Movatterモバイル変換

Independent Submission                                      D. FarinacciRequest for Comments: 8112                                   lispers.netCategory: Informational                                          A. JainISSN: 2070-1721                                         Juniper Networks                                                             I. Kouvelas                                                                  Arista                                                                D. Lewis                                                           Cisco Systems                                                                May 2017Locator/ID Separation Protocol Delegated Database Tree (LISP-DDT)Referral Internet Groper (RIG)Abstract   A simple tool called the Locator/ID Separation Protocol Delegated   Database Tree (LISP-DDT) Referral Internet Groper (RIG), also   referred to in this document as "rig", can be used to query the LISP-   DDT hierarchy.  This document describes how the "rig" tool works.Status of This Memo   This document is not an Internet Standards Track specification; it is   published for informational purposes.   This is a contribution to the RFC Series, independently of any other   RFC stream.  The RFC Editor has chosen to publish this document at   its discretion and makes no statement about its value for   implementation or deployment.  Documents approved for publication by   the RFC Editor are not a candidate for any level of Internet   Standard; seeSection 2 of RFC 7841.   Information about the current status of this document, any errata,   and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained athttp://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8112.Copyright Notice   Copyright (c) 2017 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the   document authors.  All rights reserved.   This document is subject toBCP 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.Farinacci, et al.             Informational                     [Page 1]

RFC 8112         LISP-DDT Referral Internet Groper (RIG)        May 2017Table of Contents1. Introduction ....................................................22. Requirements Language ...........................................33. Definitions of Terms ............................................34. Basic Overview ..................................................55. Implementation Details ..........................................76. Security Considerations .........................................97. IANA Considerations .............................................98. References ......................................................98.1. Normative References .......................................98.2. Informative References ....................................10   Acknowledgments ...................................................11   Authors' Addresses ................................................111.  Introduction   "The Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP)" [RFC6830] specifies an   architecture and mechanism for replacing the semantics of an address   currently used by IP with two separate namespaces: Endpoint   Identifiers (EIDs), used within sites; and Routing Locators (RLOCs),   used on the transit networks that make up the Internet   infrastructure.  To achieve this separation, LISP defines protocol   mechanisms for mapping from EIDs to RLOCs.  In addition, LISP assumes   the existence of a database to store and propagate those mappings   globally.  This document focuses on the LISP Delegated Database Tree   (LISP-DDT) [RFC8111] mapping database system.   The "rig" tool is a manual management tool to query the LISP-DDT   mapping database hierarchy.  It can be run by all devices that   implement LISP, including Ingress Tunnel Routers (ITRs), Egress   Tunnel Routers (ETRs), Proxy ITRs (PITRs), Proxy ETRs (PETRs),   Map-Resolvers, Map-Servers, and LISP-DDT nodes, as well as by a host   system at either a LISP-capable or non-LISP-capable site.   The LISP-DDT "rig" tool is similar to the "LISP Internet Groper"   ("lig") tool [RFC6835] in that they are both diagnostic tools to   query a database.  However, the "rig" tool is used to find   Map-Servers serving an EID-prefix, specifically within a LISP-DDT   mapping database framework.  And "lig" can be used on top of any   mapping database system to retrieve locators used for packet   encapsulation.Farinacci, et al.             Informational                     [Page 2]

RFC 8112         LISP-DDT Referral Internet Groper (RIG)        May 20172.  Requirements Language   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",   "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and   "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described inBCP 14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all   capitals, as shown here.3.  Definitions of Terms   Endpoint Identifier (EID):  a 32-bit (for IPv4) or 128-bit (for IPv6)      value (or an address encoded per [RFC8060]) used in the source and      destination address fields of the first (innermost) LISP header of      a packet.  The host obtains a destination EID the same way it      obtains a destination address today -- for example, through a      Domain Name System (DNS) [RFC1034] lookup or a Session Initiation      Protocol (SIP) [RFC3261] exchange.  The source EID is obtained via      existing mechanisms used to set a host's "local" IP address.  An      EID used on the public Internet must have the same properties as      any other IP address used in that manner; this means, among other      things, that it must be globally unique.  An EID is allocated to a      host from an EID-prefix block associated with the site where the      host is located.  An EID can be used by a host to refer to other      hosts.  EIDs MUST NOT be used as LISP RLOCs.  Note that EID blocks      MAY be assigned in a hierarchical manner, independent of the      network topology, to facilitate scaling of the mapping database.      In addition, an EID block assigned to a site may have site-local      structure (subnetting) for routing within the site; this structure      is not visible to the global routing system.  In theory, the bit      string that represents an EID for one device can represent an RLOC      for a different device.  As the architecture is realized, if a      given bit string is both an RLOC and an EID, it must refer to the      same entity in both cases.  When used in "discussions" with other      Locator/ID separation proposals, a LISP EID will be called an      "LEID".  Throughout this document, any references to "EID" refer      to an LEID.   Extended EID (XEID):  a LISP EID, optionally extended with a non-zero      Instance ID (IID) if the EID is intended for use in a context      where it may not be a unique value, such as in a Virtual Private      Network where private address space [RFC1918] is used.  SeeSection 5.5 of [RFC6830] for more discussion of IIDs.   Routing Locator (RLOC):  an IPv4 [RFC791] or IPv6 [RFC2460] address      of an Egress Tunnel Router (ETR).  An RLOC is the output of an      EID-to-RLOC mapping lookup.  An EID maps to one or more RLOCs.      Typically, RLOCs are numbered from topologically aggregatable      blocks that are assigned to a site at each point to which itFarinacci, et al.             Informational                     [Page 3]

RFC 8112         LISP-DDT Referral Internet Groper (RIG)        May 2017      attaches to the global Internet; where the topology is defined by      the connectivity of provider networks, RLOCs can be thought of as      Provider-Assigned (PA) addresses.  Multiple RLOCs can be assigned      to the same ETR device or to multiple ETR devices at a site.   DDT node:  a network infrastructure component responsible for      specific XEID-prefix(es) and for the delegation of more-specific      sub-prefixes to other DDT nodes.   DDT client:  a network infrastructure component that sends DDT      Map-Request messages and implements the iterative following of      Map-Referral results.  Typically, a DDT client will be a      Map-Resolver (as defined by [RFC6833]), but it is also possible      for an ITR to implement DDT client functionality.  A DDT client      can be a device that is originating "rig" requests.   DDT Map-Server:  a DDT node that also implements Map-Server      functionality (forwarding Map-Requests and/or returning      Map-Replies if offering a proxy Map-Reply service) for a subset of      its delegated prefixes.  Map-Server functions, including proxying      Map-Replies, are described in [RFC6833].   DDT Map-Resolver:  a network infrastructure element that accepts a      Map-Request, adds the XEID to its lookup queue, then queries one      or more DDT nodes for the requested EID, following returned      referrals until it receives one with the MS-ACK action code      [RFC8111].  This indicates that the Map-Request has been sent to a      Map-Server that will forward it to an ETR that, in turn, will      provide a Map-Reply to the original sender.  A DDT Map-Resolver      maintains both (1) a cache of Map-Referral message results (termed      the "referral cache") containing RLOCs for DDT nodes responsible      for XEID-prefixes of interest and (2) a lookup queue of XEIDs that      are being resolved through iterative querying of DDT nodes.   Encapsulated Map-Request:  a LISP Map-Request that is carried within      an Encapsulated Control Message (ECM) and that has an additional      LISP header prepended.  Sent to UDP destination port 4342.  The      "outer" addresses are globally routable IP addresses, also known      as RLOCs.  Used by an ITR when sending a Map-Request to a      Map-Resolver and by a Map-Server when forwarding a Map-Request to      an ETR as documented in [RFC6833].   Map-Referral:  a LISP message sent by a DDT node when it receives a      DDT Map-Request for an XEID that matches a configured XEID-prefix      delegation.  A non-Negative Map-Referral message includes a      "referral" -- a set of RLOCs for DDT nodes that have more      information about the sub-prefix; a DDT client "follows theFarinacci, et al.             Informational                     [Page 4]

RFC 8112         LISP-DDT Referral Internet Groper (RIG)        May 2017      referral" by sending another DDT Map-Request to one of those RLOCs      to obtain either an answer or another referral to DDT nodes      responsible for a more-specific XEID-prefix.   Authoritative XEID-prefix:  an XEID-prefix delegated to a DDT node      and for which the DDT node may provide further delegations of      more-specific sub-prefixes.4.  Basic Overview   LISP-DDT [RFC8111] is a hierarchical distributed database that   embodies the delegation of authority to provide mappings from LISP   EIDs to RLOCs.  It is a statically defined distribution of the EID   namespace among a set of LISP-speaking servers called "DDT nodes".   Each DDT node is configured as "authoritative" for one or more   EID-prefixes, along with the set of RLOCs for Map-Servers or "child"   DDT nodes to which more-specific EID-prefixes are delegated.   Map-Resolvers send Map-Requests to the DDT hierarchy and maintain   referral caches by receiving Map-Referral messages from DDT nodes.   Map-Resolvers follow the DDT hierarchy for a given EID lookup based   on the EID-prefix and delegation referrals contained in the   Map-Referral messages.  The "rig" tool is intended to perform the   same operation as that of a Map-Resolver but to also be used as a   management tool for the network administrator.   When the "rig" command is run, an Encapsulated Control Message   Map-Request is sent for a destination EID.  When a LISP-DDT   Map-Referral is returned, the contents are displayed to the user.   The information displayed includes:   o  A delegated EID-prefix configured in a DDT node or a configured      site EID-prefix in a DDT Map-Server that matches the      requested EID.   o  The type of DDT node that sent the Map-Referral.   o  The action code and TTL set by the sender of the Map-Referral.   o  The referral RLOC addresses from the Map-Referral message.   o  A round-trip-time estimate for the ECM-Map-Request / Map-Referral      message exchange.Farinacci, et al.             Informational                     [Page 5]

RFC 8112         LISP-DDT Referral Internet Groper (RIG)        May 2017   A possible syntax for a "rig" command MAY be:   rig [instance-id <iid>] <eid> to <ddt-node> [follow-all-referrals]   Parameter descriptions:   [instance-id <iid>]:  <iid> is the IID portion of the XEID used as a      VPN identifier or for other future purposes.  When the DDT      hierarchy is not configured with IIDs, this argument is omitted      from the command line.   <eid>:  <eid> is either a Fully Qualified Domain Name or a      destination EID that is being queried in the LISP-DDT mapping      database.   <ddt-node>:  <ddt-node> is the RLOC address of any DDT node in the      DDT hierarchy.  This can be the DDT root node, a DDT transit node,      or a DDT Map-Server.   [follow-all-referrals]:  When this keyword is used, each referral      RLOC is queried so "rig" can descend the entire DDT hierarchy      starting from the node <ddt-node>.  When this keyword is not used,      one of the referral RLOCs will be selected to descend a branch of      the DDT hierarchy.   The "rig" utility not only shows branches of the delegation hierarchy   but can also report:   o  When a DDT Map-Server would forward a Map-Request to the ETRs at a      registered LISP site.  This is known as an "MS-ACK" action.   o  When a DDT Map-Server sends a Negative Map-Referral indicating      that a requested EID is configured but not registered to the      mapping database system.  This is known as an "MS-NOT-REGISTERED"      action.   o  When a DDT node is sending referrals for a transit or leaf node in      the hierarchy.  These are known as "NODE-REFERRAL" and      "MS-REFERRAL" actions, respectively.   o  When a DDT node finds a hole in the address space that has not      been allocated or configured in the delegation hierarchy.  This is      typically associated with a hole in a DDT node's configured      authoritative prefix.  This is known as a "DELEGATION-HOLE"      action.Farinacci, et al.             Informational                     [Page 6]

RFC 8112         LISP-DDT Referral Internet Groper (RIG)        May 2017   o  When a DDT node finds a hole in the address space that has not      been allocated or configured in the delegation hierarchy at all.      This is typically associated with a hole that is outside of a DDT      node's authoritative prefix.  This is known as a      "NOT-AUTHORITATIVE" action.   Refer to [RFC8111] for more details about Map-Referral actions.5.  Implementation Details   The Cisco LISP prototype implementations on IOS and NX-OS have "rig"   support for IPv4 and IPv6 EIDs in either the default instance or a   non-zero IID.   The IOS syntax is:   rig [instance-id <iid>] <eid> to <ddt-node> [follow-all-referrals]   The NX-OS syntax is:   rig [instance-id <iid>] { <hostname> | {<eid> | <eid6>} }                           to { <ddt-hostname> | {<ddt> | <ddt6>} }   Here is some sample IOS output:   Router# rig 12.0.1.1 to 1.1.1.1   Send Map-Request to DDT-node 1.1.1.1 ... node referral, rtt: 0 ms   EID-prefix: [0] 12.0.0.0/16, ttl: 1440   referrals: 2.2.2.2   Send Map-Request to DDT-node 2.2.2.2 ... node referral, rtt: 0 ms   EID-prefix: [0] 12.0.1.0/24, ttl: 1440   referrals: 4.4.4.4, 5.5.5.5   Send Map-Request to DDT-node 4.4.4.4 ... map-server acknowledgement,                                            rtt: 0 ms   EID-prefix: [0] 12.0.1.0/28, ttl: 1440   referrals: 4.4.4.4, 5.5.5.5   Router# rig 12.0.1.1 to 1.1.1.1 follow-all-referrals   Send Map-Request to DDT-node 1.1.1.1 ... node referral, rtt: 4 ms   EID-prefix: [0] 12.0.0.0/16, ttl: 1440   referrals: 2.2.2.2Farinacci, et al.             Informational                     [Page 7]

RFC 8112         LISP-DDT Referral Internet Groper (RIG)        May 2017   Send Map-Request to DDT-node 2.2.2.2 ... node referral, rtt: 0 ms   EID-prefix: [0] 12.0.1.0/24, ttl: 1440   referrals: 4.4.4.4, 5.5.5.5   Send Map-Request to DDT-node 4.4.4.4 ... map-server acknowledgement,                                            rtt: 0 ms   EID-prefix: [0] 12.0.1.0/28, ttl: 1440   referrals: 4.4.4.4, 5.5.5.5   Send Map-Request to DDT-node 5.5.5.5 ... map-server acknowledgement,                                            rtt: 0 ms   EID-prefix: [0] 12.0.1.0/28, ttl: 1440   referrals: 4.4.4.4, 5.5.5.5   No more referrals to pursue.   Here is some sample NX-OS output:   Router# rig 12.0.1.1 to 1.1.1.1   rig LISP-DDT hierarchy for EID [0] 12.0.1.1   Send Map-Request to DDT-node 1.1.1.1 ... replied, rtt: 0.003509 secs   EID-prefix [0] *, ttl: 1440, action: node-referral, referrals:     2.2.2.2, priority/weight: 0/0   Send Map-Request to DDT-node 2.2.2.2 ... replied, rtt: 0.003173 secs   EID-prefix [0] 12.0.0.0/20, ttl: 1440, action: node-referral,     referrals:     3.3.3.3, priority/weight: 0/0   Send Map-Request to DDT-node 3.3.3.3 ... replied, rtt: 0.004145 secs   EID-prefix [0] 12.0.1.0/24, ttl: 1440, action: node-referral,     referrals:     5.5.5.5, priority/weight: 0/0     6.6.6.6, priority/weight: 0/0   Send Map-Request to DDT-node 6.6.6.6 ... replied, rtt: 0.005800 secs   EID-prefix [0] 12.0.1.0/28, ttl: 1440, action: ms-ack, referrals:     5.5.5.5, priority/weight: 0/0     6.6.6.6, priority/weight: 0/0Farinacci, et al.             Informational                     [Page 8]

RFC 8112         LISP-DDT Referral Internet Groper (RIG)        May 20176.  Security Considerations   The use of "rig" does not affect the security of the LISP   infrastructure, as it is simply a tool that facilitates diagnostic   querying.  See [RFC6830], [RFC6833], [RFC7835], and [RFC8111] for   descriptions of the security properties of the LISP infrastructure.   LISP "rig" provides easy access to the information in the public   mapping database.  Therefore, it is important to protect the mapping   information for private use.  This can be provided by disallowing   access to specific mapping entries or placing such entries in a   private mapping database system.7.  IANA Considerations   This document does not require any IANA actions.8.  References8.1.  Normative References   [RFC791]   Postel, J., "Internet Protocol", STD 5,RFC 791,              DOI 10.17487/RFC0791, September 1981,              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc791>.   [RFC1034]  Mockapetris, P., "Domain names - concepts and facilities",              STD 13,RFC 1034, DOI 10.17487/RFC1034, November 1987,              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1034>.   [RFC2119]  Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate              Requirement Levels",BCP 14,RFC 2119,              DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.   [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>.   [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>.   [RFC6835]  Farinacci, D. and D. Meyer, "The Locator/ID Separation              Protocol Internet Groper (LIG)",RFC 6835,              DOI 10.17487/RFC6835, January 2013,              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6835>.Farinacci, et al.             Informational                     [Page 9]

RFC 8112         LISP-DDT Referral Internet Groper (RIG)        May 2017   [RFC8111]  Fuller, V., Lewis, D., Ermagan, V., Jain, A., and A.              Smirnov, "Locator/ID Separation Protocol Delegated              Database Tree (LISP-DDT)",RFC 8111, DOI 10.17487/RFC8111,              May 2017, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8111>.   [RFC8174]  Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase inRFC 2119 Key Words",BCP 14,RFC 8174,              DOI 10.17487/RFC8174, May 2017,              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.8.2.  Informative References   [RFC1918]  Rekhter, Y., Moskowitz, B., Karrenberg, D., de Groot, G.,              and E. Lear, "Address Allocation for Private Internets",BCP 5,RFC 1918, DOI 10.17487/RFC1918, February 1996,              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1918>.   [RFC2460]  Deering, S. and R. Hinden, "Internet Protocol, Version 6              (IPv6) Specification",RFC 2460, DOI 10.17487/RFC2460,              December 1998, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2460>.   [RFC3261]  Rosenberg, J., Schulzrinne, H., Camarillo, G., Johnston,              A., Peterson, J., Sparks, R., Handley, M., and E.              Schooler, "SIP: Session Initiation Protocol",RFC 3261,              DOI 10.17487/RFC3261, June 2002,              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3261>.   [RFC7835]  Saucez, D., Iannone, L., and O. Bonaventure, "Locator/ID              Separation Protocol (LISP) Threat Analysis",RFC 7835,              DOI 10.17487/RFC7835, April 2016,              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7835>.   [RFC8060]  Farinacci, D., Meyer, D., and J. Snijders, "LISP Canonical              Address Format (LCAF)",RFC 8060, DOI 10.17487/RFC8060,              February 2017, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8060>.Farinacci, et al.             Informational                    [Page 10]

RFC 8112         LISP-DDT Referral Internet Groper (RIG)        May 2017Acknowledgments   The authors would like to thank Damien Saucez and Fabio Maino for   their ideas and comments.  Appreciation also goes to Joel Halpern,   Luigi Iannone, and Nevil Brownlee for their help with this document.Authors' Addresses   Dino Farinacci   lispers.net   San Jose, California   United States of America   Phone: 408-718-2001   Email: farinacci@gmail.com   Amit Jain   Juniper Networks   San Jose, California   United States of America   Email: atjain@juniper.net   Isidor Kouvelas   Arista   Santa Clara, California   United States of America   Email: kouvelas@arista.com   Darrel Lewis   Cisco Systems   Tasman Ave.   San Jose, California   United States of America   Email: darlewis@cisco.comFarinacci, et al.             Informational                    [Page 11]