Network Working Group D. Farinacci
Internet-Draft V. Fuller
Intended status: Experimental D. Meyer
Expires: September 3, 2009 D. Lewis
cisco Systems
March 2, 2009
Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP)
draft-farinacci-lisp-12.txt
Status of this Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted to IETF in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that
other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-
Drafts.
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."
The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt.
The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.
This Internet-Draft will expire on September 3, 2009.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2009 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 in effect on the date of
publication of this document (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info).
Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights
and restrictions with respect to this document.
Farinacci, et al. Expires September 3, 2009 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP) March 2009
Abstract
This draft describes a simple, incremental, network-based protocol to
implement separation of Internet addresses into Endpoint Identifiers
(EIDs) and Routing Locators (RLOCs). This mechanism requires no
changes to host stacks and no major changes to existing database
infrastructures. The proposed protocol can be implemented in a
relatively small number of routers.
This proposal was stimulated by the problem statement effort at the
Amsterdam IAB Routing and Addressing Workshop (RAWS), which took
place in October 2006.
Table of Contents
1. Requirements Notation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3. Definition of Terms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4. Basic Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
4.1. Packet Flow Sequence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
5. Tunneling Details . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
5.1. LISP IPv4-in-IPv4 Header Format . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
5.2. LISP IPv6-in-IPv6 Header Format . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
5.3. Tunnel Header Field Descriptions . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
5.4. Dealing with Large Encapsulated Packets . . . . . . . . . 20
5.4.1. A Stateless Solution to MTU Handling . . . . . . . . . 21
5.4.2. A Stateful Solution to MTU Handling . . . . . . . . . 21
6. EID-to-RLOC Mapping . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
6.1. LISP IPv4 and IPv6 Control Plane Packet Formats . . . . . 23
6.1.1. LISP Packet Type Allocations . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
6.1.2. Map-Request Message Format . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
6.1.3. EID-to-RLOC UDP Map-Request Message . . . . . . . . . 27
6.1.4. Map-Reply Message Format . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
6.1.5. EID-to-RLOC UDP Map-Reply Message . . . . . . . . . . 30
6.1.6. Map-Register Message Format . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
6.2. Routing Locator Selection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
6.3. Routing Locator Reachability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
6.4. Routing Locator Hashing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
6.5. Changing the Contents of EID-to-RLOC Mappings . . . . . . 37
6.5.1. Clock Sweep . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
6.5.2. Solicit-Map-Request (SMR) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
7. Router Performance Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
8. Deployment Scenarios . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
8.1. First-hop/Last-hop Tunnel Routers . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
8.2. Border/Edge Tunnel Routers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
8.3. ISP Provider-Edge (PE) Tunnel Routers . . . . . . . . . . 44
9. Traceroute Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
Farinacci, et al. Expires September 3, 2009 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP) March 2009
9.1. IPv6 Traceroute . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
9.2. IPv4 Traceroute . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
9.3. Traceroute using Mixed Locators . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
10. Mobility Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
10.1. Site Mobility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
10.2. Slow Endpoint Mobility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
10.3. Fast Endpoint Mobility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
10.4. Fast Network Mobility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
11. Multicast Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
12. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
13. Prototype Plans and Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
14. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55
14.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55
14.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
Appendix A. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60
Farinacci, et al. Expires September 3, 2009 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP) March 2009
1. Requirements Notation
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 [RFC2119].
Farinacci, et al. Expires September 3, 2009 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP) March 2009
2. Introduction
Many years of discussion about the current IP routing and addressing
architecture have noted that its use of a single numbering space (the
"IP address") for both host transport session identification and
network routing creates scaling issues (see [CHIAPPA] and [RFC1498]).
A number of scaling benefits would be realized by separating the
current IP address into separate spaces for Endpoint Identifiers
(EIDs) and Routing Locators (RLOCs); among them are:
1. Reduction of routing table size in the "default-free zone" (DFZ).
Use of a separate numbering space for RLOCs will allow them to be
assigned topologically (in today's Internet, RLOCs would be
assigned by providers at client network attachment points),
greatly improving aggregation and reducing the number of
globally-visible, routable prefixes.
2. More cost-effective multihoming for sites that connect to
different service providers where they can control their own
policies for packet flow into the site without using extra
routing table resources of core routers.
3. Easing of renumbering burden when clients change providers.
Because host EIDs are numbered from a separate, non-provider-
assigned and non-topologically-bound space, they do not need to
be renumbered when a client site changes its attachment points to
the network.
4. Traffic engineering capabilities that can be performed by network
elements and do not depend on injecting additional state into the
routing system. This will fall out of the mechanism that is used
to implement the EID/RLOC split (see Section 4).
5. Mobility without address changing. Existing mobility mechanisms
will be able to work in a locator/ID separation scenario. It
will be possible for a host (or a collection of hosts) to move to
a different point in the network topology either retaining its
home-based address or acquiring a new address based on the new
network location. A new network location could be a physically
different point in the network topology or the same physical
point of the topology with a different provider.
This draft describes protocol mechanisms to achieve the desired
functional separation. For flexibility, the mechanism used for
forwarding packets is decoupled from that used to determine EID to
RLOC mappings. This document covers the former. For the later, see
[CONS], [ALT], [RPMD], and [NERD]. This work is in response to and
intended to address the problem statement that came out of the RAWS
Farinacci, et al. Expires September 3, 2009 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP) March 2009
effort [RFC4984].
The Routing and Addressing problem statement can be found in [RADIR].
This draft focuses on a router-based solution. Building the solution
into the network will facilitate incremental deployment of the
technology on the Internet. Note that while the detailed protocol
specification and examples in this document assume IP version 4
(IPv4), there is nothing in the design that precludes use of the same
techniques and mechanisms for IPv6. It should be possible for IPv4
packets to use IPv6 RLOCs and for IPv6 EIDs to be mapped to IPv4
RLOCs.
Related work on host-based solutions is described in Shim6 [SHIM6]
and HIP [RFC4423]. Related work on a router-based solution is
described in [GSE]. This draft attempts to not compete or overlap
with such solutions and the proposed protocol changes are expected to
complement a host-based mechanism when Traffic Engineering
functionality is desired.
Some of the design goals of this proposal include:
1. Require no hardware or software changes to end-systems (hosts).
2. Minimize required changes to Internet infrastructure.
3. Be incrementally deployable.
4. Require no router hardware changes.
5. Minimize the number of routers which have to be modified. In
particular, most customer site routers and no core routers
require changes.
6. Minimize router software changes in those routers which are
affected.
7. Avoid or minimize packet loss when EID-to-RLOC mappings need to
be performed.
There are 4 variants of LISP, which differ along a spectrum of strong
to weak dependence on the topological nature and possible need for
routability of EIDs. The variants are:
Farinacci, et al. Expires September 3, 2009 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP) March 2009
LISP 1: uses EIDs that are routable through the RLOC topology for
bootstrapping EID-to-RLOC mappings. [LISP1] This was intended as
a prototyping mechanism for early protocol implementation. It is
now deprecated and should not be deployed.
LISP 1.5: uses EIDs that are routable for bootstrapping EID-to-RLOC
mappings; such routing is via a separate topology.
LISP 2: uses EIDS that are not routable and EID-to-RLOC mappings are
implemented within the DNS. [LISP2]
LISP 3: uses non-routable EIDs that are used as lookup keys for a
new EID-to-RLOC mapping database. Use of Distributed Hash Tables
[DHTs] [LISPDHT] to implement such a database would be an area to
explore. Other examples of new mapping database services are
[CONS], [ALT], [RPMD], [NERD], and [APT].
This document on LISP 1.5, and LISP 3 variants, both of which rely on
a router-based distributed cache and database for EID-to-RLOC
mappings. The LISP 1.0 mechanism works but does not allow reduction
of routing information in the default-free-zone of the Internet. The
LISP 2 mechanisms are put on hold and may never come to fruition
since it is not architecturally pure to have routing depend on
directory and directory depend on routing. The LISP 3 mechanisms
will be documented elsewhere but may use the control-plane options
specified in this specification.
Farinacci, et al. Expires September 3, 2009 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP) March 2009
3. Definition of Terms
Provider Independent (PI) Addresses: an address block assigned from
a pool where blocks are not associated with any particular
location in the network (e.g. from a particular service provider),
and is therefore not topologically aggregatable in the routing
system.
Provider Assigned (PA) Addresses: a block of IP addresses that are
assigned to a site by each service provider to which a site
connects. Typically, each block is sub-block of a service
provider CIDR block and is aggregated into the larger block before
being advertised into the global Internet. Traditionally, IP
multihoming has been implemented by each multi-homed site
acquiring its own, globally-visible prefix. LISP uses only
topologically-assigned and aggregatable address blocks for RLOCs,
eliminating this demonstrably non-scalable practice.
Routing Locator (RLOC): the IPv4 or IPv6 address of an egress
tunnel router (ETR). It is the output of a 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.
Endpoint ID (EID): 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 DNS lookup or SIP exchange. The
source EID is obtained via existing mechanisms used to set a
host's "local" IP address. 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.
EID-prefix: A power-of-2 block of EIDs which are allocated to a
site by an address allocation authority. EID-prefixes are
associated with a set of RLOC addresses which make up a "database
mapping". EID-prefix allocations can be broken up into smaller
Farinacci, et al. Expires September 3, 2009 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP) March 2009
blocks when an RLOC set is to be associated with the smaller EID-
prefix. A globally routed address block (whether PI or PA) is not
an EID-prefix. However, a globally routed address block may be
removed from global routing and reused as an EID-prefix. A site
that receives an explicitly allocated EID-prefix may not use that
EID-prefix as a globally routed prefix assigned to RLOCs.
End-system: is an IPv4 or IPv6 device that originates packets with
a single IPv4 or IPv6 header. The end-system supplies an EID
value for the destination address field of the IP header when
communicating globally (i.e. outside of its routing domain). An
end-system can be a host computer, a switch or router device, or
any network appliance.
Ingress Tunnel Router (ITR): a router which accepts an IP packet
with a single IP header (more precisely, an IP packet that does
not contain a LISP header). The router treats this "inner" IP
destination address as an EID and performs an EID-to-RLOC mapping
lookup. The router then prepends an "outer" IP header with one of
its globally-routable RLOCs in the source address field and the
result of the mapping lookup in the destination address field.
Note that this destination RLOC may be an intermediate, proxy
device that has better knowledge of the EID-to-RLOC mapping closer
to the destination EID. In general, an ITR receives IP packets
from site end-systems on one side and sends LISP-encapsulated IP
packets toward the Internet on the other side.
Specifically, when a service provider prepends a LISP header for
Traffic Engineering purposes, the router that does this is also
regarded as an ITR. The outer RLOC the ISP ITR uses can be based
on the outer destination address (the originating ITR's supplied
RLOC) or the inner destination address (the originating hosts
supplied EID).
TE-ITR: is an ITR that is deployed in a service provider network
that prepends an additional LISP header for Traffic Engineering
purposes.
Egress Tunnel Router (ETR): a router that accepts an IP packet
where the destination address in the "outer" IP header is one of
its own RLOCs. The router strips the "outer" header and forwards
the packet based on the next IP header found. In general, an ETR
receives LISP-encapsulated IP packets from the Internet on one
side and sends decapsulated IP packets to site end-systems on the
other side. ETR functionality does not have to be limited to a
router device. A server host can be the endpoint of a LISP tunnel
as well.
Farinacci, et al. Expires September 3, 2009 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP) March 2009
TE-ETR: is an ETR that is deployed in a service provider network
that strips an outer LISP header for Traffic Engineering purposes.
xTR: is a reference to an ITR or ETR when direction of data flow is
not part of the context description. xTR refers to the router that
is the tunnel endpoint. Used synonymously with the term "Tunnel
Router". For example, "An xTR can be located at the Customer Edge
(CE) router", meaning both ITR and ETR functionality is at the CE
router.
EID-to-RLOC Cache: a short-lived, on-demand table in an ITR that
stores, tracks, and is responsible for timing-out and otherwise
validating EID-to-RLOC mappings. This cache is distinct from the
full "database" of EID-to-RLOC mappings, it is dynamic, local to
the ITR(s), and relatively small while the database is
distributed, relatively static, and much more global in scope.
EID-to-RLOC Database: a global distributed database that contains
all known EID-prefix to RLOC mappings. Each potential ETR
typically contains a small piece of the database: the EID-to-RLOC
mappings for the EID prefixes "behind" the router. These map to
one of the router's own, globally-visible, IP addresses.
Recursive Tunneling: 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 never are they staticly configured.
Reencapsulating Tunnels: when a packet has no more than one LISP IP
header (two IP headers total) and when it needs to be diverted to
new RLOC, an ETR can decapsulate the packet (remove the LISP
header) and prepend a new tunnel header, with new RLOC, on to the
packet. Doing this allows a packet to be re-routed by the re-
encapsulating router without adding the overhead of additional
tunnel headers. Any references to tunnels in this specification
refers to dynamic encapsulating tunnels and never are they
staticly configured.
LISP Header: a term used in this document to refer to the outer
IPv4 or IPv6 header, a UDP header, and a LISP header, an ITR
prepends or an ETR strips.
Farinacci, et al. Expires September 3, 2009 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP) March 2009
Address Family Indicator (AFI): a term used to describe an address
encoding in a packet. An address family currently pertains to an
IPv4 or IPv6 address. See [AFI] for details.
Negative Mapping Entry: also known as a negative cache entry, is an
EID-to-RLOC entry where an EID-prefix is advertised or stored with
no RLOCs. That is, the locator-set for the EID-to-RLOC entry is
empty or has an encoded locator count of 0. This type of entry
could be used to describe a prefix from a non-LISP site, which is
explicitly not in the mapping database.
Data Probe: a LISP-encapsulated data packet where the inner header
destination address equals the outer header destination address
used to trigger a Map-Reply by a decapsulating ETR. In addition,
the original packet is decapsulated and delivered to the
destination host. A Data Probe is used in some of the mapping
database designs to "probe" or request a Map-Reply from an ETR; in
other cases, Map-Requests are used. See each mapping database
design for details.
Farinacci, et al. Expires September 3, 2009 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP) March 2009
4. Basic Overview
One key concept of LISP is that end-systems (hosts) operate the same
way they do today. The IP addresses that hosts use for tracking
sockets, connections, and for sending and receiving packets do not
change. In LISP terminology, these IP addresses are called Endpoint
Identifiers (EIDs).
Routers continue to forward packets based on IP destination
addresses. When a packet is LISP encapsulated, these addresses are
referred to as Routing Locators (RLOCs). Most routers along a path
between two hosts will not change; they continue to perform routing/
forwarding lookups on the destination addresses. For routers between
the source host and the ITR as well as routers from the ETR to the
destination host, the destination address is an EID. For the routers
between the ITR and the ETR, the destination address is an RLOC.
This design introduces "Tunnel Routers", which prepend LISP headers
on host-originated packets and strip them prior to final delivery to
their destination. The IP addresses in this "outer header" are
RLOCs. During end-to-end packet exchange between two Internet hosts,
an ITR prepends a new LISP header to each packet and an egress tunnel
router strips the new header. The ITR performs EID-to-RLOC lookups
to determine the routing path to the the ETR, which has the RLOC as
one of its IP addresses.
Some basic rules governing LISP are:
o End-systems (hosts) only send to addresses which are EIDs. They
don't know addresses are EIDs versus RLOCs but assume packets get
to LISP routers, which in turn, deliver packets to the destination
the end-system has specified.
o EIDs are always IP addresses assigned to hosts.
o LISP routers mostly deal with Routing Locator addresses. See
details later in Section 4.1 to clarify what is meant by "mostly".
o RLOCs are always IP addresses assigned to routers; preferably,
topologically-oriented addresses from provider CIDR blocks.
o When a router originates packets it may use as a source address
either an EID or RLOC. When acting as a host (e.g. when
terminating a transport session such as SSH, TELNET, or SNMP), it
may use an EID that is explicitly assigned for that purpose. An
EID that identifies the router as a host MUST NOT be used as an
RLOC; an EID is only routable within the scope of a site. A
typical BGP configuration might demonstrate this "hybrid" EID/RLOC
Farinacci, et al. Expires September 3, 2009 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP) March 2009
usage where a router could use its "host-like" EID to terminate
iBGP sessions to other routers in a site while at the same time
using RLOCs to terminate eBGP sessions to routers outside the
site.
o EIDs are not expected to be usable for global end-to-end
communication in the absence of an EID-to-RLOC mapping operation.
They are expected to be used locally for intra-site communication.
o EID prefixes are likely to be hierarchically assigned in a manner
which is optimized for administrative convenience and to
facilitate scaling of the EID-to-RLOC mapping database. The
hierarchy is based on a address allocation hierarchy which is not
dependent on the network topology.
o EIDs may also be structured (subnetted) in a manner suitable for
local routing within an autonomous system.
An additional LISP header may be prepended to packets by a transit
router (i.e. TE-ITR) when re-routing of the path for a packet is
desired. An obvious instance of this would be an ISP router that
needs to perform traffic engineering for packets in flow through its
network. In such a situation, termed Recursive Tunneling, an ISP
transit acts as an additional ingress tunnel router and the RLOC it
uses for the new prepended header would be either an TE-ETR within
the ISP (along intra-ISP traffic engineered path) or in an TE-ETR
within another ISP (an inter-ISP traffic engineered path, where an
agreement to build such a path exists).
This specification mandates that no more than two LISP headers get
prepended to a packet. This avoids excessive packet overhead as well
as possible encapsulation loops. It is believed two headers is
sufficient, where the first prepended header is used at a site for
Location/Identity separation and second prepended header is used
inside a service provider for Traffic Engineering purposes.
Tunnel Routers can be placed fairly flexibly in a multi-AS topology.
For example, the ITR for a particular end-to-end packet exchange
might be the first-hop or default router within a site for the source
host. Similarly, the egress tunnel router might be the last-hop
router directly-connected to the destination host. Another example,
perhaps for a VPN service out-sourced to an ISP by a site, the ITR
could be the site's border router at the service provider attachment
point. Mixing and matching of site-operated, ISP-operated, and other
tunnel routers is allowed for maximum flexibility. See Section 8 for
more details.
Farinacci, et al. Expires September 3, 2009 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP) March 2009
4.1. Packet Flow Sequence
This section provides an example of the unicast packet flow with the
following conditions:
o Source host "host1.abc.com" is sending a packet to
"host2.xyz.com", exactly what host1 would do if the site was not
using LISP.
o Each site is multi-homed, so each tunnel router has an address
(RLOC) assigned from the service provider address block for each
provider to which that particular tunnel router is attached.
o The ITR(s) and ETR(s) are directly connected to the source and
destination, respectively.
o Data Probes are used to solicit Map-Replies versus using Map-
Requests. And the Data Probes are sent on the underlying topology
(the LISP 1.0 variant) but could also be sent over an alternative
topology (the LISP 1.5 variant) as it would in [ALT].
Client host1.abc.com wants to communicate with server host2.xyz.com:
1. host1.abc.com wants to open a TCP connection to host2.xyz.com.
It does a DNS lookup on host2.xyz.com. An A/AAAA record is
returned. This address is used as the destination EID and the
locally-assigned address of host1.abc.com is used as the source
EID. An IPv4 or IPv6 packet is built using the EIDs in the IPv4
or IPv6 header and sent to the default router.
2. The default router is configured as an ITR. The ITR must be able
to map the EID destination to an RLOC of the ETR at the
destination site. The ITR prepends a LISP header to the packet,
with one of its RLOCs as the source IPv4 or IPv6 address. The
destination EID from the original packet header is used as the
destination IPv4 or IPv6 in the prepended LISP header.
Subsequent packets, where the outer destination address is the
destination EID will be sent until EID-to-RLOC mapping is
learned.
3. In LISP 1, the packet is routed through the Internet as it is
today. In LISP 1.5, the packet is routed on a different topology
which may have EID prefixes distributed and advertised in an
aggregatable fashion. In either case, the packet arrives at the
ETR. The router is configured to "punt" the packet to the
router's processor. See Section 7 for more details. For LISP
2.0 and 3.0, the behavior is not fully defined yet.
Farinacci, et al. Expires September 3, 2009 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP) March 2009
4. The LISP header is stripped so that the packet can be forwarded
by the router control plane. The router looks up the destination
EID in the router's EID-to-RLOC database (not the cache, but the
configured data structure of RLOCs). An EID-to-RLOC Map-Reply
message is originated by the ETR and is addressed to the source
RLOC in the LISP header of the original packet (this is the ITR).
The source RLOC of the Map-Reply is one of the ETR's RLOCs.
5. The ITR receives the Map-Reply message, parses the message (to
check for format validity) and stores the mapping information
from the packet. This information is put in the ITR's EID-to-
RLOC mapping cache (this is the on-demand cache, the cache where
entries time out due to inactivity).
6. Subsequent packets from host1.abc.com to host2.xyz.com will have
a LISP header prepended by the ITR using the appropriate RLOC as
the LISP header destination address learned from the ETR. Note,
the packet may be sent to a different ETR than the one which
returned the Map-Reply due to the source site's hashing policy or
the destination site's locator-set policy.
7. The ETR receives these packets directly (since the destination
address is one of its assigned IP addresses), strips the LISP
header and forwards the packets to the attached destination host.
In order to eliminate the need for a mapping lookup in the reverse
direction, an ETR MAY create a cache entry that maps the source EID
(inner header source IP address) to the source RLOC (outer header
source IP address) in a received LISP packet. Such a cache entry is
termed a "gleaned" mapping and only contains a single RLOC for the
EID in question. More complete information about additional RLOCs
SHOULD be verified by sending a LISP Map-Request for that EID. Both
ITR and the ETR may also influence the decision the other makes in
selecting an RLOC. See Section 6 for more details.
Farinacci, et al. Expires September 3, 2009 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP) March 2009
5. Tunneling Details
This section describes the LISP Data Message which defines the
tunneling header used to encapsulate IPv4 and IPv6 packets which
contain EID addresses. Even though the following formats illustrate
IPv4-in-IPv4 and IPv6-in-IPv6 encapsulations, the other 2
combinations are supported as well.
Since additional tunnel headers are prepended, the packet becomes
larger and in theory can exceed the MTU of any link traversed from
the ITR to the ETR. It is recommended, in IPv4 that packets do not
get fragmented as they are encapsulated by the ITR. Instead, the
packet is dropped and an ICMP Too Big message is returned to the
source.
Based on informal surveys of large ISP traffic patterns, it appears
that most transit paths can accommodate a path MTU of at least 4470
bytes. The exceptions, in terms of data rate, number of hosts
affected, or any other metric are expected to be vanishingly small.
To address MTU concerns, mainly raised on the RRG mailing list, the
LISP deployment process will include collecting data during its pilot
phase to either verify or refute the assumption about minimum
available MTU. If the assumption proves true and transit networks
with links limited to 1500 byte MTUs are corner cases, it would seem
more cost-effective to either upgrade or modify the equipment in
those transit networks to support larger MTUs or to use existing
mechanisms for accommodating packets that are too large.
For this reason, there is currently no plan for LISP to add any new
additional, complex mechanism for implementing fragmentation and
reassembly in the face of limited-MTU transit links. If analysis
during LISP pilot deployment reveals that the assumption of
essentially ubiquitous, 4470+ byte transit path MTUs, is incorrect,
then LISP can be modified prior to protocol standardization to add
support for one of the proposed fragmentation and reassembly schemes.
Note that two simple existing schemes are detailed in Section 5.4.
Farinacci, et al. Expires September 3, 2009 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP) March 2009
5.1. LISP IPv4-in-IPv4 Header Format
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
/ |Version| IHL |Type of Service| Total Length |
/ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| | Identification |Flags| Fragment Offset |
| +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
OH | Time to Live | Protocol = 17 | Header Checksum |
| +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| | Source Routing Locator |
\ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
\ | Destination Routing Locator |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
/ | Source Port = xxxx | Dest Port = 4341 |
UDP +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
\ | UDP Length | UDP Checksum |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
L / |S| Locator Reach Bits |
I +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
S \ | Nonce |
P +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
/ |Version| IHL |Type of Service| Total Length |
/ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| | Identification |Flags| Fragment Offset |
| +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
IH | Time to Live | Protocol | Header Checksum |
| +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| | Source EID |
\ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
\ | Destination EID |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Farinacci, et al. Expires September 3, 2009 [Page 17]
Internet-Draft Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP) March 2009
5.2. LISP IPv6-in-IPv6 Header Format
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
/ |Version| Traffic Class | Flow Label |
/ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| | Payload Length | Next Header=17| Hop Limit |
v +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
O + +
u | |
t + Source Routing Locator +
e | |
r + +
| |
H +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
d | |
r + +
| |
^ + Destination Routing Locator +
| | |
\ + +
\ | |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
/ | Source Port = xxxx | Dest Port = 4341 |
UDP +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
\ | UDP Length | UDP Checksum |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
L / |S| Locator Reach Bits |
I +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
S \ | Nonce |
P +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
/ |Version| Traffic Class | Flow Label |
/ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
/ | Payload Length | Next Header | Hop Limit |
v +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
I + +
n | |
n + Source EID +
e | |
r + +
| |
H +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
d | |
Farinacci, et al. Expires September 3, 2009 [Page 18]
Internet-Draft Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP) March 2009
r + +
| |
^ + Destination EID +
\ | |
\ + +
\ | |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
5.3. Tunnel Header Field Descriptions
IH Header: is the inner header, preserved from the datagram received
from the originating host. The source and destination IP
addresses are EIDs.
OH Header: is the outer header prepended by an ITR. The address
fields contain RLOCs obtained from the ingress router's EID-to-
RLOC cache. The IP protocol number is "UDP (17)" from [RFC0768].
UDP Header: contains a ITR selected source port when encapsulating a
packet. See Section 6.4 for details on the hash algorithm used
select a source port based on the 5-tuple of the inner header.
The destination port MUST be set to the well-known IANA assigned
port value 4341.
UDP Checksum: this field field MUST be transmitted as 0 and ignored
on receipt by the ETR. Note, even when the UDP checksum is
transmitted as 0 an intervening NAT device can recalculate the
checksum and rewrite the UDP checksum field to non-zero. For
performance reasons, the ETR MUST ignore the checksum and MUST not
do a checksum computation.
UDP Length: for an IPv4 encapsulated packet, the inner header Total
Length plus the UDP and LISP header lengths are used. For an IPv6
encapsulated packet, the inner header Payload Length plus the size
of the IPv6 header (40 bytes) plus the size of the UDP and LISP
headers are used. The UDP header length is 8 bytes. The LISP
header length is 8 bytes when no loc-reach-bit header extensions
are used.
S: this is the Solicit-Map-Request (SMR) bit. See section
Section 6.5.2 for details.
LISP Locator Reach Bits: in the LISP header are set by an ITR to
indicate to an ETR the reachability of the Locators in the source
site. Each RLOC in a Map-Reply is assigned an ordinal value from
0 to n-1 (when there are n RLOCs in a mapping entry). The Locator
Reach Bits are numbered from 0 to n-1 from the right significant
Farinacci, et al. Expires September 3, 2009 [Page 19]
Internet-Draft Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP) March 2009
bit of the 31-bit field. When a bit is set to 1, the ITR is
indicating to the ETR the RLOC associated with the bit ordinal is
reachable. See Section 6.3 for details on how an ITR can
determine other ITRs at the site are reachable. When a site has
multiple EID-prefixes which result in multiple mappings (where
each could have a different locator-set), the Locator Reach Bits
setting in an encapsulated packet MUST reflect the mapping for the
EID-prefix that the inner-header source EID address matches.
LISP Nonce: is a 32-bit value that is randomly generated by an ITR.
It is used to test route-returnability when xTRs exchange
encapsulated data packets with the SMR bit set, Data-Probe, Map-
Request, or Map-Reply messages.
When doing Recursive Tunneling:
o The OH header Time to Live field (or Hop Limit field, in case of
IPv6) MUST be copied from the IH header Time to Live field.
o The OH header Type of Service field (or the Traffic Class field,
in the case of IPv6) SHOULD be copied from the IH header Type of
Service field.
When doing Re-encapsulated Tunneling:
o The new OH header Time to Live field SHOULD be copied from the
stripped OH header Time to Live field.
o The new OH header Type of Service field SHOULD be copied from the
stripped OH header Type of Service field.
Copying the TTL serves two purposes: first, it preserves the distance
the host intended the packet to travel; second, and more importantly,
it provides for suppression of looping packets in the event there is
a loop of concatenated tunnels due to misconfiguration.
5.4. Dealing with Large Encapsulated Packets
In the event that the MTU issues mentioned above prove to be more
serious than expected, this section proposes 2 simple mechanisms to
deal with large packets. One is stateless using IP fragmentation and
the other is stateful using Path MTU Discovery [RFC1191].
It is left to the implementor to decide if the stateless or stateful
mechanism should be implemented. Both or neither can be decided as
well since it is a local decision in the ITR regarding how to deal
with MTU issues. Sites can interoperate with differing mechanisms.
Farinacci, et al. Expires September 3, 2009 [Page 20]
Internet-Draft Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP) March 2009
5.4.1. A Stateless Solution to MTU Handling
An ITR stateless solution to handle MTU issues is described as
follows:
1. Define an architectural constant S for the maximum size of a
packet, in bytes, an ITR would receive from a source inside of
its site.
2. Define L to be the maximum size, in bytes, a packet of size S
would be after the ITR prepends the LISP header, UDP header, and
outer network layer header of size H.
3. Calculate: S + H = L.
When an ITR receives a packet from a site-facing interface and adds H
bytes worth of encapsulation to yield a packet size of L bytes, it
resolves the MTU issue by first splitting the original packet into 2
equal-sized fragments. A LISP header is then prepended to each
fragment. This will ensure that the new, encapsulated packets are of
size (S/2 + H), which is always below the effective tunnel MTU.
When an ETR receives encapsulated fragments, it treats them as two
individually encapsulated packets. It strips the LISP headers then
forwards each fragment to the destination host of the destination
site. The two fragments are reassembled at the destination host into
the single IP datagram that was originated by the source host.
This behavior is performed by the ITR when the source host originates
a packet with the DF field of the IP header is set to 0. When the DF
field of the IP header is set to 1, or the packet is an IPv6 packet
originated by the source host, the ITR will drop the packet when the
size is greater than L, and sends an ICMP Too Big message to the
source with a value of S, where S is (L - H).
This specification recommends that L be defined as 1500.
5.4.2. A Stateful Solution to MTU Handling
An ITR stateful solution to handle MTU issues is describe as follows
and was first introduced in [OPENLISP]:
1. The ITR will keep state of the effective MTU for each locator per
mapping cache entry. The effective MTU is what the core network
can deliver along the path between ITR and ETR.
2. When an encapsulated packet exceeds what the core network can
deliver, one of the intermediate routers on the path will send an
Farinacci, et al. Expires September 3, 2009 [Page 21]
Internet-Draft Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP) March 2009
ICMP Too Big message to the ITR. The ITR will parse the ICMP
message to determine which locator is affected by the effective
MTU change and then record the new effective MTU value in the
mapping cache entry.
3. When a packet is received by the ITR from a source inside of the
site and the size of the packet is greater than the effective MTU
stored with the mapping cache entry associated with the
destination EID the packet is for, the ITR will send an ICMP Too
Big message back to the source. The packet size advertised by
the ITR in the ICMP Too Big message is the effective MTU minus
the LISP encapsulation length.
Even though this mechanism is stateful, it has advantages over the
stateless IP fragmentation mechanism, by not involving the
destination host with reassembly of ITR fragmented packets.
Farinacci, et al. Expires September 3, 2009 [Page 22]
Internet-Draft Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP) March 2009
6. EID-to-RLOC Mapping
6.1. LISP IPv4 and IPv6 Control Plane Packet Formats
The following new UDP packet types are used to retrieve EID-to-RLOC
mappings:
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|Version| IHL |Type of Service| Total Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Identification |Flags| Fragment Offset |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Time to Live | Protocol = 17 | Header Checksum |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Source Routing Locator |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Destination Routing Locator |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
/ | Source Port | Dest Port |
UDP +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
\ | UDP Length | UDP Checksum |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
| LISP Message |
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|Version| Traffic Class | Flow Label |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Payload Length | Next Header=17| Hop Limit |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
+ +
| |
+ Source Routing Locator +
| |
+ +
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
+ +
Farinacci, et al. Expires September 3, 2009 [Page 23]
Internet-Draft Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP) March 2009
| |
+ Destination Routing Locator +
| |
+ +
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
/ | Source Port | Dest Port |
UDP +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
\ | UDP Length | UDP Checksum |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
| LISP Message |
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
The LISP UDP-based messages are the Map-Request and Map-Reply
messages. When a UDP Map-Request is sent, the UDP source port is
chosen by the sender and the destination UDP port number is set to
4342. When a UDP Map-Reply is sent, the source UDP port number is
set to 4342 and the destination UDP port number is copied from the
source port of either the Map-Request or the invoking data packet.
The UDP Length field will reflect the length of the UDP header and
the LISP Message payload.
The UDP Checksum is computed and set to non-zero for Map-Request and
Map-Reply messages. It MUST be checked on receipt and if the
checksum fails, the packet MUST be dropped.
LISP-CONS [CONS] use TCP to send LISP control messages. The format
of control messages includes the UDP header so the checksum and
length fields can be used to protect and delimit message boundaries.
This main LISP specification is the authoritative source for message
format definitions for the Map-Request and Map-Reply messages.
Farinacci, et al. Expires September 3, 2009 [Page 24]
Internet-Draft Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP) March 2009
6.1.1. LISP Packet Type Allocations
This section will be the authoritative source for allocating LISP
Type values. Current allocations are:
Reserved: 0 b'0000'
LISP Map-Request: 1 b'0001'
LISP Map-Reply: 2 b'0010'
LISP Map-Register: 3 b'0011'
LISP-CONS Open Message: 8 b'1000'
LISP-CONS Push-Add Message: 9 b'1001'
LISP-CONS Push-Delete Message: 10 b'1010'
LISP-CONS Unreachable Message 11 b'1011'
6.1.2. Map-Request Message Format
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|S| Locator Reach Bits |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Nonce |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|Type=1 |A|R| Reserved | Record Count |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Source-EID-AFI | ITR-AFI |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Source EID Address ... |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Originating ITR RLOC Address ... |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
/ | Reserved | EID mask-len | EID-prefix-AFI |
Rec +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
\ | EID-prefix ... |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Map-Reply Record ... |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Mapping Protocol Data |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Packet field descriptions:
Farinacci, et al. Expires September 3, 2009 [Page 25]
Internet-Draft Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP) March 2009
S: This is the SMR bit. See Section 6.5.2 for details.
Locator Reach Bits: These bits MUST be set to 0 on transmission and
ignored on receipt. They cannot be used for indicating
reachability because the Map-Request does not have the EID-prefix
for the sending site so the receiver of the Map-Request cannot
know what mapping entry to associate the reachability with.
However, when Mapping Data is provided in the Map-Reply Record
field, and the receiver of the Map-Request is configured to accept
the mapping data, the R-bit per locator entry in the EID-prefix
record is used to denote reachability.
Nonce: A 4-byte random value created by the sender of the Map-
Request.
Type: 1 (Map-Request)
A: This is an authoritative bit, which is set to 0 for UDP-based Map-
Requests sent by an ITR. See other control-specific documents
[CONS] for TCP-based Map-Requests.
R: When set, it indicates a Map-Reply Record segment is included in
the Map-Request.
Reserved: Set to 0 on transmission and ignored on receipt.
Record Count: The number of records in this request message. A
record is comprised of the portion of the packet is labeled 'Rec'
above and occurs the number of times equal to Record count.
Source-EID-AFI: Address family of the "Source EID Address" field.
ITR-AFI: Address family of the "Originating ITR RLOC Address" field.
Source EID Address: This is the EID of the source host which
originated the packet which is invoking this Map-Request.
Originating ITR RLOC Address: Used to give the ETR the option of
returning a Map-Reply in the address-family of this locator.
EID mask-len: Mask length for EID prefix.
EID-AFI: Address family of EID-prefix according to [RFC2434]
EID-prefix: 4 bytes if an IPv4 address-family, 16 bytes if an IPv6
address-family. When a Map-Request is sent by an ITR because a
data packet is received for a destination where there is no
mapping entry, the EID-prefix is set to the destination IP address
Farinacci, et al. Expires September 3, 2009 [Page 26]
Internet-Draft Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP) March 2009
of the data packet. And the 'EID mask-len' is set to 32 or 128
for IPv4 or IPv6, respectively. When an xTR wants to query a site
about the status of a mapping it already has cached, the EID-
prefix used in the Map-Request has the same mask-length as the
EID-prefix returned from the site when it sent a Map-Reply
message.
Map-Reply Record: When the R bit is set, this field is the size of
the "Record" field in the Map-Reply format. This Map-Reply record
contains the EID-to-RLOC mapping entry associated with the Source
EID. This allows the ETR which will receive this Map-Request to
cache the data if it chooses to do so.
Mapping Protocol Data: See [CONS] or [ALT] for details. This field
is optional and present when the UDP length indicates there is
enough space in the packet to include it.
6.1.3. EID-to-RLOC UDP Map-Request Message
A Map-Request is sent from an ITR when it needs a mapping for an EID,
wants to test an RLOC for reachability, or wants to refresh a mapping
before TTL expiration. For the initial case, the destination IP
address used for the Map-Request is the destination-EID from the
packet which had a mapping cache lookup failure. For the later 2
cases, the destination IP address used for the Map-Request is one of
the RLOC addresses from the locator-set of the map cache entry. In
all cases, the UDP source port number for the Map-Request message is
a randomly allocated 16-bit value and the UDP destination port number
is set to the well-known destination port number 4342. A successful
Map-Reply updates the cached set of RLOCs associated with the EID
prefix range.
Map-Requests can also be LISP encapsulated using UDP destination port
4341 when sent from an ITR to a Map-Resolver. Details on
encapsulated Map-Reqeusts and Map-Resolvers can be found in
[LISP-MS].
Map-Requests MUST be rate-limited. It is recommended that a Map-
Request for the same EID-prefix be sent no more than once per second.
Farinacci, et al. Expires September 3, 2009 [Page 27]
Internet-Draft Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP) March 2009
6.1.4. Map-Reply Message Format
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|x| Locator Reach Bits |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Nonce |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|Type=2 | Reserved | Record Count |
+-> +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| | Record TTL |
| +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
R | Locator Count | EID mask-len |A| Reserved |
e +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
c | Reserved | EID-AFI |
o +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
r | EID-prefix |
d +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| /| Priority | Weight | M Priority | M Weight |
| L +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| o | Unused Flags |R| Loc-AFI |
| c +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| \| Locator |
+-> +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Mapping Protocol Data |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Packet field descriptions:
x: Set to 0 on transmission and ignored on receipt.
Locator Reach Bits: Refer to Section 5.3. This field MUST be set to
0 on transmission and ignored on receipt. The locator
reachability is encoded as the R-bit in each locator entry of each
EID-prefix record.
Nonce: A 4-byte value set in a Data-Probe packet or a Map-Request
that is echoed here in the Map-Reply.
Type: 2 (Map-Reply)
Farinacci, et al. Expires September 3, 2009 [Page 28]
Internet-Draft Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP) March 2009
Reserved: Set to 0 on transmission and ignored on receipt.
Record Count: The number of records in this reply message. A record
is comprised of that portion of the packet labeled 'Record' above
and occurs the number of times equal to Record count.
Record TTL: The time in minutes the recipient of the Map-Reply will
store the mapping. If the TTL is 0, the entry should be removed
from the cache immediately. If the value is 0xffffffff, the
recipient can decide locally how long to store the mapping.
Locator Count: The number of Locator entries. A locator entry
comprises what is labeled above as 'Loc'. The locator count can
be 0 indicating there are no locators for the EID-prefix.
EID mask-len: Mask length for EID prefix.
A: The Authoritative bit, when sent by a UDP-based message is always
set by the ETR. See [CONS] for TCP-based Map-Replies.
EID-AFI: Address family of EID-prefix according to [RFC2434].
EID-prefix: 4 bytes if an IPv4 address-family, 16 bytes if an IPv6
address-family.
Priority: each RLOC is assigned a unicast priority. Lower values
are more preferable. When multiple RLOCs have the same priority,
they may be used in a load-split fashion. A value of 255 means
the RLOC MUST NOT be used for unicast forwarding.
Weight: when priorities are the same for multiple RLOCs, the weight
indicates how to balance unicast traffic between them. Weight is
encoded as a percentage of total unicast packets that match the
mapping entry. If a non-zero weight value is used for any RLOC,
then all RLOCs must use a non-zero weight value and then the sum
of all weight values MUST equal 100. If a zero value is used for
any RLOC weight, then all weights MUST be zero and the receiver of
the Map-Reply will decide how to load-split traffic. See
Section 6.4 for a suggested hash algorithm to distribute load
across locators with same priority and equal weight values. When
a single RLOC exists in a mapping entry, the weight value MUST be
set to 100 and ignored on receipt.
M Priority: each RLOC is assigned a multicast priority used by an
ETR in a receiver multicast site to select an ITR in a source
multicast site for building multicast distribution trees. A value
of 255 means the RLOC MUST NOT be used for joining a multicast
distribution tree.
Farinacci, et al. Expires September 3, 2009 [Page 29]
Internet-Draft Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP) March 2009
M Weight: when priorities are the same for multiple RLOCs, the
weight indicates how to balance building multicast distribution
trees across multiple ITRs. The weight is encoded as a percentage
of total number of trees build to the source site identified by
the EID-prefix. If a non-zero weight value is used for any RLOC,
then all RLOCs must use a non-zero weight value and then the sum
of all weight values MUST equal 100. If a zero value is used for
any RLOC weight, then all weights MUST be zero and the receiver of
the Map-Reply will decide how to distribute multicast state across
ITRs.
Unused Flags: set to 0 when sending and ignored on receipt.
R: when this bit is set, the locator is known to be reachable from
the Map-Reply sender's perspective. When there is a single
mapping record in the message, the R-bit for each locator must
have a consistent setting with the bitfield setting of the 'Loc
Reach Bits' field in the early part of the header. When there are
multiple mapping records in the message, the 'Loc Reach Bits'
field is set to 0.
Locator: an IPv4 or IPv6 address (as encoded by the 'Loc-AFI' field)
assigned to an ETR or router acting as a proxy replier for the
EID-prefix. Note that the destination RLOC address MAY be an
anycast address. A source RLOC can be an anycast address as well.
The source or destination RLOC MUST NOT be the broadcast address
(255.255.255.255 or any subnet broadcast address known to the
router), and MUST NOT be a link-local multicast address. The
source RLOC MUST NOT be a multicast address. The destination RLOC
SHOULD be a multicast address if it is being mapped from a
multicast destination EID.
Mapping Protocol Data: See [CONS] or [ALT] for details. This field
is optional and present when the UDP length indicates there is
enough space in the packet to include it.
6.1.5. EID-to-RLOC UDP Map-Reply Message
When a Data Probe packet or a Map-Request triggers a Map-Reply to be
sent, the RLOCs associated with the EID-prefix matched by the EID in
the original packet destination IP address field will be returned.
The RLOCs in the Map-Reply are the globally-routable IP addresses of
the ETR but are not necessarily reachable; separate testing of
reachability is required.
Note that a Map-Reply may contain different EID-prefix granularity
(prefix + length) than the Map-Request which triggers it. This might
occur if a Map-Request were for a prefix that had been returned by an
Farinacci, et al. Expires September 3, 2009 [Page 30]
Internet-Draft Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP) March 2009
earlier Map-Reply. In such a case, the requester updates its cache
with the new prefix information and granularity. For example, a
requester with two cached EID-prefixes that are covered by a Map-
Reply containing one, less-specific prefix, replaces the entry with
the less-specific EID-prefix. Note that the reverse, replacement of
one less-specific prefix with multiple more-specific prefixes, can
also occur but not by removing the less-specific prefix rather by
adding the more-specific prefixes which during a lookup will override
the less-specific prefix.
Replies SHOULD be sent for an EID-prefix no more often than once per
second to the same requesting router. For scalability, it is
expected that aggregation of EID addresses into EID-prefixes will
allow one Map-Reply to satisfy a mapping for the EID addresses in the
prefix range thereby reducing the number of Map-Request messages.
The addresses for a encapsulated data packets or Map-Request message
are swapped and used for sending the Map-Reply. The UDP source and
destination ports are swapped as well. That is, the source port in
the UDP header for the Map-Reply is set to the well-known UDP port
number 4342.
6.1.6. Map-Register Message Format
The usage details of the Map-Register message can be found in
specification [LISP-MS]. This section solely defines the message
format.
The message is sent in a UDP with a destination UDP port 4342 and a
randomly selected UDP port number. Before an IPv4 or IPv6 network
layer header is prepended, an AH header is prepended to carry
authentication information. The format conforms to the IPsec
specification [RFC2402]. The Map-Regiter message will use transport
mode by setting the IP protocol number field or the IPv6 next-header
field to 51.
The AH header from [RFC2402] is:
Farinacci, et al. Expires September 3, 2009 [Page 31]
Internet-Draft Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP) March 2009
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Next Header | Payload Len | RESERVED |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Security Parameters Index (SPI) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Sequence Number Field |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
+ Authentication Data (variable) |
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
The Next Header field is set to UDP. The SPI field is set to 0
(since no Security Association or Key Exchange protocol is being
used). The Sequece Number is a randomly chosen value by the sender.
The Authentication Data is 16 bytes and holds a MD5 HMAC.
The Map-Register message format is:
Farinacci, et al. Expires September 3, 2009 [Page 32]
Internet-Draft Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP) March 2009
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|x| Locator Reach Bits |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Nonce |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|Type=3 | Reserved | Record Count |
+-> +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| | Record TTL |
| +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
R | Locator Count | EID mask-len |A| Reserved |
e +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
c | Reserved | EID-AFI |
o +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
r | EID-prefix |
d +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| /| Priority | Weight | M Priority | M Weight |
| L +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| o | Unused Flags |R| Loc-AFI |
| c +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| \| Locator |
+-> +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
The definition of each field of the Map-Register can be found in the
Map-Reply section.
6.2. Routing Locator Selection
Both client-side and server-side may need control over the selection
of RLOCs for conversations between them. This control is achieved by
manipulating the Priority and Weight fields in EID-to-RLOC Map-Reply
messages. Alternatively, RLOC information may be gleaned from
received tunneled packets or EID-to-RLOC Map-Request messages.
The following enumerates different scenarios for choosing RLOCs and
the controls that are available:
o Server-side returns one RLOC. Client-side can only use one RLOC.
Server-side has complete control of the selection.
o Server-side returns a list of RLOC where a subset of the list has
the same best priority. Client can only use the subset list
according to the weighting assigned by the server-side. In this
case, the server-side controls both the subset list and load-
splitting across its members. The client-side can use RLOCs
outside of the subset list if it determines that the subset list
Farinacci, et al. Expires September 3, 2009 [Page 33]
Internet-Draft Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP) March 2009
is unreachable (unless RLOCs are set to a Priority of 255). Some
sharing of control exists: the server-side determines the
destination RLOC list and load distribution while the client-side
has the option of using alternatives to this list if RLOCs in the
list are unreachable.
o Server-side sets weight of 0 for the RLOC subset list. In this
case, the client-side can choose how the traffic load is spread
across the subset list. Control is shared by the server-side
determining the list and the client determining load distribution.
Again, the client can use alternative RLOCs if the server-provided
list of RLOCs are unreachable.
o Either side (more likely on the server-side ETR) decides not to
send a Map-Request. For example, if the server-side ETR does not
send Map-Requests, it gleans RLOCs from the client-side ITR,
giving the client-side ITR responsibility for bidirectional RLOC
reachability and preferability. Server-side ETR gleaning of the
client-side ITR RLOC is done by caching the inner header source
EID and the outer header source RLOC of received packets. The
client-side ITR controls how traffic is returned and can alternate
using an outer header source RLOC, which then can be added to the
list the server-side ETR uses to return traffic. Since no
Priority or Weights are provided using this method, the server-
side ETR must assume each client-side ITR RLOC uses the same best
Priority with a Weight of zero. In addition, since EID-prefix
encoding cannot be conveyed in data packets, the EID-to-RLOC cache
on tunnel routers can grow to be very large.
RLOCs that appear in EID-to-RLOC Map-Reply messages are considered
reachable. The Map-Reply and the database mapping service does not
provide any reachability status for Locators. This is done outside
of the mapping service. See next section for details.
6.3. Routing Locator Reachability
There are 4 methods for determining when a Locator is either
reachable or has become unreachable:
1. Locator reachability is determined by an ETR by examining the
Loc-Reach-Bits from a LISP header of a encapsulated data packet
which is provided by an ITR when an ITR encapsulates data.
2. Locator unreachability is determined by an ITR by receiving ICMP
Network or Host Unreachable messages.
3. Locator unreachability can also be determined by an BGP-enabled
ITR when there is no prefix matching a Locator address from the
Farinacci, et al. Expires September 3, 2009 [Page 34]
Internet-Draft Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP) March 2009
BGP RIB.
4. Locator unreachability is determined when a host sends an ICMP
Port Unreachable message. This occurs when an ITR may not use
any methods of interworking. one which is describe in [INTERWORK]
and the encapsulated data packet is received by a host at the
destination non-LISP site.
5. Locator reachability is determined by receiving a Map-Reply
message from a ETR's Locator address in response to a previously
sent Map-Request.
6. Locator reachability can also be determined by receiving packets
encapsulated by the ITR assigned to the locator address.
When determining Locator reachability by examining the Loc-Reach-Bits
from the LISP encapsulate data packet, an ETR will receive up to date
status from the ITR closest to the Locators at the source site. The
ITRs at the source site can determine reachability when running their
IGP at the site. When the ITRs are deployed on CE routers, typically
a default route is injected into the site's IGP from each of the
ITRs. If an ITR goes down, the CE-PE link goes down, or the PE
router goes down, the CE router withdraws the default route. This
allows the other ITRs at the site to determine one of the Locators
has gone unreachable.
The Locators listed in a Map-Reply are numbered with ordinals 0 to
n-1. The Loc-Reach-Bits in a LISP Data Message are numbered from 0
to n-1 starting with the least significant bit numbered as 0. So,
for example, if the ITR with locator listed as the 3rd Locator
position in the Map-Reply goes down, all other ITRs at the site will
have the 3rd bit from the right cleared (the bit that corresponds to
ordinal 2).
When an ETR decapsulates a packet, it will look for a change in the
Loc-Reach-Bits value. When a bit goes from 1 to 0, the ETR will
refrain from encapsulating packets to the Locator that has just gone
unreachable. It can start using the Locator again when the bit that
corresponds to the Locator goes from 0 to 1. Loc-Reach-Bits are
associated with a locator-set per EID-prefix. Therefore, when a
locator becomes unreachable, the loc-reach-bit that corresponds to
that locator's position in the list returned by the last Map-Reply
will be set to zero for that particular EID-prefix.
When ITRs at the site are not deployed in CE routers, the IGP can
still be used to determine the reachability of Locators provided they
are injected a stub links into the IGP. This is typically done when
a /32 address is configured on a loopback interface.
Farinacci, et al. Expires September 3, 2009 [Page 35]
Internet-Draft Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP) March 2009
When ITRs receive ICMP Network or Host Unreachable messages as a
method to determine unreachability, they will refrain from using
Locators which are described in Locator lists of Map-Replies.
However, using this approach is unreliable because many network
operators turn off generation of ICMP Unreachable messages.
If an ITR does receive an ICMP Network or Host Unreachable message,
it MAY originate its own ICMP Unreachable message destined for the
host that originated the data packet the ITR encapsulated.
Also, BGP-enabled ITRs can unilaterally examine the BGP RIB to see if
a locator address from a locator-set in a mapping entry matches a
prefix. If it does not find one and BGP is running in the Default
Free Zone (DFZ), it can decide to not use the locator even though the
Loc-Reach-Bits indicate the locator is up. In this case, the path
from the ITR to the ETR that is assigned the locator is not
available. More details are in [LOC-ID-ARCH].
Optionally, an ITR can send a Map-Request to a Locator and if a Map-
Reply is returned, reachability of the Locator has been determined.
Obviously, sending such probes increases the number of control
messages originated by tunnel routers for active flows, so Locators
are assumed to be reachable when they are advertised.
This assumption does create a dependency: Locator unreachability is
detected by the receipt of ICMP Host Unreachable messages. When an
Locator has been determined to be unreachable, it is not used for
active traffic; this is the same as if it were listed in a Map-Reply
with priority 255.
The ITR can test the reachability of the unreachable Locator by
sending periodic Requests. Both Requests and Replies MUST be rate-
limited. Locator reachability testing is never done with data
packets since that increases the risk of packet loss for end-to-end
sessions.
When an ETR is decapsulating packets, it can be sure that the path
from the encapsulating ITR is available. The ETR can assume the path
from the ETR to the ITR is also reachable. Even if there is
asymmetric routing in the core, the first-hop and last-hop ASes will
be the same for both directions of traffic since the locator
addresses are out of the PA blocks of each. However, the assumption
may not always be valid, so this mechanism should be used as a best-
effort indication that a working path exists between the sites. In
the event of unidirectional traffic from an ITR to an ETR, an ITR
should not conclude that a locator is unreachable since it is not
receiving packets, but use alternate mechanisms described above to
determine reachability.
Farinacci, et al. Expires September 3, 2009 [Page 36]
Internet-Draft Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP) March 2009
6.4. Routing Locator Hashing
When an ETR provides an EID-to-RLOC mapping in a Map-Reply message to
a requesting ITR, the locator-set for the EID-prefix may contain
different priority values for each locator address. When more than
one best priority locator exists, the ITR can decide how to load
share traffic against the corresponding locators.
The following hash algorithm may be used by an ITR to select a
locator for a packet destined to an EID for the EID-to-RLOC mapping:
1. Either a source and destination address hash can be used or the
traditional 5-tuple hash which includes the source and
destination addresses, source and destination TCP, UDP, or SCTP
port numbers and the IP protocol number field or IPv6 next-
protocol fields of a packet a host originates from within a LISP
site. When a packet is not a TCP, UDP, or SCTP packet, the
source and destination addresses only from the header are used to
compute the hash.
2. Take the hash value and divide it by the number of locators
stored in the locator-set for the EID-to-RLOC mapping.
3. The remainder will be yield a value of 0 to "number of locators
minus 1". Use the remainder to select the locator in the
locator-set.
Note that when a packet is LISP encapsulated, the source port number
in the outer UDP header needs to be set. Selecting a random value
allows core routers which are attached to Link Aggregation Groups
(LAGs) to load-split the encapsulated packets across member links of
such LAGs. Otherwise, core routers would see a single flow, since
packets have a source address of the ITR, for packets which are
originated by different EIDs at the source site. A suggested setting
for the source port number computed by an ITR is a 5-tuple hash
function on the inner header, as described above.
6.5. Changing the Contents of EID-to-RLOC Mappings
Since the LISP architecture uses a caching scheme to retrieve and
store EID-to-RLOC mappings, the only way an ITR can get a more up-to-
date mapping is to re-request the mapping. However, the ITRs do not
know when the mappings change and the ETRs do not keep track of who
requested its mappings. For scalability reasons, we want to maintain
this approach but need to provide a way for ETRs change their
mappings and inform the sites that are currently communicating with
the ETR site using such mappings.
Farinacci, et al. Expires September 3, 2009 [Page 37]
Internet-Draft Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP) March 2009
When a locator record is added to the end of a locator-set, it is
easy to update mappings. We assume new mappings will maintain the
same locator ordering as the old mapping but just have new locators
appended to the end of the list. So some ITRs can have a new mapping
while other ITRs have only an old mapping that is used until they
time out. When an ITR has only an old mapping but detects bits set
in the loc-reach-bits that correspond to locators beyond the list it
has cached, it simply ignores them.
When a locator record is removed from a locator-set, ITRs that have
the mapping cached will not use the removed locator because the xTRs
will set the loc-reach-bit to 0. So even if the locator is in the
list, it will not be used. For new mapping requests, the xTRs can
set the locator address to 0 as well as setting the corresponding
loc-reach-bit to 0. This forces ITRs with old or new mappings to
avoid using the removed locator.
If many changes occur to a mapping over a long period of time, one
will find empty record slots in the middle of the locator-set and new
records appended to the locator-set. At some point, it would be
useful to compact the locator-set so the loc-reach-bit settings can
be efficiently packed.
We propose here two approaches for locator-set compaction, one
operational and the other a protocol mechanism. The operational
approach uses a clock sweep method. The protocol approach uses the
concept of Solicit-Map-Requests.
6.5.1. Clock Sweep
The clock sweep approach uses planning in advance and the use of
count-down TTLs to time out mappings that have already been cached.
The default setting for an EID-to-RLOC mapping TTL is 24 hours. So
there is a 24 hour window to time out old mappings. The following
clock sweep procedure is used:
1. 24 hours before a mapping change is to take effect, a network
administrator configures the ETRs at a site to start the clock
sweep window.
2. During the clock sweep window, ETRs continue to send Map-Reply
messages with the current (unchanged) mapping records. The TTL
for these mappings is set to 1 hour.
3. 24 hours later, all previous cache entries will have timed out,
and any active cache entries will time out within 1 hour. During
this 1 hour window the ETRs continue to send Map-Reply messages
with the current (unchanged) mapping records with the TTL set to
Farinacci, et al. Expires September 3, 2009 [Page 38]
Internet-Draft Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP) March 2009
1 minute.
4. At the end of the 1 hour window, the ETRs will send Map-Reply
messages with the new (changed) mapping records. So any active
caches can get the new mapping contents right away if not cached,
or in 1 minute if they had the mapping cached.
6.5.2. Solicit-Map-Request (SMR)
Soliciting a Map-Request is a selective way for xTRs, at the site
where mappings change, to control the rate they receive requests for
Map-Reply messages. SMRs are also used to tell remote ITRs to update
the mappings they have cached.
Since the xTRs don't keep track of remote ITRs that have cached their
mappings, they can not tell exactly who needs the new mapping
entries. So an xTR will solicit Map-Requests from sites it is
currently sending encapsulated data to, and only from those sites.
The xTRs can locally decide the algorithm for how often and to how
many sites it sends SMR messages.
An SMR message is simply a bit set in an encapsulated data packet
(and a Map-Request message). When an ETR at a remote site
decapsulates a data packet that has the SMR bit set, it can tell that
a new Map-Request message is being solicited. Both the xTR that
sends the SMR message and the site that acts on the SMR message MUST
be rate-limited.
The following procedure shows how a SMR exchange occurs when a site
is doing locator-set compaction for an EID-to-RLOC mapping:
1. When the database mappings in an ETR change, the ITRs at the site
begin to set the SMR bit in packets they encapsulate to the sites
they communicate with.
2. A remote xTR which decapsulates a packet with the SMR bit set
will schedule sending a Map-Request message to the source locator
address of the encapsulated packet. The nonce in the Map-Request
is copied from the nonce in the encapsulated data packet that has
the SMR bit set.
3. The remote xTR retransmits the Map-Request slowly until it gets a
Map-Reply while continuing to use the cached mapping.
4. The ETRs at the site with the changed mapping will reply to the
Map-Request with a Map-Reply message provided the Map-Request
nonce matches the nonce from the SMR. The Map-Reply messages
SHOULD be rate limited. This is important to avoid Map-Reply
Farinacci, et al. Expires September 3, 2009 [Page 39]
Internet-Draft Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP) March 2009
implosion.
5. The ETRs, at the site with the changed mapping, records the fact
that the site that sent the Map-Request has received the new
mapping data in the mapping cache entry for the remote site so
the loc-reach-bits are reflective of the new mapping for packets
going to the remote site. The ETR then stops sending packets
with the SMR-bit set.
For security reasons an ITR MUST NOT process unsolicited Map-Replies.
The nonce MUST be carried from SMR packet, into the resultant Map-
Request, and then into Map-Reply to reduce spoofing attacks.
Farinacci, et al. Expires September 3, 2009 [Page 40]
Internet-Draft Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP) March 2009
7. Router Performance Considerations
LISP is designed to be very hardware-based forwarding friendly. By
doing tunnel header prepending [RFC1955] and stripping instead of re-
writing addresses, existing hardware can support the forwarding model
with little or no modification. Where modifications are required,
they should be limited to re-programming existing hardware rather
than requiring expensive design changes to hard-coded algorithms in
silicon.
A few implementation techniques can be used to incrementally
implement LISP:
o When a tunnel encapsulated packet is received by an ETR, the outer
destination address may not be the address of the router. This
makes it challenging for the control plane to get packets from the
hardware. This may be mitigated by creating special FIB entries
for the EID-prefixes of EIDs served by the ETR (those for which
the router provides an RLOC translation). These FIB entries are
marked with a flag indicating that control plane processing should
be performed. The forwarding logic of testing for particular IP
protocol number value is not necessary. No changes to existing,
deployed hardware should be needed to support this.
o On an ITR, prepending a new IP header is as simple as adding more
bytes to a MAC rewrite string and prepending the string as part of
the outgoing encapsulation procedure. Many routers that support
GRE tunneling [RFC2784] or 6to4 tunneling [RFC3056] can already
support this action.
o When a received packet's outer destination address contains an EID
which is not intended to be forwarded on the routable topology
(i.e. LISP 1.5), the source address of a data packet or the
router interface with which the source is associated (the
interface from which it was received) can be associated with a VRF
(Virtual Routing/Forwarding), in which a different (i.e. non-
congruent) topology can be used to find EID-to-RLOC mappings.
Farinacci, et al. Expires September 3, 2009 [Page 41]
Internet-Draft Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP) March 2009
8. Deployment Scenarios
This section will explore how and where ITRs and ETRs can be deployed
and will discuss the pros and cons of each deployment scenario.
There are two basic deployment trade-offs to consider: centralized
versus distributed caches and flat, recursive, or re-encapsulating
tunneling.
When deciding on centralized versus distributed caching, the
following issues should be considered:
o Are the tunnel routers spread out so that the caches are spread
across all the memories of each router?
o Should management "touch points" be minimized by choosing few
tunnel routers, just enough for redundancy?
o In general, using more ITRs doesn't increase management load,
since caches are built and stored dynamically. On the other hand,
more ETRs does require more management since EID-prefix-to-RLOC
mappings need to be explicitly configured.
When deciding on flat, recursive, or re-encapsulation tunneling, the
following issues should be considered:
o Flat tunneling implements a single tunnel between source site and
destination site. This generally offers better paths between
sources and destinations with a single tunnel path.
o Recursive tunneling is when tunneled traffic is again further
encapsulated in another tunnel, either to implement VPNs or to
perform Traffic Engineering. When doing VPN-based tunneling, the
site has some control since the site is prepending a new tunnel
header. In the case of TE-based tunneling, the site may have
control if it is prepending a new tunnel header, but if the site's
ISP is doing the TE, then the site has no control. Recursive
tunneling generally will result in suboptimal paths but at the
benefit of steering traffic to resource available parts of the
network.
o The technique of re-encapsulation ensures that packets only
require one tunnel header. So if a packet needs to be rerouted,
it is first decapsulated by the ETR and then re-encapsulated with
a new tunnel header using a new RLOC.
The next sub-sections will describe where tunnel routers can reside
in the network.
Farinacci, et al. Expires September 3, 2009 [Page 42]
Internet-Draft Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP) March 2009
8.1. First-hop/Last-hop Tunnel Routers
By locating tunnel routers close to hosts, the EID-prefix set is at
the granularity of an IP subnet. So at the expense of more EID-
prefix-to-RLOC sets for the site, the caches in each tunnel router
can remain relatively small. But caches always depend on the number
of non-aggregated EID destination flows active through these tunnel
routers.
With more tunnel routers doing encapsulation, the increase in control
traffic grows as well: since the EID-granularity is greater, more
Map-Requests and Map-Replies are traveling between more routers.
The advantage of placing the caches and databases at these stub
routers is that the products deployed in this part of the network
have better price-memory ratios then their core router counterparts.
Memory is typically less expensive in these devices and fewer routes
are stored (only IGP routes). These devices tend to have excess
capacity, both for forwarding and routing state.
LISP functionality can also be deployed in edge switches. These
devices generally have layer-2 ports facing hosts and layer-3 ports
facing the Internet. Spare capacity is also often available in these
devices as well.
8.2. Border/Edge Tunnel Routers
Using customer-edge (CE) routers for tunnel endpoints allows the EID
space associated with a site to be reachable via a small set of RLOCs
assigned to the CE routers for that site.
This offers the opposite benefit of the first-hop/last-hop tunnel
router scenario: the number of mapping entries and network management
touch points are reduced, allowing better scaling.
One disadvantage is that less of the network's resources are used to
reach host endpoints thereby centralizing the point-of-failure domain
and creating network choke points at the CE router.
Note that more than one CE router at a site can be configured with
the same IP address. In this case an RLOC is an anycast address.
This allows resilience between the CE routers. That is, if a CE
router fails, traffic is automatically routed to the other routers
using the same anycast address. However, this comes with the
disadvantage where the site cannot control the entrance point when
the anycast route is advertised out from all border routers.
Farinacci, et al. Expires September 3, 2009 [Page 43]
Internet-Draft Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP) March 2009
8.3. ISP Provider-Edge (PE) Tunnel Routers
Use of ISP PE routers as tunnel endpoint routers gives an ISP control
over the location of the egress tunnel endpoints. That is, the ISP
can decide if the tunnel endpoints are in the destination site (in
either CE routers or last-hop routers within a site) or at other PE
edges. The advantage of this case is that two or more tunnel headers
can be avoided. By having the PE be the first router on the path to
encapsulate, it can choose a TE path first, and the ETR can
decapsulate and re-encapsulate for a tunnel to the destination end
site.
An obvious disadvantage is that the end site has no control over
where its packets flow or the RLOCs used.
As mentioned in earlier sections a combination of these scenarios is
possible at the expense of extra packet header overhead, if both site
and provider want control, then recursive or re-encapsulating tunnels
are used.
Farinacci, et al. Expires September 3, 2009 [Page 44]
Internet-Draft Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP) March 2009
9. Traceroute Considerations
When a source host in a LISP site initiates a traceroute to a
destination host in another LISP site, it is highly desirable for it
to see the entire path. Since packets are encapsulated from ITR to
ETR, the hop across the tunnel could be viewed as a single hop.
However, LISP traceroute will provide the entire path so the user can
see 3 distinct segments of the path from a source LISP host to a
destination LISP host:
Segment 1 (in source LISP site based on EIDs):
source-host ---> first-hop ... next-hop ---> ITR
Segment 2 (in the core network based on RLOCs):
ITR ---> next-hop ... next-hop ---> ETR
Segment 3 (in the destination LISP site based on EIDs):
ETR ---> next-hop ... last-hop ---> destination-host
For segment 1 of the path, ICMP Time Exceeded messages are returned
in the normal matter as they are today. The ITR performs a TTL
decrement and test for 0 before encapsulating. So the ITR hop is
seen by the traceroute source has an EID address (the address of
site-facing interface).
For segment 2 of the path, ICMP Time Exceeded messages are returned
to the ITR because the TTL decrement to 0 is done on the outer
header, so the destination of the ICMP messages are to the ITR RLOC
address, the source source RLOC address of the encapsulated
traceroute packet. The ITR looks inside of the ICMP payload to
inspect the traceroute source so it can return the ICMP message to
the address of the traceroute client as well as retaining the core
router IP address in the ICMP message. This is so the traceroute
client can display the core router address (the RLOC address) in the
traceroute output. The ETR returns its RLOC address and responds to
the TTL decrement to 0 like the previous core routers did.
For segment 3, the next-hop router downstream from the ETR will be
decrementing the TTL for the packet that was encapsulated, sent into
the core, decapsulated by the ETR, and forwarded because it isn't the
final destination. If the TTL is decremented to 0, any router on the
path to the destination of the traceroute, including the next-hop
router or destination, will send an ICMP Time Exceeded message to the
source EID of the traceroute client. The ICMP message will be
Farinacci, et al. Expires September 3, 2009 [Page 45]
Internet-Draft Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP) March 2009
encapsulated by the local ITR and sent back to the ETR in the
originated traceroute source site, where the packet will be delivered
to the host.
9.1. IPv6 Traceroute
IPv6 traceroute follows the procedure described above since the
entire traceroute data packet is included in ICMP Time Exceeded
message payload. Therefore, only the ITR needs to pay special
attention for forwarding ICMP messages back to the traceroute source.
9.2. IPv4 Traceroute
For IPv4 traceroute, we cannot follow the above procedure since IPv4
ICMP Time Exceeded messages only include the invoking IP header and 8
bytes that follow the IP header. Therefore, when a core router sends
an IPv4 Time Exceeded message to an ITR, all the ITR has in the ICMP
payload is the encapsulated header it prepended followed by a UDP
header. The original invoking IP header, and therefore the identity
of the traceroute source is lost.
The solution we propose to solve this problem is to cache traceroute
IPv4 headers in the ITR and to match them up with corresponding IPv4
Time Exceeded messages received from core routers and the ETR. The
ITR will use a circular buffer for caching the IPv4 and UDP headers
of traceroute packets. It will select a 16-bit number as a key to
find them later when the IPv4 Time Exceeded messages are received.
When an ITR encapsulates an IPv4 traceroute packet, it will use the
16-bit number as the UDP source port in the encapsulating header.
When the ICMP Time Exceeded message is returned to the ITR, the UDP
header of the encapsulating header is present in the ICMP payload
thereby allowing the ITR to find the cached headers for the
traceroute source. The ITR puts the cached headers in the payload
and sends the ICMP Time Exceeded message to the traceroute source
retaining the source address of the original ICMP Time Exceeded
message (a core router or the ETR of the site of the traceroute
destination).
9.3. Traceroute using Mixed Locators
When either an IPv4 traceroute or IPv6 traceroute is originated and
the ITR encapsulates it in the other address family header, you
cannot get all 3 segments of the traceroute. Segment 2 of the
traceroute can not be conveyed to the traceroute source since it is
expecting addresses from intermediate hops in the same address format
for the type of traceroute it originated. Therefore, in this case,
segment 2 will make the tunnel look like one hop. All the ITR has to
do to make this work is to not copy the inner TTL to the outer,
Farinacci, et al. Expires September 3, 2009 [Page 46]
Internet-Draft Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP) March 2009
encapsulating header's TTL when a traceroute packet is encapsulated
using an RLOC from a different address family. This will cause no
TTL decrement to 0 to occur in core routers between the ITR and ETR.
Farinacci, et al. Expires September 3, 2009 [Page 47]
Internet-Draft Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP) March 2009
10. Mobility Considerations
There are several kinds of mobility of which only some might be of
concern to LISP. Essentially they are as follows.
10.1. Site Mobility
A site wishes to change its attachment points to the Internet, and
its LISP Tunnel Routers will have new RLOCs when it changes upstream
providers. Changes in EID-RLOC mappings for sites are expected to be
handled by configuration, outside of the LISP protocol.
10.2. Slow Endpoint Mobility
An individual endpoint wishes to move, but is not concerned about
maintaining session continuity. Renumbering is involved. LISP can
help with the issues surrounding renumbering [RFC4192] [LISA96] by
decoupling the address space used by a site from the address spaces
used by its ISPs. [RFC4984]
10.3. Fast Endpoint Mobility
Fast endpoint mobility occurs when an endpoint moves relatively
rapidly, changing its IP layer network attachment point. Maintenance
of session continuity is a goal. This is where the Mobile IPv4
[RFC3344bis] and Mobile IPv6 [RFC3775] [RFC4866] mechanisms are used,
and primarily where interactions with LISP need to be explored.
The problem is that as an endpoint moves, it may require changes to
the mapping between its EID and a set of RLOCs for its new network
location. When this is added to the overhead of mobile IP binding
updates, some packets might be delayed or dropped.
In IPv4 mobility, when an endpoint is away from home, packets to it
are encapsulated and forwarded via a home agent which resides in the
home area the endpoint's address belongs to. The home agent will
encapsulate and forward packets either directly to the endpoint or to
a foreign agent which resides where the endpoint has moved to.
Packets from the endpoint may be sent directly to the correspondent
node, may be sent via the foreign agent, or may be reverse-tunneled
back to the home agent for delivery to the mobile node. As the
mobile node's EID or available RLOC changes, LISP EID-to-RLOC
mappings are required for communication between the mobile node and
the home agent, whether via foreign agent or not. As a mobile
endpoint changes networks, up to three LISP mapping changes may be
required:
Farinacci, et al. Expires September 3, 2009 [Page 48]
Internet-Draft Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP) March 2009
o The mobile node moves from an old location to a new visited
network location and notifies its home agent that it has done so.
The Mobile IPv4 control packets the mobile node sends pass through
one of the new visited network's ITRs, which needs a EID-RLOC
mapping for the home agent.
o The home agent might not have the EID-RLOC mappings for the mobile
node's "care-of" address or its foreign agent in the new visited
network, in which case it will need to acquire them.
o When packets are sent directly to the correspondent node, it may
be that no traffic has been sent from the new visited network to
the correspondent node's network, and the new visited network's
ITR will need to obtain an EID-RLOC mapping for the correspondent
node's site.
In addition, if the IPv4 endpoint is sending packets from the new
visited network using its original EID, then LISP will need to
perform a route-returnability check on the new EID-RLOC mapping for
that EID.
In IPv6 mobility, packets can flow directly between the mobile node
and the correspondent node in either direction. The mobile node uses
its "care-of" address (EID). In this case, the route-returnability
check would not be needed but one more LISP mapping lookup may be
required instead:
o As above, three mapping changes may be needed for the mobile node
to communicate with its home agent and to send packets to the
correspondent node.
o In addition, another mapping will be needed in the correspondent
node's ITR, in order for the correspondent node to send packets to
the mobile node's "care-of" address (EID) at the new network
location.
When both endpoints are mobile the number of potential mapping
lookups increases accordingly.
As a mobile node moves there are not only mobility state changes in
the mobile node, correspondent node, and home agent, but also state
changes in the ITRs and ETRs for at least some EID-prefixes.
The goal is to support rapid adaptation, with little delay or packet
loss for the entire system. Heuristics can be added to LISP to
reduce the number of mapping changes required and to reduce the delay
per mapping change. Also IP mobility can be modified to require
fewer mapping changes. In order to increase overall system
Farinacci, et al. Expires September 3, 2009 [Page 49]
Internet-Draft Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP) March 2009
performance, there may be a need to reduce the optimization of one
area in order to place fewer demands on another.
In LISP, one possibility is to "glean" information. When a packet
arrives, the ETR could examine the EID-RLOC mapping and use that
mapping for all outgoing traffic to that EID. It can do this after
performing a route-returnability check, to ensure that the new
network location does have a internal route to that endpoint.
However, this does not cover the case where an ITR (the node assigned
the RLOC) at the mobile-node location has been compromised.
Mobile IP packet exchange is designed for an environment in which all
routing information is disseminated before packets can be forwarded.
In order to allow the Internet to grow to support expected future
use, we are moving to an environment where some information may have
to be obtained after packets are in flight. Modifications to IP
mobility should be considered in order to optimize the behavior of
the overall system. Anything which decreases the number of new EID-
RLOC mappings needed when a node moves, or maintains the validity of
an EID-RLOC mapping for a longer time, is useful.
10.4. Fast Network Mobility
In addition to endpoints, a network can be mobile, possibly changing
xTRs. A "network" can be as small as a single router and as large as
a whole site. This is different from site mobility in that it is
fast and possibly short-lived, but different from endpoint mobility
in that a whole prefix is changing RLOCs. However, the mechanisms
are the same and there is no new overhead in LISP. A map request for
any endpoint will return a binding for the entire mobile prefix.
If mobile networks become a more common occurrence, it may be useful
to revisit the design of the mapping service and allow for dynamic
updates of the database.
The issue of interactions between mobility and LISP needs to be
explored further. Specific improvements to the entire system will
depend on the details of mapping mechanisms. Mapping mechanisms
should be evaluated on how well they support session continuity for
mobile nodes.
Farinacci, et al. Expires September 3, 2009 [Page 50]
Internet-Draft Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP) March 2009
11. Multicast Considerations
A multicast group address, as defined in the original Internet
architecture is an identifier of a grouping of topologically
independent receiver host locations. The address encoding itself
does not determine the location of the receiver(s). The multicast
routing protocol, and the network-based state the protocol creates,
determines where the receivers are located.
In the context of LISP, a multicast group address is both an EID and
a Routing Locator. Therefore, no specific semantic or action needs
to be taken for a destination address, as it would appear in an IP
header. Therefore, a group address that appears in an inner IP
header built by a source host will be used as the destination EID.
The outer IP header (the destination Routing Locator address),
prepended by a LISP router, will use the same group address as the
destination Routing Locator.
Having said that, only the source EID and source Routing Locator
needs to be dealt with. Therefore, an ITR merely needs to put its
own IP address in the source Routing Locator field when prepending
the outer IP header. This source Routing Locator address, like any
other Routing Locator address MUST be globally routable.
Therefore, an EID-to-RLOC mapping does not need to be performed by an
ITR when a received data packet is a multicast data packet or when
processing a source-specific Join (either by IGMPv3 or PIM). But the
source Routing Locator is decided by the multicast routing protocol
in a receiver site. That is, an EID to Routing Locator translation
is done at control-time.
Another approach is to have the ITR not encapsulate a multicast
packet and allow the the host built packet to flow into the core even
if the source address is allocated out of the EID namespace. If the
RPF-Vector TLV [RPFV] is used by PIM in the core, then core routers
can RPF to the ITR (the Locator address which is injected into core
routing) rather than the host source address (the EID address which
is not injected into core routing).
To avoid any EID-based multicast state in the network core, the first
approach is chosen for LISP-Multicast. Details for LISP-Multicast
and Interworking with non-LISP sites is described in specification
[MLISP].
Farinacci, et al. Expires September 3, 2009 [Page 51]
Internet-Draft Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP) March 2009
12. Security Considerations
It is believed that most of the security mechanisms will be part of
the mapping database service when using control plane procedures for
obtaining EID-to-RLOC mappings. For data plane triggered mappings,
as described in this specification, protection is provided against
ETR spoofing by using Return- Routability mechanisms evidenced by the
use of a 4-byte Nonce field in the LISP encapsulation header. The
nonce, coupled with the ITR accepting only solicited Map-Replies goes
a long way toward providing decent authentication.
LISP does not rely on a PKI infrastructure or a more heavy weight
authentication system. These systems challenge the scalability of
LISP which was a primary design goal.
DoS attack prevention will depend on implementations rate-limiting
Map-Requests and Map-Replies to the control plane as well as rate-
limiting the number of data-triggered Map-Replies.
To deal with map-cache exhaustion attempts in an ITR/PTR, the
implementation should consider putting a maximum cap on the number of
entries stored with a reserve list for special or frequently accessed
sites. This should be a configuration policy control set by the
network administrator who manages ITRs and PTRs.
Farinacci, et al. Expires September 3, 2009 [Page 52]
Internet-Draft Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP) March 2009
13. Prototype Plans and Status
The operator community has requested that the IETF take a practical
approach to solving the scaling problems associated with global
routing state growth. This document offers a simple solution which
is intended for use in a pilot program to gain experience in working
on this problem.
The authors hope that publishing this specification will allow the
rapid implementation of multiple vendor prototypes and deployment on
a small scale. Doing this will help the community:
o Decide whether a new EID-to-RLOC mapping database infrastructure
is needed or if a simple, UDP-based, data-triggered approach is
flexible and robust enough.
o Experiment with provider-independent assignment of EIDs while at
the same time decreasing the size of DFZ routing tables through
the use of topologically-aligned, provider-based RLOCs.
o Determine whether multiple levels of tunneling can be used by ISPs
to achieve their Traffic Engineering goals while simultaneously
removing the more specific routes currently injected into the
global routing system for this purpose.
o Experiment with mobility to determine if both acceptable
convergence and session continuity properties can be scalably
implemented to support both individual device roaming and site
service provider changes.
Here is a rough set of milestones:
1. This draft will be the draft for interoperable implementations to
code against. Interoperable implementations will be ready
beginning of 2009.
2. Continue pilot deployment using LISP-ALT as the database mapping
mechanism.
3. Continue prototyping and studying other database lookup schemes,
be it DNS, DHTs, CONS, ALT, NERD, or other mechanisms.
4. Implement the LISP Multicast draft [MLISP].
5. Research more on how policy affects what gets returned in a Map-
Reply from an ETR.
Farinacci, et al. Expires September 3, 2009 [Page 53]
Internet-Draft Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP) March 2009
6. Continue to experiment with mixed locator-sets to understand how
LISP can help the IPv4 to IPv6 transition.
7. Add more robustness to locator reachability between LISP sites.
As of this writing the following accomplishments have been achieved:
1. A unit- and system-tested software switching implementation has
been completed on cisco NX-OS for this draft for both IPv4 and
IPv6 EIDs using a mixed locator-set of IPv4 and IPv6 locators.
2. A unit- and system-tested software switching implementation on
cisco NX-OS has been completed for draft [ALT].
3. A unit- and system-tested software switching implementation on
cisco NX-OS has been completed for draft [INTERWORK]. Support
for IPv4 translation is provided and PTR support for IPv4 and
IPv6 is provided.
4. The cisco NX-OS implementation supports an experimental
mechanism for slow mobility.
5. Dave Meyer, Vince Fuller, Darrel Lewis, Greg Shepherd, and
Andrew Partan continue to test all the features described above
on a dual-stack infrastructure.
6. Darrel Lewis and Dave Meyer have deployed both LISP translation
and LISP PTR support in the pilot network. Point your browser
to http://www.lisp4.net to see translation happening in action
so your non-LISP site can access a web server in a LISP site.
7. Soon http://www.lisp6.net will work where your IPv6 LISP site
can talk to a IPv6 web server in a LISP site by using mixed
address-family based locators.
8. An public domain implementation of LISP is underway. See
[OPENLISP] for details.
9. We have started deploying Map-Resolvers and Map-Servers on the
pilot network to gather experience with [LISP-MS].
10. A cisco IOS implementation is underway which currently supports
IPv4 encapsulation and decapsulation features.
If interested in writing a LISP implementation, testing any of the
LISP implementations, or want to be part of the LISP pilot program,
please contact lisp@ietf.org.
Farinacci, et al. Expires September 3, 2009 [Page 54]
Internet-Draft Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP) March 2009
14. References
14.1. Normative References
[RFC0768] Postel, J., "User Datagram Protocol", STD 6, RFC 768,
August 1980.
[RFC1191] Mogul, J. and S. Deering, "Path MTU discovery", RFC 1191,
November 1990.
[RFC1498] Saltzer, J., "On the Naming and Binding of Network
Destinations", RFC 1498, August 1993.
[RFC1955] Hinden, R., "New Scheme for Internet Routing and
Addressing (ENCAPS) for IPNG", RFC 1955, June 1996.
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[RFC2402] Kent, S. and R. Atkinson, "IP Authentication Header",
RFC 2402, November 1998.
[RFC2434] Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an
IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 2434,
October 1998.
[RFC2784] Farinacci, D., Li, T., Hanks, S., Meyer, D., and P.
Traina, "Generic Routing Encapsulation (GRE)", RFC 2784,
March 2000.
[RFC3056] Carpenter, B. and K. Moore, "Connection of IPv6 Domains
via IPv4 Clouds", RFC 3056, February 2001.
[RFC3775] Johnson, D., Perkins, C., and J. Arkko, "Mobility Support
in IPv6", RFC 3775, June 2004.
[RFC4423] Moskowitz, R. and P. Nikander, "Host Identity Protocol
(HIP) Architecture", RFC 4423, May 2006.
[RFC4866] Arkko, J., Vogt, C., and W. Haddad, "Enhanced Route
Optimization for Mobile IPv6", RFC 4866, May 2007.
[RFC4984] Meyer, D., Zhang, L., and K. Fall, "Report from the IAB
Workshop on Routing and Addressing", RFC 4984,
September 2007.
Farinacci, et al. Expires September 3, 2009 [Page 55]
Internet-Draft Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP) March 2009
14.2. Informative References
[AFI] IANA, "Address Family Indicators (AFIs)", ADDRESS FAMILY
NUMBERS http://www.iana.org/numbers.html, Febuary 2007.
[ALT] Farinacci, D., Fuller, V., Meyer, D., and D. Lewis, "LISP
Alternative Topology (LISP-ALT)",
draft-fuller-lisp-alt-03.txt (work in progress),
February 2009.
[APT] Jen, D., Meisel, M., Massey, D., Wang, L., Zhang, B., and
L. Zhang, "APT: A Practical Transit Mapping Service",
draft-jen-apt-01.txt (work in progress), November 2007.
[CHIAPPA] Chiappa, J., "Endpoints and Endpoint names: A Proposed
Enhancement to the Internet Architecture", Internet-
Draft http://www.chiappa.net/~jnc/tech/endpoints.txt,
1999.
[CONS] Farinacci, D., Fuller, V., and D. Meyer, "LISP-CONS: A
Content distribution Overlay Network Service for LISP",
draft-meyer-lisp-cons-03.txt (work in progress),
November 2007.
[DHTs] Ratnasamy, S., Shenker, S., and I. Stoica, "Routing
Algorithms for DHTs: Some Open Questions", PDF
file http://www.cs.rice.edu/Conferences/IPTPS02/174.pdf.
[GSE] "GSE - An Alternate Addressing Architecture for IPv6",
draft-ietf-ipngwg-gseaddr-00.txt (work in progress), 1997.
[INTERWORK]
Lewis, D., Meyer, D., Farinacci, D., and V. Fuller,
"Interworking LISP with IPv4 and IPv6",
draft-lewis-lisp-interworking-01.txt (work in progress),
January 2009.
[LISA96] Lear, E., Katinsky, J., Coffin, J., and D. Tharp,
"Renumbering: Threat or Menace?", Usenix , September 1996.
[LISP-MS] Farinacci, D. and V. Fuller, "LISP Map Server",
draft-fuller-lisp-ms-00.txt (work in progress),
March 2009.
[LISP1] Farinacci, D., Oran, D., Fuller, V., and J. Schiller,
"Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP1) [Routable ID
Version]",
Slide-set http://www.dinof.net/~dino/ietf/lisp1.ppt,
Farinacci, et al. Expires September 3, 2009 [Page 56]
Internet-Draft Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP) March 2009
October 2006.
[LISP2] Farinacci, D., Oran, D., Fuller, V., and J. Schiller,
"Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP2) [DNS-based
Version]",
Slide-set http://www.dinof.net/~dino/ietf/lisp2.ppt,
November 2006.
[LISPDHT] Mathy, L., Iannone, L., and O. Bonaventure, "LISP-DHT:
Towards a DHT to map identifiers onto locators",
draft-mathy-lisp-dht-00.txt (work in progress),
February 2008.
[LOC-ID-ARCH]
Meyer, D. and D. Lewis, "Architectural Implications of
Locator/ID Separation",
draft-meyer-loc-id-implications-01.txt (work in progress),
Januaryr 2009.
[MLISP] Farinacci, D., Meyer, D., Zwiebel, J., and S. Venaas,
"LISP for Multicast Environments",
draft-farinacci-lisp-multicast-01.txt (work in progress),
November 2008.
[NERD] Lear, E., "NERD: A Not-so-novel EID to RLOC Database",
draft-lear-lisp-nerd-04.txt (work in progress),
April 2008.
[OPENLISP]
Iannone, L. and O. Bonaventure, "OpenLISP Implementation
Report", draft-iannone-openlisp-implementation-01.txt
(work in progress), July 2008.
[RADIR] Narten, T., "Routing and Addressing Problem Statement",
draft-narten-radir-problem-statement-00.txt (work in
progress), July 2007.
[RFC3344bis]
Perkins, C., "IP Mobility Support for IPv4, revised",
draft-ietf-mip4-rfc3344bis-05 (work in progress),
July 2007.
[RFC4192] Baker, F., Lear, E., and R. Droms, "Procedures for
Renumbering an IPv6 Network without a Flag Day", RFC 4192,
September 2005.
[RPFV] Wijnands, IJ., Boers, A., and E. Rosen, "The RPF Vector
TLV", draft-ietf-pim-rpf-vector-08.txt (work in progress),
Farinacci, et al. Expires September 3, 2009 [Page 57]
Internet-Draft Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP) March 2009
January 2009.
[RPMD] Handley, M., Huici, F., and A. Greenhalgh, "RPMD: Protocol
for Routing Protocol Meta-data Dissemination",
draft-handley-p2ppush-unpublished-2007726.txt (work in
progress), July 2007.
[SHIM6] Nordmark, E. and M. Bagnulo, "Level 3 multihoming shim
protocol", draft-ietf-shim6-proto-06.txt (work in
progress), October 2006.
Farinacci, et al. Expires September 3, 2009 [Page 58]
Internet-Draft Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP) March 2009
Appendix A. Acknowledgments
An initial thank you goes to Dave Oran for planting the seeds for the
initial ideas for LISP. His consultation continues to provide value
to the LISP authors.
A special and appreciative thank you goes to Noel Chiappa for
providing architectural impetus over the past decades on separation
of location and identity, as well as detailed review of the LISP
architecture and documents, coupled with enthusiasm for making LISP a
practical and incremental transition for the Internet.
The authors would like to gratefully acknowledge many people who have
contributed discussion and ideas to the making of this proposal.
They include Scott Brim, Andrew Partan, John Zwiebel, Jason Schiller,
Lixia Zhang, Dorian Kim, Peter Schoenmaker, Vijay Gill, Geoff Huston,
David Conrad, Mark Handley, Ron Bonica, Ted Seely, Mark Townsley,
Chris Morrow, Brian Weis, Dave McGrew, Peter Lothberg, Dave Thaler,
Eliot Lear, Shane Amante, Ved Kafle, Olivier Bonaventure, Luigi
Iannone, Robin Whittle, Brian Carpenter, Joel Halpern, Roger
Jorgensen, Ran Atkinson, Stig Venaas, Iljitsch van Beijnum, Roland
Bless, Dana Blair, Bill Lynch, Marc Woolward, Damien Saucez, Damian
Lezama, Attilla De Groot, and Parantap Lahiri.
In particular, we would like to thank Dave Meyer for his clever
suggestion for the name "LISP". ;-)
Farinacci, et al. Expires September 3, 2009 [Page 59]
Internet-Draft Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP) March 2009
Authors' Addresses
Dino Farinacci
cisco Systems
Tasman Drive
San Jose, CA 95134
USA
Email: dino@cisco.com
Vince Fuller
cisco Systems
Tasman Drive
San Jose, CA 95134
USA
Email: vaf@cisco.com
Dave Meyer
cisco Systems
170 Tasman Drive
San Jose, CA
USA
Email: dmm@cisco.com
Darrel Lewis
cisco Systems
170 Tasman Drive
San Jose, CA
USA
Email: darlewis@cisco.com
Farinacci, et al. Expires September 3, 2009 [Page 60]