Skip to main content

LISP Traffic Engineering
draft-ietf-lisp-te-17

Document Type Active Internet-Draft (lisp WG)
Authors Dino Farinacci , Michael Kowal , Parantap Lahiri
Last updated 2024-06-11
Replaces draft-farinacci-lisp-te
RFC stream Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF)
Intended RFC status (None)
Formats
Additional resources Mailing list discussion
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-17
Internet Engineering Task Force                             D. Farinacci
Internet-Draft                                               lispers.net
Intended status: Experimental                                   M. Kowal
Expires: 13 December 2024                                  cisco Systems
                                                               P. Lahiri
                                                            11 June 2024

                        LISP Traffic Engineering
                         draft-ietf-lisp-te-17

Abstract

   This document describes how LISP re-encapsulating 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 13 December 2024.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2024 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors.  All rights reserved.

Farinacci, et al.       Expires 13 December 2024                [Page 1]
Internet-Draft          LISP Traffic Engineering               June 2024

   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.

Table of Contents

   1.  Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   2.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   3.  Definition of Terms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   4.  Overview  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   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.  RLOC Probing by RTRs  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
   7.  ELP Probing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
   8.  Service Chaining  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  16
   Appendix A.  Acknowledgments  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  16
   Appendix B.  Document Change Log  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  16
     B.1.  Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-te-17  . . . . . . . . . . . .  16
     B.2.  Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-te-16  . . . . . . . . . . . .  16
     B.3.  Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-te-15  . . . . . . . . . . . .  16
     B.4.  Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-te-14  . . . . . . . . . . . .  17
     B.5.  Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-te-13  . . . . . . . . . . . .  17
     B.6.  Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-te-12  . . . . . . . . . . . .  17
     B.7.  Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-te-11  . . . . . . . . . . . .  17
     B.8.  Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-te-10  . . . . . . . . . . . .  17
     B.9.  Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-te-09  . . . . . . . . . . . .  17
     B.10. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-te-08  . . . . . . . . . . . .  17
     B.11. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-te-07  . . . . . . . . . . . .  18
     B.12. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-te-06  . . . . . . . . . . . .  18
     B.13. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-te-05  . . . . . . . . . . . .  18
     B.14. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-te-04  . . . . . . . . . . . .  18
     B.15. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-te-03  . . . . . . . . . . . .  18
     B.16. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-te-02  . . . . . . . . . . . .  18

Farinacci, et al.       Expires 13 December 2024                [Page 2]
Internet-Draft          LISP Traffic Engineering               June 2024

     B.17. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-te-01  . . . . . . . . . . . .  18
     B.18. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-te-00  . . . . . . . . . . . .  18
     B.19. Changes to draft-farinacci-lisp-te-02 through -12 . . . .  19
     B.20. Changes to draft-farinacci-lisp-te-01.txt . . . . . . . .  19
     B.21. Changes to draft-farinacci-lisp-te-00.txt . . . . . . . .  19
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  19

1.  Requirements Language

   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
   "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
   "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP
   14 [RFC2119][RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all
   capitals, as shown here.

2.  Introduction

   This document describes extensions to the Locator/Identifier
   Separation Protocol (LISP) for traffic engineering features.

   When LISP routers encapsulate packets to other LISP routers, the path
   stretch is typically 1, meaning the packet travels on the shortest
   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 re-encapsulating tunnels
   [RFC9300] can be used so a packet can take an administratively
   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 Re-Encapsulating
   Tunnel Router (RTR) which decapsulates the packet, then encapsulates
   it to the next locator in the ELP.

3.  Definition of Terms

   Refer to [RFC9300] for authoritative definitions for terms EID, RLOC,
   RTR, and Recursive Tunneling.  The other terms defined in this
   section add to the canonical definition to reflect the design
   considerations in this specification.

   Explicit Locator Path (ELP):  The ELP is an explicit list of RLOCs

Farinacci, et al.       Expires 13 December 2024                [Page 3]
Internet-Draft          LISP Traffic Engineering               June 2024

      for each RTR a packet SHOULD travel along its path toward a final
      destination ETR (or PETR).  The list MAY be 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.

   Re-Encapsulating Tunnel Router (RTR):  An RTR as defined in [RFC9300]
      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.

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 underlay topology supported by routing
      protocols.

   ===> :  A multi-hop underlay path to realize a LISP tunnel between
      LISP routers.

   In Figure 1 below, the encapsulation tunnel path between ITR and ETR
   is realized by underlay routers (A, B, C, D) so packets can be
   delivered which are sent by EID seid to destination EID deid.

Farinacci, et al.       Expires 13 December 2024                [Page 4]
Internet-Draft          LISP Traffic Engineering               June 2024

                              Core Network
   Source site       (----------------------------)    Destination Site
   +--------+        (                            )         +---------+
   |         \       (                            )        /          |
   | seid     ITR ---(---> A --> B --> C --> D ---)---> ETR      deid |
   |         / ||    (                            )     ^^ \          |
   +--------+  ||    (                            )     ||  +---------+
               ||    (----------------------------)     ||
               ||                                       ||
               ===========================================
                                LISP Tunnel

                Figure 1: Typical Data Path from ITR to ETR

   In Figure 2, we introduce RTRs 'X' and 'Y' which creates the
   opportunity for a tunnel encapsulation path between LISP routers X
   and Y.  For packets encapsulated by ITR to ETR, it may be desirable
   to route around the link B-->C, one could provide an ELP of (X,Y,etr)
   to achieve this:

                              Core Network
   Source site       (----------------------------)    Destination Site
   +--------+        (                            )         +---------+
   |         \       (                            )        /          |
   | seid     ITR ---(---> A --> B --> C --> D ---)---> ETR      deid |
   |         / ||    (          /      ^          )     ^^ \          |
   |        /  ||    (         |        \         )     ||  \         |
   +-------+   ||    (         v         |        )     ||   +--------+
               ||    (         X ======> Y        )     ||
               ||    (        ^^         ||       )     ||
               ||    (--------||---------||-------)     ||
               ||             ||         ||             ||
               =================         =================
                 LISP Tunnel                 LISP Tunnel

   Figure 2: ELP tunnel path ITR ==> X, then X ==> Y, and then Y ==> ETR

   In this case, the LISP router ITR encapsulates to X, and then X re-
   encapsulates to Y, and then finally Y re-encapsualtes to 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:

Farinacci, et al.       Expires 13 December 2024                [Page 5]
Internet-Draft          LISP Traffic Engineering               June 2024

   *  There may not be sufficient capacity provided by the networks that
      connect B and C together.

   *  There may be a policy reason to avoid the ASes that make up the
      path between B and C.

   *  There may be a failure on the path between B and C which makes the
      path unreliable.

   *  There may be monitoring or traffic inspection resources close to
      RTRs X and Y that do network accounting or measurement.

   *  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), see
   [RFC8060] for packet format details, represents the list of RTRs a
   packet can 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.  If no
       ELP is returned from the mapping system, follow typical
       procedures from [RFC9301].  When a ELP is returned, a ELP
       validity check MUST be performed detailed in Section 5.4.

   2.  The ITR will encapsulate the packet to RLOC 'x'.  If the S-bit is
       not set in the ELP, then the ITR MAY encapsulate to subsequent
       xTRs in the ELP list.  If the L-bit is set, then the ITR does a
       mapping system lookup on EID 'x' to obtain an RLOC, call it x',
       which it then encapsulates to.

   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'.

Farinacci, et al.       Expires 13 December 2024                [Page 6]
Internet-Draft          LISP Traffic Engineering               June 2024

   7.  The ETR will decapsulate the packet and deliver the packet to the
       EID inside of its site.

   The specific encoding 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 (for each example ELP entry within an RLOC-record
   below, S-bit=1, L-bit=0, P-bit=0):

   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, see [RFC9301] for details, 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.
   Alternatively, it may be common practice for a third-party system
   (not an ETR network entity) to register ELP mappings.  This can be
   done via a general purpose SDN provisioning system, for example.

   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

Farinacci, et al.       Expires 13 December 2024                [Page 7]
Internet-Draft          LISP Traffic Engineering               June 2024

   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.  For mapping system lookups and map-cache
   management, see [RFC9300] for details.

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 [RFC9300] are followed.

   When a RLOC from an ELP is changed, Map-Notify messages [RFC9301] 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 re-encapsulating tunnels for packets destined to RTR 'y'.  In this
   case, the L-bit is set to 1, RTR 'x' does not encapsulate packets to
   'y' but rather performs a mapping database lookup on the address 'y',
   which returns a ELP-based locator record for a path to RTR 'y', and
   encapsulates packets to the first-hop of the returned ELP.  If the
   ELP path to RTR 'y' is an internal path within a LISP site, the
   lookup for RTR 'y' can be done to a private mapping system.  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
   choose an ELP from the locator-set by considering the source RLOC
   address of the ITR versus considering the source EID.

Farinacci, et al.       Expires 13 December 2024                [Page 8]
Internet-Draft          LISP Traffic Engineering               June 2024

   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.  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 13 December 2024                [Page 9]
Internet-Draft          LISP Traffic Engineering               June 2024

   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 re-encapsulating tunnels and
   recursive tunnels in [RFC9300] MUST be followed.

6.  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.  As long as the next-
   hop RTR sets the P-bit in the ELP list entry, the RTR can use RLOC-
   probing according to the procedures in [RFC9301].  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,
   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.

Farinacci, et al.       Expires 13 December 2024               [Page 10]
Internet-Draft          LISP Traffic Engineering               June 2024

7.  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].

8.  Service Chaining

   An ELP can be used to deploy services at each reencapsulation point
   in the network.  One example is to implement a honey-pot 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.

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.

Farinacci, et al.       Expires 13 December 2024               [Page 11]
Internet-Draft          LISP Traffic Engineering               June 2024

   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).

   RTRs have some scaling features to reduce the number of locator-set
   changes, the amount of state, and control packet overhead:

   *  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.

   *  When RTRs are on-path between many pairwise EID flows, ITRs and
      PITRs can store a small number of coarse EID-prefixes.

   *  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:

   *  Providing multicast forwarding between IPv4-only-unicast regions
      and IPv4-multicast regions.

   *  Providing multicast forwarding between IPv6-only-unicast regions
      and IPv6-multicast regions.

   *  Providing multicast forwarding between IPv4-only-unicast regions
      and IPv6-multicast regions.

   *  Providing multicast forwarding between IPv6-only-unicast regions
      and IPv4-multicast regions.

Farinacci, et al.       Expires 13 December 2024               [Page 12]
Internet-Draft          LISP Traffic Engineering               June 2024

   *  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:

   Multicast EID key:  (S-EID, 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

    Figure 3: An entry for host 'S-EID' 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 an 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 an 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 is located.

   Extending this concept by allowing ELPs in locator-sets, one could
   have this locator-set registered in the mapping database for (S-EID,
   G).  For example:

   Multicast EID key:  (S-EID, G)
   Locator-set:        (x, y, ETR-A):    priority 1, weight 50
                       (a, g, b, ETR-B): priority 1, weight 50

Farinacci, et al.       Expires 13 December 2024               [Page 13]
Internet-Draft          LISP Traffic Engineering               June 2024

                  Figure 4: 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
   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), SHOULD choose to
   drop the packet.

12.  IANA Considerations

   This document does not make any request to IANA.

13.  References

13.1.  Normative References

Farinacci, et al.       Expires 13 December 2024               [Page 14]
Internet-Draft          LISP Traffic Engineering               June 2024

   [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>.

   [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>.

   [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>.

   [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>.

   [RFC8174]  Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
              2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,
              May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.

   [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>.

Farinacci, et al.       Expires 13 December 2024               [Page 15]
Internet-Draft          LISP Traffic Engineering               June 2024

   [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>.

13.2.  Informative References

   [I-D.ermagan-lisp-nat-traversal]
              Ermagan, V., Farinacci, D., Lewis, D., Maino, F.,
              Portoles-Comeras, M., Skriver, J., White, C., Brescó, A.
              L., and A. Cabellos-Aparicio, "NAT traversal for LISP",
              Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ermagan-lisp-nat-
              traversal-19, 7 May 2021,
              <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ermagan-lisp-
              nat-traversal-19>.

   [I-D.filyurin-lisp-elp-probing]
              Filyurin, Y., Raszuk, R., Boyes, T., and D. Farinacci,
              "LISP Explicit Locator Path (ELP) Probing", Work in
              Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-filyurin-lisp-elp-probing-
              01, 14 May 2018, <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/
              draft-filyurin-lisp-elp-probing-01>.

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
   Ermagan, Gregg Schudel, Yan Filyurin, Robert Raszuk, and Truman
   Boyes.

Appendix B.  Document Change Log

B.1.  Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-te-17

   *  Posted June 2024.

   *  Made changes to reflect Padma's comments.

B.2.  Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-te-16

   *  Posted May 2024.

   *  Made some document clarifications based on Luigi's comments.

B.3.  Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-te-15

   *  Posted April 2024.

Farinacci, et al.       Expires 13 December 2024               [Page 16]
Internet-Draft          LISP Traffic Engineering               June 2024

   *  Made changes to reflect comments from Luigi as we ready document
      for standards track.

B.4.  Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-te-14

   *  Posted February 2024.

   *  Update references and document timer.

B.5.  Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-te-13

   *  Posted August 2023.

   *  Update references (to proposed standard documents) and document
      timer.

B.6.  Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-te-12

   *  Posted March 2023.

   *  Update references (to propsed standard documents) and document
      timer.

B.7.  Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-te-11

   *  Posted September 2022.

   *  Update document timer and references.

B.8.  Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-te-10

   *  Posted March 2022.

   *  Update document timer and references.

B.9.  Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-te-09

   *  Posted September 2021.

   *  Update document timer and references.

B.10.  Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-te-08

   *  Posted March 2021.

   *  Update document timer and references.

Farinacci, et al.       Expires 13 December 2024               [Page 17]
Internet-Draft          LISP Traffic Engineering               June 2024

B.11.  Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-te-07

   *  Posted October 2020.

   *  Update document timer and references.

B.12.  Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-te-06

   *  Posted April 2020.

   *  Update document timer and references.

B.13.  Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-te-05

   *  Posted October 2019.

   *  Update document timer and references.

B.14.  Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-te-04

   *  Posted April 2019.

   *  Update document timer and references.

B.15.  Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-te-03

   *  Posted October 2018.

   *  Update document timer and references.

B.16.  Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-te-02

   *  Posted April 2018.

   *  Update document timer and references.

B.17.  Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-te-01

   *  Posted October 2017.

   *  Added section on ELP-probing that tells an ITR/RTR/PITR the
      feasibility and reachability of an Explicit Lcoator Path.

B.18.  Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-te-00

   *  Posted April 2017.

   *  Changed draft-farinacci-lisp-te-12 to working group document.

Farinacci, et al.       Expires 13 December 2024               [Page 18]
Internet-Draft          LISP Traffic Engineering               June 2024

B.19.  Changes to draft-farinacci-lisp-te-02 through -12

   *  Many postings from January 2013 through February 2017.

   *  Update references and document timer.

B.20.  Changes to draft-farinacci-lisp-te-01.txt

   *  Posted July 2012.

   *  Add the Lookup bit to allow an ELP to be a list of encapsulation
      and/or mapping database lookup addresses.

   *  Indicate that ELPs can be used for service chaining.

   *  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.

   *  Fixes to editorial comments from Gregg.

B.21.  Changes to draft-farinacci-lisp-te-00.txt

   *  Initial draft posted March 2012.

Authors' Addresses

   Dino Farinacci
   lispers.net
   San Jose, California
   United States of America
   Phone: 408-718-2001
   Email: farinacci@gmail.com

   Michael Kowal
   cisco Systems
   111 Wood Avenue South
   ISELIN, NJ
   United States of America
   Email: mikowal@cisco.com

   Parantap Lahiri
   United States of America
   Email: parantap.lahiri@gmail.com

Farinacci, et al.       Expires 13 December 2024               [Page 19]