LISP Traffic Engineering Use-Cases
draft-ietf-lisp-te-10
| Document | Type | Active Internet-Draft (lisp WG) | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Authors | Dino Farinacci , Michael Kowal , Parantap Lahiri | ||
| Last updated | 2022-03-20 | ||
| Replaces | draft-farinacci-lisp-te | ||
| Stream | Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) | ||
| Intended RFC status | (None) | ||
| Formats | plain text htmlized pdfized bibtex | ||
| Stream | WG state | WG Document | |
| Document shepherd | (None) | ||
| IESG | IESG state | I-D Exists | |
| Consensus boilerplate | Unknown | ||
| Telechat date | (None) | ||
| Responsible AD | (None) | ||
| Send notices to | (None) |
draft-ietf-lisp-te-10
Internet Engineering Task Force D. Farinacci
Internet-Draft lispers.net
Intended status: Experimental M. Kowal
Expires: September 21, 2022 cisco Systems
P. Lahiri
March 20, 2022
LISP Traffic Engineering Use-Cases
draft-ietf-lisp-te-10
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 September 21, 2022.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2022 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 September 21, 2022 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft LISP Traffic Engineering Use-Cases March 2022
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-10 . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
B.2. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-te-09 . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
B.3. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-te-08 . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
B.4. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-te-07 . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
B.5. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-te-06 . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
B.6. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-te-05 . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
B.7. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-te-04 . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
B.8. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-te-03 . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
B.9. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-te-02 . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
B.10. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-te-01 . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
B.11. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-te-00 . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
B.12. Changes to draft-farinacci-lisp-te-02 through -12 . . . . 17
B.13. Changes to draft-farinacci-lisp-te-01.txt . . . . . . . . 17
B.14. Changes to draft-farinacci-lisp-te-00.txt . . . . . . . . 18
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
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].
Farinacci, et al. Expires September 21, 2022 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft LISP Traffic Engineering Use-Cases March 2022
2. Introduction
This document describes the Locator/Identifier Separation Protocol
(LISP), which provides a set of functions for routers to exchange
information used to map from non globally routeable Endpoint
Identifiers (EIDs) to routeable Routing Locators (RLOCs). It also
defines a mechanism for these LISP routers to encapsulate IP packets
addressed with EIDs for transmission across the Internet that uses
RLOCs for routing and forwarding.
When LISP routers encapsulate packets to other LISP routers, the path
stretch is typically 1, meaning the packet travels on a direct path
from the encapsulating ITR to the decapsulating ETR at the
destination site. The direct path is determined by the underlying
routing protocol and metrics it uses to find the shortest path.
This specification will examine how reencapsulating tunnels [RFC6830]
can be used so a packet can take an adminstratively specified path, a
congestion avoidance path, a failure recovery path, or multiple load-
shared paths, as it travels from ITR to ETR. By introducing an
Explicit Locator Path (ELP) locator encoding [RFC8060], an ITR can
encapsulate a packet to a Reencapsulating Tunnel Router (RTR) which
decapsulates the packet, then encapsulates it to the next locator in
the ELP.
3. Definition of Terms
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. The host obtains
a destination EID the same way it obtains an destination address
today, for example through a Domain Name System (DNS) [RFC1034]
lookup or Session Invitation Protocol (SIP) [RFC3261] exchange.
The source EID is obtained via existing mechanisms used to set a
host's "local" IP address. An EID used on the public Internet
must have the same properties as any other IP address used in that
manner; this means, among other things, that it must be globally
unique. An EID is allocated to a host from an EID-prefix block
associated with the site where the host is located. An EID can be
used by a host to refer to other hosts. EIDs MUST NOT be used as
LISP RLOCs. Note that EID blocks MAY be assigned in a
hierarchical manner, independent of the network topology, to
facilitate scaling of the mapping database. In addition, an EID
block assigned to a site may have site-local structure
(subnetting) for routing within the site; this structure is not
visible to the global routing system. In theory, the bit string
that represents an EID for one device can represent an RLOC for a
different device. As the architecture is realized, if a given bit
Farinacci, et al. Expires September 21, 2022 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft LISP Traffic Engineering Use-Cases March 2022
string is both an RLOC and an EID, it must refer to the same
entity in both cases. When used in discussions with other
Locator/ID separation proposals, a LISP EID will be called a
"LEID". Throughout this document, any references to "EID" refers
to an LEID.
Routing Locator (RLOC): A RLOC is an IPv4 [RFC0791] or IPv6
[RFC2460] 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 PA addresses. Multiple RLOCs can be assigned to the
same ETR device or to multiple ETR devices at a site.
Reencapsulating Tunnel Router (RTR): An RTR is a router that acts
as an ETR (or PETR) by decapsulating packets where the destination
address in the "outer" IP header is one of its own RLOCs. Then
acts as an ITR (or PITR) by making a decision where to encapsulate
the packet based on the next locator in the ELP towards the final
destination ETR.
Explicit Locator Path (ELP): The ELP is an explicit list of RLOCs
for each RTR a packet must travel to along its path toward a final
destination ETR (or PETR). The list is a strict ordering where
each RLOC in the list is visited. However, the path from one RTR
to another is determined by the underlying routing protocol and
how the infrastructure assigns metrics and policies for the path.
Recursive Tunneling: Recursive tunneling occurs when a packet has
more than one LISP IP header. Additional layers of tunneling MAY
be employed to implement traffic engineering or other re-routing
as needed. When this is done, an additional "outer" LISP header
is added and the original RLOCs are preserved in the "inner"
header. Any references to tunnels in this specification refers to
dynamic encapsulating tunnels and they are never statically
configured.
Reencapsulating Tunnels: Reencapsulating tunneling occurs when an
ETR removes a LISP header, then acts as an ITR to prepend another
LISP header. Doing this allows a packet to be re-routed by the
reencapsulating router without adding the overhead of additional
tunnel headers. Any references to tunnels in this specification
refers to dynamic encapsulating tunnels and they are never
statically configured. When using multiple mapping database
systems, care must be taken to not create reencapsulation loops
through misconfiguration.
Farinacci, et al. Expires September 21, 2022 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft LISP Traffic Engineering Use-Cases March 2022
4. Overview
Typically, a packet's path from source EID to destination EID travels
through the locator core via the encapsulating ITR directly to the
decapsulating ETR as the following diagram illustrates:
Legend:
seid: Packet is originated by source EID 'seid'.
deid: Packet is consumed by destination EID 'deid'.
A,B,C,D : Core routers in different ASes.
---> : The physical topological path between two routers.
===> : A multi-hop LISP dynamic tunnel between LISP routers.
Core Network
Source site (----------------------------) Destination Site
+--------+ ( ) +---------+
| \ ( ) / |
| seid ITR ---(---> A --> B --> C --> D ---)---> ETR deid |
| / || ( ) ^^ \ |
+--------+ || ( ) || +---------+
|| (----------------------------) ||
|| ||
===========================================
LISP Tunnel
Typical Data Path from ITR to ETR
Let's introduce RTRs 'X' and 'Y' so that, for example, if it is
desirable to route around the path from B to C, one could provide an
ELP of (X,Y,etr):
Farinacci, et al. Expires September 21, 2022 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft LISP Traffic Engineering Use-Cases March 2022
Core Network
Source site (----------------------------) Destination Site
+--------+ ( ) +---------+
| \ ( ) / |
| seid ITR ---(---> A --> B --> C --> D ---)---> ETR deid |
| / || ( / ^ ) ^^ \ |
| / || ( | \ ) || \ |
+-------+ || ( v | ) || +--------+
|| ( X ======> Y ) ||
|| ( ^^ || ) ||
|| (--------||---------||-------) ||
|| || || ||
================= =================
LISP Tunnel LISP Tunnel
ELP tunnel path ITR ==> X, then X ==> Y, and then Y ==> ETR
There are various reasons why the path from 'seid' to 'deid' may want
to avoid the path from B to C. To list a few:
o There may not be sufficient capacity provided by the networks that
connect B and C together.
o There may be a policy reason to avoid the ASes that make up the
path between B and C.
o There may be a failure on the path between B and C which makes the
path unreliable.
o There may be monitoring or traffic inspection resources close to
RTRs X and Y that do network accounting or measurement.
o There may be a chain of services performed at RTRs X and Y
regardless if the path from ITR to ETR is through B and C.
5. Explicit Locator Paths
The notation for a general formatted ELP is (x, y, etr) which
represents the list of RTRs a packet SHOULD travel through to reach
the final tunnel hop to the ETR.
The procedure for using an ELP at each tunnel hop is as follows:
1. The ITR will retrieve the ELP from the mapping database.
2. The ITR will encapsulate the packet to RLOC 'x'.
Farinacci, et al. Expires September 21, 2022 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft LISP Traffic Engineering Use-Cases March 2022
3. The RTR with RLOC 'x' will decapsulate the packet. It will use
the decapsulated packet's destination address as a lookup into
the mapping database to retrieve the ELP.
4. RTR 'x' will encapsulate the packet to RTR with RLOC 'y'.
5. The RTR with RLOC 'y' will decapsulate the packet. It will use
the decapsulated packet's destination address as a lookup into
the mapping database to retrieve the ELP.
6. RTR 'y' will encapsulate the packet on the final tunnel hop to
ETR with RLOC 'etr'.
7. The ETR will decapsulate the packet and deliver the packet to the
EID inside of its site.
The specific format for the ELP can be found in [RFC8060]. It is
defined that an ELP will appear as a single encoded locator in a
locator-set. Say for instance, we have a mapping entry for EID-
prefix 10.0.0.0/8 that is reachable via 4 locators. Two locators are
being used as active/active and the other two are used as active/
active if the first two go unreachable (as noted by the priority
assignments below). This is what the mapping entry would look like:
EID-prefix: 10.0.0.0/8
Locator-set: ETR-A: priority 1, weight 50
ETR-B: priority 1, weight 50
ETR-C: priority 2, weight 50
ETR-D: priority 2, weight 50
If an ELP is going to be used to have a policy path to ETR-A and
possibly another policy path to ETR-B, the locator-set would be
encoded as follows:
EID-prefix: 10.0.0.0/8
Locator-set: (x, y, ETR-A): priority 1, weight 50
(q, r, ETR-B): priority 1, weight 50
ETR-C: priority 2, weight 50
ETR-D: priority 2, weight 50
The mapping entry with ELP locators is registered to the mapping
database system just like any other mapping entry would. The
registration is typically performed by the ETR(s) that are assigned
and own the EID-prefix. That is, the destination site makes the
choice of the RTRs in the ELP. However, it may be common practice
for a provisioning system to program the mapping database with ELPs.
Farinacci, et al. Expires September 21, 2022 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft LISP Traffic Engineering Use-Cases March 2022
Another case where a locator-set can be used for flow-based load-
sharing across multiple paths to the same destination site:
EID-prefix: 10.0.0.0/8
Locator-set: (x, y, ETR-A): priority 1, weight 75
(q, r, ETR-A): priority 1, weight 25
Using this mapping entry, an ITR would load split 75% of the EID
flows on the (x, y, ETR-A) ELP path and 25% of the EID flows on the
(q, r, ETR-A) ELP path. If any of the ELPs go down, then the other
can take 100% of the load.
5.1. ELP Re-optimization
ELP re-optimization is a process of changing the RLOCs of an ELP due
to underlying network change conditions. Just like when there is any
locator change for a locator-set, the procedures from the main LISP
specification [RFC6830] are followed.
When a RLOC from an ELP is changed, Map-Notify messages [RFC6833] can
be used to inform the existing RTRs in the ELP so they can do a
lookup to obtain the latest version of the ELP. Map-Notify messages
can also be sent to new RTRs in an ELP so they can get the ELP in
advance to receiving packets that will use the ELP. This can
minimize packet loss during mapping database lookups in RTRs.
5.2. Using Recursion
In the previous examples, we showed how an ITR encapsulates using an
ELP of (x, y, etr). When a packet is encapsulated by the ITR to RTR
'x', the RTR may want a policy path to RTR 'y' and run another level
of reencapsulating tunnels for packets destined to RTR 'y'. In this
case, RTR 'x' does not encapsulate packets to 'y' but rather performs
a mapping database lookup on the address 'y', requests the ELP for
RTR 'y', and encapsulates packets to the first-hop of the returned
ELP. This can be done when using a public or private mapping
database. The decision to use address 'y' as an encapsulation
address versus a lookup address is based on the L-bit setting for 'y'
in the ELP entry. The decision and policy of ELP encodings are local
to the entity which registers the EID-prefix associated with the ELP.
Another example of recursion is when the ITR uses the ELP (x, y, etr)
to first prepend a header with a destination RLOC of the ETR and then
prepend another header and encapsulate the packet to RTR 'x'. When
RTR 'x' decapsulates the packet, rather than doing a mapping database
lookup on RTR 'y' the last example showed, instead RTR 'x' does a
mapping database lookup on ETR 'etr'. In this scenario, RTR 'x' can
Farinacci, et al. Expires September 21, 2022 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft LISP Traffic Engineering Use-Cases March 2022
choose an ELP from the locator-set by considering the source RLOC
address of the ITR versus considering the source EID.
This additional level of recursion also brings advantages for the
provider of RTR 'x' to store less state. Since RTR 'x' does not need
to look at the inner most header, it does not need to store EID
state. It only stores an entry for RTR 'y' which many EID flows
could share for scaling benefits. The locator-set for entry 'y'
could either be a list of typical locators, a list of ELPs, or
combination of both. Another advantage is that packet load-splitting
can be accomplished by examining the source of a packet. If the
source is an ITR versus the source being the last-hop of an ELP the
last-hop selected, different forwarding paths can be used.
5.3. ELP Selection based on Class of Service
Paths to an ETR may want to be selected based on different classes of
service. Packets from a set of sources that have premium service can
use ELP paths that are less congested where normal sources use ELP
paths that compete for less resources or use longer paths for best
effort service.
Using source/destination lookups into the mapping database can yield
different ELPs. So for example, a premium service flow with
(source=1.1.1.1, dest=10.1.1.1) can be described by using the
following mapping entry:
EID-prefix: (1.0.0.0/8, 10.0.0.0/8)
Locator-set: (x, y, ETR-A): priority 1, weight 50
(q, r, ETR-A): priority 1, weight 50
And all other best-effort sources would use different mapping entry
described by:
EID-prefix: (0.0.0.0/0, 10.0.0.0/8)
Locator-set: (x, x', y, y', ETR-A): priority 1, weight 50
(q, q', r, r', ETR-A): priority 1, weight 50
If the source/destination lookup is coupled with recursive lookups,
then an ITR can encapsulate to the ETR, prepending a header that
selects source address ITR-1 based on the premium class of service
source, or selects source address ITR-2 for best-effort sources with
normal class of service. The ITR then does another lookup in the
mapping database on the prepended header using lookup key
(source=ITR-1, dest=10.1.1.1) that returns the following mapping
entry:
Farinacci, et al. Expires September 21, 2022 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft LISP Traffic Engineering Use-Cases March 2022
EID-prefix: (ITR-1, 10.0.0.0/8)
Locator-set: (x, y, ETR-A): priority 1, weight 50
(q, r, ETR-A): priority 1, weight 50
And all other sources would use different mapping entry with a lookup
key of (source=ITR-2, dest=10.1.1.1):
EID-prefix: (ITR-2, 10.0.0.0/8)
Locator-set: (x, x', y, y', ETR-A): priority 1, weight 50
(q, q', r, r', ETR-A): priority 1, weight 50
This will scale the mapping system better by having fewer source/
destination combinations. Refer to the Source/Dest LCAF type
described in [RFC8060] for encoding EIDs in Map-Request and Map-
Register messages.
5.4. Packet Loop Avoidance
An ELP that is first used by an ITR must be inspected for encoding
loops. If any RLOC appears twice in the ELP, it MUST not be used.
Since it is expected that multiple mapping systems will be used,
there can be a loop across ELPs when registered in different mapping
systems. The TTL copying procedures for reencapsulating tunnels and
recursive tunnels in [RFC6830] MUST be followed.
6. Service Chaining
An ELP can be used to deploy services at each reencapsulation point
in the network. One example is to implement a scrubber service when
a destination EID is being DoS attacked. That is, when a DoS attack
is recognized when the encapsulation path is between ITR and ETR, an
ELP can be registered for a destination EID to the mapping database
system. The ELP can include an RTR so the ITR can encapsulate
packets to the RTR which will decapsulate and deliver packets to a
scrubber service device. The scrubber could decide if the offending
packets are dropped or allowed to be sent to the destination EID. In
which case, the scurbber delivers packets back to the RTR which
encapsulates to the ETR.
7. RLOC Probing by RTRs
Since an RTR knows the next tunnel hop to encapsulate to, it can
monitor the reachability of the next-hop RTR RLOC by doing RLOC-
probing according to the procedures in [RFC6830]. When the RLOC is
determined unreachable by the RLOC-probing mechanisms, the RTR can
use another locator in the locator-set. That could be the final ETR,
Farinacci, et al. Expires September 21, 2022 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft LISP Traffic Engineering Use-Cases March 2022
a RLOC of another RTR, or an ELP where it must search for itself and
use the next RLOC in the ELP list to encapsulate to.
RLOC-probing can also be used to measure delay on the path between
RTRs and when it is desirable switch to another lower delay ELP.
8. ELP Probing
Since an ELP-node knows the reachabiliy of the next ELP-node in a ELP
by using RLOC probing, the sum of reachability can determine the
reachability of the entire path. A head-end ITR/RTR/PITR can
determine the quality of a path and decide to select one path from
another based on the telemetry data gathered by RLOC-probing for each
encapsulation hop.
ELP-probing mechanism details can be found in [I-D.filyurin-lisp-elp-
probing].
9. Interworking Considerations
[RFC6832] defines procedures for how non-LISP sites talk to LISP
sites. The network elements defined in the Interworking
specification, the proxy ITR (PITR) and proxy ETR (PETR) (as well as
their multicast counterparts defined in [RFC6831]) can participate in
LISP-TE. That is, a PITR and a PETR can appear in an ELP list and
act as an RTR.
Note when an RLOC appears in an ELP, it can be of any address-family.
There can be a mix of IPv4 and IPv6 locators present in the same ELP.
This can provide benefits where islands of one address-family or the
other are supported and connectivity across them is necessary. For
instance, an ELP can look like:
(x4, a46, b64, y4, etr)
Where an IPv4 ITR will encapsulate using an IPv4 RLOC 'x4' and 'x4'
could reach an IPv4 RLOC 'a46', but RTR 'a46' encapsulates to an IPv6
RLOC 'b64' when the network between them is IPv6-only. Then RTR
'b64' encapsulates to IPv4 RLOC 'y4' if the network between them is
dual-stack.
Note that RTRs can be used for NAT-traversal scenarios
[I-D.ermagan-lisp-nat-traversal] as well to reduce the state in both
an xTR that resides behind a NAT and the state the NAT needs to
maintain. In this case, the xTR only needs a default map-cache entry
pointing to the RTR for outbound traffic and all remote ITRs can
reach EIDs through the xTR behind a NAT via a single RTR (or a small
set RTRs for redundancy).
Farinacci, et al. Expires September 21, 2022 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft LISP Traffic Engineering Use-Cases March 2022
RTRs have some scaling features to reduce the number of locator-set
changes, the amount of state, and control packet overhead:
o When ITRs and PITRs are using a small set of RTRs for
encapsulating to "orders of magnitude" more EID-prefixes, the
probability of locator-set changes are limited to the RTR RLOC
changes versus the RLOC changes for the ETRs associated with the
EID-prefixes if the ITRs and PITRs were directly encapsulating to
the ETRs. This comes at an expense in packet stretch, but
depending on RTR placement, this expense can be mitigated.
o When RTRs are on-path between many pairwise EID flows, ITRs and
PITRs can store a small number of coarse EID-prefixes.
o RTRs can be used to help scale RLOC-probing. Instead of ITRs
RLOC-probing all ETRs for each destination site it has cached, the
ITRs can probe a smaller set of RTRs which in turn, probe the
destination sites.
10. Multicast Considerations
ELPs have application in multicast environments. Just like RTRs can
be used to provide connectivity across different address family
islands, RTRs can help concatenate a multicast region of the network
to one that does not support native multicast.
Note there are various combinations of connectivity that can be
accomplished with the deployment of RTRs and ELPs:
o Providing multicast forwarding between IPv4-only-unicast regions
and IPv4-multicast regions.
o Providing multicast forwarding between IPv6-only-unicast regions
and IPv6-multicast regions.
o Providing multicast forwarding between IPv4-only-unicast regions
and IPv6-multicast regions.
o Providing multicast forwarding between IPv6-only-unicast regions
and IPv4-multicast regions.
o Providing multicast forwarding between IPv4-multicast regions and
IPv6-multicast regions.
An ITR or PITR can do a (S-EID,G) lookup into the mapping database.
What can be returned is a typical locator-set that could be made up
of the various RLOC addresses:
Farinacci, et al. Expires September 21, 2022 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft LISP Traffic Engineering Use-Cases March 2022
Multicast EID key: (seid, G)
Locator-set: ETR-A: priority 1, weight 25
ETR-B: priority 1, weight 25
g1: priority 1, weight 25
g2: priority 1, weight 25
An entry for host 'seid' sending to application group 'G'
The locator-set above can be used as a replication list. That is
some RLOCs listed can be unicast RLOCs and some can be delivery group
RLOCs. A unicast RLOC in this case is used to encapsulate a
multicast packet originated by a multicast source EID into a unicast
packet for unicast delivery on the underlying network. ETR-A could
be a IPv4 unicast RLOC address and ETR-B could be a IPv6 unicast RLOC
address.
A delivery group address is used when a multicast packet originated
by a multicast source EID is encapsulated in a multicast packet for
multicast delivery on the underlying network. Group address 'g1'
could be a IPv4 delivery group RLOC and group address 'g2' could be
an IPv6 delivery group RLOC.
Flexibility for these various types of connectivity combinations can
be achieved and provided by the mapping database system. And the RTR
placement allows the connectivity to occur where the differences in
network functionality are located.
Extending this concept by allowing ELPs in locator-sets, one could
have this locator-set registered in the mapping database for (seid,
G). For example:
Multicast EID key: (seid, G)
Locator-set: (x, y, ETR-A): priority 1, weight 50
(a, g, b, ETR-B): priority 1, weight 50
Using ELPs for multicast flows
In the above situation, an ITR would encapsulate a multicast packet
originated by a multicast source EID to the RTR with unicast RLOC
'x'. Then RTR 'x' would decapsulate and unicast encapsulate to RTR
'y' ('x' or 'y' could be either IPv4 or IPv6 unicast RLOCs), which
would decapsulate and unicast encapsulate to the final RLOC 'ETR-A'.
The ETR 'ETR-A' would decapsulate and deliver the multicast packet
natively to all the receivers joined to application group 'G' inside
the LISP site.
Let's look at the ITR using the ELP (a, g, b, ETR-B). Here the
encapsulation path would be the ITR unicast encapsulates to unicast
Farinacci, et al. Expires September 21, 2022 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft LISP Traffic Engineering Use-Cases March 2022
RLOC 'a'. RTR 'a' multicast encapsulates to delivery group 'g'. The
packet gets to all ETRs that have joined delivery group 'g' so they
can deliver the multicast packet to joined receivers of application
group 'G' in their sites. RTR 'b' is also joined to delivery group
'g'. Since it is in the ELP, it will be the only RTR that unicast
encapsulates the multicast packet to ETR 'ETR-B'. Lastly, 'ETR-B'
decapsulates and delivers the multicast packet to joined receivers to
application group 'G' in its LISP site.
As one can see there are all sorts of opportunities to provide
multicast connectivity across a network with non-congruent support
for multicast and different address-families. One can also see how
using the mapping database can allow flexible forms of delivery
policy, rerouting, and congestion control management in multicast
environments.
11. Security Considerations
When an RTR receives a LISP encapsulated packet, it can look at the
outer source address to verify that RLOC is the one listed as the
previous hop in the ELP list. If the outer source RLOC address
appears before the RLOC which matches the outer destination RLOC
address, the decapsulating RTR (or ETR if last hop), MAY choose to
drop the packet.
12. IANA Considerations
At this time there are no requests for IANA.
13. References
13.1. Normative References
[RFC0791] Postel, J., "Internet Protocol", STD 5, RFC 791,
DOI 10.17487/RFC0791, September 1981,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc791>.
[RFC1034] Mockapetris, P., "Domain names - concepts and facilities",
STD 13, RFC 1034, DOI 10.17487/RFC1034, November 1987,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1034>.
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
Farinacci, et al. Expires September 21, 2022 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft LISP Traffic Engineering Use-Cases March 2022
[RFC2460] Deering, S. and R. Hinden, "Internet Protocol, Version 6
(IPv6) Specification", RFC 2460, DOI 10.17487/RFC2460,
December 1998, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2460>.
[RFC3261] Rosenberg, J., Schulzrinne, H., Camarillo, G., Johnston,
A., Peterson, J., Sparks, R., Handley, M., and E.
Schooler, "SIP: Session Initiation Protocol", RFC 3261,
DOI 10.17487/RFC3261, June 2002,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3261>.
[RFC6830] Farinacci, D., Fuller, V., Meyer, D., and D. Lewis, "The
Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP)", RFC 6830,
DOI 10.17487/RFC6830, January 2013,
<https://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, <https://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,
<https://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,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6833>.
[RFC8060] Farinacci, D., Meyer, D., and J. Snijders, "LISP Canonical
Address Format (LCAF)", RFC 8060, DOI 10.17487/RFC8060,
February 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8060>.
13.2. Informative References
[I-D.ermagan-lisp-nat-traversal]
Ermagan, V., Farinacci, D., Lewis, D., Maino, F., Comeras,
M. P., Skriver, J., White, C., Lopez, A., and A. Cabellos,
"NAT traversal for LISP", draft-ermagan-lisp-nat-
traversal-19 (work in progress), May 2021.
Appendix A. Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank the following people for their ideas
and comments. They are Albert Cabellos, Khalid Raza, and Vina
Farinacci, et al. Expires September 21, 2022 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft LISP Traffic Engineering Use-Cases March 2022
Ermagan, Gregg Schudel, Yan Filyurin, Robert Raszuk, and Truman
Boyes.
Appendix B. Document Change Log
B.1. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-te-10
o Posted March 2022.
o Update document timer and references.
B.2. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-te-09
o Posted September 2021.
o Update document timer and references.
B.3. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-te-08
o Posted March 2021.
o Update document timer and references.
B.4. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-te-07
o Posted October 2020.
o Update document timer and references.
B.5. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-te-06
o Posted April 2020.
o Update document timer and references.
B.6. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-te-05
o Posted October 2019.
o Update document timer and references.
B.7. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-te-04
o Posted April 2019.
o Update document timer and references.
Farinacci, et al. Expires September 21, 2022 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft LISP Traffic Engineering Use-Cases March 2022
B.8. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-te-03
o Posted October 2018.
o Update document timer and references.
B.9. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-te-02
o Posted April 2018.
o Update document timer and references.
B.10. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-te-01
o Posted October 2017.
o Added section on ELP-probing that tells an ITR/RTR/PITR the
feasibility and reachability of an Explicit Lcoator Path.
B.11. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-te-00
o Posted April 2017.
o Changed draft-farinacci-lisp-te-12 to working group document.
B.12. Changes to draft-farinacci-lisp-te-02 through -12
o Many postings from January 2013 through February 2017.
o Update references and document timer.
B.13. Changes to draft-farinacci-lisp-te-01.txt
o Posted July 2012.
o Add the Lookup bit to allow an ELP to be a list of encapsulation
and/or mapping database lookup addresses.
o Indicate that ELPs can be used for service chaining.
o Add text to indicate that Map-Notify messages can be sent to new
RTRs in a ELP so their map-caches can be pre-populated to avoid
mapping database lookup packet loss.
o Fixes to editorial comments from Gregg.
Farinacci, et al. Expires September 21, 2022 [Page 17]
Internet-Draft LISP Traffic Engineering Use-Cases March 2022
B.14. Changes to draft-farinacci-lisp-te-00.txt
o Initial draft posted March 2012.
Authors' Addresses
Dino Farinacci
lispers.net
San Jose, California
USA
Phone: 408-718-2001
Email: farinacci@gmail.com
Michael Kowal
cisco Systems
111 Wood Avenue South
ISELIN, NJ
USA
Email: mikowal@cisco.com
Parantap Lahiri
USA
Email: parantap.lahiri@gmail.com
Farinacci, et al. Expires September 21, 2022 [Page 18]