[Docs] [txt|pdf] [Tracker] [Email] [Nits]

Versions: 00

Network Working Group                                            S. Brim
Internet-Draft                                              D. Farinacci
Intended status: Experimental                                   D. Meyer
Expires: May 12, 2008                                Cisco Systems, Inc.
                                                               J. Curran
                                                             ServerVault
                                                        November 9, 2007


       EID Mappings Multicast Across Cooperating Systems for LISP
                       draft-curran-lisp-emacs-00

Status of this Memo

   By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any
   applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware
   have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes
   aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79.

   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
   Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups.  Note that
   other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-
   Drafts.

   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."

   The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
   http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt.

   The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
   http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.

   This Internet-Draft will expire on May 12, 2008.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2007).

Abstract

   One of the potential problems with the "map-and-encapsulate"
   approaches to routing architecture is that there is a significant
   chance of packets being dropped while a mapping is being retrieved.
   Some approaches pre-load ingress tunnel routers with at least part of
   the mapping database.  Some approaches try to solve this by providing



Brim, et al.              Expires May 12, 2008                  [Page 1]


Internet-Draft                 EMACS-LISP                  November 2007


   intermediate "default" routers which have a great deal more knowledge
   than a typical ingress tunnel router.  This document proposes a
   scheme which does not drop packets yet does not require a great deal
   of knowledge in any router.  However, there are still some issues
   that need to be worked out.

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].


Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3
   2.  Problem Statement  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3
   3.  Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
   4.  Detailed Discussion  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
     4.1.  Assignment of rendezvous point addresses to groups . . . .  5
     4.2.  Determination of the Right Group to Join . . . . . . . . .  6
     4.3.  Sending a Packet . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6
     4.4.  Path Stretch . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
     4.5.  Requirement for Multicast Deployment . . . . . . . . . . .  7
     4.6.  Protection against Snoopers  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
     4.7.  ETR Initial Packet Forwarding  . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
     4.8.  Responding with a Map-Reply  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8
     4.9.  Authentication of the Map-Reply  . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8
     4.10. Transition Scenarios . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8
   5.  IANA Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8
   6.  Security Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8
   7.  Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
   8.  References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
     8.1.  Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
     8.2.  Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
   Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
   Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . . . . 11














Brim, et al.              Expires May 12, 2008                  [Page 2]


Internet-Draft                 EMACS-LISP                  November 2007


1.  Introduction

   One of the potential problems with the "map-and-encapsulate"
   approaches to routing architecture is that there is a significant
   chance of packets being dropped while a mapping is being retrieved.
   Some approaches pre-load ingress tunnel routers (ITRs) with at least
   part of the mapping database.  Some approaches try to solve this by
   providing intermediate "default" routers which have a great deal more
   knowledge than a typical ingress tunnel router.  This document
   proposes a scheme which does not drop packets yet does not require a
   great deal of knowledge in any router.  However, there are still some
   issues that need to be worked out.


2.  Problem Statement

   LISP [I-D.farinacci-lisp] assumes a mechanism for obtaining mappings
   from EID to RLOC exists, but does not require or assume any specific
   mapping mechanism.  Among those proposed for use with LISP are LISP-
   ALT [I-D.fuller-lisp-alt],NERD [I-D.lear-lisp-nerd], CONS
   [I-D.meyer-lisp-cons], and APT [I-D.jen-apt].  Others have also been
   considered.

   These mechanisms attempt in various ways to balance database size and
   churn with the delay of looking up a mapping for the first packet
   between two sites.  If complete mapping information is pushed all the
   way to the ITRs, then there is no delay in looking up the first
   mapping, but each ITR must hold a large amount of information and be
   able to keep it up to date.  If mapping information is not pushed at
   all (as in CONS), then an ITR need only hold the information it
   decides to cache, but there may be significant delays in retrieving a
   mapping for the first packets sent between two sites, and those
   packets may be dropped.  Hybrid schemes, where mapping information is
   pushed partway to the ITRs, have been proposed, but the tradeoff
   between database size/churn and lookup delay is still not solved
   satisfactorily.

   "Default forwarders" have been proposed in CONS, APT, and CRIO
   [CRIO].  These are intermediate forwarding points.  The intent is
   that if an ITR does not have a mapping for a packet, it will forward
   the packet to the default forwarder.  The assumption is that the
   default forwarder serves an aggregate of endpoints, and will thus
   have better knowledge of how to reach the destination.  This
   eliminates mapping lookup delay and the possibility of dropped
   packets, at the cost of possibly having the first packets sent
   between two sites take a longer path.  There are two kinds of default
   forwarders, those that represent multiple sources and those that
   represent multiple destinations.



Brim, et al.              Expires May 12, 2008                  [Page 3]


Internet-Draft                 EMACS-LISP                  November 2007


   o  Source-side default forwarders (SSDFs) serve a group of sources,
      for example a site or all customers of an IP service provider.
      The belief is that a source-side default forwarder can have more
      mapping entries than the usual ITR, either because more can be
      pushed to it or because it will have more entries cached, since it
      is serving more queries.  If it does not have a mapping for the
      destination it will use one of the mapping mechanisms on behalf of
      the source.  Source-side default forwarders do not actually change
      the problem, they simply move the problem from the ITR to an
      intermediary.  The same tradeoff, of having high rate/state versus
      dropping packets versus delay, is still there.  The advantage is
      that they concentrate the problem so that costs can be
      concentrated as well, but in most cases an SSDF would have
      performance requirements at the level of a high end router.  Valid
      packets can still be dropped if the SSDF does not itself have a
      mapping.  Another disadvantage is that since they offer a general
      "default" route, bogus packets will get forwarded to and possibly
      through them instead of being dropped (for no route).

   o  Destination-side default forwarders (DSDFs) serve a group of
      destinations.  For example, if a source sends a packet to
      192.168.100.1 and its ITR does not have a mapping entry for that
      packet, the ITR might forward the packet to a default forwarder
      responsible for all of 192.168.0.0/16.  A destination-side
      forwarder has a mapping database which is complete, but only for a
      subset of the Internet, so it does not have the high performance
      requirements of a mainstream source-side default forwarder.  Most
      bogus packets are not forwarded because ITRs will only have routes
      to DSDFs for valid EID prefixes.  A potential downside to DSDFs is
      that since they represent an aggregate of destinations, the path
      to the destination through the DSDF may see some stretch.

   Destination-side default forwarders look like a good idea if some
   issues can be dealt with.  They can eliminate the possibility of
   dropped packets.  Delay for first packets exchanged between sites has
   a possibility of being long for some sites, depending on how DSDFs
   are organized.  They still hold part of the mapping database, and
   need to maintain its accuracy.  Also a mechanism is needed for
   sources, and the routers near sources, to determine which SSDF
   handles which prefixes.  Finally, the mechanism by which the
   forwarding path is moved toward optimality needs to be secure.

   This draft proposes a mechanism using destination-side default
   forwarders that has low "rate*state" overhead, has easy DSDF
   location, and controls path stretch.  It is called "EID-mappings
   Multicast Across Cooperating Systems for LISP", or EMACS-LISP.





Brim, et al.              Expires May 12, 2008                  [Page 4]


Internet-Draft                 EMACS-LISP                  November 2007


3.  Overview

   The mechanism by which DSDFs forward packets to the appropriate ETRs
   is bidirectional PIM [RFC5015] multicast trees.  Briefly:

   o  In order to keep the number of multicast trees reasonable, each
      tree handles a subset of the entire EID address space.  In IPv4
      this might be a /16.

   o  An ETR responsible for an EID prefix, for example
      192.168.100.0/24, joins an appropriate multicast group for an
      including prefix, for example 192.168.0.0/16.  An ETR responsible
      for an EID prefix larger than an including prefix, or for multiple
      EID prefixes in different including prefixes, will need to join
      multiple groups.  Multiple ETRs for a site might join the group.

   o  The bidirectional PIM tree rendezvous point addresses, and the
      groups they are rendezvous points for, are advertised in
      multiprocotol eBGP.  This instance of eBGP runs in an overlay GRE
      infrastructure, distinct from the eBGP instance which will be used
      for normal RLOC routing in the Internet core.

   o  When an ITR needs to forward a packet and does not have a LISP
      EID->RLOC mapping, it uses an algorithm to find the correct
      multicast group, and sends the packet to that group, on the
      overlay GRE infrastructure.  The outer destination RLOC is the
      multicast address.  The outer source RLOC is the ITR's.

   o  The packets travel to all registered recipients.  Most of them
      examine the packet and realize they are not responsible for the
      destination, so they throw it away.  Among the ETRs which are
      responsible for the EID prefix, one or more will send a LISP Map-
      Reply back to the originating ITR, providing a specific mapping,
      so that the ITR can send all further packets directly.

   Thus the first one or two packets sent between two sites will
   experience more delay than following packets, but no packets are
   dropped unless they should be.

   Details are added, and issues discussed, in the following sections.


4.  Detailed Discussion

4.1.  Assignment of rendezvous point addresses to groups

   Rendezous point addresses (RPAs) are not necessarily related to
   anything physical.  Their determination does not need to be covered



Brim, et al.              Expires May 12, 2008                  [Page 5]


Internet-Draft                 EMACS-LISP                  November 2007


   in this document, as long as they can be advertised in the overlay
   eBGP instance.

4.2.  Determination of the Right Group to Join

   An ETR must join one or more multicast groups in order to receive
   packets to the EID prefixes it is responsible for.  There must be
   agreement among the ETRs for a prefix and the ITRs that want to send
   to that prefix on how the correct multicast group is determined.  To
   avoid mapping retrieval delay, the multicast group must be
   determinable without querying a server.  The following mechanism for
   mapping from destination EID to multicast group address MUST be
   supported for 32-bit EIDs:

   o  There is a /16 in IPv4 multicast address space allocated for use
      by this protocol, for example 238.1.0.0/16.  There are 64k groups,
      one for each of 64k "including" prefixes.

   o  The RP addresses of all valid groups are advertised in eBGP, along
      with group addresses.  The next_hop for a group address is the
      RP's address.

   o  An ETR responsible for an EID prefix will mask out the higher
      order 16 bits of that EID prefix, and OR those bits into the lower
      order 16 bits of 238.1.0.0 to get the group to join.  For example,
      for the EID prefix 192.168.100.0/24, the ETR will join multicast
      group 238.1.192.168.

   o  If an ETR handles traffic to an EID prefix shorter than a /16, it
      will join all groups necessary to cover it.

   o  The ETR joins those groups, on the GRE overlay.

   A similar mechanism can be defined for IPv6.  Only valid groups,
   known to contain EID prefixes participating in LISP, will be
   advertised in the eBGP instance.  Therefore it is all right to define
   the IPv6 mechanism in a way that allows for a large number of groups.

4.3.  Sending a Packet

   ITRs participate in the eBGP instance running on the GRE overlay, so
   that they receive information on available groups and rendezvous
   point addresses.  Packets for which the ITR does not have a direct
   lisp EID->RLOC mapping cached, does not have a route to an
   appropriate multicast group, and does not have a direct route for,
   and are dropped.  To send a packet on the multicast overlay, the ITR
   encapsulates the packet with a LISP header.  The destination address
   is the group determined by the same algorithm as above (Section 4.2).



Brim, et al.              Expires May 12, 2008                  [Page 6]


Internet-Draft                 EMACS-LISP                  November 2007


   The source address is an RLOC for the ITR, or at least an RLOC for
   the source site.

4.4.  Path Stretch

   The first packets sent between two sites will be multicast.
   Depending on how the multicast tree is assembled this may not be a
   direct path.  How sub-optimal these paths would be is for further
   study.

4.5.  Requirement for Multicast Deployment

   A potential concern with this approach is that it will require
   multicast support in all of the routers in the Internet core.
   However, the only nodes interested in the multicast routes are xTRs.
   They will participate in an overlay tunneled infrastructure, for
   example over GRE. eBGP, bidirectional PIM, and the multicast packets
   themselves would all travel over this tunneled infrastructure.  The
   only nodes that need know or care about multicast are the ones that
   want to use it.  The overhead of constructing and maintaining the GRE
   overlay is for further study.

4.6.  Protection against Snoopers

   Without any join filters, it is possible for anyone to join any
   group.  A node could join all groups in order to find out which sites
   are talking to which other sites.  This is sometimes not acceptable.
   Therefore group join filters are required.  At the points where a
   particular ETR will join, "join" messages to the groups for EID
   prefixes which that ETR handles MUST be allowed, but more SHOULD not
   be.  This configuration is limited, simple, related to configuration
   that will already be done, and scalable.

4.7.  ETR Initial Packet Forwarding

   When a packet is multicast it is distributed to all potentially
   interested ETRs.  ETRs that are not responsible for an EID prefix
   containing the packet's destination address will discard the packet.
   ETRs which do handle traffic for the destination EID SHOULD decide
   among themselves who will forward the packet, since duplicate packets
   can sometimes be a problem.  They do so by position in the LISP RLOC-
   set (see LISP [I-D.farinacci-lisp]).  The ETR which is active and has
   the lowest ordinal position in the RLOC-set will forward the packet.

   Note: there can be a serious problem if a small site has an EID
   prefix in the same /16 including prefix as a large site.  In that
   case, the small site's ETRs would get all of the initial traffic to
   the large site and have to throw it all away.  This could overwhelm a



Brim, et al.              Expires May 12, 2008                  [Page 7]


Internet-Draft                 EMACS-LISP                  November 2007


   small site's ETR.  This problem, and possibly how to focus some
   multicast groups, is for further study.

4.8.  Responding with a Map-Reply

   At least one receiving ETR SHOULD unicast a Map-Reply directly back
   to the originating ITR, so that future packets will be sent directly
   to the ETR, not via the multicast infrastructure.  As with packet
   delivery (Section 4.7), the active ETR with the lowest ordinal
   position in the LISP RLOC-set will be the one to respond.

4.9.  Authentication of the Map-Reply

   Because an initial packet can go to multiple sites, an ITR SHOULD
   authenticate any received Map-Reply messages.  Otherwise it may
   misroute future packets.  Nonces are not an adequate measure.  Some
   kind of signature is required on the content of the Map-Reply.  The
   trade-offs here are for further study.

4.10.  Transition Scenarios

   To be filled in.  Possibilities include using LISP-ALT as an
   intermediate approach, using alternative DNS resources, and sending
   initial packets via multiple paths.


5.  IANA Considerations

   This section will be filled in later.

   A new SAFI will be needed to carry both rendezvous point addresses
   and group addresses.

   A set of at least 64k multicast groups is needed, and it would be
   better if a /8 were allocated, to be sure.  Allocation of 238.0.0.0/8
   is requested.

   A similar request for IPv6 address space will be made after further
   study.

   Note to RFC Editor: this section may be removed on publication as an
   RFC.


6.  Security Considerations

   To be filled in.  Known issues are




Brim, et al.              Expires May 12, 2008                  [Page 8]


Internet-Draft                 EMACS-LISP                  November 2007


   o  Revealing first packets to destinations which are not the source's
      intended destination.

   o  Inviting map-reply responses off the path between source and
      destination.

   o  Denial of service attacks on the multicast infrastructure.

   o  Potentially overloading ETRs with unwanted traffic.


7.  Contributors

   The authors are grateful for the help of those who offered comments,
   notably Vince Fuller, Eliot Lear, Darrel Lewis, and David Oran.


8.  References

8.1.  Normative References

   [I-D.farinacci-lisp]
              Farinacci, D., "Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP)",
              draft-farinacci-lisp-04 (work in progress), August 2007.

   [RFC2119]  Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
              Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.

   [RFC5015]  Handley, M., Kouvelas, I., Speakman, T., and L. Vicisano,
              "Bidirectional Protocol Independent Multicast (BIDIR-
              PIM)", RFC 5015, October 2007.

8.2.  Informative References

   [CRIO]     Zhang, X., Francis, P., Wang, J., and K. Yoshida, "Scaling
              IP Routing with the Core Router-Integrated Overlay",
              November 2006.

   [I-D.fuller-lisp-alt]
              Fuller, V., "LISP-ALT", Internet-Draft not yet published.

   [I-D.jen-apt]
              Jen, D., "APT: A Practical Transit Mapping Service",
              draft-jen-apt-00 (work in progress), July 2007.

   [I-D.lear-lisp-nerd]
              Lear, E., "NERD: A Not-so-novel EID to RLOC Database",
              draft-lear-lisp-nerd-02 (work in progress),



Brim, et al.              Expires May 12, 2008                  [Page 9]


Internet-Draft                 EMACS-LISP                  November 2007


              September 2007.

   [I-D.meyer-lisp-cons]
              Brim, S., "LISP-CONS: A Content distribution Overlay
              Network Service for LISP", draft-meyer-lisp-cons-02 (work
              in progress), September 2007.


Authors' Addresses

   Scott Brim
   Cisco Systems, Inc.

   Email: swb@employees.org


   Dino Farinacci
   Cisco Systems, Inc.

   Email: dino@cisco.com


   David Meyer
   Cisco Systems, Inc.

   Email: dmm@1-4-5.net


   John Curran
   ServerVault

   Email: jcurran@istaff.org



















Brim, et al.              Expires May 12, 2008                 [Page 10]


Internet-Draft                 EMACS-LISP                  November 2007


Full Copyright Statement

   Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2007).

   This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions
   contained in BCP 78, and except as set forth therein, the authors
   retain all their rights.

   This document and the information contained herein are provided on an
   "AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS
   OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY, THE IETF TRUST AND
   THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS
   OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF
   THE INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED
   WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.


Intellectual Property

   The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
   Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to
   pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in
   this document or the extent to which any license under such rights
   might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has
   made any independent effort to identify any such rights.  Information
   on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be
   found in BCP 78 and BCP 79.

   Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any
   assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an
   attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of
   such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this
   specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at
   http://www.ietf.org/ipr.

   The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any
   copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary
   rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement
   this standard.  Please address the information to the IETF at
   ietf-ipr@ietf.org.


Acknowledgment

   Funding for the RFC Editor function is provided by the IETF
   Administrative Support Activity (IASA).





Brim, et al.              Expires May 12, 2008                 [Page 11]


Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.129d, available from https://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/