[Docs] [txt|pdf|xml|html] [Tracker] [Email] [Diff1] [Diff2] [Nits]

Versions: 00 01 02 03 04 05 06

Network Working Group                                       M. Boucadair
Internet-Draft                                              C. Jacquenet
Intended status: Standards Track                                  Orange
Expires: April 11, 2018                                  October 8, 2017


                      LISP Mapping Bulk Retrieval
                      draft-boucadair-lisp-bulk-06

Abstract

   This document extends Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP) with a
   capability for bulk mapping retrieval.  It does so by defining new
   LISP messages that are meant to facilitate state recovery of mapping
   tables and improve Ingress Tunnel Routers (ITR) recovery times, in
   particular.  In addition, this document allows to request mappings
   that match destination IP prefixes, names, or AS numbers.

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 https://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 April 11, 2018.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2017 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors.  All rights reserved.

   This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
   Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
   (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
   publication of this document.  Please review these documents
   carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
   to this document.  Code Components extracted from this document must
   include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of




Boucadair & Jacquenet    Expires April 11, 2018                 [Page 1]


Internet-Draft                LISP Map-Bulk                 October 2017


   the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
   described in the Simplified BSD License.

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
   2.  Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   3.  Bulk Mapping Retrieval: Message Formats . . . . . . . . . . .   3
     3.1.  Map-Bulk-Request Message Format . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
     3.2.  Map-Bulk-Response Message Format  . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
   4.  Generating a Map-Bulk-Request  Message  . . . . . . . . . . .   7
   5.  Processing a Map-Bulk-Request Message . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
   6.  Processing a Map-Bulk-Reply Message . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
   7.  Bulk Mapping Retrival from Multiple Resolvers . . . . . . . .  10
   8.  Sample Examples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
   9.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
   10. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
   11. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
   12. References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
     12.1.  Normative references . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
     12.2.  Informative references . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14

1.  Introduction

   Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP, [RFC6830] ) operation relies
   upon a mapping mechanism that is used by ingress/egress Tunnel
   Routers (xTR) to forward traffic over the LISP network.  This
   document extends LISP with a capability for bulk mappings retrieval.
   It does so by defining new LISP messages that are meant to facilitate
   state recovery of mapping tables and improve Ingress Tunnel Routers
   (ITR) recovery times, in particular.

   The base LISP specification does not define how a requestor may ask
   for multiple EIDs.  Indeed, the current LISP specification [RFC6830]
   states the following:

         Support for requesting multiple EIDs in a single Map-Request
         message will be specified in a future version of the protocol.

   [I-D.boucadair-lisp-multiple-records] defines a backward compatible
   extension of the LISP Map-Request message to request multiple
   records.

   This document defines a more reliable method for the retrieval of
   mapping records from one or multiple Map-Resolvers (Section 3).  It
   does so by using TCP ([RFC0793]) as a transport protocol for
   exchanges the bulk retrieval messages.  Other proposals have been



Boucadair & Jacquenet    Expires April 11, 2018                 [Page 2]


Internet-Draft                LISP Map-Bulk                 October 2017


   made to use TCP for reliable transport (e.g.,
   [I-D.kouvelas-lisp-map-server-reliable-transport]).

   The extensions defined by this document allow for faster recovery of
   mapping entries.  For example, whenever an ITR fails for some reason,
   the faulty ITR needs to recover at least the list of mappings for the
   most popular prefixes in a timely manner, etc.  These extensions may
   be used by a leaf LISP network or enabled between mapping systems for
   the sake of global mapping table maintenance.  Policies for the
   mapping entries to be recovered are deployment-specific.

   This document allows to request mappings that match destination IP
   prefixes, names, or AS numbers.  Other filter types may be defined in
   future versions, if needed.

2.  Requirements Language

   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
   "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
   document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119].

3.  Bulk Mapping Retrieval: Message Formats

   To allow for a more reliable method when retrieving multiple EID
   mapping records from one or multiple Map-Resolvers, this section
   defines additional LISP messages that are, unlike LISP control
   messages, transported over TCP.

   After establishing a TCP connection towards a Map-Resolver (using the
   LISP service port), the ITR sends a Map-Bulk-Request (Section 3.1).
   Upon receipt of that message, the Map-Resolver must reply with one or
   more Map-Bulk-Reply messages (Section 3.2).  Once the last Map-Bulk-
   Reply is received from the Map-Resolver, the underlying TCP
   connection may be closed.

3.1.  Map-Bulk-Request Message Format

   The format of the Map-Bulk-Request message is shown in Figure 1.













Boucadair & Jacquenet    Expires April 11, 2018                 [Page 3]


Internet-Draft                LISP Map-Bulk                 October 2017


        0                   1                   2                   3
        0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       |Type=15|        Sub-type       |R|         Reserved            |
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       |                        Transaction ID                         |
   +-> +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |   | Length        |                                               |
   F   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+                                               :
   I   :                             Filter                            :
   L   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   T                                 ...
   E   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   R   | Length        |                                               |
   S   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+                                               :
   |   :                             Filter                            :
   +-> +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

                 Figure 1: Map-Bulk-Request Message Format

   The description of the fields is as follows:

   o  Type: MUST be set to 15(see [RFC8113]).

   o  Sub-type: MUST be set to 1025.

   o  R bit: MUST be set to 0 for Map-Bulk-Request messages.

   o  Reserved: reserved bits, MUST be sent as zeros and MUST be ignored
      when received.

   o  Transaction ID: This field is used to uniquely identify a
      connection context among those established with the same Map-
      Resolver.  Demux connections established with distinct Map-
      Resolvers may rely on the address of the Map-Resolver.  A
      transaction-id MUST be unique for connections bound to the same
      Map-Resolver.

   o  Length: This field indicates, in octets, the length of the filter
      that is encoded in the "Filter" field.

   o  Filter: This field carries a destination EID (or a set thereof)
      that is encoded as an UTF-8 string.  This specification allows to
      convey IP prefix literals, Names and/or AS numbers.  One or
      multiple filters may be present in a request.  IPv4 prefixes are
      encoded as IPv4-mapped IPv6 prefixes [RFC4291] (i.e., starting
      with ::ffff:0:0/96).  A mix of names, IP prefixes and AS numbers




Boucadair & Jacquenet    Expires April 11, 2018                 [Page 4]


Internet-Draft                LISP Map-Bulk                 October 2017


      may be enclosed in the same request.  The value 0 is used to
      indicate "ANY" mapping.

3.2.  Map-Bulk-Response Message Format

   The format of the Map-Bulk-Reply message is shown in Figure 2.

        0                   1                   2                   3
        0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       |Type=15|        Sub-type       |R|M|rsv| Records Count |Results|
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       |                        Transaction ID                         |
   +-> +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |   |  Code         |   Length      |                               |
   F   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+                               :
   I   :                             Filter                            :
   L   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   T                                 ...
   E   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   R   |  Code         |   Length      |                               |
   S   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+                               :
   |   :                             Filter                            :
   +-> +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |   |                          Record TTL                           |
   |   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   R   | Locator Count | EID mask-len  | ACT |A|      Reserved         |
   e   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   c   | Rsvd  |  Map-Version Number   |       EID-Prefix-AFI          |
   o   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   r   |                          EID-Prefix                           |
   d   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |  /|    Priority   |    Weight     |  M Priority   |   M Weight    |
   | L +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   | o |        Unused Flags     |L|p|R|           Loc-AFI             |
   | c +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |  \|                             Locator                           |
   +-> +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
                                      ...
   +-> +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |   |                          Record TTL                           |
   |   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   R   | Locator Count | EID mask-len  | ACT |A|      Reserved         |
   e   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   c   | Rsvd  |  Map-Version Number   |       EID-Prefix-AFI          |
   o   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   r   |                          EID-Prefix                           |
   d   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+



Boucadair & Jacquenet    Expires April 11, 2018                 [Page 5]


Internet-Draft                LISP Map-Bulk                 October 2017


   |  /|    Priority   |    Weight     |  M Priority   |   M Weight    |
   | L +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   | o |        Unused Flags     |L|p|R|           Loc-AFI             |
   | c +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |  \|                             Locator                           |
   +-> +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

                  Figure 2: Map-Bulk-Reply Message Format

   The description of the fields of the Map-Bulk-Reply is similar to
   those of a LISP Map-Request message ([RFC6830]), except the
   following:

   o  Type is to be defined.  The same code is used for both Map-Bulk-
      Request and Map-Bulk-Reply.

   o  R bit: MUST be set to 1 for Map-Bulk-Reply messages.

   o  M (more-data bit): When set, this flag indicates that other
      records are to be expected from the Map-Resolver.

   o  rsv: reserved bits, MUST be sent as zeros and MUST be ignored when
      received.

   o  Records Count: Indicates the number of records included in the
      response.

   o  Result: indicates the result code of the processing of the Map-
      Bulk-Request message.  The following codes are defined:

      0: SUCCESS.  This code indicates the request is successfully
         processed.

      1: BULK-PROHIBITED.  This code indicates the bulk mapping is
         blocked for this ITR, leaf LISP network, subscriber, etc.

      2: BULK-LIMIT.  This code indicates a rate-limit is applied on the
         Map-Bulk-Request messages from the same ITR, leaf LISP network,
         subscriber, etc.  The ITR SHOULD re-issue the request after the
         expiry of a timer; the default value of that timer is 60
         seconds.  Other values may be configured on the ITR.

      3: OUT-OF-RESOURCES.  This code indicates a Map-Resolver is
         running out of resources.  The ITR SHOULD re-iterate the same
         request after the expiry of a timer.  The default value of that
         timer is 300 seconds.  Other values MAY be configured on the
         ITR.




Boucadair & Jacquenet    Expires April 11, 2018                 [Page 6]


Internet-Draft                LISP Map-Bulk                 October 2017


   o  Filter Count:

   o  Transaction ID: MUST echo the one included in the Map-Bulk-
      Request.

   o  Code: Filters that were not processed by the Map-Resolver are
      included.  A filter MUST be included in a response if and only if
      an error was encountered when processing that filter at the Map-
      Resolver side.  The code field provides more details about the
      reason for not processing such filter.  If all filters were
      successfully processed by the Map-Resolver, this field MUST be set
      to 0.  The following values are defined:

      0: FILTER-UNSUPPORTED.  This code indicates a request is
         successfully processed but this filter was not processed
         because the format of the filter is not supported.

      1: FILTER-BAD.  This code indicates a request is successfully
         processed but the filter was not processed because it is
         malformed.

      2: FILTER-MAX.  This code indicates a request is successfully
         processed but the filter was not processed because of a limit
         enforced on the maximum number of filters to be processed.

      3: FILTER-LOCAL.  This code indicates a request is successfully
         processed but the filter was not processed because of local
         reasons.  The ITR SHOULD, after a certain timer expires, send a
         Map-Bulk-Request message for the set of filters that are not
         processed with a reason code set to BULK-LOCAL.

   o  Length: Indicates the length of a filter this is not processed by
      the Map-Resolver.

   o  Filter: Conveys a filter that is not processed by the Map-
      Resolver.

4.  Generating a Map-Bulk-Request Message

   ITRs MUST support a configurable parameter to enable/disable bulk
   mapping retrieval over TCP.  The default value is set to "enabled".

   If distinct port number is used by remote Map-Resolvers, the
   destination port number to send Map-Bulk-Request messages SHOULD be
   configured to the ITR.

   After establishing a TCP connection towards a Map-Resolver (using the
   LISP service port), the ITR MUST send a Map-Bulk-Request



Boucadair & Jacquenet    Expires April 11, 2018                 [Page 7]


Internet-Draft                LISP Map-Bulk                 October 2017


   (Section 3.1) to a Map-Resolver.  Configuration information for
   triggering bulk retrieval request messages MAY be provisioned to each
   ITR.  Multiple Map-Bulk-Request messages may be sent over the same
   TCP connection.

   An ITR that loses its mapping cache for some reason SHOULD generate a
   Map-Bulk-Request message towards its Map-Resolver(s) with the set of
   filters that are configured locally.

   An ITR MAY generate several Map-Bulk-Request messages to the same or
   distinct Map-Resolvers.

   An ITR MUST generate a unique transaction-id per Map-Bulk-Request it
   issues.

   An ITR MUST expect that the Map-Resolver may limit the number of
   filters that may be processed.  Filters that are not accepted or not
   processed by the Map-Resolvers are included in a Map-Bulk-Reply.

5.  Processing a Map-Bulk-Request Message

   A Map-Resolver that does not support the Map-Bulk-Request message
   MUST silently ignore any Map-Bulk-Request message it receives.

   Map-Resolvers MUST support a configurable parameter to enable/disable
   the processing of Map-Bulk-Request messages.  The default value is
   set to "enabled".

   A Map-Resolver that is enabled to process Map-Bulk-Request messages
   MUST listen to incoming TCP connections on the default LISP service
   port.  ACLs MAY be configured to control the leaf networks that can
   invoke this feature.

   A Map-Resolver SHOULD support a configuration parameter to rate-limit
   the number of simultaneous Map-Bulk-Request messages per leaf LISP
   network, per ITR, etc.

   If a Map-Resolver receives a Map-Bulk-Request message and it is
   enabled to process it, a Map-Resolver MUST reply with one or multiple
   Map-Bulk-Reply messages.

   If multiple Map-Bulk-Reply messages are required to respond to a
   given request, the Map-Resolver MUST:

   o  Echo the transaction-id.

   o  Set to R-bit.




Boucadair & Jacquenet    Expires April 11, 2018                 [Page 8]


Internet-Draft                LISP Map-Bulk                 October 2017


   o  Set the M-bit for all Map-Bulk-Reply messages, except for the last
      one.

   o  Include the set of filters that are not successfully processed for
      some reason (e.g., malformed filter) and set the "Filter Count"
      accordingly.

   If filters are included in the request, the Map-Resolver MUST extract
   those filters and lookup its mapping system accordingly.  In
   particular, the Map-Resolver MUST reply with a full mapping table if
   a Null filter is included in the Map-Bulk-Request.

   If bulk mapping retrieval is not allowed for a given ITR, the
   'Result' field MUST be set to BULK-PROHIBITED.

   If the Map-Resolver fails to process a request because limits for
   that ITR are exceeded, it MUST set the 'Result' field to BULK-LIMIT.

   If a subset of filters are successfully processed, the 'Result' field
   MUST be set to SUCCESS.  The set of filters that are not processed
   MUST be echoed in the Map-Bulk-Reply; each with a failure code that
   reflects the reason why the filter was not applied.  If a filter type
   is not supported by the Map-Resolver, the 'Code' field MUST be set to
   FILTER-UNSUPPORTED.  If the Map-Resolver fails to process some of the
   filters included in a request because these filters were malformed,
   it MUST echo the corresponding filters in the Map-Bulk-Reply message
   and MUST set the 'Code' field to FILTER-BAD. f the Map-Resolver fails
   to process some of the filters included in a request because a
   maximum number of filters is supported, it MUST echo the
   corresponding filters in the Map-Bulk-Reply message and set the
   'Code' field to FILTER-MAX.  If, for some other reasons, the Map-
   Resolver fails to apply some filters included in a request, it MUST
   echo the corresponding filter in the Map-Bulk-Reply message.  The
   'Code' field MUST be set to FILTER-LOCAL.

   A Map-Resolver that is overloaded MUST reply with a Map-Bulk-Reply
   message with the "Result" code set to OUT-OF-RESOURCES.

6.  Processing a Map-Bulk-Reply Message

   Upon receipt of a Map-Bulk-Reply message, the ITR MUST check whether
   the message matches a Map-Bulk-Request it issued for the same Map-
   Resolver.  If no matching state is found, the message MUST be
   silently dropped.  If a state is found, the ITR MUST proceed as
   follows:

   o  An ITR that receives the result code set to BULK-PROHIBITED MUST
      NOT reissue a Map-Bulk-Request message to that Map-Resolver.



Boucadair & Jacquenet    Expires April 11, 2018                 [Page 9]


Internet-Draft                LISP Map-Bulk                 October 2017


   o  An ITR that receives the result code set to BULK-LIMIT MUST NOT
      try to resend the same request before the expiry of the
      retransmission timeout (default value set to 60 seconds).

   o  An ITR that receives the result code set to OUT-OF-RESOURCES MUST
      NOT resend the same request before 300 seconds.

   o  If the M-bit is set, it should expect that other Map-Bulk-Reply
      messages will be received from this Map-Resolver.  Appropriate
      security mechanisms (e.g., Access Control Lists) SHOULD be
      activated to allow the processing of these incoming unsolicited
      Map-Bulk-Reply messages.

   o  If the M-bit is unset, this is an indication that this message
      terminates the mapping bulk retrieval transaction.  The ITR may
      decide to terminate the underlying TCP connections if no other
      transactions bound to the same Map-Resolver are active.

   o  Filters that are returned in the Map-Bulk-Reply message may not be
      valid or have exceeded a limit.  The "Code" field indicates the
      reason for not processing these filters.  In particular:

      *  An ITR that receives the 'Code' field set to FILTER-BAD or
         FILTER-UNSUPPORTED MUST NOT resend the same filters that were
         returned in the Map-Bulk-Reply message, in subsequent Map-Bulk-
         Request messages.  Furthermore, subsequent Map-Bulk-Request
         messages MUST NOT use the unsupported format to encode the
         filters.

      *  An ITR that receives the 'Code' field set to FILTER-MAX SHOULD
         issue another Map-Bulk-Request message with the filters that
         were returned in the Map-Bulk-Reply message with this code.

      *  An ITR that receives the 'Code' field set to FILTER-LOCAL
         SHOULD for at least 60 seconds before issuing another Map-Bulk-
         Request message with the filters that were returned in the Map-
         Bulk-Reply message with this code.

7.  Bulk Mapping Retrival from Multiple Resolvers

   In order to retrieve mapping entries from multiple Map-Resolvers, an
   ITR issues Map-Bulk-Request messages to a list of Map-Resolvers.
   Each of these requests is handled as specified in Section 4.

   An ITR MAY be configured to issue multiple Map-Bulk-Request messages
   to distinct Map-Resolvers.





Boucadair & Jacquenet    Expires April 11, 2018                [Page 10]


Internet-Draft                LISP Map-Bulk                 October 2017


   Conflicts may arise when contacting multiple Map-Resolvers.  These
   conflicts are not specific to the bulk mapping retrieval as this is
   also an issue for individual mapping lookup.

8.  Sample Examples

   Figure 3 illustrates the example of a bulk mapping retrieval that is
   achieved with one single Map-Bulk-Reply, while Figure 4 shows an
   example of a bulk mapping retrieval that requires multiple Map-Bulk-
   Reply messages.

                    +--------+                  +--------+
                    |  ITR   |                  |   MR   |
                    +--------+                  +--------+
                         |<- Session Establishment--->|
                         |                            |
                         |Map-Bulk-Request (ID, d_EID |
                         | d_EID2, ..., d_EIDn)       |
                         |--------------------------->|
                         |      Map-Bulk-Reply(M=0)   |
                         |<---------------------------|

                Figure 3: Example of Bulk Mapping Retrieval

                    +--------+                  +--------+
                    |  ITR   |                  |   MR   |
                    +--------+                  +--------+
                         |<- Session Establishment -->|
                         |                            |
                         |Map-Bulk-Request (ID, d_EID |
                         | d_EID2, ..., d_EIDn)       |
                         |--------------------------->|
                         |Map-Bulk-Reply(M=1, rec1,   |
                         |            rec2, ..., recn)|
                         |<---------------------------|
                         |Map-Bulk-Reply(M=1,recn+1   |
                         |          recn+2, ..., recm)|
                         |<---------------------------|
                                      ...
                         |Map-Bulk-Reply(M=0, recs)   |
                         |<---------------------------|


                Figure 4: Example of Bulk Mapping Retrieval

   The bulk mapping retrieval allows to retrieve records that do not
   only match IP prefixes, but also AS numbers or even names.  When




Boucadair & Jacquenet    Expires April 11, 2018                [Page 11]


Internet-Draft                LISP Map-Bulk                 October 2017


   names or AS numbers are included, the Map-Resolver is responsible for
   identifying which IP prefixes are to be returned.

   An ITR can establish multiple transactions with the same Map-Resolver
   as shown in Figure 5.

                    +--------+                  +--------+
                    |  ITR   |                  |   MR   |
                    +--------+                  +--------+
                         |<- Session Establishment -->|
                         |                            |
                         |Map-Bulk-Request (ID1)      |
                         |--------------------------->|
                         |      Map-Bulk-Reply(ID1)   |
                         |<---------------------------|
                                      ...
                         |Map-Bulk-Request (ID2)      |
                         |--------------------------->|
                         |      Map-Bulk-Reply(ID2)   |
                         |<---------------------------|
                         |      Map-Bulk-Reply(ID2)   |
                         |<---------------------------|
                                      ...
                         |Map-Bulk-Request (IDa)      |
                         |--------------------------->|
                         |Map-Bulk-Request (IDb)      |
                         |--------------------------->|
                         |      Map-Bulk-Reply(IDa)   |
                         |<---------------------------|
                         |      Map-Bulk-Reply(IDb)   |
                         |<---------------------------|
                         |      Map-Bulk-Reply(IDb)   |
                         |<---------------------------|
                         |      Map-Bulk-Reply(IDa)   |
                         |<---------------------------|


        Figure 5: Multiple Transactions with the Same Map-Resolver

9.  Security Considerations

   In addition to the security considerations discussed in [RFC6830] and
   [RFC6833], TCP-specific threats are valid for this specification
   (e.g., [I-D.ietf-tcpm-tcp-security]).

   In order to avoid exhausting the resources of Map-Resolvers, Map-
   Bulk-Request messages SHOULD be rate-limited.  Furthermore, a Map-




Boucadair & Jacquenet    Expires April 11, 2018                [Page 12]


Internet-Draft                LISP Map-Bulk                 October 2017


   Resolver MAY configure ACLs to control leaf LISP networks that are
   allowed to issue Map-Bulk-Request messages.

   The structure of a record conveyed in a Map-Bulk-Reply is exactly the
   same as in [RFC6830].  As such, this specification does leak
   information that would not be revealed using the base LISP.

10.  IANA Considerations

   IANA has assigned this LISP Shared Extension Message Type Sub-type
   ([RFC8113]) for this registry https://www.iana.org/assignments/lisp-
   parameters/lisp-parameters.xhtml#lisp-shared-extension-message-type-
   sub-types:

   Message                           Sub-type    Reference
   ================================= =======     ===============
   Map-Bulk-Request/Map-Bulk-Reply    1025        [This document]

11.  Acknowledgments

   This work is partly funded by ANR LISP-Lab project #ANR-13-INFR-
   009-X.

   Many thanks to S.  Secci and Chi Dung Phung for the comments.

12.  References

12.1.  Normative references

   [RFC0793]  Postel, J., "Transmission Control Protocol", STD 7,
              RFC 793, DOI 10.17487/RFC0793, September 1981,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc793>.

   [RFC2119]  Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
              Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.

   [RFC4291]  Hinden, R. and S. Deering, "IP Version 6 Addressing
              Architecture", RFC 4291, DOI 10.17487/RFC4291, February
              2006, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4291>.

   [RFC6830]  Farinacci, D., Fuller, V., Meyer, D., and D. Lewis, "The
              Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP)", RFC 6830,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC6830, January 2013,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6830>.





Boucadair & Jacquenet    Expires April 11, 2018                [Page 13]


Internet-Draft                LISP Map-Bulk                 October 2017


   [RFC6833]  Fuller, V. and D. Farinacci, "Locator/ID Separation
              Protocol (LISP) Map-Server Interface", RFC 6833,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC6833, January 2013,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6833>.

   [RFC8113]  Boucadair, M. and C. Jacquenet, "Locator/ID Separation
              Protocol (LISP): Shared Extension Message & IANA Registry
              for Packet Type Allocations", RFC 8113,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC8113, March 2017,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8113>.

12.2.  Informative references

   [I-D.ietf-tcpm-tcp-security]
              Gont, F., "Survey of Security Hardening Methods for
              Transmission Control Protocol (TCP) Implementations",
              draft-ietf-tcpm-tcp-security-03 (work in progress), March
              2012.

   [I-D.kouvelas-lisp-map-server-reliable-transport]
              Cassar, C., Leong, J., Lewis, D., Kouvelas, I., and J.
              Arango, "LISP Map Server Reliable Transport", draft-
              kouvelas-lisp-map-server-reliable-transport-04 (work in
              progress), September 2017.

Authors' Addresses

   Mohamed Boucadair
   Orange
   Rennes  35000
   France

   EMail: mohamed.boucadair@orange.com


   Christian Jacquenet
   Orange
   Rennes  35000
   France

   EMail: christian.jacquenet@orange.com










Boucadair & Jacquenet    Expires April 11, 2018                [Page 14]


Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.124, available from https://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/