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

Versions: (draft-chiappa-lisp-introduction) 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 Draft is active
In: MissingRef
LISP Working Group                                         J. N. Chiappa
Internet-Draft                              Yorktown Museum of Asian Art
Intended status: Informational                           October 1, 2013
Expires: April 4, 2014


               An Architectural Introduction to the LISP
                  Location-Identity Separation System
                    draft-ietf-lisp-introduction-02

Abstract

   LISP is an upgrade to the architecture of the IP internetworking
   system, one which separates location and identity (previously
   intermingled in IP addresses).  This is a change which has been
   identified by the IRTF as a critically necessary evolutionary
   architectural step for the Internet.  In LISP, nodes have both a
   'locator' (a name which says _where_ in the network's connectivity
   structure the node is) and an 'identifier' (a name which provides a
   persistent handle for the node).  A node may have more than one
   locator, or its locator may change over time (e.g. if the node is
   mobile), but it keeps the same identifier.

   One of the chief novelties of LISP, compared to other proposals for
   the separation of location and identity, is its approach to deploying
   this upgrade.  LISP aims to achieve the near-ubiquitous deployment
   necessary for maximum exploitation of an architectural upgrade by i)
   minimizing the amount of change needed (existing hosts and routers
   can operate unmodified); and ii) by providing significant benefits to
   early adopters.

   This document is an introductory overview of the entire LISP system,
   for those who are unfamiliar with it.  The first half of the document
   is a unified stand-alone brief introduction to LISP, for those who
   only want a basic understanding of LISP; the document taken as a
   whole provides a more detailed overview of LISP and its operation.

Status of This Memo

   This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
   provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.  This document may not be modified,
   and derivative works of it may not be created, except to format it
   for publication as an RFC or to translate it into languages other
   than English.

   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-



Chiappa                   Expires April 4, 2014                 [Page 1]


Internet-Draft     Architectural Introduction to LISP       October 2013


   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 April 4, 2014.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2013 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors.  All rights reserved.

   This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
   Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
   (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
   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.  Prefatory Note . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
   2.  Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6
   3.  Deployment Philosophy  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
     3.1.  Economics  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
     3.2.  Maximize Re-use of Existing Mechanism  . . . . . . . . . .  8
     3.3.  'Self-Deployment'  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8
   4.  LISP Overview  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8
     4.1.  Basic Approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
     4.2.  Basic Functionality  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
     4.3.  Mapping from EIDs to RLOCs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
     4.4.  Interworking With Non-LISP-Capable Endpoints . . . . . . . 11
     4.5.  Security in LISP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
   5.  Initial Applications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
     5.1.  Provider Independence  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
     5.2.  Multi-Homing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
     5.3.  Traffic Engineering  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
     5.4.  Routing  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
     5.5.  Mobility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
     5.6.  IP Version Reciprocal Traversal  . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
     5.7.  Local Uses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
   6.  Major Functional Subsystems  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
     6.1.  xTRs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16



Chiappa                   Expires April 4, 2014                 [Page 2]


Internet-Draft     Architectural Introduction to LISP       October 2013


       6.1.1.  Mapping Cache Performance  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
     6.2.  The Mapping System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
       6.2.1.  Mapping System Organization  . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
       6.2.2.  Interface to the Mapping System  . . . . . . . . . . . 20
       6.2.3.  Indexing Sub-system  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
   7.  Examples of Operation  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
     7.1.  An Ordinary Packet's Processing  . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
     7.2.  A Mapping Cache Miss . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
   8.  Design Approach  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
   9.  Data Plane - xTRs  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
     9.1.  When to Encapsulate  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
     9.2.  UDP Encapsulation Details  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
     9.3.  Header Control Channel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
       9.3.1.  Mapping Versioning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
       9.3.2.  Echo Nonces  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
       9.3.3.  Instances  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
     9.4.  Probing  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
     9.5.  Mapping Lifetimes and Timeouts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
     9.6.  Security of Mapping Lookups  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
     9.7.  Mapping Gleaning in ETRs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
     9.8.  Fragmentation  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
   10. Control Plane - The Mapping System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
     10.1. The Mapping System Interface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
       10.1.1. Map-Request Messages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
       10.1.2. Map-Reply Messages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
       10.1.3. Map-Register and Map-Notify Messages . . . . . . . . . 32
     10.2. The DDT Indexing Sub-system  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
       10.2.1. Map-Referral Messages  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
     10.3. Reliability via Replication  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
     10.4. Security of the DDT Indexing Sub-system  . . . . . . . . . 34
     10.5. Extended Tools . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
     10.6. Performance of the Mapping System  . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
   11. Multicast Support in LISP  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
     11.1. Basic Concepts of Multicast Support in LISP  . . . . . . . 36
     11.2. Initial Multicast Support in LISP  . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
   12. Deployment Issues and Mechanisms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
     12.1. LISP Deployment Needs  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
     12.2. Interworking Mechanism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
       12.2.1. Proxy Devices  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
       12.2.2. LISP-NAT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
     12.3. Use Through NAT Devices  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
     12.4. LISP and DFZ Routing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
       12.4.1. Long-term Possibilities  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
   13. Fault Discovery/Handling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
     13.1. Handling Missing Mappings  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
     13.2. Outdated Mappings  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
       13.2.1. Outdated Mappings - Updated Mapping  . . . . . . . . . 43
       13.2.2. Outdated Mappings - Wrong ETR  . . . . . . . . . . . . 43



Chiappa                   Expires April 4, 2014                 [Page 3]


Internet-Draft     Architectural Introduction to LISP       October 2013


       13.2.3. Outdated Mappings - No Longer an ETR . . . . . . . . . 43
     13.3. Erroneous Mappings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
     13.4. Neighbour ETR Liveness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
     13.5. Neighbour ETR Reachability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
   14. Acknowledgments  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
   15. IANA Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
   16. Security Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
   17. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
     17.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
     17.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
   Appendix A.  Glossary/Definition of Terms  . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
   Appendix B.  Other Appendices  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
     B.1.  A Brief History of Location/Identity Separation  . . . . . 53
     B.2.  A Brief History of the LISP Project  . . . . . . . . . . . 54
     B.3.  Old LISP 'Models'  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55
     B.4.  The ALT Mapping Indexing Sub-system  . . . . . . . . . . . 55
     B.5.  Early NAT Support  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56


































Chiappa                   Expires April 4, 2014                 [Page 4]


Internet-Draft     Architectural Introduction to LISP       October 2013


1.  Prefatory Note

   This document is the first of a pair which, together, form what one
   would think of as the 'architecture document' for LISP (the
   'Location-Identity Separation Protocol').  Much of what would
   normally be in an architecture document (e.g. the architectural
   design principles used in LISP, and the design considerations behind
   various components and aspects of the LISP system) is in the second
   document, the 'Architectural Perspective on LISP' document.

   This 'Architectural Introduction' document is primarily intended for
   those who unfamiliar with LISP, and want to start learning about it.
   It is intended to both be easy to follow, and also to give the reader
   a choice as to how much they wish to know about LISP.  Reading only
   the first part(s) of the document will give a good high-level view of
   the system; reading the complete document should provide a fairly
   detailed understanding of the entire system.

   This goal explains why the document has a somewhat unusual structure.
   It is not a typical reference document, where all the content on a
   particular topic is grouped in one place.  (That role is filled by
   the various protocol specifications.)  Instead, it is structured as a
   series of phases, each covering the entire system, but with
   increasing detail.

   It starts with a very high-level view of the entire system, to
   provide readers with a mental framework to help understand the more
   detailed material which follows.  A second pass over the whole system
   then goes into more detail.  Finally, individual sub-systems are
   covered in still deeper detail.

   The intent is two-fold: first, the multiple passes over the entire
   system, each one going into more detail, are intended to ease
   understanding; second, people can simply stop reading when they have
   a detailed-enough understanding for their purposes.

   People who just want to get an idea of how LISP works might only read
   the first two parts; they can stop reading either just before, or
   just after, Section 7, "Examples of Operation".  People who are going
   to go on and read all the protocol specifications (perhaps to
   implement LISP) would need/want to read the entire document.

   Note: This document is a descriptive document, not a protocol
   specification.  Should it differ in any detail from any of the LISP
   protocol specification documents, they take precedence for the actual
   operation of the protocol.





Chiappa                   Expires April 4, 2014                 [Page 5]


Internet-Draft     Architectural Introduction to LISP       October 2013


2.  Background

   It has gradually been realized in the networking community that
   networks, especially large networks, should deal quite separately
   with the 'identity' and 'location' of an 'endpoint' ([Chiappa]) -
   basically, 'who' an endpoint is, and 'where' it is.  (A more detailed
   history of this evolution is in Appendix B.1, "A Brief History of
   Location/Identity Separation".)

   At the moment, in both IPv4 and IPv6, IP addresses indicate both
   where the named node is, as well as identify it for purposes of end-
   end communication.  (The term 'node' is admittedly a nebulous one,
   but it was deliberately chosen for use in this document precisely
   because its definition is not fixed, and therefore unlikely to cause
   erroneous images in the minds of readers.  You will not go far wrong
   if you think of a node as being something like a host.)

   However, the separation of location and identity is a step which has
   recently been identified by the IRTF as a critically necessary
   evolutionary architectural step for the Internet.  [RFC6115]

   The on-going LISP project is an attempt to provide a viable path
   towards this separation.  (A brief history of the LISP project can be
   found in Appendix B.2, "A Brief History of the LISP Project".)  As an
   add-on to a large existing system, it has had to make certain
   compromises.  (For a good example, see [Perspective], Section
   "Residual Location Functionality in EIDs".)  However, if it reaches
   near-ubiquitous deployment, it will have two important consequences.

   First, in effectively providing separation of location and identity,
   along with a distributed directory of the bindings between them,
   'Wheeler's Law' ("All problems in computer science can be solved by
   another level of indirection") will come into play, and the Internet
   technical community will have a new, immensely powerful, tool at its
   disposal.  The fact that the namespaces on both sides of the mapping
   are global ones maximizes the power of that tool.  (See
   [Perspective], Section "Need for a Mapping System", for more on
   this.)

   Second, because of combination of flexible capability built into
   LISP, and the breaking of the unification of location and identity
   names, further architectural evolvement of the Internet becomes
   easily available; for example, new namespaces for location could be
   designed and deployed.  (See [Future] for more on this.)







Chiappa                   Expires April 4, 2014                 [Page 6]


Internet-Draft     Architectural Introduction to LISP       October 2013


3.  Deployment Philosophy

   It may seem odd to cover 'deployment philosophy' at this point in
   such a document.  However the deployment philosophy was a major
   driver for much of the design (to some degree the architecture, and
   to a very large measure, the engineering).  So, as such an important
   motivator, it is very desirable for readers to have this material in
   hand as they examine the design, so that design choices that may seem
   questionable at first glance can be better understood.

   Experience over the last several decades has shown that having a
   viable 'deployment model' for a new design is absolutely key to the
   success of that design.  In general, it is comparatively easy to
   conceive of new network designs, but much harder to devise approaches
   which will actually get deployed throughout the global network.  A
   new design may be fantastic - but if it can not or will not be
   successfully deployed (for whatever factors), it is useless.

   This absolute primacy of a viable deployment model is what has lead
   to some painful compromises in the design; and the extreme focus on a
   viable deployment model (including economics) is one of the novelties
   of LISP.

3.1.  Economics

   The key factor in successful adoption, as shown by recent experience
   in the Internet - and little appreciated to begin with, some decades
   back - is economics: does the new design have benefits which outweigh
   its costs.

   More importantly, this balance needs to hold for early adopters -
   because if they do not receive benefits to their adoption, the sphere
   of earliest adopters will not expand, and it will never get to
   widespread deployment.  One might have the world's best 'clean-slate'
   design, but if it does not have a deployment plan which is
   economically feasible, it's not good for much.

   This is particularly true of architectural enhancements, which are
   far less likely to be an addition which one can 'bolt onto the side'
   of existing mechanisms, and often offer their greatest benefits only
   when widely (or ubiquitously) deployed.

   Maximizing the cost-benefit ratio obviously has two aspects.  First,
   on the cost side, by making the design as inexpensive as possible,
   which means in part making the deployment as easy as possible.
   Second, on the benefit side, by providing many new capabilities,
   which is best done not by loading the design up with lots of features
   or options (which adds complexity), but by making the addition



Chiappa                   Expires April 4, 2014                 [Page 7]


Internet-Draft     Architectural Introduction to LISP       October 2013


   powerful through deeper flexibility.  We believe LISP has met both of
   these goals.

3.2.  Maximize Re-use of Existing Mechanism

   One key part of reducing the cost of a new design is to absolutely
   minimize the amount of change _required_ to existing, deployed,
   devices: the fewer devices need to be changed, and the smaller the
   change to those that do, the lower the pain (and thus the greater the
   likelihood) of deployment.

   Designs which absolutely require 'forklift upgrades' to large amounts
   of existing gear are far less likely to succeed - because they have
   to have extremely large benefits to make their very substantial costs
   worthwhile.

   It is for this reason that LISP, in most cases, initially requires no
   changes to almost all existing devices in the Internet (both hosts
   and routers); LISP functionality needs to be added in only a few
   places (see Section 12.1, "LISP Deployment Needs", for more).

   LISP also initially reuses, where-ever possible, existing protocols
   (IPv4 [RFC791] and IPv6 [RFC2460]).  The 'initially' must be stressed
   - careful attention has also long been paid to the long-term future
   (see [Future]), and larger changes become feasible as deployment
   increases.

3.3.  'Self-Deployment'

   LISP has deliberately employed a rather different deployment model,
   which we might call 'self-deployment' (for want of a better term); it
   does not require a huge push to get it deployed, rather, it is hoped
   that once people see it and realize they can easily make good use of
   it _on their own_ (i.e. without requiring adoption by others), it
   will 'deploy itself' (hence the name of the approach).

   One can liken the problem of deploying new systems in this way to
   rolling a snowball down a hill: unless one starts with a big enough
   snowball, and finds a hill of the right steepness (i.e. the right
   path for it to travel), one's snowball is not going to go anywhere on
   its own.  However, if one has picked one's spot correctly, once
   started, little additional work is needed.

4.  LISP Overview

   LISP is an incrementally deployable architectural upgrade to the
   existing Internet infrastructure, one which provides separation of
   location and identity.  It starts to separate the names used for



Chiappa                   Expires April 4, 2014                 [Page 8]


Internet-Draft     Architectural Introduction to LISP       October 2013


   identity and location of nodes, which are currently unified in IPvN
   addresses.  (This document uses the meaning for 'address' proposed in
   [Atkinson], i.e. a name with mixed location and identity semantics.)

   The separation into names with purely location and identity semantics
   is usually - but not necessarily - not perfect, for reasons which are
   driven by the deployment philosophy (above), and explored in more
   detail elsewhere (in [Perspective], Section "Namespaces-EIDs-
   Residual").

4.1.  Basic Approach

   In LISP, nodes have both an 'identifier' (a name which serves only to
   provide a persistent handle for the node), called an 'EID' (short for
   'endpoint identifier'), and an associated 'locator' (a name which
   says _where_ in the network's connectivity structure the node is),
   called an 'RLOC' (short for 'routing locator').

   A node may be associated with more than one RLOC, or the RLOC may
   change over time (e.g. if the node is mobile), but it would normally
   always have the same EID.

   Ideally, one should think of the EID as naming the node - or rather,
   its end-end communication entity (see [Chiappa] for more), if one
   wants to be as forward-looking as possible.  RLOC(s) name
   interface(s) - usually on the xTRs, at this stage.

   This second distinction, of _what_ is named by the two classes of
   name, is a further important enhancement to the architecture; failing
   to clearly recognize interfaces, and end-end communication entities,
   as distinctly separate classes of objects is another failing of the
   existing Internet architecture (again, one inherited from the
   previous generation of networking).

   The distinction is also is necessary both to enable some of the
   capabilities that LISP provides (e.g the ability to seamlessly
   support multiple interfaces, to different networks).

   An important insight in LISP is that it initially uses existing IPvN
   addresses for both of these kinds of names, as opposed to some
   similar earlier proposals (e.g.  [RFC1992]), which proposed using a
   new namespace for locators.  This choice minimized LISP's deployment
   cost, as well as providing the ability to easily interact with un-
   modified hosts and routers.

   The capability to use other namespaces for both kinds of names is
   already built in, which is expected to greatly increase the long-term
   benefits, flexibility, and power of the LISP mapping layer.



Chiappa                   Expires April 4, 2014                 [Page 9]


Internet-Draft     Architectural Introduction to LISP       October 2013


4.2.  Basic Functionality

   The basic operation of LISP, as it currently stands, is quite simple.
   LISP augmented packet switches near the source and destination of
   packets intercept traffic, and 'enhance' the packets for the trip
   between the LISP switches.

   The overall processing is shown below, in Figure 1:

                  (to be added)

           Figure 1: Basic LISP Packet Flow

   The LISP device near the original source (the Ingress Tunnel Router,
   or 'ITR') looks up additional information about the destination, and
   then wraps the packet in an outer header, one which contains some of
   that additional information.  The LISP device near the destination,
   the (the Egress Tunnel Router, or 'ETR') removes that header, leaving
   the original, un-modified, packet to be sent on to the destination
   node.

   To retrieve that additional information, the ITR uses the information
   in the original packet about the identity of its ultimate
   destination, i.e. the destination address; in LISP, this is the EID
   of the ultimate destination.  It uses the destination EID to look up
   the current location (the RLOC) of that EID.

   The lookup is performed through a 'mapping system', which is the
   heart of LISP: it is a distributed directory of mappings from EIDs to
   RLOCs.  The destination RLOC(s) will normally be the address(es) of
   the ETR(s) near the ultimate destination.

   The ITR then generates a new outer header for the original packet,
   with that header containing the ETR's RLOC as the wrapped packet's
   destination, and the ITR's own address (i.e. the RLOC associated with
   the original source) as the wrapped packet's source, and sends it
   off.

   When the packet gets to the ETR, that outer header is stripped off,
   and the original packet is forwarded to the original ultimate
   destination for normal processing.

   Return traffic is handled similarly, often (depending on the
   network's configuration) with the original ITR and ETR switching
   roles.  The ETR and ITR functionality is usually co-located in a
   single device; these are normally denominated as 'xTRs'.





Chiappa                   Expires April 4, 2014                [Page 10]


Internet-Draft     Architectural Introduction to LISP       October 2013


4.3.  Mapping from EIDs to RLOCs

   The mappings from EIDs to RLOCs are provided by a distributed, and
   potentially replicated, database, the 'mapping database', which is
   the heart of LISP.  Entities which need mappings get them from the
   'mapping system', which is a collection of subsystems through which
   clients can find and obtain mappings.  (The mapping system will be
   discussed in more detail below, in Section 6.2, "The Mapping System"
   and Section 10, "Control Plane - The Mapping System".)

   Mappings are requested on demand, and generally not pre-loaded; in
   other words, mappings are normally distributed via a 'pull'
   mechanism.  Once obtained by an ITR, they are cached by the ITR, for
   performance reasons.

   Extensive studies, including large-scale simulations driven by
   lengthy recordings of actual traffic at several major sites, have
   been performed to verify that this 'pull and cache' approach is
   viable, in practical engineering terms.  (This subject will be
   discussed in more detail in Section 6.1.1, "Mapping Cache
   Performance", below.)

4.4.  Interworking With Non-LISP-Capable Endpoints

   It is clearly crucial to provide the capability for 'easy'
   interoperation between hosts 'using' LISP (i.e. they are behind xTRs,
   and their EIDs are in the mapping database), and existing non-LISP-
   using hosts (often called 'legacy' hosts) or sites (where 'site' is
   usually taken to mean a collection of hosts, routers and networks
   under a single administrative control).

   To allow such interoperation, a number of mechanisms have been
   designed.  This multiplicity is in part because different mechanisms
   have different advantages and disadvantages (so that no single
   mechanism is optimal for all cases); this also allows a choice to be
   made when more field experience has been obtained.

   One approach uses proxy LISP devices, called PITRs (proxy ITRs) and
   PETRs (proxy ETRs), to provide LISP functionality during interaction
   with legacy hosts.  Another approach uses a device with combined LISP
   and NAT ([RFC1631]) functionality, named a LISP-NAT.  (See
   Section 12.2.1, "Proxy Devices", and Section 12.2.2, "LISP-NAT",
   respectively, for details of each.)








Chiappa                   Expires April 4, 2014                [Page 11]


Internet-Draft     Architectural Introduction to LISP       October 2013


4.5.  Security in LISP

   LISP has a subtle security philosophy; see [Perspective], Section
   "Security", where it is laid out in some detail.

   To provide a brief overview, it is definitely understood that LISP
   needs to be highly _securable_, especially in the long term; over
   time, the attacks mounted by 'bad guys' are becoming more and more
   sophisticated.  So LISP, like DNS, needs to be _capable_ of providing
   'the very best' security there is.

   At the same time, there is a conflicting goal: it must be deployable
   (i.e. have a viable cost).  That means two things: First, with the
   limited manpower currently available, we cannot expect to create the
   complete security apparatus that we might see in the long term (which
   requires not just design, but also implementation, etc).  Second,
   security needs to be flexible, so that we don't overload the users
   with more security than they need at any point.

   To accomplish these divergent goals, the approach taken is to
   thorougly analyze what LISP needs for security, and then design, in
   detail, a scheme for providing that security.  Then, steps can be
   taken to ensure that the appropriate 'hooks' (such as packet fields)
   are included at an early stage, when doing so is still easy.  Later
   on, the design can be fully specified, implemented, and deployed.

   LISP does already include a number of security mechanisms; in
   particular, requesting mappings can be secured (see Section 9.6,
   "Security of Mapping Lookups"), as can registering of xTRs (see
   Section 10.1.3, "Map-Register and Map-Notify Messages"); the key
   indexing database of the mapping system is also secured (see
   Section 10.4, "Security of the DDT Indexing Sub-system").

   The existing security mechanisms, and their configuration (which is
   mostly manual at this point) currently in LISP are felt to be
   adequate for the needs of the on-going early stages of deployment;
   experience will indicate when improvements are required (within the
   constraints of the conflicting goal given above).

5.  Initial Applications

   As previously mentioned, it is felt that LISP will provide even the
   earliest adopters with some useful capabilities, and that these
   capabilities will drive early LISP deployment.

   It is very imporant to note that even when used only for
   interoperation with existing unmodified hosts, use of LISP can still
   provide benefits for communications with the site which has deployed



Chiappa                   Expires April 4, 2014                [Page 12]


Internet-Draft     Architectural Introduction to LISP       October 2013


   it - and, perhaps even more importantly, can do so _to both sides_.
   This characteristic acts to further enhance the utility for early
   adopters of deploying LISP, thereby increasing the cost/benefit ratio
   needed to drive deployment, and increasing the 'self-deployment'
   aspect of LISP.

   Note also that this section only lists likely _early_ applications
   and benefits - if and once deployment becomes more widespread, other
   aspects will come into play (as described in [Perspective], in the
   Section "Goals of LISP").

5.1.  Provider Independence

   Provider independence (i.e. the ability to easily change one's
   Internet Service Provider) was probably the first place where the
   Internet engineering community finally really felt the utility of
   separating location and identity.

   The problem is simple: for the global routing to scale, addresses
   need to be aggregated (i.e. things which are close in the overall
   network's connectivity need to have closely related addresses), the
   so-called "provider aggregatable" addresses.  [RFC4116] However, if
   this principle is followed, it means that when an entity switches
   providers (i.e. it moves to a different 'place' in the network), it
   has to renumber, a painful undertaking.  [RFC5887]

   In theory, it ought to be sufficient to update the DNS entries, and
   have everyone switch to the new addresses, but in practise, addresses
   are embedded in many places, such as firewall configurations at other
   sites.

   Having separate namespaces for location and identity greatly reduces
   the problems involved with renumbering; an organization which moves
   retains its EIDs (which are how most other parties refer to its
   nodes), but is allocated new RLOCs, and the mapping system can
   quickly provide the updated mapping from the EIDs to the new RLOCs.

5.2.  Multi-Homing

   Multi-homing is another place where the value of separation of
   location and identity became apparent.  There are several different
   sub-flavours of the multi-homing problem - e.g. depending on whether
   one wants open connections to keep working, etc - and other axes as
   well (e.g. site multi-homing versus host multi-homing).

   In particular, for the 'keep open connections up' case, without
   separation of location and identity, the only currently feasible
   approach is to use provider-independent addressses - which moves the



Chiappa                   Expires April 4, 2014                [Page 13]


Internet-Draft     Architectural Introduction to LISP       October 2013


   problem into the global routing system, with attendant costs.  This
   approach is also not really feasible for host multi-homing.

   Multi-homing was once somewhat esoteric, but a number of trends are
   driving an increased desirability, e.g. the wish to have multiple ISP
   links to a site for robustness; the desire to have mobile handsets
   connect up to multiple wireless systems; etc.

   Again, separation of location and identity, and the existince of a
   mapping layer which can be updated fairly quickly, as provided by
   LISP, is a very useful tool for all variants of this issue.

5.3.  Traffic Engineering

   Traffic engineering (TE) [RFC3272], desirable though this capability
   is in a global network, is currently somewhat problematic to provide
   in the Internet.  The problem, fundamentally, is that this capability
   was not forseen when the Internet was designed, so the support for it
   via 'hacks' is neither clean, nor flexible.

   TE is, fundamentally, a routing issue.  However, the current Internet
   routing architecture, which is basically the Baran design of fifty
   years ago [Baran] (a single large, distributed computation), is ill-
   suited to provide TE.  The Internet seems a long way from adopting a
   more-advanced routing architecture, although the basic concepts for
   such have been known for some time.  [RFC1992]

   Although the identity-location mapping layer is thus a poor place,
   architecturally, to provide TE capabilities, it is still an
   improvement over the current routing tools available for this purpose
   (e.g. injection of more-specific routes into the global routing
   table).

   In addition, instead of the entire network incurring the costs
   (through the routing system overhead), when using a mapping layer to
   provide TE, the overhead is limited to those who are actually
   communicating with that particular destination.

   LISP includes a number of features in the mapping system to support
   TE. (described in Section 6.2, "The Mapping System", below); more
   details about using LISP for TE can be found in [LISP-TE].

   Also, a number of academic papers have explored how LISP can be used
   to do TE, and how effective it can be.  See the online LISP
   Bibliography ([Bibliography]) for information about them.






Chiappa                   Expires April 4, 2014                [Page 14]


Internet-Draft     Architectural Introduction to LISP       October 2013


5.4.  Routing

   Multi-homing and Traffic Engineering are both, in some sense, uses of
   LISP for routing, but there are many other routing-related uses for
   LISP.

   One of the major original motivations for the separation of location
   and identity in general, and thus LISP, was to reduce the growth of
   the routing tables in the so-called 'Default-Free-Zone' (DFZ) - the
   core of the Internet, the part where routes to _all_ ultimate
   destinations must be available.  LISP is expected to help with this;
   for more detail, see Section 12.4, "LISP and DFZ Routing", below.

   LISP may also have more local applications in which it can help with
   routing; see, for instance, [CorasBGP].

5.5.  Mobility

   Mobility is yet another place where separation of location and
   identity is obviously a key part of a clean, efficient and high-
   functionality solution.  Considerable experimentation has been
   completed on doing mobility with LISP.

   The mobility provided by LISP allows active sessions to survive moves
   (provided of course that there is not a period of inaccessability
   which exceeds a timeout).  LISP mobility also will typically have
   better packet 'stretch' (i.e. increase in path length) compared to
   traditional mobility schemes, which use a 'home agent'.

5.6.  IP Version Reciprocal Traversal

   Note that LISP inherently supports intermixing of various IP versions
   for packet carriage; IPv4 packets might well be carried in IPv6, or
   vice versa, depending on the network's configuration.

   This capability allows an 'island' of operation of one type to be
   'automatically' tunneled over a stretch of infrastucture which only
   supports the other type.

   While the machinery of LISP may seem too heavy-weight to be good for
   such a mundane use, this is not intended as a 'sole use' case for
   deployment of LISP.  Rather, it is something which, if LISP is being
   deployed anyway (for its other advantages), is an added benefit that
   one gets 'for free'.







Chiappa                   Expires April 4, 2014                [Page 15]


Internet-Draft     Architectural Introduction to LISP       October 2013


5.7.  Local Uses

   LISP has a number of use cases which are within purely local
   contexts, i.e. not in the larger Internet.  These fall into two
   categories: uses seen on the Internet (above), but here on a private
   (and usually small scale) setting; and applications which do not have
   a direct analog in the larger Internet, and which apply only to local
   deployments.

   Among the former are multi-homing, IP version traversal, and support
   of VPN's for segmentation and multi-tenancy (i.e. a spatially
   separated private VPN whose components are joined together using the
   public Internet as a backbone).

   Among the latter class, non-Internet applications which have no
   analog on the Internet, are the following example applications:
   virtual machine mobility in data centers; other non-IP EID types such
   as local network MAC addresses, or application specific data.

   Several of the applications listed in this section are the ones which
   have been most popular for LISP in practise; these include virtual
   networks, and virtual machine mobility.

   These often show a synergistic tendency, in that a site which
   installs LISP to do one, often finds that then becomes a small matter
   to use it for the second.  Given all the things which LISP can do, it
   is hoped that this synergistic effect will continue to expand LISP's
   uses.

6.  Major Functional Subsystems

   LISP has only two major functional sub-systems - the collection of
   LISP packet switches (the xTRs), which form the 'data plane' of LISP;
   and the mapping system, the most important part of the 'control
   plane', which manages the mapping database.

   The purpose and operation of each is described at a high level below,
   and then, later on, in a fair amount of detail, in separate sections
   on each (Sections Section 9, "Data Plane - xTRs", and Section 10,
   "Control Plane - The Mapping System", respectively).

6.1.  xTRs

   xTRs are IPvN packet switches which have been augmented with extra
   functionality in both the data and control planes, to perform LISP
   data and control functionality (respectively).

   The data plane functions in ITRs include deciding which packets need



Chiappa                   Expires April 4, 2014                [Page 16]


Internet-Draft     Architectural Introduction to LISP       October 2013


   to be given LISP processing (since packets to non-LISP hosts may be
   sent as they are); i.e. looking up the mapping; encapsulating
   (wrapping) the packet; and sending it to the ETR.  To the extent that
   traffic engineering features are in use for a particular EID, the
   ITRs implement them as well.

   This encapsulation is done using UDP [RFC768] (for reasons to be
   explained below, in Section 9.2, "UDP Encapsulation Details"), along
   with an additional outer IPvN header (to hold the source and
   destination RLOCs).

   In the ETR, the data plane simply decapsulates (unwraps) the packets,
   and forwards the now-normal packets to the ultimate destination.

   Control plane functions in ITRs include: asking for {EID->RLOC}
   mappings via request control messages (Map-Request packets); handling
   the returning reply control messages (Map-Reply packets), which
   contain the requested information; managing the local cache of
   mappings; checking for the reachability and liveness of their
   neighbour ETRs; and checking for outdated mappings and requesting
   updates.

   In the ETR, control plane functions include participating in the
   neighbour reachability and liveness function (see Section 13.4,
   "Neighbour ETR Liveness"); interacting with the mapping sub-system to
   let it know what mapping this ETR can provide (see Section 6.2.2,
   "Interface to the Mapping System"); and answering requests from ITRs
   for those mappings (ditto).

6.1.1.  Mapping Cache Performance

   As mentioned, studies have been performed to verify that caching
   mappings in ITRs is viable, in practical engineering terms.  These
   studies not only verified that such caching is feasible, but also
   provided some insight for designing ITR mapping caches.

   Obviously, these studies are all snapshots of a particular point in
   time, and as the Internet continues its life-cycle they will
   increasingly become out-dated.  However, they are useful because they
   provide an insight into how well LISP can be expected to perform, and
   scale, over time.

   Full details of the results are too lengthy to include here; see
   [Perspective], Section "Mapping Cache Performance" for more.

   Briefly, however, the first, [Iannone], was performed in the very
   early stages of the LISP effort, to verify that that caching approach
   was feasible.



Chiappa                   Expires April 4, 2014                [Page 17]


Internet-Draft     Architectural Introduction to LISP       October 2013


   Packet traces of all traffic over the external connection of a large
   university over a week-long period were collected; simulations driven
   by these recording were then performed.  A variety of control
   settings on the cache were used, to study the effects of varying the
   settings.

   First, the simulation gave the cache sizes that would result from
   such a cache design: it showed that the resulting cache sizes ranged
   from 7,500 entries, up to about 100,000 (depending on factors such as
   traffic and entry retention time).  Using some estimations as to how
   much memory mapping entries would use, this indicated cache sizes of
   between roughly 100 Kbytes and a few Mbytes.

   Of more interest, in a way, were the results regarding two important
   measurements of the effectiveness of the cache: i) the hit ratio
   (i.e. the share of references which could be satisified by the
   cache), and ii) the miss _rate_ (since control traffic overhead is
   one of the chief concerns when using a cache).  These results were
   also encouraging: miss (and hence lookup) rates ranged from 30 per
   minute, up to 3,000 per minute.

   Significantly, this was substantially lower than the amount of
   observed DNS traffic, which ranged from 1,800 packets per minute up
   to 15,000 per minute.  The results overall showed that using a
   demand-loaded cache was an entirely plausible design approach: both
   cache size, and the control plane traffic load, were definitely
   feasible.

   The second, [Kim], was in general terms similar, except that it used
   data from a large ISP, one with about three times as many users as
   the previous study.  It used the same cache design philosophy (the
   cache size was not fixed), but slightly different, lower, retention
   time values.

   The results were similar: cache sizes ranges from 20,000 entries to
   roughly 60,000; the miss rate ranged from very roughly 400 per minute
   to very roughly 7,000 per minute, similar to the previous results.

   Finally, a third study, [CorasCache], examined the effect of using a
   fixed size cache, and a purely Least Recently Used (LRU) cache
   eviction algorithm (i.e. no timeouts).  It also tried to verify that
   models of the performance of such a cache (using previous theoretical
   work on caches) produced results that conformed with actual empirical
   measurements.

   It used yet another set of packet traces; using a cache size of
   around 50,000 entries produced a miss rate of around 1x10-4; again,
   definitely viable, and in line with the results of the other studies.



Chiappa                   Expires April 4, 2014                [Page 18]


Internet-Draft     Architectural Introduction to LISP       October 2013


6.2.  The Mapping System

   The mapping system's entire purpose is to give ITRs on-demand access
   to the mapping database, which is a distributed, and potentially
   replicated, database which holds mappings between EIDs (identity) and
   RLOCs (location), along with needed ancillary data (e.g. lifetimes).

   To be exact, it contains mappings between EID blocks and RLOCs (the
   block size is given explicitly, as part of the syntax).  Support for
   blocks is both for minimizing the administrative configuration
   overhead, as well as for operational efficiency; e.g. when a group of
   EIDs are behind a single xTR.

   However, the block may be, and often is, as small as a single EID.
   However, since mappings are only loaded upon demand, if smaller
   blocks become predominant, then the increased size of the overall
   database is far less problematic than if the Internet's routing
   tables came to be dominated by such small entries.

   A particular EID (or EID block) may have more than one RLOC, or may
   change its RLOC(s), while keeping its basic identity.

   Also, in general, throughout LISP, anyplace a name (EID, RLOC, etc)
   appears in a control packet, the packet format also includes an
   Address Family Identifier (AFI) for that name.  [AFI] The inclusion
   of the AFI allows LISP (and in particular, the mapping system
   interface, as embodied in those control packets) a great deal of
   flexibility.  (See [Perspective], Section "Namespaces" for more on
   this.)

   RLOC(s) may be compound names; see [Improvements], Section "LISP
   Canonical Address Format (LCAF)" for more.

   Finally, the mapping from an EID (or EID block) contains not just the
   RLOC(s), but also (for each RLOC for any given EID entry) priority
   and weight fields (to allow allocation of load between several RLOCs
   at a given priority); this allows a certain amount of traffic
   engineering to be accomplished with LISP.

6.2.1.  Mapping System Organization

   The mapping system is actually split into what are effectively three
   major functional sub-systems (although the latter two are closely
   integrated, and appear to most entities in the LISP system as a
   single sub-system).

   The first covers the actual mappings themselves; they are held by the
   ETRs, and an ITR which needs a mapping gets it (effectively) directly



Chiappa                   Expires April 4, 2014                [Page 19]


Internet-Draft     Architectural Introduction to LISP       October 2013


   from the ETR.  This co-location of the authoritative version of the
   mappings, and the forwarding functionality which it describes, is an
   instance of fate-sharing.  [Clark]

   To find the appropriate ETR(s) to query for the mapping, the second
   two sub-systems form an 'indexing system', itself also a distributed,
   potentially replicated database.  It provides information on which
   ETR(s) are authoritative sources for the various {EID -> RLOC}
   mappings which are available.  The two sub-systems which form it are
   the client interface sub-system, and indexing sub-system (which holds
   and provides the actual information).

6.2.2.  Interface to the Mapping System

   The client interface to the indexing system from an ITR's point of
   view is not with the indexing sub-system directly; rather, it is
   through the client-interface sub-system, which is provied by devices
   called Map-Resolvers (MRs).

   ITRs send request control messages (Map-Request packets) to an MR.
   (This interface is probably the most important standardized interface
   in LISP - it is the key to the entire system.)  The MR then uses the
   indexing sub-system to allow it to forward the Map-Request to an
   appropriate MS, which in turn sends the Map-Request on to the
   appropriate ETR.  The latter is authoritative for the actual contents
   of all mappings for those EID namespace blocks which have been
   delegated to it.

   The ETR then formulates reply control messages (Map-Reply packets),
   which are sent to the ITR.  The details of the indexing sub-system
   are thus hidden from the ITRs.

   (Note that in some cases, it is desirable for the MS to reply on
   behalf of the ETR, in so-called 'proxy' mode.  This behaviour can be
   selected when the ETR registers with the MR, described immediately
   below.)

   Similarly, the client interface to the indexing system from an ETR's
   point of view is through devices called Map-Servers (MSs - perhaps a
   poorly chosen term, since their primary function is not to send
   responses to queries from clients of the mapping system).

   ETRs send registration control messages (Map-Register packets) to an
   MS, which makes the information about the mappings which the ETR
   indicates it is authoritative for available to the indexing sub-
   system.

   The MS formulates a reply control message (the Map-Notify packet),



Chiappa                   Expires April 4, 2014                [Page 20]


Internet-Draft     Architectural Introduction to LISP       October 2013


   which confirms the registration, and is returned to the ETR.  The
   details of the indexing sub-system are thus likewise hidden from the
   'ordinary' ETRs.

   The fact that the details of the indexing sub-system are entirely
   hidden from xTRs gives considerably flexibility to this aspect of
   LISP.  As long as any potential indexing sub-system can track where
   mappings are, it could potentially be used; this would allow the
   actual indexing sub-system to be replaced without needing to modify
   the clients - as has happened once already (see below).

6.2.3.  Indexing Sub-system

   The current indexing sub-system is the Delegated Database Tree (DDT),
   which is very similar to DNS ([DDT], [RFC1034]), although unlike DNS,
   DDT was designed from the start to be secured.  Also unlike DNS, the
   actual mappings are not handled by DDT; DDT, as the indexing sub-
   system, merely identifies the ETRs which hold the actual mappings.

   DDT replaced an earlier indexing sub-system, ALT (Appendix B.4, "The
   ALT Mapping Indexing Sub-system"); this swap validated the concept of
   having a client-interface sub-system between the indexing sub-system,
   and the clients.

6.2.3.1.  DDT Overview

   Conceptually, DDT is fairly simple: like DNS, in DDT the delegation
   of the EID namespace ([Perspective], Section "Namespaces-XEIDs") is
   instantiated as a tree of DDT 'nodes', starting with the 'root' DDT
   node.  Each node is responsible (authoritative?) for one or more
   blocks of the EID namespace.

   The 'root' node is reponsible for the entire namespace; any DDT node
   can 'delegate' part(s) of its block(s) of the namespace to child DDT
   node(s).  The child node(s) can in turn further delegate (necessarily
   smaller) blocks of namespace to their children, through as many
   levels as are needed (for operational, administrative, etc, needs).

   Just as with DNS, for reasons of performance, reliability and
   robustness, any particular node in the DDT delegation tree may be
   instantiated in more than one redundant physical server machines.
   Obviously, all the servers which instantiate a particular node in the
   tree have to have identical data about that node; if they do not,
   when a Map-Request is sent to one that does not have consistent
   information with its other sibling(s), incorrect results will be
   returned.

   Also, although the delegation hierarchy is a strict tree , a single



Chiappa                   Expires April 4, 2014                [Page 21]


Internet-Draft     Architectural Introduction to LISP       October 2013


   DDT server could be responsible (authoritative?) for more than one
   block of the EID namespace.

   Eventually, leaf nodes in the DDT tree statically delegate EID
   namespace blocks to MS's, which are DDT terminal nodes; i.e. a leaf
   of the tree is reached when the delegation points to an MS instead of
   to another DDT node.

   The MS is in direct communication with the ETR(s) which both i) are
   authoritative for the mappings for that block, and ii) handle traffic
   to that block of EID namespace.

6.2.3.2.  Use of DDT by MRs

   An MR which wants to find a mapping for a particular EID first
   interacts with the nodes of the DDT tree, discovering (by querying
   DDT nodes) the chain of delegations which cover that EID.  Eventually
   it is directed to an MS, and then to an ETR which is responsible
   {{authoritative?}} for that EID.

   Also, again like DNS, MRs cache information about the delegations in
   the DDT tree.  This means that once an MR has been in operation for
   while, it will usually have much of the delegation information cached
   locally (especially the top levels of the delegation tree).  This
   allows them, when passed a request for a mapping by an ITR, to
   usually forward the mapping request to the appropriate MS without
   having to do a complete tree-walk of the DDT tree to find any
   particular mappping.

   Thus, a typical resolution cycle would usually involve looking at
   some locally cached delegation information, perhaps loading some
   missing delegation entries into their delegation cache, and finally
   sending the Map-Request to the appropriate MS.

   The big advantage of DDT over the ALT, in performance terms, is that
   it allows MRs to interact _directly_ with distant DDT nodes (as
   opposed to the ALT, which _always_ required mediation through
   intermediate nodes); caching of information about those distant nodes
   allows DDT to make extremely effective use of this capability.

   It should also be noted that the delegation tree is fairly static,
   since it reflects namespace allocations, which are themselves fairly
   static.  This stability has several important consequences.  First,
   it increases the performance of the mapping system, since
   intermediate nodes almost never need to be re-queried.  Second, it is
   not necessary to include a mechanism to find outdated delegations.

   The _mappings_, however, may change at a high rate, and the system is



Chiappa                   Expires April 4, 2014                [Page 22]


Internet-Draft     Architectural Introduction to LISP       October 2013


   designed to make sure that such changes are acted upon.  This allows
   LISP to provide a number of capabilities, such as mobility.

7.  Examples of Operation

   To aid in comprehension, a few examples are given of user packets
   traversing the LISP system.  The first shows the processing of a
   typical user packet, i.e. what the vast majority of user packets will
   see.  The second shows what happens when the first packet to a
   previously-unseen ultimate destination (at a particular ITR) is to be
   processed by LISP.

7.1.  An Ordinary Packet's Processing

   This case follows the processing of a typical user packet (for
   instance, a normal TCP data or acknowledgment packet associated with
   an already-open TCP connection) - i.e. not the first packet sent from
   a given source to a given destination - as it makes its way from the
   original source host to the ultimate destination.

   When the packet has made its way through the local site to an ITR
   (which in this case is a border router for the site), the border
   router looks up the destination address (an EID) in its local mapping
   cache.  For EIDs which are IPvN addresses, this lookup uses the usual
   IPvN 'longest prefix match' algorithm.

   It finds a mapping, which instructs it to wrap the packet in an outer
   header (an IP packet, containing a UDP packet which contains a LISP
   header, and then the user's original packet (see Section 9.2, "UDP
   Encapsulation Details", for the reasons for this particular choice).
   The destination address in the outer header is set by the ITR to the
   RLOC of the destination ETR.

   The packet is then sent off through the Internet, using normal
   Internet routing tables, etc.

   On arrival at the destination ETR, the ETR will notice that it is
   listed as the destination in the outer header.  It will examine the
   packet, detect that it is a LISP packet, and unwrap it.  It will then
   examine the header of the user's original packet, and forward it
   internally, through the local site, to the ultimate destination.

   At the ultimate destination, the packet will be processed, and may
   produce a return packet, which follows the exact same process in
   reverse - with the exception that the roles of the ITR and ETR are
   swapped.





Chiappa                   Expires April 4, 2014                [Page 23]


Internet-Draft     Architectural Introduction to LISP       October 2013


7.2.  A Mapping Cache Miss

   If a host sends a packet, and it gets to the ITR, and the ITR both i)
   determines that it needs to perform LISP processing on the user data
   packet, but ii) does not yet have a mapping cache entry which covers
   that destination EID, then additional processing ensues; it has to
   look up the mapping in the mapping system (as previously described in
   Section 4.2, "Basic Functionality").

   The overall processing is shown below, in Figure 2:

                        Mapping System

                    -----            -----
                   |     |    4     |     |
     Map Resolver  |     | -------> |     |  Map Server
                   |     |          |     |
                    -----            -----
                      ^                |
         Key:         |                |
                      |                |
     -- = Control     |                |
     == = Data        |                |
                   2  |       6        |  5
                      |      ---       |
     Host A           |    /     \     |            Host B
                      |  |_       \    V
     -----          -----          \ -----          -----
    |     |   1    |     |    7     |     |   8    |     |
    |     | =====> | ITR | =======> | ETR | =====> |     |
    |     |        |     |          |     |        |     |
     -----          -----            -----          -----

           Figure 2: Packet Flow With Missing Mapping

   1.  Source-EID sends packet (to Dest-EID) to ITR
   2.  ITR sends Map-Request to Map Resolver
   3.  (Not shown) Map-Resolver locates corrrect Map-Server for Dest-EID
   4.  Map-Resolver delivers Map-Request to Map-Server
   5.  Map-Server delivers Map-Request to ETR
   6.  ETR returns Map-Reply to ITR; ITR caches EID-to-RLOC(s) mapping
   7.  ITR uses mapping to encapsulate to ETR; sends user packet to ETR
   8.  ETR decapsulates packet, delivers to Dest-EID

   The ITR first sends a Map-Request packet, giving the destination EID
   it needs a mapping for, to its MR.  The MR will look in its cache of
   delegation information to find the node which is closest in the
   delegation tree to that destination EID which it has information for.



Chiappa                   Expires April 4, 2014                [Page 24]


Internet-Draft     Architectural Introduction to LISP       October 2013


   If it does not have the RLOC of an appropriate MS, it will query the
   DDT system, recursively if need be, in order to eventually find the
   RLOC of such an MS.

   When it has the MS's RLOC, it will send the Map-Request on to the MS,
   which then sends it on to an appropriate ETR.  The ETR sends a Map-
   Reply to the ITR which needs the mapping; from then on, processing of
   user packets through that ITR to that ultimate destination proceeds
   as above.

   Often (as with many ARP implementations), the original user packet
   will have been discarded, and not queued waiting for the mapping to
   be returned.  When the host retransmits such a packet, the mapping
   will be there, and the packet will be forwarded.  Alternatively, it
   might have been queued, or perhaps it was forwarded using a PITR.
   (Section 4.4, "Interworking With Non-LISP-Capable Endpoints")>

8.  Design Approach

   Before describing LISP's components in more detail below, it it worth
   pointing out that what may seem, in some cases, like odd (or poor)
   design approaches do in fact result from the application of a
   thought-through, and consistent, design philosophy used in creating
   them.

   This design philosophy is covered in detail in in [Perspective],
   Section "Design"), and readers who are interested in the 'why' of
   various mechanisms should consult that; reading it may make clearer
   the reasons for some engineering choices in the mechanisms given
   here.

9.  Data Plane - xTRs

   As mentioned above (in Section 6.1, "xTRs"), xTRs are the basic data-
   handling devices in LISP, and, as such, form the LISP data plane.
   This section explores some advanced topics related to xTRs.

   Careful rules have been specified for both TTL and ECN [RFC3168] to
   ensure that passage through xTRs does not interfere with the
   operation of these mechanisms.  In addition, care has been taken to
   ensure that 'traceroute' works when xTRs are involved.

9.1.  When to Encapsulate

   An ITR knows that an ultimate destination is 'running' LISP (remember
   that the destination machine itself probably knows nothing about
   LISP), and thus that it should perform LISP processing on a packet
   (including potential encapsulation) if it has an entry in its local



Chiappa                   Expires April 4, 2014                [Page 25]


Internet-Draft     Architectural Introduction to LISP       October 2013


   mapping cache that covers the destination EID.

   Conversely, if the cache contains a 'negative' entry (indicating that
   the ITR has previously attempted to find a mapping that covers this
   EID, and it has been informed by the mapping system that no such
   mapping exists), it knows the ultimate destination is not running
   LISP, and the packet can be forwarded natively (i.e. not LISP-
   encapsulated).

   Note that the ITR cannot simply depend on the appearance, or non-
   appearance, of the destination in the routing tables in the DFZ, as a
   way to tell if an ultimate destination is a LISP node or not.  That
   is because mechanisms to allow interoperation of LISP sites and
   'legacy' sites necessarily involve advertising LISP sites' EIDs into
   the DFZ; in other words, LISP sites which need to interoperate with
   'legacy' nodes will appear in the DFZ routing tables, along with non-
   LISP sites.

9.2.  UDP Encapsulation Details

   The UDP encapsulation used by LISP for carrying traffic from ITR to
   ETR, and many of the details of how it works, were all chosen for
   very practical reasons.

   Use of UDP (instead of, say, a LISP-specific protocol number) was
   driven by the fact that many devices filter out 'unknown' protocols,
   so adopting a non-UDP encapsulation would have made the initial
   deployment of LISP harder - and our goal (see Section 3.1,
   "Economics") was to make the deployment as easy as possible.

   The UDP source port in the encapsulated packet is a 5-way hash of the
   original source and ultimate destination in the inner header, along
   with the ports, and the protocol.

   This is because many ISPs use multiple parallel paths (so-called
   'Equal Cost Multi-Path'), and load-share across them.  Using such a
   hash in the source-port in the outer header both allows LISP traffic
   to be load-shared, and also ensures that packets from individual
   connections are delivered in order (since most ISPs try to ensure
   that packets for a particular {source, source port, destination,
   destination port} tuple flow along a single path, and do not become
   disordered).

   The UDP checksum is zero because the inner packet usually already has
   a end-end checksum, and the outer checksum adds no value.  [Saltzer]
   In most exising hardware, computing such a checksum (and checking it
   at the other end) would also present an intolerable load, for no
   benefit.



Chiappa                   Expires April 4, 2014                [Page 26]


Internet-Draft     Architectural Introduction to LISP       October 2013


9.3.  Header Control Channel

   LISP provides a multiplexed channel in the encapsulation header.  It
   is mostly (but not entirely) used for control purposes.  (See
   [Perspective], Section "Architecture-Piggyback" for a longer
   discussion of the architectural implications of performing control
   functions with data traffic.)

   The general concept is that the header starts with an 8-bit 'flags'
   field, and it also includes two data fields (one 24 bits, one 32),
   the contents and meaning of which vary, depending on which flags are
   set.  This allows these fields to be 'multiplexed' among a number of
   different low-duty-cycle functions, while minimizing the space
   overhead of the LISP encapsulation header.

9.3.1.  Mapping Versioning

   One important use of the multiplexed control channel is mapping
   versioning; i.e. the discovery of when the mapping cached in an ITR
   is outdated.  To allow an ITR to discover this, identifying sequence
   numbers are applied to different versions of a mappping.  [RFC6834]
   This allows an ITR to easily discover when a cached mapping has been
   updated by a more recent variant.

   Version numbers are available in control messages (Map-Replies), but
   the initial concept is that to limit control message overhead, the
   versioning mechanism should primarily use the multiplex user data
   header control channel.

   Versioning can operate in both directions: an ITR can advise an ETR
   what version of a mapping it is currently using (so the ETR can
   notify it if there is a more recent version), and ETRs can let ITRs
   know what the current mapping version is (so the ITRs can request an
   update, if their copy is outdated).

   At the moment version numbers are manually assigned, and ordered.
   Some felt that this was non-optimal, and that a better approach would
   have been to have 'fingerprints' which were computed from the current
   mapping data (i.e. a hash).  It is not clear that the ordering buys
   much (if anything), and the potential for mishaps with manually
   configured version numbers is self-evident.

9.3.2.  Echo Nonces

   Another important use of the header control channel is for a
   mechanism known as the Nonce Echo, which is used as an efficient
   method for ITRs to check the reachability of correspondent ETRs.




Chiappa                   Expires April 4, 2014                [Page 27]


Internet-Draft     Architectural Introduction to LISP       October 2013


   Basically, an ITR which wishes to ensure that an ETR is up, and
   reachable, sends a nonce to that ETR, carried in the encapsulation
   header; when that ETR (acting as an ITR) sends some other user data
   packet back to the ITR (acting in turn as an ETR), that nonce is
   carried in the header of that packet, allowing the original ITR to
   confirm that its packets are reaching that ETR.

   Note that lack of a response is not necessarily _proof_ that
   something has gone wrong - but it stronly suggests that something
   has, so other actions (e.g. a switch to an alternative ETR, if one is
   listed; a direct probe; etc) are advised.

   (See Section 13.5, "Neighbour ETR Reachability", for more about Echo
   Nonces.)

9.3.3.  Instances

   Another use of these header fields is for 'Instances' - basically,
   support for VPN's across backbones.  [RFC4026] Since there is only
   one destination UDP port used for carriage of user data packets, and
   the source port is used for multiplexing (above), there is no other
   way to differentiate among different destination address namespaces
   (which are often overlapped in VPNs).

9.4.  Probing

   RLOC-Probing (see [RFC6830], Section 6.3.2.  "RLOC-Probing Algorithm"
   for details) is a mechanism method that an ITR can use to determine
   with certainty that an ETR is up and reachable from the ITR.  As a
   side-benfit, it gives a rough RTT estimates.

   It is quite a simple mechanism - an ITR simply sends a specially
   marked Map-Request directly to the ETR it wishes information about;
   that ETR sends back a specially marked Map-Reply.  A Map-Request and
   Map-Reply are used, rather than a special probing control-message
   pair, because as a side-benefit the ITR can discover if the mapping
   has been updated since it cached it.

   The probing mechanism is rather heavy-weight and expensive (compared
   to mechanisms like the Echo-Nonce), since it costs a control message
   from each side, so it should only be used sparingly.  However, it has
   the advantages of providing information quickly (a single RTT), and
   being a simple, direct robust way of doing so.

   If the number of neighbour ETRs of the ITR is large, use of RLOC-
   Probing to check on their reachability will result in considerable
   control traffic; such control traffic has to be spread out to prevent
   a load peak.



Chiappa                   Expires April 4, 2014                [Page 28]


Internet-Draft     Architectural Introduction to LISP       October 2013


   Obviously, if RLOC-Probing is the only mechanism being used to detect
   unreachable neighbour ETRs, the rate at which RLOC-Probing is done
   will control the timeliness of the detection of loss of reachability.
   There is thus a tradeoff between overhead and responsiveness,
   particular when an ITR has a large fanout of neighbour ETRs.

   A further observation is that unless what are likely unreasonable
   amounts of RLOC Probing are being done, Echo Nonce will generally
   provide faster notification of loss of reachability (unless there is
   little or no bi-directional traffic between the ITR and ETR).

9.5.  Mapping Lifetimes and Timeouts

   Mappings come with a Time-To-Live, which indicate how long the
   creator of the mapping expects them to be useful for.  The TTL may
   also indicate that the mapping should not be cached at all, or it can
   indicate that it has no particular lifetime, and the recipient can
   chose how long to store it.

   Mappings might also be discarded before the TTL expires, depending on
   what strategies the ITR is using to maintain its cache; if the
   maximum cache size is fixed, or the ITR needs to reclaim memory,
   mappings which have not been used 'recently' may be discarded.
   (After all, there is no harm in so doing; a future reference will
   merely cause that mapping to be reloaded.)

9.6.  Security of Mapping Lookups

   LISP provides an optional mechanism to secure the obtaining of
   mappings by an ITR.  [LISP-SEC] It provides protection against
   attackers generating spurious Map-Reply messages (including replaying
   old Map-Replies), and also against 'over-claiming' attacks (where a
   malicious ETR by claims EID-prefixes which are larger what what have
   been actually delegated to it).

   Very briefly, the ITR provided a One-Time Key with its Map-Request;
   this key is used by both the MS (to sign an affirmation that it has
   delegated that EID block to that ETR), and indirectly by the ETR (to
   sign the mapping that it is returning to the ITR).

   The specification for LISP-SEC suggests that the ITR-MR stage be
   cryptographically protected, and indicates that the existing
   mechanisms for securing the ETR-MS stage are used to protect Map-
   Rquests also.  It does assume that the channel from the MR to the MS
   is secure (otherwise an attacker could obtain the OTK from the Map-
   Request and use it to forge a reply).





Chiappa                   Expires April 4, 2014                [Page 29]


Internet-Draft     Architectural Introduction to LISP       October 2013


9.7.  Mapping Gleaning in ETRs

   As an optimization to the mapping acquisition process, ETRs are
   allowed to 'glean' mappings from incoming user data packets, and also
   from incoming Map-Request control messages.  This is not secure, and
   so any such mapping must be 'verified' by sending a Map-Request to
   get an authoritative mapping.  (See further discussion of the
   security implications of this in [Perspective], Section "Security-
   xTRs".)

   The value of gleaning is that most communications are two-way, and so
   if host A is sending packets to host B (therefore needing B's
   EID->RLOC mapping), very likely B will soon be sending packets back
   to A (and thus needing A's EID->RLOC mapping).  Without gleaning,
   this would sometimes result in a delay, and the dropping of the first
   return packet; this is felt to be very undesirable.

9.8.  Fragmentation

   Several mechanisms have been proposed for dealing with packets which
   are too large to transit the path from a particular ITR to a given
   ETR.

   In one, called the 'stateful' approach, the ITR keeps a per-ETR
   record of the maximum size allowed, and sends an ICMP Too Big message
   to the original source host when a packet which is too large is seen.

   In the other, referred to as the 'stateless' approach, for IPv4
   packets without the 'DF' bit set, too-large packets are fragmented,
   and then the fragments are forwarded; all other packets are
   discarded, and an ICMP Too Big message returned.

   It is not clear at this point which approach is preferable.

10.  Control Plane - The Mapping System

   As discussed already in Section 6.2, " The Mapping System", the LISP
   mapping system is the most important part of LISP's control plane: it
   i) maintains the database of mappings between EIDs, and the RLOCs at
   which they are to be found, and ii) provides those mappings to ITRs
   which request them, so that the ITRs can send traffic for a given EID
   to the correct RLOC(s) for that EID.

   RFC 1034 ("DNS Concepts and Facilities") has this to say about the
   DNS name to IP address database and mapping system:






Chiappa                   Expires April 4, 2014                [Page 30]


Internet-Draft     Architectural Introduction to LISP       October 2013


     "The sheer size of the database and frequency of updates suggest
     that it must be maintained in a distributed manner, with local
     caching to improve performance. Approaches that attempt to
     collect a consistent copy of the entire database will become more
     and more expensive and difficult, and hence should be avoided."

   and this observation applies equally to the LISP mapping database and
   mapping system.

   To briefly recap, the mapping system is split into three parts: i) an
   indexing sub-system, which keeps track of where all the mappings are
   kept; ii) the interface to the indexing system (which remains the
   same, even if the actual indexing system is changed); and iii) the
   mappings themselves, the authoritative copies of which are always
   held by ETRs.

10.1.  The Mapping System Interface

   As mentioned in Section 6.2.2, "Interface to the Mapping System",
   both of the inferfaces to the mapping system (from ITRs, and ETRs)
   are standardized, so that the more numerous xTRs do not have to be
   modified when the mapping indexing sub-system is changed.

   (This precaution has already allowed the mapping system to be
   upgraded during LISP's evolution, when ALT was replaced by DDT.)

   This section describes the interfaces in a little more detail; for
   details, see [RFC6833].

10.1.1.  Map-Request Messages

   The Map-Request message contains a number of fields, the two most
   important of which are the requested EID block identifier (remember
   that individual mappings may cover a block of EIDs, not just a single
   EID), and the Address Family Identifier (AFI) for that EID block.

   Other important fields are the source EID (and its AFI), and one or
   more RLOCs for the source EID, along with their AFIs.  Multiple RLOCs
   are included to ensure that at least one is in a form which will
   allow the reply to be returned to the requesting ITR, and the source
   EID is used for a variety of functions, including 'gleaning' (see
   Section 9.7, " Mapping Gleaning in ETRs").

   Finally, the message includes a long nonce, for simple, efficient
   protection against offpath attackers (see [Perspective], Section
   "Security-xTRs" for more), and a variety of other fields and control
   flag bits.




Chiappa                   Expires April 4, 2014                [Page 31]


Internet-Draft     Architectural Introduction to LISP       October 2013


10.1.2.  Map-Reply Messages

   The Map-Reply message looks similar, except it includes the mapping
   entry for the requested EID(s), which contains one or more RLOCs and
   their associated data.  (Note that the reply may cover a larger block
   of the EID namespace than the request; most requests will be for a
   single EID, the one which prompted the query.)

   If there are no mappings available at all for the EID(s) requested, a
   'Negative Map-Reply' message will be returned.  This is a Map-Reply
   message with flag bits set to indicate that fact.

   For each RLOC in the entry, there is the RLOC, its AFI, priority and
   weight fields (see Section 6.2, " The Mapping System"), and multicast
   priority and weight fields (see Section 11, "Multicast Support in
   LISP"> for more about multicast support in LISP).

10.1.2.1.  Solicit-Map-Request Messages

   "Solicit-Map-Request" (SMR) messages are actually not another message
   type, but a sub-type of Map-Reply messages.  They include a special
   flag which indicates to the recipient that it _should_ send a new
   Map-Request message, to refresh its mapping, because the ETR has
   detected that the one it is using is out-dated.

   SMR's, like most other control traffic, is rate-limited.

10.1.3.  Map-Register and Map-Notify Messages

   The Map-Register message contains authentication information, and a
   number of mapping records, each with an individual Time-To-Live
   (TTL).  Each of the records contains an EID (potentially, a block of
   EIDs) and its AFI, a version number for this mapping (see
   Section 9.3.1, "Section 9.3.1 format="title"/>"), and a number of
   RLOCs and their AFIs.

   Each RLOC entry also includes the same data as in the Map-Replies
   (i.e. priority and weight); this is because in some circumstances it
   is advantageous to allow the MS to proxy reply on the ETR's behalf to
   Map-Request messages, and the MS needs this information when it does
   so (see [Mobility]).

   Map-Notify messages have the exact same contents as Map-Register
   messages; they are purely acknowledgements (although planned LISP
   functionality extensions may give them other functions as well).

   The entire interaction can be authenticated by use of a shared key,
   configured in the MS and ETR.  Although the protocol does already



Chiappa                   Expires April 4, 2014                [Page 32]


Internet-Draft     Architectural Introduction to LISP       October 2013


   allow for replacement of the encryption algorithm, it does not
   support automated key management (although it appears to fall under
   the exclusions in [RFC4107]).

10.2.  The DDT Indexing Sub-system

   As previously mentioned in Section 6.2.3, "Indexing Sub-system", the
   indexing sub-system in LISP is currently the DDT system.

   The overall operation is fairly simple; an MR which needs a mapping
   starts at a server for the root DDT node (there will normally be more
   than one such server available, for both performance and robustness
   reasons), and through a combination of cached delegation information,
   and repetitive querying of a sequence of DDT servers, works its way
   down the delegation tree until it arrives at an MS which is
   authoritative (responsible?) for the block of EID namespace which
   holds the destination EID in question.

   The interaction between MRs and DDT servers is not complex; the MR
   sends the DDT server a Map-Request control message.  The DDT server
   uses its data (which is configured, and static) to see whether it is
   directly peered to an MS which can answer the request, or if it has a
   child (or children, if replicated) which is responsible for that
   portion of the EID namespace.

   If it has children configured which are responsible, it will reply to
   the MR with another kind of LISP control message, a Map-Referral
   message, which provides information about the delegation of the block
   containing the requested EID.  This process is secured; see
   Section 10.4, "Security of the DDT Indexing Sub-system", for more.

   The Map-Referral also gives the RLOCs of all the machines which are
   DDT servers for that block. and the MR can then send Map-Requests to
   any one (or all) of them.  In addition, the Map-Referral includes key
   data for the children, which allows any information provided by them
   to be cryptographically verified.

   Control flags in the Map-Referral indicate to the querying MR whether
   the referral is to another DDT node, an MS, or an ETR.  If the
   former, the MR then sends the Map-Request to the child DDT node,
   repeating the process.

   If the latter, the MR then interacts with that MS, and usually the
   block's ETR(s) as well, to cause a mapping to be sent to the ITR
   which queried the MR for it.  (Recall that some MS's provide Map-
   Replies on behalf of an associated ETR, in so-called 'proxy mode', so
   in such cases the Map-Reply will come from the MS, not the ETR. )




Chiappa                   Expires April 4, 2014                [Page 33]


Internet-Draft     Architectural Introduction to LISP       October 2013


   Delegations are cached in the MRs, so that once an MR has received
   information about a delegation, it will not need to look that up
   again.  Once it has been in operation for a short while, it will only
   need to ask for delegation information which is has not yet asked
   about - probably only the last stage in a delegation to a 'leaf' MS.

   As describe below (Section 10.6, "Performance of the Mapping
   System"), significant amounts of modeling and performance measurement
   have been performed, to verify that DDT has (and will continue to
   have) acceptable performance.

10.2.1.  Map-Referral Messages

   Map-Referral messages look almost identical to Map-Reply messages,
   except that the RLOCs potentially name either i) other DDT nodes
   (children in the delegation tree), or ii) terminal MSs.

10.3.  Reliability via Replication

   Everywhere throughout the mapping system, robustness to operational
   failures is obtained by replicating data in multiple instances of any
   particular node (of whatever type).  Map-Resolvers, Map-Servers, DDT
   nodes, ETRs - all of them can be replicated, and the protocol
   supports this replication.

   The deployed DDT system actually uses anycast [RFC4786], along with
   replicated servers, to improve both performance and robustness.

   There are generally no mechanisms specified yet to ensure coherence
   between multiple copies of any particular data item (e.g. the copies
   of delegation data for a particular block of namespace, in DDT
   sibling servers) - this is currently a manual responsibility.

   If and when LISP protocol adoption proceeds, an automated layer to
   perform this functionality can 'easily' be layered on top of the
   existing mechanisms.

10.4.  Security of the DDT Indexing Sub-system

   LISP provides an advanced model for securing the mapping indexing
   system, in line with the overall LISP security philosophy.

   Briefly, securing the mapping indexing system is broken into two
   parts: the interface between the clients of the system (MR's) and the
   mapping indexing system itself, and the interaction between the DDT
   nodes/servers which make it up.

   The client interface provides only a single model, using the



Chiappa                   Expires April 4, 2014                [Page 34]


Internet-Draft     Architectural Introduction to LISP       October 2013


   'canonical' public-private key system (starting from a trust anchor),
   in which the child's public key is provided by the parent, along with
   the delegation.  When the child returns any data, it can sign the
   data, and the requestor can use that signature to verify the data.
   This requires very little configuration in the clients, and is fairly
   secure.

   The interface between the DDT nodes/servers allows for choices
   between a number of different options, allowing the operators to
   trade off among configuration complexity, security level, etc.  This
   is based on experience with DNS-SEC ([RFC4033]), where configuration
   complexity in the servers has been a major stumbling block to
   deployment.

   See [Perspective], Section "Security-Mappings" for more.

10.5.  Extended Tools

   In addition to the priority and weight data items in mappings, LISP
   offers other tools to enhance functionality, particularly in the
   traffic engineering area.

   One is 'source-specific mappings', i.e. the ETR may return different
   mappings to the enquiring ITR, depending on the identity of the ITR.
   This allows very fine-tuned traffic engineering, far more powerful
   than routing-based TE.

10.6.  Performance of the Mapping System

   Prior to the creation of DDT, a large study of the performance of the
   previous mapping system, ALT ([ALT]), along with a proposed new
   design called TREE (which used DNS to hold delegation information)
   provided considerable insight into the likely performance of the
   mapping systems at larger scale.  [Jakab] The basic structure and
   concepts of DDT are identical to those of TREE, so the performance
   simulation work done for that design applies aequally to DDT.

   In that study, as with earlier LISP performance analyses, extensive
   large-scale simulations were driven by lengthy recordings of actual
   traffic at several major sites; one was the site in the first study
   ([Iannone]), and the other was an even large university, with roughly
   35,000 users.

   The results showed that a system like DDT, which caches information
   about delegations, and allows the MR to communicate directly with the
   lower nodes on the delegation hierarchy based on cached delegation
   information, would have good performance, with average resolution
   times on the order of the MR to MS RTT.  This verified the



Chiappa                   Expires April 4, 2014                [Page 35]


Internet-Draft     Architectural Introduction to LISP       October 2013


   effectiveness of this particular type of indexing system.

   A more recent study, [Saucez], has measured actual resolution times
   in the deployed LISP network; it took measurements from a variety of
   locations in the Internet, with respect to a number of different
   target EIDs.  Average measured resolution delays ranged from roughly
   175 msec to 225 msec, depending on the location.

11.  Multicast Support in LISP

   Multicast ([RFC3170], [RFC5110]) may seem an odd thing to support
   with LISP, since LISP is all about separating identity from location,
   and although a multicast group in some sense has an identity, it
   certainly does not have _a_ location.

   However, multicast is very important to some users of the network,
   for a number of reasons: doing multiple unicast streams is
   inefficient, as it is easy to use up all the upstream bandwidth;
   without multicast a server can also be saturated fairly easily in
   doing the unicast replication; etc.

   So it is important for LISP to work well with multicast; doing so has
   been a significant focus in LISP throughout its entire development.

   Further very significant improvements to multicast support in LISP
   are in progress; see [Improvements], Section "Multicast" for more on
   them.

11.1.  Basic Concepts of Multicast Support in LISP

   This section introduces most of the basic principles of multicast
   support in LISP.

   Since group addresses name distributed collective entities, in
   general they cannot have a single RLOC (although they may, after
   future improvements in multicast support in LISP, have multiple
   RLOCs); also, since they usually refer to collections of entities,
   they aren't really EIDs either.

   A multicast source at a LISP site may not be able to become the root
   of a distribution tree in the core if it uses its EID as its identity
   for that distribution tree (i.e. a distribution tree (S-EID, G));
   that is because there may not be a route to its EID in the core
   (assuming that its section of the core even supports multicast; not
   all parts of the core do).

   Therefore, outside the LISP site, multicast state for the
   distribution tree (S-RLOC, G) needs to be built instead, where S-RLOC



Chiappa                   Expires April 4, 2014                [Page 36]


Internet-Draft     Architectural Introduction to LISP       October 2013


   is the RLOC of the ITR that the multicast source inside the LISP site
   will be sending its traffic through.

   Similarly, multicast receivers must join using the RLOC of the ETR
   through which traffic will be forward to them.

   Multicast LISP requires no packet format changes to existing
   multicast packets (both control, and user data).  The initial
   multicast support in LISP uses existing multicast control mechanisms
   exclusively; improvements currently being worked on provide LISP-
   specific control mechanisms (see [Improvements], Section "Multicast",
   for more).

11.2.  Initial Multicast Support in LISP

   Readers who wish to fully understand multicast support need to
   consult the appropriate specifications: LISP multicast issues are
   discussed in [RFC6830], Section 11; and see [RFC6831] for the full
   details of current multicast support in LISP.

   In the current simple operating mode (covered in [RFC6831]),
   destination group addresses are not mapped; only the source address
   (when the original source is inside a LISP site) needs to be mapped,
   both during distribution tree setup, as well as actual traffic
   delivery.

   In other words, while LISP's mapping capability is used, at this
   stage it is only applied to the source, not the destination (as with
   most LISP activity).  Thus, in LISP-encapsulated multicast packets in
   this mode, the inner source is the EID, and the outer source is the
   EID's RLOC; both inner and outer destinations are the group's
   multicast address.

   Note that this does mean that if the group is using separate source-
   specific trees for distribution, there isn't a separate distribution
   tree outside the LISP site for each different source of traffic to
   the group from inside the LISP site; they are all lumped together
   under a single source, the RLOC.

   The issue of encapsulation is complex, because if the rest of the
   group outside the LISP site includes some members which are at other
   LISP sites (i.e. packets to them have to be encapsulated), and some
   members at legacy sites (i.e. encapsulated packets would not be
   understood), there is no simple answer.  (The situation becomes even
   more complex when one considers that as hosts leave and joint the
   group, it may switch back and forth between 'mixed' and
   'homogenous'.)




Chiappa                   Expires April 4, 2014                [Page 37]


Internet-Draft     Architectural Introduction to LISP       October 2013


   This issue is too complex to fully cover here; see Section 9.2.,
   "LISP Sites with Mixed Address Families", in [RFC6831], for complete
   coverage of this issue.

   Basically, there are multicast equivalents of some of the legacy
   interoperability mechanisms used for unicast; mPITRs and mPETRs
   (multicast-capable PITRs and PETRs) etc.  When 'mixed' groups are a
   possibility, two choices are available: i) send two copies (one
   encapsulated, and one not) of all traffic, or ii) employ mPETRs to
   distribute non-encapsulated copies to 'legacy' group members.

12.  Deployment Issues and Mechanisms

   This section discusses several deployment issues in more detail.
   With LISP's heavy emphasis on practicality, much work has gone into
   making sure it works well in the real-world environments most people
   have to deal with.

12.1.  LISP Deployment Needs

   As mentioned earlier (Section 3.2, "Maximize Re-use of Existing
   Mechanism"), LISP requires no change to almost all existing hosts and
   routers.  Obviously, however, one must deploy _something_ to run
   LISP!  Exactly what that has to be will depend greatly on the details
   of the site's existing networking gear, and choices it makes for how
   to achieve LISP deployment.

   The primary requirement is for one or more xTRs.  These may be
   existing routers, just with new software loads, or it may require the
   deployment of new devices.

   LISP also requires a certain amount of LISP-specific support
   infrastructure, such as MRs, MSs, the DDT hierarchy, etc but much of
   this will either i) already be deployed, and if the new site can make
   arrangements to use it, it need do nothing else, or ii) those
   functions the site must provide may be co-located in other LISP
   devices (again, either new devices, or new software on existing
   ones).

12.2.  Interworking Mechanism

   One aspect which has received a lot of attention are the mechanisms
   previously referred to (in Section 4.4, "Interworking With Non-LISP-
   Capable Endpoints") to allow interoperation of LISP sites with so-
   called 'legacy' sites which are not running LISP (yet).

   To briefly refresh what was said there, there are two main approaches
   to such interworking: proxy nodes (PITRs and PETRs), and an



Chiappa                   Expires April 4, 2014                [Page 38]


Internet-Draft     Architectural Introduction to LISP       October 2013


   alternative mechanism using device with combined NAT and LISP
   functionality; these are described in more detail here.

12.2.1.  Proxy Devices

   PITRs (proxy ITRs) serve as ITRs for traffic _from_ legacy hosts to
   nodes using LISP.  PETRs (proxy ETRs) serve as ETRs for LISP traffic
   _to_ legacy hosts (for cases where a LISP device cannot send packets
   directly to such hosts, without encapsulation).

   Note that return traffic _to_ a legacy host from a LISP-using node
   does not necessarily have to pass through an ITR/PETR pair - the
   original packets can usually just be sent directly to the ultimate
   destination.  However, for some kinds of LISP operation (e.g. mobile
   nodes), this is not possible; in these situations, the PETR is
   needed.

12.2.1.1.  PITRs

   PITRs (proxy ITRs) serve as ITRs for traffic _from_ legacy hosts to
   nodes using LISP.  To do that, they have to advertise into the
   existing legacy backbone Internet routing the availability of
   whatever ranges of EIDs (i.e. of nodes using LISP) they are proxying
   for, so that legacy hosts will know where to send traffic to those
   LISP nodes.

   As mentioned previously (Section 9.1, "When to Encapsulate"), an ITR
   at another LISP site can avoid using a PITR (i.e. it can detect that
   a given ultimate destination is not a legacy host, if a PITR is
   advertising it into the DFZ) by checking to see if a LISP mapping
   exists for that ultimate destination.

   This technique obviously has an impact on routing table in the DFZ,
   but it is not clear yet exactly what that impact will be; it is very
   dependent on the collected details of many individual deployment
   decisions.

   A PITR may cover a group of EID blocks with a single EID
   advertisement, in order to reduce the number of routing table entries
   added.  (In fact, at the moment, aggressive aggregation of EID
   announcements is performed, precisely to to minimize the number of
   new announced routes added by this technique.)

   At the same time, if a site does traffic engineering with LISP
   instead of fine-grained BGP announcement, that will help keep table
   sizes down (and this is true even in the early stages of LISP
   deployment).  The same is true for multi-homing.




Chiappa                   Expires April 4, 2014                [Page 39]


Internet-Draft     Architectural Introduction to LISP       October 2013


12.2.1.2.  PETRs

   PETRs (proxy ETRs) serve as ETRs for LISP traffic _to_ legacy hosts,
   for cases where a LISP device cannot send packets to such hosts
   without encapsulation.  That typically happens for one of two
   reasons.

   First, it will happen in places where some device is implementing
   Unicast Reverse Path Forwarding (uRPF), to prevent a variety of
   negative behaviour; originating packets with the original source's
   EID in the source address field will result in them being filtered
   out and discarded.

   Second, it will happen when a LISP site wishes to send packets to a
   non-LISP site, and the path in between does not support the
   particular IP protocol version used by the original source along its
   entire length.  Use of a PETR on the other side of the 'gap' will
   allow the LISP site's packet to 'hop over' the gap, by utilizing
   LISP's built-in support for mixed protocol encapsulation.

   PETRs are generally paired with specific ITRs, which have the
   location of their PETRs configured into them.  In other words, unlike
   normal ETRS, PETRs do not have to register themselves in the mapping
   database, on behalf of any legacy sites they serve.

   Also, allowing an ITR to always send traffic leaving a site to a PETR
   does avoid having to chose whether or not to encapsulate packets; it
   can just always encapsulate packets, sending them to the PETR if it
   has no specific mapping for the ultimate destination.  However, this
   is not advised: as mentioned, it is easy to tell if something is a
   legacy destination.

12.2.2.  LISP-NAT

   A LISP-NAT device, as previously mentioned, combines LISP and NAT
   functionality, in order to allow a LISP site which is internally
   using addresses which cannot be globally routed to communicate with
   non-LISP sites elsewhere in the Internet.  (In other words, the
   technique used by the PITR approach simply cannot be used in this
   case.)

   To do this, a LISP-NAT performs the usual NAT functionality, and
   translates a host's source address(es) in packets passing through it
   from an 'inner' value to an 'outer' value, and storing that
   translation in a table, which it can use to similarly process
   subsequent packets (both outgoing and incoming).  [RFC6832]

   There are two main cases where this might apply:



Chiappa                   Expires April 4, 2014                [Page 40]


Internet-Draft     Architectural Introduction to LISP       October 2013


   -  Sites using non-routable global addresses
   -  Sites using private addresses [RFC1918]

12.3.  Use Through NAT Devices

   Like them or not (and NAT devices have many egregious issues - some
   inherent in the nature of the process of mapping addresses; others,
   such as the brittleness due to non-replicated critical state, caused
   by the way NATs were introduced, as stand-alone 'invisible' boxes),
   NATs are both ubiquitous, and here to stay for a long time to come.
   [RFC1631] Thus, in the actual Internet of today, having any new
   mechanisms function well in the presence of NATs (i.e. with LISP xTRs
   behind a NAT device) is absolutely necessary.

   LISP has produced a variety of mechanisms to do this.  The earliest
   mechanism to support them had major limitations; it, and its
   limitations, are described in Appendix B.5, "Early NAT Support".  A
   more recent proposed mechanism, which avoids those limitations, is
   described in [Improvements], Section "Improved NAT Support".

12.4.  LISP and DFZ Routing

   One of LISP's original motivations was to try and control the growth
   of the size of the so-called 'Default-Free-Zone' (DFZ), the core of
   the Internet, the part where routes to _all_ destinations must be
   available.  As LISP becomes more widely deployed, it can help with
   this issue, in a variety of ways.

   In covering this topic, one must recognize that conditions in various
   stages of LISP deployment (in terms of ubiquity) will have a large
   influence.  [Deployment] introduced useful terminology for this
   progression, in addition to some coverage of the topic (see Section
   5, "Migration to LISP"):

     The loosely defined terms of "early transition phase", "late
     transition phase", and "LISP Internet phase" refer to time periods
     when LISP sites are a minority, a majority, or represent all edge
     networks respectively.

   In the early phases of deployment, two primary effects will allow
   LISP to have a positive impact on the routing table growth:
   -  Using LISP for traffic engineering instead of BGP
   -  Aggregation of smaller PI sites into a single PITR advertisement
   The first is fairly obvious (doing TE with BGP requires injecting
   more-specific routes into the DFZ routing tables, something doing TE
   with LISP avoids); the second is not guaranteed to happen (since it
   requires coordination among a number of different parties), and only
   time will tell if it does happen.



Chiappa                   Expires April 4, 2014                [Page 41]


Internet-Draft     Architectural Introduction to LISP       October 2013


12.4.1.  Long-term Possibilities

   At a later stage of the deployment, a more aggressive approach
   becomes available: taking part of the DFZ, one for which all 'stub'
   sites connected to it have deployed LISP, and removing all 'EID
   routes' (used for backwards compatability with 'legacy' sites); only
   RLOC routes would remain in the routing table in that part of the
   Internet backbone.

   Obviously there would be a boundary between the two parts of the DFZ,
   and the routers on the border would have to (effectively) become
   PITRs, and inject routes to all of the LISP sites 'behind' them into
   the 'legacy' DFZ (to coin a name for the part of the DFZ which, for
   reasons of interoperability with legacy sites, still carries EID
   routes).

   Note that it is likely not feasible to have the 'RLOC only' part of
   the DFZ in the 'middle' of the DFZ; that would require (effectively)
   EID routes to be removed from BGP on crossing the boundary _into_ the
   RLOC DFZ, but re-created on crossing the boundary _out_ of the RLOC
   DFZ.  This is likely to be impractical, leading to the suggestion of
   a simpler boundary between the RLOC-only part of the DFZ, and the
   'legacy' DFZ.

   The mechanism for detecting which routes are 'EID routes' and which
   are 'RLOC routes' (required for the boundary routers to be able to
   filter out the 'EID routes') would also need to be worked out; the
   most likely appears to be something involving BGP attributes.

13.  Fault Discovery/Handling

   LISP is, in terms of its functionality, a fairly simple system: the
   list of failure modes is thus not extensive.

13.1.  Handling Missing Mappings

   Handling of missing mappings is fairly simple: the ITR calls for the
   mapping, and in the meantime can either discard traffic to that
   ultimate destination (as many ARP implementations do) [RFC826], or,
   if dropping the traffic is deemed undesirable, it can forward them
   via a 'default PITR'.

   A number of PITRs advertise all EID blocks into the backbone routing,
   so that any ITRs which are temporarily missing a mapping can forward
   the traffic to these default PITRs via normal transmission methods,
   where they are encapsulated and passed on.





Chiappa                   Expires April 4, 2014                [Page 42]


Internet-Draft     Architectural Introduction to LISP       October 2013


13.2.  Outdated Mappings

   If a mapping changes once an ITR has retrieved it, that may result in
   traffic to the EIDs covered by that mapping failing.  There are three
   cases to consider:

   -  When the ETR traffic is being sent to is still a valid ETR for
      that EID, but the mapping has been updated (e.g. to change the
      priority of various ETRs)
   -  When the ETR traffic is being sent to is still an ETR, but no
      longer a valid ETR for that EID
   -  When the ETR traffic is being sent to is no longer an ETR

13.2.1.  Outdated Mappings - Updated Mapping

   A 'mapping versioning' system, whereby mappings have version numbers,
   and ITRs are notified when their mapping is out of date, has been
   added to detect this, and the ITR responds by refreshing the mapping.
   [RFC6834]

13.2.2.  Outdated Mappings - Wrong ETR

   If an ITR is holding an outdated cached mapping, it may send packets
   to an ETR which is no longer an ETR for that EID.

   It might be argued that if the ETR is properly managing the lifetimes
   on its mapping entries, this 'cannot happen', but it is a wise design
   methodology to assume that 'cannot happen' events will in fact happen
   (as they do, due to software errors, or, on rare occasions, hardware
   faults), and ensure that the system will handle them properly (if,
   perhaps not in the most expeditious, or 'clean' way - they are, after
   all, very unlikely to happen).

   ETRs can easily detect cases where this happpens, after they have un-
   wrapped a user data packet; in response, they send a Solicit-Map-
   Request to the source ITR to cause it to refresh its mapping.

13.2.3.  Outdated Mappings - No Longer an ETR

   In another case for what can happen if an ITR uses an outdated
   mapping, the destination of traffic from an ITR might no longer be a
   LISP device at all.  In such cases, one might get an ICMP Destination
   Unreachable error message.  However, one cannot depend on that - and
   in any event, that would provide an attack vector, so it should be
   used with care.  (See [RFC6830], Section 6.3, "Routing Locator
   Reachability" for more about this.)

   The following mechanism will work, though.  Since the destination is



Chiappa                   Expires April 4, 2014                [Page 43]


Internet-Draft     Architectural Introduction to LISP       October 2013


   not an ETR, the echoing reachability detection mechanism (see
   Section 9.3.2, "Echo Nonces") will detect a problem.  At that point,
   the backstop mechanism, Probing, will kick in.  Since the destination
   is still not an ETR, that will fail, too.

   At that point, traffic will be switched to a different ETR, or, if
   none are available, a reload of the mapping may be initiated.

13.3.  Erroneous Mappings

   Again, this 'should not happen', but a good system should deal with
   it.  However, in practise, should this happen, it will produce one of
   the prior two cases (the wrong ETR, or something that is not an ETR),
   and will be handled as described there.

13.4.  Neighbour ETR Liveness

   The ITR, like all packet switches, needs to detect, and react, when
   its neighbour ceases operation.  As LISP traffic is effectively
   always uni-directional (from ITR to ETR), this could be somewhat
   problematic.

   Solving a related problem, neighbour ETR reachability (below)
   subsumes handling this fault mode, however.

   Note that the two terms - liveness and reachability - are _not_
   synonmous (although they are often confused).  Liveness is a property
   of a node - it is either up and functioning, or it is not.
   Reachability is only a property of a particular _pair_ of nodes.

   If packets sent from a first node to a second are successfully
   received at the second, it is 'reachable' from the first.  However,
   the second node may at the very same time _not_ be reachable from
   some other node.  Reachability is _always_ a ordered pairwise
   property, and of a specified ordered pair.

13.5.  Neighbour ETR Reachability

   A more significant issue than whether a particular ETR E is up or not
   is, as mentioned above, that although ETR E may be up, attached to
   the network, etc, an issue in the network, between a source ITR I and
   E, may prevent traffic from I from getting to E. (Perhaps a routing
   problem, or perhaps some sort of access control setting.)

   The one-way nature of LISP traffic makes this situation hard to
   detect in a way which is economic, robust and fast.  Two out of the
   three are usually not to hard, but all three at the same time - as is
   highly desirable for this particular issue - are harder.



Chiappa                   Expires April 4, 2014                [Page 44]


Internet-Draft     Architectural Introduction to LISP       October 2013


   In line with the LISP design philosophy ([Perspective], Section
   "Design-Theoretical"), this problem is attacked not with a single
   mechanism (which would have a hard time meeting all those three goals
   simultaneously), but with a collection of simpler, cheaper
   mechanisms, which collectively will usually meet all three.

   They are reliance on the underlying routing system (which can of
   course only reliably provide a negative reachabilty indication, not a
   positive one), the echo nonce (which depends on some return traffic
   from the destination xTR back to the source xTR), and finally direct
   'pinging', in the case where no positive echo is returned.

   (The last is not the first choice, as due to the large fan-out
   expected of LISP devices, reliance on it as a sole mechanism would
   produce a fair amount of overhead.)

14.  Acknowledgments

   The author would like to start by thanking all the members of the
   core LISP group for their willingness to allow him to add himself to
   their effort, and for their enthusiasm for whatever assistance he has
   been able to provide.

   He would also like to thank (in alphabetical order) Michiel Blokzijl,
   Peter Chiappa, Vina Ermagan, Dino Farinacci, Vince Fuller and
   Vasileios Lakafosis for their review of, and helpful suggestions for,
   this document.  (If I have missed anyone in this list, I apologize
   most profusely.)

   A very special thank you goes to Joel Halpern, who almost invariably,
   when asked, promptly returned comments on intermediate versions of
   this document.  Grateful thanks go also to Darrel Lewis for his help
   with material on non-Internet uses of LISP, and to Dino Farinacci and
   Vince Fuller for answering detailed questions about some obscure LISP
   topics.

   A final thanks is due to John Wrocklawski for the author's
   organizational affiliation, and to Vince Fuller for help with XML.
   This memo was created using the xml2rfc tool.

   I would like to dedicate this document to the memory of my parents,
   who gave me so much, and whom I can no longer thank in person, as I
   would have so much liked to be able to.

15.  IANA Considerations

   This document makes no request of the IANA.




Chiappa                   Expires April 4, 2014                [Page 45]


Internet-Draft     Architectural Introduction to LISP       October 2013


16.  Security Considerations

   This memo does not define any protocol and therefore creates no new
   security issues.

17.  References

17.1.  Normative References

   [AFI]            IANA, "Address Family Indicators (AFIs)", Address
                    Family Numbers, January 2011, <http://www.iana.org/
                    assignments/address-family-numbers>.

   [RFC768]         J. Postel, "User Datagram Protocol", RFC 768,
                    August 1980.

   [RFC791]         J. Postel, "Internet Protocol", RFC 791,
                    September 1981.

   [RFC2460]        S. Deering and R. Hinden, "Internet Protocol,
                    Version 6 (IPv6) Specification", RFC 2460,
                    December 1998.

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

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

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

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

   [RFC6834]        L. Iannone, D. Saucez, and O. Bonaventure,
                    "Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP) Map-
                    Versioning", RFC 6834, January 2013.

   [Perspective]    J. N. Chiappa, "An Architectural Perspective on the
                    LISP Location-Identity Separation System",
                    draft-ietf-lisp-perspective-00 (work in progress),
                    February 2013.




Chiappa                   Expires April 4, 2014                [Page 46]


Internet-Draft     Architectural Introduction to LISP       October 2013


   [Improvements]   J. N. Chiappa, "An Overview of On-Going Improvements
                    to the LISP Location-Identity Separation System",
                    draft-chiappa-lisp-improvements-00 (work in
                    progress), September 2013.

   [DDT]            V. Fuller, D. Lewis, and D. Farinacci, "LISP
                    Delegated Database Tree", draft-ietf-lisp-ddt-01
                    (work in progress), March 2013.

   [LISP-SEC]       F. Maino, V. Ermagan, A. Cabellos-Aparicio,
                    D. Saucez, and O. Bonaventure, "LISP-Security (LISP-
                    SEC)", draft-ietf-lisp-sec-04 (work in progress),
                    October 2012.

   [NAT-Traversal]  V. Ermagan, D. Farinacci, D. Lewis, J. Skriver,
                    F. Maino, and C. White, "NAT traversal for LISP",
                    draft-ermagan-lisp-nat-traversal-03 (work in
                    progress), March 2013.

   [Mobility]       D. Farinacci, V. Fuller, D. Lewis, and D. Meyer,
                    "LISP Mobility Architecture", draft-meyer-lisp-mn-08
                    (work in progress), April 2012.

   [Deployment]     L. Jakab, A. Cabellos-Aparicio, F. Coras,
                    J. Domingo-Pascual, and D. Lewis, "LISP Network
                    Element Deployment Considerations",
                    draft-ietf-lisp-deployment-09 (work in progress),
                    July 2013.

   [LISP-TE]        D. Farinacci, P. Lahiri, and M. Kowal, "LISP Traffic
                    Engineering Use-Cases", draft-farinacci-lisp-te-03
                    (work in progress), July 2013.

17.2.  Informative References

   [NIC8246]        A. McKenzie and J. Postel, "Host-to-Host Protocol
                    for the ARPANET", NIC 8246, Network Information
                    Center, SRI International, Menlo Park, CA,
                    October 1977.

   [NSAP]           International Organization for Standardization,
                    "Information Processing Systems - Open Systems
                    Interconnection - Basic Reference Model", ISO
                    Standard 7489.1984, 1984.

   [IEN19]          J. F. Shoch, "Inter-Network Naming, Addressing, and
                    Routing", IEN (Internet Experiment Note) 19,
                    January 1978.



Chiappa                   Expires April 4, 2014                [Page 47]


Internet-Draft     Architectural Introduction to LISP       October 2013


   [RFC826]         D. Plummer, "Ethernet Address Resolution Protocol",
                    RFC 826, November 1982.

   [RFC1034]        P. V. Mockapetris, "Domain Names - Concepts and
                    Facilities", RFC 1034, November 1987.

   [RFC1498]        J. H. Saltzer, "On the Naming and Binding of Network
                    Destinations", RFC 1498, (Originally published in:
                    'Local Computer Networks', edited by P. Ravasio et
                    al., North-Holland Publishing Company, Amsterdam,
                    1982, pp. 311-317.), August 1993.

   [RFC1631]        K. Egevang and P. Francis, "The IP Network Address
                    Translator (NAT)", RFC 1631, May 1994.

   [RFC1918]        Y. Rekhter, R. Moskowitz, D. Karrenberg,
                    G. J. de Groot, and E. Lear, "Address Allocation for
                    Private Internets", RFC 1918, February 1996.

   [RFC1992]        I. Castineyra, J. N. Chiappa, and M. Steenstrup,
                    "The Nimrod Routing Architecture", RFC 1992,
                    August 1996.

   [RFC3168]        K. Ramakrishnan, S. Floyd, and D. Black, "The
                    Addition of Explicit Congestion Notification (ECN)
                    to IP", RFC 3168, September 2001.

   [RFC3170]        B. Quinn and K. Almeroth, "IP Multicast
                    Applications: Challenges and Solutions", RFC 3170,
                    September 2001.

   [RFC3272]        D. Awduche, A. Chiu, A. Elwalid, I. Widjaja, and
                    X. Xiao, "Overview and Principles of Internet
                    Traffic Engineering", RFC 3272, May 2002.

   [RFC4026]        L. Andersson and T. Madsen, "Provider Provisioned
                    Virtual Private Network (VPN) Terminology",
                    RFC 4026, March 2005.

   [RFC4033]        R. Arends, R. Austein, M. Larson, D. Massey, and
                    S. Rose, "DNS Security Introduction and
                    Requirements", RFC 4033, March 2005.

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

   [RFC4116]        J. Abley, K. Lindqvist, E. Davies, B. Black, and
                    V. Gill, "IPv4 Multihoming Practices and



Chiappa                   Expires April 4, 2014                [Page 48]


Internet-Draft     Architectural Introduction to LISP       October 2013


                    Limitations", RFC 4116, July 2005.

   [RFC4786]        J. Abley and K. Lindqvist, "Operation of Anycast
                    Services", RFC 4786, December 2006.

   [RFC4984]        D. Meyer, L. Zhang, and K. Fall, "Report from the
                    IAB Workshop on Routing and Addressing", RFC 4984,
                    September 2007.

   [RFC5110]        P. Savola, "Overview of the Internet Multicast
                    Routing Architecture", RFC 5110, January 2008.

   [RFC5887]        B. Carpenter, R. Atkinson, and H. Flinck,
                    "Renumbering Still Needs Work", RFC 5887, May 2010.

   [RFC6115]        T. Li, Ed., "Recommendation for a Routing
                    Architecture", RFC 6115, February 2011.

                    (Perhaps the most ill-named RFC of all time; it
                    contains nothing that could truly be called a
                    'routing architecture'.)

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

   [LISP0]          D. Farinacci, V. Fuller, and D. Oran, "Locator/ID
                    Separation Protocol (LISP)", draft-farinacci-lisp-00
                    (work in progress), January 2007.

   [Future]         J. N. Chiappa, "Potential Long-Term Developments
                    With the LISP System",
                    draft-chiappa-lisp-evolution-00 (work in progress),
                    October 2012.

   [Baran]          P. Baran, "On Distributed Communications Networks",
                    IEEE Transactions on Communications Systems Vol.
                    CS-12 No. 1, pp. 1-9, March 1964.

   [Chiappa]        J. N. Chiappa, "Endpoints and Endpoint Names: A
                    Proposed Enhancement to the Internet Architecture",
                    Personal draft (work in progress), 1999,
                    <http://www.chiappa.net/~jnc/tech/endpoints.txt>.

   [Clark]          D. D. Clark, "The Design Philosophy of the DARPA
                    Internet Protocols", in 'Proceedings of the
                    Symposium on Communications Architectures and
                    Protocols SIGCOMM '88', pp. 106-114, 1988.



Chiappa                   Expires April 4, 2014                [Page 49]


Internet-Draft     Architectural Introduction to LISP       October 2013


   [Saltzer]        J. H. Saltzer, D. P. Reed, and D. D. Clark, "End-To-
                    End Arguments in System Design", ACM TOCS, Vol 2,
                    No. 4, pp 277-288, November 1984.

   [Heart]          F. E. Heart, R. E. Kahn, S. M. Ornstein,
                    W. R. Crowther, and D. C. Walden, "The Interface
                    Message Processor for the ARPA Computer Network",
                    Proceedings AFIPS  1970 SJCC, Vol. 36, pp. 551-567.

   [Iannone]        L. Iannone and O. Bonaventure, "On the Cost of
                    Caching Locator/ID Mappings", in 'Proceedings of the
                    3rd International Conference on emerging Networking
                    EXperiments and Technologies (CoNEXT'07)', ACM, pp.
                    1-12, December 2007.

   [Kim]            J. Kim, L. Iannone, and A. Feldmann, "A Deep Dive
                    Into the LISP Cache and What ISPs Should Know About
                    It", in 'Proceedings of the 10th International IFIP
                    TC 6 Conference on Networking - Volume Part I
                    (NETWORKING '11)', IFIP, pp. 367-378, May 2011.

   [CorasCache]     F. Coras, A. Cabellos-Aparicio, and J. Domingo-
                    Pascual, "An Analytical Model for the LISP Cache
                    Size", in 'Proceedings of the 11th International
                    IFIP TC 6 Networking Conference: Part I', IFIP, pp.
                    409-420, May 2012.

   [Jakab]          L. Jakab, A. Cabellos-Aparicio, F. Coras, D. Saucez,
                    and O. Bonaventure, "LISP-TREE: A DNS Hierarchy to
                    Support the LISP Mapping System", in 'IEEE Journal
                    on Selected Areas in Communications', Vol. 28, No.
                    8, pp. 1332-1343, October 2010.

   [Saucez]         D. Saucez, L. Iannone, and B. Donnet, "A First
                    Measurement Look at the Deployment and Evolution of
                    the Locator/ID Separation Protocol", in 'ACM SIGCOMM
                    Computer Communication Review', Vol. 43 No. 2, pp.
                    37-43, April 2013.

   [CorasBGP]       F. Coras, D. Saucez, L. Jakab, A. Cabellos-Aparicio,
                    and J. Domingo-Pascual, "Implementing a BGP-free ISP
                    Core with LISP", in 'Proceedings of the Global
                    Communications Conference (GlobeCom)', IEEE, pp.
                    2772-2778, December 2012.

   [Atkinson]       R. Atkinson, "Revised draft proposed definitions",
                    RRG list message, Message-Id: 808E6500-97B4-4107-
                    8A2F-36BC913BE196@extremenetworks.com, 11 June 2007,



Chiappa                   Expires April 4, 2014                [Page 50]


Internet-Draft     Architectural Introduction to LISP       October 2013


                    <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ram/current/
                    msg01470.html>.

   [Bibliography]   J. N. Chiappa (editor), "LISP (Location/Identity
                    Separation Protocol) Bibliography", Personal
                    site (work in progress), July 2013, <http://
                    www.chiappa.net/~jnc/tech/lisp/LISPbiblio.html>.

Appendix A.  Glossary/Definition of Terms

   For those who are unfamiliar with the scholarly notation 'q.v.', it
   stands for 'quod vide', which is Latin for 'which see' (literally);
   in other words, that term also is defined here.

   -  Name: In this document, and in much of computer science, a 'name'
      simply refers to an identifier for an object or entity.  Names
      have both semantics (meaning) and syntax (form).[RFC1498]
   -  Namespace: A group of names (q.v.) with matching semantics and
      syntax; they usually, but not always, refer to members of a class
      of identical objects.
   -  Node: The general term used to describe any sort of communicating
      entity; it might be a physical or a virtual host, or a mobile
      device of some sort.  It was deliberately chosen for use in this
      document precisely because its definition is not fixed, and
      therefore unlikely to cause erroneous images in the minds of
      readers.  You will not go far wrong if you think of a node as
      being something like a host.
   -  Switch: A packet switch, in the general meaning of that term.
   -  Endpoint, end-end communication entity: the fate-sharing region at
      one end of an end-end communication; the collection of state
      related to both the reliable end-end communication channel, and
      the applications running there.
   -  IPvN: IPv4 or IPv6; the two are so similar, in fundamental
      architecture, that in much discussion about their capabilities,
      limitations, etc statements about the apply equally to both, and
      to continually say "IPv4 and IPv6" quickly becomes tedious.
   -  Address: In this document, and in current IPvN and similar
      networking suites, a 'name' (q.v.) which has mixed semantics, in
      that it includes both identity ('who') and location ('where')
      semantics.
   -  Identifier: Here, and in current networking discussions, a 'name'
      (q.v.) which has purely identity semantics.
   -  Locator: Originally defined as a 'name' with location semantics
      only, and one that was not necessarily carried in every packet (as
      was assumed of 'addresses') [RFC1992], it is now generally taken,
      including here, to mean a 'name' with purely location semantics.





Chiappa                   Expires April 4, 2014                [Page 51]


Internet-Draft     Architectural Introduction to LISP       October 2013


   -  EID, Enpoint Identifier: Originally defined as a name for an
      'endpoint' (see the reference), one with purely identity
      semantics, and globally unique, and with syntax of relatively
      short fixed length [Chiappa].  It is used in the LISP work to mean
      the 'identifier' (q.v.) of a node; it is the input to an EID->RLOC
      lookup in the 'mapping system' (q.v.); it is usually an IPvN
      address.  The source and adestination addresses of the innermost
      header in a LISP packet are usually EIDs.
   -  RLOC, Routing Locator: a LISP-specific term meaning the locator of
      an entity identified by an EID; as such, it is often the output of
      an EID->RLOC lookup in the 'mapping system' (q.v.); it is usually
      an IPvN address, and of an ETR.  The source and adestination
      addresses of the outermost header in a LISP packet are usually
      RLOCs.
   -  ITR, Ingress Tunnel Router: a LISP node at the border of a LISP
      site (q.v.) which takes user packets sent to it from inside the
      LISP site, encapsulates in a LISP header, and then sends them
      across the Internet to an ETR (q.v.); in other words, the start of
      a 'tunnel' from the ITR to an ETR.
   -  ETR: Egress Tunnel Router: a LISP node at the border of a LISP
      site (q.v.) which decapsulates user packets which arrive at it
      encapsulated in a LISP header, and sends them on towards their
      ultimate destination; in other words, the end of the 'tunnel' from
      an ITR (q.v.) to the ETR.
   -  Neighbour ETR: Although an ITR and ETR may be separated by many
      actual physical hops, _at the LISP level_, they are direct
      neighbours; so any ETR which an ITR sends traffic to is a
      'neighbour ETR' of that ITR.
   -  xTR: An xTR refers to a device which functions both as an ITR and
      an ETR (which is typical), when the discussion involves packet
      flows in both directions through the device, which results in it
      alternately functioning as an ITR and then as an ETR.
   -  Site: a collection of hosts, routers and networks under a single
      administrative control.
   -  LISP site: A single node, or a set of network elements in an edge
      network under the administrative control of a single organization;
      they are delimited from the rest of the network by LISP devices
      (either separate ITRs and ETRs, or xTRs).
   -  Reachability, Neighbour ETR Reachability: The ability of an ITR to
      be able to send packets to a neighbour ETR (q.v.), or the property
      of an ITR to be able to send such packets.
   -  MR: Map Resolver; a LISP device to which ITRs send requests for
      mappings.  See Section 6.2.2, "Interface to the Mapping System",
      for more.
   -  MS: Map Server; a LISP device with which ETRs register mappings,
      to indicate their availability to handle incoming traffic to the
      EIDs covered in those mappings.  See Section 6.2.2, "Interface to
      the Mapping System" for more.



Chiappa                   Expires April 4, 2014                [Page 52]


Internet-Draft     Architectural Introduction to LISP       October 2013


   -  Mapping system: the entire ensemble of data and mechanisms which
      allow clients - usually ITRs - to find mapppings (from EIDs to
      RLOCs).  It includes both the mapping database (q.v), and also
      everything used to gain access to it - the MRs, the indexing sub-
      system (q.v.), etc.  See Section 6.2.1, "Mapping System
      Organization" for more.
   -  Mapping database: the term "mapping database" refers to the entire
      collection of {EID->RLOC} mappings spread throughout the LISP
      system.  It is a subset of the 'mapping system' (q.v.).  See
      Section 6.2, "The Mapping System", for more.
   -  Indexing sub-system: the entire ensemble of data and mechanisms
      which allows MRs to find out which ETR(s) hold the mappping for a
      given EID or EID block.  It includes both the data on namespace
      delegations, as well as the devices which hold that data, and the
      protocols used to interact with those devices.  See Section 6.2.1,
      "Mapping System Organization" for more.
   -  DDT node: a node in the (abstract) namespace delegation hierarchy.
   -  DDT server: an actual machine, which one can send packets to, in
      the DDT hierarchy - which is, hopefully, a one-to-one projection
      of address delegation hierarchy (although of course a single DDT
      node may turn into several sibling servers).
   -  PITR: Proxy ITR; an ITR which is used for interworking between a
      LISP-speaking node or site, and legacy nodes or sites; in general,
      it acts like a normal ITR, but does so on behalf of LISP devices
      which are receiving packets to a legacy device.  See
      Section 12.2.1.1, "PITRs", for more.
   -  PETR: Proxy ETR; an ETR which is used for interworking between a
      LISP-speaking node or site, and legacy nodes or sites; in general,
      it acts like a normal ETR, but does so on behalf of LISP devices
      which are sending packets to a legacy device.  See
      Section 12.2.1.2, "PETRs" for more.
   -  RTR: Re-encapsulating Tunnel Router; a data plane 'anchor point'
      used by a LISP-speaking device to perform functions that can only
      be be performed in the core of the network.  One use is for LISP-
      speaking device behind a NAT device to send and receive traffic
      through the NAT device; see [Improvements], Section "Improved NAT
      Support" for more.
   -  DFZ, Default Free Zone: That part of the Internet in which there
      are no 'default' entries in routing tables, but where the routing
      tables hold entries for every single reachable destination in the
      Internet.

Appendix B.  Other Appendices

B.1.  A Brief History of Location/Identity Separation

   It was only gradually realized in the networking community that
   networks (especially large networks) should deal quite separately



Chiappa                   Expires April 4, 2014                [Page 53]


Internet-Draft     Architectural Introduction to LISP       October 2013


   with the identity and location of a node; the distinction between the
   two was more than a little hazy at first.

   The ARPANET had no real acknowledgment of the difference between the
   two.  [Heart] [NIC8246] The early Internet also co-mingled the two
   ([RFC791]), although there was recognition in the early Internet work
   that there were two different things going on.  [IEN19]

   This likely resulted not just from lack of insight, but also the fact
   that extra mechanism is needed to support this separation (and in the
   early days there were no resources to spare), as well as the lack of
   need for it in the smaller networks of the time.  (It is a truism of
   system design that small systems can get away with doing two things
   with one mechanism, in a way that usually will not work when the
   system gets much larger.)

   The ISO protocol architecture took steps in this direction [NSAP],
   but to the Internet community the necessity of a clear separation was
   definitively shown by Saltzer.  [RFC1498] Later work expanded on
   Saltzer's, and tied his separation concepts into the fate-sharing
   concepts of Clark.  [Clark], [Chiappa]

   The separation of location and identity is a step which has recently
   been identified by the IRTF as a critically necessary evolutionary
   architectural step for the Internet.  [RFC6115] However, it has taken
   quite some time for this requirement to be generally accepted by the
   Internet engineering community at large, although it seems that this
   may finally be happening.

   Unfortunately, although the development of IPv6 presented a golden
   opportunity to learn from this particular failing of IPv4, that
   design failed to recognize the need for separation of location and
   identity.

B.2.  A Brief History of the LISP Project

   The LISP system for separation of location and identity resulted from
   the discussions of this topic at the Amsterdam IAB Routing and
   Addressing Workshop, which took place in October 2006.  [RFC4984]

   A small group of like-minded personnel from various scattered
   locations within Cisco, spontaneously formed immediately after that
   workshop, to work on an idea that came out of informal discussions at
   the workshop.  The first Internet-Draft on LISP appeared in January,
   2007, along with a LISP mailing list at the IETF.  [LISP0]

   Trial implementations started at that time, with initial trial
   deployments underway since June 2007; the results of early experience



Chiappa                   Expires April 4, 2014                [Page 54]


Internet-Draft     Architectural Introduction to LISP       October 2013


   have been fed back into the design in a continuous, ongoing process
   over several years.  LISP at this point represents a moderately
   mature system, having undergone a long organic series of changes and
   updates.

   LISP transitioned from an IRTF activity to an IETF WG in March 2009,
   and after numerous revisions, the basic specifications moved to
   becoming RFCs at the start of 2013 (although work to expand and
   improve it, and find new uses for it, continues, and undoubtly will
   for a long time to come).

B.3.  Old LISP 'Models'

   LISP, as initilly conceived, had a number of potential operating
   modes, named 'models'.  Although they are now obsolete, one
   occasionally sees mention of them, so they are briefly described
   here.

   -  LISP 1: EIDs all appear in the normal routing and forwarding
      tables of the network (i.e. they are 'routable');this property is
      used to 'bootstrap' operation, by using this to load EID->RLOC
      mappings.  Packets were sent with the EID as the destination in
      the outer wrapper; when an ETR saw such a packet, it would send a
      Map-Reply to the source ITR, giving the full mapping.
   -  LISP 1.5: Similar to LISP 1, but the routability of EIDs happens
      on a separate network.
   -  LISP 2: EIDs are not routable; EID->RLOC mappings are available
      from the DNS.
   -  LISP 3: EIDs are not routable; and have to be looked up in in a
      new EID->RLOC mapping database (in the initial concept, a system
      using Distributed Hash Tables).  Two variants were possible: a
      'push' system, in which all mappings were distributed to all ITRs,
      and a 'pull' system in which ITRs load the mappings they need, as
      needed.

B.4.  The ALT Mapping Indexing Sub-system

   LISP initially used an indexing sub-system called ALT.  [ALT] ALT re-
   purposed a number of existing mechanisms to provide an indexing
   system, which allowed an experimental LISP initial deployment to
   become operational without having to write a lot of code, ALT was
   relatively easily constructed from basically unmodified existing
   mechanisms; it used BGP running over virtual tunnels using GRE.

   ALT proved to have a number of issues which made it unsuitable for
   large-scale use, and it has now been superseded by DDT.  A complete
   list of these is not possible here, but the issues mostly were of two
   kinds: technical issues which would have arisen at large scale, and



Chiappa                   Expires April 4, 2014                [Page 55]


Internet-Draft     Architectural Introduction to LISP       October 2013


   practical operational issues which appeared even in the experimental
   deployment.

   The biggest operational issues was the effort involved in
   configuring, and maintain the configuration, of the virtual tunnels
   over which ALT ran (including assigning the addresses for the ends,
   etc); also, managing the multiple disjoint routing tables required
   was difficult and confusing (even for those who were very familiar
   with ALT).  Debugging faults in ALT was also difficult; and finally,
   because of ALT's nature, administrative issues (who pays for what,
   who controls what, etc) were problematic.

   However, ALT would have had significant technical issues had it been
   used at a larger scale.

   The most severe (and fundamental) issue was that since all traffic on
   the ALT had to transit the 'root' of the ALT tree, those locations
   would have become traffic 'hot-spots' in a large scale deployment.
   In addition, optimal performance would have required that the ALT
   overall topology be restrained to follow the EID namespace
   allocation; however, it was not clear that this was feasible.  In any
   event, even optimal performance was still less than that in
   alternatives.  The ALT was also very vulnerable to misconfiguration.

   See [Jakab] for more about these issues: the basic structure and
   operation of DDT is identical to that of TREE, so the conclusions
   drawn there about TREE's superiority to ALT apply equally to DDT.

   The ALT did have some useful properties which its replacement, DDT,
   did not, e.g. the ability to forward data directly to the
   destination, over the ALT, when no mapping was available yet for the
   destination.  However, these were minor, and heavily outweighed by
   its problems.

   A recent study, [Saucez], measured actual resolution times in the
   deployed LISP network during the changeover from ALT to DDT, allowing
   direct comparison of the performance of the two systems.  The study
   took measurements from a variety of locations in the Internet, with
   respect to a number of different target EIDs.  The results indicate
   that the performance was almost identical; there was more variance
   with DDT (perhaps due to the effects of caching), but the greatly
   improved scalability of DDT as compared to ALT made that effect
   acceptable.

B.5.  Early NAT Support

   The first mechanism used by LISP to support operation through a NAT
   device, described here, has now been superseded by the more general



Chiappa                   Expires April 4, 2014                [Page 56]


Internet-Draft     Architectural Introduction to LISP       October 2013


   mechanism proposed in [NAT-Traversal].  That mechanism is, however,
   based heavily on this mechanism.  The initial mechanism had some
   serious limitations, which is why that particular form of it has been
   dropped.

   First, it only worked with some NATs, those which were configurable
   to allow inbound packet traffic to reach a configured host.  The NAT
   had to be configured to know of the ETR.

   Second, since NATs share addresses by using ports, it was only
   possible to have a single LISP device behind any given NAT device.
   That is because LISP expects all incoming data traffic to be on a
   specific port, so it was not possible to have multiple ETRs behind a
   single NAT (which normally would have only one global IP address to
   share).  Even looking at the sort host and port would not necessarily
   help, because some source ITR could be sending packets to both ETRs,
   so packets to either ETR could also have the identical source host/
   port.  In short, there was no way for a NAT with multiple ETRs behind
   it to know which ETR the packet was for.

   To support operation behind a NAT, there was a pair of new LISP
   control messages, LISP Echo-Request and Echo-Reply, which allowed the
   ETR to discover its temporary global address.  The Echo-Request was
   sent to the configured Map-Server, and it replied with an Echo-Reply
   which included the source address from which the Echo Request was
   received (i.e. the public global address assigned to the ETR by the
   NAT).  The ETR could then insert that address in any Map-Reply
   control messages which it sent to correspondent ITRs.

   Echo-Request and Echo-Reply have been replaced by Info-Request and
   Info-Reply in the replacement, [NAT-Traversal], where they perform
   very similar functions; the main change is the addition of the {{xxx
   - probably the port, etc to allow multiple XTRs behind a NAT}}.

Author's Address

   J. Noel Chiappa
   Yorktown Museum of Asian Art
   Yorktown, Virginia
   USA

   EMail: jnc@mit.edu









Chiappa                   Expires April 4, 2014                [Page 57]


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