LISP Traffic Engineering Use-Cases
draft-ietf-lisp-te-05
Internet Engineering Task Force D. Farinacci
Internet-Draft lispers.net
Intended status: Experimental M. Kowal
Expires: April 9, 2020 cisco Systems
P. Lahiri
October 7, 2019
LISP Traffic Engineering Use-Cases
draft-ietf-lisp-te-05
Abstract
This document describes how LISP reencapsulating tunnels can be used
for Traffic Engineering purposes. The mechanisms described in this
document require no LISP protocol changes but do introduce a new
locator (RLOC) encoding. The Traffic Engineering features provided
by these LISP mechanisms can span intra-domain, inter-domain, or
combination of both.
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 April 9, 2020.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2019 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
Farinacci, et al. Expires April 9, 2020 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft LISP Traffic Engineering Use-Cases October 2019
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 Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. Definition of Terms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
4. Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
5. Explicit Locator Paths . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
5.1. ELP Re-optimization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
5.2. Using Recursion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
5.3. ELP Selection based on Class of Service . . . . . . . . . 9
5.4. Packet Loop Avoidance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
6. Service Chaining . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
7. RLOC Probing by RTRs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
8. ELP Probing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
9. Interworking Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
10. Multicast Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
11. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
12. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
13. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
13.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
13.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Appendix A. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Appendix B. Document Change Log . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
B.1. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-te-05 . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
B.2. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-te-04 . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
B.3. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-te-03 . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
B.4. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-te-02 . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
B.5. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-te-01 . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
B.6. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-te-00 . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
B.7. Changes to draft-farinacci-lisp-te-02 through -12 . . . . 16
B.8. Changes to draft-farinacci-lisp-te-01.txt . . . . . . . . 17
B.9. Changes to draft-farinacci-lisp-te-00.txt . . . . . . . . 17
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
1. Requirements Language
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 RFC 2119 [RFC2119].
Show full document text