1 / 17

LISP Deployment Scenarios

LISP Deployment Scenarios. Darrel Lewis and Margaret Wasserman IETF 76, Hiroshima, Japan. Agenda. Introduction : Deployment scenario implication for the LISP Specification Survey of LISP Network Elements XTRs Map Servers Map Resolvers Proxy ITRs Proxy ETRs

aubrey-durham
Download Presentation

LISP Deployment Scenarios

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. LISP Deployment Scenarios Darrel Lewis and Margaret Wasserman IETF 76, Hiroshima, Japan

  2. Agenda • Introduction : Deployment scenario implication for the LISP Specification • Survey of LISP Network Elements • XTRs • Map Servers • Map Resolvers • Proxy ITRs • Proxy ETRs • Gauge level of interest in developing an informational draft

  3. Introduction • The goal of this presentation is to inform the community about how we are expecting LISP to be deployed • Help to bound the discussion within practical scenarios • Covers cases we expect to be most common, not all possibilities are covered • For each element we’ll discuss possible deployment scenarios • And hopefully the tradeoffs • For each element we’ll discuss the impact of deployment scenarios on the spec

  4. LISP xTRs as the CE BGP R1 R2 Internet Provider A 10.0.0.0/8 Provider B 11.0.0.0/8 Provider Independent (PI) 15.0.0.0/8

  5. LISP xTRs • xTRs at customer premise (CE) • Advantages • Site control of egress TE • Site control of ingress TE • Encapsulate last, Decapsulate first • Disadvantages • None? • Spec implications • LISP needs to work on typical CPE hardware • Higher-end routers for mid-to-large enterprise • Lower-end routers/CPE devices for SOHO

  6. LISP xTRs (cont) • ITR and ETR split into different devices for a site • Advantages • Best path vs. shortest path • Disadvantages • Additional mechanism (such as OSPF) needed for ITRs to detect ETR liveness • Site must carry full routes • Spec implications • Need for functional separation of ITR/ETR

  7. Split ITR/ETR Site S S4 S3 S2 S1 <-Decapsulate Encapsulate-> 3G Provider 3.0.0.0/8 Provider A 1.0.0.0/8 1.0.0.1 ITR LISP EID-prefix 10.0.0.0/8 ETR iBGP 4G Provider 4.0.0.0/8 Provider B 2.0.0.0/8 2.0.0.1 ETR ITR

  8. LISP xTRs • xTRs at the Provider Edge (PE) • Advantages • Site doesn’t have to upgrade CE • Multi-homing to a single SP might work • Degenerate of the VPN case local NAT in • Disadvantages • Site loses control of egress TE • Locator liveness is problematic • Implications • LISP would need to work on typical PE hardware

  9. LISP xTRs (cont) • xTRs for Inter-Service Provider TE • Advantages • Separate mapping database shared between service providers • Bilateral agreements allow traffic engineering across multiple MPLS ASes • Disadvantages • Extra header, add’l looked, database maintenance • Implications • Requires support for two levels of LISP headers

  10. Map Server • Authenticated Map Register messages are sent to Map Servers by ETRs • Map Server(s) will probably be provided by an EID registrar • Redundant servers are desirable • Impacts: • Need mechanism to configure EID prefix(es), keys and map server address(es) on ETRs

  11. Map Resolver • Map Requests are sent to Map Resolvers by ITRs • Map resolvers will probably be provided by Internet Service Providers • Impacts: • Need DHCP option or other mechanism to configure map resolver address(es) on ITRs

  12. P-ITR P-ITR P-ITR (2) (1) 65.1.1.1 -> 1.1.1.1 NR-prefix 1.1.0.0/16 R-prefix 65.1.0.0/16 66.1.1.1 Encapsulate 65.9.1.1 NR-prefix 1.2.0.0/16 66.2.2.2 BGP Advertise: 1.0.0.0/8 R-prefix 65.2.0.0/16 65.9.1.1 -> 66.1.1.1 65.9.2.1 (3) BGP Advertise: 1.0.0.0/8 1.1.1.1 ->65.1.1.1 NR-prefix 1.3.0.0/16 65.9.3.1 R-prefix 65.3.0.0/16 BGP Advertise: 1.0.0.0/8 65.1.1.1-> 1.1.1.1 Proxy-ITRs 65.0.0.0/12 66.3.3.3 66.0.0.0/12 Legend: LISP Sites -> Green (and EIDs) non-LISP Sites -> Red (and RLOCs) xTR Infrastructure Solution

  13. LISP Proxy-ITRs • Advantages • Allow connectivity between LISP nodes and non-LISP nodes • Early Adopter LISP sites see benefits of LISP • Disadvantages • Non-LISP traffic may take suboptimal route through Proxy ITR (compared to LISP-NAT) • Implications • Defined in Interworking specification

  14. P-ITR P-ITR NR-prefix 1.1.0.0/16 R-prefix 65.1.0.0/16 66.1.1.1 NR-prefix 1.2.0.0/16 66.2.2.2 R-prefix 65.2.0.0/16 65.10.1.1 <- 66.1.1.1 NR-prefix 1.3.0.0/16 R-prefix 65.3.0.0/16 65.1.1.1<- 1.1.1.1 Proxy-ETRs (1) (2) 65.1.1.1 <-1.1.1.1 65.10.1.1 Encapsulate P-ETR 65.9.1.1 Encapsulate BGP Advertise: 1.0.0.0/8 65.9.2.1 65.0.0.0/12 BGP Advertise: 1.0.0.0/8 66.3.3.3 66.0.0.0/12 Legend: LISP Sites -> Green (and EIDs) non-LISP Sites -> Red (and RLOCs) xTR

  15. LISP Proxy-ETRs • Advantages • Allows LISP nodes in sites with URPF restrictions to communicate with non-LISP nodes • Allows LISP in sites without natvie IPv6 support to communication with LISP nodes that have only v6 RLOCs • Can (should?!) be separate devices from Proxy-ITRs • Disadvantages • Packets may take longer path through P-ETR • Implications • Defined in Interworking specification

  16. Early Adopter/Experimental • xTRs behind a NAT • Advantages: • Allows LISP connectivity to/from sites behind a NAT for test network/early deployment • Disadvantages: • Somewhat Complex to configure • Implications: • Limited NAT traversal needed • 1 xTR at global address, static port forwarding for 4341 & 4342 • Dynamic Locator in ETR Database • Needed for short term, when LISP is not integrated with provider-supplied CPE

  17. Wrap UP • Is further work needed in this area? • Should we write an informational draft?

More Related