Network Working Group L. Iannone
Internet-Draft TU Berlin - Deutsche Telekom
Intended status: Experimental Laboratories AG
Expires: January 13, 2011 D. Saucez
O. Bonaventure
Universite catholique de Louvain
July 12, 2010
LISP Map-Versioning
draft-iannone-lisp-mapping-versioning-02.txt
Abstract
This document describes the LISP Map-Versioning mechanism. This is
mechanism to provide in-packet information about EID-to-RLOC mappings
used to encapsulate LISP data packets. The proposed approach is
based on associating a version number to EID-to-RLOC mappings and
transport such a version number in the LISP specific header of LISP-
encapsulated packets. LISP Map-Versioning is particularly useful to
inform communicating xTRs about modification of the mappings used to
encapsulate packets. Note that, in the LISP encapsulation and in the
Map Records, bits used for Map-Versioning can be safely ignored by
xTRs that do not support the mechanism.
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 January 13, 2011.
Iannone, et al. Expires January 13, 2011 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft LISP Map-Versioning July 2010
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2010 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the BSD License.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Requirements notation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. EID-to-RLOC Map-Version number . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.1. The special Map-Version 0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
4. Dealing with Map-Version numbers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4.1. Handling Destination Map-Version Number . . . . . . . . . 5
4.2. Handling Source Map-Version Number . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
5. LISP header and Map-Version numbers . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
6. Map Record and Map-Version . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
7. Benefits and case studies for Map-Versioning . . . . . . . . . 10
7.1. Synchronization of different xTRs . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
7.2. Map-Versioning and unidirectional traffic . . . . . . . . 11
7.3. Map-Versioning and interworking . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
7.4. Graceful RLOC shutdown/withdraw . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
7.5. Map-Version for lightweight LISP implementation . . . . . 12
8. Incremental deployment and implementation status . . . . . . . 13
9. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
9.1. Map-Versioning against traffic disruption . . . . . . . . 13
9.2. Map-Versioning against reachability information DoS . . . 14
10. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
11. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
11.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
11.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Appendix A. Map-Version wrap-around . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Iannone, et al. Expires January 13, 2011 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft LISP Map-Versioning July 2010
1. Introduction
This document describes the Map-Versioning mechanism used to provide
information on changes in the EID-to-RLOC mappings used in the LISP
([I-D.ietf-lisp]) context to perform encapsulation. The mechanism is
totally transparent to xTRs not supporting such a functionality. It
is not meant to replace any existing LISP mechanism, but rather to
complete them providing new functionalities. The basic mechanism is
to associate Map-Version numbers to each LISP mapping and transport
such a version number in the LISP specific header. When a mapping
changes, a new version number is assigned to the updated mapping. A
change in an EID-to-RLOC mapping can be a change in the RLOCs set, by
adding or removing one or more RLOCs, but it can also be a change in
the priority or weight of one or more RLOCs.
When Map-Versioning is used, LISP-encapsulated data packets contain
the version number of the mappings used to select the RLOCs in the
outer header (both source and destination). These version numbers
are encoded in the 24 low-order bits of the first longword of the
LISP header and indicated by a specific bit in the flags (first 8
high-order bits of the first longword of the LISP header). Note that
not all packets need to carry version numbers.
When an ITR encapsulates a data packet, with a LISP header containing
the Map-Versions, it puts in the LISP-specific header two version
numbers:
1. The version number assigned to the mapping (contained in the EID-
to-RLOC Database) used to select the source RLOC.
2. The version number assigned to the mapping (contained in the EID-
to-RLOC Cache) used to select the destination RLOC.
This operation is two-fold. On the one hand it enables the ETR
receiving the packet to know if the ITR that sent it is using the
latest mapping for the destination EID. If it is not the case the
eTR can send to the ITR a Map-Request containing the updated mapping
or invoking a Map-Request from the ITR (both cases are already
defined in [I-D.ietf-lisp]). In this way the ITR can update its
cache. On the other hand, it enables an xTR receiving such a packet
to know if it has in its cache the latest mapping for the source EID
(in case of bidirectional traffic). If it is not the case a Map-
Request can be send.
2. 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].
Iannone, et al. Expires January 13, 2011 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft LISP Map-Versioning July 2010
3. EID-to-RLOC Map-Version number
The EID-to-RLOC Map-Version number consists in an unsigned 12-bits
integer. The version number is assigned in a per-mapping fashion,
meaning that different mappings will have assigned a different
version number, which is also updated independently. An update in
the version number (i.e., a newer version) consist in incrementing by
one the older version number. Appendix A contains a rough estimation
of the wrap-around time for the Map Version number.
The space of version numbers has a circular order where half of the
version numbers is greater than the current Map-Version number and
the other half is smaller than current Map-Version number. In a more
formal way, assuming we have two version numbers V1 and V2 and that
the numbers are expressed on N bits, the following three cases may
happen:
V1 = V2 : This is the exact match case.
V1 < V2 : True if and only if V1 < V2 < (V1 + 2**(N-1)).
V1 > V2 : True if and only if V1 > V2 > (V1 - 2**(N-1)).
Using 12 bits, as defined in this document, and assuming a Map-
Version value of 69, Map-Versions in [70; 69 + 2047] are greater and
versions in [69 + 2048; (69 + 4095) mod 4096] are smaller.
The initial Map-Version number of a new mapping can be randomly
generated. However, it MUST NOT be zero (0) because it has a special
meaning (see section Section 3.1).
3.1. The special Map-Version 0
The value 0 (zero) is not a valid Map-Version Number. The only valid
use of Map-Version number equal to 0 is in the Map Records. Map
Records that have Map-Version number equal 0 indicate that there is
no Map-Version number associated with the mapping. This means that
LISP encapsulated packets, destined to the EID-Prefix the Map Record
refers to, MUST never contain Map-Version number (i.e., V bit MUST
always be 0). In other words, Map-Version number equal to 0 signal
to the requester of the mapping that the Map-Versioning is not
supported, or even if supported it must not be used for that specific
EID-Prefix. Any value different from zero means that Map-Versionig
is supported and can be used.
For LISP encapsulated packets with the V-bit set, if the Source Map-
Version is 0, it means that the version number must be ignored and no
checks (described in Section 4) need to be performed.
The fact that the 0 value has a special meaning for the Map-Version
Iannone, et al. Expires January 13, 2011 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft LISP Map-Versioning July 2010
number implies that, when updating a Map-Version number because of a
change in the mapping, if the next value is 0 then Map-Version number
must be incremented by 2 (i.e., set to 1, the next valid value).
4. Dealing with Map-Version numbers
The main idea of using Map-Version numbers is that whenever there is
a change in the mapping (e.g., adding/removing RLOCs, a change in the
weights due to TE policies, or a change in the priorities) or an ISP
realizes that one or more of its own RLOCs are not reachable anymore
from a local perspective (e.g., through IGP, or policy changes) the
ISP updates the mapping with a new Map-Version number.
In order to announce in a data-driven fashion that the mapping has
been updated, Map-Version numbers used to create the outer IP header
of the LISP encapsulated packet are embedded in the LISP specific
header. This means that the header needs to contain two Map-Version
numbers:
o A first one from the EID-to-RLOC mapping in the EID-to-RLOC
Database used to select the source RLOC, and called Source Map-
Version Number.
o A second one from the EID-to-RLOC mapping in the EID-to-RLOC Cache
used to select the destination RLOC, and called Destination Map-
Version Number.
By embedding both Source Map-Version Number and Destination Map-
Version Number an ETR can perform the following checks:
1. The ITR has an up-to-date mapping in its cache for the
destination EID and is performing encapsulation correctly.
2. In case of bedirectional traffic, the mapping in the local xTR
cache for the source EID is up-to-date.
If one or both of the above conditions do not hold, the xTR can send
a Map-Request either to make the ITR aware that a new mapping is
available (see Section 4.1) or to updated local mapping in the cache
(see section Section 4.2).
4.1. Handling Destination Map-Version Number
When an ETR receives a packet, the Destination Map Version number
relates to the mapping for the destination EID for which the ETR is a
RLOC. This mapping is part of the ETR LISP Database. Since the ETR
is authoritative for the mapping, it has the correct and up-to-date
Destination Map-Version number. A check on this version number is
done, where the following cases can arise:
o The packets arrive with the same Destination Map Version number
stored in the EID-to-RLOC Database. This is the regular case.
The ITR sending the packet has in its EID-to-RLOC Cache an up-to-
date mapping. No further actions are needed.
Iannone, et al. Expires January 13, 2011 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft LISP Map-Versioning July 2010
o The packet arrives with a Destination Map-Version number greater
(i.e., newer) than the one stored in the EID-to-RLOC Database.
Since the ETR is authoritative on the mapping, this means that
someone is not behaving correctly w.r.t. the specifications, thus
the packets carries a not valid version number and can be silently
dropped.
o The packets arrive with an Destination Map-Version number smaller
(i.e., older) than the one stored in the EID-to-RLOC Database.
This means that the ITR sending the packet has an old mapping in
its EID-to-RLOC Cache containing stale information. Further
actions are needed. The ITR sending the packet must be informed
that a newer mapping is available. This is done with a Map-
Request message sent back to the ITR. The Map-Request will either
trigger a Map-Request back using the SMR bit or it will piggy-back
the newer mapping. These are not new mechanisms; how to SMR or
piggy-back mappings in Map-Request messages is already described
in [I-D.ietf-lisp], while their security is discussed in
[I-D.saucez-lisp-security]. These Map-Request message should be
rate limited (rate limitation policies are also described in
[I-D.ietf-lisp]). The gain introduced by Map-Version Numbers is
that after a certain number of retries, if the Destination Map-
Version Number in the packets is not updated, packet can be
silently dropped because either the ITR is refusing to use the
mapping for which the ETR is authoritative or it might be some
form of attack. Note that the rule can be even more restrictive.
If the mapping has been the same for a period of time as long as
the TTL (defined in LISP [I-D.ietf-lisp]) of the previous version
of the mapping, all packets arriving with an old Map-Version
should be silently dropped right away without issuing any Map-
Request. Indeed, if the new mapping with the updated version
number has been stable for at least the same time as the TTL of
the older mapping, all the entries in the caches of ITRs must have
expired. If packets with old Map-Version number are still
received, the reason is that either someone has not respected the
TTL, or it is a form of spoof/attack. In both cases this is not
valid behavior w.r.t. the specifications and the packet can be
silently dropped.
4.2. Handling Source Map-Version Number
When an xTR receives a packet, the Source Map-Version Number relates
to the mapping for the source EID for which the ITR is authoritative.
If the xTR has an entry in its LISP Cache a check is performed and
the following cases can arise:
o The packet arrives with the same Source Map-Version number stored
in the LISP Cache. This is the correct regular case. The xTR has
in its cache an up-to-date copy of the mapping. No further
actions are needed.
Iannone, et al. Expires January 13, 2011 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft LISP Map-Versioning July 2010
o The packet arrives with a Source Map-Version number greater (i.e.,
newer) than the one stored in the local LISP Cache. This means
that xTR has in its cache a mapping that is stale and needs to be
updated. The packet is considered valid but further actions are
needed. In particular a Map-Request must be sent to get the new
mapping for the source EID. This is a normal Map-Request message
sent through the mapping system and must respect the
specifications in [I-D.ietf-lisp], including rate limitation
policies.
o The packet arrives with a Source Map-Version number smaller (i.e.,
older) than the one stored in the local LISP Cache. Such a case
is not valid w.r.t. the specifications. Indeed, if the mapping is
already present in the LISP Cache, this means that an explicit
Map-Request has been sent and a Map-Reply has been received from
an authoritative source. Assuming that the mapping system is not
corrupted anyhow, the Map-Version in the LISP Cache is the correct
one, hence the packet is not valid and can be silently dropped.
Otherwise, if the xTR does not have an entry in its cache (e.g.
unidirectional traffic) the Source Map-Version can be safely ignored.
5. LISP header and Map-Version numbers
In order for the versioning approach to work, the LISP specific
header has to carry both Source Map-Version Number and Destination
Map-Version Number. This is done by setting the V-bit in the LISP
specific header. When the V-bit is set the low-order 24-bits of the
first longword (which usually contains the nonce) are used transport
both source and destination Map-Versions. In particular the first 12
bits are used for Source Map-Version and the second 12 bits for the
Destination Map-Version.
Hereafter is the example of LISP header carrying version numbers in
the case of IPv4-in-IPv4 encapsulation. The same setting can be used
for any other case (IPv4-in-IPv6, IPv6-in-IPv4, IPv6-in-IPv6). The
authoritative document for LISP packet format is [I-D.ietf-lisp], the
following example is proposed only for explanation purposes.
Iannone, et al. Expires January 13, 2011 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft LISP Map-Versioning July 2010
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 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
/ |N|L|E|V|I|flags| Source Map-Version |Destination Map-Version|
LISP+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
\ | Instance ID/Locator Status Bits |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
/|Version| IHL |Type of Service| Total Length |
/ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
/ | Identification |Flags| Fragment Offset |
/ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
IH | Time to Live | Protocol | Header Checksum |
\ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
\ | Source EID |
\ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
\| Destination EID |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
V: this is the Map-Version bit as defined in [I-D.ietf-lisp]. When
this bit is set to 1 the low-order 24-bits of the first longword
of the LISP header contain Map-Version numbers.
Source Map-Version number (12 bits): Map-Version of the mapping used
by the ITR to select the RLOC present in the "Source Routing
Locator" field. Note that the mapping used for such a selection
is determined by the Source EID through a search in the LISP
Database of the ITR.
Destination Map-Version Number (12 bits): Map-Version of the mapping
used by the ITR to select the RLOC present in the "Destination
Routing Locator" field. Note that the mapping used for such a
selection is determined by the Destination EID, used as lookup key
in the LISP Cache of the ITR.
Not all of the LISP encapsulated packets need to carry version
numbers. When Map-Version number are carried the V bit must be set
Iannone, et al. Expires January 13, 2011 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft LISP Map-Versioning July 2010
to 1. All legal combination of the flags, when the V-bit is set to 1
are described in [I-D.ietf-lisp]. As a recall and in summary, Map-
Version cannot be used with the Echo-Nonce feature (E = 1) and the
Nonce feature (N = 1), since they use the same bitfield.
6. Map Record and Map-Version
To accommodate the proposed mechanism, the Map Records that are
transported on Map-Request/Map-Reply messages need to carry the Map-
Version number as well. For this purpose the 12-bits before the EID-
AFI field in the Record that describe a mapping is used. This is
defined in [I-D.ietf-lisp] and reported here as example.
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
+-> +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| | Record TTL |
| +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
R | Locator Count | EID mask-len | ACT |A| Reserved |
e +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
c | Rsvd | Map-Version Number | EID-AFI |
o +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
r | EID-prefix |
d +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| /| Priority | Weight | M Priority | M Weight |
| L +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| o | Unused Flags |L|p|R| Loc-AFI |
| c +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| \| Locator |
+-> +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Map-Version Number: Map-Version of the mapping contained in the
Record. As explained in Section 3.1 this field can be zero (0),
meaning that no Map-Version is associated to the mapping, hence
LISP encapsulated packet must not contain Map-Version in the LISP
specific header.
Note that this packet format works perfectly with xTRs that do not
support Map-Versioning, since they can simply ignore those bits.
Furthermore, existing and future mapping distribution protocol (e.g.,
ALT [I-D.ietf-lisp-alt]) are able to carry version numbers without
needing any modification. The same applies to the LISP Map Server
([I-D.ietf-lisp-ms]) which will still work without any change since
reserved bits are simply ignored.
Iannone, et al. Expires January 13, 2011 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft LISP Map-Versioning July 2010
7. Benefits and case studies for Map-Versioning
In the following sections we provide more discussion on various
aspects and use of the Map-Versioning. Security observations are
instead grouped in Section 9.
7.1. Synchronization of different xTRs
Map-Versioning does not require additional synchronization mechanism
compared to the normal functioning of LISP without Map-Versioning.
Clearly all the ETRs have to reply with the same Map-Version number,
otherwise there can be an inconsistency that creates additional
control traffic, instabilities, traffic disruptions.
As an example, let's consider the topology of Figure 1 where ITR A.1
of domain A is sending unidirectional traffic to the xTR B of domain
B, while xTR A.2 of domain A and xTR B of domain B exchange
bidirectional traffic.
+-----------------+ +-----------------+
| Domain A | | Domain B |
| +---------+ | |
| | xTR A.1 |--- | |
| +---------+ \ +---------+ |
| | -------->| xTR B | |
| | -------->| | |
| +---------+ / +---------+ |
| | xTR A.2 |<-- | |
| +---------+ | |
| | | |
+-----------------+ +-----------------+
Figure 1
Obviously in the case of Map-Versioning both xTRs of domain A must
use the same value otherwise the xTR of domain B will start to send
Map-Requests.
The same problem can, however, arise without Map-Versioning. For
instance if the two xTRs of domain A send different Loc Status Bits.
In this case either the traffic is disrupted, if the xTR B trusts the
Locator Status Bits, or it xTR B will start sending Map-Requests to
confirm the each change in the reachability.
So far, LISP does not provide any specific synchronization mechanism,
but assumes that synchronization is provided by configuring the
different xTRs consistently. The same applies for Map-Versioning.
Iannone, et al. Expires January 13, 2011 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft LISP Map-Versioning July 2010
If in the future any synchronization mechanism is provided, Map-
Versioning will take advantage of it automatically since it is
included in the Record format, as described in Section 6.
7.2. Map-Versioning and unidirectional traffic
When using Map-Versioning the LISP specific header carries two Map-
Version numbers, for both source and destination mapping. This can
raise the question on what will happen in the case of unidirectional
flows, like for instance in the case presented in Figure 2, since
LISP specification do not mandate for ETR to have a mapping for the
source EID.
+-----------------+ +-----------------+
| Domain A | | Domain B |
| +---------+ +---------+ |
| | ITR A |----------->| ETR B | |
| +---------+ +---------+ |
| | | |
+-----------------+ +-----------------+
Figure 2
For what concerns the ITR, it is able to put both source and
destination version number in the LISP header since the Source Map-
Version number is in ITR's database, while the Destination Map-
Version number is in ITR's cache.
For what concerns the ETR, it simply checks only the Destination Map-
Version number in the same way as described in Section 4, ignoring
the Source Map-Version number.
7.3. Map-Versioning and interworking
Map-Versioning works in the context of interworking between LISP and
IPv4 and IPv6 ([I-D.ietf-lisp-interworking]) in the following way.
The case of proxy-ITR encapsulating packet for LISP sites is
basically the same as the unidirectional traffic case presented in
the previous section. The same rules can be applied. The only
difference that arises is the fact that a proxy-ITR does not have any
mapping, since it just encapsulate packets arriving from non-LISP
site, thus it has no Source Map-Version. In this case, the proxy-ITR
will just put the special value 0 (zero) as Source Map-Version
number, while the receiving ETR will ignore the field.
Iannone, et al. Expires January 13, 2011 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft LISP Map-Versioning July 2010
7.4. Graceful RLOC shutdown/withdraw
Map-Versioning can be even used to perform a graceful shutdown or
withdraw of a specific RLOC. This is achieved by simply issuing a
new mapping, with an updated Map-Version number, where the specific
RLOC to be shut down is withdrawn or announced as unreachable (R bit
in the Map Record, see [I-D.ietf-lisp]), but without actually turning
it off.
Once no more traffic is received by the RLOC, because all sites have
updated the mapping, it can be shut down safely.
7.5. Map-Version for lightweight LISP implementation
The use of Map-Versioning can help in simplifying the implementation
of LISP. This comes with the price of not supporting Loc-Status-Bit,
which are useful in some contexts.
In the current LISP specifications the set of RLOCs must always be
maintained ordered and consistent with the content of the Loc Status
Bits (see section 6.5 of [I-D.ietf-lisp]). With Map-Versioning such
type of mechanisms can be avoided. When a new RLOC is added to a
mapping, it is not necessary to "append" new locators to the existing
ones as explained in Section 6.5 of [I-D.ietf-lisp]. A new mapping
with a new Map-Version number will be issued, and since the old
locators are still valid the transition will be disruptionless. The
same applies for the case a RLOC is withdrawn. There is no need to
maintain holes in the list of locators, as is the case when using
Locator Status Bits, for sites that are not using the RLOC that has
been withdrawn the transition will be disruptionless.
All of these operations, as already stated, do not need to maintain
any consistency among Locator Status Bits, and the way RLOC are
stored in the cache. This eases implementation.
Further, Map-Version can be used to substitute the "clock sweep"
operation described in Section 6.5.1 of [I-D.ietf-lisp]. Indeed,
every LISP site communicating to a specific LISP site that has
updated the mapping will be informed of the available new mapping in
a data-driven manner.
Note that what proposed in the present section is just a case study
and MUST NOT be considered as specification for a lightweight LISP
implementation.
Iannone, et al. Expires January 13, 2011 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft LISP Map-Versioning July 2010
8. Incremental deployment and implementation status
Map-Versioning can be incrementally deployed without any negative
impact on existing LISP xTRs. Any LISP element that does not support
Map-Versioning can safely ignore them. Further, there is no need of
any specific mechanism to discover if an xTR supports or not Map-
Versioning. This information is already included in the Map Record.
Map-Versioning is currently implemented in OpenLISP
[I-D.iannone-openlisp-implementation].
Note that the reference document for LISP implementation and
interoperability tests remains [I-D.ietf-lisp].
9. Security Considerations
Map-Versioning does not introduces any new security issue concerning
both the data-plane and the control-plane. On the contrary, as
described in the following, if Map-Versioning is used also to update
mappings in case of change in the reachability information (i.e.,
instead of the Locator Status Bits) it is possible to reduce the
effects of some DoS or spoofing attacks that can happen in an
untrusted environment.
A thorough security analysis of LISP is documented in
[I-D.saucez-lisp-security].
9.1. Map-Versioning against traffic disruption
An attacker can try to disrupt ongoing communications by creating
LISP encapsulated packets with wrong Locator Status Bits. If the xTR
blindly trusts the Locator Status Bits it will change the
encapsulation accordingly, which can result in traffic disruption.
This does not happen in the case of Map-Versioning. As described in
Section 4, upon a version number change the xTR first issues a Map-
Request. The assumption is that the mapping distribution system is
sufficiently secure that Map-Request and Map-Reply messages and their
content can be trusted. Security issues concerning specific mapping
distribution system are out of the scope of this document. Note also
that in the case of Map-Versioning the attacker should "guess" a
valid version number that triggers a Map-Request, as described in
Section 4, otherwise the packet is simply dropped.
Note that a similar level of security can be obtained with Loc Status
Bits, by simply making mandatory to verify any change through a Map-
Request. However, in this case Locator Status Bits loose their
Iannone, et al. Expires January 13, 2011 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft LISP Map-Versioning July 2010
meaning, because, it does not matter anymore which specific bits has
changed, the xTR will query the mapping system and trust the content
of the received Map-Reply. Furthermore there is no way to perform
filtering as in the Map-Versioning in order to drop packets that do
not carry a valid Map-Version number. In the case of Locator Status
Bits, any random change can trigger a Map-Request (unless rate
limitation is enabled which raise another type of attack discussed in
Section 9.2).
9.2. Map-Versioning against reachability information DoS
Attackers can try to trigger a large amount of Map-Request by simply
forging packets with random Map-Version or random Locator Status
Bits. In both cases the Map-Requests are rate limited as described
in [I-D.ietf-lisp]. However, differently from Locator Status Bit
where there is no filtering possible, in the case of Map-Versioning
is possible to filter not valid version numbers before triggering a
Map-Request, thus helping in reducing the effects of DoS attacks. In
other words the use of Map-Versioning enables a fine control on when
to update a mapping or when to notify that a mapping has been
updated.
It is clear, that Map-Versioning does not protect against DoS and
DDoS attacks, where an xTR looses processing power doing checks on
the LISP header of packets sent by attackers. This is independent
from Map-Versioning and is the same for Loc Status Bits.
10. Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank Pierre Francois, Noel Chiappa, Dino
Farinacci for their comments and review.
This work has been partially supported by the INFSO-ICT-216372
TRILOGY Project (www.trilogy-project.org).
11. References
11.1. Normative References
[I-D.ietf-lisp]
Farinacci, D., Fuller, V., Meyer, D., and D. Lewis,
"Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP)",
draft-ietf-lisp-07 (work in progress), April 2010.
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
Iannone, et al. Expires January 13, 2011 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft LISP Map-Versioning July 2010
11.2. Informative References
[I-D.iannone-openlisp-implementation]
Iannone, L., Saucez, D., and O. Bonaventure, "OpenLISP
Implementation Report",
draft-iannone-openlisp-implementation-01 (work in
progress), July 2008.
[I-D.ietf-lisp-alt]
Fuller, V., Farinacci, D., Meyer, D., and D. Lewis, "LISP
Alternative Topology (LISP+ALT)", draft-ietf-lisp-alt-04
(work in progress), April 2010.
[I-D.ietf-lisp-interworking]
Lewis, D., Meyer, D., Farinacci, D., and V. Fuller,
"Interworking LISP with IPv4 and IPv6",
draft-ietf-lisp-interworking-00 (work in progress),
May 2009.
[I-D.ietf-lisp-ms]
Fuller, V. and D. Farinacci, "LISP Map Server",
draft-ietf-lisp-ms-05 (work in progress), April 2010.
[I-D.saucez-lisp-security]
Saucez, D., Iannone, L., and O. Bonaventure, "Notes on
LISP Security Threats and Requirements",
draft-saucez-lisp-security-00 (work in progress),
October 2009.
Appendix A. Map-Version wrap-around
The present section proposes an estimation of the wrap-around time
for proposed 12 bits size for the Map-Version Number. Using a
granularity of seconds and assuming as worst case that a new version
is issued each second, it takes slightly more than 1 hour before the
version wraps around. Note that the granularity of seconds is in
line with the rate limitation policy for Map-Request messages, as
proposed in the LISP main specifications ([I-D.ietf-lisp]).
Alternatively a granularity of minutes can also be used, as for the
TTL of the Map-Reply ([I-D.ietf-lisp]). Using a granularity of
minutes leads to a much longer time before wrap-around. In
particular, when using 12 bits, the wrap-around time is almost 3
days.
For general information, hereafter there is a table with a rough
estimation of the time before wrap-around happens considering
different sizes of the Map-Version Number and different time
Iannone, et al. Expires January 13, 2011 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft LISP Map-Versioning July 2010
granularity.
+---------------+--------------------------------------------+
|Version Number | Time before wrap around |
| Size (bits) +--------------------------------------------+
| |Granularity: Minutes | Granularity: Seconds |
+------------------------------------------------------------+
| 32 | 8171 Years | 136 Years |
| 30 | 2042 Years | 34 Years |
| 24 | 31 Years | 194 Days |
| 16 | 45 Days | 18 Hours |
| 15 | 22 Days | 9 Hours |
| 14 | 11 Days | 4 Hours |
| 13 | 5.6 Days | 2.2 Hours |
| 12 | 2.8 Days | 1.1 Hours |
+---------------+---------------------+----------------------+
Figure 3: Estimation of time before wrap-around
Authors' Addresses
Luigi Iannone
TU Berlin - Deutsche Telekom Laboratories AG
Ernst-Reuter Platz 7
Berlin
Germany
Email: luigi@net.t-labs.tu-berlin.de
Damien Saucez
Universite catholique de Louvain
Place St. Barbe 2
Louvain la Neuve
Belgium
Email: damien.saucez@uclouvain.be
Olivier Bonaventure
Universite catholique de Louvain
Place St. Barbe 2
Louvain la Neuve
Belgium
Email: olivier.bonaventure@uclouvain.be
Iannone, et al. Expires January 13, 2011 [Page 16]