Internet DRAFT - draft-farinacci-lisp-rig
draft-farinacci-lisp-rig
Internet Engineering Task Force D. Farinacci
Internet-Draft lispers.net
Intended status: Experimental A. Jain
Expires: June 18, 2015 Juniper Networks
I. Kouvelas
D. Lewis
cisco Systems
December 15, 2014
LISP-DDT Referral Internet Groper (RIG)
draft-farinacci-lisp-rig-05
Abstract
A simple tool called the LISP-DDT Referral Internet Groper or 'rig'
can be used to query the LISP-DDT hierarchy. This draft describes
how the 'rig' tool works.
Status of This Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on June 18, 2015.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2014 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
Farinacci, et al. Expires June 18, 2015 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft LISP-DDT Referral Internet Groper (RIG) December 2014
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents
1. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
3. Definition of Terms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
4. Basic Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
5. Implementation Details . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
8.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
8.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Appendix A. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Appendix B. Document Change Log . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
B.1. Changes to draft-farinacci-lisp-rig-05.txt . . . . . . . 10
B.2. Changes to draft-farinacci-lisp-rig-04.txt . . . . . . . 10
B.3. Changes to draft-farinacci-lisp-rig-03.txt . . . . . . . 11
B.4. Changes to draft-farinacci-lisp-rig-02.txt . . . . . . . 11
B.5. Changes to draft-farinacci-lisp-rig-01.txt . . . . . . . 11
B.6. Changes to draft-farinacci-lisp-rig-00.txt . . . . . . . 11
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
1. Requirements Language
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 [RFC2119].
2. Introduction
LISP [RFC6830] specifies an architecture and mechanism for replacing
the semantics of an address currently used by IP with two separate
name spaces: Endpoint IDs (EIDs), used within sites, and Routing
Locators (RLOCs), used on the transit networks that make up the
Internet infrastructure. To achieve this separation, the Locator/ID
Separation Protocol (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. This
document focuses on the LISP-DDT [LISP-DDT] mapping database system.
The 'rig' is a manual management tool to query LISP-DDT mapping
database hierarchy. It can be run by all devices which implement
LISP, including ITRs, ETRs, PITRs, PETRs, Map-Resolvers, Map-Servers,
and LISP-DDT nodes, as well as by a host system at either a LISP-
capable or non-LISP-capable site.
Farinacci, et al. Expires June 18, 2015 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft LISP-DDT Referral Internet Groper (RIG) December 2014
The LISP-DDT 'rig' tool is similar to the 'lig' [RFC6835] tool in
that they are both diagnostic tools to query a database. However,
'rig' is used to find Map-Servers serving an EID-prefix, specifically
within a LISP-DDT mapping database framework. And 'lig' can be used
on top of any mapping database system to retrieve locators used for
packet encapsulation.
3. Definition of Terms
Endpoint ID (EID): An EID is a 32-bit (for IPv4) or 128-bit (for
IPv6) value (or an address encoded by [LISP-LCAF]) used in the
source and destination address fields of the first (most inner)
LISP header of a packet. The host obtains a destination EID the
same way it obtains a destination address today, for example
through a Domain Name System (DNS) [RFC1034] lookup or Session
Invitation Protocol (SIP) [RFC3261] exchange. The source EID is
obtained via existing mechanisms used to set a host's "local" IP
address. An EID used on the public Internet must have the same
properties as any other IP address used in that manner; this
means, among other things, that it must be globally unique. An
EID is allocated to a host from an EID-prefix block associated
with the site where the host is located. An EID can be used by a
host to refer to other hosts. EIDs MUST NOT be used as LISP
RLOCs. Note that EID blocks MAY be assigned in a hierarchical
manner, independent of the network topology, to facilitate scaling
of the mapping database. In addition, an EID block assigned to a
site may have site-local structure (subnetting) for routing within
the site; this structure is not visible to the global routing
system. In theory, the bit string that represents an EID for one
device can represent an RLOC for a different device. As the
architecture is realized, if a given bit string is both an RLOC
and an EID, it must refer to the same entity in both cases. When
used in discussions with other Locator/ID separation proposals, a
LISP EID will be called a "LEID". Throughout this document, any
references to "EID" refers to an LEID.
Extended EID (XEID): A LISP EID, optionally extended with a non-
zero Instance ID (IID) if the EID is intended for use in a context
where it may not be a unique value, such as on a Virtual Private
Network where "private" address space is used. See "Using
Virtualization and Segmentation with LISP" in [RFC6830] for more
discussion of Instance IDs.
Routing Locator (RLOC): A RLOC is an IPv4 [RFC0791] or IPv6
[RFC2460] address of an egress tunnel router (ETR). A RLOC is the
output of an EID-to-RLOC mapping lookup. An EID maps to one or
more RLOCs. Typically, RLOCs are numbered from topologically-
aggregatable blocks that are assigned to a site at each point to
Farinacci, et al. Expires June 18, 2015 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft LISP-DDT Referral Internet Groper (RIG) December 2014
which it attaches to the global Internet; where the topology is
defined by the connectivity of provider networks, RLOCs can be
thought of as PA addresses. Multiple RLOCs can be assigned to the
same ETR device or to multiple ETR devices at a site.
DDT Node: A network infrastructure component responsible for
specific XEID-prefix and for delegation of more-specific sub-
prefixes to other DDT nodes.
DDT Client: A network infrastructure component that sends Map-
Request messages and implements the iterative following of Map-
Referral results. Typically, a DDT client will be a Map Resolver
but it is also possible for an ITR to implement DDT client
functionality. A DDT client can be a device that is originating
'rig' requests.
DDT Map Server: A DDT node that also implements Map Server
functionality (forwarding Map-Requests and/or returning Map-
Replies if offering proxy-mode service) for a subset of its
delegated prefixes.
DDT Map Resolver: A network infrastructure element that accepts a
Map-Request, adds the XEID to its lookup queue, then queries one
or more DDT nodes for the requested EID, following returned
referrals until it receives one with the the ms-ack action. This
indicates that the Map-Request has been sent to a Map-Server that
will forward it to an ETR that, in turn, will provide a Map-Reply
to the original sender. A DDT Map Resolver maintains both a cache
of Map-Referral message results containing RLOCs for DDT nodes
responsible for XEID-prefixes of interest (termed the "referral
cache") plus a lookup queue of XEIDs that are being resolved
through iterative querying of DDT nodes.
Encapsulated Map-Request: A LISP Map-Request carried within an
Encapsulated Control Message, which has an additional LISP header
prepended. Sent to UDP destination port 4342. The "outer"
addresses are globally-routable IP addresses, also known as RLOCs.
Used by an ITR when sending to a Map-Resolver and by a Map-Server
when forwarding a Map-Request to an ETR as documented in
[RFC6833].
Map-Referral: A LISP message sent by a DDT node when it receives a
DDT Map-Request for an XEID that matches a configured XEID-prefix
delegation. The Map-Referral message includes a "referral", a set
of RLOCs for DDT nodes that have more information about the sub-
prefix; a DDT client "follows the referral" by sending another DDT
Map-Request to one of those RLOCs to obtain either an answer or
Farinacci, et al. Expires June 18, 2015 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft LISP-DDT Referral Internet Groper (RIG) December 2014
another referral to DDT nodes responsible for a more-specific
XEID-prefix.
Authoritative XEID-prefix: An XEID-prefix delegated to a DDT node
and for which the DDT node may provide further delegations of
more-specific sub-prefixes.
4. Basic Overview
The LISP Delegated Database Tree [LISP-DDT], is a hierarchical,
distributed database which embodies the delegation of authority to
provide mappings from LISP Endpoint Identifiers (EIDs) to Routing
Locators (RLOCs). It is a statically-defined distribution of the EID
namespace among a set of LISP-speaking servers, called DDT nodes.
Each DDT node is configured as "authoritative" for one or more EID-
prefixes, along with the set of RLOCs for Map Servers or "child" DDT
nodes to which more-specific EID-prefixes are delegated.
Map-Resolvers send Map-Requests to the DDT hierarchy and maintain
referral-caches by receiving Map-Referral messages from DDT nodes.
Map-Resolvers follow the DDT hierarchy for a given EID lookup based
on the EID-prefix and delegation referrals contained in the Map-
Referral messages. The intention of rig is to perform the same
operation of a Map-Resolver but used as a management tool for the
network administrator.
When the rig command is run, an Encapsulated Control Message Map-
Request is sent for a destination EID. When a LISP-DDT Map-Referral
is returned, the contents are displayed to the user. The information
displayed includes:
o A delegated EID-prefix configured in a DDT-node or a configured
site EID-prefix in a DDT Map-Server that matches the requested
EID.
o The type of DDT-node which sent the Map-Referral.
o The action code and TTL set by the sender of the Map-Referral.
o The referral RLOC addresses from the Map-Referral message.
o A round-trip-time estimate for the ECM-Map-Request/Map-Referral
message exchange.
A possible syntax for a rig command MAY be:
rig [instance-id <iid>] <eid> to <ddt-node> [follow-all-referrals]
Farinacci, et al. Expires June 18, 2015 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft LISP-DDT Referral Internet Groper (RIG) December 2014
Parameter description:
[instance-id <iid>>]: is the instance-ID portion of the Extended
EID used as VPN identifier or for other future purposes. When the
DDT hierarchy is not configured with instance-IDs, this argument
is omitted from the command line.
<eid>: is either a Fully Qualified Domain Name or a destination EID
that is being queried in the LISP-DDT mapping database.
<ddt-node>: is the RLOC address of any DDT-node in the DDT
hierarchy. This can be the DDT root node, a DDT transit node, or
a DDT Map-Server.
[follow-all-referrals]: when this keyword is used each referral
RLOC is queried so rig can descend the entire DDT hierarchy
starting from the node <ddt-node>. When this keyword is not used,
one of the referral RLOCs will be selected to descend a branch of
the DDT hierarchy.
The rig utility not only shows branches of the delegation hierarchy
but can also report:
o When a DDT Map-Server would forward a Map-Request to the ETRs at a
registered LISP site. This is known as a 'ms-acknowledgement'
action.
o When a DDT Map-Server sends a negative referral indicating a
requested EID is configured but not registered to the mapping
database system. This is known as an 'ms-not-registered' action.
o When a DDT node is sending referrals for a transit or leaf node in
the hierarchy. These are known as 'node-referral' and 'ms-
referral' actions, respectively.
o When a DDT-node finds a hole in the address space that has not
been allocated or configured in the delegation hierarchy. This is
typically associated with a hole in a DDT node's configured
authoritative prefix. This is known as a 'delegation-hole'
action.
o When a DDT-node finds a hole in the address space that has not
been allocated or configured in the delegation hierarchy at all.
This is typically associated with a hole that is outside of a DDT
node's authoritative prefix. This is known as 'non-authoritative'
action.
Refer to [LISP-DDT] for more detail about Map-Referral actions.
Farinacci, et al. Expires June 18, 2015 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft LISP-DDT Referral Internet Groper (RIG) December 2014
5. Implementation Details
The cisco LISP prototype implementations on IOS and NX-OS has rig
support for IPv4 and IPv6 EIDs in either the default instance or a
non-zero instance-ID.
The IOS syntax is:
rig [instance-id <iid>] <eid> to <ddt-node> [follow-all-referrals]
The NX-OS syntax is:
rig [instance-id <iid>] <hostname> | {<eid> | <eid6>}}
to {<ddt-hostname> | {<ddt> | <ddt6>}}
Here is some sample IOS output:
Router# rig 12.0.1.1 to 1.1.1.1
Send Map-Request to DDT-node 1.1.1.1 ... node referral, rtt: 0 ms
EID-prefix: [0] 12.0.0.0/16, ttl: 1440
referrals: 2.2.2.2
Send Map-Request to DDT-node 2.2.2.2 ... node referral, rtt: 0 ms
EID-prefix: [0] 12.0.1.0/24, ttl: 1440
referrals: 4.4.4.4, 5.5.5.5
Send Map-Request to DDT-node 4.4.4.4 ... map-server acknowledgement,
rtt: 0 ms
EID-prefix: [0] 12.0.1.0/28, ttl: 1440
referrals: 4.4.4.4, 5.5.5.5
Farinacci, et al. Expires June 18, 2015 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft LISP-DDT Referral Internet Groper (RIG) December 2014
Router# rig 12.0.1.1 to 1.1.1.1 follow-all-referrals
Send Map-Request to DDT-node 1.1.1.1 ... node referral, rtt: 4 ms
EID-prefix: [0] 12.0.0.0/16, ttl: 1440
referrals: 2.2.2.2
Send Map-Request to DDT-node 2.2.2.2 ... node referral, rtt: 0 ms
EID-prefix: [0] 12.0.1.0/24, ttl: 1440
referrals: 4.4.4.4, 5.5.5.5
Send Map-Request to DDT-node 4.4.4.4 ... map-server acknowledgement,
rtt: 0 ms
EID-prefix: [0] 12.0.1.0/28, ttl: 1440
referrals: 4.4.4.4, 5.5.5.5
Send Map-Request to DDT-node 5.5.5.5 ... map-server acknowledgement,
rtt: 0 ms
EID-prefix: [0] 12.0.1.0/28, ttl: 1440
referrals: 4.4.4.4, 5.5.5.5
No more referrals to pursue.
Here is some sample NX-OS output:
Router# rig 12.0.1.1 to 1.1.1.1
rig LISP-DDT hierarchy for EID [0] 12.0.1.1
Send Map-Request to DDT-node 1.1.1.1 ... replied, rtt: 0.003509 secs
EID-prefix [0] *, ttl: 1440, action: node-referral, referrals:
2.2.2.2, priority/weight: 0/0
Send Map-Request to DDT-node 2.2.2.2 ... replied, rtt: 0.003173 secs
EID-prefix [0] 12.0.0.0/20, ttl: 1440, action: node-referral,
referrals:
3.3.3.3, priority/weight: 0/0
Send Map-Request to DDT-node 3.3.3.3 ... replied, rtt: 0.004145 secs
EID-prefix [0] 12.0.1.0/24, ttl: 1440, action: node-referral,
referrals:
5.5.5.5, priority/weight: 0/0
6.6.6.6, priority/weight: 0/0
Send Map-Request to DDT-node 6.6.6.6 ... replied, rtt: 0.005800 secs
EID-prefix [0] 12.0.1.0/28, ttl: 1440, action: ms-ack, referrals:
5.5.5.5, priority/weight: 0/0
6.6.6.6, priority/weight: 0/0
Farinacci, et al. Expires June 18, 2015 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft LISP-DDT Referral Internet Groper (RIG) December 2014
6. Security Considerations
The use of rig does not affect the security of the LISP
infrastructure as it is simply a tool that facilities diagnostic
querying. See [RFC6830], [LISP-DDT], [RFC6833], and [LISP-THREATS]
for descriptions of the security properties of the LISP
infrastructure.
LISP rig provides easy access to the information in the public
mapping database. Therefore, it is important to protect the mapping
information for private use. This can be provided by disallowing
access to specific mapping entries or to place such entries in a
private mapping database system.
7. IANA Considerations
This document makes no request of the IANA.
8. References
8.1. Normative References
[LISP-DDT]
Fuller, V., Lewis, D., Ermagan, V., and A. Jain, "LISP
Delegated Database Tree", draft-ietf-lisp-ddt-04.txt (work
in progress), September 2014.
[RFC0791] Postel, J., "Internet Protocol", STD 5, RFC 791, September
1981.
[RFC1034] Mockapetris, P., "Domain names - concepts and facilities",
STD 13, RFC 1034, November 1987.
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[RFC6830] Farinacci, D., Fuller, V., Meyer, D., and D. Lewis, "The
Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP)", RFC 6830, January
2013.
[RFC6833] Fuller, V. and D. Farinacci, "Locator/ID Separation
Protocol (LISP) Map-Server Interface", RFC 6833, January
2013.
[RFC6835] Farinacci, D. and D. Meyer, "The Locator/ID Separation
Protocol Internet Groper (LIG)", RFC 6835, January 2013.
Farinacci, et al. Expires June 18, 2015 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft LISP-DDT Referral Internet Groper (RIG) December 2014
8.2. Informative References
[LISP-LCAF]
Farinacci, D., Meyer, D., and J. Snijders, "LISP Canonical
Address Format (LCAF)", draft-ietf-lisp-lcaf-07 (work in
progress), .
[LISP-THREATS]
Iannone, L., Saucez, D., and O. Bonaventure, "LISP Threats
Analysis", draft-ietf-lisp-threats-09.txt (work in
progress), April 2014.
[RFC2460] Deering, S. and R. Hinden, "Internet Protocol, Version 6
(IPv6) Specification", RFC 2460, December 1998.
[RFC3261] Rosenberg, J., Schulzrinne, H., Camarillo, G., Johnston,
A., Peterson, J., Sparks, R., Handley, M., and E.
Schooler, "SIP: Session Initiation Protocol", RFC 3261,
June 2002.
Appendix A. Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank Damien Saucez and Fabio Maino for
their ideas and comments. Appreciation goes to Joel Halpern, Luigi
Iannone, and Nevil Brownlee for progressing this document to
Informational RFC.
Appendix B. Document Change Log
B.1. Changes to draft-farinacci-lisp-rig-05.txt
o Draft posted December 2014.
o Changes that reflect comments from Damien so we can move this
draft to Informational RFC.
B.2. Changes to draft-farinacci-lisp-rig-04.txt
o Draft posted July 2014.
o Added LISP-DDT basic operation description in the Basic Overview
section.
o Fix editorial comments from Luigi Iannone.
Farinacci, et al. Expires June 18, 2015 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft LISP-DDT Referral Internet Groper (RIG) December 2014
B.3. Changes to draft-farinacci-lisp-rig-03.txt
o Draft posted March 2014.
o Resetting timer for expired draft.
B.4. Changes to draft-farinacci-lisp-rig-02.txt
o Draft posted September 2013.
o Resetting timer for expired draft.
o Update author affliations and reference RFCs.
B.5. Changes to draft-farinacci-lisp-rig-01.txt
o Draft posted March 2012.
o Updated reference to LISP-DDT".
B.6. Changes to draft-farinacci-lisp-rig-00.txt
o Initial draft posted March 2012.
Authors' Addresses
Dino Farinacci
lispers.net
San Jose, California
USA
Phone: 408-718-2001
Email: farinacci@gmail.com
Amit Jain
Juniper Networks
San Jose, California
USA
Email: atjain@juniper.net
Farinacci, et al. Expires June 18, 2015 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft LISP-DDT Referral Internet Groper (RIG) December 2014
Isidor Kouvelas
cisco Systems
Tasman Ave.
San Jose, California
USA
Email: kouvelas@cisco.com
Darrel Lewis
cisco Systems
Tasman Ave.
San Jose, California
USA
Email: darlewis@cisco.com
Farinacci, et al. Expires June 18, 2015 [Page 12]
