Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) L. Iannone
Request for Comments: 7954 Telecom ParisTech
Category: Experimental D. Lewis
ISSN: 2070-1721 Cisco Systems, Inc.
D. Meyer
Brocade
V. Fuller
September 2016
Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) L. Iannone
Request for Comments: 7954 Telecom ParisTech
Category: Experimental D. Lewis
ISSN: 2070-1721 Cisco Systems, Inc.
D. Meyer
Brocade
V. Fuller
September 2016
Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP) Endpoint Identifier (EID) Block
定位器/ID分离协议（LISP）端点标识符（EID）块
Abstract
摘要
This document directs IANA to allocate a /32 IPv6 prefix for use with the Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP). The prefix will be used for local intra-domain routing and global endpoint identification, by sites deploying LISP as Endpoint Identifier (EID) addressing space.
本文档指导IANA分配一个/32 IPv6前缀，用于定位器/ID分离协议（LISP）。通过将LISP部署为端点标识符（EID）寻址空间的站点，前缀将用于本地域内路由和全局端点标识。
Status of This Memo
关于下段备忘
This document is not an Internet Standards Track specification; it is published for examination, experimental implementation, and evaluation.
本文件不是互联网标准跟踪规范；它是为检查、实验实施和评估而发布的。
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 7841.
本文档为互联网社区定义了一个实验协议。本文件是互联网工程任务组（IETF）的产品。它代表了IETF社区的共识。它已经接受了公众审查，并已被互联网工程指导小组（IESG）批准出版。并非IESG批准的所有文件都适用于任何级别的互联网标准；见RFC 7841第2节。
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/rfc7954.
有关本文件当前状态、任何勘误表以及如何提供反馈的信息，请访问http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7954.
Copyright Notice
版权公告
Copyright (c) 2016 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the document authors. All rights reserved.
版权所有（c）2016 IETF信托基金和确定为文件作者的人员。版权所有。
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.
本文件受BCP 78和IETF信托有关IETF文件的法律规定的约束(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info)自本文件出版之日起生效。请仔细阅读这些文件，因为它们描述了您对本文件的权利和限制。从本文件中提取的代码组件必须包括信托法律条款第4.e节中所述的简化BSD许可证文本，并提供简化BSD许可证中所述的无担保。
Table of Contents
目录
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Definition of Terms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. Rationale and Intent . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
4. Expected Use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
5. Block Dimension . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
6. 3+3 Allocation Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
7. Allocation Lifetime . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
8. Routing Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
9. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
10. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
11. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
11.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
11.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Definition of Terms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. Rationale and Intent . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
4. Expected Use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
5. Block Dimension . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
6. 3+3 Allocation Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
7. Allocation Lifetime . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
8. Routing Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
9. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
10. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
11. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
11.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
11.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
This document directs the IANA to allocate a /32 IPv6 prefix for use with the Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP [RFC6830]), LISP Map-Server ([RFC6833]), LISP Alternative Topology (LISP+ALT [RFC6836]) (or other) mapping systems, and LISP Interworking ([RFC6832]).
本文件指示IANA分配一个/32 IPv6前缀，用于定位器/ID分离协议（LISP[RFC6830]）、LISP映射服务器（[RFC6833]）、LISP替代拓扑（LISP+ALT[RFC6836]）（或其他）映射系统和LISP互通（[RFC6832]）。
This block will be used as global Endpoint Identifier (EID) space.
此块将用作全局端点标识符（EID）空间。
The present document does not introduce any new terms with respect to the set of LISP Specifications ([RFC6830], [RFC6831], [RFC6832], [RFC6833], [RFC6834], [RFC6835], [RFC6836], [RFC6837]), but it assumes that the reader is familiar with the LISP terminology. [LISP-INTRO] provides an introduction to the LISP technology, including its terminology.
本文档没有介绍与LISP规范集相关的任何新术语（[RFC6830]、[RFC6831]、[RFC6832]、[RFC6833]、[RFC6834]、[RFC6835]、[RFC6836]、[RFC6837]），但假定读者熟悉LISP术语。[LISP-INTRO]介绍了LISP技术，包括其术语。
Discussion within the LISP working group led to the identification of several scenarios in which the existence of a LISP-specific address block brings technical benefits. The most relevant scenarios are described below:
LISP工作组内部的讨论确定了几个场景，其中特定于LISP的地址块的存在带来了技术好处。最相关的场景描述如下：
Early LISP destination detection: With the current specifications, there is no direct way to detect whether or not a certain destination is in a LISP domain without performing a LISP mapping lookup. For instance, if an Ingress Tunnel Router (ITR) is sending packets to all types of destinations (i.e., non-LISP destinations, LISP destinations not in the IPv6 EID block, and LISP destinations in the IPv6 EID block), the only way to understand whether or not to encapsulate the traffic is to perform a cache lookup and, in case of a LISP cache miss, send a Map-Request to the mapping system. In the meanwhile (while waiting for the Map-Reply), packets may be dropped to avoid excessive buffering.
早期LISP目标检测：根据当前规范，如果不执行LISP映射查找，就无法直接检测特定目标是否位于LISP域中。例如，如果入口隧道路由器（ITR）正在向所有类型的目的地（即，非LISP目的地、不在IPv6 EID块中的LISP目的地和IPv6 EID块中的LISP目的地）发送数据包，则了解是否封装流量的唯一方法是执行缓存查找，并且在LISP缓存未命中的情况下，向映射系统发送映射请求。同时（在等待Map应答时），可以丢弃数据包以避免过度缓冲。
Avoid penalizing non-LISP traffic: In certain circumstances, it might be desirable to configure a router using LISP features to natively forward all packets that do not have a destination address in the block and, hence, no lookup whatsoever is performed and packets destined to non-LISP sites are not penalized in any manner.
避免惩罚非LISP通信：在某些情况下，可能需要使用LISP功能配置路由器，以本机转发块中没有目标地址的所有数据包，因此，不会执行任何查找，并且不会以任何方式惩罚发送到非LISP站点的数据包。
Traffic Engineering: In some deployment scenarios, it might be desirable to apply different traffic-engineering policies for LISP and non-LISP traffic. A LISP-specific EID block would allow improved traffic-engineering capabilities with respect to LISP vs. non-LISP traffic. In particular, LISP traffic might be identified without having to use Deep Packet Inspection (DPI) techniques in order to parse the encapsulated packet. Instead, performing a simple inspection of the outer header is sufficient.
流量工程：在某些部署场景中，可能需要对LISP和非LISP流量应用不同的流量工程策略。特定于LISP的EID块将允许改进LISP与非LISP通信的通信工程能力。特别是，可以识别LISP通信量，而无需使用深度数据包检查（DPI）技术来解析封装的数据包。相反，对外部收割台进行简单检查就足够了。
Transition Mechanism: The existence of a LISP-specific EID block may prove useful in transition scenarios. A non-LISP domain would ask for an allocation in the LISP EID block and use it to deploy LISP in its network. Such allocation would not be announced in the BGP routing infrastructure (cf. Section 4). This approach will allow non-LISP domains to avoid fragmenting their already allocated non-LISP addressing space, which may lead to BGP routing table inflation since it may (rightfully) be announced in the BGP routing infrastructure.
转换机制：特定于LISP的EID块的存在可能在转换场景中很有用。非LISP域将在LISP EID块中请求分配，并使用它在其网络中部署LISP。此类分配不会在BGP路由基础设施中公布（参见第4节）。这种方法将允许非LISP域避免分割其已分配的非LISP寻址空间，这可能导致BGP路由表膨胀，因为它可能（正确地）在BGP路由基础设施中公布。
Limit the impact on the BGP routing infrastructure: As described in the previous scenario, LISP adopters will avoid fragmenting their addressing space, since fragmentation would negatively impact the BGP routing infrastructure. Adopters will use addressing space from the EID block, which might be announced in large aggregates and in a tightly controlled manner only by Proxy Tunnel Routers (PxTRs).
限制对BGP路由基础设施的影响：如前一个场景所述，LISP采用者将避免对其寻址空间进行碎片化，因为碎片化将对BGP路由基础设施产生负面影响。采用者将使用来自EID块的寻址空间，EID块可能会以大规模聚合的方式公布，并且只能由代理隧道路由器（PXTR）严格控制。
It is worth mentioning that new use cases may arise in the future, due to new and unforeseen scenarios.
值得一提的是，由于新的和不可预见的场景，未来可能会出现新的用例。
Furthermore, the use of a dedicated address block allows for tighter control over the traffic in the initial experimental phase (especially filtering), while facilitating its large-scale deployment.
此外，专用地址块的使用允许在初始实验阶段（尤其是过滤）对流量进行更严格的控制，同时促进其大规模部署。
[RFC3692] considers assigning experimental and testing numbers useful; having a reserved IPv6 prefix enables this practice. The present document follows the guidelines provided in [RFC3692], with one exception. [RFC3692] suggests the use of values similar to those called "Private Use" in [RFC5226], which by definition are not unique. One purpose of the present request to IANA is to guarantee uniqueness to the EID block. The lack thereof would result in a lack of real utility of a reserved IPv6 prefix.
[RFC3692]认为分配实验和测试数字是有用的；使用保留的IPv6前缀可以实现这种做法。本文件遵循[RFC3692]中提供的指南，但有一个例外。[RFC3692]建议使用类似于[RFC5226]中称为“专用”的值，根据定义，这些值不是唯一的。向IANA发出的当前请求的一个目的是保证EID块的唯一性。缺少这一点将导致缺少保留IPv6前缀的实际实用性。
Sites planning to deploy LISP may request a prefix in the IPv6 EID block. Such prefixes will be used for routing and endpoint identification inside the site requesting it. Mappings related to such a prefix, or part of it, will be made available through the mapping system in use and registered to one or more Map-Server(s).
计划部署LISP的站点可能会在IPv6 EID块中请求前缀。这些前缀将用于请求它的站点内部的路由和端点标识。与该前缀或其一部分相关的映射将通过正在使用的映射系统提供，并注册到一个或多个映射服务器。
The EID block must be used for LISP experimentation and must not be advertised in the form of more specific route advertisements in the non-LISP inter-domain routing environment. Interworking between the EID block sub-prefixes and the non-LISP Internet is done according to the techniques described in [RFC6832] and [RFC7215].
EID块必须用于LISP试验，不得在非LISP域间路由环境中以更具体的路由播发形式播发。EID块子前缀和非LISP Internet之间的互通是根据[RFC6832]和[RFC7215]中描述的技术完成的。
As the LISP adoption progresses, the EID block may potentially have a reduced impact on the BGP routing infrastructure, compared to the case of having the same number of adopters using global unicast space allocated by Regional Internet Registries (RIRs) ([MobiArch2007]). From a short-term perspective, the EID block offers potentially large aggregation capabilities since it is announced by Proxy Tunnel Routers (PxTRs), possibly concentrating several contiguous prefixes. This trend should continue with even lower impact from a long-term perspective, because more aggressive aggregation can be used, potentially leading to using fewer PxTRs announcing the whole EID block ([FIABook2010]).
随着LISP采用的进展，与使用由区域互联网注册中心（RIR）分配的全球单播空间的采用者数量相同的情况相比（参见[MobiArch2007]），EID块可能会减少对BGP路由基础设施的影响。从短期来看，EID块提供了潜在的大型聚合功能，因为它是由代理隧道路由器（PXTR）宣布的，可能集中了几个连续的前缀。从长远来看，这一趋势应该会继续下去，但影响会更小，因为可以使用更积极的聚合，可能会导致使用更少的PXTR来宣布整个EID区块（[FIABook2010]）。
The EID block will be used only at the configuration level, so it is recommended not to hard-code the IPv6 EID block in the router hardware in any way. This prevents locking out sites that may want to switch to LISP while keeping their own IPv6 prefix, which is not in the IPv6 EID block. Furthermore, in the case of a future permanent allocation, the allocated prefix may differ from the experimental temporary prefix allocated during the experimentation phase.
EID块将仅在配置级别使用，因此建议不要以任何方式在路由器硬件中硬编码IPv6 EID块。这可以防止锁定可能希望切换到LISP的站点，同时保留其自己的IPv6前缀（不在IPv6 EID块中）。此外，在未来永久分配的情况下，分配的前缀可能不同于在实验阶段分配的实验临时前缀。
With the exception of the Proxy Ingress Tunnel Router (PITR) case (described in Section 8), prefixes out of the EID block must not be announced in the BGP routing infrastructure.
除代理入口隧道路由器（PITR）情况（第8节中描述）外，不得在BGP路由基础设施中宣布EID块外的前缀。
The working group reached consensus on an initial allocation of a /32 prefix. The reason of such consensus is manifold:
工作组就a/32前缀的初步分配达成协商一致意见。达成这种共识的原因是多方面的：
o The working group agreed that the /32 prefix is sufficiently large to cover initial allocation and requests for prefixes in the EID space in the next few years for very large-scale experimentation and deployment.
o 工作组一致认为/32前缀足够大，足以在未来几年在EID空间中进行初始分配和请求前缀，以便进行大规模试验和部署。
o As a comparison, it is worth mentioning that the current LISP Beta Network ([BETA]) is using a /32 prefix, with more than 250 sites using a /48 sub-prefix. Hence, a /32 prefix appears sufficiently large to allow the current deployment to scale up and be open for interoperation with independent deployments using the EIDs in the new /32 prefix.
o 作为比较，值得一提的是，当前的LISP Beta网络（[Beta]）使用/32前缀，250多个站点使用/48子前缀。因此，一个/32前缀看起来足够大，可以允许当前部署进行扩展，并且可以与使用新/32前缀中的EID的独立部署进行互操作。
o A /32 prefix is sufficiently large to allow deployment of independent (commercial) LISP-enabled networks by third parties, but may as well boost LISP experimentation and deployment.
o A/32前缀足够大，允许第三方部署支持LISP的独立（商业）网络，但也可以促进LISP试验和部署。
o The use of a /32 prefix is in line with previous similar prefix allocation for tunneling protocols ([RFC3056]).
o 使用/32前缀与之前隧道协议的类似前缀分配一致（[RFC3056]）。
Per this document, IANA has initially assigned a /32 prefix out of the IPv6 addressing space for use as EID in LISP.
根据本文档，IANA最初从IPv6寻址空间中分配了一个/32前缀，用作LISP中的EID。
IANA allocated the requested address space in September 2016 for a duration of 3 (three) years (through September 2019), with an option to extend this period by 3 (three) more years (until September 2022). By the end of the first period, the IETF will provide a decision on whether to transform the prefix into a permanent assignment or to put it back in the free pool (see Section 7 for more information).
IANA于2016年9月分配了请求的地址空间，期限为3（三）年（至2019年9月），可选择将该期限再延长3（三）年（至2022年9月）。在第一阶段结束时，IETF将决定是否将前缀转换为永久分配或将其放回空闲池（更多信息，请参阅第7节）。
In the first case, i.e., if the IETF decides to transform the block into a permanent allocation, the EID block allocation period will be extended for three years (until September 2022) to give the IETF time to define the final size of the EID block and create a transition plan. The transition of the EID block into a permanent allocation might pose policy issues (as recognized in [RFC2860], Section 4.3); therefore, discussion with the IANA, the RIR communities, and the IETF community will be necessary to determine the appropriate policy for permanent EID-block allocation and management. Note as well that the final permanent allocation may differ from the initial experimental assignment; hence, it is recommended not to hard-code the experimental EID block on LISP-capable devices in any way.
在第一种情况下，即，如果IETF决定将区块转换为永久分配，EID区块分配期将延长三年（直到2022年9月），以便IETF有时间定义EID区块的最终规模并创建过渡计划。EID区块向永久分配的过渡可能会带来政策问题（如[RFC2860]第4.3节所述）；因此，有必要与IANA、RIR社区和IETF社区进行讨论，以确定永久EID区块分配和管理的适当政策。还要注意，最终的永久分配可能不同于最初的实验分配；因此，建议不要以任何方式在支持LISP的设备上硬编码实验EID块。
In the latter case, i.e., if the IETF decides to terminate the experimental-use EID block, all temporary prefix allocations in this address range must expire and be released by September 2019, so that the entire /32 is returned to the free pool.
在后一种情况下，即，如果IETF决定终止实验性使用EID块，则该地址范围内的所有临时前缀分配必须在2019年9月到期并释放，以便将整个/32返回到空闲池。
The allocation and management of the EID block for the initial 3-year period (and the optional 3 more years) is detailed in [RFC7955].
初始3年期间（以及可选的3年以上）EID区块的分配和管理详见[RFC7955]。
If no explicit action is carried out by the end of the experiment (by September 2019), it is automatically considered that there was not sufficient interest in having a permanent allocation; therefore, the address block will be returned to the free pool.
如果在实验结束前（2019年9月前）未采取明确行动，则自动认为没有足够的兴趣进行永久分配；因此，地址块将返回到空闲池。
Otherwise, if the LISP working group recognizes that there is value in having a permanent allocation, then explicit action is needed.
否则，如果LISP工作组认识到永久分配是有价值的，那么就需要采取明确的行动。
In order to trigger the process for a permanent allocation, a document is required. Such a document has to articulate the rationale for why a permanent allocation would be beneficial. More specifically, the document has to detail the experience gained during experimentation and all of the technical benefits provided by the use of a LISP-specific prefix. Such technical benefits are expected to lay in the scenarios described in Section 3. However, new and unforeseen benefits may appear during experimentation. The description should be sufficiently articulate that the needed size of the permanent allocation can be estimated. However, note that, as explained in Section 6, it is up to IANA to decide which address block will be used as a permanent allocation and that such a block may be different from the temporary experimental allocation.
为了启动永久分配流程，需要一份文件。这样一份文件必须阐明为什么长期拨款是有益的。更具体地说，该文档必须详细说明在实验过程中获得的经验以及使用特定于LISP的前缀所带来的所有技术好处。此类技术优势预计将出现在第3节所述的场景中。然而，在实验过程中可能会出现新的和不可预见的好处。说明应充分明确，以便能够估计永久分配所需的规模。但是，请注意，如第6节所述，由IANA决定哪个地址块将用作永久分配，并且该地址块可能不同于临时实验分配。
In order to provide connectivity between the Legacy Internet and LISP sites, PITRs announcing large aggregates (ideally one single, large aggregate) of the IPv6 EID block could be deployed. By doing so, PITRs will attract traffic destined for LISP sites in order to encapsulate and forward it toward the specific destination LISP site. Routers in the Legacy Internet must treat announcements of prefixes from the IPv6 EID block as normal announcements, applying best current practices for traffic engineering and security.
为了提供旧式Internet和LISP站点之间的连接，可以部署宣布IPv6 EID块的大型聚合（理想情况下为单个大型聚合）的PITR。通过这样做，PITR将吸引目的地为LISP站点的流量，以便将其封装并转发到特定的目的地LISP站点。传统Internet中的路由器必须将来自IPv6 EID块的前缀通知视为正常通知，应用流量工程和安全方面的最佳当前实践。
Even in a LISP site, not all routers need to run LISP elements. In particular, routers that are not at the border of the local domain, used only for intra-domain routing, do not need to provide any specific LISP functionality but must be able to route traffic using addresses in the IPv6 EID block.
即使在LISP站点中，也不是所有路由器都需要运行LISP元素。特别是，不在本地域边界的路由器（仅用于域内路由）不需要提供任何特定的LISP功能，但必须能够使用IPv6 EID块中的地址路由流量。
For the above-mentioned reasons, routers that do not run any LISP element must not include any special handling code or hardware for addresses in the IPv6 EID block. In particular, it is recommended that the default router configuration not handle such addresses in any special way. Doing differently could prevent communication between the Legacy Internet and LISP sites or even break local intra-domain connectivity.
出于上述原因，不运行任何LISP元素的路由器不得包含IPv6 EID块中地址的任何特殊处理代码或硬件。特别是，建议默认路由器配置不以任何特殊方式处理此类地址。这样做可能会阻止传统Internet和LISP站点之间的通信，甚至破坏本地域内连接。
This document does not introduce new security threats in the LISP architecture nor in the legacy Internet architecture.
本文档不会在LISP体系结构或传统Internet体系结构中引入新的安全威胁。
IANA has assigned a /32 IPv6 prefix for use as the global EID space for LISP using a hierarchical allocation as outlined in [RFC5226] and summarized in Table 1. The assigned block is from the 2001:5 global unicast space.
IANA已使用[RFC5226]中概述并在表1中总结的分层分配，分配了一个/32 IPv6前缀作为LISP的全局EID空间。指定的块来自2001:5全局单播空间。
IANA is not requested to issue an AS0 Route Origin Attestation (ROA [RFC6491]), because the global EID space is be used for routing purposes.
IANA不被要求发布AS0路由来源证明（ROA[RFC6491]），因为全局EID空间用于路由目的。
+----------------------+--------------------+
| Attribute | Value |
+----------------------+--------------------+
| Address Block | 2001:5::/32 |
| Name | EID Space for LISP |
| RFC | RFC 7954 |
| Allocation Date | September 2016 |
| Termination Date | September 2019 [1] |
| Source | True [2] |
| Destination | True |
| Forwardable | True |
| Global | True |
| Reserved-by-protocol | True [3] |
+----------------------+--------------------+
+----------------------+--------------------+
| Attribute | Value |
+----------------------+--------------------+
| Address Block | 2001:5::/32 |
| Name | EID Space for LISP |
| RFC | RFC 7954 |
| Allocation Date | September 2016 |
| Termination Date | September 2019 [1] |
| Source | True [2] |
| Destination | True |
| Forwardable | True |
| Global | True |
| Reserved-by-protocol | True [3] |
+----------------------+--------------------+
[1] According to the 3+3 Plan outlined in this document, the
termination date can be postponed to September 2022.
[2] Can be used as a multicast source as well.
[3] To be used as EID space by routers enabled by LISP [RFC6830].
[1] According to the 3+3 Plan outlined in this document, the
termination date can be postponed to September 2022.
[2] Can be used as a multicast source as well.
[3] To be used as EID space by routers enabled by LISP [RFC6830].
Table 1: Global EID Space
表1：全局EID空间
The reserved address space is requested for an initial 3-year period starting in September 2016 (until September 2019), with an option to extend it by three years (until September 2022) upon the decision of the IETF (see Sections 6 and 7). Following the policies outlined in [RFC5226], upon IETF Review, the decision should be made on whether to have a permanent EID block assignment by September 2019. If no explicit action is taken or, if the IETF Review outcome is that it is not worth having a reserved prefix as a global EID space, the whole /32 will be taken out from the "IANA IPv6 Special-Purpose Address Registry" and put back in the free pool managed by IANA.
从2016年9月开始（至2019年9月），预留地址空间的初始期限为3年，经IETF决定，可选择将其延长三年（至2022年9月）（见第6节和第7节）。根据[RFC5226]中概述的政策，经IETF审查后，应在2019年9月之前决定是否进行永久EID区块分配。如果没有采取明确的行动，或者IETF审查结果表明不值得将保留前缀作为全局EID空间，则整个/32将从“IANA IPv6专用地址注册表”中取出，并放回IANA管理的空闲池中。
Allocation and management of the global EID space is detailed in [RFC7955]. Nevertheless, all prefix allocations out of this space must be temporary and no allocation must go beyond September 2019 unless the IETF Review decides for a permanent global EID space assignment.
全局EID空间的分配和管理详见[RFC7955]。然而，该空间之外的所有前缀分配必须是临时的，并且除非IETF审查决定永久性全球EID空间分配，否则任何分配都不得超过2019年9月。
[RFC2860] Carpenter, B., Baker, F., and M. Roberts, "Memorandum of Understanding Concerning the Technical Work of the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority", RFC 2860, DOI 10.17487/RFC2860, June 2000, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2860>.
[RFC2860]Carpenter，B.，Baker，F.和M.Roberts，“关于互联网分配号码管理局技术工作的谅解备忘录”，RFC 2860，DOI 10.17487/RFC2860，2000年6月<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2860>.
[RFC3692] Narten, T., "Assigning Experimental and Testing Numbers Considered Useful", BCP 82, RFC 3692, DOI 10.17487/RFC3692, January 2004, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3692>.
[RFC3692]Narten，T.，“分配被认为有用的实验和测试数字”，BCP 82，RFC 3692，DOI 10.17487/RFC3692，2004年1月<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3692>.
[RFC5226] Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 5226, DOI 10.17487/RFC5226, May 2008, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5226>.
[RFC5226]Narten，T.和H.Alvestrand，“在RFCs中编写IANA注意事项部分的指南”，BCP 26，RFC 5226，DOI 10.17487/RFC5226，2008年5月<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5226>.
[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>.
[RFC6830]Farinaci，D.，Fuller，V.，Meyer，D.，和D.Lewis，“定位器/身份分离协议（LISP）”，RFC 6830，DOI 10.17487/RFC6830，2013年1月<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6830>.
[RFC6831] Farinacci, D., Meyer, D., Zwiebel, J., and S. Venaas, "The Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP) for Multicast Environments", RFC 6831, DOI 10.17487/RFC6831, January 2013, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6831>.
[RFC6831]Farinaci，D.，Meyer，D.，Zwiebel，J.，和S.Venaas，“用于多播环境的定位器/ID分离协议（LISP）”，RFC 6831，DOI 10.17487/RFC6831，2013年1月<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6831>.
[RFC6832] Lewis, D., Meyer, D., Farinacci, D., and V. Fuller, "Interworking between Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP) and Non-LISP Sites", RFC 6832, DOI 10.17487/RFC6832, January 2013, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6832>.
[RFC6832]Lewis，D.，Meyer，D.，Farinaci，D.，和V.Fuller，“定位器/ID分离协议（LISP）和非LISP站点之间的互通”，RFC 6832，DOI 10.17487/RFC6832，2013年1月<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6832>.
[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>.
[RFC6833]Fuller，V.和D.Farinaci，“定位器/ID分离协议（LISP）地图服务器接口”，RFC 6833，DOI 10.17487/RFC6833，2013年1月<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6833>.
[RFC6834] Iannone, L., Saucez, D., and O. Bonaventure, "Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP) Map-Versioning", RFC 6834, DOI 10.17487/RFC6834, January 2013, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6834>.
[RFC6834]Iannone，L.，Saucez，D.，和O.Bonaventure，“定位器/ID分离协议（LISP）地图版本控制”，RFC 6834，DOI 10.17487/RFC6834，2013年1月<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6834>.
[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>.
[RFC6835]Farinaci，D.和D.Meyer，“定位器/身份分离协议互联网格罗珀（LIG）”，RFC 6835，DOI 10.17487/RFC6835，2013年1月<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6835>.
[RFC6836] Fuller, V., Farinacci, D., Meyer, D., and D. Lewis, "Locator/ID Separation Protocol Alternative Logical Topology (LISP+ALT)", RFC 6836, DOI 10.17487/RFC6836, January 2013, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6836>.
[RFC6836]Fuller，V.，Farinaci，D.，Meyer，D.，和D.Lewis，“定位器/ID分离协议替代逻辑拓扑（LISP+ALT）”，RFC 6836，DOI 10.17487/RFC6836，2013年1月<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6836>.
[RFC6837] Lear, E., "NERD: A Not-so-novel Endpoint ID (EID) to Routing Locator (RLOC) Database", RFC 6837, DOI 10.17487/RFC6837, January 2013, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6837>.
[RFC6837]李尔，E.“NERD：路由定位器（RLOC）数据库的一个不太新颖的端点ID（EID）”，RFC 6837，DOI 10.17487/RFC6837，2013年1月<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6837>.
[RFC7955] Iannone, L., Jorgensen, R., Conrad, D., and G. Huston, "Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP) Endpoint Identifier (EID) Block Management Guidelines", RFC 7955, DOI 10.17487/RFC7955, September 2016, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7955>.
[RFC7955]Iannone，L.，Jorgensen，R.，Conrad，D.，和G.Huston，“定位器/ID分离协议（LISP）端点标识符（EID）块管理指南”，RFC 7955，DOI 10.17487/RFC7955，2016年9月<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7955>.
[BETA] LISP Beta Network, "Locator/ID Separation Protocol", <http://www.lisp4.net>.
[BETA]LISP BETA网络，“定位器/ID分离协议”<http://www.lisp4.net>.
[FIABook2010] Iannone, L. and T. Leva, "Modeling the economics of Loc/ID Separation for the Future Internet", Towards the Future Internet, Pages 11-20, ISBN: 9781607505389, IOS Press, DOI 10.3233/978-1-60750-539-6-11, May 2010.
[FIABook2010]Iannone，L.和T.Leva，“未来互联网Loc/ID分离的经济学建模”，面向未来互联网，第11-20页，ISBN:9781607505389，IOS出版社，DOI 10.3233/978-1-60750-539-6-11，2010年5月。
[LISP-INTRO] Cabellos-Aparicio, A. and D. Saucez, "An Architectural Introduction to the Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP)", Work in Progress, draft-ietf-lisp-introduction-13, April 2015.
[LISP-INTRO]Cabellos Aparicio，A.和D.Saucez，“定位器/ID分离协议（LISP）的体系结构介绍”，正在进行中的工作，草案-ietf-LISP-INTRONSION-132015年4月。
[MobiArch2007] Quoitin, B., Iannone, L., de Launois, C., and O. Bonaventure, "Evaluating the Benefits of the Locator/ Identifier Separation", The 2nd ACM-SIGCOMM International Workshop on Mobility in the Evolving Internet Architecture (MobiArch'07), DOI 10.1145/1366919.1366926, August 2007.
[MobiArch2007]Quoitin，B.，Iannone，L.，de Launois，C.，和O.Bonaventure，“评估定位器/标识符分离的好处”，第二届ACM-SIGCOMM国际研讨会，关于互联网架构演进中的移动性（MobiArch'07），DOI 10.1145/1366919.1366926，2007年8月。
[RFC3056] Carpenter, B. and K. Moore, "Connection of IPv6 Domains via IPv4 Clouds", RFC 3056, DOI 10.17487/RFC3056, February 2001, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3056>.
[RFC3056]Carpenter，B.和K.Moore，“通过IPv4云连接IPv6域”，RFC 3056，DOI 10.17487/RFC3056，2001年2月<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3056>.
[RFC6491] Manderson, T., Vegoda, L., and S. Kent, "Resource Public Key Infrastructure (RPKI) Objects Issued by IANA", RFC 6491, DOI 10.17487/RFC6491, February 2012, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6491>.
[RFC6491]Manderson，T.，Vegoda，L.，和S.Kent，“IANA发布的资源公钥基础设施（RPKI）对象”，RFC 6491，DOI 10.17487/RFC64912012年2月<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6491>.
[RFC7215] Jakab, L., Cabellos-Aparicio, A., Coras, F., Domingo-Pascual, J., and D. Lewis, "Locator/Identifier Separation Protocol (LISP) Network Element Deployment Considerations", RFC 7215, DOI 10.17487/RFC7215, April 2014, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7215>.
[RFC7215]Jakab，L.，Cabellos Aparicio，A.，Coras，F.，Domingo Pascual，J.，和D.Lewis，“定位器/标识符分离协议（LISP）网元部署注意事项”，RFC 7215，DOI 10.17487/RFC7215，2014年4月<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7215>.
Acknowledgments
致谢
Special thanks to Roque Gagliano for his suggestions and pointers. Thanks to Alvaro Retana, Deborah Brungard, Ron Bonica, Damien Saucez, David Conrad, Scott Bradner, John Curran, Paul Wilson, Geoff Huston, Wes George, Arturo Servin, Sander Steffann, Brian Carpenter, Roger Jorgensen, Terry Manderson, Brian Haberman, Adrian Farrel, Job Snijders, Marla Azinger, Chris Morrow, and Peter Schoenmaker for their insightful comments. Thanks as well to all participants for the fruitful discussions on the IETF mailing list.
特别感谢罗克·加利亚诺的建议和指点。感谢阿尔瓦罗·雷塔纳、黛博拉·布伦加德、罗恩·博尼卡、达米恩·索切斯、大卫·康拉德、斯科特·布拉德纳、约翰·科伦、保罗·威尔逊、杰夫·休斯顿、韦斯·乔治、阿图罗·塞文、桑德·斯特凡、布莱恩·卡彭特、罗杰·乔根森、特里·曼德森、布莱恩·哈伯曼、阿德里安·法雷尔、乔布斯·斯奈德、玛拉·阿辛格、克里斯·莫罗、，以及彼得·舍恩马克尔的富有洞察力的评论。感谢所有与会者就IETF邮件列表进行了富有成效的讨论。
The work of Luigi Iannone has been partially supported by the ANR-13-INFR-0009 LISP-Lab Project <www.lisp-lab.org> and the EIT KIC ICT-Labs SOFNETS Project.
Luigi Iannone的工作得到了ANR-13-INFR-0009 LISP实验室项目<www.LISP-Lab.org>和EIT KIC ICT实验室SOFnet项目的部分支持。
Authors' Addresses
作者地址
Luigi Iannone Telecom ParisTech
路易吉·伊安诺电信巴黎酒店
Email: ggx@gigix.net
Email: ggx@gigix.net
Darrel Lewis Cisco Systems, Inc.
达雷尔·刘易斯思科系统公司。
Email: darlewis@cisco.com
Email: darlewis@cisco.com
David Meyer Brocade
大卫·迈耶·博科
Email: dmm@1-4-5.net
Email: dmm@1-4-5.net
Vince Fuller
文斯·富勒
Email: vaf@vaf.net
Email: vaf@vaf.net