Network Working Group                                         L. Iannone
Internet-Draft                                         Telecom ParisTech
Intended status: Informational                              R. Jorgensen
Expires: April 24, 2014                            Bredbandsfylket Troms
                                                               D. Conrad
                                                        Virtualized, LLC
                                                        October 21, 2013

                  LISP EID Block Management Guidelines


   This document proposes an allocation framework for the management of
   the LISP EID address prefix (requested in [I-D.ietf-lisp-eid-block]).
   The framework described relies on hierarchical distribution of the
   address space with sub-prefixes allocated on a temporary basis to
   requesting organizations.

Status of this Memo

   This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
   provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.

   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
   Task Force (IETF).  Note that other groups may also distribute
   working documents as Internet-Drafts.  The list of current Internet-
   Drafts is at

   Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
   and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
   time.  It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
   material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."

   This Internet-Draft will expire on April 24, 2014.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2013 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.  Please review these documents
   carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
   to this document.  Code Components extracted from this document must

Iannone, et al.          Expires April 24, 2014                 [Page 1]

Internet-Draft          LISP EID Block Management           October 2013

   include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
   the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
   described in the Simplified BSD License.

Table of Contents

   1.  Requirements Notation  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3
   2.  Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3
   3.  Definition of Terms  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3
   4.  EID Prefix Allocation Policy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3
   5.  EID Prefixes Allocation Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
   6.  EID Prefix Request Template  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6
   7.  General Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6
   8.  Security Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6
   9.  Acknowledgments  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6
   10. IANA Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
   11. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
     11.1.  Normative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
     11.2.  Informative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
   Appendix A.  LISP Terms  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8
   Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

Iannone, et al.          Expires April 24, 2014                 [Page 2]

Internet-Draft          LISP EID Block Management           October 2013

1.  Requirements Notation

   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
   document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119].

2.  Introduction

   The Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP - [RFC6830]) and related
   mechanisms ([RFC6831], [RFC6832], [RFC6833], [RFC6834], [RFC6835],
   [RFC6836], [RFC6837]) separates the IP addressing space into two
   logical spaces, the End-point IDentifier (EID) space and the Routing
   LOCator (RLOC) space.  The first space is used to identify
   communication end-points, while the second is used to locate EIDs in
   the Internet routing infrastructure topology.

   The document [I-D.ietf-lisp-eid-block] requested an IPv6 address
   block to be reserved for exclusive use for EID prefix allocation and
   assignment.  The rationale, intent, size, and usage of the EID
   address block are described in [I-D.ietf-lisp-eid-block].

   This document proposes an allocation framework for the EID address
   block based on temporary allocation of portions of the block to
   different requesting organizations.

3.  Definition of Terms

   The present document does not introduce any new term with respect to
   the set of LISP Specifications ( [RFC6830], [RFC6831], [RFC6832],
   [RFC6833], [RFC6834], [RFC6835], [RFC6836], [RFC6837]).  To help the
   reading of the present document the terminology introduced by LISP is
   summarized in Appendix A.

4.  EID Prefix Allocation Policy

   The allocation of EID prefixes MUST respect the following policies:

   1.  EID addressing prefixes are made available in the reserved space
       on a temporary basis and for experimental uses.  The requester of
       an experimental prefix MUST provide a short description of the
       intended use or experiment that will be carried out (see
       Section 6).  If the prefix will be used for activities not
       documented in the original description, the renewal of the
       allocation may be denied or withdrawn (see Section 5).

Iannone, et al.          Expires April 24, 2014                 [Page 3]

Internet-Draft          LISP EID Block Management           October 2013

   2.  EID prefixes are allocated on a lease/license basis for a limited
       period of time (which can be renewed).  The lease/license period
       SHOULD NOT be longer than one year.

   3.  Exception to the previous rule may be granted in cases in which
       the prefix has been delegated to an organization that will act as
       a registry for further sub-allocations.  Sub-allocations MUST
       respect this present list of policies as well as the allocation
       requirements outlined in Section 5.  Requests for a prefix
       delegation that will be used for further sub-allocations MUST
       clearly state such intent in the short description of the
       intended use document.

   4.  All of the allocations (renewed or not, including delegations and
       sub-allocations) MUST end by 31 December 2017, in accordance to
       the 3+3 years experimental allocation plan outlined in

   5.  Upon IETF review before 31 December 2017, the EID prefix space
       may become a permanent allocation.  In this case existing
       allocations CAN be renewed and new allocations granted (still on
       a yearly temporary basis).  All allocations (renewed or not,
       including delegations and sub-allocations) MUST end by 31
       December 2020, in accordance to the 3+3 years plan outlined in
       [I-D.ietf-lisp-eid-block].  During the second 3 years phase of
       the experiment, the IETF will decide the final EID prefix block
       size and elaborate the allocation and management policies that
       will be applied starting 1 January 2021.

   6.  When an allocation is freed because of non-renewal or the
       termination of an experiment, the address space is returned to
       the global pool of free EID prefixes.  This freed allocation MUST
       NOT be announced through registration on Map Servers in the LISP
       mapping system for at least 72 hours to ensure expiration of all
       cached map entries in the global LISP infrastructure.

   7.  The EID prefix of an allocation that is not renewed (or whose
       renewal has been denied) can be re-used after no less than one
       week from the date when the EID prefix is freed.  This delay will
       provide sufficient time for all cached map entries in the global
       LISP infrastructure to expire and will allow any management
       process for re-allocation to be dealt with.

   8.  EID prefix allocations can be revoked as a result of abuse,
       unjustified usage (e.g., not conforming the intended use provided
       at request time), failure to pay maintenance fees, legal court
       orders, etc.  Withdrawal can be enforced by filtering on Map
       Servers so to prevent map registration.

Iannone, et al.          Expires April 24, 2014                 [Page 4]

Internet-Draft          LISP EID Block Management           October 2013

   If/When the EID block experiment changes status (e.g., to not being
   "experimental"), and following the policies outlined in [RFC5226],
   the EID block will change status as well and will be converted to a
   permanent allocation.  The IETF will define the transition process
   from the policies and requirements outlined in this document to a new
   set of policies and requirements.  This transition process will
   include mechanisms that will allow for requests to convert existing
   temporary allocations (without renumbering) to permanent allocations.

5.  EID Prefixes Allocation Requirements

   All EID prefix allocations (and delegations) MUST respect the
   following requirements:

   1.  Allocations MUST be globally unique.

   2.  Requirements for allocation MUST be the same globally.  No
       regional/national/local variations are permitted.

   3.  The minimum allocated prefix size MUST be a /48.  An allocation
       may be larger (i.e., shorter prefix) provided that the requester
       is able to justify the intended size in their request

   4.  Registration information MUST be maintained and made publicly
       available through a searchable interface, preferably RDAP
       ([I-D.ietf-weirds-rdap-sec]) and optionally whois, http, or

   5.  If fees are charged for EID allocation and registration services,
       those fees MUST be no more than the cost of providing those

   6.  Requesters obtaining an allocation SHOULD provide Reverse DNS

   7.  Requesters obtaining a delegation, hence acting as registries,
       MUST provide Reverse DNS service.

   8.  The service SHOULD be available 99% of the time.

   9.  Anyone, private persons, companies, or other entities can request
       EID space and those requests MUST be granted, provided that they
       can show a clear intent in carrying out LISP experimentation.

Iannone, et al.          Expires April 24, 2014                 [Page 5]

Internet-Draft          LISP EID Block Management           October 2013

6.  EID Prefix Request Template

   Future versions of this document will include a detailed allocation
   (and delegation) request template to ensure a uniform process.  An
   example of a similar template/process is the IANA Private Enterprise
   Number online request form
   (  The EID Prefix
   Request template MUST at minimum contain:

   o  Requester Information (e.g., company name)

   o  Requester Referral Person (and Contact Information)

   o  Requested EID prefix size

   o  Request Rationale

7.  General Considerations

   This document is a starting point for discussion aiming to address
   the concerns raised during the IETF Review of
   [I-D.ietf-lisp-eid-block], more specifically the lack of guidelines
   concerning the EID Block allocation and management.

   Discussion with IANA, the RIR communities, and the IETF community
   should be carried out in order to verify compatibility of the
   proposed policy and agree upon the process for EID prefix allocation
   and management.

8.  Security Considerations

   This document does not introduce new security threats in the LISP
   architecture nor in the Legacy Internet architecture.

   For accountability reasons, and in line with the security
   considerations in [RFC7020], each allocation request MUST contain
   accurate information on the requesting entity (company, institution,
   individual, etc.) and valid and accurate contact information of a
   referral person (see Section 6).

9.  Acknowledgments

   Thanks to J. Curran, A. Severin, B. Haberman, T. Manderson, D. Lewis,
   D. Farinacci, for their helpful comments.

Iannone, et al.          Expires April 24, 2014                 [Page 6]

Internet-Draft          LISP EID Block Management           October 2013

10.  IANA Considerations

   This document provides only management guidelines for the reserved
   LISP EID prefix requested and allocated in [I-D.ietf-lisp-eid-block].

   There is an operational requirement for an EID allocation service
   that ensures uniqueness of EIDs allocated according to the
   requirements described in Section 5.  Furthermore, there is an
   operational requirement for EID registration service that allows a
   lookup of the contact information of the entity to which the EID was

   IANA must ensure both of these services are provided, for the space
   directly allocated by IANA, in a globally uniform fashion for the
   duration of the experiment.

11.  References

11.1.  Normative References

              Iannone, L., Lewis, D., Meyer, D., and V. Fuller, "LISP
              EID Block", draft-ietf-lisp-eid-block-05 (work in
              progress), August 2013.

   [RFC2119]  Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
              Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.

   [RFC4632]  Fuller, V. and T. Li, "Classless Inter-domain Routing
              (CIDR): The Internet Address Assignment and Aggregation
              Plan", BCP 122, RFC 4632, August 2006.

   [RFC5226]  Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an
              IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 5226,
              May 2008.

11.2.  Informative References

              Hollenbeck, S. and N. Kong, "Security Services for the
              Registration Data Access Protocol",
              draft-ietf-weirds-rdap-sec-05 (work in progress),
              August 2013.

   [RFC6830]  Farinacci, D., Fuller, V., Meyer, D., and D. Lewis, "The
              Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP)", RFC 6830,
              January 2013.

Iannone, et al.          Expires April 24, 2014                 [Page 7]

Internet-Draft          LISP EID Block Management           October 2013

   [RFC6831]  Farinacci, D., Meyer, D., Zwiebel, J., and S. Venaas, "The
              Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP) for Multicast
              Environments", RFC 6831, January 2013.

   [RFC6832]  Lewis, D., Meyer, D., Farinacci, D., and V. Fuller,
              "Interworking between Locator/ID Separation Protocol
              (LISP) and Non-LISP Sites", RFC 6832, January 2013.

   [RFC6833]  Fuller, V. and D. Farinacci, "Locator/ID Separation
              Protocol (LISP) Map-Server Interface", RFC 6833,
              January 2013.

   [RFC6834]  Iannone, L., Saucez, D., and O. Bonaventure, "Locator/ID
              Separation Protocol (LISP) Map-Versioning", RFC 6834,
              January 2013.

   [RFC6835]  Farinacci, D. and D. Meyer, "The Locator/ID Separation
              Protocol Internet Groper (LIG)", RFC 6835, January 2013.

   [RFC6836]  Fuller, V., Farinacci, D., Meyer, D., and D. Lewis,
              "Locator/ID Separation Protocol Alternative Logical
              Topology (LISP+ALT)", RFC 6836, January 2013.

   [RFC6837]  Lear, E., "NERD: A Not-so-novel Endpoint ID (EID) to
              Routing Locator (RLOC) Database", RFC 6837, January 2013.

   [RFC7020]  Housley, R., Curran, J., Huston, G., and D. Conrad, "The
              Internet Numbers Registry System", RFC 7020, August 2013.

Appendix A.  LISP Terms

   LISP operates on two name spaces and introduces several new network
   elements.  This section provides high-level definitions of the LISP
   name spaces and network elements and as such, it must not be
   considered as an authoritative source.  The reference to the
   authoritative document for each term is included in every term

   Legacy Internet:  The portion of the Internet that does not run LISP
      and does not participate in LISP+ALT or any other mapping system.

   LISP site:  A LISP site is a set of routers in an edge network that
      are under a single technical administration.  LISP routers that
      reside in the edge network are the demarcation points to separate
      the edge network from the core network.  See [RFC6830] for more

Iannone, et al.          Expires April 24, 2014                 [Page 8]

Internet-Draft          LISP EID Block Management           October 2013

    Endpoint ID (EID):  An EID is a 32-bit (for IPv4) or 128-bit (for
      IPv6) value used in the source and destination address fields of
      the first (most inner) LISP header of a packet.  A packet that is
      emitted by a system contains EIDs in its headers and LISP headers
      are prepended only when the packet reaches an Ingress Tunnel
      Router (ITR) on the data path to the destination EID.  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.
      See [RFC6830] for more details.

   EID-prefix:  A power-of-two block of EIDs that are allocated to a
      site by an address allocation authority.  See [RFC6830] for more

   EID-Prefix Aggregate:  A set of EID-prefixes said to be aggregatable
      in the [RFC4632] sense.  That is, an EID-Prefix aggregate is
      defined to be a single contiguous power-of-two EID-prefix block.
      A prefix and a length characterize such a block.  See [RFC6830]
      for more details.

   Routing LOCator (RLOC):  A RLOC is an IPv4 or IPv6 address of an
      egress tunnel router (ETR).  A RLOC is the output of an EID-to-
      RLOC mapping lookup.  An EID maps to one or more RLOCs.
      Typically, RLOCs are numbered from topologically aggregatable
      blocks that are assigned to a site at each point to which it
      attaches to the global Internet; where the topology is defined by
      the connectivity of provider networks, RLOCs can be thought of as
      Provider Aggregatable (PA) addresses.  See [RFC6830] for more

    EID-to-RLOC Mapping:  A binding between an EID-Prefix and the RLOC-
      set that can be used to reach the EID-Prefix.  The general term
      "mapping" always refers to an EID-to-RLOC mapping.  See [RFC6830]
      for more details.

   Ingress Tunnel Router (ITR):  An Ingress Tunnel Router (ITR) is a
      router that accepts receives IP packets from site end-systems on
      one side and sends LISP-encapsulated IP packets toward the
      Internet on the other side.  The router treats the "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.
      See [RFC6830] for more details.

Iannone, et al.          Expires April 24, 2014                 [Page 9]

Internet-Draft          LISP EID Block Management           October 2013

   Egress Tunnel Router (ETR):  An Egress Tunnel Router (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.  An ETR router 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.  See [RFC6830] for more details.

   Proxy ITR (PITR):  A Proxy-ITR (PITR) acts like an ITR but does so on
      behalf of non-LISP sites which send packets to destinations at
      LISP sites.  See [RFC6832] for more details.

   Proxy ETR (PETR):  A Proxy-ETR (PETR) acts like an ETR but does so on
      behalf of LISP sites which send packets to destinations at non-
      LISP sites.  See [RFC6832] for more details.

   Map Server (MS):  A network infrastructure component that learns EID-
      to-RLOC mapping entries from an authoritative source (typically an
      ETR).  A Map Server publishes these mappings in the distributed
      mapping system.  See [RFC6833] for more details.

   Map Resolver (MR):  A network infrastructure component that accepts
      LISP Encapsulated Map-Requests, typically from an ITR, quickly
      determines whether or not the destination IP address is part of
      the EID namespace; if it is not, a Negative Map-Reply is
      immediately returned.  Otherwise, the Map Resolver finds the
      appropriate EID-to-RLOC mapping by consulting the distributed
      mapping database system.  See [RFC6833] for more details.

   The LISP Alternative Logical Topology (ALT):  The virtual overlay
      network made up of tunnels between LISP+ALT Routers.  The Border
      Gateway Protocol (BGP) runs between ALT Routers and is used to
      carry reachability information for EID-prefixes.  The ALT provides
      a way to forward Map-Requests toward the ETR that "owns" an EID-
      prefix.  See [RFC6836] for more details.

   ALT Router:  The device on which runs the ALT.  The ALT is a static
      network built using tunnels between ALT Routers.  These routers
      are deployed in a roughly-hierarchical mesh in which routers at
      each level in the topology are responsible for aggregating EID-
      Prefixes learned from those logically "below" them and advertising
      summary prefixes to those logically "above" them.  Prefix learning
      and propagation between ALT Routers is done using BGP.  When an
      ALT Router receives an ALT Datagram, it looks up the destination
      EID in its forwarding table (composed of EID-Prefix routes it
      learned from neighboring ALT Routers) and forwards it to the
      logical next-hop on the overlay network.  The primary function of
      LISP+ALT routers is to provide a lightweight forwarding

Iannone, et al.          Expires April 24, 2014                [Page 10]

Internet-Draft          LISP EID Block Management           October 2013

      infrastructure for LISP control-plane messages (Map-Request and
      Map-Reply), and to transport data packets when the packet has the
      same destination address in both the inner (encapsulating)
      destination and outer destination addresses ((i.e., a Data Probe
      packet).  See [RFC6830] for more details.

Authors' Addresses

   Luigi Iannone
   Telecom ParisTech


   Roger Jorgensen
   Bredbandsfylket Troms


   David Conrad
   Virtualized, LLC


Iannone, et al.          Expires April 24, 2014                [Page 11]