idnits 2.17.1 draft-ietf-lisp-eid-block-mgmnt-00.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 : ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ** The abstract seems to contain references ([I-D.ietf-lisp-eid-block]), which it shouldn't. Please replace those with straight textual mentions of the documents in question. Miscellaneous warnings: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == The copyright year in the IETF Trust and authors Copyright Line does not match the current year -- The document date (December 9, 2013) is 3789 days in the past. Is this intentional? Checking references for intended status: Informational ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == Outdated reference: A later version (-13) exists of draft-ietf-lisp-eid-block-06 ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 5226 (Obsoleted by RFC 8126) == Outdated reference: A later version (-12) exists of draft-ietf-weirds-rdap-sec-05 -- Obsolete informational reference (is this intentional?): RFC 6830 (Obsoleted by RFC 9300, RFC 9301) -- Obsolete informational reference (is this intentional?): RFC 6833 (Obsoleted by RFC 9301) -- Obsolete informational reference (is this intentional?): RFC 6834 (Obsoleted by RFC 9302) Summary: 2 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 3 warnings (==), 4 comments (--). Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about the items above. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2 Network Working Group L. Iannone 3 Internet-Draft Telecom ParisTech 4 Intended status: Informational R. Jorgensen 5 Expires: June 12, 2014 Bredbandsfylket Troms 6 D. Conrad 7 Virtualized, LLC 8 December 9, 2013 10 LISP EID Block Management Guidelines 11 draft-ietf-lisp-eid-block-mgmnt-00.txt 13 Abstract 15 This document proposes an allocation framework for the management of 16 the LISP EID address prefix (requested in [I-D.ietf-lisp-eid-block]). 17 The framework described relies on hierarchical distribution of the 18 address space with sub-prefixes allocated on a temporary basis to 19 requesting organizations. 21 Status of this Memo 23 This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the 24 provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. 26 Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering 27 Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute 28 working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- 29 Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. 31 Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months 32 and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any 33 time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference 34 material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." 36 This Internet-Draft will expire on June 12, 2014. 38 Copyright Notice 40 Copyright (c) 2013 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the 41 document authors. All rights reserved. 43 This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal 44 Provisions Relating to IETF Documents 45 (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of 46 publication of this document. Please review these documents 47 carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect 48 to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must 49 include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of 50 the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as 51 described in the Simplified BSD License. 53 Table of Contents 55 1. Requirements Notation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 56 2. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 57 3. Definition of Terms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 58 4. EID Prefix Allocation Policy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 59 5. EID Prefixes Allocation Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 60 6. EID Prefix Request Template . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 61 7. General Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 62 8. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 63 9. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 64 10. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 65 11. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 66 11.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 67 11.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 68 Appendix A. LISP Terms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 69 Appendix B. Document Change Log . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 70 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 72 1. Requirements Notation 74 The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", 75 "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this 76 document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119]. 78 2. Introduction 80 The Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP - [RFC6830]) and related 81 mechanisms ([RFC6831], [RFC6832], [RFC6833], [RFC6834], [RFC6835], 82 [RFC6836], [RFC6837]) separates the IP addressing space into two 83 logical spaces, the End-point IDentifier (EID) space and the Routing 84 LOCator (RLOC) space. The first space is used to identify 85 communication end-points, while the second is used to locate EIDs in 86 the Internet routing infrastructure topology. 88 The document [I-D.ietf-lisp-eid-block] requested an IPv6 address 89 block to be reserved for exclusive use for EID prefix allocation and 90 assignment. The rationale, intent, size, and usage of the EID 91 address block are described in [I-D.ietf-lisp-eid-block]. 93 This document proposes an allocation framework for the EID address 94 block based on temporary allocation of portions of the block to 95 different requesting organizations. 97 3. Definition of Terms 99 The present document does not introduce any new term with respect to 100 the set of LISP Specifications ( [RFC6830], [RFC6831], [RFC6832], 101 [RFC6833], [RFC6834], [RFC6835], [RFC6836], [RFC6837]). To help the 102 reading of the present document the terminology introduced by LISP is 103 summarized in Appendix A. 105 4. EID Prefix Allocation Policy 107 The allocation of EID prefixes MUST respect the following policies: 109 1. EID addressing prefixes are made available in the reserved space 110 on a temporary basis and for experimental uses. The requester of 111 an experimental prefix MUST provide a short description of the 112 intended use or experiment that will be carried out (see 113 Section 6). If the prefix will be used for activities not 114 documented in the original description, the renewal of the 115 allocation may be denied or withdrawn (see Section 5). 117 2. EID prefixes are allocated on a lease/license basis for a limited 118 period of time (which can be renewed). The lease/license period 119 SHOULD NOT be longer than one year. 121 3. Exception to the previous rule may be granted in cases in which 122 the prefix has been delegated to an organization that will act as 123 a registry for further sub-allocations. Sub-allocations MUST 124 respect this present list of policies as well as the allocation 125 requirements outlined in Section 5. Requests for a prefix 126 delegation that will be used for further sub-allocations MUST 127 clearly state such intent in the short description of the 128 intended use document. 130 4. All of the allocations (renewed or not, including delegations and 131 sub-allocations) MUST end by 31 December 2017, in accordance to 132 the 3+3 years experimental allocation plan outlined in 133 [I-D.ietf-lisp-eid-block]. 135 5. Upon IETF review before 31 December 2017, the EID prefix space 136 may become a permanent allocation. In this case existing 137 allocations CAN be renewed and new allocations granted (still on 138 a yearly temporary basis). All allocations (renewed or not, 139 including delegations and sub-allocations) MUST end by 31 140 December 2020, in accordance to the 3+3 years plan outlined in 141 [I-D.ietf-lisp-eid-block]. During the second 3 years phase of 142 the experiment, the IETF will decide the final EID prefix block 143 size and elaborate the allocation and management policies that 144 will be applied starting 1 January 2021. 146 6. When an allocation is freed because of non-renewal or the 147 termination of an experiment, the address space is returned to 148 the global pool of free EID prefixes. This freed allocation MUST 149 NOT be announced through registration on Map Servers in the LISP 150 mapping system for at least 72 hours to ensure expiration of all 151 cached map entries in the global LISP infrastructure. 153 7. The EID prefix of an allocation that is not renewed (or whose 154 renewal has been denied) can be re-used after no less than one 155 week from the date when the EID prefix is freed. This delay will 156 provide sufficient time for all cached map entries in the global 157 LISP infrastructure to expire and will allow any management 158 process for re-allocation to be dealt with. 160 8. EID prefix allocations can be revoked as a result of abuse, 161 unjustified usage (e.g., not conforming the intended use provided 162 at request time), failure to pay maintenance fees, legal court 163 orders, etc. Withdrawal can be enforced by filtering on Map 164 Servers so to prevent map registration. 166 If/When the EID block experiment changes status (e.g., to not being 167 "experimental"), and following the policies outlined in [RFC5226], 168 the EID block will change status as well and will be converted to a 169 permanent allocation. The IETF will define the transition process 170 from the policies and requirements outlined in this document to a new 171 set of policies and requirements. This transition process will 172 include mechanisms that will allow for requests to convert existing 173 temporary allocations (without renumbering) to permanent allocations. 175 5. EID Prefixes Allocation Requirements 177 All EID prefix allocations (and delegations) MUST respect the 178 following requirements: 180 1. Allocations MUST be globally unique. 182 2. Requirements for allocation MUST be the same globally. No 183 regional/national/local variations are permitted. 185 3. The minimum allocated prefix size MUST be a /48. An allocation 186 may be larger (i.e., shorter prefix) provided that the requester 187 is able to justify the intended size in their request 188 description. 190 4. Registration information MUST be maintained and made publicly 191 available through a searchable interface, preferably RDAP 192 ([I-D.ietf-weirds-rdap-sec]) and optionally whois, http, or 193 similar. 195 5. If fees are charged for EID allocation and registration services, 196 those fees MUST be no more than the cost of providing those 197 services. 199 6. Requesters obtaining an allocation SHOULD provide Reverse DNS 200 service. 202 7. Requesters obtaining a delegation, hence acting as registries, 203 MUST provide Reverse DNS service. 205 8. The service SHOULD be available 99% of the time. 207 9. Anyone, private persons, companies, or other entities can request 208 EID space and those requests MUST be granted, provided that they 209 can show a clear intent in carrying out LISP experimentation. 211 6. EID Prefix Request Template 213 Future versions of this document will include a detailed allocation 214 (and delegation) request template to ensure a uniform process. An 215 example of a similar template/process is the IANA Private Enterprise 216 Number online request form 217 (http://pen.iana.org/pen/PenApplication.page). The EID Prefix 218 Request template MUST at minimum contain: 220 o Requester Information (e.g., company name) 222 o Requester Referral Person (and Contact Information) 224 o Requested EID prefix size 226 o Request Rationale 228 7. General Considerations 230 This document is a starting point for discussion aiming to address 231 the concerns raised during the IETF Review of 232 [I-D.ietf-lisp-eid-block], more specifically the lack of guidelines 233 concerning the EID Block allocation and management. 235 Discussion with IANA, the RIR communities, and the IETF community 236 should be carried out in order to verify compatibility of the 237 proposed policy and agree upon the process for EID prefix allocation 238 and management. 240 8. Security Considerations 242 This document does not introduce new security threats in the LISP 243 architecture nor in the Legacy Internet architecture. 245 For accountability reasons, and in line with the security 246 considerations in [RFC7020], each allocation request MUST contain 247 accurate information on the requesting entity (company, institution, 248 individual, etc.) and valid and accurate contact information of a 249 referral person (see Section 6). 251 9. Acknowledgments 253 Thanks to J. Curran, A. Severin, B. Haberman, T. Manderson, D. Lewis, 254 D. Farinacci, for their helpful comments. 256 The work of Luigi Iannone has been partially supported by the ANR-13- 257 INFR-0009 LISP-Lab Project (www.lisp-lab.org) and the EIT KIC ICT- 258 Labs SOFNETS Project. 260 10. IANA Considerations 262 This document provides only management guidelines for the reserved 263 LISP EID prefix requested and allocated in [I-D.ietf-lisp-eid-block]. 265 There is an operational requirement for an EID allocation service 266 that ensures uniqueness of EIDs allocated according to the 267 requirements described in Section 5. Furthermore, there is an 268 operational requirement for EID registration service that allows a 269 lookup of the contact information of the entity to which the EID was 270 allocated. 272 IANA must ensure both of these services are provided, for the space 273 directly allocated by IANA, in a globally uniform fashion for the 274 duration of the experiment. 276 11. References 278 11.1. Normative References 280 [I-D.ietf-lisp-eid-block] 281 Iannone, L., Lewis, D., Meyer, D., and V. Fuller, "LISP 282 EID Block", draft-ietf-lisp-eid-block-06 (work in 283 progress), October 2013. 285 [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate 286 Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. 288 [RFC4632] Fuller, V. and T. Li, "Classless Inter-domain Routing 289 (CIDR): The Internet Address Assignment and Aggregation 290 Plan", BCP 122, RFC 4632, August 2006. 292 [RFC5226] Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an 293 IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 5226, 294 May 2008. 296 11.2. Informative References 298 [I-D.ietf-weirds-rdap-sec] 299 Hollenbeck, S. and N. Kong, "Security Services for the 300 Registration Data Access Protocol", 301 draft-ietf-weirds-rdap-sec-05 (work in progress), 302 August 2013. 304 [RFC6830] Farinacci, D., Fuller, V., Meyer, D., and D. Lewis, "The 305 Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP)", RFC 6830, 306 January 2013. 308 [RFC6831] Farinacci, D., Meyer, D., Zwiebel, J., and S. Venaas, "The 309 Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP) for Multicast 310 Environments", RFC 6831, January 2013. 312 [RFC6832] Lewis, D., Meyer, D., Farinacci, D., and V. Fuller, 313 "Interworking between Locator/ID Separation Protocol 314 (LISP) and Non-LISP Sites", RFC 6832, January 2013. 316 [RFC6833] Fuller, V. and D. Farinacci, "Locator/ID Separation 317 Protocol (LISP) Map-Server Interface", RFC 6833, 318 January 2013. 320 [RFC6834] Iannone, L., Saucez, D., and O. Bonaventure, "Locator/ID 321 Separation Protocol (LISP) Map-Versioning", RFC 6834, 322 January 2013. 324 [RFC6835] Farinacci, D. and D. Meyer, "The Locator/ID Separation 325 Protocol Internet Groper (LIG)", RFC 6835, January 2013. 327 [RFC6836] Fuller, V., Farinacci, D., Meyer, D., and D. Lewis, 328 "Locator/ID Separation Protocol Alternative Logical 329 Topology (LISP+ALT)", RFC 6836, January 2013. 331 [RFC6837] Lear, E., "NERD: A Not-so-novel Endpoint ID (EID) to 332 Routing Locator (RLOC) Database", RFC 6837, January 2013. 334 [RFC7020] Housley, R., Curran, J., Huston, G., and D. Conrad, "The 335 Internet Numbers Registry System", RFC 7020, August 2013. 337 Appendix A. LISP Terms 339 LISP operates on two name spaces and introduces several new network 340 elements. This section provides high-level definitions of the LISP 341 name spaces and network elements and as such, it must not be 342 considered as an authoritative source. The reference to the 343 authoritative document for each term is included in every term 344 description. 346 Legacy Internet: The portion of the Internet that does not run LISP 347 and does not participate in LISP+ALT or any other mapping system. 349 LISP site: A LISP site is a set of routers in an edge network that 350 are under a single technical administration. LISP routers that 351 reside in the edge network are the demarcation points to separate 352 the edge network from the core network. See [RFC6830] for more 353 details. 355 Endpoint ID (EID): An EID is a 32-bit (for IPv4) or 128-bit (for 356 IPv6) value used in the source and destination address fields of 357 the first (most inner) LISP header of a packet. A packet that is 358 emitted by a system contains EIDs in its headers and LISP headers 359 are prepended only when the packet reaches an Ingress Tunnel 360 Router (ITR) on the data path to the destination EID. The source 361 EID is obtained via existing mechanisms used to set a host's 362 "local" IP address. An EID is allocated to a host from an EID- 363 prefix block associated with the site where the host is located. 364 See [RFC6830] for more details. 366 EID-prefix: A power-of-two block of EIDs that are allocated to a 367 site by an address allocation authority. See [RFC6830] for more 368 details. 370 EID-Prefix Aggregate: A set of EID-prefixes said to be aggregatable 371 in the [RFC4632] sense. That is, an EID-Prefix aggregate is 372 defined to be a single contiguous power-of-two EID-prefix block. 373 A prefix and a length characterize such a block. See [RFC6830] 374 for more details. 376 Routing LOCator (RLOC): A RLOC is an IPv4 or IPv6 address of an 377 egress tunnel router (ETR). A RLOC is the output of an EID-to- 378 RLOC mapping lookup. An EID maps to one or more RLOCs. 379 Typically, RLOCs are numbered from topologically aggregatable 380 blocks that are assigned to a site at each point to which it 381 attaches to the global Internet; where the topology is defined by 382 the connectivity of provider networks, RLOCs can be thought of as 383 Provider Aggregatable (PA) addresses. See [RFC6830] for more 384 details. 386 EID-to-RLOC Mapping: A binding between an EID-Prefix and the RLOC- 387 set that can be used to reach the EID-Prefix. The general term 388 "mapping" always refers to an EID-to-RLOC mapping. See [RFC6830] 389 for more details. 391 Ingress Tunnel Router (ITR): An Ingress Tunnel Router (ITR) is a 392 router that accepts receives IP packets from site end-systems on 393 one side and sends LISP-encapsulated IP packets toward the 394 Internet on the other side. The router treats the "inner" IP 395 destination address as an EID and performs an EID-to-RLOC mapping 396 lookup. The router then prepends an "outer" IP header with one of 397 its globally routable RLOCs in the source address field and the 398 result of the mapping lookup in the destination address field. 399 See [RFC6830] for more details. 401 Egress Tunnel Router (ETR): An Egress Tunnel Router (ETR) receives 402 LISP-encapsulated IP packets from the Internet on one side and 403 sends decapsulated IP packets to site end-systems on the other 404 side. An ETR router accepts an IP packet where the destination 405 address in the "outer" IP header is one of its own RLOCs. The 406 router strips the "outer" header and forwards the packet based on 407 the next IP header found. See [RFC6830] for more details. 409 Proxy ITR (PITR): A Proxy-ITR (PITR) acts like an ITR but does so on 410 behalf of non-LISP sites which send packets to destinations at 411 LISP sites. See [RFC6832] for more details. 413 Proxy ETR (PETR): A Proxy-ETR (PETR) acts like an ETR but does so on 414 behalf of LISP sites which send packets to destinations at non- 415 LISP sites. See [RFC6832] for more details. 417 Map Server (MS): A network infrastructure component that learns EID- 418 to-RLOC mapping entries from an authoritative source (typically an 419 ETR). A Map Server publishes these mappings in the distributed 420 mapping system. See [RFC6833] for more details. 422 Map Resolver (MR): A network infrastructure component that accepts 423 LISP Encapsulated Map-Requests, typically from an ITR, quickly 424 determines whether or not the destination IP address is part of 425 the EID namespace; if it is not, a Negative Map-Reply is 426 immediately returned. Otherwise, the Map Resolver finds the 427 appropriate EID-to-RLOC mapping by consulting the distributed 428 mapping database system. See [RFC6833] for more details. 430 The LISP Alternative Logical Topology (ALT): The virtual overlay 431 network made up of tunnels between LISP+ALT Routers. The Border 432 Gateway Protocol (BGP) runs between ALT Routers and is used to 433 carry reachability information for EID-prefixes. The ALT provides 434 a way to forward Map-Requests toward the ETR that "owns" an EID- 435 prefix. See [RFC6836] for more details. 437 ALT Router: The device on which runs the ALT. The ALT is a static 438 network built using tunnels between ALT Routers. These routers 439 are deployed in a roughly-hierarchical mesh in which routers at 440 each level in the topology are responsible for aggregating EID- 441 Prefixes learned from those logically "below" them and advertising 442 summary prefixes to those logically "above" them. Prefix learning 443 and propagation between ALT Routers is done using BGP. When an 444 ALT Router receives an ALT Datagram, it looks up the destination 445 EID in its forwarding table (composed of EID-Prefix routes it 446 learned from neighboring ALT Routers) and forwards it to the 447 logical next-hop on the overlay network. The primary function of 448 LISP+ALT routers is to provide a lightweight forwarding 449 infrastructure for LISP control-plane messages (Map-Request and 450 Map-Reply), and to transport data packets when the packet has the 451 same destination address in both the inner (encapsulating) 452 destination and outer destination addresses ((i.e., a Data Probe 453 packet). See [RFC6830] for more details. 455 Appendix B. Document Change Log 457 Version 00 Posted December 2013. 459 o Rename of draft-iannone-lisp-eid-block-mgmnt-03.txt. 461 Authors' Addresses 463 Luigi Iannone 464 Telecom ParisTech 466 Email: luigi.iannone@telecom-paristech.fr 468 Roger Jorgensen 469 Bredbandsfylket Troms 471 Email: rogerj@gmail.com 473 David Conrad 474 Virtualized, LLC 476 Email: drc@virtualized.org