idnits 2.17.1 draft-ietf-lisp-eid-block-13.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 : ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == There are 1 instance of lines with non-RFC3849-compliant IPv6 addresses in the document. If these are example addresses, they should be changed. Miscellaneous warnings: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == The copyright year in the IETF Trust and authors Copyright Line does not match the current year -- The document date (February 26, 2016) is 2980 days in the past. Is this intentional? Checking references for intended status: Experimental ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- Looks like a reference, but probably isn't: '1' on line 362 -- Looks like a reference, but probably isn't: '2' on line 356 -- Looks like a reference, but probably isn't: '3' on line 357 == Outdated reference: A later version (-07) exists of draft-ietf-lisp-eid-block-mgmnt-06 ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 5226 (Obsoleted by RFC 8126) ** Obsolete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reference: RFC 6833 (Obsoleted by RFC 9301) ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 6834 (Obsoleted by RFC 9302) == Outdated reference: A later version (-15) exists of draft-ietf-lisp-introduction-13 Summary: 4 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 4 warnings (==), 4 comments (--). Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about the items above. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2 Network Working Group L. Iannone 3 Internet-Draft Telecom ParisTech 4 Intended status: Experimental D. Lewis 5 Expires: August 29, 2016 Cisco Systems, Inc. 6 D. Meyer 7 Brocade 8 V. Fuller 9 February 26, 2016 11 LISP EID Block 12 draft-ietf-lisp-eid-block-13.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 August 29, 2016. 39 Copyright Notice 41 Copyright (c) 2016 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. Allocation Lifetime . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 63 8. Routing Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 64 9. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 65 10. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 66 11. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 67 12. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 68 12.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 69 12.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 70 Appendix A. Document Change Log . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 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]), but assumes 87 that the reader is familiar with the LISP terminology. 88 [I-D.ietf-lisp-introduction] provides an introduction to the LISP 89 technology, including its terminology. 91 3. Rationale and Intent 93 Discussion within the LISP Working Group led to identify several 94 scenarios in which the existence of a LISP specific address block 95 brings technical benefits. Hereafter the most relevant scenarios are 96 described: 98 Early LISP destination detection: With the current specifications, 99 there is no direct way to detect whether or not a certain 100 destination is in a LISP domain or not without performing a 101 LISP mapping lookup. For instance, if an ITR is sending to all 102 types of destinations (i.e., non-LISP destinations, LISP 103 destinations not in the IPv6 EID block, and LISP destinations 104 in the IPv6 EID block) the only way to understand whether or 105 not to encapsulate the traffic is to perform a cache lookup 106 and, in case of a LISP Cache miss, send a Map-Request to the 107 mapping system. In the meanwhile (waiting the Map-Reply), 108 packets may be dropped in order to avoid excessive buffering. 110 Avoid penalizing non-LISP traffic: In certain circumstances it might 111 be desirable to configure a router using LISP features to 112 natively forward all packets that have not a destination 113 address in the block, hence, no lookup whatsoever is performed 114 and packets destined to non-LISP sites are not penalized in any 115 manner. 117 Traffic Engineering: In some deployment scenarios it might be 118 desirable to apply different traffic engineering policies for 119 LISP and non-LISP traffic. A LISP specific EID block would 120 allow improved traffic engineering capabilities with respect to 121 LISP vs. non-LISP traffic. In particular, LISP traffic might 122 be identified without having to use DPI techniques in order to 123 parse the encapsulated packet, performing instead a simple 124 inspection of the outer header is sufficient. 126 Transition Mechanism: The existence of a LISP specific EID block may 127 prove useful in transition scenarios. A non-LISP domain would 128 ask for an allocation in the LISP EID block and use it to 129 deploy LISP in its network. Such allocation will not be 130 announced in the BGP routing infrastructure (cf., Section 4). 131 This approach will allow non-LISP domains to avoid fragmenting 132 their already allocated non-LISP addressing space, which may 133 lead to BGP routing table inflation since it may (rightfully) 134 be announced in the BGP routing infrastructure. 136 Limit the impact on BGP routing infrastructure: As described in the 137 previous scenario, LISP adopters will avoid fragmenting their 138 addressing space, since fragmentation would negatively impact 139 the BGP routing infrastructure. Adopters will use addressing 140 space from the EID block, which might be announced in large 141 aggregates and in a tightly controlled manner only by proxy 142 xTRs. 144 Is worth mentioning that new use cases can arise in the future, due 145 to new and unforeseen scenarios. 147 Furthermore, the use of a dedicated address block will give a tighter 148 control, especially filtering, over the traffic in the initial 149 experimental phase, while facilitating its large-scale deployment. 151 [RFC3692] considers assigning experimental and testing numbers 152 useful, and the request of a reserved IPv6 prefix is a perfect match 153 of such practice. The present document follows the guidelines 154 provided in [RFC3692], with one exception. [RFC3692] suggests the 155 use of values similar to those called "Private Use" in [RFC5226], 156 which by definition are not unique. One of the purposes of the 157 present request to IANA is to guarantee uniqueness to the EID block. 158 The lack thereof would result in a lack of real utility of a reserved 159 IPv6 prefix. 161 4. Expected use 163 Sites planning to deploy LISP may request a prefix in the IPv6 EID 164 block. Such prefixes will be used for routing and endpoint 165 identification inside the site requesting it. Mappings related to 166 such prefix, or part of it, will be made available through the 167 mapping system in use and registered to one or more Map Server(s). 169 The EID block must be used for LISP experimentation and must not be 170 advertised in the form of more specific route advertisements in the 171 non-LISP inter-domain routing environment. Interworking between the 172 EID block sub-prefixes and the non-LISP Internet is done according to 173 [RFC6832] and [RFC7215]. 175 As the LISP adoption progresses, the EID block may potentially have a 176 reduced impact on the BGP routing infrastructure, compared to the 177 case of having the same number of adopters using global unicast space 178 allocated by RIRs ([MobiArch2007]). From a short-term perspective, 179 the EID block offers potentially large aggregation capabilities since 180 it is announced by PxTRs possibly concentrating several contiguous 181 prefixes. This trend should continue with even lower impact from a 182 long-term perspective, since more aggressive aggregation can be used, 183 potentially leading at using few PxTRs announcing the whole EID block 184 ([FIABook2010]). 186 The EID block will be used only at configuration level, it is 187 recommended not to hard-code in any way the IPv6 EID block in the 188 router hardware. This allows avoiding locking out sites that may 189 want to switch to LISP while keeping their own IPv6 prefix, which is 190 not in the IPv6 EID block. Furthermore, in the case of a future 191 permanent allocation, the allocated prefix may differ from the 192 experimental temporary prefix allocated during the experimentation 193 phase. 195 With the exception of PITR case (described in Section 8) prefixes out 196 of the EID block must not be announced in the BGP routing 197 infrastructure. 199 5. Block Dimension 201 The working group reached consensus on an initial allocation of a /32 202 prefix. The reason of such consensus is manifold: 204 o The working group agreed that /32 prefix is sufficiently large to 205 cover initial allocation and requests for prefixes in the EID 206 space in the next few years for very large-scale experimentation 207 and deployment. 209 o As a comparison, it is worth mentioning that the current LISP Beta 210 Network ([BETA]) is using a /32 prefix, with more than 250 sites 211 using a /48 sub prefix. Hence, a /32 prefix appears sufficiently 212 large to allow the current deployment to scale up and be open for 213 interoperation with independent deployments using EIDs in the new 214 /32 prefix. 216 o A /32 prefix is sufficiently large to allow deployment of 217 independent (commercial) LISP enabled networks by third parties, 218 but may as well boost LISP experimentation and deployment. 220 o The use of a /32 prefix is in line with previous similar prefix 221 allocation for tunneling protocols ([RFC3056]). 223 6. 3+3 Allocation Plan 225 This document requests IANA to initially assign a /32 prefix out of 226 the IPv6 addressing space for use as EID in LISP (Locator/ID 227 Separation Protocol). 229 IANA allocates the requested address space by MMMM/YYYY0 for a 230 duration of 3 (three) initial years (through MMMM/YYYY3), with an 231 option to extend this period by 3 (three) more years (until MMMM/ 232 YYYY6). By the end of the first period, the IETF will provide a 233 decision on whether to transform the prefix in a permanent assignment 234 or to put it back in the free pool (see Section 7 for more 235 information). 237 [RFC Editor: please replace MMMM and all its occurrences in the 238 document with the month of publication as RFC.] 240 [RFC Editor: please replace YYYY0 and all its occurrences in the 241 document with the year of publication as RFC.] 243 [RFC Editor: please replace YYYY3 and all its occurrences in the 244 document with the year of publication as RFC plus 3 years, e.g., if 245 published in 2016 then put 2019.] 247 [RFC Editor: please replace YYYY6 and all its occurrences in the 248 document with the year of publication as RFC plus 6 years, e.g., if 249 published in 2016 then put 2022.] 251 In the first case, i.e., if the IETF decides to transform the block 252 in a permanent allocation, the EID block allocation period will be 253 extended for three years (until MMMM/YYYY6) so to give time to the 254 IETF to define the final size of the EID block and create a 255 transition plan. The transition of the EID block into a permanent 256 allocation has the potential to pose policy issues (as recognized in 257 [RFC2860], section 4.3) and hence discussion with the IANA, the RIR 258 communities, and the IETF community will be necessary to determine 259 appropriate policy for permanent EID block allocation and management. 260 Note as well that the final permanent allocation may differ from the 261 initial experimental assignment, hence, it is recommended not to 262 hard-code in any way the experimental EID block on LISP-capable 263 devices. 265 In the latter case, i.e., if the IETF decides to stop the EID block 266 experimental use, by MMMM/YYYY3 all temporary prefix allocations in 267 such address range must expire and be released, so that the entire 268 /32 is returned to the free pool. 270 The allocation and management of the EID block for the initial 3 271 years period (and the optional 3 more years) is detailed in 272 [I-D.ietf-lisp-eid-block-mgmnt]. 274 7. Allocation Lifetime 276 If no explicit action is carried out by the end of the experiment (by 277 MMMM/YYYY3) it is automatically considered that there was no 278 sufficient interest in having a permanent allocation and the address 279 block will be returned to the free pool. 281 Otherwise, if the LISP Working Group recognizes that there is value 282 in having a permanent allocation then explicit action is needed. 284 In order to trigger the process for a permanent allocation a document 285 is required. Such document has to articulate the rationale why a 286 permanent allocation would be beneficial. More specifically, the 287 document has to detail the experience gained during experimentation 288 and all of the technical benefits provided by the use of a LISP 289 specific prefix. Such technical benefits are expected to lay in the 290 scenarios described in Section 3, however, new unforeseen benefits 291 may appear during experimentation. The description should be 292 sufficiently articulate so to allow to provide an estimation of what 293 should be the size of the permanent allocation. Note however that, 294 as explained in Section 6, it is up to IANA to decide which address 295 block will be used as permanent allocation and that such block may be 296 different from the temporary experimental allocation. 298 8. Routing Considerations 300 In order to provide connectivity between the Legacy Internet and LISP 301 sites, PITRs announcing large aggregates (ideally one single large 302 aggregate) of the IPv6 EID block could be deployed. By doing so, 303 PITRs will attract traffic destined to LISP sites in order to 304 encapsulate and forward it toward the specific destination LISP site. 305 Routers in the Legacy Internet must treat announcements of prefixes 306 from the IPv6 EID block as normal announcements, applying best 307 current practice for traffic engineering and security. 309 Even in a LISP site, not all routers need to run LISP elements. In 310 particular, routers that are not at the border of the local domain, 311 used only for intra-domain routing, do not need to provide any 312 specific LISP functionality but must be able to route traffic using 313 addresses in the IPv6 EID block. 315 For the above-mentioned reasons, routers that do not run any LISP 316 element, must not include any special handling code or hardware for 317 addresses in the IPv6 EID block. In particular, it is recommended 318 that the default router configuration does not handle such addresses 319 in any special way. Doing differently could prevent communication 320 between the Legacy Internet and LISP sites or even break local intra- 321 domain connectivity. 323 9. Security Considerations 325 This document does not introduce new security threats in the LISP 326 architecture nor in the legacy Internet architecture. 328 10. IANA Considerations 330 This document instructs the IANA to assign a /32 IPv6 prefix for use 331 as the global LISP EID space using a hierarchical allocation as 332 outlined in [RFC5226] and summarized in Table 1. 334 This document does not specify any specific value for the requested 335 address block but suggests that should come from the 2000::/3 Global 336 Unicast Space. IANA is not requested to issue an AS0 ROA (Route 337 Origin Attestation [RFC6491]), since the Global EID Space will be 338 used for routing purposes. 340 +----------------------+--------------------+ 341 | Attribute | Value | 342 +----------------------+--------------------+ 343 | Address Block | 2001:5::/32 | 344 | Name | EID Space for LISP | 345 | RFC | [This Document] | 346 | Allocation Date | 2015 | 347 | Termination Date | MMMM/YYYY3 [1] | 348 | Source | True [2] | 349 | Destination | True | 350 | Forwardable | True | 351 | Global | True | 352 | Reserved-by-protocol | True [3] | 353 +----------------------+--------------------+ 355 [1] According to the 3+3 Plan outlined in this document termination 356 date can be postponed to MMMM/YYYY6. [2] Can be used as a multicast 357 source as well. [3] To be used as EID space by LISP [RFC6830] enabled 358 routers. 360 Table 1: Global EID Space 362 [IANA: Please update the Termination Date and footnote [1] in the 363 Special-Purpose Address Registry when the I-D is published as RFC.] 365 The reserved address space is requested for a period of time of three 366 initial years starting in MMMM/YYYY0 (until MMMM/YYYY3), with an 367 option to extend it by three years (until MMMM/YYYY6) up on decision 368 of the IETF (see Section 6 and Section 7). Following the policies 369 outlined in [RFC5226], upon IETF Review, by MMMM/YYYY3 decision 370 should be made on whether to have a permanent EID block assignment. 371 If no explicit action is taken or if the IETF review outcome will be 372 that is not worth to have a reserved prefix as global EID space, the 373 whole /32 will be taken out from the IPv6 Special Purpose Address 374 Registry and put back in the free pool managed by IANA. 376 Allocation and management of the Global EID Space is detailed in a 377 different document. Nevertheless, all prefix allocations out of this 378 space must be temporary and no allocation must go beyond MMMM/YYYY3 379 unless the IETF Review decides for a permanent Global EID Space 380 assignment. 382 11. Acknowledgments 384 Special thanks to Roque Gagliano for his suggestions and pointers. 385 Thanks to Alvaro Retana, Deborah Brungard, Ron Bonica, Damien Saucez, 386 David Conrad, Scott Bradner, John Curran, Paul Wilson, Geoff Huston, 387 Wes George, Arturo Servin, Sander Steffann, Brian Carpenter, Roger 388 Jorgensen, Terry Manderson, Brian Haberman, Adrian Farrel, Job 389 Snijders, Marla Azinger, Chris Morrow, and Peter Schoenmaker, for 390 their insightful comments. Thanks as well to all participants to the 391 fruitful discussions on the IETF mailing list. 393 The work of Luigi Iannone has been partially supported by the ANR-13- 394 INFR-0009 LISP-Lab Project (www.lisp-lab.org) and the EIT KIC ICT- 395 Labs SOFNETS Project. 397 12. References 399 12.1. Normative References 401 [I-D.ietf-lisp-eid-block-mgmnt] 402 Iannone, L., Jorgensen, R., Conrad, D., and G. Huston, 403 "LISP EID Block Management Guidelines", 404 draft-ietf-lisp-eid-block-mgmnt-06 (work in progress), 405 August 2015. 407 [RFC2860] Carpenter, B., Baker, F., and M. Roberts, "Memorandum of 408 Understanding Concerning the Technical Work of the 409 Internet Assigned Numbers Authority", RFC 2860, 410 DOI 10.17487/RFC2860, June 2000, 411 . 413 [RFC3692] Narten, T., "Assigning Experimental and Testing Numbers 414 Considered Useful", BCP 82, RFC 3692, DOI 10.17487/ 415 RFC3692, January 2004, 416 . 418 [RFC5226] Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an 419 IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 5226, 420 DOI 10.17487/RFC5226, May 2008, 421 . 423 [RFC6830] Farinacci, D., Fuller, V., Meyer, D., and D. Lewis, "The 424 Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP)", RFC 6830, 425 DOI 10.17487/RFC6830, January 2013, 426 . 428 [RFC6831] Farinacci, D., Meyer, D., Zwiebel, J., and S. Venaas, "The 429 Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP) for Multicast 430 Environments", RFC 6831, DOI 10.17487/RFC6831, 431 January 2013, . 433 [RFC6832] Lewis, D., Meyer, D., Farinacci, D., and V. Fuller, 434 "Interworking between Locator/ID Separation Protocol 435 (LISP) and Non-LISP Sites", RFC 6832, DOI 10.17487/ 436 RFC6832, January 2013, 437 . 439 [RFC6833] Fuller, V. and D. Farinacci, "Locator/ID Separation 440 Protocol (LISP) Map-Server Interface", RFC 6833, 441 DOI 10.17487/RFC6833, January 2013, 442 . 444 [RFC6834] Iannone, L., Saucez, D., and O. Bonaventure, "Locator/ID 445 Separation Protocol (LISP) Map-Versioning", RFC 6834, 446 DOI 10.17487/RFC6834, January 2013, 447 . 449 [RFC6835] Farinacci, D. and D. Meyer, "The Locator/ID Separation 450 Protocol Internet Groper (LIG)", RFC 6835, DOI 10.17487/ 451 RFC6835, January 2013, 452 . 454 [RFC6836] Fuller, V., Farinacci, D., Meyer, D., and D. Lewis, 455 "Locator/ID Separation Protocol Alternative Logical 456 Topology (LISP+ALT)", RFC 6836, DOI 10.17487/RFC6836, 457 January 2013, . 459 [RFC6837] Lear, E., "NERD: A Not-so-novel Endpoint ID (EID) to 460 Routing Locator (RLOC) Database", RFC 6837, DOI 10.17487/ 461 RFC6837, January 2013, 462 . 464 12.2. Informative References 466 [BETA] LISP Beta Network, "http://www.lisp4.net". 468 [FIABook2010] 469 L. Iannone, T. Leva, "Modeling the economics of Loc/ID 470 Separation for the Future Internet.", Towards the Future 471 Internet - Emerging Trends from the European Research, 472 Pages 11-20, ISBN: 9781607505389, IOS Press , May 2010. 474 [I-D.ietf-lisp-introduction] 475 Cabellos-Aparicio, A. and D. Saucez, "An Architectural 476 Introduction to the Locator/ID Separation Protocol 477 (LISP)", draft-ietf-lisp-introduction-13 (work in 478 progress), April 2015. 480 [MobiArch2007] 481 B. Quoitin, L. Iannone, C. de Launois, O. Bonaventure, 482 "Evaluating the Benefits of the Locator/Identifier 483 Separation", The 2nd ACM-SIGCOMM International Workshop on 484 Mobility in the Evolving Internet Architecture 485 (MobiArch'07) , August 2007. 487 [RFC3056] Carpenter, B. and K. Moore, "Connection of IPv6 Domains 488 via IPv4 Clouds", RFC 3056, DOI 10.17487/RFC3056, 489 February 2001, . 491 [RFC6491] Manderson, T., Vegoda, L., and S. Kent, "Resource Public 492 Key Infrastructure (RPKI) Objects Issued by IANA", 493 RFC 6491, DOI 10.17487/RFC6491, February 2012, 494 . 496 [RFC7215] Jakab, L., Cabellos-Aparicio, A., Coras, F., Domingo- 497 Pascual, J., and D. Lewis, "Locator/Identifier Separation 498 Protocol (LISP) Network Element Deployment 499 Considerations", RFC 7215, DOI 10.17487/RFC7215, 500 April 2014, . 502 Appendix A. Document Change Log 504 [RFC Editor: Please remove this section on publication as RFC] 506 Version 13 Posted MMMM 2016. 508 o Changed I-D type from "Informational" to "Experimental" as 509 requested by A. Retana during IESG review. 511 o Dropped the appendix "LISP Terminology"; replaced by pointer to 512 the LISP Introduction document. 514 o Added Section 7 to clarify the process after the 3 years 515 experimental allocation. 517 o Modified the dates, introducing variables, so to allow RFC Editor 518 to easily update dates by publication as RFC. 520 Version 12 Posted May 2015. 522 o Fixed typos and references as suggested by the Gen-ART and OPS-DIR 523 review. 525 Version 11 Posted April 2015. 527 o In Section 4, deleted contradictory text on EID prefix 528 advertisement in non-LISP inter-domain routing environments. 530 o In Section 3 deleted the "Avoid excessive strech" bullet, because 531 confusing. 533 o Deleted last bullet of the list in Section 3 because retundant 534 w.r.t. global content of the document. 536 Version 10 Posted January 2015. 538 o Keep alive version 540 Version 09 Posted July 2014. 542 o Few Editorial modifications as requested by D. Saucez, as 543 shepherd, during the write up of the document. 545 o Allocation date postponed to beginning 2015, as suggested by D. 546 Saucez. 548 Version 08 Posted January 2014. 550 o Modified Section 4 as suggested by G. Houston. 552 Version 07 Posted November 2013. 554 o Modified the document so to request a /32 allocation, as for the 555 consensus reached during IETF 88th. 557 Version 06 Posted October 2013. 559 o Clarified the rationale and intent of the EID block request with 560 respect to [RFC3692], as suggested by S. Bradner and J. Curran. 562 o Extended Section 3 by adding the transion scenario (as suggested 563 by J. Curran) and the TE scenario. The other scenarios have been 564 also edited. 566 o Section 6 has been re-written to introduce the 3+3 allocation plan 567 as suggested by B. Haberman and discussed during 86th IETF. 569 o Section 10 has also been updated to the 3+3 years allocation plan. 571 o Moved Section 11 at the end of the document. 573 o Changed the original Definition of terms to an appendix. 575 Version 05 Posted September 2013. 577 o No changes. 579 Version 04 Posted February 2013. 581 o Added Table 1 as requested by IANA. 583 o Transformed the prefix request in a temporary request as suggested 584 by various comments during IETF Last Call. 586 o Added discussion about short/long term impact on BGP in Section 4 587 as requested by B. Carpenter. 589 Version 03 Posted November 2012. 591 o General review of Section 5 as requested by T. Manderson and B. 592 Haberman. 594 o Dropped RFC 2119 Notation, as requested by A. Farrel and B. 595 Haberman. 597 o Changed "IETF Consensus" to "IETF Review" as pointed out by Roque 598 Gagliano. 600 o Changed every occurrence of "Map-Server" and "Map-Resolver" with 601 "Map Server" and "Map Resolver" to make the document consistent 602 with [RFC6833]. Thanks to Job Snijders for pointing out the 603 issue. 605 Version 02 Posted April 2012. 607 o Fixed typos, nits, references. 609 o Deleted reference to IANA allocation policies. 611 Version 01 Posted October 2011. 613 o Added Section 5. 615 Version 00 Posted July 2011. 617 o Updated section "IANA Considerations" 619 o Added section "Rationale and Intent" explaining why the EID block 620 allocation is useful. 622 o Added section "Expected Use" explaining how sites can request and 623 use a prefix in the IPv6 EID Block. 625 o Added section "Action Plan" suggesting IANA to avoid allocating 626 address space adjacent the allocated EID block in order to 627 accommodate future EID space requests. 629 o Added section "Routing Consideration" describing how routers not 630 running LISP deal with the requested address block. 632 o Added the present section to keep track of changes. 634 o Rename of draft-meyer-lisp-eid-block-02.txt. 636 Authors' Addresses 638 Luigi Iannone 639 Telecom ParisTech 641 Email: ggx@gigix.net 643 Darrel Lewis 644 Cisco Systems, Inc. 646 Email: darlewis@cisco.com 648 David Meyer 649 Brocade 651 Email: dmm@1-4-5.net 653 Vince Fuller 655 Email: vaf@vaf.net