LISP Site External Connectivity

Abstract

This draft defines how to register/retrieve pETR mapping information in LISP when the destination is not registered/known to the local site and its mapping system (e.g. the destination is an internet or external site destination).¶

1. Introduction

The LISP architecture and protocol [RFC9301] introduces two types of replies to a map-request sent by an ITR:¶

- when the EID is known or registered to the mapping system, a regular map-reply with mapping information is sent, or¶

- when the EID is unknown or known but not registered, a negative-map-reply (NMR) is sent.¶

Currently the NMR does not convey pETR RLOC-set information to specify where the ITR should send the packet.¶

This document describes how to use the LISP messages to register and provide pETR RLOC-set information for destinations which are EIDs not registered with the Mapping System, or simply are "not known" to be an existing EID. These destinations could be the destinations which are outside of the LISP site belonging to non-LISP domains, hence are not registered with the LISP Mapping System.¶

The reachability of these destinations can be provided either by configuring pETR information directly into the Mapping System, or by the registration done by certain pETRs. The pETR registration is specifically useful when the traffic to these external destinations needs to be sent encapsulated to a preferred pETR/gateway chosen dynamically. This mechanism also helps to achieve faster convergence.¶

This document also specifies the structure of the map-reply containing pETR RLOC-set information.¶

2. Definition of Terms

Same as defined in [RFC9300] and [RFC9301].¶

3. pETR Registration

pETRs having external or internet connectivity MAY register the pETR with the mapping system per Instance ID (IID) of the VPN [I-D.ietf-lisp-vpn]. The pETR Map-Register procedures and record format are the same as in [RFC9301] with the following contents:¶

- An “EID-Prefix” as configurable "Distinguished Name" defined, agreed upon and ‘distinguished’ by the mechanism according to [I-D.ietf-lisp-name-encoding].¶

- RLOC-set for pETR information.¶

- Each locator in the RLOC-set MAY be encoded as per [I-D.ietf-lisp-vpn]. This enables dynamic external connectivity in VPN environments.¶

- Additional information MAY be encoded in vendor specific LCAF type [RFC9306] about the registering pETR such as its performance matrix, location, resource availability for the Mapping System to make preference decision.¶

4. pETR Request/Subscription

The Map-Request procedures and record format are the same as in [RFC9301] with the following contents:¶

- An "EID-Prefix" MAY be configurable "Distinguished Name" defined, agreed upon and ‘distinguished’ by the mechanism according to [I-D.ietf-lisp-name-encoding].¶

- N-bit MAY be set as per [RFC9437]¶

- Additional information MAY be encoded in vendor specific LCAF type [RFC9306] about the requesting ITR such as location, performance matrix to make preference decision.¶

5. pETR Notification/Publication

When pETR registers or updates the pETR registration with the mapping system, mapping system sends Map-Notify.¶

With lisp-pubsub [RFC9437], N-bit SHOULD be set in the Map-Request from ITR. Then, whenever pETR gets updated in the mapping system, mapping system sends Map-Notify messages to update subscribed ITRs as per procedures in [RFC9437].¶

When lisp-pubsub [RFC9437] is not available in the mapping system, then shorter TTL MAY be used for updating the map-caches at ITR as per procedures in [RFC9301].¶

The pETR Map-Notify procedures and record format are the same as in [RFC9301] with the following contents:¶

- An "EID-Prefix" as configurable "Distinguished Name" defined, agreed upon and ‘distinguished’ by the mechanism according to [I-D.ietf-lisp-name-encoding].¶

- RLOC-set for pETR information.¶

- Each locator in the RLOC-set MAY be encoded as per [I-D.ietf-lisp-vpn]. This enables dynamic external connectivity in VPN environments.¶

- TTL MAY be shorter than regular.¶

- Additional information MAY be encoded in vendor specific LCAF type [RFC9306] about the registering pETR such as its performance matrix, location, resource availability to communicate preference decision.¶

6. pETR Resolution

When the Map-Server (or ETR) determines that the requested destination is external or unknown to the mapping system, it sends a Map-Reply containing the pETR information. The Map-Reply procedures and record format are the same as described in the Map-Server processing section of [RFC9301]. This Map-Reply has the following content (as defined per regular map-reply and negative-map-reply in [RFC9301]):¶

- An EID-Prefix calculated as non-LISP "hole" per the procedures in [RFC9301] for negative map-reply.¶

- RLOC count MUST be non-zero.¶

- Each locator in the RLOC-set MAY be encoded as per [I-D.ietf-lisp-vpn]. This enables dynamic external connectivity in VPN environments.¶

- TTL MAY be shorter than regular map-reply.¶

- Additional information MAY be encoded in vendor specific LCAF type [RFC9306] about the mapping such as whether the mapping is based upon policy or registration.¶

7. pETR Map-Cache Update

On receiving pETR Map-Notify/Map-Reply from the mapping system, ITR MAY install/update map-cache and encapsulate the packets to pETR RLOCs as per [RFC9300] for the destinations not known to the mapping system as EIDs or known EIDs not registered to the mapping system. This can be implemented as follows,¶

- ITR SHOULD configure the known EID-blocks in its map-cache to always generate Map-Request for known EIDs. These would be more specific map-cache entries than “hole” EID-Prefix or default map-cache entries.¶

- On receiving pETR Map-Notify/Map-Reply, ITR MAY install/update following map-cache entries with pETR RLOCs,¶

- “hole” prefix [RFC9301] map-cache entry to encapsulate the packets to pETR RLOCs¶

- default map-cache entry to encapsulate the packets to pETR RLOCs.¶

11. Normative Reference

[I-D.ietf-lisp-name-encoding]

Farinacci, D., "LISP Distinguished Name Encoding", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-lisp-name-encoding-14, 16 August 2024, <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-lisp-name-encoding-14>.

[I-D.ietf-lisp-vpn]

Moreno, V. and D. Farinacci, "LISP Virtual Private Networks (VPNs)", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-lisp-vpn-12, 19 September 2023, <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-lisp-vpn-12>.

[RFC2119]

Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.

[RFC8174]

Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC 2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174, May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.

[RFC9300]

Farinacci, D., Fuller, V., Meyer, D., Lewis, D., and A. Cabellos, Ed., "The Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP)", RFC 9300, DOI 10.17487/RFC9300, October 2022, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9300>.

[RFC9301]

Farinacci, D., Maino, F., Fuller, V., and A. Cabellos, Ed., "Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP) Control Plane", RFC 9301, DOI 10.17487/RFC9301, October 2022, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9301>.

[RFC9306]

Rodriguez-Natal, A., Ermagan, V., Smirnov, A., Ashtaputre, V., and D. Farinacci, "Vendor-Specific LISP Canonical Address Format (LCAF)", RFC 9306, DOI 10.17487/RFC9306, October 2022, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9306>.

[RFC9437]

Rodriguez-Natal, A., Ermagan, V., Cabellos, A., Barkai, S., and M. Boucadair, "Publish/Subscribe Functionality for the Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP)", RFC 9437, DOI 10.17487/RFC9437, August 2023, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9437>.