Network Working Group                                          D. Saucez
Internet-Draft                                                     INRIA
Intended status: Informational                                L. Iannone
Expires: April 27, 2015                                Telecom ParisTech
                                                             A. Cabellos
                                                                F. Coras
                                       Technical University of Catalonia
                                                        October 24, 2014

                              LISP Impact


   The Locator/Identifier Separation Protocol (LISP) aims at improving
   the Internet scalability properties leveraging on three simple
   principles: address role separation, encapsulation, and mapping.  In
   this document, based on implementation, deployment, and theoretical
   studies, we discuss the impact that deployment of LISP can have on
   both the Internet in general and for the end-users in particular.

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 27, 2015.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2014 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

Saucez, et al.           Expires April 27, 2015                 [Page 1]

Internet-Draft                 LISP Impact                  October 2014

   carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
   to this document.  Code Components extracted from this document must
   include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
   the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
   described in the Simplified BSD License.

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
   2.  LISP in a nutshell  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   3.  LISP for scaling the Internet . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   4.  Beyond scaling the Internet . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
     4.1.  Traffic engineering . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
     4.2.  LISP for IPv6 Co-existence  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
     4.3.  Inter-domain multicast  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
   5.  Impact of LISP on operations and business model . . . . . . .   8
     5.1.  Impact on non-LISP traffic and sites  . . . . . . . . . .   8
     5.2.  Impact on LISP traffic and sites  . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
   6.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
   7.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
   8.  Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
   9.  References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
     9.1.  Normative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
     9.2.  Informative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15

1.  Introduction

   The Locator/Identifier Separation Protocol (LISP) relies on three
   simple principles to scale the Internet: address role separation,
   encapsulation, and mapping.  The main goal of LISP is to make the
   Internet more scalable by reducing the number of prefixes announced
   in the Default Free Zone (DFZ) as well as its related churn.  As LISP
   relies on mapping and encapsulation, it turns out that it provides
   more benefits than just scalability.  For example, LISP provides a
   mean for a LISP site to precisely control its inter-domain outgoing
   and incoming traffic, with the possibility to apply different
   policies to the different domains exchanging traffic with it.  LISP
   can also be used to ease the transition from IPv4 to IPv6 as it
   allows to transport IPv4 over IPv6 or IPv6 over IPv4.  Furthermore,
   LISP also provides a solution to perform inter-domain multicast.

   This document discusses the impact of LISP's deployment on the
   Internet and on end-users and shows the consequences of the
   interworking infrastructure in path stretch.  There still are many,
   economical rather than technical, open questions related to the
   deployment of such infrastructure.  Moreover, encapsulation may raise
   some issues (that do not have a real impact in practice) because it

Saucez, et al.           Expires April 27, 2015                 [Page 2]

Internet-Draft                 LISP Impact                  October 2014

   reduces the Maximum Transmission Unit (MTU) size.  An important
   impact of LISP on network operations is related to resiliency and
   troubleshooting.  Indeed, as LISP relies on cached mappings and on
   encapsulation, troubleshooting is harder than in the traditional
   Internet.  Also, end-to-end encapsulation stresses resiliency as it
   makes failure detection and recovery slower than with hop-by-hop

2.  LISP in a nutshell

   The Locator/Identifier Separation Protocol (LISP) relies on three
   simple principles: address role separation, encapsulation, and

   Semantics of address are separated in two: the Routing Locators
   (RLOCs) and the Endpoint Identifiers (EIDs).  RLOCs are assigned from
   the address space of the Internet service providers (PA).  The EIDs
   are attributed, to the nodes in the edge network, by block of
   contiguous addresses extracted from the EID Space.  To limit the
   scalability problem of today's Internet, only the routes towards the
   RLOCs are announced in the Internet while EIDs are also propagated

   LISP routers are used at the boundary between the EID and the RLOC
   spaces.  Routers used to exit the EID space are called Ingress Tunnel
   Router (ITRs) and those used to enter the EID space the Egress Tunnel
   Routers (ETRs).  When a host sends a packet to a remote destination,
   it sends it as in today's Internet.  The packet eventually arrives at
   the border of its site at an ITR.  Because EIDs are not routable on
   the Internet, the packet is encapsulated with the source address set
   to the ITR RLOC and the destination address set to the ETR RLOC.  The
   encapsulated packet is then forwarded in the Internet until it
   reaches the selected ETR.  The ETR decapsulates the packet and
   forwards it to its final destination.  The acronym xTR for Ingress/
   Egress tunnel router is used for a router playing these two roles.

   The correspondence between EIDs and RLOCs is given by the mappings.
   When an ITR needs to find ETR RLOCs that serve an EID it queries the
   mapping system.  It is worth noticing that with the LISP Canonical
   Address Format (LCAF) [I-D.ietf-lisp-lcaf], LISP is not restricted to
   the Internet Protocol for the EID addresses.  With LCAF, any address
   type can be used as EID (the address is the key for the mapping
   lookup) and LISP can then transport, for example, Ethernet frames
   over the Internet.

   A more thorough introduction to LISP can be found in
   [I-D.ietf-lisp-introduction].  The complete specifications are given

Saucez, et al.           Expires April 27, 2015                 [Page 3]

Internet-Draft                 LISP Impact                  October 2014

   in [RFC6830], [RFC6833], [I-D.fuller-lisp-ddt], [RFC6836], [RFC6832],
   [RFC6834], and [I-D.ietf-lisp-sec].

3.  LISP for scaling the Internet

   The first goal of LISP is to scale the Internet.  LISP improves the
   Internet's scalability because traffic engineering and stub AS
   prefixes are not propagated in the DFZ, so routing tables are smaller
   and more stable (i.e., less affected by churn).  Also, at the edge
   network, information necessary to forward packets (i.e., the
   mappings) is usually obtained on demand using a pull model.
   Therefore, for each edge network they scale with the traffic matrix
   of the edge network and are independent of the Internet's size.  This
   scaling improvement is proven by several works.

   Quoitin et al. show in [QIdLB07] that the separation between locator
   and identifier roles at the network level improves the routing
   scalability by reducing the RIB size (up to one order of magnitude)
   and increases the path diversity and thus the traffic engineering
   capabilities.  In addition, Iannone and Bonaventure show in [IB07]
   that the number of mapping entries that must be supported at an ITR
   of a 10,000 users campus network is limited and does not represent
   more that 3 to 4 Megabytes of memory.  Furthermore, they show that
   signaling traffic (i.e., Map-Request/Map-Reply packets) is in the
   same order of magnitude like DNS requests traffic and that
   encapsulation overhead, while not negligible, is very limited (in the
   order of few percentage points of the total traffic volume).
   Similarly, Kim et al. show that the EID-to-RLOC cache size should not
   exceed 14 MB for an ITR responsible of more than 20,000 residential
   ADSL users at a large ISP [KIF11].  [IB07], [KIF11] rely on BGP and
   traffic traces to determine the number of entries to keep in the EID-
   to-RLOC cache.  In both papers, the size of the cache is inferred
   from the number of entries by considering that every EID is
   associated with two or three locators.  [S11] confirms these results
   by looking at the distribution of the number of locators per EID if
   LISP were deployed in the 2010's Internet.  The assumptions in these
   studies are:

   o  contiguous addresses tend to be used similarly, EID prefixes
      follow the current BGP prefixes decomposition;

   o  EIDs are used only at the stub ASes, not in the transit ASes;

   o  the RLOCs of an EID prefix are deployed at the edge between the
      stubs owning the EID prefix and the providers and locator
      addresses are allocated in a Provider Aggregetable (PA) mode.

Saucez, et al.           Expires April 27, 2015                 [Page 4]

Internet-Draft                 LISP Impact                  October 2014

   While all previous studies consider the case of a timer-based cache
   eviction policy (i.e., mappings are deleted from the cache upon
   timeout), [CCD12]  generalizes the caching discussion for the Least
   Recently Used (LRU) eviction policy and proposes an analytic model
   for the EID-to-RLOC cache size when prefix-level traffic has a
   stationary generating process.  The model shows that miss rate can be
   accurately predicted from the EID-to-RLOC cache size and a small set
   of easily measurable traffic parameters.  The model was validated
   using four one-day-long packet traces collected at egress points of a
   campus network and an academic exchange point considering EID-
   prefixes as being of BGP-prefix granularity.  Consequently, operators
   can provision the EID-to-RLOC cache of their ITRs according to the
   miss rate they want to achieve for their given traffic.

   The results indicate that for a given miss ratio, cache size only
   depends on the parameters of the popularity distribution and is in
   fact independent of the number of users (the size of the LISP site)
   and the number of destinations (the size of the EID-prefix space).
   Assuming that the popularity distribution remains constant, this
   means that as the number of users and the number of destinations
   grow, the cache size needed to obtain a given miss rate remains
   constant O(1).

   Under normal user traffic, miss-ratio decreases at an accelerated
   pace with cache size and finally settles to a power-law decrease.
   However, [CDLC] extends the model to account for scanning attacks,
   whereby attackers generate a constant flux of packets according to
   random scans of the destination prefix space and shows that miss-
   ratios are be very high and independent of cache size.  In fact, if
   the attack is merely 1% of the legitimate traffic, the miss rate does
   not drop under 1% as long as the cache cannot accommodate the whole
   prefix space.  Locality measurements also suggested that LRU eviction
   policy should be close to optimal.

   TBD: add a paragraph to explain thhe operational difference while
   dealing with a pull model instead of a push.

4.  Beyond scaling the Internet

   Even though it is its main goal, LISP is more than just a scalability
   solution, it is also a tool to provide both incoming and outgoing
   traffic engineering [S11], can be used as an IPv6 transition at the
   routing level, and for inter-domain multicast [RFC6831],
   [I-D.coras-lisp-re].  LISP has also proven to be a good protocol for
   mobility of devices in the Internet [I-D.meyer-lisp-mn] or even
   virtual machine mobility in data centers and multi-tenant VPN,
   however, we don't further discuss in details the two last points as
   they are out of the scope of the charter.

Saucez, et al.           Expires April 27, 2015                 [Page 5]

Internet-Draft                 LISP Impact                  October 2014

   Lisp architecture facilitates routing in environments where there is
   little to no correlation between network endpoints and topological
   location.  In service provider environment this use is evident in a
   range of consumer use cases which require an inline anchor in-order
   to deliver a service to a subscribers.  Inline anchors provide one of
   three types of capabilities:

   o  enable mobility of subscriber end points

   o  enable chaining of middle-box functions

   o  enable seamless scale-out of functions

   Without LISP operators are forced to centralize service anchors in
   custom built special boxes.  This means that end-points can move as
   long as their traffic ends up on the same mobile gateway, functions
   can be chained as long as all traffic traverses the same wire or the
   same DPI box, and capacity can scale out as long as traffic fans out
   to and form a specific load balancer.

   With LISP service providers are able to distribute, virtualize, and
   insatiate subscriber-service anchors anywhere in the network.
   Typical use cases that Virtualize inline anchors and network
   functions include: Distributed Mobility and Virtualized Evolved
   Packet Core (vEPC), where centralization makes way to distributed and
   virtualized inline anchoring of mobility, Virtualized Customer
   Premise Equipment or vCPE, where functionality previously anchored at
   customer prem is now dynamically allocated in-network, Virtualized
   SGi LAN, where value added mobile services previously anchored inside
   full-stack boxes or anchored to physical wires with permutation
   setups aka "Rails", Virtual IMS and Virtual SBC, etc.

   Current deployments by ConteXtream, using a pre standards (designed
   2006) based architecture, support a total of 100 millions subscribers
   with such an architecture.  A deployment at a tier-1 US Mobile
   operator over 50 millions subscribers provides a 39% download rate
   improvement over LTE.

4.1.  Traffic engineering

   In today's Internet, stub networks are globally routable and the
   routing system distributes the routes to reach these stubs.  On the
   contrary, the EID prefixes of a LISP site are not routable on the
   Internet and mappings are needed to determine the list of LISP
   routers to contact to send them packets.  The difference is
   significant for two reasons.  First, packets are not sent to a site
   but to a specific ingress router.  Second, a site can control the
   entry points for its traffic by controlling its mappings.

Saucez, et al.           Expires April 27, 2015                 [Page 6]

Internet-Draft                 LISP Impact                  October 2014

   For traffic engineering purpose, a mapping associates an EID prefix
   to a list of RLOCs.  Each RLOC is annotated with a priority and a
   weight.  When there are several RLOCs, the ITR selects the one with
   the lowest priority value and sends the encapsulated packet to this
   RLOC.  If several such RLOCs exist, then the traffic is balanced
   proportionally to their weight among the RLOCs with the lowest
   priority value.  Traffic engineering in LISP thus allows the mapping
   owner to have a fine-grained control on the primary and backup path
   its incoming and outgoing packets use.  In addition, it can share the
   load among its links.  An example of the use of such a feature is
   described in [SDIB08], where Saucez et al. show how to use LISP to
   direct different types of traffic on different links having different

   Traffic engineering in LISP goes one step further.  As every Map-
   Request contains the Source EID Address of the packet that caused a
   cache miss and triggered the Map-Request.  It is thus possible for a
   mapping owner to differentiate the answer (Map-Reply) it gives to
   Map-Requests based on the requester.  This functionality is not
   available today with BGP because a domain cannot control exactly the
   routes that will be received by domains that are not in the direct

4.2.  LISP for IPv6 Co-existence

   The LISP encapsulation mechanism is designed to support any
   combination of locators and identifiers address family.  It is then
   possible to bind IPv6 EIDs with IPv4 RLOCs and vice-versa.  This
   allows transporting IPv6 packets over an IPv4 network (or IPv4
   packets over an IPv6 network), making LISP a valuable mechanism to
   ease the transition to IPv6.

   A not so uncommon example is the case of the network infrastructure
   of a datacenter being IPv4-only while dual-stack front-end load
   balancers are used.  In this scenario, LISP can be used to provide
   IPv6 access to servers even though the network and the servers only
   support IPv4.  Assuming that the datacenter's ISP offers IPv6
   connectivity, the datacenter only needs to deploy one (or more)
   xTR(s) at its border with the ISP and one (or more) xTR(s) directly
   connected to the load balancers.  The xTR(s) at the ISP's border
   tunnels IPv6 packets over IPv4 to the xTR(s) directly attached to the
   load balancer.  The load balancer's xTR decapsulates the packets and
   forward them to the load balancer, which act as proxies, translating
   each IPv6 packet into an IPv4.  IPv4 packets are then sent to the
   appropriate servers.  Similarly, when the server's response arrives
   at the load balancer, the packet is translated back into an IPv6
   packet and forwarded to its xTR(s), which in turn will tunnel it
   back, over the IPv4-only infrastructure, to an xTR connected to the

Saucez, et al.           Expires April 27, 2015                 [Page 7]

Internet-Draft                 LISP Impact                  October 2014

   ISP.  The packet is then decapsulated and forwarded to the ISP
   natively in IPv6.

4.3.  Inter-domain multicast

   LISP has native support for multicast [RFC6831].  From the data-plane
   perspective, at a multicast enabled xTR, an EID sourced multicast
   packet is encapsulated in another multicast packet and subsequently
   forwarded in a RLOC-level distribution tree.  Therefore, xTRs must
   participate in both EID and RLOC level distribution trees.  Control-
   plane wise, since group addresses have no topological significance
   they need not be mapped.  It is worth noting that, to properly
   function inter-domain, LISP-Multicast requires that inter-domain
   multicast be prior deployed.

   [I-D.coras-lisp-re] and [CDM12] propose a technique to construct xTR
   based inter-domain multicast distribution trees.  Simulations of
   three different management strategies for low latency content
   delivery show that such overlays can support thousands of member
   xTRs, hundreds of thousands of end-hosts and deliver content at
   latencies close to unicast ones [CDM12].  It was also observed that
   high client churn has a limited impact on performance and management

5.  Impact of LISP on operations and business model

   Important implementation efforts ([IOSNXOS], [OpenLISP], [LISPmob],
   [LISPClick], [LISPcp], and [LISPfritz]) have been made to assess the
   specifications and interoperability tests [Was09] have been a
   success.  World-wide large deployment in the international
   testbed, which is currently composed of nodes running at least three
   different implementations, allows to learn operational matters
   related to LISP.

   We have to distinguish the impact of LISP on LISP sites from the
   impact on non-LISP sites.

5.1.  Impact on non-LISP traffic and sites

   LISP has no impact on traffic which has neither LISP origin nor LISP
   destination.  However, LISP can have a significant impact on traffic
   between a LISP site and a non-LISP site.  Traffic between a non-LISP
   site and a LISP site are subject to the same issues than those
   observed for LISP-to-LISP traffic (cf infra) but also have issues
   specific to the transition mechanism that allow LISP site to exchange
   packets with non-LISP site ([RFC6832], [I-D.ietf-lisp-deployment]).

Saucez, et al.           Expires April 27, 2015                 [Page 8]

Internet-Draft                 LISP Impact                  October 2014

   Indeed, the transition requires to setup proxy tunnel routers
   (PxTRs).  PxTRs do not cause particular technical issue.  However, by
   definition proxies cause path stretch and make troubleshooting
   harder.  There are still big questions related to PxTRs that have to
   be answered:

   o  Where to deploy PxTRs?  The placement in the topology has an
      important impact on the path stretch.

   o  How many PxTRs?  The number of PxTR has a direct impact on the
      load and the impact of the failure of a PxTR on the traffic.

   o  What part of the EID space?  Will all the PxTRs be proxies for the
      whole EID space or will it be segmented between different PxTRs?

   o  Who to operate PxTRs?  The IETF does not aim at providing business
      model hints, however, an important question to answer is related
      to the entities that will deploy PxTRs, how they will manage their
      CAPEX/OPEX and how the traffic will be carried with respect for
      the security and privacy.

   PxTR also normally have to advertise in BGP the EID prefix they are
   proxy for.  However, if proxies are managed by different entities,
   they will belong to different ASes.  In this case, we have to be sure
   that it will not cause MOA issues that could negatively influence
   routing.  Moreover, we have to be sure that the way EID prefixes will
   be deaggregated by the proxies will remain reasonable to not take
   part in the BGP scalability issues.

5.2.  Impact on LISP traffic and sites

   LISP is a protocol based on the map-and-encap paradigm which has the
   positive effects that we have given in the sections above.  However,
   by design, LISP also has side impact on operations:

   MTU issue:  as LISP uses encapsulation, the MTU is reduced, this has
         implication on potentially all the traffic.  However, in
         practice, on the network, no major issue due to the
         MTU has been observed.  This is probably due to the fact that
         current end-host stacks are well designed to deal with the
         problem of MTU.

   Resiliency issue:  the advantage of flexibility and control offered
         by the Locator/ID separation comes at the cost of increasing
         the complexity of the reachability detection.  Indeed,
         identifiers are not directly routable and have to be mapped to
         locators but a locator may be unreachable while others are
         still reachable.  This is an important problem for any tunnel-

Saucez, et al.           Expires April 27, 2015                 [Page 9]

Internet-Draft                 LISP Impact                  October 2014

         based solution.  In the current Internet, packets are forwarded
         independently of the border router of the network meaning that
         in case of the failure of a border router, another one can be
         used.  With LISP, the destination RLOC specifically designate
         one particular ETR, hence if this ETR fails, the traffic is
         dropped even though other ETRs are available for the
         destination site.  Another resiliency issue is linked to the
         fact that mappings are learned on demand.  When an ITR fails,
         all its traffic is redirected to other ITRs that might not have
         yet the mappings for the redirected traffic.  The study in
         [SKI12] and [SD12] show, based on measurements and traffic
         traces, that failure of ITRs and RLOC are infrequent but that
         when such failure happens, an important number of packet can be
         dropped.  Unfortunately, the current techniques for LISP
         resiliency, based on monitoring or probing are not rapid enough
         (failure recovery of the order of a few seconds).  To tackle
         this issue [I-D.bonaventure-lisp-preserve] and
         [I-D.saucez-lisp-itr-graceful] propose techniques based on
         local failure detection and recovery.

   Middle boxes/filters:  because of encapsulation, the middle boxes
         might not understand the traffic which can cause firewall to
         drop legitimate packets.  In addition, LISP allows triangular
         or even rectangular routing, so it is hard to maintain a
         correct state even if the middle box perfectly understands
         LISP.  Finally, filtering might also have problems because they
         might think only one host is generating the traffic (the ITR),
         as long as it is not decapsulated.  To deal with LISP
         encapsulation, LISP aware firewalls that inspect inner LISP
         packets are proposed [lispfirewall].

   Troubleshooting/debugging:  the major issue years of LISP
         experimentation have shown is the difficulty of
         troubleshooting.  When there is a problem in the network, it is
         hard to pin-point the reason as the operator only has a partial
         view of the network.  The operator can see what is in its EID-
         to-RLOC cache/database, and can try to obtain what is
         potentially elsewhere by querying the Map Resolvers but the
         knowledge remains partial.  On top of that, ICMP is too small,
         which means that when an ICMP arrives at the ITR, it might not
         contain enough information to make correct troubleshooting.
         Interestingly, deployment in the beta network has shown that
         LISP+ALT was not easy to maintain and control, which explains
         the migration to LISP-DDT [I-D.fuller-lisp-ddt].

   Business:  the IETF is not aiming at providing business models.
         However, even though [IL10] shown that there is economical
         incentives to migrate to LISP, some questions are on hold.  For

Saucez, et al.           Expires April 27, 2015                [Page 10]

Internet-Draft                 LISP Impact                  October 2014

         example, how will the EIDs be allocated to allow aggregation
         and hence scalability of the mapping system?  Who will operate
         the mapping system infrastructure and for what benefit?

6.  IANA Considerations

   This document makes no request to the IANA.

7.  Security Considerations

   Security and threats analysis of the LISP protocol is out of the
   scope of the present document.  A thorough analysis of LISP security
   threats is detailed in [I-D.ietf-lisp-threats].

8.  Acknowledgments

   The people that contributed to this document are Sharon Barkai, Vince
   Fuller, Joel Halpern, Terry Manderson, and Gregg Schudel.

9.  References

9.1.  Normative References

              Fuller, V., Lewis, D., Ermagan, V., and A. Jain, "LISP
              Delegated Database Tree", draft-fuller-lisp-ddt-04 (work
              in progress), September 2012.

              Jakab, L., Cabellos-Aparicio, A., Coras, F., Domingo-
              Pascual, J., and D. Lewis, "LISP Network Element
              Deployment Considerations", draft-ietf-lisp-deployment-12
              (work in progress), January 2014.

              Maino, F., Ermagan, V., Cabellos-Aparicio, A., and D.
              Saucez, "LISP-Security (LISP-SEC)", draft-ietf-lisp-sec-07
              (work in progress), October 2014.

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

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

Saucez, et al.           Expires April 27, 2015                [Page 11]

Internet-Draft                 LISP Impact                  October 2014

   [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

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

9.2.  Informative References

   [CCD12]    Coras, F., Cabellos-Aparicio, A., and J. Domingo-Pascual,
              "An Analytical Model for the LISP Cache Size", In Proc.
              IFIP Networking 2012, May 2012.

   [CDLC]     Coras, F., Domingo, J., Lewis, D., and A. Cabellos, "An
              Analytical Model for Loc/ID Mappings Caches", Technical
              Report, 2013.

   [CDM12]    Coras, F., Domingo-Pascual, J., Maino, F., Farinacci, D.,
              and A. Cabellos-Aparicio, "Lcast: Software-defined Inter-
              Domain Multicast", Technical Report, Universitat
              Politecnica de Catalunya, 2012, July 2012.

              Bonaventure, O., Francois, P., and D. Saucez, "Preserving
              the reachability of LISP ETRs in case of failures", draft-
              bonaventure-lisp-preserve-00 (work in progress), July

              Art, Y., "An Architectural Perspective on the LISP
              Location-Identity Separation System", draft-chiappa-lisp-
              architecture-01 (work in progress), July 2012.

              Coras, F., Cabellos-Aparicio, A., Domingo-Pascual, J.,
              Maino, F., and D. Farinacci, "LISP Replication
              Engineering", draft-coras-lisp-re-05 (work in progress),
              April 2014.

Saucez, et al.           Expires April 27, 2015                [Page 12]

Internet-Draft                 LISP Impact                  October 2014

              Cabellos-Aparicio, A. and D. Saucez, "An Architectural
              Introduction to the Locator/ID Separation Protocol
              (LISP)", draft-ietf-lisp-introduction-06 (work in
              progress), October 2014.

              Farinacci, D., Meyer, D., and J. Snijders, "LISP Canonical
              Address Format (LCAF)", draft-ietf-lisp-lcaf-06 (work in
              progress), October 2014.

              Saucez, D., Iannone, L., and O. Bonaventure, "LISP Threats
              Analysis", draft-ietf-lisp-threats-10 (work in progress),
              July 2014.

              Farinacci, D., Lewis, D., Meyer, D., and C. White, "LISP
              Mobile Node", draft-meyer-lisp-mn-11 (work in progress),
              July 2014.

              Saucez, D., Bonaventure, O., Iannone, L., and C. Filsfils,
              "LISP ITR Graceful Restart", draft-saucez-lisp-itr-
              graceful-03 (work in progress), December 2013.

   [IB07]     Iannone, L. and O. Bonaventure, "On the cost of caching
              locator/id mappings", In Proc. ACM CoNEXT 2007, December

   [IL10]     Iannone, L. and T. Leva, "Modeling the economics of Loc/ID
              Separation for the Future Internet", Book Chapter, Towards
              the Future Internet - Emerging Trends from the European
              Research, IOS Press, May 2010.

   [IOSNXOS]  Cisco Systems Inc., , "Locator/ID Separation Protocol
              (LISP)",, 2013.

   [KIF11]    Kim, J., Iannone, L., and A. Feldmann, "Deep dive into the
              lisp cache and what isps should know about it", In Proc.
              IFIP Networking 2011, May 2011.

              Saucez, D. and V. Nguyen, "LISP-Click: A Click
              implementation of the Locator/ID Separation Protocol", 1st
              Symposium on Click Modular Router, 2009, November 2009.

Saucez, et al.           Expires April 27, 2015                [Page 13]

Internet-Draft                 LISP Impact                  October 2014

   [LISPcp]   "The lip6-lisp Project",,

              "Unsere FRITZ!Box-Produkte",
    , 2014.

   [LISPmob]  "LISP Mobile Node for Linux",, 2013.

              "The OpenLISP Project",, 2013.

   [QIdLB07]  Quoitin, B., Iannone, L., de Launois, C., and O.
              Bonaventure, "Evaluating the benefits of the locator/
              identifier separation", In Proc. ACM MobiArch 2007, May

   [S11]      Saucez, D., "Mechanisms for Interdomain Traffic
              Engineering with LISP", PhD Thesis, Universite catholique
              de Louvain, 2011, October 2011.

   [SD12]     Saucez, D. and B. Donnet, "On the Dynamics of Locators in
              LISP", In Proc. IFIP Networking 2012, May 2012.

   [SDIB08]   Saucez, D., Donnet, B., Iannone, L., and O. Bonaventure,
              "Interdomain Traffic Engineering in a Locator/Identifier
              Separation Context", In Proc. of Internet Network
              Management Workshop, 2008, October 2008.

   [SKI12]    Saucez, D., Kim, J., Iannone, L., Bonaventure, O., and C.
              Filsfils, "A Local Approach to Fast Failure Recovery of
              LISP Ingress Tunnel Routers", In Proc. IFIP Networking
              2012, May 2012.

   [Was09]    Wasserman, M., "LISP Interoperability Testing", IETF 76,
              LISP WG presentation, 2009., November 2009.

              "LISP and Zone-Based Firewalls Integration and

Saucez, et al.           Expires April 27, 2015                [Page 14]

Internet-Draft                 LISP Impact                  October 2014

Authors' Addresses

   Damien Saucez
   2004 route des Lucioles BP 93
   06902 Sophia Antipolis Cedex


   Luigi Iannone
   Telecom ParisTech
   23, Avenue d'Italie, CS 51327
   75214 PARIS Cedex 13


   Albert Cabellos
   Technical University of Catalonia
   C/Jordi Girona, s/n
   08034 Barcelona


   Florin Coras
   Technical University of Catalonia
   C/Jordi Girona, s/n
   08034 Barcelona


Saucez, et al.           Expires April 27, 2015                [Page 15]