💾 Archived View for gemini.bortzmeyer.org › rfc-mirror › rfc6834.txt captured on 2023-11-04 at 13:01:57.
⬅️ Previous capture (2021-11-30)
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) L. Iannone
Request for Comments: 6834 Telecom ParisTech
Category: Experimental D. Saucez
ISSN: 2070-1721 INRIA Sophia Antipolis
O. Bonaventure
Universite catholique de Louvain
January 2013
Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP) Map-Versioning
Abstract
This document describes the LISP (Locator/ID Separation Protocol)
Map-Versioning mechanism, which provides in-packet information about
Endpoint ID to Routing Locator (EID-to-RLOC) mappings used to
encapsulate LISP data packets. The proposed approach is based on
associating a version number to EID-to-RLOC mappings and the
transport of such a version number in the LISP-specific header of
LISP-encapsulated packets. LISP Map-Versioning is particularly
useful to inform communicating Ingress Tunnel Routers (ITRs) and
Egress Tunnel Routers (ETRs) about modifications of the mappings used
to encapsulate packets. The mechanism is transparent to
implementations not supporting this feature, since in the LISP-
specific header and in the Map Records, bits used for Map-Versioning
can be safely ignored by ITRs and ETRs that do not support the
mechanism.
Status of This Memo
This document is not an Internet Standards Track specification; it is
published for examination, experimental implementation, and
evaluation.
This document defines an Experimental Protocol for the Internet
community. This document is a product of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). It represents the consensus of the IETF
community. It has received public review and has been approved for
publication by the Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG). Not
all documents approved by the IESG are a candidate for any level of
Internet Standard; see Section 2 of RFC 5741.
Information about the current status of this document, any errata,
and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at
http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6834.
Iannone, et al. Experimental [Page 1]
RFC 6834 LISP Map-Versioning January 2013
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2013 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
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction ....................................................3
2. Requirements Notation ...........................................4
3. Definitions of Terms ............................................4
4. EID-to-RLOC Map-Version Number ..................................4
4.1. The Null Map-Version .......................................5
5. Dealing with Map-Version Numbers ................................6
5.1. Handling Destination Map-Version Number ....................7
5.2. Handling Source Map-Version Number .........................9
6. LISP Header and Map-Version Numbers ............................10
7. Map Record and Map-Version .....................................11
8. Benefits and Case Studies for Map-Versioning ...................12
8.1. Map-Versioning and Unidirectional Traffic .................12
8.2. Map-Versioning and Interworking ...........................12
8.2.1. Map-Versioning and Proxy-ITRs ......................13
8.2.2. Map-Versioning and LISP-NAT ........................13
8.2.3. Map-Versioning and Proxy-ETRs ......................14
8.3. RLOC Shutdown/Withdraw ....................................14
8.4. Map-Version for Lightweight LISP Implementation ...........15
9. Incremental Deployment and Implementation Status ...............15
10. Security Considerations .......................................16
10.1. Map-Versioning against Traffic Disruption ................16
10.2. Map-Versioning against Reachability Information DoS ......17
11. Open Issues and Considerations ................................17
11.1. Lack of Synchronization among ETRs .......................17
12. Acknowledgments ...............................................19
13. References ....................................................19
13.1. Normative References .....................................19
13.2. Informative References ...................................19
Appendix A. Estimation of Time before Map-Version Wrap-Around .....21
Iannone, et al. Experimental [Page 2]
RFC 6834 LISP Map-Versioning January 2013
1. Introduction
This document describes the Map-Versioning mechanism used to provide
information on changes in the EID-to-RLOC (Endpoint ID to Routing
Locator) mappings used in the LISP (Locator/ID Separation Protocol
[RFC6830]) context to perform packet encapsulation. The mechanism is
totally transparent to xTRs (Ingress and Egress Tunnel Routers) not
supporting such functionality. It is not meant to replace any
existing LISP mechanisms but rather to extend them by providing new
functionalities. If for any unforeseen reason a normative conflict
between this document and the LISP main specifications is found, the
latter ([RFC6830]) has precedence over this document.
The basic mechanism is to associate a Map-Version number to each LISP
EID-to-RLOC mapping and transport such a version number in the LISP-
specific header. When a mapping changes, a new version number is
assigned to the updated mapping. A change in an EID-to-RLOC mapping
can be a change in the RLOCs set, by adding or removing one or more
RLOCs, but it can also be a change in the priority or weight of one
or more RLOCs.
When Map-Versioning is used, LISP-encapsulated data packets contain
the version number of the two mappings used to select the RLOCs in
the outer header (i.e., both source and destination). These version
numbers are encoded in the 24 low-order bits of the first longword of
the LISP header and indicated by a specific bit in the flags (first 8
high-order bits of the first longword of the LISP header). Note that
not all packets need to carry version numbers.
When an ITR (Ingress Tunnel Router) encapsulates a data packet, with
a LISP header containing the Map-Version numbers, it puts in the
LISP-specific header two version numbers:
1. The version number assigned to the mapping (contained in the
EID-to-RLOC Database) used to select the source RLOC.
2. The version number assigned to the mapping (contained in the
EID-to-RLOC Cache) used to select the destination RLOC.
This operation is two-fold. On the one hand, it enables the ETR
(Egress Tunnel Router) receiving the packet to know if the ITR has
the latest version number that any ETR at the destination EID site
has provided to the ITR in a Map-Reply. If this is not the case, the
ETR can send to the ITR a Map-Request containing the updated mapping
or solicit a Map-Request from the ITR (both cases are already defined
in [RFC6830]). In this way, the ITR can update its EID-to-RLOC
Cache. On the other hand, it enables an ETR receiving such a packet
Iannone, et al. Experimental [Page 3]
RFC 6834 LISP Map-Versioning January 2013
to know if it has in its EID-to-RLOC Cache the latest mapping for the
source EID (in the case of bidirectional traffic). If this is not
the case, a Map-Request can be sent.
Issues and concerns about the deployment of LISP for Internet traffic
are discussed in [RFC6830]. Section 11 provides additional issues
and concerns raised by this document. In particular, Section 11.1
provides details about the ETRs' synchronization issue in the context
of Map-Versioning.
2. Requirements Notation
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119].
3. Definitions of Terms
This document uses terms already defined in the main LISP
specification [RFC6830]. Here, we define the terms that are specific
to the Map-Versioning mechanism. Throughout the whole document, Big
Endian bit ordering is used.
Map-Version number: An unsigned 12-bit integer is assigned to an
EID-to-RLOC mapping, not including the value 0 (0x000).
Null Map-Version: The 12-bit null value of 0 (0x000) is not used as
a Map-Version number. It is used to signal that no Map-Version
number is assigned to the EID-to-RLOC mapping.
Source Map-Version number: This Map-Version number of the
EID-to-RLOC mapping is used to select the source address (RLOC)
of the outer IP header of LISP-encapsulated packets.
Destination Map-Version number: This Map-Version number of the
EID-to-RLOC mapping is used to select the destination address
(RLOC) of the outer IP header of LISP-encapsulated packets.
4. EID-to-RLOC Map-Version Number
The EID-to-RLOC Map-Version number consists of an unsigned 12-bit
integer. The version number is assigned on a per-mapping basis,
meaning that different mappings have a different version number,
which is also updated independently. An update in the version number
(i.e., a newer version) consists of incrementing by one the older
version number. Appendix A contains a rough estimation of the
wrap-around time for the Map-Version number.
Iannone, et al. Experimental [Page 4]
RFC 6834 LISP Map-Versioning January 2013
The space of version numbers has a circular order where half of the
version numbers are greater (i.e., newer) than the current
Map-Version number and the other half of the version numbers are
smaller (i.e., older) than the current Map-Version number. In a more
formal way, assuming that we have two version numbers V1 and V2 and
that the numbers are expressed in N bits, the following steps MUST be
performed (in the same order as shown below) to strictly define their
order:
1. V1 = V2 : The Map-Version numbers are the same.
2. V2 > V1 : if and only if
V2 > V1 AND (V2 - V1) <= 2**(N-1)
OR
V1 > V2 AND (V1 - V2) > 2**(N-1)
3. V1 > V2 : otherwise.
Using 12 bits, as defined in this document, and assuming a
Map-Version value of 69, Map-Version numbers in the range
[70; 69 + 2048] are greater than 69, while Map-Version numbers in the
range [69 + 2049; (69 + 4096) mod 4096] are smaller than 69.
Map-Version numbers are assigned to mappings by configuration. The
initial Map-Version number of a new EID-to-RLOC mapping SHOULD be
assigned randomly, but it MUST NOT be set to the Null Map-Version
value (0x000), because the Null Map-Version number has a special
meaning (see Section 4.1).
Upon reboot, an ETR will use mappings configured in its EID-to-RLOC
Database. If those mappings have a Map-Version number, it will be
used according to the mechanisms described in this document. ETRs
MUST NOT automatically generate and assign Map-Version numbers to
mappings in the EID-to-RLOC Database.
4.1. The Null Map-Version
The value 0x000 (zero) is not a valid Map-Version number indicating
the version of the EID-to-RLOC mapping. Such a value is used for
special purposes and is named the Null Map-Version number.
The Null Map-Version MAY appear in the LISP-specific header as either
a Source Map-Version number (cf. Section 5.2) or a Destination
Map-Version number (cf. Section 5.1). When the Source Map-Version
number is set to the Null Map-Version value, it means that no map
Iannone, et al. Experimental [Page 5]
RFC 6834 LISP Map-Versioning January 2013
version information is conveyed for the source site. This means that
if a mapping exists for the source EID in the EID-to-RLOC Cache, then
the ETR MUST NOT compare the received Null Map-Version with the
content of the EID-to-RLOC Cache. When the Destination Map-Version
number is set to the Null Map-Version value, it means that no map
version information is conveyed for the destination site. This means
that the ETR MUST NOT compare the value with the Map-Version number
of the mapping for the destination EID present in the EID-to-RLOC
Database.
The other use of the Null Map-Version number is in the Map Records,
which are part of the Map-Request, Map-Reply, and Map-Register
messages (defined in [RFC6830]). Map Records that have a Null
Map-Version number indicate that there is no Map-Version number
associated with the mapping. This means that LISP-encapsulated
packets destined to the EID-Prefix referred to by the Map Record MUST
either not contain any Map-Version numbers (V-bit set to 0) or, if
they contain Map-Version numbers (V-bit set to 1), then the
destination Map-Version number MUST be set to the Null Map-Version
number. Any value different from zero means that Map-Versioning is
supported and MAY be used.
The fact that the 0 value has a special meaning for the Map-Version
number implies that, when updating a Map-Version number because of a
change in the mapping, if the next value is 0, then the Map-Version
number MUST be incremented by 2 (i.e., set to 1, which is the next
valid value).
5. Dealing with Map-Version Numbers
The main idea of using Map-Version numbers is that whenever there is
a change in the mapping (e.g., adding/removing RLOCs, a change in the
weights due to Traffic Engineering policies, or a change in the
priorities) or a LISP site realizes that one or more of its own RLOCs
are not reachable anymore from a local perspective (e.g., through
IGP, or policy changes) the LISP site updates the mapping, also
assigning a new Map-Version number.
To each mapping, a version number is associated and changes each time
the mapping is changed. Note that Map-Versioning does not introduce
new problems concerning the coordination of different ETRs of a
domain. Indeed, ETRs belonging to the same LISP site must return for
a specific EID-Prefix the same mapping, including the same
Map-Version number. In principle, this is orthogonal to whether or
not Map-Versioning is used. The synchronization problem and its
implication on the traffic are out of the scope of this document (see
Section 11).
Iannone, et al. Experimental [Page 6]
RFC 6834 LISP Map-Versioning January 2013
In order to announce in a data-driven fashion that the mapping has
been updated, Map-Version numbers used to create the outer IP header
of the LISP-encapsulated packet are embedded in the LISP-specific
header. This means that the header needs to contain two Map-Version
numbers:
o The Source Map-Version number of the EID-to-RLOC mapping in the
EID-to-RLOC Database used to select the source RLOC.
o The Destination Map-Version number of the EID-to-RLOC mapping in
the EID-to-RLOC Cache used to select the destination RLOC.
By embedding both the Source Map-Version number and the Destination
Map-Version number, an ETR receiving a LISP packet with Map-Version
numbers can perform the following checks:
1. The ITR that has sent the packet has an up-to-date mapping in its
EID-to-RLOC Cache for the destination EID and is performing
encapsulation correctly.
2. In the case of bidirectional traffic, the mapping in the local
ETR EID-to-RLOC Cache for the source EID is up to date.
If one or both of the above conditions do not hold, the ETR can send
a Map-Request either to make the ITR aware that a new mapping is
available (see Section 5.1) or to update the mapping in the local
EID-to-RLOC Cache (see Section 5.2).
5.1. Handling Destination Map-Version Number
When an ETR receives a packet, the Destination Map-Version number
relates to the mapping for the destination EID for which the ETR is
an RLOC. This mapping is part of the ETR EID-to-RLOC Database.
Since the ETR is authoritative for the mapping, it has the correct
and up-to-date Destination Map-Version number. A check on this
version number can be done, where the following cases can arise:
1. The packet arrives with the same Destination Map-Version number
stored in the EID-to-RLOC Database. This is the regular case.
The ITR sending the packet has in its EID-to-RLOC Cache an
up-to-date mapping. No further actions are needed.
2. The packet arrives with a Destination Map-Version number greater
(i.e., newer) than the one stored in the EID-to-RLOC Database.
Since the ETR is authoritative on the mapping, meaning that the
Map-Version number of its mapping is the correct one, this
implies that someone is not behaving correctly with respect to
Iannone, et al. Experimental [Page 7]
RFC 6834 LISP Map-Versioning January 2013
the specifications. In this case, the packet carries a version
number that is not valid; otherwise, the ETR would have the same
number, and the packet SHOULD be silently dropped.
3. The packets arrive with a Destination Map-Version number smaller
(i.e., older) than the one stored in the EID-to-RLOC Database.
This means that the ITR sending the packet has an old mapping in
its EID-to-RLOC Cache containing stale information. The ETR MAY
choose to normally process the encapsulated datagram according to
[RFC6830]; however, the ITR sending the packet has to be informed
that a newer mapping is available. This is done with a
Map-Request message sent back to the ITR. The Map-Request will
either trigger a Map-Request back using the Solicit-Map-Request
(SMR) bit or it will piggyback the newer mapping. These are not
new mechanisms; how to use the SMR bit or how to piggyback
mappings in Map-Request messages is already described in
[RFC6830], while their security is discussed in [LISP-THREATS].
These Map-Request messages should be rate-limited
(rate-limitation policies are also described in [RFC6830]). The
feature introduced by Map-Version numbers is the possibility of
blocking traffic not using the latest mapping. Indeed, after a
certain number of retries, if the Destination Map-Version number
in the packets is not updated, the ETR MAY drop packets with a
stale Map-Version number while strongly reducing the rate of
Map-Request messages. This is because either the ITR is refusing
to use the mapping for which the ETR is authoritative, or (worse)
it might be some form of attack. Another case might be that the
control plane is experiencing transient failures, so the
Map-Requests cannot reach that ITR. By continually sending
Map-Requests at a very low rate, it is possible to recover from
this situation.
The rule in the third case MAY be more restrictive. If the mapping
has been the same for a period of time as long as the Time to Live
(TTL) (defined in [RFC6830]) of the previous version of the mapping,
all packets arriving with an old Map-Version SHOULD be silently
dropped right away without issuing any Map-Request. Such action is
permitted because if the new mapping with the updated version number
has been unchanged for at least the same time as the TTL of the older
mapping, all the entries in the EID-to-RLOC Caches of ITRs must have
expired. Hence, all ITRs sending traffic should have refreshed the
mapping according to [RFC6830]. If packets with old Map-Version
numbers are still received, then either someone has not respected the
TTL or it is a form of spoof/attack. In both cases, this is not
valid behavior with respect to the specifications and the packet
SHOULD be silently dropped.
Iannone, et al. Experimental [Page 8]
RFC 6834 LISP Map-Versioning January 2013
LISP-encapsulated packets with the V-bit set, when the original
mapping in the EID-to-RLOC Database has the version number set to the
Null Map-Version value, MAY be silently dropped. As explained in
Section 4.1, if an EID-to-RLOC mapping has a Null Map-Version, it
means that ITRs, using the mapping for encapsulation, MUST NOT use a
Map-Version number in the LISP-specific header.
For LISP-encapsulated packets with the V-bit set, when the original
mapping in the EID-to-RLOC Database has the version number set to a
value different from the Null Map-Version value, a Destination
Map-Version number equal to the Null Map-Version value means that the
Destination Map-Version number MUST be ignored.
5.2. Handling Source Map-Version Number
When an ETR receives a packet, the Source Map-Version number relates
to the mapping for the source EID for which the ITR that sent the
packet is authoritative. If the ETR has an entry in its EID-to-RLOC
Cache for the source EID, then a check can be performed and the
following cases can arise:
1. The packet arrives with the same Source Map-Version number as
that stored in the EID-to-RLOC Cache. This is the correct
regular case. The ITR has in its EID-to-RLOC Cache an up-to-date
copy of the mapping. No further actions are needed.
2. The packet arrives with a Source Map-Version number greater
(i.e., newer) than the one stored in the local EID-to-RLOC Cache.
This means that the ETR has in its EID-to-RLOC Cache a mapping
that is stale and needs to be updated. A Map-Request SHOULD be
sent to get the new mapping for the source EID. This is a normal
Map-Request message sent through the mapping system and MUST
respect the specifications in [RFC6830], including rate-
limitation policies.
3. The packet arrives with a Source Map-Version number smaller
(i.e., older) than the one stored in the local EID-to-RLOC Cache.
Such a case is not valid with respect to the specifications.
Indeed, if the mapping is already present in the EID-to-RLOC
Cache, this means that an explicit Map-Request has been sent and
a Map-Reply has been received from an authoritative source.
Assuming that the mapping system is not corrupted, the
Map-Version in the EID-to-RLOC Cache is the correct one, while
the one carried by the packet is stale. In this situation, the
packet MAY be silently dropped.
Iannone, et al. Experimental [Page 9]
RFC 6834 LISP Map-Versioning January 2013
If the ETR does not have an entry in the EID-to-RLOC Cache for the
source EID (e.g., in the case of unidirectional traffic), then the
Source Map-Version number can be safely ignored.
For LISP-encapsulated packets with the V-bit set, if the Source
Map-Version number is the Null Map-Version value, it means that the
Source Map-Version number MUST be ignored.
6. LISP Header and Map-Version Numbers
In order for the versioning approach to work, the LISP-specific
header has to carry both the Source Map-Version number and
Destination Map-Version number. This is done by setting the V-bit in
the LISP-specific header as defined in [RFC6830] Section 5.3. When
the V-bit is set, the low-order 24 bits of the first longword are
used to transport both the source and destination Map-Version
numbers. In particular, the first 12 bits are used for the Source
Map-Version number and the second 12 bits for the Destination
Map-Version number.
Below is an example of a LISP header carrying version numbers in the
case of IPv4-in-IPv4 encapsulation. The same setting can be used for
any other case (IPv4-in-IPv6, IPv6-in-IPv4, and IPv6-in-IPv6).
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
/ |N|L|E|V|I|flags| Source Map-Version |Destination Map-Version|
LISP+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
\ | Instance ID/Locator-Status-Bits |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Source Map-Version number (12 bits): Map-Version of the mapping used
by the ITR to select the RLOC present in the 'Source Routing
Locator' field. Section 5.2 describes how to set this value on
transmission and handle it on reception.
Destination Map-Version number (12 bits): Map-Version of the mapping
used by the ITR to select the RLOC present in the 'Destination
Routing Locator' field. Section 5.1 describes how to set this
value on transmission and handle it on reception.
This document only specifies how to use the low-order 24 bits of the
first longword of the LISP-specific header when the V-bit is set to
1. All other cases, including the bit fields of the rest of the
LISP-specific header and the whole LISP packet format, are specified
in [RFC6830]. Not all of the LISP-encapsulated packets need to carry
Iannone, et al. Experimental [Page 10]
RFC 6834 LISP Map-Versioning January 2013
version numbers. When Map-Version numbers are carried in these
packets, the V-bit MUST be set to 1. All permissible combinations of
the flags when the V-bit is set to 1 are described in [RFC6830].
7. Map Record and Map-Version
To accommodate the proposed mechanism, the Map Records that are
transported in Map-Request/Map-Reply/Map-Register messages need to
carry the Map-Version number as well. For this purpose, the 12 bits
before the 'EID-Prefix-AFI' field in the Record that describes a
mapping are used. This is defined in Section 6.1.4 of [RFC6830] and
reported here as an example.
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
+-> +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| | 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 |
+-> +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Map-Version Number: Map-Version of the mapping contained in the
Record. As explained in Section 4.1, this field can be zero (0),
meaning that no Map-Version is associated to the mapping; hence,
packets that are LISP encapsulated using this mapping MUST NOT
contain Map-Version numbers in the LISP-specific header, and the
V-bit MUST be set to 0.
This packet format works perfectly with xTRs that do not support
Map-Versioning, since they can simply ignore those bits.
Iannone, et al. Experimental [Page 11]
RFC 6834 LISP Map-Versioning January 2013
8. Benefits and Case Studies for Map-Versioning
In the following sections, we provide more discussion on various
aspects and uses of Map-Versioning. Security observations are
grouped in Section 10.
8.1. Map-Versioning and Unidirectional Traffic
When using Map-Versioning, the LISP-specific header carries two
Map-Version numbers, for both source and destination mappings. This
can raise the question on what will happen in the case of
unidirectional flows, for instance, in the case presented in
Figure 1, since the LISP specification does not mandate that the ETR
have a mapping for the source EID.
+-----------------+ +-----------------+
| Domain A | | Domain B |
| +---------+ +---------+ |
| | ITR A |----------->| ETR B | |
| +---------+ +---------+ |
| | | |
+-----------------+ +-----------------+
Figure 1: Unidirectional Traffic between LISP Domains
In the case of the ITR, the ITR is able to put both the source and
destination version number in the LISP header, since the Source
Map-Version number is in the ITR's database, while the Destination
Map-Version number is in the ITR's cache.
In the case of the ETR, the ETR simply checks only the Destination
Map-Version number in the same way as that described in Section 5,
ignoring the Source Map-Version number.
8.2. Map-Versioning and Interworking
Map-Versioning is compatible with the LISP interworking between LISP
and non-LISP sites as defined in [RFC6832]. LISP interworking
defines three techniques to make LISP sites and non-LISP sites,
namely Proxy-ITR, LISP-NAT, and Proxy-ETR. The following text
describes how Map-Versioning relates to these three mechanisms.
Iannone, et al. Experimental [Page 12]
RFC 6834 LISP Map-Versioning January 2013
8.2.1. Map-Versioning and Proxy-ITRs
The purpose of the Proxy-ITR (PITR) is to encapsulate traffic
originating in a non-LISP site in order to deliver the packet to one
of the ETRs of the LISP site (cf. Figure 2). This case is very
similar to the unidirectional traffic case described in Section 8.1;
hence, similar rules apply.
+----------+ +-------------+
| LISP | | non-LISP |
| Domain A | | Domain B |
| +-------+ +-----------+ | |
| | ETR A |<-------| Proxy-ITR |<-------| |
| +-------+ +-----------+ | |
| | | |
+----------+ +-------------+
Figure 2: Unidirectional Traffic from Non-LISP Domain to LISP Domain
The main difference is that a Proxy-ITR does not have any mapping,
since it just encapsulates packets arriving from the non-LISP site
and thus cannot provide a Source Map-Version. In this case, the
Proxy-ITR will just put the Null Map-Version value as the Source
Map-Version number, while the receiving ETR will ignore the field.
With this setup, LISP Domain A is able to check whether or not the
PITR is using the latest mapping. If this is not the case, the
mapping for LISP Domain A on the PITR can be updated using one of the
mechanisms defined in [RFC6830] and [RFC6832].
8.2.2. Map-Versioning and LISP-NAT
The LISP-NAT mechanism is based on address translation from
non-routable EIDs to routable EIDs and does not involve any form of
encapsulation. As such, Map-Versioning does not apply in this case.
Iannone, et al. Experimental [Page 13]
RFC 6834 LISP Map-Versioning January 2013
8.2.3. Map-Versioning and Proxy-ETRs
The purpose of the Proxy-ETR (PETR) is to decapsulate traffic
originating in a LISP site in order to deliver the packet to the
non-LISP site (cf. Figure 3). One of the main reasons to deploy
PETRs is to bypass uRPF (Unicast Reverse Path Forwarding) checks on
the provider edge.
+----------+ +-------------+
| LISP | | non-LISP |
| Domain A | | Domain B |
| +-------+ +-----------+ | |
| | ITR A |------->| Proxy-ETR |------->| |
| +-------+ +-----------+ | |
| | | |
+----------+ +-------------+
Figure 3: Unidirectional Traffic from LISP Domain to Non-LISP Domain
A Proxy-ETR does not have any mapping, since it just decapsulates
packets arriving from the LISP site. In this case, the ITR will just
put the Null Map-Version value as the Destination Map-Version number,
while the receiving Proxy-ETR will ignore the field.
With this setup, the Proxy-ETR is able to check whether or not the
mapping has changed. If this is the case, the mapping for LISP
Domain A on the PETR can be updated using one of the mechanisms
defined in [RFC6830] and [RFC6832].
8.3. RLOC Shutdown/Withdraw
Map-Versioning can also be used to perform a graceful shutdown or
withdraw of a specific RLOC. This is achieved by simply issuing a
new mapping, with an updated Map-Version number where the specific
RLOC to be shut down is withdrawn or announced as unreachable (via
the R-bit in the Map Record; see [RFC6830]), but without actually
turning it off.
Once no more traffic is received by the RLOC, it can be shut down
gracefully, because all sites actively using the mapping have
updated it.
It should be pointed out that for frequent up/down changes such a
mechanism should not be used, since this can generate excessive load
on the mapping system.
Iannone, et al. Experimental [Page 14]
RFC 6834 LISP Map-Versioning January 2013
8.4. Map-Version for Lightweight LISP Implementation
The use of Map-Versioning can help in developing a lightweight
implementation of LISP. However, this comes with the price of not
supporting the Locator-Status-Bit, which is useful in some contexts.
In the current LISP specifications, the set of RLOCs must always be
maintained ordered and consistent with the content of the
Locator-Status-Bits (see Section 6.5 of [RFC6830]). With
Map-Versioning, such types of mechanisms can be avoided. When a new
RLOC is added to a mapping, it is not necessary to "append" new
Locators to the existing ones as explained in Section 6.5 of
[RFC6830]. A new mapping with a new Map-Version number will be
issued, and since the old Locators are still valid, the transition
will occur with no disruptions. The same applies for the case where
an RLOC is withdrawn. There is no need to maintain holes in the list
of Locators, as is the case when using Locator-Status-Bits, for sites
that are not using the RLOC that has been withdrawn; in this case,
the transition will occur with no disruptions.
All of these operations, as already stated, do not need to maintain
any consistency among Locator-Status-Bits and in the way that the
RLOCs are stored in the EID-to-RLOC Cache.
Further, Map-Versioning can be used as a substitute for the "clock
sweep" operation described in Section 6.6.1 of [RFC6830]. Indeed,
every LISP site communicating to a specific LISP site that has
updated the mapping will be informed of the available new mapping in
a data-driven manner.
Note that what is proposed in this section is just an example and
MUST NOT be considered as specifications for a lightweight LISP
implementation. If the IETF decides to undertake such work, it will
be documented elsewhere.
9. Incremental Deployment and Implementation Status
Map-Versioning can be incrementally deployed without any negative
impact on existing LISP elements (e.g., xTRs, Map-Servers,
Proxy-ITRs, etc.). Any LISP element that does not support
Map-Versioning can safely ignore Map-Version numbers carried in the
LISP header. Further, there is no need of any specific mechanism to
discover whether or not an xTR supports Map-Versioning. This
information is already included in the Map Record.
Map-Versioning is currently implemented in OpenLISP [OPENLISP].
Iannone, et al. Experimental [Page 15]
RFC 6834 LISP Map-Versioning January 2013
Note that the reference document for LISP implementations and
interoperability tests remains [RFC6830].
10. Security Considerations
Map-Versioning does not introduce any security issues concerning both
the data plane and the control plane. On the contrary, as described
below, if Map-Versioning may also be used to update mappings in the
case of change in the reachability information (i.e., instead of the
Locator-Status-Bits), it is possible to reduce the effects of some
DoS or spoofing attacks that can happen in an untrusted environment.
Robustness of the Map-Versioning mechanism leverages on a trusted
Mapping Distribution System. A thorough security analysis of LISP is
documented in [LISP-THREATS].
10.1. Map-Versioning against Traffic Disruption
An attacker can try to disrupt ongoing communications by creating
LISP-encapsulated packets with wrong Locator-Status-Bits. If the xTR
blindly trusts the Locator-Status-Bits, it will change the
encapsulation accordingly, which can result in traffic disruption.
This does not happen in the case of Map-Versioning. As described in
Section 5, upon a version number change the xTR first issues a
Map-Request. The assumption is that the mapping distribution system
is sufficiently secure that Map-Request and Map-Reply messages and
their content can be trusted. Security issues concerning specific
mapping distribution systems are out of the scope of this document.
In the case of Map-Versioning, the attacker should "guess" a valid
version number that triggers a Map-Request as described in Section 5;
otherwise, the packet is simply dropped. Nevertheless, guessing a
version number that generates a Map-Request is easy; hence, it is
important to follow the rate-limitation policies described in
[RFC6830] in order to avoid DoS attacks.
Note that a similar level of security can be obtained with
Locator-Status-Bits by simply making it mandatory to verify any
change through a Map-Request. However, in this case
Locator-Status-Bits lose their meaning, because it does not matter
anymore which specific bits have changed; the xTR will query the
mapping system and trust the content of the received Map-Reply.
Furthermore, there is no way to perform filtering as in
Map-Versioning in order to drop packets that do not carry a valid
Map-Version number. In the case of Locator-Status-Bits, any random
change can trigger a Map-Request (unless rate limitation is enabled,
which raises another type of attack as discussed in Section 10.2).
Iannone, et al. Experimental [Page 16]
RFC 6834 LISP Map-Versioning January 2013
10.2. Map-Versioning against Reachability Information DoS
Attackers can try to trigger a large amount of Map-Requests by simply
forging packets with random Map-Versions or random
Locator-Status-Bits. In both cases, the Map-Requests are
rate-limited as described in [RFC6830]. However, in contrast to the
Locator-Status-Bit, where there is no filtering possible, in the case
of Map-Versioning it is possible to filter invalid version numbers
before triggering a Map-Request, thus helping to reduce the effects
of DoS attacks. In other words, the use of Map-Versioning enables a
fine control on when to update a mapping or when to notify someone
that a mapping has been updated.
It is clear that Map-Versioning does not protect against DoS and DDoS
attacks, where an xTR loses processing power when doing checks on the
LISP header of packets sent by attackers. This is independent of
Map-Versioning and is the same for Locator-Status-Bits.
11. Open Issues and Considerations
There are a number of implications of the use of Map-Versioning that
are not yet completely explored. Among these are:
o Performance of the convergence time when an EID-to-RLOC mapping
changes, i.e., how much time is needed to update mappings in the
EID-to-RLOC Cache of the ITRs currently sending traffic to ETRs
for the EID whose mapping has been changed.
o Support for ETR synchronization. The implications that a
temporary lack of synchronization may have on the traffic are yet
to be fully explored. Details on how to maintain synchronization
are presented in Section 6.6 of [RFC6830]. Section 11.1 discusses
the issue in further detail with respect to the Map-Versioning
mechanism.
The authors expect that experimentation will help assess the
performance and limitations of the Map-Versioning mechanism. Issues
and concerns about the deployment of LISP for Internet traffic are
discussed in [RFC6830].
11.1. Lack of Synchronization among ETRs
Even without Map-Versioning, LISP ([RFC6830]) requires ETRs to
announce the same mapping for the same EID-Prefix to a requester.
The implications that a temporary lack of synchronization may have on
the traffic are yet to be fully explored.
Iannone, et al. Experimental [Page 17]
RFC 6834 LISP Map-Versioning January 2013
Map-Versioning does not require additional synchronization mechanisms
as compared to the normal functioning of LISP without Map-Versioning.
Clearly, all the ETRs have to reply with the same Map-Version number;
otherwise, there can be an inconsistency that creates additional
control traffic, instabilities, and traffic disruptions. It is the
same without Map-Versioning, with ETRs that have to reply with the
same mapping; otherwise, the same problems can arise.
There are two ways Map-Versioning is helpful with respect to the
synchronization problem. On the one hand, assigning version numbers
to mappings helps in debugging, since quick checks on the consistency
of the mappings on different ETRs can be done by looking at the
Map-Version number. On the other hand, Map-Versioning can be used to
control the traffic toward ETRs that announce the latest mapping.
As an example, let's consider the topology of Figure 4 where ITR A.1
of Domain A is sending unidirectional traffic to Domain B, while A.2
of Domain A exchanges bidirectional traffic with Domain B. In
particular, ITR A.2 sends traffic to ETR B, and ETR A.2 receives
traffic from ITR B.
+-----------------+ +-----------------+
| Domain A | | Domain B |
| +---------+ | |
| | ITR A.1 |--- | |
| +---------+ \ +---------+ |
| | ------->| ETR B | |
| | ------->| | |
| +---------+ / | | |
| | ITR A.2 |--- -----| ITR B | |
| | | / +---------+ |
| | ETR A.2 |<----- | |
| +---------+ | |
| | | |
+-----------------+ +-----------------+
Figure 4: Example Topology
Obviously, in the case of Map-Versioning, both ITR A.1 and ITR A.2 of
Domain A must use the same value; otherwise, the ETR of Domain B will
start to send Map-Requests.
The same problem can, however, arise without Map-Versioning, for
instance, if the two ITRs of Domain A send different
Locator-Status-Bits. In this case, either the traffic is disrupted
if ETR B trusts the Locator-Status-Bits, or if ETR B does not trust
the Locator-Status-Bits it will start sending Map-Requests to confirm
each change in reachability.
Iannone, et al. Experimental [Page 18]
RFC 6834 LISP Map-Versioning January 2013
So far, LISP does not provide any specific synchronization mechanism
but assumes that synchronization is provided by configuring the
different xTRs consistently (see Section 6.6 in [RFC6830]). The same
applies for Map-Versioning. If in the future any synchronization
mechanism is provided, Map-Versioning will take advantage of it
automatically, since it is included in the Record format, as
described in Section 7.
12. Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank Alia Atlas, Jesper Skriver, Pierre
Francois, Noel Chiappa, and Dino Farinacci for their comments and
review.
This work has been partially supported by the INFSO-ICT-216372
TRILOGY Project (http://www.trilogy-project.org).
13. References
13.1. Normative References
[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.
[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.
13.2. Informative References
[LISP-THREATS]
Saucez, D., Iannone, L., and O. Bonaventure, "LISP Threats
Analysis", Work in Progress, October 2012.
[OPENLISP] Iannone, L., Saucez, D., and O. Bonaventure, "Implementing
the Locator/ID Separation Protocol: Design and
experience", Computer Networks Vol. 55, Number 4,
Pages 948-958, March 2011.
Iannone, et al. Experimental [Page 19]
RFC 6834 LISP Map-Versioning January 2013
Appendix A. Estimation of Time before Map-Version Wrap-Around
This section proposes an estimation of the wrap-around time for the
12-bit size of the Map-Version number.
Using a granularity of seconds and assuming as worst case that a new
version is issued each second, it takes slightly more than 1 hour
before the version wraps around. Note that the granularity of
seconds is in line with the rate-limitation policy for Map-Request
messages, as proposed in the LISP main specifications ([RFC6830]).
Alternatively, a granularity of minutes can also be used, as for the
TTL of the Map-Reply ([RFC6830]). In this case, the worst-case
scenario is when a new version is issued every minute, leading to a
much longer time before wrap-around. In particular, when using
12 bits, the wrap-around time is almost 3 days.
For general information, Figure 5 below provides a rough estimation
of the time before wrap-around in the worst-case scenario,
considering different sizes (length in bits) of the Map-Version
number and different time granularities.
Since even in the case of a high mapping change rate (1 per second)
the wrap-around time using 12 bits is far larger than any reasonable
Round-Trip Time (RTT), there is no risk of race conditions.
+---------------+--------------------------------------------+
|Version Number | Time before Wrap-Around |
| Size (bits) +---------------------+----------------------+
| |Granularity: Minutes | Granularity: Seconds |
| | (mapping changes | (mapping changes |
| | every 1 minute) | every 1 second) |
+-------------------------------------+----------------------+
| 32 | 8171 years | 136 years |
| 30 | 2042 years | 34 years |
| 24 | 31 years | 194 days |
| 16 | 45 days | 18 hours |
| 15 | 22 days | 9 hours |
| 14 | 11 days | 4 hours |
| 13 | 5.6 days | 2.2 hours |
| 12 | 2.8 days | 1.1 hours |
+---------------+---------------------+----------------------+
Figure 5: Estimation of Time before Wrap-Around
Iannone, et al. Experimental [Page 20]
RFC 6834 LISP Map-Versioning January 2013
Authors' Addresses
Luigi Iannone
Telecom ParisTech
EMail: luigi.iannone@telecom-paristech.fr
Damien Saucez
INRIA Sophia Antipolis
2004 route des Lucioles - BP 93
Sophia Antipolis
France
EMail: damien.saucez@inria.fr
Olivier Bonaventure
Universite catholique de Louvain
Place St. Barbe 2
Louvain-la-Neuve
Belgium
EMail: olivier.bonaventure@uclouvain.be
Iannone, et al. Experimental [Page 21]