draft-ietf-lisp-lcaf-05.txt   draft-ietf-lisp-lcaf-06.txt 
Network Working Group D. Farinacci Network Working Group D. Farinacci
Internet-Draft lispers.net Internet-Draft lispers.net
Intended status: Experimental D. Meyer Intended status: Experimental D. Meyer
Expires: November 7, 2014 Brocade Expires: April 19, 2015 Brocade
J. Snijders J. Snijders
Hibernia Networks Hibernia Networks
May 6, 2014 October 16, 2014
LISP Canonical Address Format (LCAF) LISP Canonical Address Format (LCAF)
draft-ietf-lisp-lcaf-05 draft-ietf-lisp-lcaf-06
Abstract Abstract
This draft defines a canonical address format encoding used in LISP This draft defines a canonical address format encoding used in LISP
control messages and in the encoding of lookup keys for the LISP control messages and in the encoding of lookup keys for the LISP
Mapping Database System. Mapping Database System.
Status of this Memo Status of This Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on November 7, 2014. This Internet-Draft will expire on April 19, 2015.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2014 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2014 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved. document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents publication of this document. Please review these documents
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License. described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Definition of Terms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 2. Definition of Terms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3. LISP Canonical Address Format Encodings . . . . . . . . . . . 5 3. LISP Canonical Address Format Encodings . . . . . . . . . . . 4
4. LISP Canonical Address Applications . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 4. LISP Canonical Address Applications . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4.1. Segmentation using LISP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 4.1. Segmentation using LISP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4.2. Carrying AS Numbers in the Mapping Database . . . . . . . 8 4.2. Carrying AS Numbers in the Mapping Database . . . . . . . 8
4.3. Convey Application Specific Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 4.3. Convey Application Specific Data . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
4.4. Assigning Geo Coordinates to Locator Addresses . . . . . . 10 4.4. Assigning Geo Coordinates to Locator Addresses . . . . . 10
4.5. Generic Database Mapping Lookups . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 4.5. Generic Database Mapping Lookups . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
4.6. NAT Traversal Scenarios . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 4.6. NAT Traversal Scenarios . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
4.7. PETR Admission Control Functionality . . . . . . . . . . . 15 4.7. PETR Admission Control Functionality . . . . . . . . . . 15
4.8. Multicast Group Membership Information . . . . . . . . . . 16 4.8. Multicast Group Membership Information . . . . . . . . . 16
4.9. Traffic Engineering using Re-encapsulating Tunnels . . . . 18 4.9. Traffic Engineering using Re-encapsulating Tunnels . . . 18
4.10. Storing Security Data in the Mapping Database . . . . . . 19 4.10. Storing Security Data in the Mapping Database . . . . . . 19
4.11. Source/Destination 2-Tuple Lookups . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 4.11. Source/Destination 2-Tuple Lookups . . . . . . . . . . . 20
4.12. Replication List Entries for Multicast Forwarding . . . . 21 4.12. Replication List Entries for Multicast Forwarding . . . . 21
4.13. Data Model Encoding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 4.13. Data Model Encoding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
4.14. Encoding Key/Value Address Pairs . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 4.14. Encoding Key/Value Address Pairs . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
4.15. Applications for AFI List Type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 4.15. Applications for AFI List Type . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
4.15.1. Binding IPv4 and IPv6 Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . 23 4.15.1. Binding IPv4 and IPv6 Addresses . . . . . . . . . . 23
4.15.2. Layer-2 VPNs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 4.15.2. Layer-2 VPNs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
4.15.3. ASCII Names in the Mapping Database . . . . . . . . . 25 4.15.3. ASCII Names in the Mapping Database . . . . . . . . 25
4.15.4. Using Recursive LISP Canonical Address Encodings . . 26 4.15.4. Using Recursive LISP Canonical Address Encodings . . 26
4.15.5. Compatibility Mode Use Case . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 4.15.5. Compatibility Mode Use Case . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
7. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 7. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
7.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 7.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
7.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 7.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
Appendix A. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 Appendix A. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
Appendix B. Document Change Log . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 Appendix B. Document Change Log . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
B.1. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-lcaf-05.txt . . . . . . . . . . 33 B.1. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-lcaf-06.txt . . . . . . . . . 30
B.2. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-lcaf-04.txt . . . . . . . . . . 33 B.2. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-lcaf-05.txt . . . . . . . . . 30
B.3. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-lcaf-03.txt . . . . . . . . . . 33 B.3. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-lcaf-04.txt . . . . . . . . . 30
B.4. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-lcaf-02.txt . . . . . . . . . . 33 B.4. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-lcaf-03.txt . . . . . . . . . 30
B.5. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-lcaf-01.txt . . . . . . . . . . 33 B.5. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-lcaf-02.txt . . . . . . . . . 31
B.6. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-lcaf-00.txt . . . . . . . . . . 34 B.6. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-lcaf-01.txt . . . . . . . . . 31
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 B.7. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-lcaf-00.txt . . . . . . . . . 31
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
The LISP architecture and protocols [RFC6830] introduces two new The LISP architecture and protocols [RFC6830] introduces two new
numbering spaces, Endpoint Identifiers (EIDs) and Routing Locators numbering spaces, Endpoint Identifiers (EIDs) and Routing Locators
(RLOCs) which are intended to replace most use of IP addresses on the (RLOCs) which are intended to replace most use of IP addresses on the
Internet. To provide flexibility for current and future Internet. To provide flexibility for current and future
applications, these values can be encoded in LISP control messages applications, these values can be encoded in LISP control messages
using a general syntax that includes Address Family Identifier (AFI), using a general syntax that includes Address Family Identifier (AFI),
length, and value fields. length, and value fields.
skipping to change at page 7, line 5 skipping to change at page 6, line 21
Length: this 16-bit field is in units of bytes and covers all of the Length: this 16-bit field is in units of bytes and covers all of the
LISP Canonical Address payload, starting and including the byte LISP Canonical Address payload, starting and including the byte
after the Length field. So any LCAF encoded address will have a after the Length field. So any LCAF encoded address will have a
minimum length of 8 bytes when the Length field is 0. The 8 bytes minimum length of 8 bytes when the Length field is 0. The 8 bytes
include the AFI, Flags, Type, Reserved, and Length fields. When include the AFI, Flags, Type, Reserved, and Length fields. When
the AFI is not next to encoded address in a control message, then the AFI is not next to encoded address in a control message, then
the encoded address will have a minimum length of 6 bytes when the the encoded address will have a minimum length of 6 bytes when the
Length field is 0. The 6 bytes include the Flags, Type, Reserved, Length field is 0. The 6 bytes include the Flags, Type, Reserved,
and Length fields. and Length fields.
[RFC6830] states RLOC records are sorted when encoded in control
messages so the locator-set has consistent order across all xTRs for
a given EID. The sort order is based on sort-key {afi, RLOC-
address}. When an RLOC is LCAF encoded, the sort-key is {afi, LCAF-
Type, payload}. Therefore, when a locator-set has a mix of AFI
records and LCAF records, all LCAF records will appear after all the
AFI records.
4. LISP Canonical Address Applications 4. LISP Canonical Address Applications
4.1. Segmentation using LISP 4.1. Segmentation using LISP
When multiple organizations inside of a LISP site are using private When multiple organizations inside of a LISP site are using private
addresses [RFC1918] as EID-prefixes, their address spaces must remain addresses [RFC1918] as EID-prefixes, their address spaces must remain
segregated due to possible address duplication. An Instance ID in segregated due to possible address duplication. An Instance ID in
the address encoding can aid in making the entire AFI based address the address encoding can aid in making the entire AFI based address
unique. unique.
skipping to change at page 30, line 13 skipping to change at page 28, line 34
experimentation will be defined and described in this document. experimentation will be defined and described in this document.
7. References 7. References
7.1. Normative References 7.1. Normative References
[RFC1700] Reynolds, J. and J. Postel, "Assigned Numbers", RFC 1700, [RFC1700] Reynolds, J. and J. Postel, "Assigned Numbers", RFC 1700,
October 1994. October 1994.
[RFC1918] Rekhter, Y., Moskowitz, R., Karrenberg, D., Groot, G., and [RFC1918] Rekhter, Y., Moskowitz, R., Karrenberg, D., Groot, G., and
E. Lear, "Address Allocation for Private Internets", E. Lear, "Address Allocation for Private Internets", BCP
BCP 5, RFC 1918, February 1996. 5, RFC 1918, February 1996.
[RFC4627] Crockford, D., "The application/json Media Type for [RFC4627] Crockford, D., "The application/json Media Type for
JavaScript Object Notation (JSON)", RFC 4627, July 2006. JavaScript Object Notation (JSON)", RFC 4627, July 2006.
[RFC6830] Farinacci, D., Fuller, V., Meyer, D., and D. Lewis, "The [RFC6830] Farinacci, D., Fuller, V., Meyer, D., and D. Lewis, "The
Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP)", RFC 6830, Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP)", RFC 6830, January
January 2013. 2013.
[RFC6836] Fuller, V., Farinacci, D., Meyer, D., and D. Lewis, [RFC6836] Fuller, V., Farinacci, D., Meyer, D., and D. Lewis,
"Locator/ID Separation Protocol Alternative Logical "Locator/ID Separation Protocol Alternative Logical
Topology (LISP+ALT)", RFC 6836, January 2013. Topology (LISP+ALT)", RFC 6836, January 2013.
7.2. Informative References 7.2. Informative References
[AFI] IANA, "Address Family Identifier (AFIs)", ADDRESS FAMILY [AFI] IANA, , "Address Family Identifier (AFIs)", ADDRESS FAMILY
NUMBERS http://www.iana.org/numbers.html, Febuary 2007. NUMBERS http://www.iana.org/numbers.html, Febuary 2007.
[JSON-BINARY] [JSON-BINARY]
"Universal Binary JSON Specification", "Universal Binary JSON Specification", URL
URL http://ubjson.org. http://ubjson.org, .
[LISP-DDT] [LISP-DDT]
Fuller, V., Lewis, D., and V. Ermagan, "LISP Delegated Fuller, V., Lewis, D., and V. Ermagan, "LISP Delegated
Database Tree", draft-ietf-lisp-ddt-01.txt (work in Database Tree", draft-ietf-lisp-ddt-01.txt (work in
progress). progress), .
[LISP-MRSIG] [LISP-MRSIG]
Farinacci, D. and M. Napierala, "LISP Control-Plane Farinacci, D. and M. Napierala, "LISP Control-Plane
Multicast Signaling", Multicast Signaling", draft-farinacci-lisp-mr-signaling-
draft-farinacci-lisp-mr-signaling-03.txt (work in 03.txt (work in progress), .
progress).
[LISP-NATT] [LISP-NATT]
Ermagan, V., Farinacci, D., Lewis, D., Skriver, J., Maino, Ermagan, V., Farinacci, D., Lewis, D., Skriver, J., Maino,
F., and C. White, "NAT traversal for LISP", F., and C. White, "NAT traversal for LISP", draft-ermagan-
draft-ermagan-lisp-nat-traversal-03.txt (work in lisp-nat-traversal-03.txt (work in progress), .
progress).
[LISP-RE] Coras, F., Cabellos-Aparicio, A., Domingo-Pascual, J., [LISP-RE] Coras, F., Cabellos-Aparicio, A., Domingo-Pascual, J.,
Maino, F., and D. Farinacci, "LISP Replication Maino, F., and D. Farinacci, "LISP Replication
Engineering", draft-coras-lisp-re-03.txt (work in Engineering", draft-coras-lisp-re-03.txt (work in
progress). progress), .
[LISP-TE] Farinacci, D., Lahiri, P., and M. Kowal, "LISP Traffic [LISP-TE] Farinacci, D., Lahiri, P., and M. Kowal, "LISP Traffic
Engineering Use-Cases", draft-farinacci-lisp-te-03.txt Engineering Use-Cases", draft-farinacci-lisp-te-03.txt
(work in progress). (work in progress), .
[WGS-84] Geodesy and Geophysics Department, DoD., "World Geodetic [WGS-84] Geodesy and Geophysics Department, DoD., "World Geodetic
System 1984", NIMA TR8350.2, January 2000, <http:// System 1984", NIMA TR8350.2, January 2000, <http://earth-
earth-info.nga.mil/GandG/publications/tr8350.2/ info.nga.mil/GandG/publications/tr8350.2/wgs84fin.pdf>.
wgs84fin.pdf>.
Appendix A. Acknowledgments Appendix A. Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank Vince Fuller, Gregg Schudel, Jesper The authors would like to thank Vince Fuller, Gregg Schudel, Jesper
Skriver, Luigi Iannone, Isidor Kouvelas, and Sander Steffann for Skriver, Luigi Iannone, Isidor Kouvelas, and Sander Steffann for
their technical and editorial commentary. their technical and editorial commentary.
The authors would like to thank Victor Moreno for discussions that The authors would like to thank Victor Moreno for discussions that
lead to the definition of the Multicast Info LCAF type. lead to the definition of the Multicast Info LCAF type.
skipping to change at page 33, line 7 skipping to change at page 30, line 17
List Entry LCAF type. List Entry LCAF type.
Thanks goes to Michiel Blokzijl and Alberto Rodriguez-Natal for Thanks goes to Michiel Blokzijl and Alberto Rodriguez-Natal for
suggesting new LCAF types. suggesting new LCAF types.
Thanks also goes to Terry Manderson for assistance obtaining a LISP Thanks also goes to Terry Manderson for assistance obtaining a LISP
AFI value from IANA. AFI value from IANA.
Appendix B. Document Change Log Appendix B. Document Change Log
B.1. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-lcaf-05.txt B.1. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-lcaf-06.txt
o Submitted October 2014.
o Make it clear how sorted RLOC records are done when LCAFs are used
as the RLOC record.
B.2. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-lcaf-05.txt
o Submitted May 2014. o Submitted May 2014.
o Add a length field of the JSON payload that can be used for either o Add a length field of the JSON payload that can be used for either
binary or text encoding of JSON data. binary or text encoding of JSON data.
B.2. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-lcaf-04.txt B.3. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-lcaf-04.txt
o Submitted January 2014. o Submitted January 2014.
o Agreement among ELP implementors to have the AFI 16-bit field o Agreement among ELP implementors to have the AFI 16-bit field
adjacent to the address. This will make the encoding consistent adjacent to the address. This will make the encoding consistent
with all other LCAF type address encodings. with all other LCAF type address encodings.
B.3. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-lcaf-03.txt B.4. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-lcaf-03.txt
o Submitted September 2013. o Submitted September 2013.
o Updated references and author's affilations. o Updated references and author's affilations.
o Added Instance-ID to the Multicast Info Type so there is relative o Added Instance-ID to the Multicast Info Type so there is relative
ease in parsing (S,G) entries within a VPN. ease in parsing (S,G) entries within a VPN.
o Add port range encodings to the Application Data LCAF Type. o Add port range encodings to the Application Data LCAF Type.
o Add a new JSON LCAF Type. o Add a new JSON LCAF Type.
o Add Address Key/Value LCAF Type to allow attributes to be attached o Add Address Key/Value LCAF Type to allow attributes to be attached
to an address. to an address.
B.4. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-lcaf-02.txt B.5. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-lcaf-02.txt
o Submitted March 2013. o Submitted March 2013.
o Added new LCAF Type "Replication List Entry" to support LISP o Added new LCAF Type "Replication List Entry" to support LISP
replication engineering use-cases. replication engineering use-cases.
o Changed references to new LISP RFCs. o Changed references to new LISP RFCs.
B.5. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-lcaf-01.txt B.6. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-lcaf-01.txt
o Submitted January 2013. o Submitted January 2013.
o Change longitude range from 0-90 to 0-180 in section 4.4. o Change longitude range from 0-90 to 0-180 in section 4.4.
o Added reference to WGS-84 in section 4.4. o Added reference to WGS-84 in section 4.4.
B.6. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-lcaf-00.txt B.7. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-lcaf-00.txt
o Posted first working group draft August 2012. o Posted first working group draft August 2012.
o This draft was renamed from draft-farinacci-lisp-lcaf-10.txt. o This draft was renamed from draft-farinacci-lisp-lcaf-10.txt.
Authors' Addresses Authors' Addresses
Dino Farinacci Dino Farinacci
lispers.net lispers.net
San Jose, CA San Jose, CA
skipping to change at page 35, line 20 skipping to change at page 32, line 4
USA USA
Email: farinacci@gmail.com Email: farinacci@gmail.com
Dave Meyer Dave Meyer
Brocade Brocade
San Jose, CA San Jose, CA
USA USA
Email: dmm@1-4-5.net Email: dmm@1-4-5.net
Job Snijders Job Snijders
Hibernia Networks Hibernia Networks
Tupolevlaan 103a Tupolevlaan 103a
Schiphol-Rijk, 1119 PA Schiphol-Rijk 1119 PA
NL NL
Email: job.snijders@hibernianetworks.com Email: job.snijders@hibernianetworks.com
 End of changes. 25 change blocks. 
70 lines changed or deleted 82 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.41. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/