idnits 2.17.1 draft-kowal-lisp-policy-distribution-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 document seems to lack a Security Considerations section. == There are 1 instance of lines with non-RFC6890-compliant IPv4 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 doesn't use any RFC 2119 keywords, yet seems to have RFC 2119 boilerplate text. -- The document date (March 16, 2021) is 1131 days in the past. Is this intentional? Checking references for intended status: Experimental ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 6830 (Obsoleted by RFC 9300, RFC 9301) == Outdated reference: A later version (-15) exists of draft-ietf-lisp-pubsub-07 Summary: 2 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 4 warnings (==), 1 comment (--). Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about the items above. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2 Network Working Group M. Kowal 3 Internet-Draft M. Portoles 4 Intended status: Experimental Cisco Systems 5 Expires: September 17, 2021 A. Jain 6 Juniper Networks 7 D. Farinacci 8 lispers.net 9 March 16, 2021 11 LISP Transport for Policy Distribution 12 draft-kowal-lisp-policy-distribution-00 14 Abstract 16 This document describes the use of the Locator/ID Separation Protocol 17 (LISP) to encode and transport data models for the configuration of 18 LISP ITRs. 20 Requirements Language 22 The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", 23 "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this 24 document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119]. 26 Status of This Memo 28 This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the 29 provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. 31 Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering 32 Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute 33 working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- 34 Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. 36 Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months 37 and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any 38 time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference 39 material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." 41 This Internet-Draft will expire on September 17, 2021. 43 Copyright Notice 45 Copyright (c) 2021 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the 46 document authors. All rights reserved. 48 This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal 49 Provisions Relating to IETF Documents 50 (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of 51 publication of this document. Please review these documents 52 carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect 53 to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must 54 include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of 55 the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as 56 described in the Simplified BSD License. 58 Table of Contents 60 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 61 2. Definition of Terms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 62 3. Policy Distribution Use Cases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 63 4. Policy Distribution: Packet Flow Description . . . . . . . . 3 64 4.1. Policy Distribution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 65 4.2. Policy Updates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 66 5. Mapping System Operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 67 6. Policy Distribution Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 68 7. Policy Distribution Encoding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 69 8. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 70 9. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 71 10. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 72 10.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 73 10.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 74 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 76 1. Introduction 78 When LISP ITRs are deployed with enough configuration to build a LISP 79 overlay, they may require additional configurations such as security, 80 QoS, and/or traffic forwarding policies. As networks continue to 81 grow, it can be challenging to ensure these configurations are 82 distributed to many ITRs and kept in sync. LISP network operators 83 may wish to re-use their existing LISP architecture to distribute 84 these configurations as opposed to configuring them by hand, using a 85 script, or investing in a configuration management system. The 86 configurations can be distributed via a mapping system that the 87 network operator manages or is managed by a third-party as part of a 88 managed service offering. 90 2. Definition of Terms 92 LISP related terms are defined as part of the LISP specification 93 [RFC6830], notably EID, RLOC, Map-Request, Map- Reply, Map-Notify, 94 Ingress Tunnel Router (ITR), Egress Tunnel Router (ETR), Map- Server 95 (MS) and Map-Resolver (MR). 97 3. Policy Distribution Use Cases 99 The ITR could use the mapping system to receive configuration 100 policies for use cases such as: 102 o The RLOC interfaces of an ITR may be connected to WAN links that 103 are policed at sub-line rate by its upstream provider. Using the 104 mapping system, the ITR could receive and apply the QoS policies 105 that would shape traffic to the correct rate on each ITR RLOC 106 interface. 108 o ITRs use the mapping system to receive access-list (ACL) 109 configuration(s) that would allow them to restrict traffic from 110 authorized sources to authorized services. 112 o ITRs receive configurations that determine local forwarding 113 policies, such as specifying ITR RLOCs to be used for egress 114 forwarding on a per-application basis or RLOCs on different ITRs 115 within the same LISP site to maintain application symmetry. 117 o Baseline configurations for common services (e.g., DNS, SSH, 118 Syslog) can be maintained in a mapping system and distributed 119 across multiple ITRs. 121 Policy distribution is not meant to provide zero-touch provisioning 122 for ITRs within a LISP network. At a minimum, the ITR must have a 123 map resolver defined, IP connectivity to the map resolver, and one or 124 more distinguished names defined for receiving specific policies from 125 the mapping system. 127 4. Policy Distribution: Packet Flow Description 129 The following figure illustrates a reference system used to support 130 packet flow descriptions in this section. 132 +----------+ +-+---+ 133 |controller|---------|MS/MR| 134 +----------+ +-----+ 135 | 136 _..-._.--._...._.,.-|_.,--._.-_._.-.._ 137 .-.' '.-. 138 ( RLOC SPACE ) 139 ( ) 140 '..'.-._.'--'._.'.-._.'.-._.'.-._.'.-._.'.--.' 141 / \ 142 (ifaceA) (ifaceB) 143 +-+--+--+ +-+--+--+ 144 .| xTR A |.-. .| xTR B |.-. 145 ( +-+--+--+ ) ( +-+--+--+ ) 146 .' Site A ) .' Site B ) 147 ( . ( . 148 '--'._.'. ) '--'._.'. ) 149 '--' '--' 151 Figure 1: Reference system for policy distribution 153 The reference system contains two sites, site A and site B, with 154 corresponding xTR-A and xTR-B providing encapsulation and 155 decapsulation services for the overlay traffic. xTR-A uses 156 interface-A to forward and receive encapsulated traffic through the 157 RLOC space; and xTR-B uses interface-B for it. 159 For packet flow purposes the reference system assumes that a network 160 controller provides the policies to a map-server. 162 When an ITR comes up, it requests it's designated policies with it's 163 map-server. The MS may have this policy configured by the 164 administrator via a network controller. 166 4.1. Policy Distribution 168 The following is an illustration of the sequence to distribute a 169 policy registered by the controller with the mapping system, down to 170 an ITR that requests its designated policies. In the example 171 represents the hostname of the ITR that learns a policy using this 172 mechanism. 174 o The Mapping-System is either configured by an operator or learns a 175 mapping sent by a controller though a Map-Register. The Mapping 176 System learns the mapping: EID="policy-" --> RLOC= "{ 177 "shape":{ "interface":"ifaceA", "direction":"outbound", 178 "value":100Mbps }}". The EID is encoded as a Distinguished Name 179 and the RLOC as a JSON string. 181 o ITR-A is configured to dynamically learn policies from the Mapping 182 System with the name "policy-ITR-A" (policy followed by its 183 hostname). 185 o ITR-A sends a Map-Request to the Mapping System with EID="policy- 186 " encoded as a Distinguished Name. The Map-Request is sent 187 with the N-bit set. 189 o The Mapping System forwards the request to the appropriate Map- 190 Server. The Map-Server adds ITR-A to the subscription list of 191 EID="policy-" and sends back a Map-Notify with the mapping 192 that the controller has registered. 194 o When ITR-A receives the Map-Notify installs the received policy 195 locally, to shape traffic sent over the RLOC facing interface. 197 o Note that when the map-server has multiple policies associated 198 with this ITR, it can send each one of the policies as an 199 additional locator record (following the same JSON format) in the 200 mapping. The locator count in the Map-Notify reflects the number 201 of policies distributed with the mapping. 203 4.2. Policy Updates 205 Policy distribution takes advantage of the LISP pubsub model to 206 ensure that router updates are properly distributed when policies 207 change. In such a case, and using the same reference sytem as above, 208 the information exchange is as follows: 210 o The controller sends a Map-Register to the Mapping System, 211 updating the policy mapping with: EID="policy-" --> RLOC= 212 "{ "shape":{ "interface":"ifaceA", "direction":"outbound", 213 "value":200Mbps }}". 215 o When the corresponding Map-Server receives this update it checks 216 the list of ITRs subscribed for updates of EID="policy-" 217 and finds out that ITR-A is subscribed. 219 o The Map-Server sends a Map-Notify to ITR-A with the updated 220 mapping information that has been registered. 222 o When ITR-A receives and validates the Map-Notify, it updates the 223 local policy, changing the shaping rate as specified in the new 224 JSON description. Note that if the JSON specifies the same policy 225 that is currently applied the notification is ignored. 227 5. Mapping System Operations 229 The mapping system that is used for distributing policy 230 configurations can be managed by either the administrator who owns 231 and operates their own LISP sites or a third-party administrator who 232 offers LISP mapping system functionality as a managed service. A 233 controller or orchestrator could be used to update and optimize 234 policies within the mapping system based on network or ITR telemetry. 236 Within the mapping system, the administrator must define a 237 distinguished name that is specific to an ITR. The distinguished 238 name is associated with the specific policy configurations that the 239 ITR is to receive. Each ITR is configured with the minimal 240 requirements to perform a mapping request procedure as well as a 241 distinguished name that can be matched upon in the mapping system. 243 Map-Servers should be able to receive policy registrations through 244 the Map-Registration process. The Map-Registration must encode the 245 policy following the specification in the policy distribution 246 encoding section. 248 6. Policy Distribution Process 250 The ITR subscribes to its policy via the Map-Request procedure 251 defined in section 5 of [I-D.ietf-lisp-pubsub]. The PubSub procedure 252 is used to ensure that policies can be updated or audited after an 253 ITR has received them. Policies are published to the ITR from the 254 mapping system using the mapping notification procedure defined in 255 section 6 of [I-D.ietf-lisp-pubsub]. 257 EID-to-RLOC mappings used for policy distribution are of the type EID 258 to RLOC . The EID is 259 a distinguished name uniquely identifying a router in the system, 260 while each RLOC record uses JSON encoding to specify the particular 261 policy (or policies) that this router needs to implement. 263 7. Policy Distribution Encoding 265 When the ITR is configured to receive a policy using a distinguished 266 name, the ITR sends a subscription for the EID record encoded as this 267 Distinguished Name. When a policy has been registered with the 268 Mapping System for this Distinguished Name, the ITR receives a 269 publication with a list of policies as RLOC records and encoded as 270 JSON strings (as defined in section 5.4 of [RFC8060]. 272 Example encoding for QoS policy that shapes traffic to 50 percent of 273 the line-rate: EID-Record encoded as distinguished name "policy-ce- 274 router1" RLOC-Record record encoded as JSON string "{ "shape":{ 275 "interface":"ethernet1", "direction":"outbound", "unit":"percent", 276 "value":50 }}" 278 Example encoding for setting the ITR's NTP server to 1.1.1.1: EID- 279 Record encoded as distinguished name "policy-ce-router" RLOC-Record 280 record encoded as JSON string "{ "NTP-address" : "1.1.1.1" }" 282 Multiple ITRs can be configured to use multiple distinguished names 283 for receiving multiple sets policies. This allows for an ITR to 284 receive specific policies and many ITRs to receive policies that can 285 be broadly applied. Referring to the two examples above, an ITR can 286 be configured to use a distinguished name of "policy-ce-router1" to 287 receive a QoS configuration that is specific to that node while also 288 using a distinguished name of "policy-ce-router" to receive 289 configurations that are common to each ITR in the LISP network (e.g., 290 NTP configuration). The use of multiple distinguished names per ITR 291 reduces the amount of configuration within the mapping system. 293 8. IANA Considerations 295 This memo includes no request to IANA. 297 9. Acknowledgements 299 Thanks to James Stankiewicz for his thorough comments and 300 suggestions. 302 10. References 304 10.1. Normative References 306 [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate 307 Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, 308 DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997, 309 . 311 [RFC6830] Farinacci, D., Fuller, V., Meyer, D., and D. Lewis, "The 312 Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP)", RFC 6830, 313 DOI 10.17487/RFC6830, January 2013, 314 . 316 [RFC8060] Farinacci, D., Meyer, D., and J. Snijders, "LISP Canonical 317 Address Format (LCAF)", RFC 8060, DOI 10.17487/RFC8060, 318 February 2017, . 320 10.2. Informative References 322 [I-D.ietf-lisp-pubsub] 323 Rodriguez-Natal, A., Ermagan, V., Cabellos-Aparicio, A., 324 Barkai, S., and M. Boucadair, "Publish/Subscribe 325 Functionality for LISP", draft-ietf-lisp-pubsub-07 (work 326 in progress), January 2021. 328 Authors' Addresses 330 Michael Kowal 331 Cisco Systems 332 111 Wood Ave. South 333 Iselin, NJ 08830 334 USA 336 Email: mikowal@cisco.com 338 Marc Portoles Comeras 339 Cisco Systems 340 170 Tasman Drive 341 San Jose, CA 95134 342 USA 344 Email: mportole@cisco.com 346 Amit Jain 347 Juniper Networks 348 1133 Innovation Way 349 Sunnyvale, CA 94089 350 USA 352 Email: atjain@juniper.net 354 Dino Farinacci 355 lispers.net 356 San Jose, CA 357 USA 359 Email: farinacci@gmail.com