Network Working Group F. Templin, Ed. Internet-Draft Boeing Research & Technology Intended status: Informational June 2, 2010 Expires: December 4, 2010 The Internet Routing Overlay Network (IRON) draft-templin-iron-02.txt Abstract The Internet routing system is experiencing a growth profile that has led many to express concerns for unsustainable routing scaling. Operational practices such as increased use of multihoming with IPv4 Provider-Independent (PI) addressing are resulting in more and more fine-grained prefixes injected into the routing system from more and more end user networks. Furthermore, depletion of the remaining public IPv4 address space has raised concerns for both increased deaggregation (leading to yet further routing scaling) and an impending address space runout scenario. At the same time, the IPv6 routing system is finally beginning to see significant growth in IPv6 Provider-Aggregated (PA) prefixes but there does not seem to be a solution on the near term horizon for IPv6 PI addressing. Since the Internet must continue to support escalating growth due to increasing demand, it is clear that current mechanisms and operational practices are reaching a tipping point where something must be done. This document proposes an Internet Routing Overlay Network (IRON) for supporting sustainable growth through PI addressing while requiring no changes to end systems and no changes to the existing routing system. 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 December 4, 2010. Templin Expires December 4, 2010 [Page 1] Internet-Draft IRON June 2010 Copyright Notice Copyright (c) 2010 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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 3. IRON Routers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 4. The Internet Routing Overlay Network (IRON) . . . . . . . . . 5 5. IRON Initialization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 5.1. IR(VP) and IR(GW) Initialization . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 5.2. IR(EUN) Initialization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 6. IRON Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 6.1. IR(EUN) Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 6.2. IR(VP) Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 6.3. IR(GW) Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 6.4. IRON Example Scenario . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 6.5. Mobility Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 7. Related Initiatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 8. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 9. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 10. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 11. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 11.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 11.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 Templin Expires December 4, 2010 [Page 2] Internet-Draft IRON June 2010 1. Introduction The Internet routing system is experiencing a growth profile that has led many to express concerns for unsustainable routing scaling. Operational practices such as increased use of multihoming with IPv4 Provider-Independent (PI) addressing are resulting in more and more fine-grained prefixes injected into the routing system from more and more end user networks. Furthermore, depletion of the remaining public IPv4 address space has raised concerns for both increased deaggregation (leading to yet further routing scaling) and an impending address space runout scenario. At the same time, the IPv6 routing system is finally beginning to see significant growth in IPv6 Provider-Aggregated (PA) prefixes but there does not seem to be a solution on the near term horizon for IPv6 PI addressing. Since the Internet must continue to support escalating growth due to increasing demand, it is clear that current mechanisms and operational practices are reaching a tipping point where something must be done. Virtual Aggregation (VA) [I-D.ietf-grow-va] and Aggregation in Increasing Scopes (AIS) [I-D.zhang-evolution] are global routing proposals that introduce routing overlays using Virtual Prefixes (VPs) to reduce router Forwarding Information Base (FIB) and Routing Information Base (RIB) scaling. Routing and Addressing in Networks with Global Enterprise Recursion (RANGER) [RFC5720] examines recursive arrangements of enterprise networks that can apply to a very broad set of use case scenarios [I-D.russert-rangers]. In particular, RANGER supports encapsulation and secure redirection by treating each layer in the recursive hierarchy as a virtual non- broadcast, multiple access (NBMA) "link". RANGER is an architectural framework that includes Virtual Enterprise Traversal (VET) [I-D.templin-intarea-vet] and the Subnetwork Adaptation and Encapsulation Layer (SEAL) [I-D.templin-intarea-seal] as its functional building blocks. This document proposes an Internet Routing Overlay Network (IRON) for supporting sustainable growth while requiring no changes to the existing routing system. IRON borrows concepts from VA, AIS and RANGER, and further borrows concepts from the Internet Vastly Improved Plumbing (Ivip) [I-D.whittle-ivip-arch] architecture proposal. IRON specifically seeks to enable scalable Provider- Independent (PI) addressing without changing the current BGP routing systems of the IPv4 and IPv6 Internets in any way. IRON uses the IPv4 and IPv6 global Internet routing systems as virtual NBMA links for tunneling inner network protocol packets that use End User Network (EUN) addresses within outer IPv4 or IPv6 packets that use Routing LOCator (RLOC) addresses. Moreover, inner packets can be either IPv4 or IPv6 without regard to the address Templin Expires December 4, 2010 [Page 3] Internet-Draft IRON June 2010 family used in the outer packet, and inner packets can even be non-IP protocols such as OSI. The following sections discuss details of the IRON architecture. 2. Terminology The following abbreviations correspond to terms used within this document and elsewhere in common Internetworking nomenclature: EP - End User Network PI Prefix ETE - Egress Tunnel Endpoint EUN - End User Network ISP - Internet Service Provider ITE - Ingress Tunnel Endpoint NBMA - Non-Broadcast, Multiple Access PA - Provider Aggregated PI - Provider Independent SCMP - the SEAL Control Message Protocol SEAL_ID - an Identification value, randomly initialized and monotonically incremented for each SEAL protocol packet TE - Tunnel Endpoint (i.e., either ingress or egress) VP - Virtual Prefix 3. IRON Routers IRON introduces a new class of routers called IRON Routers (IRs) that can be deployed on platforms ranging from high-end enterprise routers to simple commodity servers. Moreover, IRs can be introduced incrementally and without affecting existing infrastructure. The purpose of these new IRs is to provide waypoints (or "cairns") for navigating the IRON so that packets with destination addresses taken from End User Network PI prefixes (EPs) can be delivered to the correct End User Networks (EUNs) through the use of encapsulation with minimum path stretch for initial packets and optimized routes for non-initial packets. The different categories of IRs includes: Templin Expires December 4, 2010 [Page 4] Internet-Draft IRON June 2010 o IR - an IRON Router of any kind o IR(VP) - a tunnel endpoint router that is owned by a VP company and that aggregates VPs from which it sub-delegates more-specific EPs to EUNs. o IR(EUN) - a tunnel endpoint router (or host with embedded gateway function) that obtains an EP from a VP company, and that connects an EUN to the IRON. An IR(EUN) will typically be a customer premises equipment (CPE) device that connects the EUN to its ISP(s), but may also be a router or even a singleton host within the EUN. o IR(GW) - a router that acts as a gateway between the IRON and the non-IRON Internet. Each VP company configures one or more IR(GWs) which advertise the company's VPs into the IPv4 and/or IPv6 global Internet DFZs. An IR(GW) may be configured on the same physical platform as IR(VPs), or as a separate standalone platform. An IR(GW) will typically be a BGP router that is capable of sourcing encapsulated packets. IRON observes the Internet Protocol standards [RFC0791][RFC2460]. Other network layer protocols that can be encapsulated within IP packets (e.g., OSI/CLNP [RFC1070], etc.) are also within scope. 4. The Internet Routing Overlay Network (IRON) The Internet Routing Overlay Network (IRON) consists of IRON Routers (IRs) that use Virtual Enterprise Traversal (VET) and the Subnetwork Encapsulation and Adaptation Layer (SEAL) for the purpose of forwarding encapsulated inner network layer packets over the IPv4 and IPv6 Internets. Each such IR views the IPv4 and IPv6 global Internets as monolithic virtual NBMA "links", and connects to the links via a VET interface used for automatic tunneling. Each IR therefore sees all other IRs as virtual single-hop neighbors on the link from the standpoint of the inner network layer protocol, while they may be separated by many physical outer IP hops. IRs are deployed incrementally and without disturbing the existing Internet routing system. The IRON is manifested through a business model in which VP companies own and manage a set of IR(VPs) that are dispersed throughout the Internet and that serve a set of highly-aggregated VPs. Each VP company sets up a service in which it leases EPs taken from the VPs to customer EUNs. These EUNs may be located on the same network as the VP company's IR(VP) routers, or they may be located elsewhere within the Internet. The VP company acts as a virtual enterprise Templin Expires December 4, 2010 [Page 5] Internet-Draft IRON June 2010 network which EUNs loosely consider as their "home" network even though they physically arrange for basic connectivity via one or more ISP networks that may have no affiliation with the VP company. VP companies can therefore open for business and begin serving their customers immediately without the need to coordinate their activities with ISPs or with other VP companies. Each VP company also establishes a set of IR(GW) routers that connect to the IPv4 and/or IPv6 Internet DFZs. The IR(GW) advertises all of the vendor's IPv4 VPs into the IPv4 DFZ and advertises all of its IPv6 VPs into the IPv6 DFZ. Each IR(GW) forwards any packets coming from the DFZ to an IR(VP) that can encapsulate the packet and forward it to the appropriate IR(EUN). In this way, end systems that use PA addresses can communicate with other end systems that use PI addresses taken from an IRON VP. EUNs establish at least one IR(EUN) that connects the EUN to the IRON. The IR(EUN) uses encapsulation to forward packets with PI source addresses to an IR(VP) belonging to its VP company as a default router. The VP company's IR(VP) then forwards the packets toward their final destination, and returns a SEAL Control Message Protocol (SCMP) redirect message to inform the IR(EP) of a better next hop if necessary. In this way, IR(EPs) experience reasonable path stretch for initial packets and can discover route-optimized paths for subsequent packets. In a typical scenario, an IR(EUN) 'A' forwards initial packets addressed to another IR(EUN) 'B' through an IR(VP) in its home network. The IR(VP) in 'A's home network then forwards the packet to an IR(VP) in 'B's home network, then sends a redirect message to 'A'. 'A' will forward subsequent packets through an IR(VP) in 'B's home network, which will forward the packets to IR(EUN) 'B' and return a redirect message to 'A'. Following these redirections, subsequent packets will flow directly from 'A' to 'B'. 5. IRON Initialization IRON initialization entails the startup actions of VP company and EUN equipment. The following sections discuss these startups procedures: 5.1. IR(VP) and IR(GW) Initialization Upon startup, each IR(VP) and IR(GW) owned by the VP company discovers the full set of VPs for the IRON. These VPs may be IPv4 or IPv6, but they may also be prefixes of other network layer protocols (e.g., OSI NSAP [RFC4548], etc). Each VP is maintained in a Master VP (MVP) flat file that consists of the union of all VPs in the IRON. Templin Expires December 4, 2010 [Page 6] Internet-Draft IRON June 2010 The MVP file is maintained by a globally-managed assigned numbers authority in exactly the same manner as the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) currently maintains the master list of all top-level IPv4 and IPv6 delegations. (Indeed, the IANA is proposed as the primary registration authority for the MVP file.) Each VP in the MVP file is encoded as the tuple: "{address family, prefix/length, FQDN}", where: o "address family" is one of IPv4, IPv6, OSI/CLNP, etc. o "prefix/length" is the VP and its associated length, e.g., 2002: DB8::/32 (IPv6), 192.2/16 (IPv4), etc. o FQDN is a DNS Fully-Qualified Domain Name Each IR(VP/GW) reads the MVP from a nearby server upon startup time, and periodically checks for deltas on the server since the MVP was last read. (The MVP can be replicated across multiple servers for load balancing much in the same way that FTP mirror sites are used to manage software distributions.) Upon reading the MVP, the IR(VP/GW) resolves the FQDN corresponding to each VP into a list of DNS Well- Known Service (WKS) resource records with an IRON-specific format (to be specified) that includes the address family, RLOC address, and geographic (Latitude/Longitude) coordinates at which the IR(VP) is physically located. Each RLOC address is an IPv4 or IPv6 RLOC address of an IR(VP) within the DFZ. For each VP, the IR(VP/GW) sorts the list of RLOCs in order of "geographic closeness", and inserts each "VP->RLOC" mapping into its Forwarding Information Base (FIB) with a priority corresponding to geographic closeness. Specifically, the FIB entries must be configured such that packets with destination addresses covered by the VP are forwarded to the corresponding RLOC using encapsulation of the inner network layer packet in an outer IP header. Note that the VP and RLOC may be of different address families; hence, possible encapsulations include IPv6-in-IPv4, IPv4-in-IPv6, IPv6-in-IPv6, IPv4-in-IPv4, OSI/CLNP-in-IPv6, OSI/CLNP-in-IPv4, etc. After each IR(VP/GW) reads in the list of VPs and sorts the information accordingly, it is said to be "synchronized with the IRON". Each IR(VP) next installs all EPs derived from its VPs into its FIB based on the mapping information received from each EUN that owns a prefix. 5.2. IR(EUN) Initialization Upon startup, each IR(EUN) must register its EP-to-RLOC binding with the company that owns the corresponding VP, where the RLOC is an IPv4 or IPv6 address assigned to the IR(EUN) by an ISP network. For example, if an IR(EUN) owns the EP 192.2.1/24 (IPv4) and the RLOC Templin Expires December 4, 2010 [Page 7] Internet-Draft IRON June 2010 assigned to the IR(EUN) by the ISP is 2002:DB8::1 (IPv6), the IR(EUN) informs the VP company that the route 192.2.1/24 with 2002:DB8::1 as the L2 address of the next-hop must be added to the FIB in each of its IR(VPs) that aggregates the EP. The IR(EUN) typically informs the VP company by using an authenticated short transaction protocol (e.g., http(s) with username/password) to register its EP-to-RLOC mapping information. (The exact specification for the short transaction is up to the VP company and need only be communicated to the IR(EUN); the IR(EUN) also uses the same EP-to-RLOC registration procedure to inform its VP company of a change in RLOC, e.g., due to a mobility event.) After the IR(EUN) registers its mapping information, the VP company then propagates it to each of its IR(VPs) that aggregates the EP, e.g., via a routing protocol that all of the VP company's IR(VPs) engage in. After the IR(EUN) informs the VP company of its EP->RLOC mapping, it resolves a FQDN for the VP company in order to discover the RLOC addresses and geographic locations of the IR(VPs) owned by the company. (This resolution is analogous to the ISATAP Potential Router List (PRL) resolution procedure [RFC5214].) The IR(EUN) then selects the closest subset of these RLOC addresses (typically 2-4 routers chosen, e.g., based on geographic distance), and adds them to a default router list of FIB entries that each points to a tunnel virtual interface with the RLOC as the L2 address of the next-hop. The IR(EP) will then use these routes in the default router list as the means for forwarding encapsulated packets with EID source addresses toward the final destination via encapsulation. 6. IRON Operation Following IRON initialization, IRs engage in the steady-state process of receiving and forwarding packets. Except in instances when it forwards an unencapsulated packet to the public Internet, the IR encapsulates each forwarded packet using the mechanisms of VET [I-D.templin-intarea-vet] and SEAL [I-D.templin-intarea-seal]. IRs also use the SEAL Control Message Protocol (SCMP) to test liveness of other IRs and to receive redirects informing them of a better next hop. Each IR operates as specified in the following sections: 6.1. IR(EUN) Operation After an IR(EUN) is initialized, it sends periodic beacons to at least 2-4 of its VP company's IR(VP)s which serve as default routers. Each beacon is a SEAL Control Message Protocol (SCMP) Router Solicitation (RS) message, and will elicit an SCMP Router Advertisement (RA) message from the IR(VP). If the IR(EUN) ceases to receive RA messages from an IR(VP), it marks that IR(VP) as Templin Expires December 4, 2010 [Page 8] Internet-Draft IRON June 2010 unreachable and selects a different IR(VP). If the IR(EUN) ceases to receive RA message from multiple IR(VPs), it marks the ISP connection as failed/failing and uses an RLOC assigned by a different ISP to re- register its EP-to-RLOC mapping. When an end system in an EUN has a packet to send, the packet is forwarded through the EUN until it reaches the IR(EUN). The source IR(EUN) then forwards the packet either to an IR(VP) or to a destination IR(EUN). The source IR(EUN) first checks its FIB for the longest matching prefix. If the longest matching prefix is more- specific than "default", the source IR(EUN) forwards the packet to the next-hop the same as for ordinary IP forwarding. If the longest match is "default", however, the source IR(EUN) forwards the packet to one of its default routers. The source IR(EUN) uses VET and SEAL to encapsulate each forwarded packet in an outer IP header with the IP address of the next-hop IR as the destination address. The source IR(EUN) further uses SCMP to test liveness and/or to accept redirect messages from the next-hop IR. When the source IR(EUN) receives an SCMP redirect, it checks the SEAL_ID field of the encapsulated message to verify that the redirect corresponds to a packet that it had previously sent to the neighbor and accepts the redirect if there is a match. Thereafter, subsequent packets forwarded by the source IR(EUN) will follow a route-optimized path. An IR(EUN) that accepts redirects may be redirected by an IR(VP) in its home VP company network to one or more IR(VP)s in a "foreign" network. In that case, the IR(EUN) has no way of knowing if these foreign IR(VP)s are reachable and able to process encapsulated packets. Therefore, the IR(EUN) should select multiple foreign IR(VPs) (e.g., 2-4) and send "live" packets to one of them while sending corresponding "blank" packets to the others. In turn, each foreign IR(VP) accepts and forwards "live" packets, but drops "blank" packets after sending a redirect. In this way, even if the original packet is lost due to short- or long-term outage, the IR(EUN) should receive a redirect from at least one of the foreign IR(VP)s. 6.2. IR(VP) Operation After an IR(VP) is initialized, it sends RA responses to the periodic RS beacons sent by IR(EUNs) as described in Section 6.1. When the IR(VP) receives an encapsulated packet from another IR, it examines the inner destination address then forwards the packet as follows: o If the inner destination address matches an EP in its FIB, the IR(VP) 'A' re-encapsulates the packet using VET/SEAL and forwards it to the next-hop IR(EUN) 'B'. If the source IR 'C' is accepting Templin Expires December 4, 2010 [Page 9] Internet-Draft IRON June 2010 redirects, 'A' also sends an SCMP redirect message back to 'C'. 'C' will then send subsequent packets directly to 'B'. o If the inner destination address does not match an EP but matches a VP in its FIB, the IR(VP) 'A' re-encapsulates the packet using VET/SEAL and forwards it to the next-hop IR(VP) 'B' . If the source IR 'C' is accepting redirects, 'A' also sends an SCMP redirect message back to 'C'. 'C' will then send subsequent packets directly to 'B'. o if the inner destination address does not match an EP or a VP in the FIB, the IR(VP) decapsulates the packet and forwards it to the public Internet via a default or more-specific route. An IR(VP) that accepts redirects may need to forward encapsulated packets via the IR(VP)s of a "foreign" network. In that case, the IR(VP) can send a "live" packet in parallel with corresponding "blanks" the same as for an IR(EUN). 6.3. IR(GW) Operation Each VP company must establish one or more IR(GW) routers which advertise the full set of the company's VP's into the IPv4 and/or IPv6 Internet BGP. The VPs will be seen as ordinary routing information in the BGP, and any packets originating from the non-IRON IPv4 or IPv6 Internet will be forwarded into the VP company's network by an IR(GW). When an IR(GW) receives a packet from the non-IRON Internet but destined to an EP destination, it consults its FIB to determine the best next-hop toward the final destination. The IR(GW) then either forwards the packet to an IR(VP) within the home network or acts as an IR(VP) itself to forward the packet further. 6.4. IRON Example Scenario With respect to the previous sections, a path between two EUNs can potentially involve both the two IR(EUNs) and the IR(VP)s of the two VP companies that serve the EUNs. Route optimization based on redirection will allow shortcuts that eliminate the IR(VP)s from the path. The following figure depicts a simple example IRON scenario for communications between two EUNs: Templin Expires December 4, 2010 [Page 10] Internet-Draft IRON June 2010 +------------+ +------------+ | | | | /======>+ IR(VP(A)) +======>+ IR(VP(B)) +======\ // | | | | \\ // +------------+ +------------+ \\ // V +-----+-----+ +-----+-----+ | IR(EUN(A))| ........................................>| IR(EUN(B))| +-----+-----+ +-----+-----+ | | ........ ........ ( EUN B ) ( EUN B ) ........ ........ | | +---+----+ +---+----+ | Host A | | Host B | +--------+ +--------+ Figure 1: Example IRON Scenario In this example scenario, VP companies A and B have established IR(VP)s within the Internet that serve EPs to EUNs. EUN A has procured an EP from VP company A, while EUN B has procured an EP from VP company B. The hosts in both EUNs have assigned addresses taken from their corresponding EPs on their EUN-interior interfaces, and the IR(EUNs) have assigned provider-aggregated addresses taken from their ISPs on their WAN interfaces. When Host A in EUN A has a packet to send to Host B in EUN B, normal routing conveys the packet from Host A to IR(EUN(A)). If IR(EUN(A ))does not have a more-specific route, it encapsulates the packet and forwards it to an IR(VP) owned by VP company A. IR(VP(A )) decapsulates the packet and checks its FIB for a route toward the packet's destination address. If IR(VP(A)) does not have an EP route to B in its FIB, it consults its full table of VP-to-RLOC mappings to discover that the next-hop toward Host B is via IR(VP(B)). IR(VP(A)) then re-encapsulates the packet and sends it to IR(VP(B)) which has an EP route B via IR(EUN(B)). IR(VP(B)) then re-encapsulates the packet and sends it to IR(EUN(B)), which decapsulates the packet and forwards it via EUN B to Host B. In this process, when an IR(VP) re-encapsulates the packet and forwards it to a next-hop IR, it also returns an SCMP redirect message to the previous hop IR if the previous hop is willing to accept redirects. The previous hop IR will then install a route in its FIB that uses a more optimal next hop. For example, if IR(EUN(A)) is accepting redirects IR(VP(A)) will return a redirect message when it forwards a packet to IR(VP(B)). IR(EUN(A)) will then Templin Expires December 4, 2010 [Page 11] Internet-Draft IRON June 2010 send subsequent packets directly to IR(VP(B)), which will return a redirect message when it forwards the packets to IR(EUN(B)). Finally, IR(EUN(A)) will have an optimized route that lists IR(EUN(B)) as the next hop (shown as "....>" in the diagram). A more interesting redirection scenario arises when IR(VP(A)) is itself willing to accept redirects. In that case, IR(EUN(A)) may discover IR(EUN(B)) as a better next hop toward EUN A based solely on a redirect message from IR(VP(A)) and without involving IR(VP(B)). Note however that this may require IR(VP(A)) to carry thousands or even millions of EP entires in its FIB for all EUNs that it has sent packets to recently. 6.5. Mobility Management When an IR(EUN) moves to a new topological location and/or changes its primary ISP, it receives a new RLOC address. The IR(EUN) then registers the new EP-to-RLOC mapping with its VP company the same as during its initialization phase as described in Section 5.2. Next, the IR(EUN) sends Neighbor Advertisement (NA) messages to each neighboring IR from which it has received packets recently. The NA message includes the new RLOC as the outer source address and includes the previous RLOC within an NA option field. The neighboring IR will update its neighbor cache so that subsequent packets will flow through the new RLOC. Further details on these mobility management procedures are specified in [I-D.templin-intarea-vet] and [I-D.templin-intarea-seal]. 7. Related Initiatives IRON builds upon the concepts RANGER architecture [RFC5720], and therefore inherits the same set of related initiatives. Virtual Aggregation (VA) [I-D.ietf-grow-va] and Aggregation in Increasing Scopes (AIS) [I-D.zhang-evolution] provide the basis for the Virtual Prefix concepts. Internet vastly improved plumbing (Ivip) [I-D.whittle-ivip-arch] has contributed valuable insights, including the use of real-time mapping. 8. IANA Considerations The IANA is instructed to create a Master Virtual Prefix (MVP) Templin Expires December 4, 2010 [Page 12] Internet-Draft IRON June 2010 registry for IRON. 9. Security Considerations Security considerations for RANGER apply also to IRON. 10. Acknowledgements This ideas behind this work have benefited greatly from discussions with colleagues; some of which appear on the RRG and other IRTF/IETF mailing lists. 11. References 11.1. Normative References [RFC0791] Postel, J., "Internet Protocol", STD 5, RFC 791, September 1981. [RFC2460] Deering, S. and R. Hinden, "Internet Protocol, Version 6 (IPv6) Specification", RFC 2460, December 1998. 11.2. Informative References [I-D.ietf-grow-va] Francis, P., Xu, X., Ballani, H., Jen, D., Raszuk, R., and L. Zhang, "FIB Suppression with Virtual Aggregation", draft-ietf-grow-va-02 (work in progress), March 2010. [I-D.russert-rangers] Russert, S., Fleischman, E., and F. Templin, "Operational Scenarios for IRON and RANGER", draft-russert-rangers-02 (work in progress), March 2010. [I-D.templin-intarea-seal] Templin, F., "The Subnetwork Encapsulation and Adaptation Layer (SEAL)", draft-templin-intarea-seal-13 (work in progress), March 2010. [I-D.templin-intarea-vet] Templin, F., "Virtual Enterprise Traversal (VET)", draft-templin-intarea-vet-12 (work in progress), May 2010. [I-D.whittle-ivip-arch] Whittle, R., "Ivip (Internet Vastly Improved Plumbing) Templin Expires December 4, 2010 [Page 13] Internet-Draft IRON June 2010 Architecture", draft-whittle-ivip-arch-04 (work in progress), March 2010. [I-D.zhang-evolution] Zhang, B. and L. Zhang, "Evolution Towards Global Routing Scalability", draft-zhang-evolution-02 (work in progress), October 2009. [RFC1070] Hagens, R., Hall, N., and M. Rose, "Use of the Internet as a subnetwork for experimentation with the OSI network layer", RFC 1070, February 1989. [RFC4271] Rekhter, Y., Li, T., and S. Hares, "A Border Gateway Protocol 4 (BGP-4)", RFC 4271, January 2006. [RFC4548] Gray, E., Rutemiller, J., and G. Swallow, "Internet Code Point (ICP) Assignments for NSAP Addresses", RFC 4548, May 2006. [RFC5214] Templin, F., Gleeson, T., and D. Thaler, "Intra-Site Automatic Tunnel Addressing Protocol (ISATAP)", RFC 5214, March 2008. [RFC5720] Templin, F., "Routing and Addressing in Networks with Global Enterprise Recursion (RANGER)", RFC 5720, February 2010. Author's Address Fred L. Templin (editor) Boeing Research & Technology P.O. Box 3707 MC 7L-49 Seattle, WA 98124 USA Email: fltemplin@acm.org Templin Expires December 4, 2010 [Page 14]