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

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

Network Working Group                                          V. Fuller
Internet-Draft                                              D. Farinacci
Intended status: Experimental                              cisco Systems
Expires: March 8, 2010                                 September 4, 2009


                            LISP Map Server
                       draft-ietf-lisp-ms-02.txt

Status of this Memo

   This Internet-Draft is submitted to IETF in full conformance with the
   provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.

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

   Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
   and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
   time.  It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
   material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."

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

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

   This Internet-Draft will expire on March 8, 2010.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2009 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 in effect on the date of
   publication of this document (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info).
   Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights
   and restrictions with respect to this document.









Fuller & Farinacci        Expires March 8, 2010                 [Page 1]


Internet-Draft               LISP Map Server              September 2009


Abstract

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

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


Table of Contents

   1.  Requirements Notation  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3
   2.  Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
   3.  Definition of Terms  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
   4.  Basic Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6
   5.  Interactions With Other LISP Components  . . . . . . . . . . .  7
     5.1.  ITR EID-to-RLOC Mapping Resolution . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
     5.2.  ETR/Map-Server EID Prefix Registration . . . . . . . . . .  7
     5.3.  Map-Server Processing  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8
     5.4.  Map-Resolver Processing  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
       5.4.1.  Anycast Map-Resolver Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
   6.  Security Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
   7.  References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
     7.1.  Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
     7.2.  Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
   Appendix A.  Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
   Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14



















Fuller & Farinacci        Expires March 8, 2010                 [Page 2]


Internet-Draft               LISP Map Server              September 2009


1.  Requirements Notation

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














































Fuller & Farinacci        Expires March 8, 2010                 [Page 3]


Internet-Draft               LISP Map Server              September 2009


2.  Introduction

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

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

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


























Fuller & Farinacci        Expires March 8, 2010                 [Page 4]


Internet-Draft               LISP Map Server              September 2009


3.  Definition of Terms

   Map-Server:   a network infrastructure component which learns EID-to-
      RLOC mapping entries from an authoratative source (typically, an
      ETR, though static configuration or another out-of-band mechanism
      may be used).  A Map-Server publishes these mappings in the
      distributed mapping database.

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

   Encapsulated Map-Request:   a LISP Map-Request with an additional
      LISP header prepended.  Sent to UDP destination port 4341.  The
      "outer" addresses are globally-routeable IP addresses, also known
      as RLOCs.  Used by an ITR when sending to a Map-Resolver and by a
      Map-Server when sending to an ETR.

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

   Map-Register message:   a LISP message sent by an ETR to a Map-Server
      to register its associated EID prefixes.  In addition to the set
      of EID prefixes to register, the message includes one or more
      RLOCs to be be used by the Map-Server when forwarding Map-Requests
      (re-formatted as Encapsulated Map-Requests) received through the
      database mapping system.

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













Fuller & Farinacci        Expires March 8, 2010                 [Page 5]


Internet-Draft               LISP Map Server              September 2009


4.  Basic Overview

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

   On the LISP pilot network, which is expected to be a model for
   deployment of LISP on the Internet, a Map-Server connects to LISP+ALT
   network and acts as a "last-hop" ALT router.  Intermediate ALT
   routers forward Map-Requests to the Map-Server that advertises a
   particular EID-prefix and the Map-Server forwards them to the owning
   ETR, which responds with Map-Reply messages.

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

   Note that a single device can implement the functions of both a Map-
   Server and a Map-Resolver.  As is the case with the DNS, however,
   operational simplicity argues for keeping those functions separate.















Fuller & Farinacci        Expires March 8, 2010                 [Page 6]


Internet-Draft               LISP Map Server              September 2009


5.  Interactions With Other LISP Components

5.1.  ITR EID-to-RLOC Mapping Resolution

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

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

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

   o  A negative LISP Map-Reply if the Map-Resolver can determine that
      the requested EID does not exist.  The ITR saves EID prefix
      returned in the Map-Reply in its cache, marking it as non-LISP-
      capable and knows not to attempt LISP encapsulation for
      destinations matching it.

   o  A LISP Map-Reply from the ETR that owns the EID-to-RLOC mapping or
      possibly from a Map-Server answering on behalf of the ETR.  Note
      that the stateless nature of non-caching Map-Resolver forwarding
      means that the Map-Reply may not be from the Map-Resolver to which
      the Encapsulated Map-Request was sent unless the target Map-
      Resolver offers caching (Section 5.4).

   Note that an ITR may use a Map-Resolver while also participating in
   another mapping database mechanism.  For example, an ITR that runs
   LISP+ALT can also send Encapsulated Map-Requests to a Map-Resolver.
   When doing this, an ITR should prefer querying an ETR learned through
   the ALT network as LISP+ALT provides better information about the set
   of define EID prefixes.  Such a configuration is expected to be very
   rare, since there is little benefit to using a Map-Resolver if an ITR
   is already using a mapping database system.

5.2.  ETR/Map-Server EID Prefix Registration

   An ETR publishes its EID prefixes on a Map-Server by sending LISP
   Map-Register messages.  A Map-Register message is authenticated using



Fuller & Farinacci        Expires March 8, 2010                 [Page 7]


Internet-Draft               LISP Map Server              September 2009


   an IPSec Authentication Header (AH) as defined in [RFC2402], with
   SHA-1 or SHA-256 as the authentication HMAC.  Prior to sending a Map-
   Register message, the ETR and Map-Server must be configured with a
   secret shared-key.  In addition, a Map-Server will typically perform
   additional verification checks, such as matching any EID-prefix
   listed in a Map-Register message against a list of prefixes for which
   the ETR is known to be an authoritative source.

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

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

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

5.3.  Map-Server Processing

   The operation of a Map-Server, once it has EID-prefixes registered by
   its client ETRs, is quite simple.  In response to a Map-Request
   (received over the ALT on the pilot network), the Map-Server verifies
   that the destination EID matches an EID-prefix for which it has one
   or more registered ETRs, then re-encapsulates and forwards the now-
   Encapsulated Map-Reqeust to a matching ETR.  It does not otherwise
   alter the Map-Request so any Map-Reply sent by the ETR is returned to
   the RLOC in the Map-Request, not to the Map-Server.  Unless also
   acting as a Map-Resolver, a Map-Server should never receive Map-
   Replies; any such messages should be discarded without response,
   perhaps accompanied by logging of a diagnostic message if the rate of
   Map-Replies is suggestive of malicious traffic.







Fuller & Farinacci        Expires March 8, 2010                 [Page 8]


Internet-Draft               LISP Map Server              September 2009


5.4.  Map-Resolver Processing

   In response to an Encapsulated Map-Request, a Map-Resolver de-
   capsulates the message then checks its local database of mapping
   entries (statically configured, cached, or learned from associated
   ETRs).  If it finds a matching entry, it returns a non-authoratative
   LISP Map-Reply with the known mapping.

   If the Map-Resolver does not have the mapping entry and if it can
   determine that the requested IP address does not match an EID-prefix
   in the mapping database, it immediately returns a negative LISP Map-
   Reply, one which contains an EID prefix and an empty locator-set.  To
   minimize the number of negative cache entries needed by an ITR, the
   Map-Resolver should return the least-specific prefix which both
   matches the original query and does not match any EID-prefix known to
   exist in the LISP-capable infrastructure.

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

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

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








Fuller & Farinacci        Expires March 8, 2010                 [Page 9]


Internet-Draft               LISP Map Server              September 2009


5.4.1.  Anycast Map-Resolver Operation

   A Map-Resolver can be set up to use "anycast", where where the same
   address is assigned to multiple Map-Resolvers and is propagated
   through IGP routing, to facilitate the use of a topologically-close
   Map-Resolver each ITR.  Note that Map-Server associations with ETRs
   should NOT use anycast addresses as doing so could cause
   unpredictable forwarding of Map-Requests to the ETRs.











































Fuller & Farinacci        Expires March 8, 2010                [Page 10]


Internet-Draft               LISP Map Server              September 2009


6.  Security Considerations

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

   To publish an authoratative EID-to-RLOC mapping, an ETR uses the
   IPsec AH to authenticate itself to a Map-Server.  A pair-wise shared
   key is used with SHA-1 or SHA-256.  A key-chaining scheme may also be
   employed to facilitate re-keying as needed.  ESP is not used, since
   the mapping data is considered to be public and does not need to be
   encrypted for transport.








































Fuller & Farinacci        Expires March 8, 2010                [Page 11]


Internet-Draft               LISP Map Server              September 2009


7.  References

7.1.  Normative References

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

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

   [RFC2402]  Kent, S. and R. Atkinson, "IP Authentication Header",
              RFC 2402, November 1998.

7.2.  Informative References

   [ALT]      Farinacci, D., Fuller, V., Meyer, D., and D. Lewis, "LISP
              Alternative Topology (LISP-ALT)",
              draft-ietf-lisp-alt-01.txt (work in progress), March 2009.

   [CONS]     Farinacci, D., Fuller, V., and D. Meyer, "LISP-CONS: A
              Content distribution Overlay Network Service for LISP",
              draft-meyer-lisp-cons-03.txt (work in progress),
              November 2007.

   [LISP]     Farinacci, D., Fuller, V., Meyer, D., and D. Lewis,
              "Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP)",
              draft-ietf-lisp-04.txt (work in progress) (work in
              progress), September 2009.

   [NERD]     Lear, E., "NERD: A Not-so-novel EID to RLOC Database",
              draft-lear-lisp-nerd-04.txt (work in progress),
              January 2008.



















Fuller & Farinacci        Expires March 8, 2010                [Page 12]


Internet-Draft               LISP Map Server              September 2009


Appendix A.  Acknowledgments

   The authors would also like to thank the operational community for
   feedback on the previous mapping database mechanisms.

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












































Fuller & Farinacci        Expires March 8, 2010                [Page 13]


Internet-Draft               LISP Map Server              September 2009


Authors' Addresses

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

   Email: vaf@cisco.com


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

   Email: dino@cisco.com

































Fuller & Farinacci        Expires March 8, 2010                [Page 14]


Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.123, available from https://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/