Internet DRAFT - draft-saucez-lisp-impact
draft-saucez-lisp-impact
Network Working Group D. Saucez
Internet-Draft INRIA
Intended status: Informational L. Iannone
Expires: April 27, 2015 Telecom ParisTech
A. Cabellos
F. Coras
Technical University of Catalonia
October 24, 2014
LISP Impact
draft-saucez-lisp-impact-07.txt
Abstract
The Locator/Identifier Separation Protocol (LISP) aims at improving
the Internet scalability properties leveraging on three simple
principles: address role separation, encapsulation, and mapping. In
this document, based on implementation, deployment, and theoretical
studies, we discuss the impact that deployment of LISP can have on
both the Internet in general and for the end-users in particular.
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 April 27, 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
Saucez, et al. Expires April 27, 2015 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft LISP Impact October 2014
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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. LISP in a nutshell . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. LISP for scaling the Internet . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
4. Beyond scaling the Internet . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4.1. Traffic engineering . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4.2. LISP for IPv6 Co-existence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4.3. Inter-domain multicast . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
5. Impact of LISP on operations and business model . . . . . . . 8
5.1. Impact on non-LISP traffic and sites . . . . . . . . . . 8
5.2. Impact on LISP traffic and sites . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
8. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
1. Introduction
The Locator/Identifier Separation Protocol (LISP) relies on three
simple principles to scale the Internet: address role separation,
encapsulation, and mapping. The main goal of LISP is to make the
Internet more scalable by reducing the number of prefixes announced
in the Default Free Zone (DFZ) as well as its related churn. As LISP
relies on mapping and encapsulation, it turns out that it provides
more benefits than just 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 the different domains exchanging traffic with it. LISP
can also be used to ease the transition from IPv4 to IPv6 as it
allows to transport IPv4 over IPv6 or IPv6 over IPv4. Furthermore,
LISP also provides a solution to perform inter-domain multicast.
This document discusses the impact of LISP's deployment on the
Internet and on end-users and shows the consequences of the
interworking infrastructure in path stretch. There still are many,
economical rather than technical, open questions related to the
deployment of such infrastructure. Moreover, encapsulation may raise
some issues (that do not have a real impact in practice) because it
Saucez, et al. Expires April 27, 2015 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft LISP Impact October 2014
reduces the Maximum Transmission Unit (MTU) size. An important
impact of LISP on network operations is related to resiliency and
troubleshooting. Indeed, as LISP relies on cached mappings and on
encapsulation, troubleshooting is harder than in the traditional
Internet. Also, end-to-end encapsulation stresses resiliency as it
makes failure detection and recovery slower than with hop-by-hop
routing.
2. LISP in a nutshell
The Locator/Identifier Separation Protocol (LISP) relies on three
simple principles: address role separation, encapsulation, and
mapping.
Semantics of address are separated in two: the Routing Locators
(RLOCs) and the Endpoint Identifiers (EIDs). RLOCs are assigned from
the address space of the Internet service providers (PA). The EIDs
are attributed, to the nodes in the edge network, by block of
contiguous addresses extracted from the EID Space. To limit the
scalability problem of today's Internet, only the routes towards the
RLOCs are announced in the Internet while EIDs are also propagated
today.
LISP routers are used at the boundary between the EID and the RLOC
spaces. Routers used to exit the EID space are called Ingress Tunnel
Router (ITRs) and those used to enter the EID space the Egress Tunnel
Routers (ETRs). When a host sends a packet to a remote destination,
it sends it as in today's Internet. The packet eventually 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 Internet until it
reaches the selected ETR. The ETR decapsulates 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 the
mapping system. It is worth noticing that 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 the key for the mapping
lookup) and LISP can then transport, for example, Ethernet frames
over the Internet.
A more thorough introduction to LISP can be found in
[I-D.ietf-lisp-introduction]. The complete specifications are given
Saucez, et al. Expires April 27, 2015 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft LISP Impact October 2014
in [RFC6830], [RFC6833], [I-D.fuller-lisp-ddt], [RFC6836], [RFC6832],
[RFC6834], and [I-D.ietf-lisp-sec].
3. LISP for scaling the Internet
The first goal of LISP is to scale the Internet. LISP improves the
Internet's scalability because traffic engineering and stub AS
prefixes are not propagated in the DFZ, so routing tables are smaller
and more stable (i.e., less affected by churn). Also, at the edge
network, information necessary to forward packets (i.e., the
mappings) is usually obtained on demand using a pull model.
Therefore, for each edge network they scale with the traffic matrix
of the edge network and are independent of the Internet's size. This
scaling improvement is proven by several works.
Quoitin et al. show in [QIdLB07] that the separation between locator
and identifier roles at the network level improves the routing
scalability by reducing the RIB size (up to one order of magnitude)
and increases the path diversity and thus the traffic engineering
capabilities. In addition, Iannone and Bonaventure show in [IB07]
that the number of mapping entries that must be supported at an ITR
of a 10,000 users campus network is limited and does not represent
more that 3 to 4 Megabytes of memory. Furthermore, they show that
signaling traffic (i.e., Map-Request/Map-Reply packets) is in the
same order of magnitude like DNS requests traffic and that
encapsulation overhead, while not negligible, is very limited (in the
order of few percentage points of the total traffic volume).
Similarly, Kim et al. show that the EID-to-RLOC cache size should not
exceed 14 MB for an ITR responsible of more than 20,000 residential
ADSL users at a large ISP [KIF11]. [IB07], [KIF11] rely on BGP and
traffic traces to determine the number of entries to keep in the EID-
to-RLOC cache. In both papers, the size of the cache is inferred
from the number of entries by considering that every EID is
associated with two or three locators. [S11] confirms these results
by looking at the distribution of the number of locators per EID if
LISP were deployed in the 2010's Internet. The assumptions in these
studies are:
o contiguous addresses tend to be used similarly, EID prefixes
follow the current BGP prefixes decomposition;
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 and locator
addresses are allocated in a Provider Aggregetable (PA) mode.
Saucez, et al. Expires April 27, 2015 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft LISP Impact October 2014
While all previous studies consider the case of a timer-based cache
eviction policy (i.e., mappings are deleted from the cache upon
timeout), [CCD12] generalizes the caching discussion for the Least
Recently Used (LRU) eviction policy and proposes 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 BGP-prefix granularity. 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.
The results indicate that for a given miss ratio, cache size only
depends on the parameters of the popularity distribution and is in
fact independent of the number of users (the size of the LISP site)
and the number of destinations (the size of the EID-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).
Under normal user traffic, miss-ratio decreases at an accelerated
pace with cache size and finally settles to a power-law decrease.
However, [CDLC] extends the model to account for scanning attacks,
whereby attackers generate a constant flux of packets according to
random scans of the destination prefix space and shows that miss-
ratios are be very high and independent of cache size. In fact, if
the attack is merely 1% of the legitimate traffic, the miss rate does
not drop under 1% as long as the cache cannot accommodate the whole
prefix space. Locality measurements also suggested that LRU eviction
policy should be close to optimal.
TBD: add a paragraph to explain thhe operational difference while
dealing with a pull model instead of a push.
4. Beyond scaling the Internet
Even though it is its main goal, LISP is more than just a scalability
solution, it is also a tool to provide both incoming and outgoing
traffic engineering [S11], can be used as an IPv6 transition at the
routing level, and for inter-domain multicast [RFC6831],
[I-D.coras-lisp-re]. LISP has also proven to be a good protocol for
mobility of devices in the Internet [I-D.meyer-lisp-mn] or even
virtual machine mobility in data centers and multi-tenant VPN,
however, we don't further discuss in details the two last points as
they are out of the scope of the charter.
Saucez, et al. Expires April 27, 2015 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft LISP Impact October 2014
Lisp architecture facilitates routing in environments where there is
little to no correlation between network endpoints and topological
location. In service provider environment this use is evident in a
range of consumer use cases which require an inline anchor in-order
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
o enable seamless scale-out of functions
Without LISP operators are forced to centralize service anchors in
custom built special boxes. This means that end-points can move as
long as their traffic ends up on the same mobile gateway, functions
can be chained as long as all traffic traverses the same wire or the
same DPI box, and capacity can scale out as long as traffic fans out
to and form a specific load balancer.
With LISP service providers are able to distribute, virtualize, and
insatiate subscriber-service anchors anywhere in the network.
Typical use cases that Virtualize inline anchors and network
functions include: Distributed Mobility and Virtualized Evolved
Packet Core (vEPC), where centralization makes way to distributed and
virtualized inline anchoring of mobility, Virtualized Customer
Premise Equipment or vCPE, where functionality previously anchored at
customer prem is now dynamically allocated in-network, Virtualized
SGi LAN, where value added mobile services previously anchored inside
full-stack boxes or anchored to physical wires with permutation
setups aka "Rails", Virtual IMS and Virtual SBC, etc.
Current deployments by ConteXtream, using a pre standards (designed
2006) based architecture, support a total of 100 millions subscribers
with such an architecture. A deployment at a tier-1 US Mobile
operator over 50 millions subscribers provides a 39% download rate
improvement over LTE.
4.1. Traffic engineering
In today's Internet, stub networks are globally routable and the
routing system distributes the routes to reach these stubs. On the
contrary, the EID prefixes of a LISP site are not routable on the
Internet and mappings are needed to determine the list of LISP
routers to contact to send them packets. The difference is
significant for two reasons. First, packets are not sent to a site
but to a specific ingress router. Second, a site can control the
entry points for its traffic by controlling its mappings.
Saucez, et al. Expires April 27, 2015 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft LISP Impact October 2014
For traffic engineering purpose, 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 lowest priority value and sends the encapsulated packet to this
RLOC. If several such RLOCs exist, then the traffic is balanced
proportionally to their weight among the RLOCs with the lowest
priority value. Traffic engineering in LISP thus allows the mapping
owner to have a fine-grained control on the primary and backup path
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 in [SDIB08], where Saucez et al. show 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.
A not so uncommon 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 decapsulates the packets and
forward 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
Saucez, et al. Expires April 27, 2015 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft LISP Impact October 2014
ISP. The packet is then decapsulated and forwarded to the ISP
natively in IPv6.
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 be mapped. It is worth noting that, to properly
function inter-domain, LISP-Multicast requires that inter-domain
multicast be prior deployed.
[I-D.coras-lisp-re] and [CDM12] propose a technique to construct xTR
based inter-domain multicast distribution trees. 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.
5. Impact of LISP on operations and business model
Important implementation efforts ([IOSNXOS], [OpenLISP], [LISPmob],
[LISPClick], [LISPcp], and [LISPfritz]) have been made to assess the
specifications and interoperability tests [Was09] have been a
success. World-wide large deployment in the international lisp4.net
testbed, which is currently composed of nodes running at least three
different implementations, allows to learn operational matters
related to LISP.
We have to distinguish the impact of LISP on LISP sites from the
impact on non-LISP sites.
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 than those
observed for LISP-to-LISP traffic (cf infra) but also have issues
specific to the transition mechanism that allow LISP site to exchange
packets with non-LISP site ([RFC6832], [I-D.ietf-lisp-deployment]).
Saucez, et al. Expires April 27, 2015 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft LISP Impact October 2014
Indeed, the transition requires to setup proxy tunnel routers
(PxTRs). PxTRs do not cause particular technical issue. However, by
definition proxies cause path stretch and make troubleshooting
harder. There are still big questions related to PxTRs that have 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 to operate PxTRs? The IETF does not aim at providing business
model hints, however, an important question to answer is related
to the entities that will deploy PxTRs, how they will manage their
CAPEX/OPEX and how the traffic will be carried with respect for
the security and privacy.
PxTR also normally have to advertise in BGP the EID prefix they are
proxy for. However, if proxies are managed by different entities,
they will belong to different ASes. In this case, we have to be sure
that it will not cause MOA issues that could negatively influence
routing. Moreover, we have to be sure that the way EID prefixes will
be deaggregated by the proxies will remain reasonable to not take
part in the 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 effects that we have given in the sections above. However,
by design, LISP also has side impact on operations:
MTU issue: as LISP uses encapsulation, the MTU is reduced, this has
implication on potentially all 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-
Saucez, et al. Expires April 27, 2015 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft LISP Impact October 2014
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 designate
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
yet the mappings for the redirected traffic. The study in
[SKI12] and [SD12] show, based on measurements and traffic
traces, that failure of ITRs and RLOC are infrequent but that
when such failure happens, an important number of packet can be
dropped. Unfortunately, the current techniques for LISP
resiliency, based on monitoring or probing are not rapid enough
(failure recovery of 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 encapsulation, the middle boxes
might not understand the traffic which can cause firewall to
drop legitimate packets. In addition, LISP allows triangular
or even rectangular routing, so it is hard to maintain a
correct state even if the middle box perfectly understands
LISP. Finally, filtering might also have problems because they
might think only one host is generating the traffic (the ITR),
as long as it is not decapsulated. To deal with LISP
encapsulation, LISP aware firewalls that inspect inner LISP
packets are proposed [lispfirewall].
Troubleshooting/debugging: the major issue years of LISP
experimentation have 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 is too small,
which means that when an ICMP arrives at the ITR, it might not
contain enough information to make correct troubleshooting.
Interestingly, deployment in the beta network has shown that
LISP+ALT was not easy to maintain and control, which explains
the migration to LISP-DDT [I-D.fuller-lisp-ddt].
Business: the IETF is not aiming at providing business models.
However, even though [IL10] shown that there is economical
incentives to migrate to LISP, some questions are on hold. For
Saucez, et al. Expires April 27, 2015 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft LISP Impact October 2014
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 benefit?
6. IANA Considerations
This document makes no request to the IANA.
7. Security Considerations
Security and threats analysis of the LISP protocol is out of the
scope of the present document. A thorough analysis of LISP security
threats is detailed in [I-D.ietf-lisp-threats].
8. Acknowledgments
The people that contributed to this document are Sharon Barkai, Vince
Fuller, Joel Halpern, Terry Manderson, and Gregg Schudel.
9. References
9.1. Normative References
[I-D.fuller-lisp-ddt]
Fuller, V., Lewis, D., Ermagan, V., and A. Jain, "LISP
Delegated Database Tree", draft-fuller-lisp-ddt-04 (work
in progress), September 2012.
[I-D.ietf-lisp-deployment]
Jakab, L., Cabellos-Aparicio, A., Coras, F., Domingo-
Pascual, J., and D. Lewis, "LISP Network Element
Deployment Considerations", draft-ietf-lisp-deployment-12
(work in progress), January 2014.
[I-D.ietf-lisp-sec]
Maino, F., Ermagan, V., Cabellos-Aparicio, A., and D.
Saucez, "LISP-Security (LISP-SEC)", draft-ietf-lisp-sec-07
(work in progress), October 2014.
[RFC6830] Farinacci, D., Fuller, V., Meyer, D., and D. Lewis, "The
Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP)", RFC 6830, January
2013.
[RFC6831] Farinacci, D., Meyer, D., Zwiebel, J., and S. Venaas, "The
Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP) for Multicast
Environments", RFC 6831, January 2013.
Saucez, et al. Expires April 27, 2015 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft LISP Impact October 2014
[RFC6832] Lewis, D., Meyer, D., Farinacci, D., and V. Fuller,
"Interworking between Locator/ID Separation Protocol
(LISP) and Non-LISP Sites", RFC 6832, January 2013.
[RFC6833] Fuller, V. and D. Farinacci, "Locator/ID Separation
Protocol (LISP) Map-Server Interface", RFC 6833, January
2013.
[RFC6834] Iannone, L., Saucez, D., and O. Bonaventure, "Locator/ID
Separation Protocol (LISP) Map-Versioning", RFC 6834,
January 2013.
[RFC6836] Fuller, V., Farinacci, D., Meyer, D., and D. Lewis,
"Locator/ID Separation Protocol Alternative Logical
Topology (LISP+ALT)", RFC 6836, January 2013.
9.2. Informative References
[CCD12] Coras, F., Cabellos-Aparicio, A., and J. Domingo-Pascual,
"An Analytical Model for the LISP Cache Size", In Proc.
IFIP Networking 2012, May 2012.
[CDLC] Coras, F., Domingo, J., Lewis, D., and A. Cabellos, "An
Analytical Model for Loc/ID Mappings Caches", Technical
Report http://arxiv.org/pdf/1312.1378v2.pdf, 2013.
[CDM12] Coras, F., Domingo-Pascual, J., Maino, F., Farinacci, D.,
and A. Cabellos-Aparicio, "Lcast: Software-defined Inter-
Domain Multicast", Technical Report, Universitat
Politecnica de Catalunya, 2012, July 2012.
[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.chiappa-lisp-architecture]
Art, Y., "An Architectural Perspective on the LISP
Location-Identity Separation System", draft-chiappa-lisp-
architecture-01 (work in progress), July 2012.
[I-D.coras-lisp-re]
Coras, F., Cabellos-Aparicio, A., Domingo-Pascual, J.,
Maino, F., and D. Farinacci, "LISP Replication
Engineering", draft-coras-lisp-re-05 (work in progress),
April 2014.
Saucez, et al. Expires April 27, 2015 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft LISP Impact October 2014
[I-D.ietf-lisp-introduction]
Cabellos-Aparicio, A. and D. Saucez, "An Architectural
Introduction to the Locator/ID Separation Protocol
(LISP)", draft-ietf-lisp-introduction-06 (work in
progress), October 2014.
[I-D.ietf-lisp-lcaf]
Farinacci, D., Meyer, D., and J. Snijders, "LISP Canonical
Address Format (LCAF)", draft-ietf-lisp-lcaf-06 (work in
progress), October 2014.
[I-D.ietf-lisp-threats]
Saucez, D., Iannone, L., and O. Bonaventure, "LISP Threats
Analysis", draft-ietf-lisp-threats-10 (work in progress),
July 2014.
[I-D.meyer-lisp-mn]
Farinacci, D., Lewis, D., Meyer, D., and C. White, "LISP
Mobile Node", draft-meyer-lisp-mn-11 (work in progress),
July 2014.
[I-D.saucez-lisp-itr-graceful]
Saucez, D., Bonaventure, O., Iannone, L., and C. Filsfils,
"LISP ITR Graceful Restart", 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.
[KIF11] Kim, J., Iannone, L., and A. Feldmann, "Deep dive into the
lisp cache and what isps should know about it", In Proc.
IFIP Networking 2011, May 2011.
[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.
Saucez, et al. Expires April 27, 2015 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft LISP Impact October 2014
[LISPcp] "The lip6-lisp Project", https://github.com/lip6-lisp/,
2014.
[LISPfritz]
"Unsere FRITZ!Box-Produkte",
http://avm.de/produkte/fritzbox/, 2014.
[LISPmob] "LISP Mobile Node for Linux", http://lispmob.org, 2013.
[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.
[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.
Saucez, et al. Expires April 27, 2015 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft LISP Impact October 2014
Authors' Addresses
Damien Saucez
INRIA
2004 route des Lucioles BP 93
06902 Sophia Antipolis Cedex
France
Email: damien.saucez@inria.fr
Luigi Iannone
Telecom ParisTech
23, Avenue d'Italie, CS 51327
75214 PARIS Cedex 13
France
Email: luigi.iannone@telecom-paristech.fr
Albert Cabellos
Technical University of Catalonia
C/Jordi Girona, s/n
08034 Barcelona
Spain
Email: fcoras@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 April 27, 2015 [Page 15]
