LISP Site External Connectivity
draft-jain-lisp-site-external-connectivity-04
Network Working Group P. Jain
Internet-Draft V. Moreno
Intended status: Experimental S. Hooda
Expires: April 25, 2022 Cisco Systems
October 22, 2021
LISP Site External Connectivity
draft-jain-lisp-site-external-connectivity-04
Abstract
This draft defines how to register/retrieve pETR mapping information
in LISP when the destination is not registered/known to the local
site and its mapping system (e.g. the destination is an internet or
external site destination).
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].
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 25, 2022.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2021 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
Jain, et al. Expires April 25, 2022 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft LISP External Connectivity October 2021
publication of this document. Please review these documents
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. Definition of Terms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. pETR Registration/Notification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
4. pETR Request/Resolution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
7. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
8. Normative Reference . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
1. Introduction
The LISP architecture and protocol [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis]
introduces two types of replies to a map-request sent by an ITR:
- when the EID is known or registered to the mapping system, a
regular map-reply with mapping information is sent, or
- when the EID is unknown or known but not registered, a negative-
map-reply (NMR) is sent.
Currently the NMR does not convey pETR RLOC-set information to
specify where the ITR should send the packet.
This document describes how to use the LISP messages to register and
provide pETR RLOC-set information for destinations which are EIDs not
registered with the Mapping System, or simply are "not known" to be
an existing EID. These destinations could be the destinations which
are outside of the LISP site belonging to non-LISP domains, hence are
not registered with the LISP Mapping System.
The reachability of these destinations can be provided either by
configuring pETR information directly into the Mapping System, or by
the registration done by certain pETRs. The pETR registration is
specifically useful when the traffic to these external destinations
needs to be sent encapsulated to a preferred pETR/gateway chosen
dynamically. This mechanism also helps to achieve faster
convergence.
Jain, et al. Expires April 25, 2022 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft LISP External Connectivity October 2021
This document also specifies the structure of the map-reply
containing pETR RLOC-set information.
2. Definition of Terms
Same as defined in [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis].
3. pETR Registration/Notification
pETRs having external or internet connectivity MAY register the pETR
with the mapping system. The pETR Map-Register/Map-Notify procedures
and record format are the same as in [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis] with
the following contents:
- An "EID-Prefix" as an agreed upon or configurable "Distinguished
Name" according to [I-D.farinacci-lisp-name-encoding].
- RLOC-set for pETR information.
- Each locator in the RLOC-set MAY be encoded as per [I-D.ietf-lisp-
vpn]. This enables dynamic external connectivity in VPN
environments.
- Additional information MAY be encoded in vendor specific LCAF type
[I-D.ietf-lisp-vendor-lcaf] about the registering pETR such as its
performance matrix, resource availability for the Mapping System to
make preference decision.
4. pETR Request/Resolution
The Map-Request procedures and record format are the same as in [I-
D.ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis].
When the Map-Server (or ETR) determines that the requested
destination is external or unknown to the mapping system, it sends a
Map-Reply containing the pETR information. The Map-Reply procedures
and record format are the same as described in the Map-Server
processing section of [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis]. This Map-Reply has
the following content (as defined per regular map-reply and negative-
map-reply in [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis]):
- An EID-Prefix calculated as non-LISP "hole" per the procedures in
[I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis] for negative map-reply.
- RLOC count MUST be non-zero.
Jain, et al. Expires April 25, 2022 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft LISP External Connectivity October 2021
- Each locator in the RLOC-set MAY be encoded as per [I-D.ietf-lisp-
vpn]. This enables dynamic external connectivity in VPN
environments.
- TTL MAY be shorter than regular map-reply.
- Additional information MAY be encoded in vendor specific LCAF type
[I-D.ietf-lisp-vendor-lcaf] about the mapping such as whether the
mapping is based upon policy or registration.
5. IANA Considerations
No IANA considerations apply to this document.
6. Security Considerations
There are no additional security considerations except what already
discussed in [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis].
7. Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank Fabio Maino for the suggestions and
review of this document.
8. Normative Reference
[I-D.farinacci-lisp-name-encoding]
Farinacci, D., "LISP Distinguished Name Encoding", draft-
farinacci-lisp-name-encoding-07 (work in progress), March
2019.
[I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis]
Farinacci, D., Maino, F., Fuller, V., and A. Cabellos-
Aparicio, "Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP) Control-
Plane", draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis-25 (work in progress),
June 2019.
[I-D.ietf-lisp-vendor-lcaf]
Rodriguez-Natal, A., Ermagan, V., Smirnov, A., Ashtaputre,
V., and D. Farinacci, "Vendor Specific LISP Canonical
Address Format (LCAF)", draft-ietf-lisp-vendor-lcaf-05
(work in progress), September 2019.
[I-D.ietf-lisp-vpn]
Moreno, V. and D. Farinacci, "LISP Virtual Private
Networks (VPNs)", draft-ietf-lisp-vpn-04 (work in
progress), May 2019.
Jain, et al. Expires April 25, 2022 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft LISP External Connectivity October 2021
[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>.
Authors' Addresses
Prakash Jain
Cisco Systems
San Jose, CA
USA
Email: prakjain@cisco.com
Victor Moreno
Cisco Systems
San Jose, CA
USA
Email: vimoreno@cisco.com
Sanjay Hooda
Cisco Systems
San Jose, CA
USA
Email: shooda@cisco.com
Jain, et al. Expires April 25, 2022 [Page 5]