draft-ietf-lisp-te-00.txt   draft-ietf-lisp-te-01.txt 
Internet Engineering Task Force D. Farinacci Internet Engineering Task Force D. Farinacci
Internet-Draft lispers.net Internet-Draft lispers.net
Intended status: Experimental M. Kowal Intended status: Experimental M. Kowal
Expires: October 30, 2017 cisco Systems Expires: May 2, 2018 cisco Systems
P. Lahiri P. Lahiri
April 28, 2017 October 29, 2017
LISP Traffic Engineering Use-Cases LISP Traffic Engineering Use-Cases
draft-ietf-lisp-te-00 draft-ietf-lisp-te-01
Abstract Abstract
This document describes how LISP reencapsulating tunnels can be used This document describes how LISP reencapsulating tunnels can be used
for Traffic Engineering purposes. The mechanisms described in this for Traffic Engineering purposes. The mechanisms described in this
document require no LISP protocol changes but do introduce a new document require no LISP protocol changes but do introduce a new
locator (RLOC) encoding. The Traffic Engineering features provided locator (RLOC) encoding. The Traffic Engineering features provided
by these LISP mechanisms can span intra-domain, inter-domain, or by these LISP mechanisms can span intra-domain, inter-domain, or
combination of both. combination of both.
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
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
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 https://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 October 30, 2017. This Internet-Draft will expire on May 2, 2018.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2017 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2017 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 (https://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
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License. described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents Table of Contents
1. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 1. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 2. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
3. Definition of Terms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 3. Definition of Terms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
4. Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 4. Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
5. Explicit Locator Paths . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 5. Explicit Locator Paths . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
5.1. ELP Re-optimization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 5.1. ELP Re-optimization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
5.2. Using Recursion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 5.2. Using Recursion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
5.3. ELP Selection based on Class of Service . . . . . . . . . 8 5.3. ELP Selection based on Class of Service . . . . . . . . . 8
5.4. Packet Loop Avoidance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 5.4. Packet Loop Avoidance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
6. Service Chaining . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 6. Service Chaining . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
7. RLOC Probing by RTRs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 7. RLOC Probing by RTRs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
8. Interworking Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 8. ELP Probing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
9. Multicast Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 9. Interworking Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
10. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 10. Multicast Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
11. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 11. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
12. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 12. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
12.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 13. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
12.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 13.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
13.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Appendix A. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 Appendix A. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Appendix B. Document Change Log . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 Appendix B. Document Change Log . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
B.1. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-te-00.txt . . . . . . . . . . 15 B.1. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-te-00.txt . . . . . . . . . . 15
B.2. Changes to draft-farinacci-lisp-te-02 through -12 . . . . 15 B.2. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-te-00.txt . . . . . . . . . . 15
B.3. Changes to draft-farinacci-lisp-te-01.txt . . . . . . . . 15 B.3. Changes to draft-farinacci-lisp-te-02 through -12 . . . . 16
B.4. Changes to draft-farinacci-lisp-te-00.txt . . . . . . . . 16 B.4. Changes to draft-farinacci-lisp-te-01.txt . . . . . . . . 16
B.5. Changes to draft-farinacci-lisp-te-00.txt . . . . . . . . 16
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
1. Requirements Language 1. Requirements Language
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119]. document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119].
2. Introduction 2. Introduction
skipping to change at page 10, line 34 skipping to change at page 10, line 42
monitor the reachability of the next-hop RTR RLOC by doing RLOC- monitor the reachability of the next-hop RTR RLOC by doing RLOC-
probing according to the procedures in [RFC6830]. When the RLOC is probing according to the procedures in [RFC6830]. When the RLOC is
determined unreachable by the RLOC-probing mechanisms, the RTR can determined unreachable by the RLOC-probing mechanisms, the RTR can
use another locator in the locator-set. That could be the final ETR, use another locator in the locator-set. That could be the final ETR,
a RLOC of another RTR, or an ELP where it must search for itself and a RLOC of another RTR, or an ELP where it must search for itself and
use the next RLOC in the ELP list to encapsulate to. use the next RLOC in the ELP list to encapsulate to.
RLOC-probing can also be used to measure delay on the path between RLOC-probing can also be used to measure delay on the path between
RTRs and when it is desirable switch to another lower delay ELP. RTRs and when it is desirable switch to another lower delay ELP.
8. Interworking Considerations 8. ELP Probing
Since an ELP-node knows the reachabiliy of the next ELP-node in a ELP
by using RLOC probing, the sum of reachability can determine the
reachability of the entire path. A head-end ITR/RTR/PITR can
determine the quality of a path and decide to select one path from
another based on the telemetry data gathered by RLOC-probing for each
encapsulation hop.
ELP-probing mechanism details can be found in [I-D.filyurin-lisp-elp-
probing].
9. Interworking Considerations
[RFC6832] defines procedures for how non-LISP sites talk to LISP [RFC6832] defines procedures for how non-LISP sites talk to LISP
sites. The network elements defined in the Interworking sites. The network elements defined in the Interworking
specification, the proxy ITR (PITR) and proxy ETR (PETR) (as well as specification, the proxy ITR (PITR) and proxy ETR (PETR) (as well as
their multicast counterparts defined in [RFC6831]) can participate in their multicast counterparts defined in [RFC6831]) can participate in
LISP-TE. That is, a PITR and a PETR can appear in an ELP list and LISP-TE. That is, a PITR and a PETR can appear in an ELP list and
act as an RTR. act as an RTR.
Note when an RLOC appears in an ELP, it can be of any address-family. Note when an RLOC appears in an ELP, it can be of any address-family.
There can be a mix of IPv4 and IPv6 locators present in the same ELP. There can be a mix of IPv4 and IPv6 locators present in the same ELP.
skipping to change at page 11, line 37 skipping to change at page 12, line 7
depending on RTR placement, this expense can be mitigated. depending on RTR placement, this expense can be mitigated.
o When RTRs are on-path between many pairwise EID flows, ITRs and o When RTRs are on-path between many pairwise EID flows, ITRs and
PITRs can store a small number of coarse EID-prefixes. PITRs can store a small number of coarse EID-prefixes.
o RTRs can be used to help scale RLOC-probing. Instead of ITRs o RTRs can be used to help scale RLOC-probing. Instead of ITRs
RLOC-probing all ETRs for each destination site it has cached, the RLOC-probing all ETRs for each destination site it has cached, the
ITRs can probe a smaller set of RTRs which in turn, probe the ITRs can probe a smaller set of RTRs which in turn, probe the
destination sites. destination sites.
9. Multicast Considerations 10. Multicast Considerations
ELPs have application in multicast environments. Just like RTRs can ELPs have application in multicast environments. Just like RTRs can
be used to provide connectivity across different address family be used to provide connectivity across different address family
islands, RTRs can help concatenate a multicast region of the network islands, RTRs can help concatenate a multicast region of the network
to one that does not support native multicast. to one that does not support native multicast.
Note there are various combinations of connectivity that can be Note there are various combinations of connectivity that can be
accomplished with the deployment of RTRs and ELPs: accomplished with the deployment of RTRs and ELPs:
o Providing multicast forwarding between IPv4-only-unicast regions o Providing multicast forwarding between IPv4-only-unicast regions
skipping to change at page 13, line 38 skipping to change at page 14, line 5
decapsulates and delivers the multicast packet to joined receivers to decapsulates and delivers the multicast packet to joined receivers to
application group 'G' in its LISP site. application group 'G' in its LISP site.
As one can see there are all sorts of opportunities to provide As one can see there are all sorts of opportunities to provide
multicast connectivity across a network with non-congruent support multicast connectivity across a network with non-congruent support
for multicast and different address-families. One can also see how for multicast and different address-families. One can also see how
using the mapping database can allow flexible forms of delivery using the mapping database can allow flexible forms of delivery
policy, rerouting, and congestion control management in multicast policy, rerouting, and congestion control management in multicast
environments. environments.
10. Security Considerations 11. Security Considerations
When an RTR receives a LISP encapsulated packet, it can look at the When an RTR receives a LISP encapsulated packet, it can look at the
outer source address to verify that RLOC is the one listed as the outer source address to verify that RLOC is the one listed as the
previous hop in the ELP list. If the outer source RLOC address previous hop in the ELP list. If the outer source RLOC address
appears before the RLOC which matches the outer destination RLOC appears before the RLOC which matches the outer destination RLOC
address, the decapsulating RTR (or ETR if last hop), MAY choose to address, the decapsulating RTR (or ETR if last hop), MAY choose to
drop the packet. drop the packet.
11. IANA Considerations 12. IANA Considerations
At this time there are no requests for IANA. At this time there are no requests for IANA.
12. References 13. References
12.1. Normative References 13.1. Normative References
[RFC0791] Postel, J., "Internet Protocol", STD 5, RFC 791, [RFC0791] Postel, J., "Internet Protocol", STD 5, RFC 791,
DOI 10.17487/RFC0791, September 1981, DOI 10.17487/RFC0791, September 1981,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc791>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc791>.
[RFC1034] Mockapetris, P., "Domain names - concepts and facilities", [RFC1034] Mockapetris, P., "Domain names - concepts and facilities",
STD 13, RFC 1034, DOI 10.17487/RFC1034, November 1987, STD 13, RFC 1034, DOI 10.17487/RFC1034, November 1987,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1034>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1034>.
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997, DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[RFC2460] Deering, S. and R. Hinden, "Internet Protocol, Version 6 [RFC2460] Deering, S. and R. Hinden, "Internet Protocol, Version 6
(IPv6) Specification", RFC 2460, DOI 10.17487/RFC2460, (IPv6) Specification", RFC 2460, DOI 10.17487/RFC2460,
December 1998, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2460>. December 1998, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2460>.
[RFC3261] Rosenberg, J., Schulzrinne, H., Camarillo, G., Johnston, [RFC3261] Rosenberg, J., Schulzrinne, H., Camarillo, G., Johnston,
A., Peterson, J., Sparks, R., Handley, M., and E. A., Peterson, J., Sparks, R., Handley, M., and E.
Schooler, "SIP: Session Initiation Protocol", RFC 3261, Schooler, "SIP: Session Initiation Protocol", RFC 3261,
DOI 10.17487/RFC3261, June 2002, DOI 10.17487/RFC3261, June 2002,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3261>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3261>.
[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,
DOI 10.17487/RFC6830, January 2013, DOI 10.17487/RFC6830, January 2013,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6830>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6830>.
[RFC6831] Farinacci, D., Meyer, D., Zwiebel, J., and S. Venaas, "The [RFC6831] Farinacci, D., Meyer, D., Zwiebel, J., and S. Venaas, "The
Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP) for Multicast Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP) for Multicast
Environments", RFC 6831, DOI 10.17487/RFC6831, January Environments", RFC 6831, DOI 10.17487/RFC6831, January
2013, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6831>. 2013, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6831>.
[RFC6832] Lewis, D., Meyer, D., Farinacci, D., and V. Fuller, [RFC6832] Lewis, D., Meyer, D., Farinacci, D., and V. Fuller,
"Interworking between Locator/ID Separation Protocol "Interworking between Locator/ID Separation Protocol
(LISP) and Non-LISP Sites", RFC 6832, (LISP) and Non-LISP Sites", RFC 6832,
DOI 10.17487/RFC6832, January 2013, DOI 10.17487/RFC6832, January 2013,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6832>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6832>.
[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,
DOI 10.17487/RFC6833, January 2013, DOI 10.17487/RFC6833, January 2013,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6833>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6833>.
[RFC8060] Farinacci, D., Meyer, D., and J. Snijders, "LISP Canonical [RFC8060] Farinacci, D., Meyer, D., and J. Snijders, "LISP Canonical
Address Format (LCAF)", RFC 8060, DOI 10.17487/RFC8060, Address Format (LCAF)", RFC 8060, DOI 10.17487/RFC8060,
February 2017, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8060>. February 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8060>.
12.2. Informative References 13.2. Informative References
[I-D.ermagan-lisp-nat-traversal] [I-D.ermagan-lisp-nat-traversal]
Ermagan, V., Farinacci, D., Lewis, D., Skriver, J., Maino, Ermagan, V., Farinacci, D., Lewis, D., Skriver, J., Maino,
F., and C. White, "NAT traversal for LISP", draft-ermagan- F., and C. White, "NAT traversal for LISP", draft-ermagan-
lisp-nat-traversal-12 (work in progress), March 2017. lisp-nat-traversal-13 (work in progress), September 2017.
Appendix A. Acknowledgments Appendix A. Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank the following people for their ideas The authors would like to thank the following people for their ideas
and comments. They are Albert Cabellos, Khalid Raza, and Vina and comments. They are Albert Cabellos, Khalid Raza, and Vina
Ermagan, and Gregg Schudel. Ermagan, Gregg Schudel, Yan Filyurin, Robert Raszuk, and Truman
Boyes.
Appendix B. Document Change Log Appendix B. Document Change Log
B.1. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-te-00.txt B.1. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-te-00.txt
o Posted October 2017.
o Added section on ELP-probing that tells an ITR/RTR/PITR the
feasibility and reachability of an Explicit Lcoator Path.
B.2. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-te-00.txt
o Posted April 2017. o Posted April 2017.
o Changed draft-farinacci-lisp-te-12 to working group document. o Changed draft-farinacci-lisp-te-12 to working group document.
B.2. Changes to draft-farinacci-lisp-te-02 through -12 B.3. Changes to draft-farinacci-lisp-te-02 through -12
o Many postings from January 2013 through February 2017. o Many postings from January 2013 through February 2017.
o Update references and document timer. o Update references and document timer.
B.3. Changes to draft-farinacci-lisp-te-01.txt B.4. Changes to draft-farinacci-lisp-te-01.txt
o Posted July 2012. o Posted July 2012.
o Add the Lookup bit to allow an ELP to be a list of encapsulation o Add the Lookup bit to allow an ELP to be a list of encapsulation
and/or mapping database lookup addresses. and/or mapping database lookup addresses.
o Indicate that ELPs can be used for service chaining. o Indicate that ELPs can be used for service chaining.
o Add text to indicate that Map-Notify messages can be sent to new o Add text to indicate that Map-Notify messages can be sent to new
RTRs in a ELP so their map-caches can be pre-populated to avoid RTRs in a ELP so their map-caches can be pre-populated to avoid
mapping database lookup packet loss. mapping database lookup packet loss.
o Fixes to editorial comments from Gregg. o Fixes to editorial comments from Gregg.
B.4. Changes to draft-farinacci-lisp-te-00.txt B.5. Changes to draft-farinacci-lisp-te-00.txt
o Initial draft posted March 2012. o Initial draft posted March 2012.
Authors' Addresses Authors' Addresses
Dino Farinacci Dino Farinacci
lispers.net lispers.net
San Jose, California San Jose, California
USA USA
 End of changes. 32 change blocks. 
39 lines changed or deleted 61 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.46. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/