LISP for Satellite Networks
draft-farinacci-lisp-satellite-network-04
| Document | Type | Active Internet-Draft (individual) | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Authors | Dino Farinacci , Victor Moreno , Padma Pillay-Esnault | ||
| Last updated | 2024-02-04 | ||
| RFC stream | (None) | ||
| Intended RFC status | (None) | ||
| Formats | |||
| Stream | Stream state | (No stream defined) | |
| Consensus boilerplate | Unknown | ||
| RFC Editor Note | (None) | ||
| IESG | IESG state | I-D Exists | |
| Telechat date | (None) | ||
| Responsible AD | (None) | ||
| Send notices to | (None) |
draft-farinacci-lisp-satellite-network-04
Network Working Group D. Farinacci
Internet-Draft lispers.net
Intended status: Experimental V. Moreno
Expires: 7 August 2024 P. Pillay-Esnault
Independent
4 February 2024
LISP for Satellite Networks
draft-farinacci-lisp-satellite-network-04
Abstract
This specification describes how the LISP architecture and protocols
can be used over satellite network systems. The LISP overlay runs on
earth using the satellite network system in space as the underlay.
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 https://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 7 August 2024.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2024 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 (https://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 Revised BSD License text as
described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are
provided without warranty as described in the Revised BSD License.
Farinacci, et al. Expires 7 August 2024 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft LISP for Satellite Networks February 2024
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. Definition of Terms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3. Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4. Mapping System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
5. EID Mobility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
6. Satellite RLOCs and Underlay Routing . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
7. Satellite Opportunistic Forwarding . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
8. Underlay Performance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
9. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
10. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
11. Test and Deployment Experience . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
11.1. GS-xTRs Direct (non-NAT) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
11.2. GS-xTRs Direct (NAT) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
11.3. GS-xTR to LISP-xTR (NAT) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
11.4. GS-xTR Direct to non-LISP Host (NAT and Interwork) . . . 11
11.5. GS-xTR to non-LISP Host (NAT and Interwork) . . . . . . 11
11.6. EID-Mobility Direct (non-NAT) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
11.7. GS-xTRs Direct ISLs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
11.8. GS-xTR Laptop on Overlay and Underlay (NAT no
Interwork) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
12. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
12.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
12.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Appendix A. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Appendix B. Document Change Log . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
B.1. Changes to draft-farinacci-lisp-satellite-network-04 . . 18
B.2. Changes to draft-farinacci-lisp-satellite-network-03 . . 18
B.3. Changes to draft-farinacci-lisp-satellite-network-02 . . 18
B.4. Changes to draft-farinacci-lisp-satellite-network-01 . . 18
B.5. Changes to draft-farinacci-lisp-satellite-network-00 . . 18
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
1. Introduction
This specification describes how a LISP overlay structure can run on
top of a satellite network underlay. The approach is similar to how
[I-D.haindl-lisp-gb-atn] is used in Aeronautical Telecommunications
Networks and [I-D.farinacci-lisp-mobile-network] is used in cellular
networks.
This satellite deployment use-case requires no changes to the LISP
architecture or standard protocol specifications. In addition, any
LISP implementations that run on a device with an existing satellite
interface does not need to be upgraded.
Farinacci, et al. Expires 7 August 2024 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft LISP for Satellite Networks February 2024
Even though an overlay should not concern itself with the operation
of an underlay, the requirements from
[I-D.lhan-problems-requirements-satellite-net] are considered but
outside the scope of this document.
The LISP overlay requirements are:
1. There will be no EID state in the satellite network underlay.
2. The satellite underlay is completely unaware of the overlay
running over it.
3. The overlay requires the underlay network to deliver packets to
RLOC addresses.
4. The underlay network can transport IPv4 or IPv6 packets and can
be dual-stack.
5. When path optimization in the underlay is available, an RLOC-
record can be a source route of satellite hops.
The diagram below illustrates a 4 satellite system where each have
Inter-Satellite-Links (ISLs) for connectivity between them and edge
satellites with RF links to Ground Stations. The EID connectivity to
the xTRs is achieved via typical IP network connectivity where EIDs
can be directly connected, one or more switch hops away, one or more
router hops away, or any combination.
Farinacci, et al. Expires 7 August 2024 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft LISP for Satellite Networks February 2024
in space (underlay)
+--------------------------------------------------------------+
| |
| sat ISL sat ISL sat ISL sat |
| ))*(( ------- ))*(( ------- ))*(( ------- ))*(( |
| | | |
| | | |
| |up/down RF-link up/down RF-link| |
| | | |
| | | |
+------|-----------------------------------------------|-------+
| |
| |
| on earth (overlay) |
+------|-----------------------------------------------|-------+
| | | |
| GS-xTR [mapping system] GS-xTR |
| / \ / \ |
| / \ / \ |
| / \ / \ |
| / \ / \ |
| EIDs ... EIDs EIDs ... EIDs |
| |
+--------------------------------------------------------------+
Figure 1: Overlay on Earth, Underlay in Space
The LISP mapping system runs on the earth-resident Internet and
requires reachability by xTRs before LISP encapsulation can occur
over the satellite network underlay.
EIDs are known only to the overlay xTR nodes. EIDs are not routable
or require state in the satellite network. This provides great value
for scaling and EID mobility.
2. Definition of Terms
Inter-Satellite-Links (ISLs): are phased-array laser wireless links
that transmit within or across orbits in space to other
satellites. They are different than satellite downlinks which are
RF links to Ground-Stations.
xTR: is a LISP data-plane device. xTR is the general term for ITR,
ETR, or RTR. The formal and authoritative definition is in
[RFC9300]. When a LISP xTR runs on a ground station device, it is
called a GS-xTR.
Farinacci, et al. Expires 7 August 2024 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft LISP for Satellite Networks February 2024
Ground-Station (GS): is a device on the ground that has wireless
links to a satellite node in space
[I-D.lhan-problems-requirements-satellite-net]. When a Ground-
Station is an LISP xTR, it encapsulates and decapsulates packets
sent and received on satellite links according to the forwarding
procedures in [RFC9300] and [RFC9301]. A GS can also be part of
the satellite network system but isn't deployed as a GS-xTR. In
this scenario, the GS is part of the underlay and assumes the
satellite network system, with its attached ground stations,
deliver RLOC addressed packets. When a satellite is in relay mode
(not using ISLs), a LISP RTR can be used to support traffic
engineering where a GS-ITR encapsulates through a single satellite
hop to a GS-RTR which decapsulates and re-encapsulates through
another single satellite hop to a GS-ETR. See [I-D.ietf-lisp-te]
for details, and how LISP-TE can also be used with multiple
satellite hops.
source-GS-xTR: is the LISP ITR which does a mapping system lookup to
obtain and cache the destination-RLOC for the destination-EID. It
then encapsulates the packet and sends it on the uplink whatever
satellite that is in coverage range.
destination-GS-xTR: is the LISP ETR which receives a LISP
encapsulated packet on the downlink from the satellite that is in
coverage range over it. The outer header is stripped and packet
is delivered to local EID on the ground.
EID: defined as an Endpoint-ID in [RFC9300]. An EID is assigned to
devices that reside behind GS-xTRs and are registered to the LISP
mapping system with a satellite network address which is used as
an RLOC.
RLOC: defined as a Routing Locator in [RFC9300]. Within the scope
of this specification, the RLOC is the satellite network address
of a GS-xTR where the satellite network knows how to forward
packets to this RLOC address.
3. Overview
Here is how a packet flow sequence occurs from a source-EID to a
destination-EID when the underlay is a satellite network:
1. source-EID originates an IP packet to a destination-EID. The
addresses in the packet are EIDs.
2. The packet travels to the GS-xTR (source-GS-xTR) via traditional
IP routing.
Farinacci, et al. Expires 7 August 2024 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft LISP for Satellite Networks February 2024
3. The source-GS-xTR does a map-cache lookup for destination-EID to
obtain the RLOC for the destination-GS-xTR.
4. If map-cache lookup fails, a mapping system lookup is performed
for destination-EID.
5. The source-GS-xTR LISP encapsulates the packet and sends it on
the uplink to the satellite. The RLOC addresses in the outer
header are source-GS-xTR and destination-GS-xTR.
6. The satellite network delivers the packet to Ground-Station
addressed as destination-GS-xTR.
7. The destination-GS-xTR decapsulates the LISP packet by stripping
the outer header and delivering the packet to the destination-EID
on the ground.
4. Mapping System
The LISP mapping system holds EID-to-RLOC-set mappings. They are
kept up to date by GS-xTRs and all the mechanisms from [RFC9301] are
available for use. The mappings can contain RLOCs that are not GS-
xTRs thereby allowing load-splitting between both satellite and
terrestrial paths. The RLOC-set can also contain multicast RLOCs
that can be reachable via satellite or terrestrial paths.
All of IPv4, IPv6, and MAC EIDs can be registered to the mapping
system to create multi-address-family L3 overlays as well as L2
overlays on the satellite underlay. That is, GS-xTR RLOCs can be
used with these EID address types.
Even though the satellite network is deployed to offer global
Internet services, it may just carry routes and connectivity to GS-
xTR addresses (their RLOC addresses). If this is the case, the LISP
critical infrastructure may not be reachable by the satellite network
or the satellite nodes themselves. Therefore, the mapping system can
be deployed in GS-xTRs which can be reached by the satellite network.
This specification recommends the mapping system reside on earth and
if the satellite network does offer global Internet connectivity, the
mapping system can reside anywhere on earth. So even for rural based
deployments of GS-xTRs, where the only connectivity is through a
satellite interface link, the LISP critical infrastructure is always
reachable.
Farinacci, et al. Expires 7 August 2024 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft LISP for Satellite Networks February 2024
When satellite connectivity changes from a GS-xTR within its coverage
range, the RLOC of the GS-xTR does not change. Therefore, there is
no need to update the mapping system when this happens. This
provides more scale to the total system since the LISP overlay is
providing a level of indirection.
5. EID Mobility
EID-mobility [I-D.ietf-lisp-eid-mobility] is supported so devices can
roam to other xTRs and are found by mapping system updates for remote
xTRs encapsulating to the EID. GS-xTRs learn EIDs on the ground
dynamically via the mechanisms in [I-D.ietf-lisp-eid-mobility].
6. Satellite RLOCs and Underlay Routing
The address format of a GS-xTR RLOC depends on the design of the
satellite network system. The LISP RLOC formatting is flexible to
accommodate new address types such as GPS coordinate based addressing
or other forms of satellite addressing such as described in
Section 7. The only requirement is that they are routable by the
satellite network system.
If the satellite network supports IP forwarding and IP addresses are
assigned to the RF-links on the GS-xTRs, then the satellite network
just needs to make these "attachment point addresses" routable in the
satellite network routing system. And if the satellite network
desires to scale the route state in its routing system, it can use
prefix aggregation, a local design matter to the satellite network
routing system. When this is the case, the RLOC is a standard AFI
encoded IPv4 or IPv6 address.
If the satellite network underlay supports a source-routing
mechanism, the same approach can be used as a LISP overlay on a
terrestrial underlay running Segment Routing [RFC8754]. The source-
route is encoded in an RLOC-record stored in the mapping system that
is formatted as a list of satellite hop addresses.
7. Satellite Opportunistic Forwarding
A satellite constellation network could perform packet forwarding
with little or no control-plane. Using GPS (lat, long, alt)
coordinate addressing, a satellte router could route packets
physically closer to a destination GS-xTR. This technique uses
opportunistic forwarding where decisions are made at the instant a
satellite router receives a packet and needs to choose an ISL
interface to get the packet closer to the destination.
Farinacci, et al. Expires 7 August 2024 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft LISP for Satellite Networks February 2024
The satellite router uses a packet header that contains the
destination GPS address for the GS-xTR. The source GS-xTR prepends
this header on the packet before it sends it on the RF uplink to the
nearest satellite overhead. The satellte router can decide to send
the packet to a next-hop satellite in the same orbit or to a next-hop
satellite in an adjacent orbit, as long as the packet is getting
closer to the destination GPS address. A satellite router decides
the proximity of adjacent orbits to determine if the packet is
actually getting closer to the destination GPS address.
For a given implementation, satellite routers in the same orbit or in
adjacent orbits, which have good signal quality, exchange hello
messages to advertise their position with a GPS address (lat, long,
alt). These messages are very small in size and are sent
periodically with second-granular frequency. This indicates to a
satellite router, which direction to send the packet to get it closer
to its GPS address location.
8. Underlay Performance
The RLOC probing procedures in [RFC9301] can provide underlay
telemetry measurement [I-D.farinacci-lisp-telemetry] so the overlay
can tell how well the satellite network is performing. And if the
underlay under performs or telemetry metrics change, the GS-xTR can
select another RLOC, possibly to a terrestrial RLOC.
9. Security Considerations
There are no specific security considerations at this time for this
use-case. However, existing LISP security functionality documented
in [RFC9301], [RFC9303], [I-D.ietf-lisp-eid-anonymity], and
[I-D.farinacci-lisp-ecdsa-auth] can be used when the LISP overlay
runs over a satellite network underlay.
Data-plane encryption can be used to make the satellite underlay more
secure. See LISP Data-Plane Confidentiality [RFC8061] for more
details. This solution can work when packets take multiple satellite
hops and/or Ground-Station hops.
10. IANA Considerations
There are no requests for IANA at this time.
11. Test and Deployment Experience
This section will describe the various LISP deployment combinations
as well as progress updates of testing LISP over SpaceX's Starlink
satellite network [STARLINK].
Farinacci, et al. Expires 7 August 2024 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft LISP for Satellite Networks February 2024
In the following sections, the mapping system is running in a cloud
provider VM and is accessible by all LISP xTRs in all the testing
scenarios. The LISP RTR also runs in the VM which is providing NAT-
traversal services as well as LISP to non-LISP connectivity [RFC6832]
via LISP-NAT.
11.1. GS-xTRs Direct (non-NAT)
satellite(s)
/ \
/ \
/ \
/ \
dish dish
| |
| |
wifi-router wifi-router
^ ^
/ \ / \
GS-xTR GS-xTR
Figure 2: Each GS-xTR is one-hop away on WiFi Network
This test has not been performed at this time since we are seeking
more Starlink participants. This section will be updated in the next
document revision. We are not sure we will be able to test this case
since the Starlink provided wifi-routers are doing NAT translation.
11.2. GS-xTRs Direct (NAT)
satellite(s)
/ | \
/ | \
/ | \
/ | \
dish dish dish
/ | \
/ | \
wifi-router colo-pop wifi-router
^ | ^
/ \ | / \
GS-xTR LISP-RTR GS-xTR
Figure 3: Each GS-xTR is one-hop away on WiFi Network
This test has not been performed at this time since we are seeking
more Starlink participants. This section will be updated in the next
document revision. When this occurs, packets will flow from GS-xTR
Farinacci, et al. Expires 7 August 2024 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft LISP for Satellite Networks February 2024
to RTR to GS-xTR since NAT-traversal is occurring in the wifi-
routers. The LISP-RTR is many hops away from the colocation-pop
router, which has a direct connection to the satellite dish.
Starlink only supports a carrier-grade NAT (CGNAT) solution so the
Decentralized-NAT procedures in [I-D.farinacci-lisp-lispers-net-nat]
have been challenging to get the above configuration to work.
11.3. GS-xTR to LISP-xTR (NAT)
satellite(s)
/ \
/ \
/ \ LISP-RTR
/ \ |
dish dish |
| | +-------------+
| | | Terrestrial |
wifi-router colocation-pop ---- | Internet | ---- LISP-xTR
^ +-------------+
/ \
GS-xTR
Figure 4: GS-xTR on WiFi Network to LISP-xTR in VM
In this deployment scenario, the GS-xTR is a laptop, assigned an EID
and communicating with the EID assigned to an xTR running in a cloud
VM. Since NAT-traversal is used on the wifi-routers, packets flow
through the LISP-RTR.
There are cases where Decentralized-NAT
[I-D.farinacci-lisp-lispers-net-nat] can work from GS-xTR to LISP-xTR
so packet flow does not traverse a third-party device like a LISP-
RTR. Testing experience has revealed that Cloud Providers implement
more standard NAT functionality versus limited translation
functionality of a CGNAT.
The laptop is assigned EID 240.1.1.1 and LISP-xTR is assigned EID
240.11.11.11. Here is ping output initiated from the laptop:
Farinacci, et al. Expires 7 August 2024 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft LISP for Satellite Networks February 2024
laptop -> ping -c 5 240.11.11.11
PING 240.11.11.11 (240.11.11.11): 56 data bytes
64 bytes from 240.11.11.11: icmp_seq=0 ttl=62 time=xx ms
64 bytes from 240.11.11.11: icmp_seq=1 ttl=62 time=xx ms
64 bytes from 240.11.11.11: icmp_seq=2 ttl=62 time=xx ms
64 bytes from 240.11.11.11: icmp_seq=3 ttl=62 time=xx ms
64 bytes from 240.11.11.11: icmp_seq=4 ttl=62 time=xx ms
--- 240.11.11.11 ping statistics ---
5 packets transmitted, 5 packets received, 0.0% packet loss
11.4. GS-xTR Direct to non-LISP Host (NAT and Interwork)
satellite(s)
/ | \
/ | \
/ | \
/ | \
dish dish dish
/ | \
/ | \
wifi-router colo-pop wifi-router
^ | ^
/ \ | / \
GS-xTR LISP-RTR non-LISP-Host
Figure 5: GS-xTR and Host one-hop away on WiFi Network
This test has not been performed at this time since we are seeking
more Starlink participants. This section will be updated in the next
document revision. When this occurs, packets will flow from GS-xTR
to RTR to non-LISP-Host since both NAT-traversal and LISP-NAT support
is required. The LISP-RTR is many hops away from the colo-pop
router, which has a direct connection to the satellite dish.
11.5. GS-xTR to non-LISP Host (NAT and Interwork)
Farinacci, et al. Expires 7 August 2024 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft LISP for Satellite Networks February 2024
satellite(s)
/ \
/ \
/ \ LISP-RTR
/ \ |
dish dish |
| | +-------------+
| | | Terrestrial |
wifi-router colocation-pop ---- | Internet | ---- non-LISP-Host
^ +-------------+
/ \
GS-xTR
Figure 6: GS-xTR on WiFi to non-LISP-Host in VM
In this deployment scenario, the GS-xTR is a laptop, assigned an EID
and communicating with the non-EID assigned to non-LISP Host running
in a cloud VM. When this occurs, packets will flow from GS-xTR to
RTR to non-LISP-Host since both NAT-traversal and LISP-NAT support is
required.
The laptop is assigned EID 240.1.1.1 and non-LISP-Host is the Google
DNS server 8.8.8.8. Here is ping output initiated from the laptop:
laptop -> ping -c 5 -S 240.1.1.1 8.8.8.8
PING 8.8.8.8 (8.8.8.8) from 240.1.1.1: 56 data bytes
64 bytes from 8.8.8.8: icmp_seq=0 ttl=43 time=xx ms
64 bytes from 8.8.8.8: icmp_seq=1 ttl=43 time=xx ms
64 bytes from 8.8.8.8: icmp_seq=2 ttl=43 time=xx ms
64 bytes from 8.8.8.8: icmp_seq=3 ttl=43 time=xx ms
64 bytes from 8.8.8.8: icmp_seq=4 ttl=43 time=xx ms
--- 8.8.8.8 ping statistics ---
5 packets transmitted, 5 packets received, 0.0% packet loss
This may be a likely connectivity option since not all equipment
connected to the satellite network will be LISP GS-xTRs.
11.6. EID-Mobility Direct (non-NAT)
Farinacci, et al. Expires 7 August 2024 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft LISP for Satellite Networks February 2024
satellite(s)
/ \
/ \
/ \
/ \
dish dish
| |
| |
wifi-router wifi-router
^ ^
/ \ / \
GS-xTR GS-xTR
| | | |
EID1 EID2 ... EID2 EID3
Figure 7: Each GS-xTR is one-hop away on WiFi Network
This test has not been performed yet. In this test a device assigned
with EID2 will be able to roam across GS-xTRs and keep connections up
and running between EID1 and EID3. This can also happen when EID2
talks to a non-LISP host (via an RTR running LISP-NAT interworking
services).
In this test scenario, EIDs are assigned to devices that reside
behind GS-xTRs (via wireless or wired links) and do not run LISP.
The GS-xTRs, which run LISP, encapsulate/decapsulate packets on
behalf of the host devices. The GS-xTR RLOC addresses are routable
by the satellite network (like in the previous test scenarios)
allowing for the host devices to communicate while the satellite
network keeps no state about EID addresses.
11.7. GS-xTRs Direct ISLs
satellite ---(ISL)--- satellite ---(ISL)--- satellite
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
dish dish dish
| | |
| | |
wifi-router colo-pop wifi-router
^ | ^
/ \ | / \
GS-xTR LISP-RTR GS-xTR
Figure 8: Each GS-xTR is one-hop away on WiFi Network
Farinacci, et al. Expires 7 August 2024 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft LISP for Satellite Networks February 2024
This test has not been performed. It will be tested when the
satellite network has proven it can support ISL links and satellite
routing reliably.
11.8. GS-xTR Laptop on Overlay and Underlay (NAT no Interwork)
satellite(s)
/ \ overlay
/ \ +-----------+
/ \ xTR ---- | LISP site | (240.11.11.11)
dish dish | +-----------+
| | |
| | +-------------+
wifi-router colocation-pop ---- | Internet | ---- non-LISP-Host
^ +-------------+ underlay
/ \ (8.8.8.8)
GS-xTR
Figure 9: GS-xTR on WiFi dual function
The GS-xTR sends packet natively for non-EID destination 8.8.8.8:
dino-macbook -> ping -c 5 8.8.8.8
PING 8.8.8.8 (8.8.8.8): 56 data bytes
64 bytes from 8.8.8.8: icmp_seq=0 ttl=56 time=25.741 ms
64 bytes from 8.8.8.8: icmp_seq=1 ttl=56 time=17.197 ms
64 bytes from 8.8.8.8: icmp_seq=2 ttl=56 time=17.870 ms
64 bytes from 8.8.8.8: icmp_seq=3 ttl=56 time=21.806 ms
64 bytes from 8.8.8.8: icmp_seq=4 ttl=56 time=16.966 ms
--- 8.8.8.8 ping statistics ---
5 packets transmitted, 5 packets received, 0.0% packet loss
round-trip min/avg/max/stddev = 16.966/19.916/25.741/3.400 ms
The GS-xTR sends encapsulated packets for EID destination
240.11.11.11:
Farinacci, et al. Expires 7 August 2024 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft LISP for Satellite Networks February 2024
dino-macbook -> ping -c 5 240.11.11.11
PING 240.11.11.11 (240.11.11.11): 56 data bytes
64 bytes from 240.11.11.11: icmp_seq=0 ttl=62 time=288.063 ms
64 bytes from 240.11.11.11: icmp_seq=1 ttl=62 time=325.043 ms
64 bytes from 240.11.11.11: icmp_seq=2 ttl=62 time=152.507 ms
64 bytes from 240.11.11.11: icmp_seq=3 ttl=62 time=191.567 ms
64 bytes from 240.11.11.11: icmp_seq=4 ttl=62 time=231.620 ms
--- 240.11.11.11 ping statistics ---
5 packets transmitted, 5 packets received, 0.0% packet loss
round-trip min/avg/max/stddev = 152.507/237.760/325.043/62.591 ms
dino-macbook -> mc 240.11.11.11
LISP Map-Cache for localhost:8080, hostname dino-macbook.lan, release 0.593
EID [1]240.11.11.11/32, uptime 0:00:39, ttl 1440m
RLOC 18.237.14.154:43799, state unreach-state since 0:00:22, a-xtr1@tp-43799
packet-count: 2, packet-rate: 0 pps, byte-count: 168, bit-rate: 0.0 mbps
rtts [-1, -1, -1], hops [?/?, ?/?, ?/?], latencies [?/?, ?/?, ?/?]
RLOC 34.217.110.112, state up-state since 0:00:39, RTR
packet-count: 17, packet-rate: 0 pps, byte-count: 1428, bit-rate: 0.0 mbps
rtts [0.121, -1, -1], hops [26/22, ?/?, ?/?], latencies [0.083/0.034, ?/?, ?/?]
12. References
12.1. Normative References
[RFC1700] Reynolds, J. and J. Postel, "Assigned Numbers", RFC 1700,
DOI 10.17487/RFC1700, October 1994,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1700>.
[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,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6832>.
[RFC8061] Farinacci, D. and B. Weis, "Locator/ID Separation Protocol
(LISP) Data-Plane Confidentiality", RFC 8061,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8061, February 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8061>.
[RFC8754] Filsfils, C., Ed., Dukes, D., Ed., Previdi, S., Leddy, J.,
Matsushima, S., and D. Voyer, "IPv6 Segment Routing Header
(SRH)", RFC 8754, DOI 10.17487/RFC8754, March 2020,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8754>.
Farinacci, et al. Expires 7 August 2024 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft LISP for Satellite Networks February 2024
[RFC9300] Farinacci, D., Fuller, V., Meyer, D., Lewis, D., and A.
Cabellos, Ed., "The Locator/ID Separation Protocol
(LISP)", RFC 9300, DOI 10.17487/RFC9300, October 2022,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9300>.
[RFC9301] Farinacci, D., Maino, F., Fuller, V., and A. Cabellos,
Ed., "Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP) Control
Plane", RFC 9301, DOI 10.17487/RFC9301, October 2022,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9301>.
[RFC9303] Maino, F., Ermagan, V., Cabellos, A., and D. Saucez,
"Locator/ID Separation Protocol Security (LISP-SEC)",
RFC 9303, DOI 10.17487/RFC9303, October 2022,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9303>.
12.2. Informative References
[I-D.farinacci-lisp-ecdsa-auth]
Farinacci, D. and E. Nordmark, "LISP Control-Plane ECDSA
Authentication and Authorization", Work in Progress,
Internet-Draft, draft-farinacci-lisp-ecdsa-auth-03, 4
September 2018, <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/
draft-farinacci-lisp-ecdsa-auth-03>.
[I-D.farinacci-lisp-lispers-net-nat]
Farinacci, D., "lispers.net LISP NAT-Traversal
Implementation Report", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft,
draft-farinacci-lisp-lispers-net-nat-07, 22 December 2023,
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-farinacci-
lisp-lispers-net-nat-07>.
[I-D.farinacci-lisp-mobile-network]
Farinacci, D., Pillay-Esnault, P., and U. Chunduri, "LISP
for the Mobile Network", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft,
draft-farinacci-lisp-mobile-network-17, 28 August 2023,
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-farinacci-
lisp-mobile-network-17>.
[I-D.farinacci-lisp-telemetry]
Farinacci, D., Ouissal, S., and E. Nordmark, "LISP Data-
Plane Telemetry", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-
farinacci-lisp-telemetry-11, 23 October 2023,
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-farinacci-
lisp-telemetry-11>.
[I-D.haindl-lisp-gb-atn]
Haindl, B., Lindner, M., Moreno, V., Portoles-Comeras, M.,
Maino, F., and B. Venkatachalapathy, "Ground-Based LISP
Farinacci, et al. Expires 7 August 2024 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft LISP for Satellite Networks February 2024
for the Aeronautical Telecommunications Network", Work in
Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-haindl-lisp-gb-atn-09, 27
March 2023, <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-
haindl-lisp-gb-atn-09>.
[I-D.ietf-lisp-eid-anonymity]
Farinacci, D., Pillay-Esnault, P., and W. Haddad, "LISP
EID Anonymity", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-
ietf-lisp-eid-anonymity-15, 28 August 2023,
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-lisp-
eid-anonymity-15>.
[I-D.ietf-lisp-eid-mobility]
Portoles-Comeras, M., Ashtaputre, V., Maino, F., Moreno,
V., and D. Farinacci, "LISP L2/L3 EID Mobility Using a
Unified Control Plane", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft,
draft-ietf-lisp-eid-mobility-13, 6 November 2023,
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-lisp-
eid-mobility-13>.
[I-D.ietf-lisp-te]
Farinacci, D., Kowal, M., and P. Lahiri, "LISP Traffic
Engineering Use-Cases", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft,
draft-ietf-lisp-te-13, 28 August 2023,
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-lisp-te-
13>.
[I-D.lhan-problems-requirements-satellite-net]
Han, L., Li, R., Retana, A., Chen, M., Su, L., and T.
Jiang, "Problems and Requirements of Satellite
Constellation for Internet", Work in Progress, Internet-
Draft, draft-lhan-problems-requirements-satellite-net-06,
4 January 2024, <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/
draft-lhan-problems-requirements-satellite-net-06>.
[STARLINK] "High-Level SpaceX Starlink Technology
Description", https://www.starlink.com/technology,
September 2022.
Appendix A. Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank the LISP working group for their
review of this specification. A special thank you goes to Lin Han
for email discussions on this topic.
Farinacci, et al. Expires 7 August 2024 [Page 17]
Internet-Draft LISP for Satellite Networks February 2024
Appendix B. Document Change Log
B.1. Changes to draft-farinacci-lisp-satellite-network-04
* Submitted February 2024.
* Update references and docment timer.
B.2. Changes to draft-farinacci-lisp-satellite-network-03
* Submitted August 2023.
* Add section about how an overlay interacts with a satellite
underlay when it provides packet routing on ISLs using
opportunitic forwarding with GPS addressing.
B.3. Changes to draft-farinacci-lisp-satellite-network-02
* Submitted February 2023.
* Add references to proposed standard documents.
* Refer to lispsers.net Decentralized-NAT for testing direct xTR to
xTR.
* Added test case where the GS-xTR is both on the underlay and the
LISP overlay.
B.4. Changes to draft-farinacci-lisp-satellite-network-01
* Submitted September 2022.
* Added text about how the mapping system is used in a rural
location when the only Internet link available is the satellite
link.
* Added the Test and Deployment Experience section to document what
has been tested so far.
B.5. Changes to draft-farinacci-lisp-satellite-network-00
* Initial posting April 2022.
Authors' Addresses
Farinacci, et al. Expires 7 August 2024 [Page 18]
Internet-Draft LISP for Satellite Networks February 2024
Dino Farinacci
lispers.net
San Jose, CA
United States of America
Email: farinacci@gmail.com
Victor Moreno
Independent
Mountain View, CA
United States of America
Email: victor@magooit.com
Padma Pillay-Esnault
Independent
Santa Clara, CA
United States of America
Email: padma.ietf@gmail.com
Farinacci, et al. Expires 7 August 2024 [Page 19]