Internet DRAFT - draft-iannone-lisp-eid-block-mgmnt
draft-iannone-lisp-eid-block-mgmnt
Network Working Group L. Iannone
Internet-Draft Telecom ParisTech
Intended status: Informational R. Jorgensen
Expires: April 24, 2014 Bredbandsfylket Troms
D. Conrad
Virtualized, LLC
October 21, 2013
LISP EID Block Management Guidelines
draft-iannone-lisp-eid-block-mgmnt-03.txt
Abstract
This document proposes an allocation framework for the management of
the LISP EID address prefix (requested in [I-D.ietf-lisp-eid-block]).
The framework described relies on hierarchical distribution of the
address space with sub-prefixes allocated on a temporary basis to
requesting organizations.
Status of this Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on April 24, 2014.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2013 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
Iannone, et al. Expires April 24, 2014 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft LISP EID Block Management October 2013
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. Requirements Notation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. Definition of Terms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
4. EID Prefix Allocation Policy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
5. EID Prefixes Allocation Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
6. EID Prefix Request Template . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
7. General Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
8. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
9. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
10. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
11. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
11.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
11.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Appendix A. LISP Terms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Iannone, et al. Expires April 24, 2014 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft LISP EID Block Management October 2013
1. Requirements Notation
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119].
2. Introduction
The Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP - [RFC6830]) and related
mechanisms ([RFC6831], [RFC6832], [RFC6833], [RFC6834], [RFC6835],
[RFC6836], [RFC6837]) separates the IP addressing space into two
logical spaces, the End-point IDentifier (EID) space and the Routing
LOCator (RLOC) space. The first space is used to identify
communication end-points, while the second is used to locate EIDs in
the Internet routing infrastructure topology.
The document [I-D.ietf-lisp-eid-block] requested an IPv6 address
block to be reserved for exclusive use for EID prefix allocation and
assignment. The rationale, intent, size, and usage of the EID
address block are described in [I-D.ietf-lisp-eid-block].
This document proposes an allocation framework for the EID address
block based on temporary allocation of portions of the block to
different requesting organizations.
3. Definition of Terms
The present document does not introduce any new term with respect to
the set of LISP Specifications ( [RFC6830], [RFC6831], [RFC6832],
[RFC6833], [RFC6834], [RFC6835], [RFC6836], [RFC6837]). To help the
reading of the present document the terminology introduced by LISP is
summarized in Appendix A.
4. EID Prefix Allocation Policy
The allocation of EID prefixes MUST respect the following policies:
1. EID addressing prefixes are made available in the reserved space
on a temporary basis and for experimental uses. The requester of
an experimental prefix MUST provide a short description of the
intended use or experiment that will be carried out (see
Section 6). If the prefix will be used for activities not
documented in the original description, the renewal of the
allocation may be denied or withdrawn (see Section 5).
Iannone, et al. Expires April 24, 2014 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft LISP EID Block Management October 2013
2. EID prefixes are allocated on a lease/license basis for a limited
period of time (which can be renewed). The lease/license period
SHOULD NOT be longer than one year.
3. Exception to the previous rule may be granted in cases in which
the prefix has been delegated to an organization that will act as
a registry for further sub-allocations. Sub-allocations MUST
respect this present list of policies as well as the allocation
requirements outlined in Section 5. Requests for a prefix
delegation that will be used for further sub-allocations MUST
clearly state such intent in the short description of the
intended use document.
4. All of the allocations (renewed or not, including delegations and
sub-allocations) MUST end by 31 December 2017, in accordance to
the 3+3 years experimental allocation plan outlined in
[I-D.ietf-lisp-eid-block].
5. Upon IETF review before 31 December 2017, the EID prefix space
may become a permanent allocation. In this case existing
allocations CAN be renewed and new allocations granted (still on
a yearly temporary basis). All allocations (renewed or not,
including delegations and sub-allocations) MUST end by 31
December 2020, in accordance to the 3+3 years plan outlined in
[I-D.ietf-lisp-eid-block]. During the second 3 years phase of
the experiment, the IETF will decide the final EID prefix block
size and elaborate the allocation and management policies that
will be applied starting 1 January 2021.
6. When an allocation is freed because of non-renewal or the
termination of an experiment, the address space is returned to
the global pool of free EID prefixes. This freed allocation MUST
NOT be announced through registration on Map Servers in the LISP
mapping system for at least 72 hours to ensure expiration of all
cached map entries in the global LISP infrastructure.
7. The EID prefix of an allocation that is not renewed (or whose
renewal has been denied) can be re-used after no less than one
week from the date when the EID prefix is freed. This delay will
provide sufficient time for all cached map entries in the global
LISP infrastructure to expire and will allow any management
process for re-allocation to be dealt with.
8. EID prefix allocations can be revoked as a result of abuse,
unjustified usage (e.g., not conforming the intended use provided
at request time), failure to pay maintenance fees, legal court
orders, etc. Withdrawal can be enforced by filtering on Map
Servers so to prevent map registration.
Iannone, et al. Expires April 24, 2014 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft LISP EID Block Management October 2013
If/When the EID block experiment changes status (e.g., to not being
"experimental"), and following the policies outlined in [RFC5226],
the EID block will change status as well and will be converted to a
permanent allocation. The IETF will define the transition process
from the policies and requirements outlined in this document to a new
set of policies and requirements. This transition process will
include mechanisms that will allow for requests to convert existing
temporary allocations (without renumbering) to permanent allocations.
5. EID Prefixes Allocation Requirements
All EID prefix allocations (and delegations) MUST respect the
following requirements:
1. Allocations MUST be globally unique.
2. Requirements for allocation MUST be the same globally. No
regional/national/local variations are permitted.
3. The minimum allocated prefix size MUST be a /48. An allocation
may be larger (i.e., shorter prefix) provided that the requester
is able to justify the intended size in their request
description.
4. Registration information MUST be maintained and made publicly
available through a searchable interface, preferably RDAP
([I-D.ietf-weirds-rdap-sec]) and optionally whois, http, or
similar.
5. If fees are charged for EID allocation and registration services,
those fees MUST be no more than the cost of providing those
services.
6. Requesters obtaining an allocation SHOULD provide Reverse DNS
service.
7. Requesters obtaining a delegation, hence acting as registries,
MUST provide Reverse DNS service.
8. The service SHOULD be available 99% of the time.
9. Anyone, private persons, companies, or other entities can request
EID space and those requests MUST be granted, provided that they
can show a clear intent in carrying out LISP experimentation.
Iannone, et al. Expires April 24, 2014 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft LISP EID Block Management October 2013
6. EID Prefix Request Template
Future versions of this document will include a detailed allocation
(and delegation) request template to ensure a uniform process. An
example of a similar template/process is the IANA Private Enterprise
Number online request form
(http://pen.iana.org/pen/PenApplication.page). The EID Prefix
Request template MUST at minimum contain:
o Requester Information (e.g., company name)
o Requester Referral Person (and Contact Information)
o Requested EID prefix size
o Request Rationale
7. General Considerations
This document is a starting point for discussion aiming to address
the concerns raised during the IETF Review of
[I-D.ietf-lisp-eid-block], more specifically the lack of guidelines
concerning the EID Block allocation and management.
Discussion with IANA, the RIR communities, and the IETF community
should be carried out in order to verify compatibility of the
proposed policy and agree upon the process for EID prefix allocation
and management.
8. Security Considerations
This document does not introduce new security threats in the LISP
architecture nor in the Legacy Internet architecture.
For accountability reasons, and in line with the security
considerations in [RFC7020], each allocation request MUST contain
accurate information on the requesting entity (company, institution,
individual, etc.) and valid and accurate contact information of a
referral person (see Section 6).
9. Acknowledgments
Thanks to J. Curran, A. Severin, B. Haberman, T. Manderson, D. Lewis,
D. Farinacci, for their helpful comments.
Iannone, et al. Expires April 24, 2014 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft LISP EID Block Management October 2013
10. IANA Considerations
This document provides only management guidelines for the reserved
LISP EID prefix requested and allocated in [I-D.ietf-lisp-eid-block].
There is an operational requirement for an EID allocation service
that ensures uniqueness of EIDs allocated according to the
requirements described in Section 5. Furthermore, there is an
operational requirement for EID registration service that allows a
lookup of the contact information of the entity to which the EID was
allocated.
IANA must ensure both of these services are provided, for the space
directly allocated by IANA, in a globally uniform fashion for the
duration of the experiment.
11. References
11.1. Normative References
[I-D.ietf-lisp-eid-block]
Iannone, L., Lewis, D., Meyer, D., and V. Fuller, "LISP
EID Block", draft-ietf-lisp-eid-block-05 (work in
progress), August 2013.
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[RFC4632] Fuller, V. and T. Li, "Classless Inter-domain Routing
(CIDR): The Internet Address Assignment and Aggregation
Plan", BCP 122, RFC 4632, August 2006.
[RFC5226] Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an
IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 5226,
May 2008.
11.2. Informative References
[I-D.ietf-weirds-rdap-sec]
Hollenbeck, S. and N. Kong, "Security Services for the
Registration Data Access Protocol",
draft-ietf-weirds-rdap-sec-05 (work in progress),
August 2013.
[RFC6830] Farinacci, D., Fuller, V., Meyer, D., and D. Lewis, "The
Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP)", RFC 6830,
January 2013.
Iannone, et al. Expires April 24, 2014 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft LISP EID Block Management October 2013
[RFC6831] Farinacci, D., Meyer, D., Zwiebel, J., and S. Venaas, "The
Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP) for Multicast
Environments", RFC 6831, January 2013.
[RFC6832] Lewis, D., Meyer, D., Farinacci, D., and V. Fuller,
"Interworking between Locator/ID Separation Protocol
(LISP) and Non-LISP Sites", RFC 6832, January 2013.
[RFC6833] Fuller, V. and D. Farinacci, "Locator/ID Separation
Protocol (LISP) Map-Server Interface", RFC 6833,
January 2013.
[RFC6834] Iannone, L., Saucez, D., and O. Bonaventure, "Locator/ID
Separation Protocol (LISP) Map-Versioning", RFC 6834,
January 2013.
[RFC6835] Farinacci, D. and D. Meyer, "The Locator/ID Separation
Protocol Internet Groper (LIG)", RFC 6835, January 2013.
[RFC6836] Fuller, V., Farinacci, D., Meyer, D., and D. Lewis,
"Locator/ID Separation Protocol Alternative Logical
Topology (LISP+ALT)", RFC 6836, January 2013.
[RFC6837] Lear, E., "NERD: A Not-so-novel Endpoint ID (EID) to
Routing Locator (RLOC) Database", RFC 6837, January 2013.
[RFC7020] Housley, R., Curran, J., Huston, G., and D. Conrad, "The
Internet Numbers Registry System", RFC 7020, August 2013.
Appendix A. LISP Terms
LISP operates on two name spaces and introduces several new network
elements. This section provides high-level definitions of the LISP
name spaces and network elements and as such, it must not be
considered as an authoritative source. The reference to the
authoritative document for each term is included in every term
description.
Legacy Internet: The portion of the Internet that does not run LISP
and does not participate in LISP+ALT or any other mapping system.
LISP site: A LISP site is a set of routers in an edge network that
are under a single technical administration. LISP routers that
reside in the edge network are the demarcation points to separate
the edge network from the core network. See [RFC6830] for more
details.
Iannone, et al. Expires April 24, 2014 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft LISP EID Block Management October 2013
Endpoint ID (EID): An EID is a 32-bit (for IPv4) or 128-bit (for
IPv6) value used in the source and destination address fields of
the first (most inner) LISP header of a packet. A packet that is
emitted by a system contains EIDs in its headers and LISP headers
are prepended only when the packet reaches an Ingress Tunnel
Router (ITR) on the data path to the destination EID. The source
EID is obtained via existing mechanisms used to set a host's
"local" IP address. An EID is allocated to a host from an EID-
prefix block associated with the site where the host is located.
See [RFC6830] for more details.
EID-prefix: A power-of-two block of EIDs that are allocated to a
site by an address allocation authority. See [RFC6830] for more
details.
EID-Prefix Aggregate: A set of EID-prefixes said to be aggregatable
in the [RFC4632] sense. That is, an EID-Prefix aggregate is
defined to be a single contiguous power-of-two EID-prefix block.
A prefix and a length characterize such a block. See [RFC6830]
for more details.
Routing LOCator (RLOC): A RLOC is an IPv4 or IPv6 address of an
egress tunnel router (ETR). A RLOC is the output of an EID-to-
RLOC mapping lookup. An EID maps to one or more RLOCs.
Typically, RLOCs are numbered from topologically aggregatable
blocks that are assigned to a site at each point to which it
attaches to the global Internet; where the topology is defined by
the connectivity of provider networks, RLOCs can be thought of as
Provider Aggregatable (PA) addresses. See [RFC6830] for more
details.
EID-to-RLOC Mapping: A binding between an EID-Prefix and the RLOC-
set that can be used to reach the EID-Prefix. The general term
"mapping" always refers to an EID-to-RLOC mapping. See [RFC6830]
for more details.
Ingress Tunnel Router (ITR): An Ingress Tunnel Router (ITR) is a
router that accepts receives IP packets from site end-systems on
one side and sends LISP-encapsulated IP packets toward the
Internet on the other side. The router treats the "inner" IP
destination address as an EID and performs an EID-to-RLOC mapping
lookup. The router then prepends an "outer" IP header with one of
its globally routable RLOCs in the source address field and the
result of the mapping lookup in the destination address field.
See [RFC6830] for more details.
Iannone, et al. Expires April 24, 2014 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft LISP EID Block Management October 2013
Egress Tunnel Router (ETR): An Egress Tunnel Router (ETR) receives
LISP-encapsulated IP packets from the Internet on one side and
sends decapsulated IP packets to site end-systems on the other
side. An ETR router accepts an IP packet where the destination
address in the "outer" IP header is one of its own RLOCs. The
router strips the "outer" header and forwards the packet based on
the next IP header found. See [RFC6830] for more details.
Proxy ITR (PITR): A Proxy-ITR (PITR) acts like an ITR but does so on
behalf of non-LISP sites which send packets to destinations at
LISP sites. See [RFC6832] for more details.
Proxy ETR (PETR): A Proxy-ETR (PETR) acts like an ETR but does so on
behalf of LISP sites which send packets to destinations at non-
LISP sites. See [RFC6832] for more details.
Map Server (MS): A network infrastructure component that learns EID-
to-RLOC mapping entries from an authoritative source (typically an
ETR). A Map Server publishes these mappings in the distributed
mapping system. See [RFC6833] for more details.
Map Resolver (MR): A network infrastructure component that accepts
LISP Encapsulated Map-Requests, typically from an ITR, quickly
determines whether or not the destination IP address is part of
the EID namespace; if it is not, a Negative Map-Reply is
immediately returned. Otherwise, the Map Resolver finds the
appropriate EID-to-RLOC mapping by consulting the distributed
mapping database system. See [RFC6833] for more details.
The LISP Alternative Logical Topology (ALT): The virtual overlay
network made up of tunnels between LISP+ALT Routers. The Border
Gateway Protocol (BGP) runs between ALT Routers and is used to
carry reachability information for EID-prefixes. The ALT provides
a way to forward Map-Requests toward the ETR that "owns" an EID-
prefix. See [RFC6836] for more details.
ALT Router: The device on which runs the ALT. The ALT is a static
network built using tunnels between ALT Routers. These routers
are deployed in a roughly-hierarchical mesh in which routers at
each level in the topology are responsible for aggregating EID-
Prefixes learned from those logically "below" them and advertising
summary prefixes to those logically "above" them. Prefix learning
and propagation between ALT Routers is done using BGP. When an
ALT Router receives an ALT Datagram, it looks up the destination
EID in its forwarding table (composed of EID-Prefix routes it
learned from neighboring ALT Routers) and forwards it to the
logical next-hop on the overlay network. The primary function of
LISP+ALT routers is to provide a lightweight forwarding
Iannone, et al. Expires April 24, 2014 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft LISP EID Block Management October 2013
infrastructure for LISP control-plane messages (Map-Request and
Map-Reply), and to transport data packets when the packet has the
same destination address in both the inner (encapsulating)
destination and outer destination addresses ((i.e., a Data Probe
packet). See [RFC6830] for more details.
Authors' Addresses
Luigi Iannone
Telecom ParisTech
Email: luigi.iannone@telecom-paristech.fr
Roger Jorgensen
Bredbandsfylket Troms
Email: rogerj@gmail.com
David Conrad
Virtualized, LLC
Email: drc@virtualized.org
Iannone, et al. Expires April 24, 2014 [Page 11]