[Docs] [txt|pdf] [Tracker] [WG] [Email] [Diff1] [Diff2] [Nits]

Versions: (draft-fuller-lisp-ms) 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 RFC 6833

Network Working Group                                          V. Fuller
Internet-Draft                                              D. Farinacci
Intended status: Experimental                              cisco Systems
Expires: March 2, 2012                                   August 30, 2011


                            LISP Map Server
                       draft-ietf-lisp-ms-11.txt

Abstract

   This draft describes the LISP Map Server (LISP-MS), a computing
   system which provides a simplified LISP protocol interface as a
   "front end" to the Endpoint-ID (EID) to Routing Locator (RLOC)
   mapping database and associated virtual network of LISP protocol
   elements.

   The purpose of the Map Server is to reduce implementation and
   operational complexity of LISP Ingress Tunnel Routers (ITRs) and
   Egress Tunnel Routers (ETRs), the devices that implement the "edge"
   of the LISP infrastructure and which connect directly to LISP-capable
   Internet end sites.

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 March 2, 2012.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2011 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



Fuller & Farinacci        Expires March 2, 2012                 [Page 1]

Internet-Draft               LISP Map Server                 August 2011


   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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3
   2.  Definition of Terms  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
   3.  Basic Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
   4.  Interactions With Other LISP Components  . . . . . . . . . . .  7
     4.1.  ITR EID-to-RLOC Mapping Resolution . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
     4.2.  EID Prefix Configuration and ETR Registration  . . . . . .  8
     4.3.  Map Server Processing  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
     4.4.  Map Resolver Processing  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
       4.4.1.  Anycast Map Resolver Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
   5.  Open Issues and Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
   6.  IANA Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
   7.  Security Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
   8.  References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
     8.1.  Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
     8.2.  Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
   Appendix A.  Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
   Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
























Fuller & Farinacci        Expires March 2, 2012                 [Page 2]

Internet-Draft               LISP Map Server                 August 2011


1.  Introduction

   [LISP] specifies an architecture and mechanism for replacing the
   addresses currently used by IP with two separate name spaces: EIDs,
   used within sites, and RLOCs, used on the transit networks that make
   up the Internet infrastructure.  To achieve this separation, LISP
   defines protocol mechanisms for mapping from EIDs to RLOCs.  In
   addition, LISP assumes the existence of a database to store and
   propagate those mappings globally.  Several such databases have been
   proposed, among them: LISP-CONS [CONS], LISP-NERD, [NERD] and LISP+
   ALT [ALT].

   There are two types of operation for a LISP Map Server: as a Map
   Resolver, which accepts Map-Requests from an ITR and "resolves" the
   EID-to-RLOC mapping using the distributed mapping database, and as a
   Map Server, which learns authoritative EID-to-RLOC mappings from an
   ETR and publish them in the database.  A single device may implement
   one or both types of operation.

   Conceptually, LISP Map Servers share some of the same basic
   configuration and maintenance properties as Domain Name System (DNS)
   [RFC1035] servers and caching resolvers.  With this in mind, this
   specification borrows familiar terminology (resolver and server) from
   the DNS specifications.

   Note that while this document assumes a LISP+ALT database mapping
   infrastructure to illustrate certain aspects of Map Server and Map
   Resolver operation, this is not intended to preclude the use of Map
   Servers and Map Resolvers as a standardized interface for ITRs and
   ETRs to access other mapping database systems.





















Fuller & Farinacci        Expires March 2, 2012                 [Page 3]

Internet-Draft               LISP Map Server                 August 2011


2.  Definition of Terms

   Map Server:   a network infrastructure component which learns EID-to-
      RLOC mapping entries from an authoritative source (typically, an
      ETR, via the registration mechanism described below).  A Map
      Server publishes these mappings in the distributed mapping
      database.

   Map Resolver:   a network infrastructure component which accepts LISP
      Encapsulated Map-Requests, typically from an ITR, quickly
      determines whether or not the destination IP address is part of
      the EID namespace; if it is not, a Negative Map-Reply is
      immediately returned.  Otherwise, the Map Resolver finds the
      appropriate EID-to-RLOC mapping by consulting the distributed
      mapping database system.

   Encapsulated Map-Request:   a LISP Map-Request carried within an
      Encapsulated Control Message, which has an additional LISP header
      prepended.  Sent to UDP destination port 4342.  The "outer"
      addresses are globally-routeable IP addresses, also known as
      RLOCs.  Used by an ITR when sending to a Map Resolver and by a Map
      Server when forwarding a Map-Request to an ETR.

   Negative Map-Reply:   a LISP Map-Reply that contains an empty
      locator-set.  Returned in response to a Map-Request if the
      destination EID does not exist in the mapping database.
      Typically, this means that the "EID" being requested is an IP
      address connected to a non-LISP site.

   Map-Register message:   a LISP message sent by an ETR to a Map Server
      to register its associated EID-prefixes.  In addition to the set
      of EID-prefixes to register, the message includes one or more
      RLOCs to be be used by the Map Server when forwarding Map-Requests
      (re-formatted as Encapsulated Map-Requests) received through the
      database mapping system.  An ETR may request that the Map Server
      answer Map-Requests on its behalf by setting the "proxy-map-reply"
      flag (P-bit) in the message.

   Map-Notify message:   a LISP message sent by a Map Server to an ETR
      to confirm that a Map-Register has been received and processed.
      An ETR requests that a Map-Notify be returned by setting the
      "want-map-notify" or "M" bit in the Map-Register message.  Unlike
      a Map-Reply, a Map-Notify uses UDP port 4342 for both source and
      destination.

   For definitions of other terms, notably Map-Request, Map-Reply,
   Ingress Tunnel Router (ITR), and Egress Tunnel Router (ETR), please
   consult the LISP specification [LISP].



Fuller & Farinacci        Expires March 2, 2012                 [Page 4]

Internet-Draft               LISP Map Server                 August 2011


3.  Basic Overview

   A Map Server is a device which publishes EID-prefix information on
   behalf of ETRs and connects to the LISP distributed mapping database
   system to help answer LISP Map-Requests seeking the RLOCs for those
   EID-prefixes.  To publish its EID-prefixes, an ETR periodically sends
   Map-Register messages to the Map Server.  A Map-Register message
   contains a list of EID-prefixes plus a set of RLOCs that can be used
   to reach the ETR when a Map Server needs to forward a Map-Request to
   it.

   When LISP+ALT is used as the mapping database, a Map Server connects
   to ALT network and acts as a "last-hop" ALT router.  Intermediate ALT
   routers forward Map-Requests to the Map Server that advertises a
   particular EID-prefix and the Map Server forwards them to the owning
   ETR, which responds with Map-Reply messages.

   The LISP Map Server design also includes the operation of a Map
   Resolver, which receives Encapsulated Map-Requests from its client
   ITRs and uses the distributed mapping database system to find the
   appropriate ETR to answer those requests.  On a LISP+ALT network, a
   Map Resolver acts as a "first-hop" ALT router.  It has GRE tunnels
   configured to other ALT routers and uses BGP to learn paths to ETRs
   for different prefixes in the LISP+ALT database.  The Map Resolver
   uses this path information to forward Map-Requests over the ALT to
   the correct ETRs.  A Map Resolver may operate in a non-caching mode,
   where it simply de-capsulates and forwards the Encapsulated Map-
   Requests that it receives from ITRs.

   Alternatively, a Map Resolver may operate in a caching mode, where it
   saves information about outstanding Map-Requests, originates new Map-
   Requests to the correct ETR(s), accepts and caches the Map-Replies,
   and finally forwards the Map-Replies to the original ITRs.  One
   significant issue with use of caching in a Map Resolver is that it
   hides the original ITR source of a Map-Request, which prevents an ETR
   from tailoring its responses to that source; this reduces the inbound
   traffic- engineering capability for the site owning the ETR.  In
   addition, caching in a Map Resolver exacerbates problems associated
   with old mappings being cached; an outdated, cached mapping in an ITR
   affects only that ITR and traffic originated by its site while an
   outdate, cached mapping in a Map Resolver could cause a problem with
   a wider scope.  More experience with caching Map Resolvers on the
   LISP pilot network will be needed to determine whether their use can
   be recommended.

   Note that a single device can implement the functions of both a Map
   Server and a Map Resolver and, in many cases, the functions will be
   co-located in that way.



Fuller & Farinacci        Expires March 2, 2012                 [Page 5]

Internet-Draft               LISP Map Server                 August 2011


   Detailed descriptions of the LISP packet types referenced by this
   document may be found in [LISP].

















































Fuller & Farinacci        Expires March 2, 2012                 [Page 6]

Internet-Draft               LISP Map Server                 August 2011


4.  Interactions With Other LISP Components

4.1.  ITR EID-to-RLOC Mapping Resolution

   An ITR is configured with the address of a Map Resolver.  This
   address is a "locator" or RLOC in that it must be routeable on the
   underlying core network; it must not need to be resolved through LISP
   EID-to-RLOC mapping as that would introduce a circular dependency.
   When using a Map Resolver, an ITR does not need to connect to any
   other database mapping system.  In particular, the ITR need not
   connect to the LISP+ALT infrastructure or implement the BGP and GRE
   protocols that it uses.

   An ITR sends an Encapsulated Map-Request to a configured Map Resolver
   when it needs an EID-to-RLOC mapping that is not found in its local
   map-cache.  Using the Map Resolver greatly reduces both the
   complexity of the ITR implementation and the costs associated with
   its operation.

   In response to an Encapsulated Map-Request, the ITR can expect one of
   the following:

   o  An immediate Negative Map-Reply (with action code of "forward-
      native", 15-minute TTL) from the Map Resolver if the Map Resolver
      can determine that the requested EID does not exist.  The ITR
      saves the EID-prefix returned in the Map-Reply in its cache,
      marking it as non-LISP-capable and knows not to attempt LISP
      encapsulation for destinations matching it.

   o  A Negative Map-Reply (with action code of "forward-native") from
      the Map Server that has an aggregate EID-covering the EID in the
      Map-Request but where the EID matches a "hole" in the aggregate.
      If the "hole" is for a LISP EID-prefix that is defined in the Map
      Server configuration but for which no ETRs are currently
      registered, a 1-minute TTL is returned.  If the "hole" is for an
      unassigned part of the aggregate, then it is not a LISP EID and a
      15-minute TTL is returned.  See Section 4.2 for discussion of
      aggregate EID-prefixes and details of Map Server EID-prefix
      matching.

   o  A LISP Map-Reply from the ETR that owns the EID-to-RLOC mapping or
      possibly from a Map Server answering on behalf of the ETR.  Note
      that the stateless nature of non-caching Map Resolver forwarding
      means that the Map-Reply may not be from the Map Resolver to which
      the Encapsulated Map-Request was sent unless the target Map
      Resolver offers caching.  See (Section 4.4) for more details on
      Map Resolver message processing.




Fuller & Farinacci        Expires March 2, 2012                 [Page 7]

Internet-Draft               LISP Map Server                 August 2011


   Note that an ITR may be configured to both use a Map Resolver and to
   participate in a LISP+ALT logical network.  In such a situation, the
   ITR should send Map-Requests through the ALT network for any EID-
   prefix learned via ALT BGP.  Such a configuration is expected to be
   very rare, since there is little benefit to using a Map Resolver if
   an ITR is already using LISP+ALT.  There would be, for example, no
   need for such an ITR to send a Map-Request to a possibly non-existent
   EID (and rely on Negative Map-Replies) if it can consult the ALT
   database to verify that an EID-prefix is present before sending that
   Map-Request.

4.2.  EID Prefix Configuration and ETR Registration

   An ETR publishes its EID-prefixes on a Map Server by sending LISP
   Map-Register messages.  A Map-Register message includes
   authentication data, so prior to sending a Map-Register message, the
   ETR and Map Server must be configured with a secret shared-key.  A
   Map Server's configuration must also include a list of the EID-
   prefixes for which each ETR is authoritative.  Upon receipt of a Map-
   Register from an ETR, a Map Server accepts only EID-prefixes that are
   configured for that ETR.  Failure to implement such a check would
   leave the mapping system vulnerable to trivial EID-prefix hijacking
   attacks.  As developers and operators gain experience with the
   mapping system, additional, stronger security measures may be added
   to the registration process.

   In addition to the set of EID-prefixes defined for each ETR that may
   register, a Map Server is typically also be configured with one or
   more aggregate prefixes that define the part of the EID numbering
   space assigned to it.  When LISP+ALT is the database in use,
   aggregate EID-prefixes are implemented as discard routes and
   advertised into ALT BGP.  The existance of aggregate EID-prefixes in
   a Map Server's database means that it may receive Map Requests for
   EID-prefixes that match an aggregate but do not match a registered
   prefix; Section 4.3 describes how this is handled.

   Map-Register messages are sent periodically from an ETR to a Map
   Server with a suggested interval between messages of one minute.  A
   Map Server should time-out and remove an ETR's registration if it has
   not received a valid Map-Register message within the past three
   minutes.  When first contacting a Map Server after restart or changes
   to its EID-to-RLOC database mappings, an ETR may initially send Map-
   Register messages at an increased frequency, up to one every 20
   seconds.  This "quick registration" period is limited to five minutes
   in duration.

   An ETR may request that a Map Server explicitly acknowledge receipt
   and processing of a Map-Register message by setting the "want-map-



Fuller & Farinacci        Expires March 2, 2012                 [Page 8]

Internet-Draft               LISP Map Server                 August 2011


   notify" ("M" bit) flag.  A Map Server that receives a Map-Register
   with this flag set will respond with a Map-Notify message.  Typical
   use of this flag by an ETR would be to set it for Map-Register
   messages sent during the initial "quick registration" with a Map
   Server but then set it only occasionally during steady-state
   maintenance of its association with that Map Server.  Note that the
   Map-Notify message is sent to UDP destination port 4342, not to the
   source port specified in the original Map-Register message.

   Note that a one-minute minimum registration interval during
   maintenance of an ETR-MS association does set a lower-bound on how
   quickly and how frequently a mapping database entry can be updated.
   This may have implications for what sorts of mobility can supported
   directly by the mapping system.  For a discussion on one way that
   faster mobility may be implemented for individual devices, please see
   [LISP-MN].

   An ETR may also request, by setting the "proxy-map-reply" flag
   (P-bit) in the Map-Regsiter message, that a Map Server answer Map-
   Requests instead of forwarding them to the ETR.  See [LISP] for
   details on how the Map Server sets certain flags (such as those
   indicating whether the message is authoritative and how returned
   locators should be treated) when sending a Map-Reply on behalf of an
   ETR.  When an ETR requests proxy reply service, it should include all
   RLOCs for all ETRs for the EID-prefix being registered, along with
   the "R" bit setting for each RLOC.  The Map Server includes all of
   this information in Map Reply messages that it sends on behalf of the
   ETR.

   An ETR which uses a Map Server to publish its EID-to-RLOC mappings
   does not need to participate further in the mapping database
   protocol(s).  When using a LISP+ALT mapping database, for example,
   this means that the ETR does not need to implement GRE or BGP, which
   greatly simplifies its configuration and reduces its cost of
   operation.

   Note that use of a Map Server does not preclude an ETR from also
   connecting to the mapping database (i.e. it could also connect to the
   LISP+ALT network) but doing so doesn't seem particularly useful as
   the whole purpose of using a Map Server is to avoid the complexity of
   the mapping database protocols.

4.3.  Map Server Processing

   Once a Map Server has EID-prefixes registered by its client ETRs, it
   can accept and process Map-Requests for them.

   In response to a Map-Request (received over the ALT if LISP+ALT is in



Fuller & Farinacci        Expires March 2, 2012                 [Page 9]

Internet-Draft               LISP Map Server                 August 2011


   use), the Map Server first checks to see if the destination EID
   matches a configured EID-prefix.  If there is no match, the Map
   Server returns a negative Map-Reply with action code "forward-native"
   and a 15-minute TTL.  This may occur if a Map Request is received for
   a configured aggreate EID-prefix for which no more-specific EID-
   prefix exists; it indicates the presence of a non-LISP "hole" in the
   agregate EID-prefix.

   Next, the Map Server checks to see if any ETRs have registered the
   matching EID-prefix.  If none are found, then the Map-Server returns
   a negative Map-Reply with action code "forward-native" and a 1-minute
   TTL.

   If any of the registered ETRs for the EID-prefix have requested proxy
   reply service, then the Map Server answered the request instead of
   forwarding it.  It returns a Map-Reply with the EID-prefix, RLOCs,
   and other information learned through the registration process.

   If none of the ETRs have requested proxy reply service, then the Map
   Server re-encapsulates and forwards the resulting Encapsulated Map-
   Request to one of the registered ETRs.  It does not otherwise alter
   the Map-Request so any Map-Reply sent by the ETR is returned to the
   RLOC in the Map-Request, not to the Map Server.  Unless also acting
   as a Map Resolver, a Map Server should never receive Map-Replies; any
   such messages should be discarded without response, perhaps
   accompanied by logging of a diagnostic message if the rate of Map-
   Replies is suggestive of malicious traffic.

   A Map Server may also receive a Map-Request that is contained inside
   of an Encapsulated Control Message (an Encapsulated Map-Request) with
   the "Security" bit (S-bit) set.  It processes the security parameters
   as described in [LISP-SEC] then handles the Map-Request as as
   described above.

   Note that a Map Server that is sending a Map-Reply on behalf of an
   ETR (performing proxy reply service) must perform security processing
   for that ETR as well; see [LISP-SEC] for details.

4.4.  Map Resolver Processing

   Upon receipt of an Encapsulated Map-Request, a Map Resolver de-
   capsulates the enclosed message then searches for the requested EID
   in its local database of mapping entries (statically configured,
   cached, or learned from associated ETRs when the Map Resolver is also
   acting as a Map Server).  If it finds a matching entry, it returns a
   non-authoritative LISP Map-Reply with the known mapping.

   If the Map Resolver does not have the mapping entry and if it can



Fuller & Farinacci        Expires March 2, 2012                [Page 10]

Internet-Draft               LISP Map Server                 August 2011


   determine that the EID is not in the mapping database (for example,
   if LISP+ALT is used, the Map Resolver will have an ALT forwarding
   table that covers the full EID space) it immediately returns a
   negative LISP Map-Reply, with action code "forward-native" and a 15-
   minute TTL.  To minimize the number of negative cache entries needed
   by an ITR, the Map Resolver should return the least-specific prefix
   which both matches the original query and does not match any EID-
   prefix known to exist in the LISP-capable infrastructure.

   If the Map Resolver does not have sufficient information to know
   whether the EID exists, it needs to forward the Map-Request to
   another device which has more information about the EID being
   requested.  This is done in one of two ways:

   1.  A non-caching Map Resolver simply forwards the unencapsulated
       Map-Request, with the original ITR RLOC as the source, on to the
       distributed mapping database.  Using a LISP+ALT mapping database,
       the Map Resolver is connected to the ALT network and sends the
       Map-Request to the next ALT hop learned from its ALT BGP
       neighbors.  The Map Resolver does not send any response to the
       ITR; since the source RLOC is that of the ITR, the ETR or Map
       Server which receives the Map-Request over the ALT and responds
       will do so directly to the ITR.

   2.  A caching Map Resolver queues information from the Encapsulated
       Map-Request, including the ITR RLOC and the original nonce.  It
       then modifies the Map-Request to use its own RLOC, generates a
       "local nonce" (which is also saved in the request queue entry),
       and forwards the Map-Request as above.  When the Map Resolver
       receives a Map-Reply, it looks in its request queue to match the
       reply nonce to a "local nonce" entry then de-queues the entry and
       uses the saved original nonce and ITR RLOC to re-write those
       fields in the Map-Reply before sending to the ITR.  The request
       queue entry is also deleted and the mapping entries from the Map-
       Reply are saved in the Map Resolver's cache.

   If a Map Resolver receives a Map-Request contained in an Encapsulated
   Control Message (an Encapsulated Map-Request) with the "security"
   option (S-Bit) set, additional processing is required.  It extracts
   the enclosed Map-Request and uses the attached security paramaters to
   generate a new Encapsulated Control Message containing the original
   Map-Rqeuest and additional signature information used to protect both
   the Map-Request and the Map-Reply that will be generated by the
   destination ETR or Map Server.  The outgoing message will have the
   S-bit set, will use the requested EID as its outer header destination
   IP address plus Map Resolver RLOC as source IP address, and will
   include security parameters added by the Map Resolver.  See
   [LISP-SEC] for details of the checks that are performed and the



Fuller & Farinacci        Expires March 2, 2012                [Page 11]

Internet-Draft               LISP Map Server                 August 2011


   security information that is added during the de-encapsulation and
   re-encapsulation process.

4.4.1.  Anycast Map Resolver Operation

   A Map Resolver can be set up to use "anycast", where the same address
   is assigned to multiple Map Resolvers and is propagated through IGP
   routing, to facilitate the use of a topologically-close Map Resolver
   each ITR.

   Note that Map Server associations with ETRs should not use anycast
   addresses as registrations need to be established between an ETR and
   a specific set of Map Servers, each identified by a specific
   registation association.





































Fuller & Farinacci        Expires March 2, 2012                [Page 12]

Internet-Draft               LISP Map Server                 August 2011


5.  Open Issues and Considerations

   There are a number of issues with the Map Server and Map Resolver
   design that are not yet completely understood.  Among these are:

   o  Feasibility, performance, and complexity trade-offs of
      implementing caching in Map Resolvers

   o  Convergence time when an EID-to-RLOC mapping changes and
      mechanisms for detecting and refreshing or removing stale, cached
      information

   o  Deployability and complexity trade-offs of implementing stronger
      security measures in both EID-prefix registration and Map-Request/
      Map-Reply processing

   o  Requirements for additional state in the registration process
      between Map Servers and ETRs

   The authors expect that experimentation on the LISP pilot network
   will help answer open questions surrounding these and other issues.






























Fuller & Farinacci        Expires March 2, 2012                [Page 13]

Internet-Draft               LISP Map Server                 August 2011


6.  IANA Considerations

   This document makes no request of the IANA.
















































Fuller & Farinacci        Expires March 2, 2012                [Page 14]

Internet-Draft               LISP Map Server                 August 2011


7.  Security Considerations

   The 2-way nonce exchange documented in [LISP] can be used to avoid
   ITR spoofing attacks.

   To publish an authoritative EID-to-RLOC mapping with a Map Server, an
   ETR includes authentication data that is a hash of the message using
   pair-wise shared key.  An implementation must support use of HMAC-
   SHA-1-160 [RFC2104] and should support use of HMAC-SHA-256-128
   [RFC6234] (SHA-256 truncated to 128 bits).

   During experimental and prototype deployment, authentication key
   changes will be manual.  Should LISP and its components be considered
   for IETF standardization, further work will be required to follow the
   BCP 107 [RFC4107] recommendations on automated key management.

   As noted in Section 4.2, a Map Server should verify that all EID-
   prefixes registered by an ETR match configuration stored on the Map
   Server.

   [LISP-SEC] defines a mechanism for providing origin authentication,
   integrity, anti-reply protection, and prevention of man-in-the-middle
   and "overclaiming" attacks on the Map-Request/Map-Reply exchange.

   While beyond the scope of securing an individual Map Server or Map
   Resolver, it should be noted that a BGP-based LISP+ALT network (if
   ALT is used as the mapping database infrastructure) can take
   advantage of technology being developed by the IETF SIDR working
   group or either S-BGP [I-D.murphy-bgp-secr] or soBGP
   [I-D.white-sobgparchitecture] should they be developed and widely
   deployed.




















Fuller & Farinacci        Expires March 2, 2012                [Page 15]

Internet-Draft               LISP Map Server                 August 2011


8.  References

8.1.  Normative References

   [ALT]      Farinacci, D., Fuller, V., Meyer, D., and D. Lewis, "LISP
              Alternative Topology (LISP-ALT)",
              draft-ietf-lisp-alt-07.txt (work in progress), June 2011.

   [LISP]     Farinacci, D., Fuller, V., Meyer, D., and D. Lewis,
              "Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP)",
              draft-ietf-lisp-15.txt (work in progress), July 2011.

   [LISP-SEC]
              Maino, F., Ermagan, V., Cabellos, A., Sanchez, D., and O.
              Bonaventure, "LISP-Security", draft-ietf-lisp-sec-00.txt
              (work in progress), July 2011.

   [RFC1035]  Mockapetris, P., "Domain names - implementation and
              specification", STD 13, RFC 1035, November 1987.

   [RFC2104]  Krawczyk, H., Bellare, M., and R. Canetti, "HMAC: Keyed-
              Hashing for Message Authentication", RFC 2104,
              February 1997.

   [RFC6234]  Eastlake, D. and T. Hansen, "US Secure Hash Algorithms
              (SHA and SHA-based HMAC and HKDF)", RFC 6234, May 2011.

8.2.  Informative References

   [CONS]     Farinacci, D., Fuller, V., and D. Meyer, "LISP-CONS: A
              Content distribution Overlay Network Service for LISP",
              draft-meyer-lisp-cons-04.txt (work in progress),
              April 2008.

   [I-D.murphy-bgp-secr]
              Murphy, S., "BGP Security Analysis",
              draft-murphy-bgp-secr-04 (work in progress),
              November 2001.

   [I-D.white-sobgparchitecture]
              White, R., "Architecture and Deployment Considerations for
              Secure Origin BGP (soBGP)",
              draft-white-sobgparchitecture-00 (work in progress),
              May 2004.

   [LISP-MN]  Farinacci, D., Fuller, V., Meyer, D., and D. Lewis, "LISP
              Mobile Node Architecture", draft-meyer-lisp-mn-05.txt
              (work in progress), May 2011.



Fuller & Farinacci        Expires March 2, 2012                [Page 16]

Internet-Draft               LISP Map Server                 August 2011


   [NERD]     Lear, E., "NERD: A Not-so-novel EID to RLOC Database",
              draft-lear-lisp-nerd-08.txt (work in progress),
              March 2010.

   [RFC4107]  Bellovin, S. and R. Housley, "Guidelines for Cryptographic
              Key Management", BCP 107, RFC 4107, June 2005.













































Fuller & Farinacci        Expires March 2, 2012                [Page 17]

Internet-Draft               LISP Map Server                 August 2011


Appendix A.  Acknowledgments

   The authors would like to thank Greg Schudel, Darrel Lewis, John
   Zwiebel, Andrew Partan, Dave Meyer, Isidor Kouvelas, Jesper Skriver,
   Fabio Maino, and members of the lisp@ietf.org mailing list for their
   feedback and helpful suggestions.

   Special thanks are due to Noel Chiappa for his extensive work on
   caching with LISP-CONS, some of which may be used by Map Resolvers.










































Fuller & Farinacci        Expires March 2, 2012                [Page 18]

Internet-Draft               LISP Map Server                 August 2011


Authors' Addresses

   Vince Fuller
   cisco Systems
   Tasman Drive
   San Jose, CA  95134
   USA

   Email: vaf@cisco.com


   Dino   Farinacci
   cisco Systems
   Tasman Drive
   San Jose, CA  95134
   USA

   Email: dino@cisco.com

































Fuller & Farinacci        Expires March 2, 2012                [Page 19]


Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.107, available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/