draft-ietf-lisp-deployment-06.txt   draft-ietf-lisp-deployment-07.txt 
Network Working Group L. Jakab Network Working Group L. Jakab
Internet-Draft Cisco Systems Internet-Draft Cisco Systems
Intended status: Informational A. Cabellos-Aparicio Intended status: Informational A. Cabellos-Aparicio
Expires: July 30, 2013 F. Coras Expires: September 21, 2013 F. Coras
J. Domingo-Pascual J. Domingo-Pascual
Technical University of Technical University of
Catalonia Catalonia
D. Lewis D. Lewis
Cisco Systems Cisco Systems
January 26, 2013 March 20, 2013
LISP Network Element Deployment Considerations LISP Network Element Deployment Considerations
draft-ietf-lisp-deployment-06.txt draft-ietf-lisp-deployment-07.txt
Abstract Abstract
This document discusses the different scenarios for the deployment of This document discusses the different scenarios for the deployment of
the new network elements introduced by the Locator/Identifier the new network elements introduced by the Locator/Identifier
Separation Protocol (LISP). Separation Protocol (LISP).
Status of this Memo Status of this Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
skipping to change at page 1, line 38 skipping to change at page 1, line 38
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on July 30, 2013. This Internet-Draft will expire on September 21, 2013.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2013 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2013 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved. document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents publication of this document. Please review these documents
skipping to change at page 5, line 33 skipping to change at page 5, line 33
Another thing to consider when placing tunnel routers are MTU issues. Another thing to consider when placing tunnel routers are MTU issues.
Since encapsulating packets increases overhead, the MTU of the end- Since encapsulating packets increases overhead, the MTU of the end-
to-end path may decrease, when encapsulated packets need to travel to-end path may decrease, when encapsulated packets need to travel
over segments having close to minimum MTU. Some transit networks are over segments having close to minimum MTU. Some transit networks are
known to provide larger MTU than the typical value of 1500 bytes of known to provide larger MTU than the typical value of 1500 bytes of
popular access technologies used at end hosts (e.g., IEEE 802.3 and popular access technologies used at end hosts (e.g., IEEE 802.3 and
802.11). However, placing the LISP router connecting to such a 802.11). However, placing the LISP router connecting to such a
network at the customer edge could possibly bring up MTU issues, network at the customer edge could possibly bring up MTU issues,
depending on the link type to the provider as opposed to the depending on the link type to the provider as opposed to the
following scenario. See [RFC4459] for MTU considerations of following scenario. See [RFC4459] for MTU considerations of
tunneling protocols. tunneling protocols on how to mitigate potential issues. Still, even
with these mitigations, path MTU issues are still possible.
2.2. Provider Edge 2.2. Provider Edge
The other location at the core-edge boundary for deploying LISP The other location at the core-edge boundary for deploying LISP
routers is at the Internet service provider edge. The main incentive routers is at the Internet service provider edge. The main incentive
for this case is that the customer does not have to upgrade the CE for this case is that the customer does not have to upgrade the CE
router(s), or change the configuration of any equipment. router(s), or change the configuration of any equipment.
Encapsulation/decapsulation happens in the provider's network, which Encapsulation/decapsulation happens in the provider's network, which
may be able to serve several customers with a single device. For may be able to serve several customers with a single device. For
large ISPs with many residential/business customers asking for LISP large ISPs with many residential/business customers asking for LISP
skipping to change at page 11, line 28 skipping to change at page 11, line 28
would collide on the port forwarding. would collide on the port forwarding.
2.6. Summary and Feature Matrix 2.6. Summary and Feature Matrix
Feature CE PE Split Recursive Feature CE PE Split Recursive
------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------
Control of ingress TE x - x x Control of ingress TE x - x x
No modifications to existing No modifications to existing
int. network infrastructure x x - - int. network infrastructure x x - -
Loc-Status-Bits sync x - x x Loc-Status-Bits sync x - x x
MTU/PMTUD issues minimized - x - x MTU/PMTUD issues minimized - x - -
3. Map Resolvers and Map Servers 3. Map Resolvers and Map Servers
3.1. Map Servers 3.1. Map Servers
The Map Server learns EID-to-RLOC mapping entries from an The Map Server learns EID-to-RLOC mapping entries from an
authoritative source and publishes them in the distributed mapping authoritative source and publishes them in the distributed mapping
database. These entries are learned through authenticated Map- database. These entries are learned through authenticated Map-
Register messages sent by authoritative ETRs. Also, upon reception Register messages sent by authoritative ETRs. Also, upon reception
of a Map-Request, the Map Server verifies that the destination EID of a Map-Request, the Map Server verifies that the destination EID
skipping to change at page 20, line 21 skipping to change at page 20, line 21
* Have customer upgrade (if necessary, software and/or hardware) * Have customer upgrade (if necessary, software and/or hardware)
to be LISP capable. to be LISP capable.
3. Obtain current running configuration of CE router. A suggested 3. Obtain current running configuration of CE router. A suggested
LISP router configuration example can be customized to the LISP router configuration example can be customized to the
customer's existing environment. customer's existing environment.
4. Verify MTU Handling 4. Verify MTU Handling
* Request increase in MTU to 1556 on service provider * Request increase in MTU to 1556 or more on service provider
connections. Prior to MTU change verify that 1500 byte packet connections. Prior to MTU change verify that 1500 byte packet
from P-xTR to RLOC with do not fragment (DF-bit) bit set. from P-xTR to RLOC with do not fragment (DF-bit) bit set.
* Ensure they are not filtering ICMP unreachable or time- * Ensure they are not filtering ICMP unreachable or time-
exceeded on their firewall or router. exceeded on their firewall or router.
LISP, like any tunneling protocol, will increase the size of LISP, like any tunneling protocol, will increase the size of
packets when the LISP header is appended. If increasing the MTU packets when the LISP header is appended. If increasing the MTU
of the access links is not possible, care must be taken that ICMP of the access links is not possible, care must be taken that ICMP
is not being filtered in order to allow for Path MTU Discovery to is not being filtered in order to allow for Path MTU Discovery to
skipping to change at page 23, line 5 skipping to change at page 23, line 5
8. IANA Considerations 8. IANA Considerations
This memo includes no request to IANA. This memo includes no request to IANA.
9. Acknowledgements 9. Acknowledgements
Many thanks to Margaret Wasserman for her contribution to the IETF76 Many thanks to Margaret Wasserman for her contribution to the IETF76
presentation that kickstarted this work. The authors would also like presentation that kickstarted this work. The authors would also like
to thank Damien Saucez, Luigi Iannone, Joel Halpern, Vince Fuller, to thank Damien Saucez, Luigi Iannone, Joel Halpern, Vince Fuller,
Dino Farinacci, Terry Manderson, Noel Chiappa, Hannu Flinck, Paul Dino Farinacci, Terry Manderson, Noel Chiappa, Hannu Flinck, Paul
Vinciguerra and everyone else who provided input. Vinciguerra, Fred Templin, and everyone else who provided input.
10. References 10. References
10.1. Normative References 10.1. Normative References
[RFC6830] Farinacci, D., Fuller, V., Meyer, D., and D. Lewis, "The [RFC6830] Farinacci, D., Fuller, V., Meyer, D., and D. Lewis, "The
Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP)", RFC 6830, Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP)", RFC 6830,
January 2013. January 2013.
[RFC6832] Lewis, D., Meyer, D., Farinacci, D., and V. Fuller, [RFC6832] Lewis, D., Meyer, D., Farinacci, D., and V. Fuller,
skipping to change at page 23, line 27 skipping to change at page 23, line 27
(LISP) and Non-LISP Sites", RFC 6832, January 2013. (LISP) and Non-LISP Sites", RFC 6832, January 2013.
[RFC6833] Fuller, V. and D. Farinacci, "Locator/ID Separation [RFC6833] Fuller, V. and D. Farinacci, "Locator/ID Separation
Protocol (LISP) Map-Server Interface", RFC 6833, Protocol (LISP) Map-Server Interface", RFC 6833,
January 2013. January 2013.
10.2. Informative References 10.2. Informative References
[I-D.ietf-lisp-eid-block] [I-D.ietf-lisp-eid-block]
Iannone, L., Lewis, D., Meyer, D., and V. Fuller, "LISP Iannone, L., Lewis, D., Meyer, D., and V. Fuller, "LISP
EID Block", draft-ietf-lisp-eid-block-03 (work in EID Block", draft-ietf-lisp-eid-block-04 (work in
progress), November 2012. progress), February 2013.
[I-D.ietf-lisp-sec] [I-D.ietf-lisp-sec]
Maino, F., Ermagan, V., Cabellos-Aparicio, A., Saucez, D., Maino, F., Ermagan, V., Cabellos-Aparicio, A., Saucez, D.,
and O. Bonaventure, "LISP-Security (LISP-SEC)", and O. Bonaventure, "LISP-Security (LISP-SEC)",
draft-ietf-lisp-sec-04 (work in progress), October 2012. draft-ietf-lisp-sec-04 (work in progress), October 2012.
[I-D.ietf-lisp-threats] [I-D.ietf-lisp-threats]
Saucez, D., Iannone, L., and O. Bonaventure, "LISP Threats Saucez, D., Iannone, L., and O. Bonaventure, "LISP Threats
Analysis", draft-ietf-lisp-threats-03 (work in progress), Analysis", draft-ietf-lisp-threats-04 (work in progress),
October 2012. February 2013.
[RFC4459] Savola, P., "MTU and Fragmentation Issues with In-the- [RFC4459] Savola, P., "MTU and Fragmentation Issues with In-the-
Network Tunneling", RFC 4459, April 2006. Network Tunneling", RFC 4459, April 2006.
[RFC6834] Iannone, L., Saucez, D., and O. Bonaventure, "Locator/ID [RFC6834] Iannone, L., Saucez, D., and O. Bonaventure, "Locator/ID
Separation Protocol (LISP) Map-Versioning", RFC 6834, Separation Protocol (LISP) Map-Versioning", RFC 6834,
January 2013. January 2013.
[cache] Jung, J., Sit, E., Balakrishnan, H., and R. Morris, "DNS [cache] Jung, J., Sit, E., Balakrishnan, H., and R. Morris, "DNS
performance and the effectiveness of caching", 2002. performance and the effectiveness of caching", 2002.
 End of changes. 10 change blocks. 
12 lines changed or deleted 13 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.41. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/