idnits 2.17.1 draft-ietf-lisp-eid-block-11.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 (April 27, 2015) is 3286 days in the past. Is this intentional? Checking references for intended status: Informational ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- Looks like a reference, but probably isn't: '1' on line 307 -- Looks like a reference, but probably isn't: '2' on line 308 -- Looks like a reference, but probably isn't: '3' on line 308 -- Looks like a reference, but probably isn't: '4' on line 310 -- Looks like a reference, but probably isn't: '5' on line 311 == Outdated reference: A later version (-07) exists of draft-ietf-lisp-eid-block-mgmnt-04 ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 5226 (Obsoleted by RFC 8126) ** Obsolete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: October 29, 2015 Cisco Systems, Inc. 6 D. Meyer 7 Brocade 8 V. Fuller 9 April 27, 2015 11 LISP EID Block 12 draft-ietf-lisp-eid-block-11.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 October 29, 2015. 39 Copyright Notice 41 Copyright (c) 2015 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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 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 (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 Traffic Engineering: In some deployment scenarios it might be 117 desirable to apply different traffic engineering policies for 118 LISP and non-LISP traffic. A LISP specific EID block would 119 allow improved traffic engineering capabilities with respect to 120 LISP vs. non-LISP traffic. In particular, LISP traffic might 121 be identified without having to use DPI techniques in order to 122 parse the encapsulated packet, performing instead a simple 123 inspection of the outer header is sufficient. 125 Transition Mechanism: The existence of an LISP specific EID block 126 may prove useful in transition scenarios. A non-LISP domain 127 would ask an allocation in the LISP EID block and use it to 128 deploy LISP in its network. Such allocation will not be 129 announced in the BGP routing infrastructure (cf., Section 4). 130 This approach will avoid non-LISP domains to fragment their 131 already allocated non-LISP addressing space, which may lead to 132 BGP routing table inflation since it may (rightfully) be 133 announced in the BGP routing infrastructure. 135 Limit the impact on BGP routing infrastructure: As described in the 136 previous scenario, LISP adopters will avoid fragmenting their 137 addressing space, which would negatively impact the BGP routing 138 infrastructure. Adopters will use addressing space from the 139 EID block, which might be announced in large aggregates and in 140 a tightly controlled manner only by proxy xTRs. 142 Is worth to mention that new use cases can arise in the future, due 143 to new and unforeseen scenarios. 145 Furthermore, the use of a dedicated address block will give a tighter 146 control, especially filtering, over the traffic in the initial 147 experimental phase, while facilitating its large-scale deployment. 149 [RFC3692] considers assigning experimental and testing numbers 150 useful, and the request of a reserved IPv6 prefix is a perfect match 151 of such practice. The present document follows the guidelines 152 provided in [RFC3692], with one exception. [RFC3692] suggests the 153 use of values similar to those called "Private Use" in [RFC5226], 154 which by definition are not unique. One of the purposes of the 155 present request to IANA is to guarantee uniqueness to the EID block. 156 The lack thereof would result in a lack of real utility of a reserved 157 IPv6 prefix. 159 4. Expected use 161 Sites planning to deploy LISP may request a prefix in the IPv6 EID 162 block. Such prefix will be used for routing and endpoint 163 identification inside the site requesting it. Mappings related to 164 such prefix, or part of it, will be made available through the 165 mapping system in use and registered to one or more Map Server(s). 167 The EID block must be used for LISP experimentation and must not be 168 advertised in the form of more specific route advertisements in the 169 non-LISP inter-domain routing environment. Interworking between the 170 EID block sub-prefixes and the non-LISP Internet is done according to 171 [RFC6832] and [RFC7215]. 173 As the LISP adoption progress, the EID block will potentially help in 174 reducing the impact on the BGP routing infrastructure with respect to 175 the case of the same number of adopters using global unicast space 176 allocated by RIRs ([MobiArch2007]). From a short-term perspective, 177 the EID block offers potentially large aggregation capabilities since 178 it is announced by PxTRs possibly concentrating several contiguous 179 prefixes. Such trend should continue with even lower impact from a 180 long-term perspective, since more aggressive aggregation can be used, 181 potentially leading at using few PxTRs announcing the whole EID block 182 ([FIABook2010]). 184 The EID block will be used only at configuration level, it is 185 recommended not to hard-code in any way the IPv6 EID block in the 186 router hardware. This allows avoiding locking out sites that may 187 want to switch to LISP while keeping their own IPv6 prefix, which is 188 not in the IPv6 EID block. Furthermore, in the case of a future 189 permanent allocation, the allocated prefix may differ from the 190 experimental temporary prefix allocated during the experimentation 191 phase. 193 With the exception of PITR case (described above) prefixes out of the 194 EID block must not be announced in the BGP routing infrastructure. 196 5. Block Dimension 198 The working group reached consensus on an initial allocation of a /32 199 prefix. The reason of such consensus is manifold: 201 o The working group agreed that /32 prefix is sufficiently large to 202 cover initial allocation and requests for prefixes in the EID 203 space in the next few years for very large-scale experimentation 204 and deployment. 206 o As a comparison, it is worth mentioning that the current LISP Beta 207 Network ([BETA]) is using a /32 prefix, with more than 250 sites 208 using a /48 sub prefix. Hence, a /32 prefix looks as sufficiently 209 large to allow the current deployment to scale up and be open for 210 interoperation with independent deployments using EIDs in the new 211 /32 prefix. 213 o A /32 prefix is sufficiently large to allow deployment of 214 independent (commercial) LISP enabled networks by third parties, 215 but may as well boost LISP experimentation and deployment. 217 o The use of a /32 prefix is in line with previous similar prefix 218 allocation for tunneling protocols ([RFC3056]). 220 6. 3+3 Allocation Plan 222 This document requests IANA to initially assign a /32 prefix out of 223 the IPv6 addressing space for use as EID in LISP (Locator/ID 224 Separation Protocol). 226 IANA should assign the requested address space by beginning 2015 for 227 a duration of 3 (three) initial years (through December 2018), with 228 an option to extend this period by 3 (three) more years (until 229 December 2021). By the end of the first period, the IETF will 230 provide a decision on whether to transform the prefix in a permanent 231 assignment or to put it back in the free pool. 233 In the first case, i.e., if the IETF decides to transform the block 234 in a permanent allocation, the EID block allocation period will be 235 extended for three years (until December 2021) so to give time to the 236 IETF to define the final size of the EID block and create a 237 transition plan. The transition of the EID block into a permanent 238 allocation has the potential to pose policy issues (as recognized in 239 [RFC2860], section 4.3) and hence discussion with the IANA, the RIR 240 communities, and the IETF community will be necessary to determine 241 appropriate policy for permanent EID block allocation and management. 242 Note as well that the final permanent allocation may differ from the 243 initial experimental assignment, hence, it is recommended not to 244 hard-code in any way the experimental EID block on LISP-capable 245 devices. 247 In the latter case, i.e., if the IETF decides to stop the EID block 248 experimental use, by December 2018 all temporary prefix allocations 249 in such address range must expire and be released, so that by January 250 2018 the entire /32 is returned to the free pool. 252 The allocation and management of the EID block for the initial 3 253 years period (and the optional 3 more years) is detailed in 254 [I-D.ietf-lisp-eid-block-mgmnt]. 256 7. Routing Considerations 258 In order to provide connectivity between the Legacy Internet and LISP 259 sites, PITRs announcing large aggregates (ideally one single large 260 aggregate) of the IPv6 EID block could be deployed. By doing so, 261 PITRs will attract traffic destined to LISP sites in order to 262 encapsulate and forward it toward the specific destination LISP site. 263 Routers in the Legacy Internet must treat announcements of prefixes 264 from the IPv6 EID block as normal announcements, applying best 265 current practice for traffic engineering and security. 267 Even in a LISP site, not all routers need to run LISP elements. In 268 particular, routers that are not at the border of the local domain, 269 used only for intra-domain routing, do not need to provide any 270 specific LISP functionality but must be able to route traffic using 271 addresses in the IPv6 EID block. 273 For the above-mentioned reasons, routers that do not run any LISP 274 element, must not include any special handling code or hardware for 275 addresses in the IPv6 EID block. In particular, it is recommended 276 that the default router configuration does not handle such addresses 277 in any special way. Doing differently could prevent communication 278 between the Legacy Internet and LISP sites or even break local intra- 279 domain connectivity. 281 8. Security Considerations 283 This document does not introduce new security threats in the LISP 284 architecture nor in the legacy Internet architecture. 286 9. IANA Considerations 288 This document instructs the IANA to assign a /32 IPv6 prefix for use 289 as the global LISP EID space using a hierarchical allocation as 290 outlined in [RFC5226] and summarized in Table 1. 292 +----------------------+--------------------+ 293 | Attribute | Value | 294 +----------------------+--------------------+ 295 | Address Block | XXXX:YYYY::/32 [1] | 296 | Name | EID Space for LISP | 297 | RFC | [This Document] | 298 | Allocation Date | 2015 [2] | 299 | Termination Date | December 2018 [3] | 300 | Source | True [4] | 301 | Destination | True | 302 | Forwardable | True | 303 | Global | True | 304 | Reserved-by-protocol | True [5] | 305 +----------------------+--------------------+ 307 [1] XXXX and YYYY values to be provided by IANA before published as 308 RFC. [2] The actual allocation date to be provided by IANA. [3] 309 According to the 3+3 Plan outlined in this document termination date 310 can be postponed to December 2021. [4] Can be used as a multicast 311 source as well. [5] To be used as EID space by LISP [RFC6830] enabled 312 routers. 314 Table 1: Global EID Space 316 This document does not specify any specific value for the requested 317 address block but suggests that should come from the 2000::/3 Global 318 Unicast Space. IANA is not requested to issue an AS0 ROA, since the 319 Global EID Space will be used for routing purposes. 321 The reserved address space is requested for a period of time of three 322 initial years starting in beginning 2015 (until December 2018), with 323 an option to extend it by three years (until December 2021) up on 324 decision of the IETF (see Section 6). Following the policies 325 outlined in [RFC5226], upon IETF Review, by December 2018 decision 326 should be made on whether to have a permanent EID block assignment. 327 If the IETF review outcome will be that is not worth to have a 328 reserved prefix as global EID space, the whole /32 will be taken out 329 from the IPv6 Special Purpose Address Registry and put back in the 330 free pool managed by IANA by end of January 2018. 332 Allocation and management of the Global EID Space is detailed in a 333 different document. Nevertheless, all prefix allocations out of this 334 space must be temporary and no allocation must go beyond December 335 2018 unless the IETF Review decides for a permanent Global EID Space 336 assignment. 338 10. Acknowledgments 340 Special thanks to Roque Gagliano for his suggestions and pointers. 341 Thanks to Ron Bonica, Damien Saucez, David Conrad, Scott Bradner, 342 John Curran, Paul Wilson, Geoff Huston, Wes George, Arturo Servin, 343 Sander Steffann, Brian Carpenter, Roger Jorgensen, Terry Manderson, 344 Brian Haberman, Adrian Farrel, Job Snijders, Marla Azinger, Chris 345 Morrow, and Peter Schoenmaker, for their insightful comments. Thanks 346 as well to all participants to the fruitful discussions on the IETF 347 mailing list. 349 The work of Luigi Iannone has been partially supported by the ANR-13- 350 INFR-0009 LISP-Lab Project (www.lisp-lab.org) and the EIT KIC ICT- 351 Labs SOFNETS Project. 353 11. References 355 11.1. Normative References 357 [I-D.ietf-lisp-eid-block-mgmnt] 358 Iannone, L., Jorgensen, R., Conrad, D., and G. Huston, 359 "LISP EID Block Management Guidelines", 360 draft-ietf-lisp-eid-block-mgmnt-04 (work in progress), 361 December 2014. 363 [RFC2860] Carpenter, B., Baker, F., and M. Roberts, "Memorandum of 364 Understanding Concerning the Technical Work of the 365 Internet Assigned Numbers Authority", RFC 2860, June 2000. 367 [RFC3692] Narten, T., "Assigning Experimental and Testing Numbers 368 Considered Useful", BCP 82, RFC 3692, January 2004. 370 [RFC4632] Fuller, V. and T. Li, "Classless Inter-domain Routing 371 (CIDR): The Internet Address Assignment and Aggregation 372 Plan", BCP 122, RFC 4632, August 2006. 374 [RFC5226] Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an 375 IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 5226, 376 May 2008. 378 [RFC6830] Farinacci, D., Fuller, V., Meyer, D., and D. Lewis, "The 379 Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP)", RFC 6830, 380 January 2013. 382 [RFC6831] Farinacci, D., Meyer, D., Zwiebel, J., and S. Venaas, "The 383 Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP) for Multicast 384 Environments", RFC 6831, January 2013. 386 [RFC6832] Lewis, D., Meyer, D., Farinacci, D., and V. Fuller, 387 "Interworking between Locator/ID Separation Protocol 388 (LISP) and Non-LISP Sites", RFC 6832, January 2013. 390 [RFC6833] Fuller, V. and D. Farinacci, "Locator/ID Separation 391 Protocol (LISP) Map-Server Interface", RFC 6833, 392 January 2013. 394 [RFC6834] Iannone, L., Saucez, D., and O. Bonaventure, "Locator/ID 395 Separation Protocol (LISP) Map-Versioning", RFC 6834, 396 January 2013. 398 [RFC6835] Farinacci, D. and D. Meyer, "The Locator/ID Separation 399 Protocol Internet Groper (LIG)", RFC 6835, January 2013. 401 [RFC6836] Fuller, V., Farinacci, D., Meyer, D., and D. Lewis, 402 "Locator/ID Separation Protocol Alternative Logical 403 Topology (LISP+ALT)", RFC 6836, January 2013. 405 [RFC6837] Lear, E., "NERD: A Not-so-novel Endpoint ID (EID) to 406 Routing Locator (RLOC) Database", RFC 6837, January 2013. 408 11.2. Informative References 410 [BETA] LISP Beta Network, "http://www.lisp4.net". 412 [FIABook2010] 413 L. Iannone, T. Leva, "Modeling the economics of Loc/ID 414 Separation for the Future Internet.", Towards the Future 415 Internet - Emerging Trends from the European Research, 416 Pages 11-20, ISBN: 9781607505389, IOS Press , May 2010. 418 [MobiArch2007] 419 B. Quoitin, L. Iannone, C. de Launois, O. Bonaventure, 420 "Evaluating the Benefits of the Locator/Identifier 421 Separation", The 2nd ACM-SIGCOMM International Workshop on 422 Mobility in the Evolving Internet Architecture 423 (MobiArch'07) , August 2007. 425 [RFC3056] Carpenter, B. and K. Moore, "Connection of IPv6 Domains 426 via IPv4 Clouds", RFC 3056, February 2001. 428 [RFC7215] Jakab, L., Cabellos-Aparicio, A., Coras, F., Domingo- 429 Pascual, J., and D. Lewis, "Locator/Identifier Separation 430 Protocol (LISP) Network Element Deployment 431 Considerations", RFC 7215, April 2014. 433 Appendix A. LISP Terminology 435 LISP operates on two name spaces and introduces several new network 436 elements. To facilitate the reading, this section provides high- 437 level definitions of the LISP name spaces and network elements and, 438 as such, it must not be considered as an authoritative source. The 439 reference to the authoritative document for each term is included in 440 every term description. 442 Legacy Internet: The portion of the Internet that does not run LISP 443 and does not participate in LISP+ALT or any other mapping system. 445 LISP site: A LISP site is a set of routers in an edge network that 446 are under a single technical administration. LISP routers that 447 reside in the edge network are the demarcation points to separate 448 the edge network from the core network. See [RFC6830] for more 449 details. 451 Endpoint ID (EID): An EID is a 32-bit (for IPv4) or 128-bit (for 452 IPv6) value used in the source and destination address fields of 453 the first (most inner) LISP header of a packet. A packet that is 454 emitted by a system contains EIDs in its headers and LISP headers 455 are prepended only when the packet reaches an Ingress Tunnel 456 Router (ITR) on the data path to the destination EID. The source 457 EID is obtained via existing mechanisms used to set a host's 458 "local" IP address. An EID is allocated to a host from an EID- 459 prefix block associated with the site where the host is located. 460 See [RFC6830] for more details. 462 EID-prefix: A power-of-two block of EIDs that are allocated to a 463 site by an address allocation authority. See [RFC6830] for more 464 details. 466 EID-Prefix Aggregate: A set of EID-prefixes said to be aggregatable 467 in the [RFC4632] sense. That is, an EID-Prefix aggregate is 468 defined to be a single contiguous power-of-two EID-prefix block. 469 A prefix and a length characterize such a block. See [RFC6830] 470 for more details. 472 Routing LOCator (RLOC): A RLOC is an IPv4 or IPv6 address of an 473 egress tunnel router (ETR). A RLOC is the output of an EID-to- 474 RLOC mapping lookup. An EID maps to one or more RLOCs. 475 Typically, RLOCs are numbered from topologically aggregatable 476 blocks that are assigned to a site at each point to which it 477 attaches to the global Internet; where the topology is defined by 478 the connectivity of provider networks, RLOCs can be thought of as 479 Provider Aggregatable (PA) addresses. See [RFC6830] for more 480 details. 482 EID-to-RLOC Mapping: A binding between an EID-Prefix and the RLOC- 483 set that can be used to reach the EID-Prefix. The general term 484 "mapping" always refers to an EID-to-RLOC mapping. See [RFC6830] 485 for more details. 487 Ingress Tunnel Router (ITR): An Ingress Tunnel Router (ITR) is a 488 router that accepts receives IP packets from site end-systems on 489 one side and sends LISP-encapsulated IP packets toward the 490 Internet on the other side. The router treats the "inner" IP 491 destination address as an EID and performs an EID-to-RLOC mapping 492 lookup. The router then prepends an "outer" IP header with one of 493 its globally routable RLOCs in the source address field and the 494 result of the mapping lookup in the destination address field. 495 See [RFC6830] for more details. 497 Egress Tunnel Router (ETR): An Egress Tunnel Router (ETR) receives 498 LISP-encapsulated IP packets from the Internet on one side and 499 sends decapsulated IP packets to site end-systems on the other 500 side. An ETR router accepts an IP packet where the destination 501 address in the "outer" IP header is one of its own RLOCs. The 502 router strips the "outer" header and forwards the packet based on 503 the next IP header found. See [RFC6830] for more details. 505 Proxy ITR (PITR): A Proxy-ITR (PITR) acts like an ITR but does so on 506 behalf of non-LISP sites which send packets to destinations at 507 LISP sites. See [RFC6832] for more details. 509 Proxy ETR (PETR): A Proxy-ETR (PETR) acts like an ETR but does so on 510 behalf of LISP sites which send packets to destinations at non- 511 LISP sites. See [RFC6832] for more details. 513 Map Server (MS): A network infrastructure component that learns EID- 514 to-RLOC mapping entries from an authoritative source (typically an 515 ETR). A Map Server publishes these mappings in the distributed 516 mapping system. See [RFC6833] for more details. 518 Map Resolver (MR): A network infrastructure component that accepts 519 LISP Encapsulated Map-Requests, typically from an ITR, quickly 520 determines whether or not the destination IP address is part of 521 the EID namespace; if it is not, a Negative Map-Reply is 522 immediately returned. Otherwise, the Map Resolver finds the 523 appropriate EID-to-RLOC mapping by consulting the distributed 524 mapping database system. See [RFC6833] for more details. 526 The LISP Alternative Logical Topology (ALT): The virtual overlay 527 network made up of tunnels between LISP+ALT Routers. The Border 528 Gateway Protocol (BGP) runs between ALT Routers and is used to 529 carry reachability information for EID-prefixes. The ALT provides 530 a way to forward Map-Requests toward the ETR that "owns" an EID- 531 prefix. See [RFC6836] for more details. 533 ALT Router: The device on which runs the ALT. The ALT is a static 534 network built using tunnels between ALT Routers. These routers 535 are deployed in a roughly-hierarchical mesh in which routers at 536 each level in the topology are responsible for aggregating EID- 537 Prefixes learned from those logically "below" them and advertising 538 summary prefixes to those logically "above" them. Prefix learning 539 and propagation between ALT Routers is done using BGP. When an 540 ALT Router receives an ALT Datagram, it looks up the destination 541 EID in its forwarding table (composed of EID-Prefix routes it 542 learned from neighboring ALT Routers) and forwards it to the 543 logical next-hop on the overlay network. The primary function of 544 LISP+ALT routers is to provide a lightweight forwarding 545 infrastructure for LISP control-plane messages (Map-Request and 546 Map-Reply), and to transport data packets when the packet has the 547 same destination address in both the inner (encapsulating) 548 destination and outer destination addresses ((i.e., a Data Probe 549 packet). See [RFC6836] for more details. 551 Appendix B. Document Change Log 553 Version 11 Posted April 2015. 555 o In Section 4, deleted contradictory text on EID prefix 556 advertisement in non-LISP inter-domain routing environments. 558 o In Section 3 deleted the "Avoid excessive strech" bullet, because 559 confusing. 561 o Deleted last bullet of the list in Section 3 because retundant 562 w.r.t. global content of the document. 564 Version 10 Posted January 2015. 566 o Keep alive version 568 Version 09 Posted July 2014. 570 o Few Editorial modifications as requested by D. Saucez, as 571 shepherd, during the write up of the document. 573 o Allocation date postponed to beginning 2015, as suggested by D. 574 Saucez. 576 Version 08 Posted January 2014. 578 o Modified Section 4 as suggested by G. Houston. 580 Version 07 Posted November 2013. 582 o Modified the document so to request a /32 allocation, as for the 583 consensus reached during IETF 88th. 585 Version 06 Posted October 2013. 587 o Clarified the rationale and intent of the EID block request with 588 respect to [RFC3692], as suggested by S. Bradner and J. Curran. 590 o Extended Section 3 by adding the transion scenario (as suggested 591 by J. Curran) and the TE scenario. The other scenarios have been 592 also edited. 594 o Section 6 has been re-written to introduce the 3+3 allocation plan 595 as suggested by B. Haberman and discussed during 86th IETF. 597 o Section 9 has also been updated to the 3+3 years allocation plan. 599 o Moved Section 10 at the end of the document. 601 o Changed the original Definition of terms to an appendix. 603 Version 05 Posted September 2013. 605 o No changes. 607 Version 04 Posted February 2013. 609 o Added Table 1 as requested by IANA. 611 o Transformed the prefix request in a temporary request as suggested 612 by various comments during IETF Last Call. 614 o Added discussion about short/long term impact on BGP in Section 4 615 as requested by B. Carpenter. 617 Version 03 Posted November 2012. 619 o General review of Section 5 as requested by T. Manderson and B. 620 Haberman. 622 o Dropped RFC 2119 Notation, as requested by A. Farrel and B. 623 Haberman. 625 o Changed "IETF Consensus" to "IETF Review" as pointed out by Roque 626 Gagliano. 628 o Changed every occurrence of "Map-Server" and "Map-Resolver" with 629 "Map Server" and "Map Resolver" to make the document consistent 630 with [RFC6833]. Thanks to Job Snijders for pointing out the 631 issue. 633 Version 02 Posted April 2012. 635 o Fixed typos, nits, references. 637 o Deleted reference to IANA allocation policies. 639 Version 01 Posted October 2011. 641 o Added Section 5. 643 Version 00 Posted July 2011. 645 o Updated section "IANA Considerations" 647 o Added section "Rationale and Intent" explaining why the EID block 648 allocation is useful. 650 o Added section "Expected Use" explaining how sites can request and 651 use a prefix in the IPv6 EID Block. 653 o Added section "Action Plan" suggesting IANA to avoid allocating 654 address space adjacent the allocated EID block in order to 655 accommodate future EID space requests. 657 o Added section "Routing Consideration" describing how routers not 658 running LISP deal with the requested address block. 660 o Added the present section to keep track of changes. 662 o Rename of draft-meyer-lisp-eid-block-02.txt. 664 Authors' Addresses 666 Luigi Iannone 667 Telecom ParisTech 669 Email: ggx@gigix.net 670 Darrel Lewis 671 Cisco Systems, Inc. 673 Email: darlewis@cisco.com 675 David Meyer 676 Brocade 678 Email: dmm@1-4-5.net 680 Vince Fuller 682 Email: vaf@vaf.net