Internet DRAFT - draft-ietf-lisp-impact
draft-ietf-lisp-impact
Network Working Group D. Saucez
Internet-Draft INRIA
Intended status: Informational L. Iannone
Expires: May 23, 2016 Telecom ParisTech
A. Cabellos
F. Coras
Technical University of
Catalonia
November 20, 2015
LISP Impact
draft-ietf-lisp-impact-05.txt
Abstract
The Locator/Identifier Separation Protocol (LISP) aims at improving
the Internet routing scalability properties by leveraging on three
principles: address role separation, encapsulation, and mapping. In
this document, based on implementation work, deployment experiences,
and theoretical studies, we discuss the impact that the deployment of
LISP can have on both the routing infrastructure and the end-user.
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 May 23, 2016.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2015 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
Saucez, et al. Expires May 23, 2016 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft LISP Impact November 2015
publication of this document. Please review these documents
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. LISP in a nutshell . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. LISP for scaling the Internet Routing Architecture . . . . . . 4
4. Beyond scaling the Internet Routing Architecture . . . . . . . 6
4.1. Traffic engineering . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4.2. LISP for IPv6 Co-existence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4.3. Inter-domain multicast . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
5. Impact of LISP on operations and business models . . . . . . . 9
5.1. Impact on non-LISP traffic and sites . . . . . . . . . . . 10
5.2. Impact on LISP traffic and sites . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
8. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Saucez, et al. Expires May 23, 2016 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft LISP Impact November 2015
1. Introduction
The Locator/Identifier Separation Protocol (LISP) relies on three
principles to improve the scalability properties of Internet routing:
address role separation, encapsulation, and mapping. When invented,
LISP was targeted at solving the Internet routing scaling problem
([RFC4984]). There have now been years of implementations and
experiments examining the impact and open questions of using LISP to
improve inter-domain routing scalability. Experience has shown that
because LISP utilizes mapping and encapsulation technologies, it can
be deployed and used for purposes that go beyond routing scalability.
For example, LISP provides a mean for a LISP site to precisely
control its inter-domain outgoing and incoming traffic, with the
possibility to apply different policies to different domains
exchanging traffic with it. LISP can also be used to ease the
transition from IPv4 to IPv6 as it allows the transport of IPv4 over
IPv6 or IPv6 over IPv4. Furthermore, LISP also supports inter-domain
multicast.
Leveraging on implementation and deployment experience, as well as
research work, this document describes, at a high level, the impacts
and open questions still seen in LISP. This information is
particularly useful for considering future approaches and to support
further experimentation to clarify some large open questions (e.g.
around the operations). LISP utilizes a tunnel-based data plane and
a distributed control plane. LISP requires some new functionalities,
such as reachability mechanisms. Being more than a simple
encapsulation technology and as a new technology, until even more
deployment experience is gained, some open questions, related to LISP
deployment and operations, remain. As an encapsulation technology,
there may be concerns on reduced Maximum Transmission Unit (MTU) size
in some deployments. An important impact of LISP is on network
operations related to resiliency and troubleshooting. As LISP relies
on cached mappings and on encapsulation, resiliency during failures
and troubleshooting may be more difficult. Also, the use of
encapsulation may make failure detection and recovery slower and it
will require more coordination than with a single, non-encapsulated,
routing domain solution.
2. LISP in a nutshell
The Locator/Identifier Separation Protocol (LISP) relies on three
principles: address role separation, encapsulation, and mapping.
The address space is divided into two sets that have different
semantic meanings: the Routing Locators (RLOCs) and the Endpoint
Identifiers (EIDs). RLOCs are addresses typically assigned from the
Saucez, et al. Expires May 23, 2016 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft LISP Impact November 2015
Provider Aggregatable (PA) address space. The EIDs are attributed to
the nodes in the edge networks, by a block of contiguous addresses,
which are typically Provider Independent (PI). To limit the
scalability problem, LISP only requires the PA routes towards the
RLOCs to be announced in the Provider infrastructure. Whereas, for
non-LISP deployments the EIDs need as well to be propagated.
LISP routers are used at the boundary between the EID and the RLOC
spaces. Routers used to exit the EID space (towards the Provider
domain) are called Ingress Tunnel Router (ITRs) and those used to
enter the EID space (from the Provider domain) are called the Egress
Tunnel Routers (ETRs). When a host sends a packet to a remote
destination, it sends it as in the non-LISP Internet. The packet
arrives at the border of its site at an ITR. Because EIDs are not
routable on the Internet, the packet is encapsulated with the source
address set to the ITR RLOC and the destination address set to the
ETR RLOC. The encapsulated packet is then forwarded in the Provider
domain until it reaches the selected ETR. The ETR de-encapsulates
the packet and forwards it to its final destination. The acronym xTR
for Ingress/Egress tunnel router is used for a router playing these
two roles.
The correspondence between EIDs and RLOCs is given by the mappings.
When an ITR needs to find ETR RLOCs that serve an EID, it queries a
mapping system. With the LISP Canonical Address Format (LCAF)
[I-D.ietf-lisp-lcaf], LISP is not restricted to the Internet Protocol
for the EID addresses. With LCAF, any address type can be used as
EID (the address is only the key for the mapping lookup). LISP can
transport, for example, Ethernet frames over the Internet.
An introduction to LISP can be found in [RFC7215]. The LISP
specifications are given in [RFC6830], [RFC6833],
[I-D.ietf-lisp-ddt], [RFC6836], [RFC6832], [RFC6834].
3. LISP for scaling the Internet Routing Architecture
The original goal of LISP was to improve the scalability properties
of the Internet routing architecture. LISP utilizes traffic
engineering and stub AS prefixes (not announced anymore in the DFZ),
so that routing tables are smaller and more stable (i.e., they
experience less churn). Furthermore, at the edge of the network,
information necessary to forward packets (i.e., the mappings) is
obtained on demand using a pull model (whereas the current Internet
BGP model uses a push model). Therefore, the scalability of edge
networks is less dependent on the Internet's size and more related to
its traffic matrix. This scaling improvement has been proven by
several studies (see below). The research studies cited hereafter
Saucez, et al. Expires May 23, 2016 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft LISP Impact November 2015
are based on the following assumptions:
o EID-to-RLOC mappings follow the same prefix size as the current
BGP routing infrastructure (current PI addresses only);
o EIDs are used only at the stub ASes, not in the transit ASes;
o the RLOCs of an EID prefix are deployed at the edge between the
stubs owning the EID prefix and the providers, allocating the
RLOCs in a Provider Aggregetable (PA) mode.
The above assumptions are inline with [RFC7215] and current LISP
deployments. It is recognized these assumptions may change in the
longer term. [KIF13] and [CDLC] explore different EDI prefix space
sizes, and still show results that are consistent and equivalent to
the above assumptions.
Quoitin et al. [QIdLB07] show that the separation between locator
and identifier roles at the network level improves the routing
scalability by reducing the Routing Information Base (RIB) size (up
to one order of magnitude) and increases path diversity and thus the
traffic engineering capabilities. [IB07] and [KIF13] show, based on
real Internet traffic traces, that the number of mapping entries that
must be handled by an ITR of a network with up to 20,000 users is
limited to few tens of thousands; that the signaling traffic (i.e.,
Map-Request/Map-Reply packets) is in the same order of magnitude
similar to DNS requests/reply traffic; and that the encapsulation
overhead, while not negligible, is very limited (in the order of few
percentage points of the total traffic volume).
Previous studies consider the case of a timer-based cache eviction
policy (i.e., mappings are deleted from the cache upon timeout),
while [CDLC] has a more general approach based on the Least Recently
Used (LRU) eviction policy, proposing an analytic model for the EID-
to-RLOC cache size when prefix-level traffic has a stationary
generating process. The model shows that miss rate can be accurately
predicted from the EID-to-RLOC cache size and a small set of easily
measurable traffic parameters. The model was validated using four
one-day-long packet traces collected at egress points of a campus
network and an academic exchange point considering EID-prefixes as
being of the same size as BGP prefixes. Consequently, operators can
provision the EID-to-RLOC cache of their ITRs according to the miss
rate they want to achieve for their given traffic.
Results in [CDLC] indicate that for a given target miss-ratio, the
size of the cache depends only on the parameters of the popularity
distribution, being independent of the number of users (the size of
the LISP site) and the number of destinations (the size of the EID-
Saucez, et al. Expires May 23, 2016 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft LISP Impact November 2015
prefix space). Assuming that the popularity distribution remains
constant, this means that as the number of users and the number of
destinations grow, the cache size needed to obtain a given miss rate
remains constant O(1).
LISP usually populates its EID-to-RLOC cache in a pull mode which
means that mappings are retrieved on demand by the ITR. The main
advantage of this mode is that the EID-to-RLOC cache size only
depends on the traffic characteristics at the ITR and is independent
of the size of the Provider domain. This benefit comes at the cost
of some delay to transmit the packets that do not hit an entry in the
cache (for which a mapping has to be learned). This delay is bound
by the time necessary to retrieve the mapping from the mapping
system. Moreover, similarly to a push model (e.g., BGP), the pull
model induces signaling messages that correspond to the retrieval of
mappings upon cache miss. The difference being that the signaling
load only depends on the traffic at the ITR and is not triggered by
external events such as in BGP. [CDLC] shows that the miss rate is a
function of the EID-to-RLOC cache size and traffic generation process
and [CDLC], [SDIB08], and [SDIB08] show from traffic traces that, in
practice, the cache miss rate, and thus the signaling rate, remain
low.
4. Beyond scaling the Internet Routing Architecture
LISP is more than just a scalability solution, it is also a tool to
provide both incoming and outgoing traffic engineering ([S11],
[I-D.farinacci-lisp-te]), it can be used as an IPv6 transition at the
routing level, and it can be used for inter-domain multicast
([RFC6831], [I-D.coras-lisp-re]). Also, LISP has been identified for
use to support devices' Internet mobility ([I-D.meyer-lisp-mn]) and
to support virtual machines' mobility in data centers and multi-
tenant VPNs. These last two uses are not discussed further as they
are out of the scope of the current LISP Working Group charter.
A key advantage of the LISP architecture is that it facilitates
routing in environments where there is little to no correlation
between network endpoints and topological location. In service
provider environments, this application is needed in a range of
consumer use cases which require an inline anchor to deliver a
service to a subscribers. Inline anchors provide one of three types
of capabilities:
o enable mobility of subscriber end points
o enable chaining of middle-box functions and services
Saucez, et al. Expires May 23, 2016 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft LISP Impact November 2015
o enable seamless scale-out of functions
Without LISP, the approach commonly used by operators is to aggregate
service anchors in custom built boxes. This limits deployments as
end-points only can move on the same mobile gateway, functions can be
chained only if traffic traverses the same wire or the same DPI box,
and capacity can scale out only if traffic fans out to/from a
specific load balancer.
With LISP, service providers are able to distribute, virtualize, and
instantiate subscriber-service anchors anywhere in the network.
Typical use cases for virtualized inline anchors and network
functions include: Distributed Mobility and Virtualized Evolved
Packet Core (vEPC), Virtualized Customer Premise Equipment or vCPE,
where functionality previously anchored at a customer premises is now
dynamically allocated in-network, Virtualized SGi LAN, Virtual IMS
and Virtual SBC, etc.
ConteXtream ([ConteXtream]) has been deploying map-assisted overlay
networks since 2006, first with a proprietary solution, then evolving
to standard LISP. The solution has been deployed in production in
three tier-1 operators spanning hundreds of millions of subscribers.
Map assisted overlays had been primarily used to map subscriber flows
to services resources dynamically based on profiles and conditions.
Specifically it has been used to map mobile subscribers to value-
added/optimization services, broadband subscribes to telephony
services, and fixed-mobile subscribers to BNG (Broadband Network
Gateway) functions and Internet access services. The LISP map-
assisted overlay architecture is used to optimally resolve subscriber
to services to functions to instances to IP overlay aggregation
locations, just in time, per flow.
4.1. Traffic engineering
In the current (non-LISP)routing infrastructure, addresses used by
stub networks are globally routable and the routing system
distributes the routes to reach these stubs. With LISP, the EID
prefixes of a LISP site are not routable in the DFZ, mappings are
needed in order to determine the list of LISP routers to contact to
forward packets. This difference is significant for two reasons.
First, packets are not forwarded to a site but to a specific router.
Second, a site can control the entry points for its traffic by
controlling its mappings.
For traffic engineering purposes, a mapping associates an EID prefix
to a list of RLOCs. Each RLOC is annotated with a priority and a
weight. When there are several RLOCs, the ITR selects the one with
the highest priority and sends the encapsulated packet to this RLOC.
Saucez, et al. Expires May 23, 2016 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft LISP Impact November 2015
If several RLOCs with the highest priority exist, then the traffic is
balanced proportionally to their weight among such RLOCs. Traffic
engineering in LISP thus allows the mapping owner to have a fine-
grained control on the primary and backup path for its incoming and
outgoing packets use. In addition, it can share the load among its
links. An example of the use of such a feature is described by
Saucez et al. [SDIB08], showing how to use LISP to direct different
types of traffic on different links having different capacity.
Traffic engineering in LISP goes one step further. As every Map-
Request contains the Source EID Address of the packet that caused a
cache miss and triggered the Map-Request. It is thus possible for a
mapping owner to differentiate the answer (Map-Reply) it gives to
Map-Requests based on the requester. This functionality is not
available today with BGP because a domain cannot control exactly the
routes that will be received by domains that are not in the direct
neighborhood.
4.2. LISP for IPv6 Co-existence
The LISP encapsulation mechanism is designed to support any
combination of locators and identifiers address family. It is then
possible to bind IPv6 EIDs with IPv4 RLOCs and vice-versa. This
allows transporting IPv6 packets over an IPv4 network (or IPv4
packets over an IPv6 network), making LISP a valuable mechanism to
ease the transition to IPv6.
An example is the case of the network infrastructure of a datacenter
being IPv4-only while dual-stack front-end load balancers are used.
In this scenario, LISP can be used to provide IPv6 access to servers
even though the network and the servers only support IPv4. Assuming
that the datacenter's ISP offers IPv6 connectivity, the datacenter
only needs to deploy one (or more) xTR(s) at its border with the ISP
and one (or more) xTR(s) directly connected to the load balancers.
The xTR(s) at the ISP's border tunnels IPv6 packets over IPv4 to the
xTR(s) directly attached to the load balancer. The load balancer's
xTR de-encapsulates the packets and forwards them to the load
balancer, which act as proxies, translating each IPv6 packet into an
IPv4. IPv4 packets are then sent to the appropriate servers.
Similarly, when the server's response arrives at the load balancer,
the packet is translated back into an IPv6 packet and forwarded to
its xTR(s), which in turn will tunnel it back, over the IPv4-only
infrastructure, to an xTR connected to the ISP. The packet is then
de-encapsulated and forwarded to the ISP natively in IPv6.
Saucez, et al. Expires May 23, 2016 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft LISP Impact November 2015
4.3. Inter-domain multicast
LISP has native support for multicast [RFC6831]. From the data-plane
perspective, at a multicast enabled xTR, an EID sourced multicast
packet is encapsulated in another multicast packet and subsequently
forwarded in a RLOC-level distribution tree. Therefore, xTRs must
participate in both EID and RLOC level distribution trees. Control-
plane wise, since group addresses have no topological significance
they need not to be mapped. It is worth noting that, to properly
function, LISP-Multicast requires that inter-domain multicast be
available.
LISP Replication Engineering (RE) ([I-D.coras-lisp-re], [CDM12])
leverage LISP messages ([I-D.farinacci-lisp-mr-signaling]) for
multicast state distribution to construct xTR based inter-domain
multicast distribution trees when inter-domain multicast support is
not available. Simulations of three different management strategies
for low latency content delivery show that such overlays can support
thousands of member xTRs, hundreds of thousands of end-hosts and
deliver content at latencies close to unicast ones ([CDM12]). It was
also observed that high client churn has a limited impact on
performance and management overhead.
Similarly to LISP-RE, Signal-Free LISP Multicast
([I-D.farinacci-lisp-signal-free-multicast]) can be used when the
core network does not provide multicast support. But instead of
using signaling to build inter-domain multicast trees, signal-free
exclusively leverages the map-server for multicast state storage and
distribution. As a result, the source ITR generally performs head-
end replication but it might be also used to emulate LISP-RE
distribution trees.
5. Impact of LISP on operations and business models
Numerous implementation efforts ([IOSNXOS], [OpenLISP], [LISPmob],
[LISPClick], [LISPcp], and [LISPfritz]) have been made to assess the
specifications and, additionally, interoperability tests ([Was09])
have been successful. A world-wide large deployment in the
international lisp4.net testbed, which is currently composed of nodes
running at least three different implementations, will allow us to
learn further operational aspects related to LISP.
The following sections distinguish the impact of LISP on LISP sites
from the impact on non-LISP sites.
Saucez, et al. Expires May 23, 2016 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft LISP Impact November 2015
5.1. Impact on non-LISP traffic and sites
LISP has no impact on traffic which has neither LISP origin nor LISP
destination. However, LISP can have a significant impact on traffic
between a LISP site and a non-LISP site. Traffic between a non-LISP
site and a LISP site are subject to the same issues as those observed
for LISP-to-LISP traffic but also have issues specific to the
transition mechanism that allows the LISP site to exchange packets
with a non-LISP site ([RFC6832], [RFC7215]).
The transition requires setup of proxy tunnel routers (PxTRs).
Proxies cause what is referred to as path stretch (i.e., a
lengthening of the path compared to the topological shortest-path)
and make troubleshooting harder. There are still questions related
to PxTRs that need to be answered:
o Where to deploy PxTRs? The placement in the topology has an
important impact on the path stretch.
o How many PxTRs? The number of PxTR has a direct impact on the
load and the impact of the failure of a PxTR on the traffic.
o What part of the EID space? Will all the PxTRs be proxies for the
whole EID space or will it be segmented between different PxTRs?
o Who operates PxTRs? An important question to answer is related to
the entities that will deploy PxTRs, how will they manage their
additional CAPEX/OPEX costs associated with PxTRs? How will the
traffic be carried with respect to security and privacy?
A PxTR will also normally advertise in BGP the EID prefix for which
they are proxy. However, if proxies are managed by different
entities, they will belong to different ASes. In this case, we need
to be sure that this will not cause MOAS (Multi-Origin AS) issues
that could negatively influence routing. Moreover, it is important
to ensure that the way EID prefixes will be de-aggregated by the
proxies will remain reasonable so as not to contribute to BGP
scalability issues.
5.2. Impact on LISP traffic and sites
LISP is a protocol based on the map-and-encap paradigm which has the
positive impacts that we have summarized in the above sections.
However, LISP also has impacts on operations:
Saucez, et al. Expires May 23, 2016 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft LISP Impact November 2015
MTU issue: as LISP uses encapsulation, the MTU is reduced, this has
implications on potentially all of the traffic. However, in
practice, on the lisp4.net network, no major issue due to the
MTU has been observed. This is probably due to the fact that
current end-host stacks are well designed to deal with the
problem of MTU.
Resiliency issue: the advantage of flexibility and control offered
by the Locator/ID separation comes at the cost of increasing
the complexity of the reachability detection. Indeed,
identifiers are not directly routable and have to be mapped to
locators but a locator may be unreachable while others are
still reachable. This is an important problem for any tunnel-
based solution. In the current Internet, packets are forwarded
independently of the border router of the network meaning that,
in case of the failure of a border router, another one can be
used. With LISP, the destination RLOC specifically designates
one particular ETR, hence if this ETR fails, the traffic is
dropped, even though other ETRs are available for the
destination site. Another resiliency issue is linked to the
fact that mappings are learned on demand. When an ITR fails,
all its traffic is redirected to other ITRs that might not have
the mappings requested by the redirected traffic. Existing
studies ([SKI12], [SD12]) show, based on measurements and
traffic traces, that failure of ITRs and RLOC are infrequent
but that when such failure happens, a critical number of
packets can be dropped. Unfortunately, the current techniques
for LISP resiliency, based on monitoring or probing are not
rapid enough (failure recovery on the order of a few seconds).
To tackle this issue [I-D.bonaventure-lisp-preserve] and
[I-D.saucez-lisp-itr-graceful] propose techniques based on
local failure detection and recovery.
Middle boxes/filters: because of increasingly common use of
encryption as a response to pervasive monitoring ([RFC7258]),
with LISP providing the option to encrypt traffic between xTRs
([I-D.ietf-lisp-crypto]), middle boxes are increasingly likely
to be unable to understand encapsulated traffic, which can
cause them to drop legitimate packets. In addition, LISP
allows triangular or even rectangular routing, so it is
difficult to maintain a correct state even if the middle box
understands LISP. Finally, filtering may also have problems
because they may think only one host is generating the traffic
(the ITR), as long as it is not de-encapsulated. To deal with
LISP encapsulation, LISP aware firewalls that inspect inner
LISP packets are proposed [lispfirewall].
Saucez, et al. Expires May 23, 2016 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft LISP Impact November 2015
Troubleshooting/debugging: the major issue which LISP
experimentation has shown is the difficulty of troubleshooting.
When there is a problem in the network, it is hard to pin-point
the reason as the operator only has a partial view of the
network. The operator can see what is in its EID-to-RLOC
cache/database, and can try to obtain what is potentially
elsewhere by querying the Map Resolvers, but the knowledge
remains partial. On top of that, ICMP packets only carry the
first few tens of bytes of the original packet, which means
that when an ICMP arrives at the ITR, it might not contain
enough information to allow correct troubleshooting.
Deployment in the beta network has shown that LISP+ALT
([RFC6836]) was not easy to maintain and control ([CCR13]),
which explains the migration to LISP-DDT ([I-D.ietf-lisp-ddt]),
based on a massively distributed and hierarchical approach
([CCR13]).
Business/Operational-related: Iannone et al. [IL10] have shown that
there are economical incentives to migrate to LISP, however,
some questions remain. For example, how will the EIDs be
allocated to allow aggregation and hence scalability of the
mapping system? Who will operate the mapping system
infrastructure and for what benefits? What if several
operators run different mapping systems? How will they
interoperate or share mapping information?
Reachability: The overhead related to RLOC reachability mechanisms
is not known.
6. IANA Considerations
This document makes no request to the IANA.
7. Security Considerations
A thorough security and threats analysis of the LISP protocol is
carried out in details in [I-D.ietf-lisp-threats]. Like for other
Internet technologies, also for LISP most of threats can be mitigated
using Best Current Practice, meaning with careful deployment an
configuration (e.g., filter) and also by activating only features
that are really necessary in the deployment and verifying all the
information obtained from third parties. Unless gleaning (Section 6
of [RFC6836] and Section3.1 of [I-D.ietf-lisp-threats]) features are
used, the LISP data-plane shows the same level of security as other
IP-over-IP technologies. From a security perspective, the control-
plane remains the critical part of the LISP architecture. To
Saucez, et al. Expires May 23, 2016 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft LISP Impact November 2015
mitigate the threats on the mapping system, authentication should be
used for all control plane messages. The current specification
([RFC6836], [I-D.ietf-lisp-sec]) defines security mechanisms which
can reduce threats in open network environments. The LISP
specification defines a generic authentication data field for control
plane messages ([RFC6836]) which could be used for a general
authentication mechanisms for the LISP control-plane while staying
backward compatible.
8. Acknowledgments
Thanks to Deborah Brungard, Ben Campbell, Spencer Dawkins, Stephen
Farrel, Kathleen Moriarty, Hilarie Orman, and Wassim Haddad for their
thorough reviews, comments, and suggestions.
The people that contributed to this document are Alia Atlas, Sharon
Barkai, Vince Fuller, Joel Halpern, Terry Manderson, Gregg Schudel,
Ron Bonica, and Ross Callon.
The work of Luigi Iannone has been partially supported by the ANR-13-
INFR-0009 LISP-Lab Project (www.lisp-lab.org).
9. References
9.1. Normative References
[I-D.ietf-lisp-threats]
Saucez, D., Iannone, L., and O. Bonaventure, "LISP Threats
Analysis", draft-ietf-lisp-threats-13 (work in progress),
August 2015.
[RFC6830] Farinacci, D., Fuller, V., Meyer, D., and D. Lewis, "The
Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP)", RFC 6830,
DOI 10.17487/RFC6830, January 2013,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6830>.
[RFC6831] Farinacci, D., Meyer, D., Zwiebel, J., and S. Venaas, "The
Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP) for Multicast
Environments", RFC 6831, DOI 10.17487/RFC6831,
January 2013, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6831>.
[RFC6832] Lewis, D., Meyer, D., Farinacci, D., and V. Fuller,
"Interworking between Locator/ID Separation Protocol
(LISP) and Non-LISP Sites", RFC 6832, DOI 10.17487/
RFC6832, January 2013,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6832>.
Saucez, et al. Expires May 23, 2016 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft LISP Impact November 2015
[RFC6833] Fuller, V. and D. Farinacci, "Locator/ID Separation
Protocol (LISP) Map-Server Interface", RFC 6833,
DOI 10.17487/RFC6833, January 2013,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6833>.
[RFC6834] Iannone, L., Saucez, D., and O. Bonaventure, "Locator/ID
Separation Protocol (LISP) Map-Versioning", RFC 6834,
DOI 10.17487/RFC6834, January 2013,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6834>.
[RFC6836] Fuller, V., Farinacci, D., Meyer, D., and D. Lewis,
"Locator/ID Separation Protocol Alternative Logical
Topology (LISP+ALT)", RFC 6836, DOI 10.17487/RFC6836,
January 2013, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6836>.
[RFC7215] Jakab, L., Cabellos-Aparicio, A., Coras, F., Domingo-
Pascual, J., and D. Lewis, "Locator/Identifier Separation
Protocol (LISP) Network Element Deployment
Considerations", RFC 7215, DOI 10.17487/RFC7215,
April 2014, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7215>.
9.2. Informative References
[CCR13] Saucez, D., Iannone, L., and B. Donnet, "A First
Measurement Look at the Deployment and Evolution of the
Locator/ID Separation Protocol", ACM SIGCOMM Computer
Communication Review. Vol. 43, N. 2., April 2013.
[CDLC] Coras, F., Domingo, J., Lewis, D., and A. Cabellos, "An
Analytical Model for Loc/ID Mappings Caches", IEEE
Transactions on Networking, 2014.
[CDM12] Coras, F., Domingo-Pascual, J., Maino, F., Farinacci, D.,
and A. Cabellos-Aparicio, "Lcast: Software-defined Inter-
Domain Multicast", Elsevier Computer Networks, July 2014.
[ConteXtream]
ConteXtream Software Company, "SDN and NFV solutions for
carrier networks. (Further details on LISP only through
private inquiry.)", http://www.contextream.com.
[I-D.bonaventure-lisp-preserve]
Bonaventure, O., Francois, P., and D. Saucez, "Preserving
the reachability of LISP ETRs in case of failures",
draft-bonaventure-lisp-preserve-00 (work in progress),
July 2009.
[I-D.coras-lisp-re]
Saucez, et al. Expires May 23, 2016 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft LISP Impact November 2015
Coras, F., Cabellos-Aparicio, A., Domingo-Pascual, J.,
Maino, F., and D. Farinacci, "LISP Replication
Engineering", draft-coras-lisp-re-08 (work in progress),
November 2015.
[I-D.farinacci-lisp-mr-signaling]
Farinacci, D. and M. Napierala, "LISP Control-Plane
Multicast Signaling", draft-farinacci-lisp-mr-signaling-06
(work in progress), February 2015.
[I-D.farinacci-lisp-signal-free-multicast]
Moreno, V. and D. Farinacci, "Signal-Free LISP Multicast",
draft-farinacci-lisp-signal-free-multicast-03 (work in
progress), June 2015.
[I-D.farinacci-lisp-te]
Farinacci, D., Kowal, M., and P. Lahiri, "LISP Traffic
Engineering Use-Cases", draft-farinacci-lisp-te-09 (work
in progress), September 2015.
[I-D.ietf-lisp-crypto]
Farinacci, D. and B. Weis, "LISP Data-Plane
Confidentiality", draft-ietf-lisp-crypto-02 (work in
progress), September 2015.
[I-D.ietf-lisp-ddt]
Fuller, V., Lewis, D., Ermagan, V., and A. Jain, "LISP
Delegated Database Tree", draft-ietf-lisp-ddt-03 (work in
progress), April 2015.
[I-D.ietf-lisp-lcaf]
Farinacci, D., Meyer, D., and J. Snijders, "LISP Canonical
Address Format (LCAF)", draft-ietf-lisp-lcaf-11 (work in
progress), September 2015.
[I-D.ietf-lisp-sec]
Maino, F., Ermagan, V., Cabellos-Aparicio, A., and D.
Saucez, "LISP-Security (LISP-SEC)", draft-ietf-lisp-sec-09
(work in progress), October 2015.
[I-D.meyer-lisp-mn]
Farinacci, D., Lewis, D., Meyer, D., and C. White, "LISP
Mobile Node", draft-meyer-lisp-mn-13 (work in progress),
July 2015.
[I-D.saucez-lisp-itr-graceful]
Saucez, D., Bonaventure, O., Iannone, L., and C. Filsfils,
"LISP ITR Graceful Restart",
Saucez, et al. Expires May 23, 2016 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft LISP Impact November 2015
draft-saucez-lisp-itr-graceful-03 (work in progress),
December 2013.
[IB07] Iannone, L. and O. Bonaventure, "On the cost of caching
locator/id mappings", In Proc. ACM CoNEXT 2007,
December 2007.
[IL10] Iannone, L. and T. Leva, "Modeling the economics of Loc/ID
Separation for the Future Internet", Book Chapter,
Towards the Future Internet - Emerging Trends from the
European Research, IOS Press, May 2010.
[IOSNXOS] Cisco Systems Inc., "Locator/ID Separation Protocol
(LISP)", http://lisp4.cisco.com, 2013.
[KIF13] Kim, J., Iannone, L., and A. Feldmann, "Caching Locator/ID
Mappings: Scalability Analysis and Implications",
Elsevier Computer Networks Journal, March 2013.
[LISPClick]
Saucez, D. and V. Nguyen, "LISP-Click: A Click
implementation of the Locator/ID Separation Protocol",
1st Symposium on Click Modular Router, 2009,
November 2009.
[LISPcp] "The lip6-lisp Project", https://github.com/lip6-lisp/,
2014.
[LISPfritz]
"Unsere FRITZ!Box-Produkte",
http://avm.de/produkte/fritzbox/, 2014.
[LISPmob] "An open-source LISP implementation for Linux, Android and
OpenWRT", http://lispmob.org, 2015.
[OpenLISP]
"The OpenLISP Project", http://www.openlisp.org, 2013.
[QIdLB07] Quoitin, B., Iannone, L., de Launois, C., and O.
Bonaventure, "Evaluating the benefits of the locator/
identifier separation", In Proc. ACM MobiArch 2007,
May 2007.
[RFC4984] Meyer, D., Ed., Zhang, L., Ed., and K. Fall, Ed., "Report
from the IAB Workshop on Routing and Addressing",
RFC 4984, DOI 10.17487/RFC4984, September 2007,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4984>.
Saucez, et al. Expires May 23, 2016 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft LISP Impact November 2015
[RFC7258] Farrell, S. and H. Tschofenig, "Pervasive Monitoring Is an
Attack", BCP 188, RFC 7258, DOI 10.17487/RFC7258,
May 2014, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7258>.
[S11] Saucez, D., "Mechanisms for Interdomain Traffic
Engineering with LISP", PhD Thesis, Universite catholique
de Louvain, 2011, October 2011.
[SD12] Saucez, D. and B. Donnet, "On the Dynamics of Locators in
LISP", In Proc. IFIP Networking 2012, May 2012.
[SDIB08] Saucez, D., Donnet, B., Iannone, L., and O. Bonaventure,
"Interdomain Traffic Engineering in a Locator/Identifier
Separation Context", In Proc. of Internet Network
Management Workshop, 2008, October 2008.
[SKI12] Saucez, D., Kim, J., Iannone, L., Bonaventure, O., and C.
Filsfils, "A Local Approach to Fast Failure Recovery of
LISP Ingress Tunnel Routers", In Proc. IFIP Networking
2012, May 2012.
[Was09] Wasserman, M., "LISP Interoperability Testing", IETF 76,
LISP WG presentation, 2009., November 2009.
[lispfirewall]
"LISP and Zone-Based Firewalls Integration and
Interoperability", http://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/td/docs/
ios-xml/ios/sec_data_zbf/configuration/xe-3s/
sec-data-zbf-xe-book/sec-zbf-lisp-inner-pac-insp.html,
2014.
Authors' Addresses
Damien Saucez
INRIA
2004 route des Lucioles BP 93
06902 Sophia Antipolis Cedex
France
Email: damien.saucez@inria.fr
Saucez, et al. Expires May 23, 2016 [Page 17]
Internet-Draft LISP Impact November 2015
Luigi Iannone
Telecom ParisTech
23, Avenue d'Italie, CS 51327
75214 PARIS Cedex 13
France
Email: ggx@gigix.net
Albert Cabellos
Technical University of Catalonia
C/Jordi Girona, s/n
08034 Barcelona
Spain
Email: acabello@ac.upc.edu
Florin Coras
Technical University of Catalonia
C/Jordi Girona, s/n
08034 Barcelona
Spain
Email: fcoras@ac.upc.edu
Saucez, et al. Expires May 23, 2016 [Page 18]
