draft-ietf-lisp-eid-block-mgmnt-07.txt   rfc7955.txt 
Network Working Group L. Iannone Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) L. Iannone
Internet-Draft Telecom ParisTech Request for Comments: 7955 Telecom ParisTech
Intended status: Informational R. Jorgensen Category: Informational R. Jorgensen
Expires: October 8, 2016 Bredbandsfylket Troms ISSN: 2070-1721 Bredbandsfylket Troms
D. Conrad D. Conrad
Virtualized, LLC Virtualized, LLC
G. Huston G. Huston
APNIC - Asia Pacific Network APNIC
Information Center September 2016
April 6, 2016
LISP EID Block Management Guidelines Management Guidelines for the Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP)
draft-ietf-lisp-eid-block-mgmnt-07.txt Endpoint Identifier (EID) Block
Abstract Abstract
This document proposes a framework for the management of the LISP EID This document proposes a framework for the management of the Locator/
Address Block. The framework described relies on hierarchical ID Separation Protocol (LISP) Endpoint Identifier (EID) address
distribution of the address space, granting temporary usage of block. The framework described relies on hierarchical distribution
prefixes of such space to requesting organizations. of the address space, granting temporary usage of prefixes of such
space to requesting organizations.
Status of this Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the Status of This Memo
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering This document is not an Internet Standards Track specification; it is
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute published for informational purposes.
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any (IETF). It represents the consensus of the IETF community. It has
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference received public review and has been approved for publication by the
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG). Not all documents
approved by the IESG are a candidate for any level of Internet
Standard; see Section 2 of RFC 7841.
This Internet-Draft will expire on October 8, 2016. Information about the current status of this document, any errata,
and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at
http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7955.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2016 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2016 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved. document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents publication of this document. Please review these documents
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License. described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents Table of Contents
1. Requirements Notation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2. Requirements Notation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. Definition of Terms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 3. Definition of Terms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
4. EID Prefix Registration Policy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 4. EID Prefix Registration Policy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
5. EID Prefixes Registration Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 5. EID Prefixes Registration Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . 4
6. EID Prefix Request Template . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 6. EID Prefix Request Template . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
7. Policy Validity Period . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 7. Policy Validity Period . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
8. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 8. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
9. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 9. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
10. Procedures to be followed by RIPE NCC . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 10. Procedures to be Followed by RIPE NCC . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
11. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 11. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
12. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 11.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
12.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 11.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
12.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Appendix A. Document Change Log . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
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].
2. Introduction 1. Introduction
The Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP - [RFC6830]) and related The Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP [RFC6830]) and related
mechanisms ([RFC6831], [RFC6832], [RFC6833], [RFC6834], [RFC6835], mechanisms ([RFC6831], [RFC6832], [RFC6833], [RFC6834], [RFC6835],
[RFC6836], [RFC6837]) separate the IP addressing space into two [RFC6836], [RFC6837]) separate the IP addressing space into two
logical spaces, the End-point IDentifier (EID) space and the Routing logical spaces, the Endpoint Identifier (EID) space and the Routing
LOCator (RLOC) space. The first space is used to identify Locator (RLOC) space. The first space is used to identify
communication end-points, while the second is used to locate EIDs in communication endpoints, while the second is used to locate EIDs in
the Internet routing infrastructure topology. the Internet routing infrastructure topology.
The document [I-D.ietf-lisp-eid-block] requested an IPv6 address [RFC7954] requests an IPv6 address block reservation exclusively for
block reservation exclusively for use as EID prefixes in the LISP use as EID prefixes in the LISP experiment. The rationale, intent,
experiment. The rationale, intent, size, and usage of the EID size, and usage of the EID address block are described in [RFC7954].
address block are described in [I-D.ietf-lisp-eid-block].
This document proposes a management framework for the registration of This document proposes a management framework for the registration of
EID prefixes from that block, allowing the requesting organization EID prefixes from that block, allowing the requesting organization
exclusive use of those EID prefixes limited to the duration of the exclusive use of those EID prefixes limited to the duration of the
LISP experiment. LISP experiment.
2. 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].
3. Definition of Terms 3. Definition of Terms
This document does not introduce any new terms related to the set of This document does not introduce any new terms related to the set of
LISP Specifications ([RFC6830], [RFC6831], [RFC6832], [RFC6833], LISP Specifications ([RFC6830], [RFC6831], [RFC6832], [RFC6833],
[RFC6834], [RFC6835], [RFC6836], [RFC6837]), but assumes that the [RFC6834], [RFC6835], [RFC6836], [RFC6837]), but assumes that the
reader is familiar with the LISP terminology. reader is familiar with the LISP terminology. [INTRO] provides an
[I-D.ietf-lisp-introduction] provides an introduction to the LISP introduction to the LISP technology, including its terminology.
technology, including its terminology. .
4. EID Prefix Registration Policy 4. EID Prefix Registration Policy
The request for registration of EID prefixes MUST be done under the The request for registration of EID prefixes MUST be done under the
following policies: following policies:
1. EID prefixes are made available in the reserved space on a 1. EID prefixes are made available in the reserved space on a
temporary basis and for experimental uses. The requester of an temporary basis and for experimental uses. The requester of an
experimental prefix MUST provide a short description of the experimental prefix MUST provide a short description of the
intended use or experiment that will be carried out (see intended use or experiment that will be carried out (see
Section 6). If the prefix will be used for activities not Section 6). If the prefix will be used for activities not
documented in the original description, the renewal of the documented in the original description, renewal of the
registration may be denied. registration may be denied.
2. EID prefix registrations MUST be renewed on a regular basis to 2. EID prefix registrations MUST be renewed on a regular basis to
ensure their use by active participants in the experiment. The ensure their use by active participants in the experiment. The
registration period is 12 months. A renewal SHOULD NOT cause a registration period is 12 months. A renewal SHOULD NOT cause a
change in the EID prefix registered in the previous request. The change in the EID prefix registered in the previous request. The
conditions of registration renewal are the same as the conditions conditions of registration renewal are to be the same as the
of first EID prefix registration request. conditions of the first EID prefix registration request.
3. It is preferable not to reuse EID prefixes whose registration is 3. It is preferable that EID prefixes whose registrations have
expired. When an EID prefix registration is removed from the expired not be reused. When an EID prefix registration is
registry, then the reuse of the EID prefix in a subsequent removed from the registry, then the reuse of the EID prefix in a
registration on behalf of a different end user should be avoided subsequent registration on behalf of a different end user should
where possible. If the considerations of overall usage of the be avoided where possible. If the considerations of overall
EID block prefix requires reuse of a previously registered EID usage of the EID block prefix requires reuse of a previously
prefix, then a minimum delay of at least one week between removal registered EID prefix, then a minimum delay of at least one week
and subsequent registration SHOULD be applied by the registry between removal and subsequent registration SHOULD be applied by
operator. the registry operator.
4. All registrations of EID prefixes cease at the time of the 4. When the reserved experimental LISP EID block expires, all EID
expiration of the reserved experimental LISP EID Block. The prefix registrations expire as well. The further disposition of
further disposition of these prefixes and the associated registry these prefixes and the associated registry entries are to be
entries is to be specified in the announcement of the cessation specified in the announcement of the cessation of this
of this experiment. experiment.
5. EID Prefixes Registration Requirements 5. EID Prefixes Registration Requirements
All EID prefix registrations MUST respect the following requirements: All EID prefix registrations MUST satisfy the following requirements:
1. All EID prefix registrations MUST use a globally unique EID 1. All EID prefix registrations MUST use a globally unique EID
prefix. prefix.
2. The EID Prefix registration information, as specified in 2. The EID prefix registration information, as specified in
Section 6, MUST be collected upon initial registration and Section 6, MUST be collected upon initial registration and
renewal, and made publicly available through interfaces allowing renewal, and made publicly available through interfaces allowing
both retrieval of specific registration details (search) and both the retrieval of specific registration details (search) and
enumeration of the entire registry contents (e.g., [RFC7481], the enumeration of the entire registry contents (e.g., RDAP
WHOIS, HTTP, or similar access methods). ([RFC7481]), WHOIS, HTTP, or similar access methods).
3. The registry operator MUST permit the delegation of EID prefixes 3. The registry operator MUST permit the delegation of EID prefixes
in the reverse DNS space to holders of registered EID prefixes. in the reverse DNS space to holders of registered EID prefixes.
4. Anyone can obtain an entry in the EID prefix registry, on the 4. Anyone can obtain an entry in the EID prefix registry, on the
understanding that the prefix so registered is for the exclusive understanding that the prefix so registered is for the exclusive
use in the LISP experimental network, and that their registration use in the LISP experimental network, and that their registration
details (as specified in Section 6) are openly published in the details (as specified in Section 6) are openly published in the
EID prefix registry. EID prefix registry.
6. EID Prefix Request Template 6. EID Prefix Request Template
The following is a basic request template for prefix registration so The following is a basic request template for prefix registration to
to ensure a uniform process. Such a template is inspired by the IANA ensure a uniform process. This template is inspired by IANA's online
Private Enterprise Number online request form "Private Enterprise Number (PEN) Request" form
(http://pen.iana.org/pen/PenApplication.page). <http://pen.iana.org/pen/PenApplication.page>.
Note that all details in this registration become part of the Note that all details in this registration become part of the
registry and will be published in the LISP EID Prefix Registry. registry and will be published in the LISP EID Prefix Registry
managed by RIPE NCC.
The EID Prefix Request template MUST at minimum contain: The EID Prefix Request template MUST at a minimum contain:
1. Organization (In the case of individuals requesting an EID prefix 1. Organization (In the case of individuals requesting an EID
this section can be left empty) prefix, this section can be left empty)
(a) Organization Name (a) Organization Name
(b) Organization Address (b) Organization Address
(c) Organization Phone (c) Organization Phone
(d) Organization WebSite (d) Organization Website
2. Contact Person (Mandatory) 2. Contact Person (Mandatory)
(a) Name (a) Name
(b) Address (b) Address
(c) Phone (c) Phone
(d) Fax (optional) (d) Fax (optional)
(e) Email (e) Email
3. EID Prefix Request (Mandatory) 3. EID Prefix Request (Mandatory)
(a) Prefix Size (a) Prefix Size
+ Expressed as an address prefix length. + Expressed as an address prefix length.
(b) Prefix Size Rationale (b) Prefix Size Rationale
(c) Lease Period (c) Lease Period
+ Note Well: All EID Prefix registrations will be valid + Note well: All EID Prefix registrations will be valid until
until the earlier date of 12 months from the date of the earlier date of 12 months from the date of registration
registration or MMMM/YYYY3. or August 2019.
+ All registrations may be renewed by the applicant for + All registrations may be renewed by the applicant for
further 12 month periods, ending on MMMM/YYYY3. further 12-month periods, ending on August 2019.
+ According to the 3+3 year experimentation plan, defined + According to the 3+3 year experimentation plan, defined in
in [I-D.ietf-lisp-eid-block], all registrations MUST end [RFC7954], all registrations MUST end by August 2019, unless
by MMMM/YYYY3, unless the IETF community decides to grant the IETF community decides to grant a permanent LISP EID
a permanent LISP EID address block. In the latter case, address block. In the latter case, registrations following
registrations following the present document policy MUST the present document policy MUST end by August 2022 and a
end by MMMM/YYYY6 and a new policy (to be decided - see new policy (to be decided -- see Section 7) will apply
Section 7) will apply afterwards. thereafter.
4. Experiment Description 4. Experiment Description
(a) Experiment and Deployment Description (a) Experiment and Deployment Description
(b) Interoperability with existing LISP deployments (b) Interoperability with Existing LISP Deployments
(c) Interoperability with Legacy Internet (c) Interoperability with Legacy Internet
5. Reverse DNS Servers (Optional) 5. Reverse DNS Servers (Optional)
(a) Name server name: (a) Name Server Name
(b) Name server address: (b) Name Server Address
(c) Name server name: (c) Name Server Name
(d) Name server address: (d) Name Server Address
(Repeat if necessary) (Repeat if necessary)
7. Policy Validity Period 7. Policy Validity Period
Policy outlined in the present document is tied to the existence of The policy outlined in the present document is tied to the existence
the experimental LISP EID block requested in of the experimental LISP EID block requested in [RFC7954] and is
[I-D.ietf-lisp-eid-block] and valid until MMMM/YYYY3. valid until August 2019.
If the IETF decides to transform the block in a permanent allocation,
the LISP EID block reserved usage period will be extended for three
years (until MMMM/YYYY6) so as to give time to the IETF to define,
following the policies outlined in [RFC5226], the final size of the
EID block and create a transition plan, while the policy in the
present document will still apply.
Note that, as stated in [I-D.ietf-lisp-eid-block], the transition of
the EID block into a permanent allocation has the potential to pose
policy issues (as recognized in [RFC2860], section 4.3) and hence
discussion with the IANA, the RIR communities, and the IETF community
will be necessary to determine appropriate policy for permanent EID
prefix management, which will be effective after MMMM/YYYY6.
[RFC Editor: please replace MMMM and all its occurrences in the
document with the month of publication of [I-D.ietf-lisp-eid-block]
as RFC.]
[RFC Editor: please replace YYYY0 and all its occurrences in the
document with the year of publication of [I-D.ietf-lisp-eid-block] as
RFC.]
[RFC Editor: please replace YYYY3 and all its occurrences in the If the IETF decides to transform the block into a permanent
document with the year of publication of [I-D.ietf-lisp-eid-block] as allocation, the usage period reserved for the LISP EID block will be
RFC plus 3 years, e.g., if published in 2016 then put 2019.] extended for three years (until August 2022) to allow time for the
IETF to define, following the policies outlined in [RFC5226], the
final size of the EID block and create a transition plan, while the
policy in the present document will still apply.
[RFC Editor: please replace YYYY6 and all its occurrences in the Note that, as stated in [RFC7954], the transition of the EID block
document with the year of publication of [I-D.ietf-lisp-eid-block] as into a permanent allocation has the potential to pose policy issues
RFC plus 6 years, e.g., if published in 2016 then put 2022.] (as recognized in [RFC2860], Section 4.3); hence, discussion with the
IANA, the Regional Internet Registry (RIR) communities, and the IETF
community will be necessary to determine the appropriate policy for
permanent EID prefix management, which will be effective after August
2022.
8. Security Considerations 8. Security Considerations
This document does not introduce new security threats in the LISP This document does not introduce new security threats in the LISP
architecture nor in the Legacy Internet architecture. architecture nor in the Legacy Internet architecture.
For accountability reasons and in line with the security For accountability reasons and in line with the security
considerations in [RFC7020], each registration request MUST contain considerations in [RFC7020], each registration request MUST contain
accurate information on the requesting entity (company, institution, accurate information about the requesting entity (company,
individual, etc.) and valid and accurate contact information of a institution, individual, etc.) and valid and accurate contact
referral person (see Section 6). information of a referral person (see Section 6).
9. IANA Considerations 9. IANA Considerations
IANA allocated the following IPv6 address block for experimental use IANA allocated the following IPv6 address block for experimental use
as LISP EID prefix [I-D.ietf-lisp-eid-block]: as the LISP EID prefix [RFC7954]:
o Address Block: 2001:5::/32 o Address Block: 2001:5::/32
o Name: EID Space for LISP o Name: EID Space for LISP
o RFC: [I-D.ietf-lisp-eid-block] o RFC: [RFC7954]
o Further Details at: http://www.iana.org/assignments/ o Further details are at: www.iana.org/assignments/iana-ipv6-
iana-ipv6-special-registry/iana-ipv6-special-registry.xhtml special-registry
In order to grant requesting organisations and individuals exclusive To grant requesting organizations and individuals exclusive use of
use of EID prefixes out of such reserved block (limited to the EID prefixes out of this reserved block (limited to the duration of
duration of the LISP experiment as outlined in Section 7) there is an the LISP experiment as outlined in Section 7), there is an
operational requirement for an EID registration service. operational requirement for an EID registration service.
Provided that the policies and requirements outlined in Section 4, Provided that the policies and requirements outlined in Sections 4,
Section 5, and Section 6 are respected, EID prefix registration is 5, and 6 are satisfied, EID prefix registration is accorded based on
accorded based on a "First Come First Served" basis. a "First Come First Served" basis.
There is no hard limit in the number of registrations an organization There is no hard limit to the number of registrations an organization
or individual can submit as long as information described in or individual can submit, as long as the information described in
Section 6 is provided, in particular point 4: "Experiment Section 6 is provided, in particular point 4: "Experiment
Description". Description".
For the duration defined in [I-D.ietf-lisp-eid-block] RIPE NCC will For the duration defined in [RFC7954], RIPE NCC will manage the LISP
manage the the LISP EID prefix as described herein. Therefore, this EID prefix as described herein. Therefore, this document has no IANA
document has no IANA actions. actions.
10. Procedures to be followed by RIPE NCC 10. Procedures to be Followed by RIPE NCC
RIPE NCC will provide the registration service following the EID RIPE NCC will provide the registration service following the EID
Prefix Registration Policy (Section 4) and the EID Prefix Prefix Registration Policy (Section 4) and the EID Prefix
Registration Requirements (Section 5) provided in this document. The Registration Requirements (Section 5) provided in this document. The
request form provided by RIPE NCC will include at least the request form provided by RIPE NCC will include at least the
information from the template in Section 6. RIPE NCC will make information from the template in Section 6. RIPE NCC will make all
publicly available all received requests. While this document does received requests publicly available. While this document does not
not suggests any minimum allocation size, RIPE NCC is allowed to suggest any minimum allocation size; RIPE NCC is allowed to introduce
introduce such minimum size for management purposes. such a minimum size for management purposes.
11. Acknowledgments
Thanks to A. Retana, J. Arko, P. Yee, A. de la Haye, A. Cima, A
Pawlik, J. Curran, A. Severin, B. Haberman, T. Manderson, D. Lewis,
D. Farinacci, M. Binderberger, D. Saucez, E. Lear, for their helpful
comments.
The work of Luigi Iannone has been partially supported by the ANR-13-
INFR-0009 LISP-Lab Project (www.lisp-lab.org) and the EIT KIC ICT-
Labs SOFNETS Project.
12. References
12.1. Normative References 11. References
[I-D.ietf-lisp-eid-block] 11.1. Normative References
Iannone, L., Lewis, D., Meyer, D., and V. Fuller, "LISP
EID Block", draft-ietf-lisp-eid-block-13 (work in
progress), February 2016.
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, DOI 10.17487/ Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
RFC2119, March 1997, DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>. <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[RFC5226] Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an [RFC5226] Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an
IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 5226, IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 5226,
DOI 10.17487/RFC5226, May 2008, DOI 10.17487/RFC5226, May 2008,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5226>. <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5226>.
12.2. Informative References [RFC7954] Iannone, L., Lewis, D., Meyer, D., and V. Fuller,
"Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP) Endpoint Identifier
(EID) Block", RFC 7954, DOI 10.17487/RFC7954, September
2016, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7954>.
[I-D.ietf-lisp-introduction] 11.2. Informative References
Cabellos-Aparicio, A. and D. Saucez, "An Architectural
[INTRO] Cabellos-Aparicio, A. and D. Saucez, "An Architectural
Introduction to the Locator/ID Separation Protocol Introduction to the Locator/ID Separation Protocol
(LISP)", draft-ietf-lisp-introduction-13 (work in (LISP)", Work in Progress, draft-ietf-lisp-introduction-
progress), April 2015. 13, April 2015.
[RFC2860] Carpenter, B., Baker, F., and M. Roberts, "Memorandum of [RFC2860] Carpenter, B., Baker, F., and M. Roberts, "Memorandum of
Understanding Concerning the Technical Work of the Understanding Concerning the Technical Work of the
Internet Assigned Numbers Authority", RFC 2860, Internet Assigned Numbers Authority", RFC 2860,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2860, June 2000, DOI 10.17487/RFC2860, June 2000,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2860>. <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2860>.
[RFC6830] Farinacci, D., Fuller, V., Meyer, D., and D. Lewis, "The [RFC6830] Farinacci, D., Fuller, V., Meyer, D., and D. Lewis, "The
Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP)", RFC 6830, Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP)", RFC 6830,
DOI 10.17487/RFC6830, January 2013, DOI 10.17487/RFC6830, January 2013,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6830>. <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6830>.
[RFC6831] Farinacci, D., Meyer, D., Zwiebel, J., and S. Venaas, "The [RFC6831] Farinacci, D., Meyer, D., Zwiebel, J., and S. Venaas, "The
Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP) for Multicast Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP) for Multicast
Environments", RFC 6831, DOI 10.17487/RFC6831, Environments", RFC 6831, DOI 10.17487/RFC6831, January
January 2013, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6831>. 2013, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6831>.
[RFC6832] Lewis, D., Meyer, D., Farinacci, D., and V. Fuller, [RFC6832] Lewis, D., Meyer, D., Farinacci, D., and V. Fuller,
"Interworking between Locator/ID Separation Protocol "Interworking between Locator/ID Separation Protocol
(LISP) and Non-LISP Sites", RFC 6832, DOI 10.17487/ (LISP) and Non-LISP Sites", RFC 6832,
RFC6832, January 2013, DOI 10.17487/RFC6832, January 2013,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6832>. <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6832>.
[RFC6833] Fuller, V. and D. Farinacci, "Locator/ID Separation [RFC6833] Fuller, V. and D. Farinacci, "Locator/ID Separation
Protocol (LISP) Map-Server Interface", RFC 6833, Protocol (LISP) Map-Server Interface", RFC 6833,
DOI 10.17487/RFC6833, January 2013, DOI 10.17487/RFC6833, January 2013,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6833>. <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6833>.
[RFC6834] Iannone, L., Saucez, D., and O. Bonaventure, "Locator/ID [RFC6834] Iannone, L., Saucez, D., and O. Bonaventure, "Locator/ID
Separation Protocol (LISP) Map-Versioning", RFC 6834, Separation Protocol (LISP) Map-Versioning", RFC 6834,
DOI 10.17487/RFC6834, January 2013, DOI 10.17487/RFC6834, January 2013,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6834>. <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6834>.
[RFC6835] Farinacci, D. and D. Meyer, "The Locator/ID Separation [RFC6835] Farinacci, D. and D. Meyer, "The Locator/ID Separation
Protocol Internet Groper (LIG)", RFC 6835, DOI 10.17487/ Protocol Internet Groper (LIG)", RFC 6835,
RFC6835, January 2013, DOI 10.17487/RFC6835, January 2013,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6835>. <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6835>.
[RFC6836] Fuller, V., Farinacci, D., Meyer, D., and D. Lewis, [RFC6836] Fuller, V., Farinacci, D., Meyer, D., and D. Lewis,
"Locator/ID Separation Protocol Alternative Logical "Locator/ID Separation Protocol Alternative Logical
Topology (LISP+ALT)", RFC 6836, DOI 10.17487/RFC6836, Topology (LISP+ALT)", RFC 6836, DOI 10.17487/RFC6836,
January 2013, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6836>. January 2013, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6836>.
[RFC6837] Lear, E., "NERD: A Not-so-novel Endpoint ID (EID) to [RFC6837] Lear, E., "NERD: A Not-so-novel Endpoint ID (EID) to
Routing Locator (RLOC) Database", RFC 6837, DOI 10.17487/ Routing Locator (RLOC) Database", RFC 6837,
RFC6837, January 2013, DOI 10.17487/RFC6837, January 2013,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6837>. <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6837>.
[RFC7020] Housley, R., Curran, J., Huston, G., and D. Conrad, "The [RFC7020] Housley, R., Curran, J., Huston, G., and D. Conrad, "The
Internet Numbers Registry System", RFC 7020, DOI 10.17487/ Internet Numbers Registry System", RFC 7020,
RFC7020, August 2013, DOI 10.17487/RFC7020, August 2013,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7020>. <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7020>.
[RFC7481] Hollenbeck, S. and N. Kong, "Security Services for the [RFC7481] Hollenbeck, S. and N. Kong, "Security Services for the
Registration Data Access Protocol (RDAP)", RFC 7481, Registration Data Access Protocol (RDAP)", RFC 7481,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7481, March 2015, DOI 10.17487/RFC7481, March 2015,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7481>. <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7481>.
Appendix A. Document Change Log Acknowledgments
Version 07 Posted April 2016.
o Addressed editorial issues raised in Gen-Art review by Peter Yee.
o Removed "Definition of Terms" section as suggested by Peter Yee in
the Gen-Art review.
o Section "IANA Considerations" has been re-written to fix issue
raised by IESG, IANA, and P. Yee.
o Deleted bullet allowing multiple operators in the requirements
section. Due to the limited duration of the experiment one single
registration operator (RIPE) is sufficient.
o Modified the dates, introducing variables, so to allow RFC Editor
to easily update dates by publication as RFC.
Version 06 Posted August 2015.
o Fixed Authors addresses and typo in section 10.
Version 05 Posted July 2015.
o Added explicit text about RIPE NCC providing the registration
service during the temporary experiment.
Version 04 Posted December 2014.
o Added two clarification sentences to address the comments of E.
Lear and D. Saucez during WG LC.
Version 03 Posted October 2014.
o Re-worded the document so to avoid confusion on "allocation" and
"assignement". The document now reffers to "registration". As
for comments by G. Huston and M. Binderberger.
Version 02 Posted July 2014.
o Deleted the trailing paragraph of Section 4, as for discussion in
the mailing list.
o Deleted the fees policy as of suggestion of G. Huston and
discussion during 89th IETF.
o Re-phrased the availability of the registration information
requirement avoiding putting specific numbers (previously
requiring 99% up time), as of suggestion of G. Huston and
discussion during 89th IETF.
Version 01 Posted February 2014.
o Dropped the reverse DNS requirement as for discussion during the
88th IETF meeting.
o Dropped the minimum allocation requirement as for discussion
during the 88th IETF meeting.
o Changed Section 7 from "General Consideration" to "Policy Validity
Period", according to J. Curran feedback. The purpose of the
section is just to clearly state the period during which the
policy applies.
Version 00 Posted December 2013. Thanks to A. Retana, J. Arkko, P. Yee, A. de la Haye, A. Cima,
A. Pawlik, J. Curran, A. Severin, B. Haberman, T. Manderson,
D. Lewis, D. Farinacci, M. Binderberger, D. Saucez, E. Lear, for
their helpful comments.
o Rename of draft-iannone-lisp-eid-block-mgmnt-03.txt. The work of Luigi Iannone has been partially supported by the
ANR-13-INFR-0009 LISP-Lab Project <www.lisp-lab.org> and the EIT KIC
ICT-Labs SOFNETS Project.
Authors' Addresses Authors' Addresses
Luigi Iannone Luigi Iannone
Telecom ParisTech Telecom ParisTech
France France
Email: ggx@gigix.net Email: ggx@gigix.net
Roger Jorgensen Roger Jorgensen
Bredbandsfylket Troms Bredbandsfylket Troms
Norway Norway
Email: rogerj@gmail.com Email: rogerj@gmail.com
David Conrad David Conrad
Virtualized, LLC Virtualized, LLC
USA United States
Email: drc@virtualized.org Email: drc@virtualized.org
Geoff Huston Geoff Huston
APNIC - Asia Pacific Network Information Center Asia Pacific Network Information Centre (APNIC)
Australia Australia
Email: gih@apnic.net Email: gih@apnic.net
 End of changes. 66 change blocks. 
267 lines changed or deleted 178 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.45. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/