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

Versions: (draft-saucez-lisp-impact) 00 01 02 03 04 05 RFC 7834

Network Working Group                                          D. Saucez
Internet-Draft                                                     INRIA
Intended status: Informational                                L. Iannone
Expires: December 12, 2015                             Telecom ParisTech
                                                             A. Cabellos
                                                                F. Coras
                                                 Technical University of
                                                               Catalonia
                                                           June 10, 2015


                              LISP Impact
                     draft-ietf-lisp-impact-03.txt

Abstract

   The Locator/Identifier Separation Protocol (LISP) aims at improving
   the Internet scalability properties leveraging on three simple
   principles: address role separation, encapsulation, and mapping.  In
   this document, based on implementation work, deployment experiences,
   and theoretical studies, we discuss the impact that the deployment of
   LISP can have on both the Internet in general and the end-user in
   particular.

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 December 12, 2015.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2015 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



Saucez, et al.          Expires December 12, 2015               [Page 1]


Internet-Draft                 LISP Impact                     June 2015


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


Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3
   2.  LISP in a nutshell . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3
   3.  LISP for scaling the Internet  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
   4.  Beyond scaling the Internet  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6
     4.1.  Traffic engineering  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
     4.2.  LISP for IPv6 Co-existence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8
     4.3.  Inter-domain multicast . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8
   5.  Impact of LISP on operations and business model  . . . . . . .  9
     5.1.  Impact on non-LISP traffic and sites . . . . . . . . . . .  9
     5.2.  Impact on LISP traffic and sites . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
   6.  IANA Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
   7.  Security Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
   8.  Acknowledgments  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
   9.  References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
     9.1.  Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
     9.2.  Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
   Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15























Saucez, et al.          Expires December 12, 2015               [Page 2]


Internet-Draft                 LISP Impact                     June 2015


1.  Introduction

   The Locator/Identifier Separation Protocol (LISP) relies on three
   simple principles to improve the scalability properties of the
   Internet: address role separation, encapsulation, and mapping.  The
   main goal of LISP is to make the Internet more scalable by reducing
   the number of prefixes announced in the Default Free Zone (DFZ).  As
   LISP relies on mapping and encapsulation, it turns out that it
   provides more benefits than just increased scalability.  For
   instance, LISP provides a mean for a LISP site to precisely control
   its inter-domain outgoing and incoming traffic, with the possibility
   to apply different policies to different domains exchanging traffic
   with it.  LISP can also be used to ease the transition from IPv4 to
   IPv6 as it allows to transport IPv4 over IPv6 or IPv6 over IPv4.
   Furthermore, LISP also provides a solution to perform inter-domain
   multicast.

   This document discusses the impact of LISP's deployment on the
   Internet and on end-users and shows the consequences of the
   interworking infrastructure in terms of path-stretch.  LISP comprises
   both a tunnel-based data plane and a distributed control plane for
   the Internet, and requires some new functionalities, such as RLOC
   reachability mechanisms.  Being more than simple encapsulation
   technology, there are remaining open questions related to the
   deployment of LISP in the Internet.  Moreover, encapsulation may
   raise some issues (which have a limited impact in practice) because
   it reduces the Maximum Transmission Unit (MTU) size.  An important
   impact of LISP on network operations is related to resiliency and
   troubleshooting.  Indeed, as LISP relies on cached mappings and on
   encapsulation, troubleshooting is harder than in the traditional
   Internet.  Also, encapsulation stresses resiliency as it makes
   failure detection and recovery slower than with hop-by-hop routing.


2.  LISP in a nutshell

   The Locator/Identifier Separation Protocol (LISP) relies on three
   simple principles: address role separation, encapsulation, and
   mapping.

   Addresses are semantically separated in two: the Routing Locators
   (RLOCs) and the Endpoint Identifiers (EIDs).  RLOCs are addresses
   typically assigned from the Provider Aggregatable (PA) address space.
   The EIDs are attributed to the nodes in the edge networks, by block
   of contiguous addresses, which are typically Provider Independent
   (PI).  To limit the scalability problem, only the routes towards the
   RLOCs are announced in the Internet routing infrastructure, whereas
   currently EIDs are also propagated.



Saucez, et al.          Expires December 12, 2015               [Page 3]


Internet-Draft                 LISP Impact                     June 2015


   LISP routers are used at the boundary between the EID and the RLOC
   spaces.  Routers used to exit the EID space are called Ingress Tunnel
   Router (ITRs) and those used to enter the EID space the Egress Tunnel
   Routers (ETRs).  When a host sends a packet to a remote destination,
   it sends it as in the current Internet (without LISP).  The packet
   eventually arrives at the border of its site at an ITR.  Because EIDs
   are not routable on the Internet, the packet is encapsulated with the
   source address set to the ITR RLOC and the destination address set to
   the ETR RLOC.  The encapsulated packet is then forwarded in the
   Internet until it reaches the selected ETR.  The ETR decapsulates the
   packet and forwards it to its final destination.  The acronym xTR for
   Ingress/Egress tunnel router is used for a router playing these two
   roles.

   The correspondence between EIDs and RLOCs is given by the mappings.
   When an ITR needs to find ETR RLOCs that serve an EID it queries a
   mapping system.  It is worth noticing that with the LISP Canonical
   Address Format (LCAF) [I-D.ietf-lisp-lcaf], LISP is not restricted to
   the Internet Protocol for the EID addresses.  With LCAF, any address
   type can be used as EID (the address is the key for the mapping
   lookup) and LISP can then transport, for example, Ethernet frames
   over the Internet.

   A more thorough introduction to LISP can be found in [RFC7215].  The
   complete specifications are given in [RFC6830], [RFC6833],
   [I-D.ietf-lisp-ddt], [RFC6836], [RFC6832], [RFC6834].


3.  LISP for scaling the Internet

   The original goal of LISP is to improve the scalability properties of
   the Internet architecture.  LISP achieves such a target thanks to
   traffic engineering and stub AS prefixes not announced anymore in the
   DFZ, so that routing tables are smaller and more stable (i.e., they
   experience less churn).  Furthermore, at the edge network,
   information necessary to forward packets (i.e., the mappings) is
   obtained on demand using a pull model (whereas the current Internet
   uses a push model, instantiated by BGP).  Therefore, scalability of
   edge networks is now independent of the Internet's size and is now
   related its traffic matrix.  This scaling improvement is proven by
   several works.  The research work cited hereafter is based on the
   following assumptions:

   o  EID-to-RLOC mappings follow the same prefix size as the current
      BGP routing infrastructure (current PI addresses only);

   o  EIDs are used only at the stub ASes, not in the transit ASes;




Saucez, et al.          Expires December 12, 2015               [Page 4]


Internet-Draft                 LISP Impact                     June 2015


   o  the RLOCs of an EID prefix are deployed at the edge between the
      stubs owning the EID prefix and the providers, allocating the
      RLOCs in a Provider Aggregetable (PA) mode.

   The above assumptions are inline with [RFC7215] and current LISP
   deployments, however, such situation may change in the long term.
   Nevertheless, [KIF13] and [CDLC] explore different EDI prefix space
   sizes, still showing results that are consitent and equivalent to the
   above assumptions.

   Quoitin et al.  [QIdLB07] show that the separation between locator
   and identifier roles at the network level improves the routing
   scalability by reducing the Routing Information Base (RIB) size (up
   to one order of magnitude) and increases path diversity and thus the
   traffic engineering capabilities.  [IB07] and [KIF13] show, based on
   real Internet traffic traces that the number of mapping entries that
   must be handled by an ITR of a network with up to 20,000 users is
   limited to few tens of thousands; that the signaling traffic (i.e.,
   Map-Request/Map-Reply packets) is in the same order of magnitude like
   DNS requests/reply traffic; that the encapsulation overhead, while
   not negligible, is very limited (in the order of few percentage
   points of the total traffic volume).

   Previous studies consider the case of a timer-based cache eviction
   policy (i.e., mappings are deleted from the cache upon timeout),
   while [CDLC] has a more general approach based on the Least Recently
   Used (LRU) eviction policy, proposing an analytic model for the EID-
   to-RLOC cache size when prefix-level traffic has a stationary
   generating process.  The model shows that miss rate can be accurately
   predicted from the EID-to-RLOC cache size and a small set of easily
   measurable traffic parameters.  The model was validated using four
   one-day-long packet traces collected at egress points of a campus
   network and an academic exchange point considering EID-prefixes as
   being of the same size as BGP prefixes.  Consequently, operators can
   provision the EID-to-RLOC cache of their ITRs according to the miss
   rate they want to achieve for their given traffic.

   Results indicate that for a given target miss-ratio, the size of the
   cache depends only on the parameters of the popularity distribution,
   being independent of the number of users (the size of the LISP site)
   and the number of destinations (the size of the EID-prefix space).
   Assuming that the popularity distribution remains constant, this
   means that as the number of users and the number of destinations
   grow, the cache size needed to obtain a given miss rate remains
   constant O(1).

   LISP usually populates its EID-to-RLOC cache in a pull mode which
   means that mappings are retrieved on demand by the ITR.  The main



Saucez, et al.          Expires December 12, 2015               [Page 5]


Internet-Draft                 LISP Impact                     June 2015


   advantage is that the EID-to-RLOC cache size only depens on the
   traffic characteristics at the ITR and is independent of the size of
   the Internet.  This benefit comes at the cost of some delay to
   transmit the packets that do not hit an entry in the cache, for which
   a mapping has to be learned.  This delay is bound by the time
   necessary to retrieve the mapping from the mapping system.  Moreover,
   similarly to a push model (e.g., BGP), the pull model induces
   signaling messages that correspond to the retrieval of mappings upon
   cache miss.  The difference being that the signaling load only
   depends on the traffic at the ITR and is not triggered by external
   events such as in BGP.  [CDLC] shows that the miss rate is a function
   of the EID-to-RLOC cache size and traffic generation process and
   [CDLC], [SDIB08], and [SDIB08] show from traffic traces that in
   practice the cache miss rate, and thus the signaling rate, remain
   low.


4.  Beyond scaling the Internet

   Even though it is its main goal, LISP is more than just a scalability
   solution, it is also a tool to provide both incoming and outgoing
   traffic engineering ([S11], [I-D.farinacci-lisp-te]) can be used as
   an IPv6 transition at the routing level, and for inter-domain
   multicast ([RFC6831], [I-D.coras-lisp-re]).  LISP has also proven to
   be a good protocol for devices' Internet mobility
   ([I-D.meyer-lisp-mn]) or even virtual machines' mobility in data
   centers and multi-tenant VPNs.  Details of the last two points are
   not discussed further because out of the scope of the current LISP
   Working Group charter.

   LISP architecture facilitates routing in environments where there is
   little to no correlation between network endpoints and topological
   location.  In service provider environment this use is evident in a
   range of consumer use cases which require an inline anchor in-order
   to deliver a service to a subscribers.  Inline anchors provide one of
   three types of capabilities:

   o  enable mobility of subscriber end points

   o  enable chaining of middle-box functions and services

   o  enable seamless scale-out of functions

   Without LISP operators are forced to centralize service anchors in
   custom built special boxes.  This means that end-points can move as
   long as their traffic ends up on the same mobile gateway, functions
   can be chained as long as all traffic traverses the same wire or the
   same DPI box, and capacity can scale out as long as traffic fans out



Saucez, et al.          Expires December 12, 2015               [Page 6]


Internet-Draft                 LISP Impact                     June 2015


   to/from a specific load balancer.

   With LISP service providers are able to distribute, virtualize, and
   instantiate subscriber-service anchors anywhere in the network.
   Typical use cases that virtualized inline anchors and network
   functions include: Distributed Mobility and Virtualized Evolved
   Packet Core (vEPC), where centralization makes way to distributed and
   virtualized inline anchoring of mobility, Virtualized Customer
   Premise Equipment or vCPE, where functionality previously anchored at
   customer premises is now dynamically allocated in-network,
   Virtualized SGi LAN, where value added mobile services previously
   anchored inside full-stack boxes or anchored to physical wires with
   permutation setups aka "Rails", Virtual IMS and Virtual SBC, etc.

   Current deployments by ConteXtream, using a pre standards (designed
   2006) based architecture, support a total of 100 millions subscribers
   with such an architecture.  A deployment at a tier-1 US Mobile
   operator over 50 millions subscribers provides a 39% download rate
   improvement over LTE.

4.1.  Traffic engineering

   In the current (non-LISP) Internet, addresses used by stub networks
   are globally routable and the routing system distributes the routes
   to reach these stubs.  On the contrary, the EID prefixes of a LISP
   site are not routable in the DFZ, meaning that mappings are needed in
   order to determine the list of LISP routers to contact to send them
   packets.  The difference is significant for two reasons.  First,
   packets are not sent to a site but to a specific router.  Second, a
   site can control the entry points for its traffic by controlling its
   mappings.

   For traffic engineering purpose, a mapping associates an EID prefix
   to a list of RLOCs.  Each RLOC is annotated with a priority and a
   weight.  When there are several RLOCs, the ITR selects the one with
   the highest priority and sends the encapsulated packet to this RLOC.
   If several such RLOCs exist, then the traffic is balanced
   proportionally to their weight among the RLOCs with the lowest
   priority value.  Traffic engineering in LISP thus allows the mapping
   owner to have a fine-grained control on the primary and backup path
   its incoming and outgoing packets use.  In addition, it can share the
   load among its links.  An example of the use of such a feature is
   described by Saucez et al.  [SDIB08], showing how to use LISP to
   direct different types of traffic on different links having different
   capacity.

   Traffic engineering in LISP goes one step further.  As every Map-
   Request contains the Source EID Address of the packet that caused a



Saucez, et al.          Expires December 12, 2015               [Page 7]


Internet-Draft                 LISP Impact                     June 2015


   cache miss and triggered the Map-Request.  It is thus possible for a
   mapping owner to differentiate the answer (Map-Reply) it gives to
   Map-Requests based on the requester.  This functionality is not
   available today with BGP because a domain cannot control exactly the
   routes that will be received by domains that are not in the direct
   neighborhood.

4.2.  LISP for IPv6 Co-existence

   The LISP encapsulation mechanism is designed to support any
   combination of locators and identifiers address family.  It is then
   possible to bind IPv6 EIDs with IPv4 RLOCs and vice-versa.  This
   allows transporting IPv6 packets over an IPv4 network (or IPv4
   packets over an IPv6 network), making LISP a valuable mechanism to
   ease the transition to IPv6.

   A not so uncommon example is the case of the network infrastructure
   of a datacenter being IPv4-only while dual-stack front-end load
   balancers are used.  In this scenario, LISP can be used to provide
   IPv6 access to servers even though the network and the servers only
   support IPv4.  Assuming that the datacenter's ISP offers IPv6
   connectivity, the datacenter only needs to deploy one (or more)
   xTR(s) at its border with the ISP and one (or more) xTR(s) directly
   connected to the load balancers.  The xTR(s) at the ISP's border
   tunnels IPv6 packets over IPv4 to the xTR(s) directly attached to the
   load balancer.  The load balancer's xTR decapsulates the packets and
   forward them to the load balancer, which act as proxies, translating
   each IPv6 packet into an IPv4.  IPv4 packets are then sent to the
   appropriate servers.  Similarly, when the server's response arrives
   at the load balancer, the packet is translated back into an IPv6
   packet and forwarded to its xTR(s), which in turn will tunnel it
   back, over the IPv4-only infrastructure, to an xTR connected to the
   ISP.  The packet is then decapsulated and forwarded to the ISP
   natively in IPv6.

4.3.  Inter-domain multicast

   LISP has native support for multicast [RFC6831].  From the data-plane
   perspective, at a multicast enabled xTR, an EID sourced multicast
   packet is encapsulated in another multicast packet and subsequently
   forwarded in a RLOC-level distribution tree.  Therefore, xTRs must
   participate in both EID and RLOC level distribution trees.  Control-
   plane wise, since group addresses have no topological significance
   they need not to be mapped.  It is worth noting that, to properly
   function, LISP-Multicast requires that inter-domain multicast be
   available.

   LISP Replication Engineering (RE) ([I-D.coras-lisp-re], [CDM12])



Saucez, et al.          Expires December 12, 2015               [Page 8]


Internet-Draft                 LISP Impact                     June 2015


   leverage LISP messages ([I-D.farinacci-lisp-mr-signaling]) for
   multicast state distribution to construct xTR based inter-domain
   multicast distribution trees when inter-domain multicast support is
   not available.  Simulations of three different management strategies
   for low latency content delivery show that such overlays can support
   thousands of member xTRs, hundreds of thousands of end-hosts and
   deliver content at latencies close to unicast ones ([CDM12]).  It was
   also observed that high client churn has a limited impact on
   performance and management overhead.

   Similarly to LISP-RE, Signal-Free LISP Multicast
   ([I-D.farinacci-lisp-signal-free-multicast]) can be used when the
   core network does not provide multicast support.  But instead of
   using signaling to build inter-domain multicast trees, signal-free
   exclusively leverages the map-server for multicast state storage and
   distribution.  As a result, the source ITR generally performs head-
   end replication but it might be also used to emulate LISP-RE
   distribution trees.


5.  Impact of LISP on operations and business model

   Important implementation efforts ([IOSNXOS], [OpenLISP], [LISPmob],
   [LISPClick], [LISPcp], and [LISPfritz]) have been made to assess the
   specifications and interoperability tests ([Was09]) have been a
   success.  World-wide large deployment in the international lisp4.net
   testbed, which is currently composed of nodes running at least three
   different implementations, allows to learn operational matters
   related to LISP.

   We have to distinguish the impact of LISP on LISP sites from the
   impact on non-LISP sites.

5.1.  Impact on non-LISP traffic and sites

   LISP has no impact on traffic which has neither LISP origin nor LISP
   destination.  However, LISP can have a significant impact on traffic
   between a LISP site and a non-LISP site.  Traffic between a non-LISP
   site and a LISP site are subject to the same issues than those
   observed for LISP-to-LISP traffic but also have issues specific to
   the transition mechanism that allow LISP site to exchange packets
   with non-LISP site ([RFC6832], [RFC7215]).

   Indeed, the transition requires to setup proxy tunnel routers
   (PxTRs).  PxTRs do not cause particular technical issue.  However, by
   definition proxies cause path stretch and make troubleshooting
   harder.  There are still big questions related to PxTRs that have to
   be answered:



Saucez, et al.          Expires December 12, 2015               [Page 9]


Internet-Draft                 LISP Impact                     June 2015


   o  Where to deploy PxTRs?  The placement in the topology has an
      important impact on the path stretch.

   o  How many PxTRs?  The number of PxTR has a direct impact on the
      load and the impact of the failure of a PxTR on the traffic.

   o  What part of the EID space?  Will all the PxTRs be proxies for the
      whole EID space or will it be segmented between different PxTRs?

   o  Who operates PxTRs?  The IETF does not aim at providing business
      model hints, however, an important question to answer is related
      to the entities that will deploy PxTRs, how they will manage their
      CAPEX/OPEX and how the traffic will be carried with respect for
      the security and privacy.

   PxTR also normally have to advertise in BGP the EID prefix they are
   proxy for.  However, if proxies are managed by different entities,
   they will belong to different ASes.  In this case, we have to be sure
   that it will not cause MOAS (Multi-Origina AS) issues that could
   negatively influence routing.  Moreover, it is important to ensure
   that the way EID prefixes will be deaggregated by the proxies will
   remain reasonable to not take part in the BGP scalability issues.

5.2.  Impact on LISP traffic and sites

   LISP is a protocol based on the map-and-encap paradigm which has the
   positive effects that we have given in the sections above.  However,
   by design, LISP also has side impact on operations:

   MTU issue:  as LISP uses encapsulation, the MTU is reduced, this has
         implication on potentially all the traffic.  However, in
         practice, on the lisp4.net network, no major issue due to the
         MTU has been observed.  This is probably due to the fact that
         current end-host stacks are well designed to deal with the
         problem of MTU.

   Resiliency issue:  the advantage of flexibility and control offered
         by the Locator/ID separation comes at the cost of increasing
         the complexity of the reachability detection.  Indeed,
         identifiers are not directly routable and have to be mapped to
         locators but a locator may be unreachable while others are
         still reachable.  This is an important problem for any tunnel-
         based solution.  In the current Internet, packets are forwarded
         independently of the border router of the network meaning that
         in case of the failure of a border router, another one can be
         used.  With LISP, the destination RLOC specifically designate
         one particular ETR, hence if this ETR fails, the traffic is
         dropped even though other ETRs are available for the



Saucez, et al.          Expires December 12, 2015              [Page 10]


Internet-Draft                 LISP Impact                     June 2015


         destination site.  Another resiliency issue is linked to the
         fact that mappings are learned on demand.  When an ITR fails,
         all its traffic is redirected to other ITRs that might not have
         the mappings requested by the redirected traffic.  Existing
         studies ([SKI12], [SD12]) show, based on measurements and
         traffic traces, that failure of ITRs and RLOC are infrequent
         but that when such failure happens, an important number of
         packet can be dropped.  Unfortunately, the current techniques
         for LISP resiliency, based on monitoring or probing are not
         rapid enough (failure recovery of the order of a few seconds).
         To tackle this issue [I-D.bonaventure-lisp-preserve] and
         [I-D.saucez-lisp-itr-graceful] propose techniques based on
         local failure detection and recovery.

   Middle boxes/filters:  because of encapsulation, the middle boxes
         might not understand the traffic which can cause firewall to
         drop legitimate packets.  In addition, LISP allows triangular
         or even rectangular routing, so it is hard to maintain a
         correct state even if the middle box perfectly understands
         LISP.  Finally, filtering might also have problems because they
         might think only one host is generating the traffic (the ITR),
         as long as it is not decapsulated.  To deal with LISP
         encapsulation, LISP aware firewalls that inspect inner LISP
         packets are proposed [lispfirewall].

   Troubleshooting/debugging:  the major issue that years of LISP
         experimentation have shown is the difficulty of
         troubleshooting.  When there is a problem in the network, it is
         hard to pin-point the reason as the operator only has a partial
         view of the network.  The operator can see what is in its EID-
         to-RLOC cache/database, and can try to obtain what is
         potentially elsewhere by querying the Map Resolvers but the
         knowledge remains partial.  On top of that, ICMP packets only
         carry the first few tens of bytes of the original packet, which
         means that when an ICMP arrives at the ITR, it might not
         contain enough information to make correct troubleshooting.
         Interestingly, deployment in the beta network has shown that
         LISP+ALT was not easy to maintain and control, which explains
         the migration to LISP-DDT [I-D.ietf-lisp-ddt].

   Business:  the IETF is not aiming at providing business models.
         However, even though Iannone et al.  [IL10] shown that there is
         economical incentives to migrate to LISP, some questions are on
         hold.  For example, how will the EIDs be allocated to allow
         aggregation and hence scalability of the mapping system?  Who
         will operate the mapping system infrastructure and for what
         benefit?




Saucez, et al.          Expires December 12, 2015              [Page 11]


Internet-Draft                 LISP Impact                     June 2015


   Reachability:  The overhead related to RLOC rechability mechanisms is
         not known.


6.  IANA Considerations

   This document makes no request to the IANA.


7.  Security Considerations

   Security and threats analysis of the LISP protocol is out of the
   scope of the present document.  A thorough analysis of LISP security
   threats is detailed in [I-D.ietf-lisp-threats].


8.  Acknowledgments

   The people that contributed to this document are Sharon Barkai, Vince
   Fuller, Joel Halpern, Terry Manderson, Gregg Schudel, Ron Bonica,
   Ross Callon.

   The work of Luigi Iannone has been partially supported by the ANR-13-
   INFR-0009 LISP-Lab Project (www.lisp-lab.org).


9.  References

9.1.  Normative References

   [RFC6830]  Farinacci, D., Fuller, V., Meyer, D., and D. Lewis, "The
              Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP)", RFC 6830,
              January 2013.

   [RFC6831]  Farinacci, D., Meyer, D., Zwiebel, J., and S. Venaas, "The
              Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP) for Multicast
              Environments", RFC 6831, January 2013.

   [RFC6832]  Lewis, D., Meyer, D., Farinacci, D., and V. Fuller,
              "Interworking between Locator/ID Separation Protocol
              (LISP) and Non-LISP Sites", RFC 6832, January 2013.

   [RFC6833]  Fuller, V. and D. Farinacci, "Locator/ID Separation
              Protocol (LISP) Map-Server Interface", RFC 6833,
              January 2013.

   [RFC6834]  Iannone, L., Saucez, D., and O. Bonaventure, "Locator/ID
              Separation Protocol (LISP) Map-Versioning", RFC 6834,



Saucez, et al.          Expires December 12, 2015              [Page 12]


Internet-Draft                 LISP Impact                     June 2015


              January 2013.

   [RFC6836]  Fuller, V., Farinacci, D., Meyer, D., and D. Lewis,
              "Locator/ID Separation Protocol Alternative Logical
              Topology (LISP+ALT)", RFC 6836, January 2013.

   [RFC7215]  Jakab, L., Cabellos-Aparicio, A., Coras, F., Domingo-
              Pascual, J., and D. Lewis, "Locator/Identifier Separation
              Protocol (LISP) Network Element Deployment
              Considerations", RFC 7215, April 2014.

9.2.  Informative References

   [CDLC]     Coras, F., Domingo, J., Lewis, D., and A. Cabellos, "An
              Analytical Model for Loc/ID Mappings Caches",  IEEE
              Transactions on Networking, 2014.

   [CDM12]    Coras, F., Domingo-Pascual, J., Maino, F., Farinacci, D.,
              and A. Cabellos-Aparicio, "Lcast: Software-defined Inter-
              Domain Multicast",  Elsevier Computer Networks, July 2014.

   [I-D.bonaventure-lisp-preserve]
              Bonaventure, O., Francois, P., and D. Saucez, "Preserving
              the reachability of LISP ETRs in case of failures",
              draft-bonaventure-lisp-preserve-00 (work in progress),
              July 2009.

   [I-D.coras-lisp-re]
              Coras, F., Cabellos-Aparicio, A., Domingo-Pascual, J.,
              Maino, F., and D. Farinacci, "LISP Replication
              Engineering", draft-coras-lisp-re-07 (work in progress),
              April 2015.

   [I-D.farinacci-lisp-mr-signaling]
              Farinacci, D. and M. Napierala, "LISP Control-Plane
              Multicast Signaling", draft-farinacci-lisp-mr-signaling-06
              (work in progress), February 2015.

   [I-D.farinacci-lisp-signal-free-multicast]
              Moreno, V. and D. Farinacci, "Signal-Free LISP Multicast",
              draft-farinacci-lisp-signal-free-multicast-03 (work in
              progress), June 2015.

   [I-D.farinacci-lisp-te]
              Farinacci, D., Kowal, M., and P. Lahiri, "LISP Traffic
              Engineering Use-Cases", draft-farinacci-lisp-te-08 (work
              in progress), March 2015.




Saucez, et al.          Expires December 12, 2015              [Page 13]


Internet-Draft                 LISP Impact                     June 2015


   [I-D.ietf-lisp-ddt]
              Fuller, V., Lewis, D., Ermagan, V., and A. Jain, "LISP
              Delegated Database Tree", draft-ietf-lisp-ddt-03 (work in
              progress), April 2015.

   [I-D.ietf-lisp-lcaf]
              Farinacci, D., Meyer, D., and J. Snijders, "LISP Canonical
              Address Format (LCAF)", draft-ietf-lisp-lcaf-08 (work in
              progress), April 2015.

   [I-D.ietf-lisp-threats]
              Saucez, D., Iannone, L., and O. Bonaventure, "LISP Threats
              Analysis", draft-ietf-lisp-threats-12 (work in progress),
              March 2015.

   [I-D.meyer-lisp-mn]
              Farinacci, D., Lewis, D., Meyer, D., and C. White, "LISP
              Mobile Node", draft-meyer-lisp-mn-12 (work in progress),
              January 2015.

   [I-D.saucez-lisp-itr-graceful]
              Saucez, D., Bonaventure, O., Iannone, L., and C. Filsfils,
              "LISP ITR Graceful Restart",
              draft-saucez-lisp-itr-graceful-03 (work in progress),
              December 2013.

   [IB07]     Iannone, L. and O. Bonaventure, "On the cost of caching
              locator/id mappings",  In Proc. ACM CoNEXT 2007,
              December 2007.

   [IL10]     Iannone, L. and T. Leva, "Modeling the economics of Loc/ID
              Separation for the Future Internet",  Book Chapter,
              Towards the Future Internet - Emerging Trends from the
              European Research, IOS Press, May 2010.

   [IOSNXOS]  Cisco Systems Inc., "Locator/ID Separation Protocol
              (LISP)",  http://lisp4.cisco.com, 2013.

   [KIF13]    Kim, J., Iannone, L., and A. Feldmann, "Caching Locator/ID
              Mappings: Scalability Analysis and Implications",
               Elsevier Computer Networks Journal, March 2013.

   [LISPClick]
              Saucez, D. and V. Nguyen, "LISP-Click: A Click
              implementation of the Locator/ID Separation Protocol",
               1st Symposium on Click Modular Router, 2009,
              November 2009.




Saucez, et al.          Expires December 12, 2015              [Page 14]


Internet-Draft                 LISP Impact                     June 2015


   [LISPcp]   "The lip6-lisp Project",  https://github.com/lip6-lisp/,
              2014.

   [LISPfritz]
              "Unsere FRITZ!Box-Produkte",
               http://avm.de/produkte/fritzbox/, 2014.

   [LISPmob]  "An open-source LISP implementation for Linux, Android and
              OpenWRT",  http://lispmob.org, 2015.

   [OpenLISP]
              "The OpenLISP Project",  http://www.openlisp.org, 2013.

   [QIdLB07]  Quoitin, B., Iannone, L., de Launois, C., and O.
              Bonaventure, "Evaluating the benefits of the locator/
              identifier separation",  In Proc. ACM MobiArch 2007,
              May 2007.

   [S11]      Saucez, D., "Mechanisms for Interdomain Traffic
              Engineering with LISP",  PhD Thesis, Universite catholique
              de Louvain, 2011, October 2011.

   [SD12]     Saucez, D. and B. Donnet, "On the Dynamics of Locators in
              LISP",  In Proc. IFIP Networking 2012, May 2012.

   [SDIB08]   Saucez, D., Donnet, B., Iannone, L., and O. Bonaventure,
              "Interdomain Traffic Engineering in a Locator/Identifier
              Separation Context",  In Proc. of Internet Network
              Management Workshop, 2008, October 2008.

   [SKI12]    Saucez, D., Kim, J., Iannone, L., Bonaventure, O., and C.
              Filsfils, "A Local Approach to Fast Failure Recovery of
              LISP Ingress Tunnel Routers",  In Proc. IFIP Networking
              2012, May 2012.

   [Was09]    Wasserman, M., "LISP Interoperability Testing",  IETF 76,
              LISP WG presentation, 2009., November 2009.

   [lispfirewall]
              "LISP and Zone-Based Firewalls Integration and
              Interoperability",  http://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/td/docs/
              ios-xml/ios/sec_data_zbf/configuration/xe-3s/
              sec-data-zbf-xe-book/sec-zbf-lisp-inner-pac-insp.html,
              2014.







Saucez, et al.          Expires December 12, 2015              [Page 15]


Internet-Draft                 LISP Impact                     June 2015


Authors' Addresses

   Damien Saucez
   INRIA
   2004 route des Lucioles BP 93
   06902 Sophia Antipolis Cedex
   France

   Email: damien.saucez@inria.fr


   Luigi Iannone
   Telecom ParisTech
   23, Avenue d'Italie, CS 51327
   75214 PARIS Cedex 13
   France

   Email: ggx@gigix.net


   Albert Cabellos
   Technical University of Catalonia
   C/Jordi Girona, s/n
   08034 Barcelona
   Spain

   Email: fcoras@ac.upc.edu


   Florin Coras
   Technical University of Catalonia
   C/Jordi Girona, s/n
   08034 Barcelona
   Spain

   Email: fcoras@ac.upc.edu















Saucez, et al.          Expires December 12, 2015              [Page 16]


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