISP | 312 | RFC | [This Document] | 313 | Allocation Date | 2014 [2] | 314 | Termination Date | December 2017 [3] | 315 | Source | True [4] | 316 | Destination | True | 317 | Forwardable | True | 318 | Global | True | 319 | Reserved-by-protocol | True [5] | 320 +----------------------+--------------------+ 322 [1] XXXX and YYYY values to be provided by IANA before published as 323 RFC. [2] The actual allocation date to be provided by IANA. [3] 324 According to the 3+3 Plan outlined in this document termination date 325 can be postponed to December 2020. [4] Can be used as a multicast 326 source as well. [5] To be used as EID space by LISP [RFC6830] enabled 327 routers. 329 Table 1: Global EID Space 331 This document does not specify any specific value for the requested 332 address block but suggests that should come from the 2000::/3 Global 333 Unicast Space. IANA is not requested to issue an AS0 ROA, since the 334 Global EID Space will be used for routing purposes. 336 The reserved address space is requested for a period of time of three 337 initial years starting in beginning 2014 (until December 2017), with 338 an option to extend it by three years (until December 2020) up on 339 decision of the IETF (see Section 6). Following the policies 340 outlined in [RFC5226], upon IETF Review, by December 2017 decision 341 should be made on whether to have a permanent EID block assignment. 342 If the IETF review outcome will be that is not worth to have a 343 reserved prefix as global EID space, the whole /32 will be taken out 344 from the IPv6 Special Purpose Address Registry and put back in the 345 free pool managed by IANA by end of January 2018. 347 Allocation and management of the Global EID Space is detailed in a 348 different document. Nevertheless, all prefix allocations out of this 349 space must be temporary and no allocation must go beyond December 350 2017 unless the IETF Review decides for a permanent Global EID Space 351 assignment. 353 10. Acknowledgments 355 Special thanks to Roque Gagliano for his suggestions and pointers. 356 Thanks to David Conrad, Scott Bradner, John Curran, Paul Wilson, 357 Geoff Huston, Wes George, Arturo Servin, Sander Steffann, Brian 358 Carpenter, Roger Jorgensen, Terry Manderson, Brian Haberman, Adrian 359 Farrel, Job Snijders, Marla Azinger, Chris Morrow, and Peter 360 Schoenmaker, for their insightful comments. Thanks as well to all 361 participants to the fruitful discussions on the IETF mailing list. 363 The work of Luigi Iannone has been partially supported by the ANR-13- 364 INFR-0009 LISP-Lab Project (www.lisp-lab.org) and the EIT KIC ICT- 365 Labs SOFNETS Project. 367 11. References 369 11.1. Normative References 371 [I-D.iannone-lisp-eid-block-mgmnt] 372 Iannone, L., Jorgensen, R., and D. Conrad, "LISP EID Block 373 Management Guidelines", 374 draft-iannone-lisp-eid-block-mgmnt-03 (work in progress), 375 October 2013. 377 [RFC2434] Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an 378 IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 2434, 379 October 1998. 381 [RFC2860] Carpenter, B., Baker, F., and M. Roberts, "Memorandum of 382 Understanding Concerning the Technical Work of the 383 Internet Assigned Numbers Authority", RFC 2860, June 2000. 385 [RFC3692] Narten, T., "Assigning Experimental and Testing Numbers 386 Considered Useful", BCP 82, RFC 3692, January 2004. 388 [RFC4632] Fuller, V. and T. Li, "Classless Inter-domain Routing 389 (CIDR): The Internet Address Assignment and Aggregation 390 Plan", BCP 122, RFC 4632, August 2006. 392 [RFC5226] Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an 393 IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 5226, 394 May 2008. 396 [RFC6830] Farinacci, D., Fuller, V., Meyer, D., and D. Lewis, "The 397 Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP)", RFC 6830, 398 January 2013. 400 [RFC6831] Farinacci, D., Meyer, D., Zwiebel, J., and S. Venaas, "The 401 Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP) for Multicast 402 Environments", RFC 6831, January 2013. 404 [RFC6832] Lewis, D., Meyer, D., Farinacci, D., and V. Fuller, 405 "Interworking between Locator/ID Separation Protocol 406 (LISP) and Non-LISP Sites", RFC 6832, January 2013. 408 [RFC6833] Fuller, V. and D. Farinacci, "Locator/ID Separation 409 Protocol (LISP) Map-Server Interface", RFC 6833, 410 January 2013. 412 [RFC6834] Iannone, L., Saucez, D., and O. Bonaventure, "Locator/ID 413 Separation Protocol (LISP) Map-Versioning", RFC 6834, 414 January 2013. 416 [RFC6835] Farinacci, D. and D. Meyer, "The Locator/ID Separation 417 Protocol Internet Groper (LIG)", RFC 6835, January 2013. 419 [RFC6836] Fuller, V., Farinacci, D., Meyer, D., and D. Lewis, 420 "Locator/ID Separation Protocol Alternative Logical 421 Topology (LISP+ALT)", RFC 6836, January 2013. 423 [RFC6837] Lear, E., "NERD: A Not-so-novel Endpoint ID (EID) to 424 Routing Locator (RLOC) Database", RFC 6837, January 2013. 426 11.2. Informative References 428 [BETA] LISP Beta Network, "http://www.lisp4.net". 430 [FIABook2010] 431 L. Iannone, T. Leva, "Modeling the economics of Loc/ID 432 Separation for the Future Internet.", Towards the Future 433 Internet - Emerging Trends from the European Research, 434 Pages 11-20, ISBN: 9781607505389, IOS Press , May 2010. 436 [I-D.ietf-lisp-deployment] 437 Jakab, L., Cabellos-Aparicio, A., Coras, F., Domingo- 438 Pascual, J., and D. Lewis, "LISP Network Element 439 Deployment Considerations", draft-ietf-lisp-deployment-10 440 (work in progress), August 2013. 442 [MobiArch2007] 443 B. Quoitin, L. Iannone, C. de Launois, O. Bonaventure, 444 "Evaluating the Benefits of the Locator/Identifier 445 Separation", The 2nd ACM-SIGCOMM International Workshop on 446 Mobility in the Evolving Internet Architecture 447 (MobiArch'07) , August 2007. 449 [RFC3056] Carpenter, B. and K. Moore, "Connection of IPv6 Domains 450 via IPv4 Clouds", RFC 3056, February 2001. 452 Appendix A. LISP Terminology 454 LISP operates on two name spaces and introduces several new network 455 elements. To facilitate the reading, this section provides high- 456 level definitions of the LISP name spaces and network elements and, 457 as such, it must not be considered as an authoritative source. The 458 reference to the authoritative document for each term is included in 459 every term description. 461 Legacy Internet: The portion of the Internet that does not run LISP 462 and does not participate in LISP+ALT or any other mapping system. 464 LISP site: A LISP site is a set of routers in an edge network that 465 are under a single technical administration. LISP routers that 466 reside in the edge network are the demarcation points to separate 467 the edge network from the core network. See [RFC6830] for more 468 details. 470 Endpoint ID (EID): An EID is a 32-bit (for IPv4) or 128-bit (for 471 IPv6) value used in the source and destination address fields of 472 the first (most inner) LISP header of a packet. A packet that is 473 emitted by a system contains EIDs in its headers and LISP headers 474 are prepended only when the packet reaches an Ingress Tunnel 475 Router (ITR) on the data path to the destination EID. The source 476 EID is obtained via existing mechanisms used to set a host's 477 "local" IP address. An EID is allocated to a host from an EID- 478 prefix block associated with the site where the host is located. 479 See [RFC6830] for more details. 481 EID-prefix: A power-of-two block of EIDs that are allocated to a 482 site by an address allocation authority. See [RFC6830] for more 483 details. 485 EID-Prefix Aggregate: A set of EID-prefixes said to be aggregatable 486 in the [RFC4632] sense. That is, an EID-Prefix aggregate is 487 defined to be a single contiguous power-of-two EID-prefix block. 488 A prefix and a length characterize such a block. See [RFC6830] 489 for more details. 491 Routing LOCator (RLOC): A RLOC is an IPv4 or IPv6 address of an 492 egress tunnel router (ETR). A RLOC is the output of an EID-to- 493 RLOC mapping lookup. An EID maps to one or more RLOCs. 494 Typically, RLOCs are numbered from topologically aggregatable 495 blocks that are assigned to a site at each point to which it 496 attaches to the global Internet; where the topology is defined by 497 the connectivity of provider networks, RLOCs can be thought of as 498 Provider Aggregatable (PA) addresses. See [RFC6830] for more 499 details. 501 EID-to-RLOC Mapping: A binding between an EID-Prefix and the RLOC- 502 set that can be used to reach the EID-Prefix. The general term 503 "mapping" always refers to an EID-to-RLOC mapping. See [RFC6830] 504 for more details. 506 Ingress Tunnel Router (ITR): An Ingress Tunnel Router (ITR) is a 507 router that accepts receives IP packets from site end-systems on 508 one side and sends LISP-encapsulated IP packets toward the 509 Internet on the other side. The router treats the "inner" IP 510 destination address as an EID and performs an EID-to-RLOC mapping 511 lookup. The router then prepends an "outer" IP header with one of 512 its globally routable RLOCs in the source address field and the 513 result of the mapping lookup in the destination address field. 514 See [RFC6830] for more details. 516 Egress Tunnel Router (ETR): An Egress Tunnel Router (ETR) receives 517 LISP-encapsulated IP packets from the Internet on one side and 518 sends decapsulated IP packets to site end-systems on the other 519 side. An ETR router accepts an IP packet where the destination 520 address in the "outer" IP header is one of its own RLOCs. The 521 router strips the "outer" header and forwards the packet based on 522 the next IP header found. See [RFC6830] for more details. 524 Proxy ITR (PITR): A Proxy-ITR (PITR) acts like an ITR but does so on 525 behalf of non-LISP sites which send packets to destinations at 526 LISP sites. See [RFC6832] for more details. 528 Proxy ETR (PETR): A Proxy-ETR (PETR) acts like an ETR but does so on 529 behalf of LISP sites which send packets to destinations at non- 530 LISP sites. See [RFC6832] for more details. 532 Map Server (MS): A network infrastructure component that learns EID- 533 to-RLOC mapping entries from an authoritative source (typically an 534 ETR). A Map Server publishes these mappings in the distributed 535 mapping system. See [RFC6833] for more details. 537 Map Resolver (MR): A network infrastructure component that accepts 538 LISP Encapsulated Map-Requests, typically from an ITR, quickly 539 determines whether or not the destination IP address is part of 540 the EID namespace; if it is not, a Negative Map-Reply is 541 immediately returned. Otherwise, the Map Resolver finds the 542 appropriate EID-to-RLOC mapping by consulting the distributed 543 mapping database system. See [RFC6833] for more details. 545 The LISP Alternative Logical Topology (ALT): The virtual overlay 546 network made up of tunnels between LISP+ALT Routers. The Border 547 Gateway Protocol (BGP) runs between ALT Routers and is used to 548 carry reachability information for EID-prefixes. The ALT provides 549 a way to forward Map-Requests toward the ETR that "owns" an EID- 550 prefix. See [RFC6836] for more details. 552 ALT Router: The device on which runs the ALT. The ALT is a static 553 network built using tunnels between ALT Routers. These routers 554 are deployed in a roughly-hierarchical mesh in which routers at 555 each level in the topology are responsible for aggregating EID- 556 Prefixes learned from those logically "below" them and advertising 557 summary prefixes to those logically "above" them. Prefix learning 558 and propagation between ALT Routers is done using BGP. When an 559 ALT Router receives an ALT Datagram, it looks up the destination 560 EID in its forwarding table (composed of EID-Prefix routes it 561 learned from neighboring ALT Routers) and forwards it to the 562 logical next-hop on the overlay network. The primary function of 563 LISP+ALT routers is to provide a lightweight forwarding 564 infrastructure for LISP control-plane messages (Map-Request and 565 Map-Reply), and to transport data packets when the packet has the 566 same destination address in both the inner (encapsulating) 567 destination and outer destination addresses ((i.e., a Data Probe 568 packet). See [RFC6836] for more details. 570 Appendix B. Document Change Log 572 Version 07 Posted November 2013. 574 o Modified the document so to request a /32 allocation, as for the 575 consensus reached during IETF 88th. 577 Version 06 Posted October 2013. 579 o Clarified the rationale and intent of the EID block request with 580 respect to [RFC3692], as suggested by S. Bradner and J. Curran. 582 o Extended Section 3 by adding the transion scenario (as suggested 583 by J. Curran) and the TE scenario. The other scenarios have been 584 also edited. 586 o Section 6 has been re-written to introduce the 3+3 allocation plan 587 as suggested by B. Haberman and discussed during 86th IETF. 589 o Section 9 has also been updated to the 3+3 years allocation plan. 591 o Moved Section 10 at the end of the document. 593 o Changed the original Definition of terms to an appendix. 595 Version 05 Posted September 2013. 597 o No changes. 599 Version 04 Posted February 2013. 601 o Added Table 1 as requested by IANA. 603 o Transformed the prefix request in a temporary request as suggested 604 by various comments during IETF Last Call. 606 o Added discussion about short/long term impact on BGP in Section 4 607 as requested by B. Carpenter. 609 Version 03 Posted November 2012. 611 o General review of Section 5 as requested by T. Manderson and B. 612 Haberman. 614 o Dropped RFC 2119 Notation, as requested by A. Farrel and B. 615 Haberman. 617 o Changed "IETF Consensus" to "IETF Review" as pointed out by Roque 618 Gagliano. 620 o Changed every occurrence of "Map-Server" and "Map-Resolver" with 621 "Map Server" and "Map Resolver" to make the document consistent 622 with [RFC6833]. Thanks to Job Snijders for pointing out the 623 issue. 625 Version 02 Posted April 2012. 627 o Fixed typos, nits, references. 629 o Deleted reference to IANA allocation policies. 631 Version 01 Posted October 2011. 633 o Added Section 5. 635 Version 00 Posted July 2011. 637 o Updated section "IANA Considerations" 638 o Added section "Rationale and Intent" explaining why the EID block 639 allocation is useful. 641 o Added section "Expected Use" explaining how sites can request and 642 use a prefix in the IPv6 EID Block. 644 o Added section "Action Plan" suggesting IANA to avoid allocating 645 address space adjacent the allocated EID block in order to 646 accommodate future EID space requests. 648 o Added section "Routing Consideration" describing how routers not 649 running LISP deal with the requested address block. 651 o Added the present section to keep track of changes. 653 o Rename of draft-meyer-lisp-eid-block-02.txt. 655 Authors' Addresses 657 Luigi Iannone 658 Telecom ParisTech 660 Email: luigi.iannone@telecom-paristech.fr 662 Darrel Lewis 663 Cisco Systems, Inc. 665 Email: darlewis@cisco.com 667 David Meyer 668 Brocade 670 Email: dmm@1-4-5.net 672 Vince Fuller 674 Email: vaf@vaf.net