idnits 2.17.1 draft-ietf-lisp-eid-block-09.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 (July 1, 2014) is 3584 days in the past. Is this intentional? Checking references for intended status: Informational ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- Looks like a reference, but probably isn't: '1' on line 327 -- Looks like a reference, but probably isn't: '2' on line 328 -- Looks like a reference, but probably isn't: '3' on line 328 -- Looks like a reference, but probably isn't: '4' on line 330 -- Looks like a reference, but probably isn't: '5' on line 331 == Outdated reference: A later version (-07) exists of draft-ietf-lisp-eid-block-mgmnt-01 ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 5226 (Obsoleted by RFC 8126) ** Obsolete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) Summary: 4 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 2 warnings (==), 6 comments (--). Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about the items above. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2 Network Working Group L. Iannone 3 Internet-Draft Telecom ParisTech 4 Intended status: Informational D. Lewis 5 Expires: January 2, 2015 Cisco Systems, Inc. 6 D. Meyer 7 Brocade 8 V. Fuller 9 July 1, 2014 11 LISP EID Block 12 draft-ietf-lisp-eid-block-09.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 January 2, 2015. 39 Copyright Notice 41 Copyright (c) 2014 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the 42 document authors. All rights reserved. 44 This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal 45 Provisions Relating to IETF Documents 46 (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of 47 publication of this document. Please review these documents 48 carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect 49 to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must 50 include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of 51 the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as 52 described in the Simplified BSD License. 54 Table of Contents 56 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 57 2. Definition of Terms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 58 3. Rationale and Intent . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 59 4. Expected use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 60 5. Block Dimension . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 61 6. 3+3 Allocation Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 62 7. Routing Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 63 8. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 64 9. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 65 10. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 66 11. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 67 11.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 68 11.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 69 Appendix A. LISP Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 70 Appendix B. Document Change Log . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 71 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 73 1. Introduction 75 This document directs the IANA to allocate a /32 IPv6 prefix for use 76 with the Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP - [RFC6830]), LISP Map 77 Server ([RFC6833]), LISP Alternative Topology (LISP+ALT - [RFC6836]) 78 (or other) mapping systems, and LISP Interworking ([RFC6832]). 80 This block will be used as global Endpoint IDentifier (EID) space. 82 2. Definition of Terms 84 The present document does not introduce any new term with respect to 85 the set of LISP Specifications ( [RFC6830], [RFC6831], [RFC6832], 86 [RFC6833], [RFC6834], [RFC6835], [RFC6836], [RFC6837]). To help the 87 reading of the present document the terminology introduced by LISP is 88 summarized in Appendix A. 90 3. Rationale and Intent 92 Discussion within the LISP Working Group led to identify several 93 scenarios in which the existence of a LISP specific address block 94 brings technical benefits. Hereafter the most relevant scenarios are 95 described: 97 Early LISP destination detection: With the current specifications, 98 there is no direct way to detect whether or not a certain 99 destination is in a LISP domain or not without performing a 100 LISP mapping lookup. For instance, if an ITR is sending to all 101 types of destinations (i.e., non-LISP destinations, LISP 102 destinations not in the IPv6 EID block, and LISP destinations 103 in the IPv6 EID block) the only way to understand whether or 104 not to encapsulate the traffic is to perform a cache lookup 105 and, in case of a LISP Cache miss, send a Map-Request to the 106 mapping system. In the meanwhile (waiting the Map-Reply), 107 packets may be dropped in order to avoid excessive buffering. 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, in order to 117 avoid packet drops, packets triggering a LISP Cache miss are 118 forwarded toward a PETR, during the time necessary to perform a 119 mapping lookup over the LISP mapping system. Once a mapping is 120 obtained packet are not forwarded anymore toward the PETR, they 121 are 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 153 a 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, the use of a dedicated address block will give a tighter 159 control, especially filtering, over the traffic in the initial 160 experimental phase, while facilitating its large-scale deployment. 162 [RFC3692] considers assigning experimental and testing numbers 163 useful, and the request of a reserved IPv6 prefix is a perfect match 164 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 [RFC5226], 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 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 provide reachability from the non-LISP Internet, EID prefixes may 181 be restrictively announced in the BGP routing infrastructure by one 182 or more PITR(s) as more specifics (longer mask length). The intended 183 scope of these more specific prefix advertisements may be deliberated 184 limited by the PITR to reflect local routing policies. 186 The EID block must be used for LISP experimentation and must not be 187 advertised in the form of more specific route advertisements in the 188 non-LISP inter-domain routing environment. Interworking between the 189 EID block sub-prefixes and the non-LISP Internet is done according to 190 [RFC6832] and [RFC7215]. 192 As the LISP adoption progress, the EID block will potentially help in 193 reducing the impact on the BGP routing infrastructure with respect to 194 the case of the same number of adopters using global unicast space 195 allocated by RIRs ([MobiArch2007]). From a short-term perspective, 196 the EID block offers potentially large aggregation capabilities since 197 it is announced by PxTRs possibly concentrating several contiguous 198 prefixes. Such trend should continue with even lower impact from a 199 long-term perspective, since more aggressive aggregation can be used, 200 potentially leading at using few PxTRs announcing the whole EID block 201 ([FIABook2010]). 203 The EID block will be used only at configuration level, it is 204 recommended not to hard-code in any way the IPv6 EID block in the 205 router hardware. This allows avoiding locking out sites that may 206 want to switch to LISP while keeping their own IPv6 prefix, which is 207 not in the IPv6 EID block. Furthermore, in the case of a future 208 permanent allocation, the allocated prefix may differ from the 209 experimental temporary prefix allocated during the experimentation 210 phase. 212 With the exception of PITR case (described above) prefixes out of the 213 EID block must not be announced in the BGP routing infrastructure. 215 5. Block Dimension 217 The working group reached consensus on an initial allocation of a /32 218 prefix. The reason of such consensus is manifold: 220 o The working group agreed that /32 prefix is sufficiently large to 221 cover initial allocation and requests for prefixes in the EID 222 space in the next few years for very large-scale experimentation 223 and deployment. 225 o As a comparison, it is worth mentioning that the current LISP Beta 226 Network ([BETA]) is using a /32 prefix, with more than 250 sites 227 using a /48 sub prefix. Hence, a /32 prefix looks as sufficiently 228 large to allow the current deployment to scale up and be open for 229 interoperation with independent deployments using EIDs in the new 230 /32 prefix. 232 o A /32 prefix is sufficiently large to allow deployment of 233 independent (commercial) LISP enabled networks by third parties, 234 but may as well boost LISP experimentation and deployment. 236 o The use of a /32 prefix is in line with previous similar prefix 237 allocation for tunneling protocols ([RFC3056]). 239 6. 3+3 Allocation Plan 241 This document requests IANA to initially assign a /32 prefix out of 242 the IPv6 addressing space for use as EID in LISP (Locator/ID 243 Separation Protocol). 245 IANA should assign the requested address space by beginning 2015 for 246 a duration of 3 (three) initial years (through December 2018), with 247 an option to extend this period by 3 (three) more years (until 248 December 2021). By the end of the first period, the IETF will 249 provide a decision on whether to transform the prefix in a permanent 250 assignment or to put it back in the free pool. 252 In the first case, i.e., if the IETF decides to transform the block 253 in a permanent allocation, the EID block allocation period will be 254 extended for three years (until December 2021) so to give time to the 255 IETF to define the final size of the EID block and create a 256 transition plan. The transition of the EID block into a permanent 257 allocation has the potential to pose policy issues (as recognized in 259 [RFC2860], section 4.3) and hence discussion with the IANA, the RIR 260 communities, and the IETF community will be necessary to determine 261 appropriate policy for permanent EID block allocation and management. 262 Note as well that the final permanent allocation may differ from the 263 initial experimental assignment, hence, it is recommended not to 264 hard-code in any way the experimental EID block on LISP-capable 265 devices. 267 In the latter case, i.e., if the IETF decides to stop the EID block 268 experimental use, by December 2018 all temporary prefix allocations 269 in such address range must expire and be released, so that by January 270 2018 the entire /32 is returned to the free pool. 272 The allocation and management of the EID block for the initial 3 273 years period (and the optional 3 more years) is detailed in 274 [I-D.ietf-lisp-eid-block-mgmnt]. 276 7. Routing Considerations 278 In order to provide connectivity between the Legacy Internet and LISP 279 sites, PITRs announcing large aggregates (ideally one single large 280 aggregate) of the IPv6 EID block could be deployed. By doing so, 281 PITRs will attract traffic destined to LISP sites in order to 282 encapsulate and forward it toward the specific destination LISP site. 283 Routers in the Legacy Internet must treat announcements of prefixes 284 from the IPv6 EID block as normal announcements, applying best 285 current practice for traffic engineering and security. 287 Even in a LISP site, not all routers need to run LISP elements. In 288 particular, routers that are not at the border of the local domain, 289 used only for intra-domain routing, do not need to provide any 290 specific LISP functionality but must be able to route traffic using 291 addresses in the IPv6 EID block. 293 For the above-mentioned reasons, routers that do not run any LISP 294 element, must not include any special handling code or hardware for 295 addresses in the IPv6 EID block. In particular, it is recommended 296 that the default router configuration does not handle such addresses 297 in any special way. Doing differently could prevent communication 298 between the Legacy Internet and LISP sites or even break local intra- 299 domain connectivity. 301 8. Security Considerations 303 This document does not introduce new security threats in the LISP 304 architecture nor in the Legacy Internet architecture. 306 9. IANA Considerations 308 This document instructs the IANA to assign a /32 IPv6 prefix for use 309 as the global LISP EID space using a hierarchical allocation as 310 outlined in [RFC5226] and summarized in Table 1. 312 +----------------------+--------------------+ 313 | Attribute | Value | 314 +----------------------+--------------------+ 315 | Address Block | XXXX:YYYY::/32 [1] | 316 | Name | EID Space for LISP | 317 | RFC | [This Document] | 318 | Allocation Date | 2015 [2] | 319 | Termination Date | December 2018 [3] | 320 | Source | True [4] | 321 | Destination | True | 322 | Forwardable | True | 323 | Global | True | 324 | Reserved-by-protocol | True [5] | 325 +----------------------+--------------------+ 327 [1] XXXX and YYYY values to be provided by IANA before published as 328 RFC. [2] The actual allocation date to be provided by IANA. [3] 329 According to the 3+3 Plan outlined in this document termination date 330 can be postponed to December 2021. [4] Can be used as a multicast 331 source as well. [5] To be used as EID space by LISP [RFC6830] enabled 332 routers. 334 Table 1: Global EID Space 336 This document does not specify any specific value for the requested 337 address block but suggests that should come from the 2000::/3 Global 338 Unicast Space. IANA is not requested to issue an AS0 ROA, since the 339 Global EID Space will be used for routing purposes. 341 The reserved address space is requested for a period of time of three 342 initial years starting in beginning 2015 (until December 2018), with 343 an option to extend it by three years (until December 2021) up on 344 decision of the IETF (see Section 6). Following the policies 345 outlined in [RFC5226], upon IETF Review, by December 2018 decision 346 should be made on whether to have a permanent EID block assignment. 347 If the IETF review outcome will be that is not worth to have a 348 reserved prefix as global EID space, the whole /32 will be taken out 349 from the IPv6 Special Purpose Address Registry and put back in the 350 free pool managed by IANA by end of January 2018. 352 Allocation and management of the Global EID Space is detailed in a 353 different document. Nevertheless, all prefix allocations out of this 354 space must be temporary and no allocation must go beyond December 355 2018 unless the IETF Review decides for a permanent Global EID Space 356 assignment. 358 10. Acknowledgments 360 Special thanks to Roque Gagliano for his suggestions and pointers. 361 Thanks to Damien, Saucez, David Conrad, Scott Bradner, John Curran, 362 Paul Wilson, Geoff Huston, Wes George, Arturo Servin, Sander 363 Steffann, Brian Carpenter, Roger Jorgensen, Terry Manderson, Brian 364 Haberman, Adrian Farrel, Job Snijders, Marla Azinger, Chris Morrow, 365 and Peter Schoenmaker, for their insightful comments. Thanks as well 366 to all participants to the fruitful discussions on the IETF mailing 367 list. 369 The work of Luigi Iannone has been partially supported by the ANR-13- 370 INFR-0009 LISP-Lab Project (www.lisp-lab.org) and the EIT KIC ICT- 371 Labs SOFNETS Project. 373 11. References 375 11.1. Normative References 377 [I-D.ietf-lisp-eid-block-mgmnt] 378 Iannone, L., Jorgensen, R., and D. Conrad, "LISP EID Block 379 Management Guidelines", draft-ietf-lisp-eid-block-mgmnt-01 380 (work in progress), February 2014. 382 [RFC2860] Carpenter, B., Baker, F., and M. Roberts, "Memorandum of 383 Understanding Concerning the Technical Work of the 384 Internet Assigned Numbers Authority", RFC 2860, June 2000. 386 [RFC3692] Narten, T., "Assigning Experimental and Testing Numbers 387 Considered Useful", BCP 82, RFC 3692, January 2004. 389 [RFC4632] Fuller, V. and T. Li, "Classless Inter-domain Routing 390 (CIDR): The Internet Address Assignment and Aggregation 391 Plan", BCP 122, RFC 4632, August 2006. 393 [RFC5226] Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an 394 IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 5226, 395 May 2008. 397 [RFC6830] Farinacci, D., Fuller, V., Meyer, D., and D. Lewis, "The 398 Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP)", RFC 6830, 399 January 2013. 401 [RFC6831] Farinacci, D., Meyer, D., Zwiebel, J., and S. Venaas, "The 402 Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP) for Multicast 403 Environments", RFC 6831, January 2013. 405 [RFC6832] Lewis, D., Meyer, D., Farinacci, D., and V. Fuller, 406 "Interworking between Locator/ID Separation Protocol 407 (LISP) and Non-LISP Sites", RFC 6832, January 2013. 409 [RFC6833] Fuller, V. and D. Farinacci, "Locator/ID Separation 410 Protocol (LISP) Map-Server Interface", RFC 6833, 411 January 2013. 413 [RFC6834] Iannone, L., Saucez, D., and O. Bonaventure, "Locator/ID 414 Separation Protocol (LISP) Map-Versioning", RFC 6834, 415 January 2013. 417 [RFC6835] Farinacci, D. and D. Meyer, "The Locator/ID Separation 418 Protocol Internet Groper (LIG)", RFC 6835, January 2013. 420 [RFC6836] Fuller, V., Farinacci, D., Meyer, D., and D. Lewis, 421 "Locator/ID Separation Protocol Alternative Logical 422 Topology (LISP+ALT)", RFC 6836, January 2013. 424 [RFC6837] Lear, E., "NERD: A Not-so-novel Endpoint ID (EID) to 425 Routing Locator (RLOC) Database", RFC 6837, January 2013. 427 11.2. Informative References 429 [BETA] LISP Beta Network, "http://www.lisp4.net". 431 [FIABook2010] 432 L. Iannone, T. Leva, "Modeling the economics of Loc/ID 433 Separation for the Future Internet.", Towards the Future 434 Internet - Emerging Trends from the European Research, 435 Pages 11-20, ISBN: 9781607505389, IOS Press , May 2010. 437 [MobiArch2007] 438 B. Quoitin, L. Iannone, C. de Launois, O. Bonaventure, 439 "Evaluating the Benefits of the Locator/Identifier 440 Separation", The 2nd ACM-SIGCOMM International Workshop on 441 Mobility in the Evolving Internet Architecture 442 (MobiArch'07) , August 2007. 444 [RFC3056] Carpenter, B. and K. Moore, "Connection of IPv6 Domains 445 via IPv4 Clouds", RFC 3056, February 2001. 447 [RFC7215] Jakab, L., Cabellos-Aparicio, A., Coras, F., Domingo- 448 Pascual, J., and D. Lewis, "Locator/Identifier Separation 449 Protocol (LISP) Network Element Deployment 450 Considerations", RFC 7215, April 2014. 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 09 Posted July 2014. 574 o Few Editorial modifications as requested by D. Saucez, as 575 shepherd, during the write up of the document. 577 o Allocation date postponed to beginning 2015, as suggested by D. 578 Saucez. 580 Version 08 Posted January 2014. 582 o Modified Section 4 as suggested by G. Houston. 584 Version 07 Posted November 2013. 586 o Modified the document so to request a /32 allocation, as for the 587 consensus reached during IETF 88th. 589 Version 06 Posted October 2013. 591 o Clarified the rationale and intent of the EID block request with 592 respect to [RFC3692], as suggested by S. Bradner and J. Curran. 594 o Extended Section 3 by adding the transion scenario (as suggested 595 by J. Curran) and the TE scenario. The other scenarios have been 596 also edited. 598 o Section 6 has been re-written to introduce the 3+3 allocation plan 599 as suggested by B. Haberman and discussed during 86th IETF. 601 o Section 9 has also been updated to the 3+3 years allocation plan. 603 o Moved Section 10 at the end of the document. 605 o Changed the original Definition of terms to an appendix. 607 Version 05 Posted September 2013. 609 o No changes. 611 Version 04 Posted February 2013. 613 o Added Table 1 as requested by IANA. 615 o Transformed the prefix request in a temporary request as suggested 616 by various comments during IETF Last Call. 618 o Added discussion about short/long term impact on BGP in Section 4 619 as requested by B. Carpenter. 621 Version 03 Posted November 2012. 623 o General review of Section 5 as requested by T. Manderson and B. 624 Haberman. 626 o Dropped RFC 2119 Notation, as requested by A. Farrel and B. 627 Haberman. 629 o Changed "IETF Consensus" to "IETF Review" as pointed out by Roque 630 Gagliano. 632 o Changed every occurrence of "Map-Server" and "Map-Resolver" with 633 "Map Server" and "Map Resolver" to make the document consistent 634 with [RFC6833]. Thanks to Job Snijders for pointing out the 635 issue. 637 Version 02 Posted April 2012. 639 o Fixed typos, nits, references. 641 o Deleted reference to IANA allocation policies. 643 Version 01 Posted October 2011. 645 o Added Section 5. 647 Version 00 Posted July 2011. 649 o Updated section "IANA Considerations" 651 o Added section "Rationale and Intent" explaining why the EID block 652 allocation is useful. 654 o Added section "Expected Use" explaining how sites can request and 655 use a prefix in the IPv6 EID Block. 657 o Added section "Action Plan" suggesting IANA to avoid allocating 658 address space adjacent the allocated EID block in order to 659 accommodate future EID space requests. 661 o Added section "Routing Consideration" describing how routers not 662 running LISP deal with the requested address block. 664 o Added the present section to keep track of changes. 666 o Rename of draft-meyer-lisp-eid-block-02.txt. 668 Authors' Addresses 670 Luigi Iannone 671 Telecom ParisTech 673 Email: ggx@gigix.net 675 Darrel Lewis 676 Cisco Systems, Inc. 678 Email: darlewis@cisco.com 679 David Meyer 680 Brocade 682 Email: dmm@1-4-5.net 684 Vince Fuller 686 Email: vaf@vaf.net