Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) L. Iannone
Request for Comments: 7954 Telecom ParisTech
Category: Experimental D. Lewis
ISSN: 2070-1721 Cisco Systems, Inc.
D. Meyer
Brocade
V. Fuller
August
September 2016
Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP) Endpoint Identifier (EID) Block
Abstract
This document directs IANA to allocate a /32 IPv6 prefix for use with
the Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP). The prefix will be used
for local intra-domain routing and global endpoint identification, by
sites deploying LISP as Endpoint Identifier (EID) addressing space.
Status of This Memo
This document is not an Internet Standards Track specification; it is
published for examination, experimental implementation, and
evaluation.
This document defines an Experimental Protocol for the Internet
community. This document is a product of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). It represents the consensus of the IETF
community. It has received public review and has been approved for
publication by the Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG). Not
all documents approved by the IESG are a candidate for any level of
Internet Standard; see Section 2 of RFC 5741. 7841.
Information about the current status of this document, any errata,
and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at
http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7954.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2016 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 3
2. Definition of Terms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 3
3. Rationale and Intent . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 3
4. Expected Use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 5
5. Block Dimension . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
6. 3+3 Allocation Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 6
7. Allocation Lifetime . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 7
8. Routing Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 7
9. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 8
10. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 8
11. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 9
11.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 9
11.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 12
1. Introduction
This document directs the IANA to allocate a /32 IPv6 prefix for use
with the Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP [RFC6830]), LISP Map-
Server ([RFC6833]), LISP Alternative Topology (LISP+ALT [RFC6836])
(or other) mapping systems, and LISP Interworking ([RFC6832]).
This block will be used as global Endpoint Identifier (EID) space.
2. Definition of Terms
The present document does not introduce any new terms with respect to
the set of LISP Specifications ([RFC6830], [RFC6831], [RFC6832],
[RFC6833], [RFC6834], [RFC6835], [RFC6836], [RFC6837]), but it
assumes that the reader is familiar with the LISP terminology.
[LISP-INTRO] provides an introduction to the LISP technology,
including its terminology.
3. Rationale and Intent
Discussion within the LISP working group led to the identification of
several scenarios in which the existence of a LISP-specific address
block brings technical benefits. The most relevant scenarios are
described below:
Early LISP destination detection: With the current specifications,
there is no direct way to detect whether or not a certain
destination is in a LISP domain without performing a LISP
mapping lookup. For instance, if an Ingress Tunnel Router
(ITR) is sending packets to all types of destinations (i.e.,
non-LISP destinations, LISP destinations not in the IPv6 EID
block, and LISP destinations in the IPv6 EID block), the only
way to understand whether or not to encapsulate the traffic is
to perform a cache lookup and, in case of a LISP cache miss,
send a Map-Request to the mapping system. In the meanwhile
(while waiting for the Map-Reply), packets may be dropped to
avoid excessive buffering.
Avoid penalizing non-LISP traffic: In certain circumstances, it
might be desirable to configure a router using LISP features to
natively forward all packets that do not have a destination
address in the block and, hence, no lookup whatsoever is
performed and packets destined to non-LISP sites are not
penalized in any manner.
Traffic Engineering: In some deployment scenarios, it might be
desirable to apply different traffic-engineering policies for
LISP and non-LISP traffic. A LISP-specific EID block would
allow improved traffic-engineering capabilities with respect to
LISP vs. non-LISP traffic. In particular, LISP traffic might
be identified without having to use Deep Packet Inspection
(DPI) techniques in order to parse the encapsulated packet.
Instead, performing a simple inspection of the outer header is
sufficient.
Transition Mechanism: The existence of a LISP-specific EID block may
prove useful in transition scenarios. A non-LISP domain would
ask for an allocation in the LISP EID block and use it to
deploy LISP in its network. Such allocation would not be
announced in the BGP routing infrastructure (cf. Section 4).
This approach will allow non-LISP domains to avoid fragmenting
their already allocated non-LISP addressing space, which may
lead to BGP routing table inflation since it may (rightfully)
be announced in the BGP routing infrastructure.
Limit the impact on the BGP routing infrastructure: As described in
the previous scenario, LISP adopters will avoid fragmenting
their addressing space, since fragmentation would negatively
impact the BGP routing infrastructure. Adopters will use
addressing space from the EID block, which might be announced
in large aggregates and in a tightly controlled manner only by
Proxy Tunnel Routers (PxTRs).
It is worth mentioning that new use cases may arise in the future,
due to new and unforeseen scenarios.
Furthermore, the use of a dedicated address block allows for tighter
control over the traffic in the initial experimental phase
(especially filtering), while facilitating its large-scale
deployment.
[RFC3692] considers assigning experimental and testing numbers
useful; having a reserved IPv6 prefix enables this practice. The
present document follows the guidelines provided in [RFC3692], with
one exception. [RFC3692] suggests the use of values similar to those
called "Private Use" in [RFC5226], which by definition are not
unique. One purpose of the present request to IANA is to guarantee
uniqueness to the EID block. The lack thereof would result in a lack
of real utility of a reserved IPv6 prefix.
4. Expected Use
Sites planning to deploy LISP may request a prefix in the IPv6 EID
block. Such prefixes will be used for routing and endpoint
identification inside the site requesting it. Mappings related to
such a prefix, or part of it, will be made available through the
mapping system in use and registered to one or more Map-Server(s).
The EID block must be used for LISP experimentation and must not be
advertised in the form of more specific route advertisements in the
non-LISP inter-domain routing environment. Interworking between the
EID block sub-prefixes and the non-LISP Internet is done according to
the techniques described in [RFC6832] and [RFC7215].
As the LISP adoption progresses, the EID block may potentially have a
reduced impact on the BGP routing infrastructure, compared to the
case of having the same number of adopters using global unicast space
allocated by Regional Internet Registries (RIRs) ([MobiArch2007]).
From a short-term perspective, the EID block offers potentially large
aggregation capabilities since it is announced by Proxy Tunnel
Routers (PxTRs), possibly concentrating several contiguous prefixes.
This trend should continue with even lower impact from a long-term
perspective, because more aggressive aggregation can be used,
potentially leading to using fewer PxTRs announcing the whole EID
block ([FIABook2010]).
The EID block will be used only at the configuration level, so it is
recommended not to hard-code the IPv6 EID block in the router
hardware in any way. This prevents locking out sites that may want
to switch to LISP while keeping their own IPv6 prefix, which is not
in the IPv6 EID block. Furthermore, in the case of a future
permanent allocation, the allocated prefix may differ from the
experimental temporary prefix allocated during the experimentation
phase.
With the exception of the Proxy Ingress Tunnel Router (PITR) case
(described in Section 8), prefixes out of the EID block must not be
announced in the BGP routing infrastructure.
5. Block Dimension
The working group reached consensus on an initial allocation of a /32
prefix. The reason of such consensus is manifold:
o The working group agreed that the /32 prefix is sufficiently large
to cover initial allocation and requests for prefixes in the EID
space in the next few years for very large-scale experimentation
and deployment.
o As a comparison, it is worth mentioning that the current LISP Beta
Network ([BETA]) is using a /32 prefix, with more than 250 sites
using a /48 sub-prefix. Hence, a /32 prefix appears sufficiently
large to allow the current deployment to scale up and be open for
interoperation with independent deployments using the EIDs in the
new /32 prefix.
o A /32 prefix is sufficiently large to allow deployment of
independent (commercial) LISP-enabled networks by third parties,
but may as well boost LISP experimentation and deployment.
o The use of a /32 prefix is in line with previous similar prefix
allocation for tunneling protocols ([RFC3056]).
6. 3+3 Allocation Plan
Per this document, IANA has initially assigned a /32 prefix out of
the IPv6 addressing space for use as EID in LISP.
IANA allocated the requested address space in August September 2016 for a
duration of 3 (three) years (through August September 2019), with an option
to extend this period by 3 (three) more years (until August September 2022).
By the end of the first period, the IETF will provide a decision on
whether to transform the prefix into a permanent assignment or to put
it back in the free pool (see Section 7 for more information).
In the first case, i.e., if the IETF decides to transform the block
into a permanent allocation, the EID block allocation period will be
extended for three years (until August September 2022) to give the IETF time
to define the final size of the EID block and create a transition
plan. The transition of the EID block into a permanent allocation
might pose policy issues (as recognized in [RFC2860], Section 4.3);
therefore, discussion with the IANA, the RIR communities, and the
IETF community will be necessary to determine the appropriate policy
for permanent EID-block allocation and management. Note as well that
the final permanent allocation may differ from the initial
experimental assignment; hence, it is recommended not to hard-code
the experimental EID block on LISP-capable devices in any way.
In the latter case, i.e., if the IETF decides to terminate the
experimental-use EID block, all temporary prefix allocations in this
address range must expire and be released by August September 2019, so that
the entire /32 is returned to the free pool.
The allocation and management of the EID block for the initial 3-year
period (and the optional 3 more years) is detailed in [RFC7955].
7. Allocation Lifetime
If no explicit action is carried out by the end of the experiment (by
August
September 2019), it is automatically considered that there was not
sufficient interest in having a permanent allocation; therefore, the
address block will be returned to the free pool.
Otherwise, if the LISP working group recognizes that there is value
in having a permanent allocation, then explicit action is needed.
In order to trigger the process for a permanent allocation, a
document is required. Such a document has to articulate the
rationale for why a permanent allocation would be beneficial. More
specifically, the document has to detail the experience gained during
experimentation and all of the technical benefits provided by the use
of a LISP-specific prefix. Such technical benefits are expected to
lay in the scenarios described in Section 3. However, new and
unforeseen benefits may appear during experimentation. The
description should be sufficiently articulate that the needed size of
the permanent allocation can be estimated. However, note that, as
explained in Section 6, it is up to IANA to decide which address
block will be used as a permanent allocation and that such a block
may be different from the temporary experimental allocation.
8. Routing Considerations
In order to provide connectivity between the Legacy Internet and LISP
sites, PITRs announcing large aggregates (ideally one single, large
aggregate) of the IPv6 EID block could be deployed. By doing so,
PITRs will attract traffic destined for LISP sites in order to
encapsulate and forward it toward the specific destination LISP site.
Routers in the Legacy Internet must treat announcements of prefixes
from the IPv6 EID block as normal announcements, applying best
current practices for traffic engineering and security.
Even in a LISP site, not all routers need to run LISP elements. In
particular, routers that are not at the border of the local domain,
used only for intra-domain routing, do not need to provide any
specific LISP functionality but must be able to route traffic using
addresses in the IPv6 EID block.
For the above-mentioned reasons, routers that do not run any LISP
element must not include any special handling code or hardware for
addresses in the IPv6 EID block. In particular, it is recommended
that the default router configuration not handle such addresses in
any special way. Doing differently could prevent communication
between the Legacy Internet and LISP sites or even break local intra-
domain connectivity.
9. Security Considerations
This document does not introduce new security threats in the LISP
architecture nor in the legacy Internet architecture.
10. IANA Considerations
IANA has assigned a /32 IPv6 prefix for use as the global EID space
for LISP using a hierarchical allocation as outlined in [RFC5226] and
summarized in Table 1. The assigned block is from the 2001:5 global
unicast space.
IANA is not requested to issue an AS0 Route Origin Attestation (ROA
[RFC6491]), because the global EID space is be used for routing
purposes.
+----------------------+--------------------+
| Attribute | Value |
+----------------------+--------------------+
| Address Block | 2001:5::/32 |
| Name | EID Space for LISP |
| RFC | RFC 7954 |
| Allocation Date | 2015 |
| Termination Date | August September 2019 [1] |
| Source | True [2] |
| Destination | True |
| Forwardable | True |
| Global | True |
| Reserved-by-protocol | True [3] |
+----------------------+--------------------+
[1] According to the 3+3 Plan outlined in this document, the
termination date can be postponed to August September 2022.
[2] Can be used as a multicast source as well.
[3] To be used as EID space by routers enabled by LISP [RFC6830].
Table 1: Global EID Space
The reserved address space is requested for an initial 3-year period
starting in August September 2016 (until August September 2019), with an option to
extend it by three years (until August September 2022) upon the decision of
the IETF (see Sections 6 and 7). Following the policies outlined in
[RFC5226], upon IETF Review, the decision should be made on whether
to have a permanent EID block assignment by August September 2019. If no
explicit action is taken or, if the IETF Review outcome is that it is
not worth having a reserved prefix as a global EID space, the whole
/32 will be taken out from the "IANA IPv6 Special-Purpose Address
Registry" and put back in the free pool managed by IANA.
Allocation and management of the global EID space is detailed in
[RFC7955]. Nevertheless, all prefix allocations out of this space
must be temporary and no allocation must go beyond August September 2019
unless the IETF Review decides for a permanent global EID space
assignment.
11. References
11.1. Normative References
[RFC2860] Carpenter, B., Baker, F., and M. Roberts, "Memorandum of
Understanding Concerning the Technical Work of the
Internet Assigned Numbers Authority", RFC 2860,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2860, June 2000,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2860>.
[RFC3692] Narten, T., "Assigning Experimental and Testing Numbers
Considered Useful", BCP 82, RFC 3692,
DOI 10.17487/RFC3692, January 2004,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3692>.
[RFC5226] Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an
IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 5226,
DOI 10.17487/RFC5226, May 2008,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5226>.
[RFC6830] Farinacci, D., Fuller, V., Meyer, D., and D. Lewis, "The
Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP)", RFC 6830,
DOI 10.17487/RFC6830, January 2013,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6830>.
[RFC6831] Farinacci, D., Meyer, D., Zwiebel, J., and S. Venaas, "The
Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP) for Multicast
Environments", RFC 6831, DOI 10.17487/RFC6831, January
2013, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6831>.
[RFC6832] Lewis, D., Meyer, D., Farinacci, D., and V. Fuller,
"Interworking between Locator/ID Separation Protocol
(LISP) and Non-LISP Sites", RFC 6832,
DOI 10.17487/RFC6832, January 2013,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6832>.
[RFC6833] Fuller, V. and D. Farinacci, "Locator/ID Separation
Protocol (LISP) Map-Server Interface", RFC 6833,
DOI 10.17487/RFC6833, January 2013,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6833>.
[RFC6834] Iannone, L., Saucez, D., and O. Bonaventure, "Locator/ID
Separation Protocol (LISP) Map-Versioning", RFC 6834,
DOI 10.17487/RFC6834, January 2013,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6834>.
[RFC6835] Farinacci, D. and D. Meyer, "The Locator/ID Separation
Protocol Internet Groper (LIG)", RFC 6835,
DOI 10.17487/RFC6835, January 2013,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6835>.
[RFC6836] Fuller, V., Farinacci, D., Meyer, D., and D. Lewis,
"Locator/ID Separation Protocol Alternative Logical
Topology (LISP+ALT)", RFC 6836, DOI 10.17487/RFC6836,
January 2013, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6836>.
[RFC6837] Lear, E., "NERD: A Not-so-novel Endpoint ID (EID) to
Routing Locator (RLOC) Database", RFC 6837,
DOI 10.17487/RFC6837, January 2013,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6837>.
[RFC7955] Iannone, L., Jorgensen, R., Conrad, D., and G. Huston,
"Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP) Endpoint Identifier
(EID) Block Management Guidelines", RFC 7955,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7955, August September 2016,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7955>.
11.2. Informative References
[BETA] LISP Beta Network, "Locator/ID Separation Protocol",
<http://www.lisp4.net>.
[FIABook2010]
Iannone, L. and T. Leva, "Modeling the economics of Loc/ID
Separation for the Future Internet", Towards the Future
Internet, Pages 11-20, ISBN: 9781607505389, IOS Press,
DOI 10.3233/978-1-60750-539-6-11, May 2010.
[LISP-INTRO]
Cabellos-Aparicio, A. and D. Saucez, "An Architectural
Introduction to the Locator/ID Separation Protocol
(LISP)", Work in Progress, draft-ietf-lisp-introduction-
13, April 2015.
[MobiArch2007]
Quoitin, B., Iannone, L., de Launois, C., and O.
Bonaventure, "Evaluating the Benefits of the Locator/
Identifier Separation", The 2nd ACM-SIGCOMM International
Workshop on Mobility in the Evolving Internet
Architecture (MobiArch'07), DOI 10.1145/1366919.1366926,
August 2007.
[RFC3056] Carpenter, B. and K. Moore, "Connection of IPv6 Domains
via IPv4 Clouds", RFC 3056, DOI 10.17487/RFC3056, February
2001, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3056>.
[RFC6491] Manderson, T., Vegoda, L., and S. Kent, "Resource Public
Key Infrastructure (RPKI) Objects Issued by IANA",
RFC 6491, DOI 10.17487/RFC6491, February 2012,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6491>.
[RFC7215] Jakab, L., Cabellos-Aparicio, A., Coras, F., Domingo-
Pascual, J., and D. Lewis, "Locator/Identifier Separation
Protocol (LISP) Network Element Deployment
Considerations", RFC 7215, DOI 10.17487/RFC7215, April
2014, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7215>.
Acknowledgments
Special thanks to Roque Gagliano for his suggestions and pointers.
Thanks to Alvaro Retana, Deborah Brungard, Ron Bonica, Damien Saucez,
David Conrad, Scott Bradner, John Curran, Paul Wilson, Geoff Huston,
Wes George, Arturo Servin, Sander Steffann, Brian Carpenter, Roger
Jorgensen, Terry Manderson, Brian Haberman, Adrian Farrel, Job
Snijders, Marla Azinger, Chris Morrow, and Peter Schoenmaker for
their insightful comments. Thanks as well to all participants for
the fruitful discussions on the IETF mailing list.
The work of Luigi Iannone has been partially supported by the ANR-
13-INFR-0009
ANR-13-INFR-0009 LISP-Lab Project <www.lisp-lab.org> and the EIT KIC ICT-
Labs
ICT-Labs SOFNETS Project.
Authors' Addresses
Luigi Iannone
Telecom ParisTech
Email: ggx@gigix.net
Darrel Lewis
Cisco Systems, Inc.
Email: darlewis@cisco.com
David Meyer
Brocade
Email: dmm@1-4-5.net
Vince Fuller
Email: vaf@vaf.net