Network Working Group | M. Boucadair |
Internet-Draft | C. Jacquenet |
Intended status: Standards Track | Orange |
Expires: April 13, 2018 | October 10, 2017 |
LISP Mapping Bulk Retrieval
draft-boucadair-lisp-bulk-06
This document extends Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP) with a capability for bulk mapping retrieval. It does so by defining new LISP messages that are meant to facilitate state recovery of mapping tables and improve Ingress Tunnel Routers (ITR) recovery times, in particular. In addition, this document allows to request mappings that match destination IP prefixes, names, or AS numbers.
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-Drafts is at https://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 13, 2018.
Copyright (c) 2017 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 (https://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.
Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP, [RFC6830] ) operation relies upon a mapping mechanism that is used by ingress/egress Tunnel Routers (xTR) to forward traffic over the LISP network. This document extends LISP with a capability for bulk mappings retrieval. It does so by defining new LISP messages that are meant to facilitate state recovery of mapping tables and improve Ingress Tunnel Routers (ITR) recovery times, in particular.
Support for requesting multiple EIDs in a single Map-Request message will be specified in a future version of the protocol.
The base LISP specification does not define how a requestor may ask for multiple EIDs. Indeed, the current LISP specification [RFC6830] states the following:
[I-D.boucadair-lisp-multiple-records] defines a backward compatible extension of the LISP Map-Request message to request multiple records.
This document defines a more reliable method for the retrieval of mapping records from one or multiple Map-Resolvers (Section 3). It does so by using TCP ([RFC0793]) as a transport protocol for exchanges the bulk retrieval messages. Other proposals have been made to use TCP for reliable transport (e.g., [I-D.kouvelas-lisp-map-server-reliable-transport]).
The extensions defined by this document allow for faster recovery of mapping entries. For example, whenever an ITR fails for some reason, the faulty ITR needs to recover at least the list of mappings for the most popular prefixes in a timely manner, etc. These extensions may be used by a leaf LISP network or enabled between mapping systems for the sake of global mapping table maintenance. Policies for the mapping entries to be recovered are deployment-specific.
This document allows to request mappings that match destination IP prefixes, names, or AS numbers. Other filter types may be defined in future versions, if needed.
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119.
To allow for a more reliable method when retrieving multiple EID mapping records from one or multiple Map-Resolvers, this section defines additional LISP messages that are, unlike LISP control messages, transported over TCP.
After establishing a TCP connection towards a Map-Resolver (using the LISP service port), the ITR sends a Map-Bulk-Request (Section 3.1). Upon receipt of that message, the Map-Resolver must reply with one or more Map-Bulk-Reply messages (Section 3.2). Once the last Map-Bulk-Reply is received from the Map-Resolver, the underlying TCP connection may be closed.
The format of the Map-Bulk-Request message is shown in Figure 1.
0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |Type=15| Sub-type |R| Reserved | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Transaction ID | +-> +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | | Length | | F +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ : I : Filter : L +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ T ... E +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ R | Length | | S +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ : | : Filter : +-> +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 1: Map-Bulk-Request Message Format
The description of the fields is as follows:
The format of the Map-Bulk-Reply message is shown in Figure 2.
0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |Type=15| Sub-type |R|M|rsv| Records Count |Results| +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Transaction ID | +-> +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | | Code | Length | | F +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ : I : Filter : L +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ T ... E +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ R | Code | Length | | S +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ : | : Filter : +-> +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | | Record TTL | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ R | Locator Count | EID mask-len | ACT |A| Reserved | e +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ c | Rsvd | Map-Version Number | EID-Prefix-AFI | o +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ r | EID-Prefix | d +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | /| Priority | Weight | M Priority | M Weight | | L +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | o | Unused Flags |L|p|R| Loc-AFI | | c +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | \| Locator | +-> +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ ... +-> +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | | Record TTL | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ R | Locator Count | EID mask-len | ACT |A| Reserved | e +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ c | Rsvd | Map-Version Number | EID-Prefix-AFI | o +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ r | EID-Prefix | d +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | /| Priority | Weight | M Priority | M Weight | | L +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | o | Unused Flags |L|p|R| Loc-AFI | | c +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | \| Locator | +-> +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 2: Map-Bulk-Reply Message Format
The description of the fields of the Map-Bulk-Reply is similar to those of a LISP Map-Request message ([RFC6830]), except the following:
ITRs MUST support a configurable parameter to enable/disable bulk mapping retrieval over TCP. The default value is set to "enabled".
If distinct port number is used by remote Map-Resolvers, the destination port number to send Map-Bulk-Request messages SHOULD be configured to the ITR.
After establishing a TCP connection towards a Map-Resolver (using the LISP service port), the ITR MUST send a Map-Bulk-Request (Section 3.1) to a Map-Resolver. Configuration information for triggering bulk retrieval request messages MAY be provisioned to each ITR. Multiple Map-Bulk-Request messages may be sent over the same TCP connection.
An ITR that loses its mapping cache for some reason SHOULD generate a Map-Bulk-Request message towards its Map-Resolver(s) with the set of filters that are configured locally.
An ITR MAY generate several Map-Bulk-Request messages to the same or distinct Map-Resolvers.
An ITR MUST generate a unique transaction-id per Map-Bulk-Request it issues.
An ITR MUST expect that the Map-Resolver may limit the number of filters that may be processed. Filters that are not accepted or not processed by the Map-Resolvers are included in a Map-Bulk-Reply.
A Map-Resolver that does not support the Map-Bulk-Request message MUST silently ignore any Map-Bulk-Request message it receives.
Map-Resolvers MUST support a configurable parameter to enable/disable the processing of Map-Bulk-Request messages. The default value is set to "enabled".
A Map-Resolver that is enabled to process Map-Bulk-Request messages MUST listen to incoming TCP connections on the default LISP service port. ACLs MAY be configured to control the leaf networks that can invoke this feature.
A Map-Resolver SHOULD support a configuration parameter to rate-limit the number of simultaneous Map-Bulk-Request messages per leaf LISP network, per ITR, etc.
If a Map-Resolver receives a Map-Bulk-Request message and it is enabled to process it, a Map-Resolver MUST reply with one or multiple Map-Bulk-Reply messages.
If multiple Map-Bulk-Reply messages are required to respond to a given request, the Map-Resolver MUST:
If filters are included in the request, the Map-Resolver MUST extract those filters and lookup its mapping system accordingly. In particular, the Map-Resolver MUST reply with a full mapping table if a Null filter is included in the Map-Bulk-Request.
If bulk mapping retrieval is not allowed for a given ITR, the 'Result' field MUST be set to BULK-PROHIBITED.
If the Map-Resolver fails to process a request because limits for that ITR are exceeded, it MUST set the 'Result' field to BULK-LIMIT.
If a subset of filters are successfully processed, the 'Result' field MUST be set to SUCCESS. The set of filters that are not processed MUST be echoed in the Map-Bulk-Reply; each with a failure code that reflects the reason why the filter was not applied. If a filter type is not supported by the Map-Resolver, the 'Code' field MUST be set to FILTER-UNSUPPORTED. If the Map-Resolver fails to process some of the filters included in a request because these filters were malformed, it MUST echo the corresponding filters in the Map-Bulk-Reply message and MUST set the 'Code' field to FILTER-BAD. f the Map-Resolver fails to process some of the filters included in a request because a maximum number of filters is supported, it MUST echo the corresponding filters in the Map-Bulk-Reply message and set the 'Code' field to FILTER-MAX. If, for some other reasons, the Map-Resolver fails to apply some filters included in a request, it MUST echo the corresponding filter in the Map-Bulk-Reply message. The 'Code' field MUST be set to FILTER-LOCAL.
A Map-Resolver that is overloaded MUST reply with a Map-Bulk-Reply message with the "Result" code set to OUT-OF-RESOURCES.
Upon receipt of a Map-Bulk-Reply message, the ITR MUST check whether the message matches a Map-Bulk-Request it issued for the same Map-Resolver. If no matching state is found, the message MUST be silently dropped. If a state is found, the ITR MUST proceed as follows:
In order to retrieve mapping entries from multiple Map-Resolvers, an ITR issues Map-Bulk-Request messages to a list of Map-Resolvers. Each of these requests is handled as specified in Section 4.
An ITR MAY be configured to issue multiple Map-Bulk-Request messages to distinct Map-Resolvers.
Conflicts may arise when contacting multiple Map-Resolvers. These conflicts are not specific to the bulk mapping retrieval as this is also an issue for individual mapping lookup.
Figure 3 illustrates the example of a bulk mapping retrieval that is achieved with one single Map-Bulk-Reply, while Figure 4 shows an example of a bulk mapping retrieval that requires multiple Map-Bulk-Reply messages.
+--------+ +--------+ | ITR | | MR | +--------+ +--------+ |<- Session Establishment--->| | | |Map-Bulk-Request (ID, d_EID | | d_EID2, ..., d_EIDn) | |--------------------------->| | Map-Bulk-Reply(M=0) | |<---------------------------|
Figure 3: Example of Bulk Mapping Retrieval
+--------+ +--------+ | ITR | | MR | +--------+ +--------+ |<- Session Establishment -->| | | |Map-Bulk-Request (ID, d_EID | | d_EID2, ..., d_EIDn) | |--------------------------->| |Map-Bulk-Reply(M=1, rec1, | | rec2, ..., recn)| |<---------------------------| |Map-Bulk-Reply(M=1,recn+1 | | recn+2, ..., recm)| |<---------------------------| ... |Map-Bulk-Reply(M=0, recs) | |<---------------------------|
Figure 4: Example of Bulk Mapping Retrieval
An ITR can establish multiple transactions with the same Map-Resolver as shown in Figure 5.
+--------+ +--------+ | ITR | | MR | +--------+ +--------+ |<- Session Establishment -->| | | |Map-Bulk-Request (ID1) | |--------------------------->| | Map-Bulk-Reply(ID1) | |<---------------------------| ... |Map-Bulk-Request (ID2) | |--------------------------->| | Map-Bulk-Reply(ID2) | |<---------------------------| | Map-Bulk-Reply(ID2) | |<---------------------------| ... |Map-Bulk-Request (IDa) | |--------------------------->| |Map-Bulk-Request (IDb) | |--------------------------->| | Map-Bulk-Reply(IDa) | |<---------------------------| | Map-Bulk-Reply(IDb) | |<---------------------------| | Map-Bulk-Reply(IDb) | |<---------------------------| | Map-Bulk-Reply(IDa) | |<---------------------------|
Figure 5: Multiple Transactions with the Same Map-Resolver
In addition to the security considerations discussed in [RFC6830] and [RFC6833], TCP-specific threats are valid for this specification (e.g., [I-D.ietf-tcpm-tcp-security]).
In order to avoid exhausting the resources of Map-Resolvers, Map-Bulk-Request messages SHOULD be rate-limited. Furthermore, a Map-Resolver MAY configure ACLs to control leaf LISP networks that are allowed to issue Map-Bulk-Request messages.
The structure of a record conveyed in a Map-Bulk-Reply is exactly the same as in [RFC6830]. As such, this specification does leak information that would not be revealed using the base LISP.
IANA has assigned this LISP Shared Extension Message Type Sub-type ([RFC8113]) for this registry https://www.iana.org/assignments/lisp-parameters/lisp-parameters.xhtml#lisp-shared-extension-message-type-sub-types:
Message Sub-type Reference ================================= ======= =============== Map-Bulk-Request/Map-Bulk-Reply 1025 [This document]
This work is partly funded by ANR LISP-Lab project #ANR-13-INFR-009-X.
Many thanks to S. Secci and Chi Dung Phung for the comments.
[RFC0793] | Postel, J., "Transmission Control Protocol", STD 7, RFC 793, DOI 10.17487/RFC0793, September 1981. |
[RFC2119] | Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997. |
[RFC4291] | Hinden, R. and S. Deering, "IP Version 6 Addressing Architecture", RFC 4291, DOI 10.17487/RFC4291, February 2006. |
[RFC6830] | Farinacci, D., Fuller, V., Meyer, D. and D. Lewis, "The Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP)", RFC 6830, DOI 10.17487/RFC6830, January 2013. |
[RFC6833] | Fuller, V. and D. Farinacci, "Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP) Map-Server Interface", RFC 6833, DOI 10.17487/RFC6833, January 2013. |
[RFC8113] | Boucadair, M. and C. Jacquenet, "Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP): Shared Extension Message & IANA Registry for Packet Type Allocations", RFC 8113, DOI 10.17487/RFC8113, March 2017. |
[I-D.ietf-tcpm-tcp-security] | Gont, F., "Survey of Security Hardening Methods for Transmission Control Protocol (TCP) Implementations", Internet-Draft draft-ietf-tcpm-tcp-security-03, March 2012. |
[I-D.kouvelas-lisp-map-server-reliable-transport] | Cassar, C., Leong, J., Lewis, D., Kouvelas, I. and J. Arango, "LISP Map Server Reliable Transport", Internet-Draft draft-kouvelas-lisp-map-server-reliable-transport-04, September 2017. |