LISP Working Group A. Rodriguez-Natal
Internet-Draft Cisco Systems
Updates: 6830 (if approved) A. Cabellos-Aparicio
Intended status: Experimental Technical University of Catalonia
Expires: October 6, 2017 V. Ermagan
F. Maino
Cisco Systems
S. Barkai
Hewlett Packard Enterprise
April 4, 2017
MS-originated SMRs
draft-rodrigueznatal-lisp-ms-smr-03
Abstract
This document extends [RFC6830] to allow Map Servers to send SMR
messages.
This extension is intended to be used in some SDN deployments that
use LISP as a southbound protocol with (P)ITRs that are compliant
with [RFC6830]. In this use-case mapping updates do not come from
ETRs, but rather from a centralized controller that pushes the
updates directly to the Mapping System. In such deployments, Map
Servers will benefit from having a mechanism to inform directly
(P)ITRs about updates in the mappings they are serving.
Status of This Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on October 6, 2017.
Rodriguez-Natal, et al. Expires October 6, 2017 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft MS-originated SMRs April 2017
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2017 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
1.1. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Map Server extension . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. Interoperability with legacy (P)ITRs . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
4. Deployment considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
5. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
8. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
1. Introduction
The Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP) [RFC6830] splits current IP
addresses in two different namespaces, Endpoint Identifiers (EIDs)
and Routing Locators (RLOCs). LISP uses a map-and-encap approach
that relies in two entities, the Mapping System and the Tunnel
Routers. The Tunnel Routers are deployed at LISP sites edge points
and perform encapsulation and decapsulation of LISP data packets.
The Mapping System is a distributed database that stores and
disseminates EID-RLOC bindings across different Map-Servers. LISP
Tunnel Routers keep a cache of EID-RLOC mappings pulled from the
Mapping System.
There are several ways to keep this cache updated as described in
[RFC6830]. Among them, the Solicit Map-Request (SMR) message allows
to explicitly signal (P)ITRs to let them know that some of their
cached mappings may be outdated. However, vanilla LISP as described
in [RFC6830] only considers SMR messages to be sent by an ETR. This
document extends [RFC6830] to cover the case where SMRs can be sent
also by a Map Server (MS).
Rodriguez-Natal, et al. Expires October 6, 2017 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft MS-originated SMRs April 2017
This document introduces changes in the MS specification allowing
them to send SMR messages, however it does not require any
modification in the (P)ITRs. This document is backwards compatible
and enables upgraded MS to interoperate via SMRs with legacy (P)ITRs
that only implement [RFC6830].
1.1. Requirements Language
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119].
2. Map Server extension
This document enables MS to generate and send SMR messages towards
(P)ITRs. SMRs originated in a MS follow the same format described in
[RFC6830]. Besides the fact that they are sent from a MS, there is
no difference between an SMR originated in an ETR and one originated
in a MS.
When a MS generates an SMR, it uses as source-EID the EID-prefix it
wants the (P)ITR to send the SMR-invoked Map-Request for. The EID
included in the EID-record field is the one belonging to the (P)ITR
the MS sends the SMR towards. As source locator for the SMR message,
the MS uses one of its available locators. This has implications in
the processing of the SMR at the (P)ITR as described in Section 4
When the MS has to send an SMR is implementation specific. However,
as specified in [RFC6830] and noted in Section 7, SMRs MUST be rate-
limited. It must be noted as well that, as described in Section 3, a
MS that sends an SMR may not receive the SMR-invoked Map-Request that
the (P)ITR generates as response to the SMR.
3. Interoperability with legacy (P)ITRs
This document introduces no changes in the specification of (P)ITRs
and thus it is backwards compatible with legacy equipment only
compliant with [RFC6830]. However, since SMRs were designed to be
sent by ETRs, and legacy (P)ITRs expect to receive SMRs only from
ETRs, the implications of sending SMRs from a MS are discussed in
this section.
As indicated in Section 2, the MS generates the SMR message using one
of its locators as source locator. However, this locator will not be
present in the Locator-Set cached for that EID-prefix at the (P)ITR.
Following [RFC6830], upon receiving the SMR message, the (P)ITR will
check if the source locator is in the Locator-Set cached for that
EID-record. Since it is not, the (P)ITR will send the SMR-invoked
Rodriguez-Natal, et al. Expires October 6, 2017 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft MS-originated SMRs April 2017
Map-Request always to the Mapping System and never to the source
locator of the SMR message. This means that a MS can not force an
SMR-invoked Map-Request to be sent directly towards itself. However,
it is possible that the Mapping System in use is instantiated (even
partially) by the MS originator of the SMR. In that case, it may be
that the SMR-invoked Map Request will eventually reach the MS, either
directly or after being internally forwarded through the Mapping
System.
4. Deployment considerations
The extension defined in this document may be useful in scenarios
where the MS wants to signal (P)ITRs about changes on mappings it is
serving. For instance, when the MS is keeping track of the (P)ITRs
that are requesting its mappings and wants to inform them
intermediately whenever a mapping is updated.
SDN deployments that use LISP as a southbound protocol are
particularly suitable to take advantage of this extension. On the
SDN scenario, mapping updates will unlikely come from ETRs, but
rather from a centralized entity that pushes the updates directly to
the Mapping System. In such deployments, Map Servers will benefit
from having a mechanism to inform directly (P)ITRs about updates in
the mappings they are serving.
Due to scalability and security concerns, it is RECOMMENDED that this
extension is only applied in intra-domain scenarios where all LISP
devices are within a single administrative domain.
To limit the impact of the extension and to ease its integration with
the rest of LISP signaling and operation, it is RECOMMENDED that the
MS only sends SMR messages for those mappings it is proxy-replying
for.
5. Acknowledgments
6. IANA Considerations
This memo includes no request to IANA.
7. Security Considerations
As described in [RFC6830], the SMR messages and the SMR-invoked Map-
Request MUST be rate-limited. This does not change with the
extension proposed in this document.
The (P)ITRs receiving SMRs from the MS will send Map-Request messages
to the Mapping System to retrieve authoritative mappings. It is
Rodriguez-Natal, et al. Expires October 6, 2017 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft MS-originated SMRs April 2017
RECOMMENDED that the security mechanism described in
[I-D.ietf-lisp-sec] and [I-D.ietf-lisp-ddt] are in place to secure
the mapping retrieval and protect against unsolicited messages or
hijacking attacks.
8. Normative References
[I-D.ietf-lisp-ddt]
Fuller, V., Lewis, D., Ermagan, V., Jain, A., and A.
Smirnov, "LISP Delegated Database Tree", draft-ietf-lisp-
ddt-09 (work in progress), January 2017.
[I-D.ietf-lisp-sec]
Maino, F., Ermagan, V., Cabellos-Aparicio, A., and D.
Saucez, "LISP-Security (LISP-SEC)", draft-ietf-lisp-sec-12
(work in progress), November 2016.
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[RFC6830] Farinacci, D., Fuller, V., Meyer, D., and D. Lewis, "The
Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP)", RFC 6830,
DOI 10.17487/RFC6830, January 2013,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6830>.
Authors' Addresses
Alberto Rodriguez-Natal
Cisco Systems
170 Tasman Drive
San Jose, CA
USA
Email: albrodr2@cisco.com
Albert Cabellos-Aparicio
Technical University of Catalonia
Barcelona
Spain
Email: acabello@ac.upc.edu
Rodriguez-Natal, et al. Expires October 6, 2017 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft MS-originated SMRs April 2017
Vina Ermagan
Cisco Systems
170 Tasman Drive
San Jose, CA
USA
Email: vermagan@cisco.com
Fabio Maino
Cisco Systems
170 Tasman Drive
San Jose, CA
USA
Email: fmaino@cisco.com
Sharon Barkai
Hewlett Packard Enterprise
3000 Hanover Street
Palo Alto, CA
USA
Email: sharon.barkai@hpe.com
Rodriguez-Natal, et al. Expires October 6, 2017 [Page 6]