Network Working Group M. Boucadair
Internet-Draft C. Jacquenet
Updates: 6830 (if approved) France Telecom
Intended status: Experimental September 15, 2015
Expires: March 18, 2016
LISP Mapping Bulk Retrieval
draft-boucadair-lisp-bulk-00.txt
Abstract
This document extends Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP) with a
capability for bulk mapping retrieval. It does so by defining new
LISP messages that are meant to facilitate state recovery of mapping
tables and improve Ingress Tunnel Routers (ITR) recovery times, in
particular. In addition, this document allows to request mappings
that match destination IP prefixes, names, or AS numbers.
This document updates RFC6830.
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 http://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 March 18, 2016.
Boucadair & Jacquenet Expires March 18, 2016 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft LISP Map-Bulk September 2015
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2015 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
(http://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 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. Map-Request with Multiple Records . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. Bulk Mapping Retrieval . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3.1. Map-Bulk-Request Message Format . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
3.2. Map-Bulk-Response Message Format . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
3.3. Generating a Map-Bulk-Request Message . . . . . . . . . 13
3.4. Processing a Map-Bulk-Request Message . . . . . . . . . . 14
3.5. Processing a Map-Bulk-Response Message . . . . . . . . . 15
3.6. Bulk Mapping Retrival from Multiple Resolvers . . . . . . 16
4. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
6. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
7. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
7.1. Normative references . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
7.2. Informative references . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
1. Introduction
Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP, [RFC6830] ) operation relies
upon a mapping mechanism that is used by ingress/egress Tunnel
Routers (xTR) to forward traffic over the LISP network. This
document extends LISP with a capability for bulk mappings retrieval.
It does so by defining new LISP messages that are meant to facilitate
state recovery of mapping tables and improve Ingress Tunnel Routers
(ITR) recovery times, in particular.
The base LISP specification does not define how a requestor may ask
for multiple EIDs. Indeed, the current LISP specification [RFC6830]
states the following:
Boucadair & Jacquenet Expires March 18, 2016 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft LISP Map-Bulk September 2015
Support for requesting multiple EIDs in a single Map-Request
message will be specified in a future version of the protocol.
The extensions defined by this document allow for faster recovery of
mapping entries. For example, whenever an ITR fails for some reason,
the faulty ITR needs to recover at least the list of mappings for the
most popular prefixes in a timely manner, etc. These extensions may
be used by a leaf LISP network or enabled between mapping systems for
the sake of global mapping table maintenance. Policies for the
mapping entries to be recovered are deployment-specific.
The document defines a backward compatible extension of the LISP Map-
Request message to request multiple records (Section 2). Also, it
defines a more reliable method for the retrieval of mapping records
from one or multiple Map-Resolvers (Section 3).
This document allows to request mappings that match destination IP
prefixes, names, or AS numbers. Other filter types may be defined in
future versions, if needed.
2. Map-Request with Multiple Records
As mentioned in Section 1, [RFC6830] does not specify how an ITR can
request for multiple EIDs using the same Map-Request message. This
document fills that void.
Figure 1 shows the difference between the current Map-Request message
format and the new format that includes the proposed extension. This
extension is meant to allow an ITR to request multiple EID records by
using the same Map-Request.
The proposed design is backward compatible since it aligns the
additional requested EID records at the end of the Map-Request
message.
As specified in [RFC6830], a mapping system must be prepared to
receive a request for multiple EID records in a Map-Request message.
A receiver relies upon the content of the "Record Count" field of the
Map-Request message to detect whether one or multiple records are
carried in the request.
OLD:
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|Type=1 |A|M|P|S|p|s| Reserved | IRC | Record Count |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Nonce . . . |
Boucadair & Jacquenet Expires March 18, 2016 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft LISP Map-Bulk September 2015
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| . . . Nonce |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Source-EID-AFI | Source EID Address ... |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| ITR-RLOC-AFI 1 | ITR-RLOC Address 1 ... |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| ... |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| ITR-RLOC-AFI n | ITR-RLOC Address n ... |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
/ | Reserved | EID mask-len | EID-Prefix-AFI |
Rec +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
\ | EID-Prefix ... |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Map-Reply Record ... |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
NEW:
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|Type=1 |A|M|P|S|p|s| Reserved | IRC | Record Count |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Nonce . . . |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| . . . Nonce |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Source-EID-AFI | Source EID Address ... |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| ITR-RLOC-AFI 1 | ITR-RLOC Address 1 ... |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| ... |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| ITR-RLOC-AFI n | ITR-RLOC Address n ... |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
/ |N| Reserved | EID mask-len | EID-Prefix-AFI |
Rec 1 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
\ | EID-Prefix ... |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Map-Reply Record ... |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
/ |N| Reserved | EID mask-len | EID-Prefix-AFI |
Rec 2 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
\ | EID-Prefix ... |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
: ... :
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Boucadair & Jacquenet Expires March 18, 2016 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft LISP Map-Bulk September 2015
/ |N| Reserved | EID mask-len | EID-Prefix-AFI |
Rec m +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
\ | EID-Prefix ... |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 1
The description of the fields of the updated Map-Request message is
exactly the same as in [RFC6830], except the additional records that
are prepended after the "Map-Reply Record" and the definition of a
reserved bit, denoted as the N-bit (next-eid record bit). The
structure of a record is exactly the same as in [RFC6830].
When set, the N-bit (next-eid record bit) flag indicates that this is
not the last record carried in the message. An implementation uses
the value of this bit to position the last record in the message.
When extracting the records included in a Map-Request message, a Map-
Resolver replies with the list of mappings that match these records.
One or multiple Map-Reply messages may be required to carry the
mapping records that match the requested EIDs included in a Map-
Request.
An ITR MUST be prepared to receive multiple Map-Reply messages from a
Map-Resolver as a response to a bulk Map-Request message that it
originally sent to that Map-Resolver.
In order to inform an ITR that subsequent Map-Reply messages will
follow (or not) , a dedicated flag bit is defined for this purpose:
it is called the M-bit (more-map-reply bit).
When set, the M-bit (more-map-reply bit) flag indicates this is not
the last Map-Reply message to be received by the requesting ITR;
additional Map-Reply messages follow. An implementation uses this
bit to decide when to terminate a request/response transaction.
If multiple Map-Reply messages are required to respond to a Map-
Request message, a Map-Resolver MUST set the M-bit flag for all Map-
Reply messages except for the last Map-Reply message.
OLD:
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|Type=2 |P|E|S| Reserved | Record Count |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Nonce . . . |
Boucadair & Jacquenet Expires March 18, 2016 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft LISP Map-Bulk September 2015
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| . . . Nonce |
+-> +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| | Record TTL |
| +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
R | Locator Count | EID mask-len | ACT |A| Reserved |
e +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
c | Rsvd | Map-Version Number | EID-Prefix-AFI |
o +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
r | EID-Prefix |
d +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| /| Priority | Weight | M Priority | M Weight |
| L +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| o | Unused Flags |L|p|R| Loc-AFI |
| c +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| \| Locator |
+-> +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
NEW:
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|Type=2 |P|E|S|M| Reserved | Record Count |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Nonce . . . |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| . . . Nonce |
+-> +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| | Record TTL |
| +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
R | Locator Count | EID mask-len | ACT |A| Reserved |
e +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
c | Rsvd | Map-Version Number | EID-Prefix-AFI |
o +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
r | EID-Prefix |
d +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| /| Priority | Weight | M Priority | M Weight |
| L +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| o | Unused Flags |L|p|R| Loc-AFI |
| c +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| \| Locator |
+-> +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
In order to prevent reordering issues that would lead to drop
incoming Map-Reply messages, a more reliable solution is defined in
Section 3.
Boucadair & Jacquenet Expires March 18, 2016 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft LISP Map-Bulk September 2015
3. Bulk Mapping Retrieval
To allow for a more reliable method when retrieving multiple EID
mapping records from one or multiple Map-Resolvers, this section
defines additional LISP messages that are, unlike LISP control
messages, transported over TCP.
After establishing a TCP connection towards a Map-Resolver (using the
LISP service port), the ITR sends a Map-Bulk-Request (Section 3.1).
Upon receipt of that message, the Map-Resolver must reply with one or
more Map-Bulk-Response messages (Section 3.2). Once the last Map-
Bulk-Response is received from the Map-Resolver, the underlying TCP
connection may be closed.
Figure 2 illustrates the example of a bulk mapping retrieval that is
achieved with one single Map-Bulk-Response, while Figure 3 shows an
example of a bulk mapping retrieval that requires multiple Map-Bulk-
Response messages.
+--------+ +--------+
| ITR | | MR |
+--------+ +--------+
|<- Session Establishment--->|
| |
|Map-Bulk-Request (ID, d_EID |
| d_EID2, ..., d_EIDn) |
|--------------------------->|
| Map-Bulk-Response(M=0)|
|<---------------------------|
Figure 2: Example of Bulk Mapping Retrieval
Boucadair & Jacquenet Expires March 18, 2016 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft LISP Map-Bulk September 2015
+--------+ +--------+
| ITR | | MR |
+--------+ +--------+
|<- Session Establishment -->|
| |
|Map-Bulk-Request (ID, d_EID |
| d_EID2, ..., d_EIDn) |
|--------------------------->|
|Map-Bulk-Response(M=1, rec1,|
| rec2, ..., recn)|
|<---------------------------|
|Map-Bulk-Response(M=1,recn+1|
| recn+2, ..., recm)|
|<---------------------------|
...
|Map-Bulk-Response(M=0, recs)|
|<---------------------------|
Figure 3: Example of Bulk Mapping Retrieval
The bulk mapping retrieval allows to retrieve records that do not
only match IP prefixes, but also AS numbers or even names. When
names or AS numbers are included, the Map-Resolver is responsible for
identifying which IP prefixes are to be returned.
An ITR can establish multiple transactions with the same Map-Resolver
as shown in Figure 4.
Boucadair & Jacquenet Expires March 18, 2016 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft LISP Map-Bulk September 2015
+--------+ +--------+
| ITR | | MR |
+--------+ +--------+
|<- Session Establishment -->|
| |
|Map-Bulk-Request (ID1) |
|--------------------------->|
| Map-Bulk-Response(ID1)|
|<---------------------------|
...
|Map-Bulk-Request (ID2) |
|--------------------------->|
| Map-Bulk-Response(ID2)|
|<---------------------------|
| Map-Bulk-Response(ID2)|
|<---------------------------|
...
|Map-Bulk-Request (IDa) |
|--------------------------->|
|Map-Bulk-Request (IDb) |
|--------------------------->|
| Map-Bulk-Response(IDa)|
|<---------------------------|
| Map-Bulk-Response(IDb)|
|<---------------------------|
| Map-Bulk-Response(IDb)|
|<---------------------------|
| Map-Bulk-Response(IDa)|
|<---------------------------|
Figure 4: Multiple Transactions with the Same Map-Resolver
3.1. Map-Bulk-Request Message Format
The format of the Map-Bulk-Request message is shown in Figure 5.
Boucadair & Jacquenet Expires March 18, 2016 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft LISP Map-Bulk September 2015
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Type | Reserved | Filter Len |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Transaction ID |
+-> +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| | Length | |
F +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ :
I : Filter :
L +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
T ...
E +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
R | Length | |
S +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ :
| : Filter :
+-> +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 5: Map-Bulk-Request Message Format
The description of the fields is as follows:
o Type is to be defined (see Section 5).
o Reserved: reserved bits, MUST be sent as zeros and MUST be ignored
when received. Some of these bits may be used to indicate the
type of the enclosed filter (e.g., lookup to retrieve all EIDs
serviced by an ETR).
o Filter Len: This field indicates in bytes, the length of the
filters included in the request. It is equal to (sum of "8+Length
of Filter"), where "Filter" denotes the filters included in the
message.
o Transaction ID: This field is used to uniquely identify a
connection context among those established with the same Map-
Resolver. Demux connections established with distinct Map-
Resolvers may rely on the address of the Map-Resolver. A
transaction-id MUST be unique for connections bound to the same
Map-Resolver.
o Length: This field indicates, in octets, the length of the filter
that is encoded in the "Filter" field.
o Filter: This field carries a destination EID (or a set thereof)
that is encoded as an UTF-8 string. This specification allows to
convey IP prefix literals, Names and/or AS numbers. One or
multiple filters may be present in a request. IPv4 prefixes are
Boucadair & Jacquenet Expires March 18, 2016 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft LISP Map-Bulk September 2015
encoded as IPv4-mapped IPv6 prefixes [RFC4291] (i.e., starting
with ::ffff:0:0/96). A mix of names, IP prefixes and AS numbers
may be enclosed in the same request. The value 0 is used to
indicate "ANY" mapping.
3.2. Map-Bulk-Response Message Format
The format of the Map-Bulk-Response message is shown in Figure 6.
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Type |M| rsv | Records Count |Results | Filter Len |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Transaction ID |
+-> +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| | Length | |
F +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ :
I : Filter :
L +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
T ...
E +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
R | Length | |
S +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ :
| : Filter :
+-> +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| | Record TTL |
| +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
R | Locator Count | EID mask-len | ACT |A| Reserved |
e +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
c | Rsvd | Map-Version Number | EID-Prefix-AFI |
o +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
r | EID-Prefix |
d +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| /| Priority | Weight | M Priority | M Weight |
| L +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| o | Unused Flags |L|p|R| Loc-AFI |
| c +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| \| Locator |
+-> +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
...
+-> +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| | Record TTL |
| +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
R | Locator Count | EID mask-len | ACT |A| Reserved |
e +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
c | Rsvd | Map-Version Number | EID-Prefix-AFI |
o +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Boucadair & Jacquenet Expires March 18, 2016 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft LISP Map-Bulk September 2015
r | EID-Prefix |
d +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| /| Priority | Weight | M Priority | M Weight |
| L +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| o | Unused Flags |L|p|R| Loc-AFI |
| c +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| \| Locator |
+-> +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 6: Map-Bulk-Response Message Format
The description of the fields of the Map-Bulk-Response is similar to
those of a LISP Map-Request message ([RFC6830]), except the
following:
o Type is to be defined (see Section 5).
o M (more-data bit): When set, this flag indicates that other
records are to be expected from the Map-Resolver.
o Reserved: reserved bits, MUST be sent as zeros and MUST be ignored
when received.
o Records Count: Indicates the number of records included in the
response.
o Result: indicates the result code of the processing of the Map-
Bulk-Request message. The following codes are defined:
0: SUCCESS. This code indicates the request is successfully
processed.
1: BULK-PROHIBITED. This code indicates the bulk mapping is
blocked for this ITR, leaf LISP network, subscriber, etc.
2: BULK-LIMIT. This code indicates a rate-limit is applied on the
Map-Bulk-Request messages from the same ITR, leaf LISP network,
subscriber, etc. The ITR SHOULD re-issue the request after the
expiry of a timer; the default value of that timer is 60
seconds. Other values may be configured on the ITR.
3: BULK-FILTER-UNSUPPORTED. This code indicates a request is
successfully processed but some or all filters were not
processed because the format of these filters is not supported.
4: BULK-FILTER-BAD. This code indicates a request is successfully
processed but some filters were not processed because they were
malformed.
Boucadair & Jacquenet Expires March 18, 2016 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft LISP Map-Bulk September 2015
5: BULK-LOCAL. This code indicates a request is successfully
processed but some filters were not processed because of local
reasons. The ITR SHOULD, after a certain timer expires, send a
Map-Bulk-Request message for the set of filters that are
included in the Map-Bulk-Response message.
6: OUT-OF-RESOURCES. This code indicates a Map-Resolver is
running out of resources. The ITR SHOULD re-iterate the same
request after the expiry of a timer. The default value of that
timer is 300 seconds. Other values MAY be configured on the
ITR.
o Filter Len: This field indicates in bytes, the length of the
filters that were not processed by the Map-Resolver. A filter
MUST be included in a response if and only if an error was
encountered when processing that filter at the Map-Resolver side.
The "Result" code provides more details about the reason for not
processing such filter. If all filters were successfully
processed by the Map-Resolver, this field MUST be set to 0.
o Transaction ID: MUST echo the one included in the Map-Bulk-
Request.
3.3. Generating a Map-Bulk-Request Message
ITRs MUST support a configurable parameter to enable/disable bulk
mapping retrieval over TCP. The default value is set to "enabled".
If distinct port number is used by remote Map-Resolvers, the
destination port number to send Map-Bulk-Request messages SHOULD be
configured to the ITR.
After establishing a TCP connection towards a Map-Resolver (using the
LISP service port), the ITR MUST send a Map-Bulk-Request
(Section 3.1) to a Map-Resolver. Configuration information for
triggering bulk retrieval request messages MAY be provisioned to each
ITR. Multiple Map-Bulk-Request messages may be sent over the same
TCP connection.
An ITR that loses its mapping cache for some reason SHOULD generate a
Map-Bulk-Request message towards its Map-Resolver(s) with the set of
filters that are configured locally.
An ITR MAY generate several Map-Bulk-Request messages to the same or
distinct Map-Resolvers.
An ITR MUST generate a unique transaction-id per Map-Bulk-Request it
issues.
Boucadair & Jacquenet Expires March 18, 2016 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft LISP Map-Bulk September 2015
An ITR MUST expect that the Map-Resolver may limit the number of
filters that may be processed. Filters that are not accepted or not
processed by the Map-Resolvers are included in a Map-Bulk-Response.
3.4. Processing a Map-Bulk-Request Message
A Map-Resolver that does not support the Map-Bulk-Request message
MUST silently ignore any Map-Bulk-Request message it receives.
Map-Resolvers MUST support a configurable parameter to enable/disable
the processing of Map-Bulk-Request messages. The default value is
set to "enabled".
A Map-Resolver that is enabled to process Map-Bulk-Request messages
MUST listen to incoming TCP connections on the default LISP service
port. ACLs MAY be configured to control the leaf networks that can
invoke this feature.
A Map-Resolver SHOULD support a configuration parameter to rate-limit
the number of simultaneous Map-Bulk-Request messages per leaf LISP
network, per ITR, etc.
If a Map-Resolver receives a Map-Bulk-Request message and it is
enabled to process it, a Map-Resolver MUST reply with one or multiple
Map-Bulk-Response messages.
If multiple Map-Bulk-Response messages are required to respond to a
given request, the Map-Resolver MUST:
o Echo the transaction-id.
o Set the M-bit for all Map-Bulk-Response messages, except for the
last one.
o Include the set of filters that are not successfully processed for
some reason (e.g., malformed filter) and set the "Filter Len"
accordingly.
If filters are included in the request, the Map-Resolver MUST extract
those filters and lookup its mapping system accordingly. In
particular, the Map-Resolver MUST reply with a full mapping table if
a Null filter is included in the Map-Bulk-Request.
If bulk mapping retrieval is not allowed for a given ITR, the
'Result' field MUST be set to BULK-PROHIBITED.
Boucadair & Jacquenet Expires March 18, 2016 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft LISP Map-Bulk September 2015
If a filter type is not supported by the Map-Resover, the 'Result'
field MUST be set to BULK-FILTER-UNSUPPORTED. The set of filters
that are not processed MUST be echoed in the Map-Bulk-Response.
If all filters are successfully processed, the 'Result' field MUST be
set to SUCCESS.
If the Map-Resolver fails to process a request because limits for
that ITR are exceeded, it MUST set the 'Result' field to BULK-LIMIT.
If the Map-Resolver fails to process some of the filters included in
a request because these filters were malformed, it MUST echo the
corresponding filters in the Map-Bulk-Response message. The 'Result'
field MUST be set to BULK-FILTER-BAD
If, for some other reasons, the Map-Resolver fails to apply the
filters included in a request, it MUST echo the corresponding filter
in the Map-Bulk-Response message. The 'Result' field MUST be set to
BULK-LIMIT.
A Map-Resolver that is overloaded MUST reply with a Map-Bulk-Response
message with the "Result" code set to OUT-OF-RESOURCES.
3.5. Processing a Map-Bulk-Response Message
Upon receipt of a Map-Bulk-Response message, the ITR MUST check
whether the message matches a Map-Bulk-Request it issued for the same
Map-Resolver. If no matching state is found, the message MUST be
silently dropped. If a state is found, the ITR MUST proceed as
follows:
o An ITR that receives the result code set to BULK-PROHIBITED MUST
NOT reissue a Map-Bulk-Request message to that Map-Resolver.
o An ITR that receives the result code set to BULK-LIMIT MUST NOT
try to resend the same request before the expiry of the
retransmission timeout (default value set to 60 seconds).
o An ITR that receives the result code set to OUT-OF-RESOURCES MUST
NOT resend the same request before 300 seconds.
o If the M-bit is set, it should expect that other Map-Bulk-Response
messages will be received from this Map-Resolver. Appropriate
security mechanisms (e.g., Access Control Lists) SHOULD be
activated to allow the processing of these incoming unsolicited
Map-Bulk-Response messages.
Boucadair & Jacquenet Expires March 18, 2016 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft LISP Map-Bulk September 2015
o If the M-bit is unset, this is an indication that this message
terminates the mapping bulk retrieval transaction. The ITR may
decide to terminate the underlying TCP connections if no other
transactions bound to the same Map-Resolver are active.
o Filters that are returned in the Map-Bulk-Response message may not
be valid or have exceeded a limit. The "Result" code indicates
the reason for not processing these filters. In particular:
* An ITR that receives the result code set to BULK-FILTER-BAD or
BULK-FILTER-UNSUPPORTED MUST NOT resend the same filters that
were returned in the Map-Bulk-Response message, in subsequent
Map-Bulk-Request messages. Furthermore, subsequent Map-Bulk-
Request messages MUST NOT use the unsupported format to encode
the filters.
* An ITR that receives the result code set to BULK-LOCAL SHOULD
for at least 60 seconds before issuing another Map-Bulk-Request
message with the filters that were returned in the Map-Bulk-
Response message.
3.6. Bulk Mapping Retrival from Multiple Resolvers
In order to retrieve mapping entries from multiple Map-Resolvers, an
ITR issues Map-Bulk-Request messages to a list of Map-Resolvers.
Each of these requests is handled as specified in Section 3.3.
An ITR MAY be configured to issue multiple Map-Bulk-Request messages
to distinct Map-Resolvers.
Conflicts may arise when contacting multiple Map-Resolvers. These
conflicts are not specific to the bulk mapping retrieval as this is
also an issue for individual mapping lookup.
4. Security Considerations
In addition to the security considerations discussed in [RFC6830] and
[RFC6833], TCP-specific threats are valid for this specification
(e.g., [I-D.ietf-tcpm-tcp-security]).
In order to avoid exhausting the resources of Map-Resolvers, Map-
Bulk-Request messages SHOULD be rate-limited. Furthermore, a Map-
Resolver MAY configure ACLs to control leaf LISP networks that are
allowed to issue Map-Bulk-Request messages.
The structure of a record conveyed in a Map-Bulk-Response is exactly
the same as in [RFC6830]. As such, this specification does leak
information that would not be revealed using the base LISP.
Boucadair & Jacquenet Expires March 18, 2016 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft LISP Map-Bulk September 2015
5. IANA Considerations
To be completed.
6. Acknowledgments
This work is partly funded by ANR LISP-Lab project #ANR-13-INFR-
009-X.
7. References
7.1. Normative references
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[RFC4291] Hinden, R. and S. Deering, "IP Version 6 Addressing
Architecture", RFC 4291, DOI 10.17487/RFC4291, February
2006, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4291>.
[RFC6830] Farinacci, D., Fuller, V., Meyer, D., and D. Lewis, "The
Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP)", RFC 6830,
DOI 10.17487/RFC6830, January 2013,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6830>.
[RFC6833] Fuller, V. and D. Farinacci, "Locator/ID Separation
Protocol (LISP) Map-Server Interface", RFC 6833,
DOI 10.17487/RFC6833, January 2013,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6833>.
7.2. Informative references
[I-D.ietf-tcpm-tcp-security]
Gont, F., "Survey of Security Hardening Methods for
Transmission Control Protocol (TCP) Implementations",
draft-ietf-tcpm-tcp-security-03 (work in progress), March
2012.
Authors' Addresses
Mohamed Boucadair
France Telecom
Rennes 35000
France
EMail: mohamed.boucadair@orange.com
Boucadair & Jacquenet Expires March 18, 2016 [Page 17]
Internet-Draft LISP Map-Bulk September 2015
Christian Jacquenet
France Telecom
Rennes 35000
France
EMail: christian.jacquenet@orange.com
Boucadair & Jacquenet Expires March 18, 2016 [Page 18]