draft-ietf-lisp-map-versioning-01.txt   draft-ietf-lisp-map-versioning-02.txt 
Network Working Group L. Iannone Network Working Group L. Iannone
Internet-Draft TU Berlin - Deutsche Telekom Internet-Draft TU Berlin - Deutsche Telekom
Intended status: Experimental Laboratories AG Intended status: Experimental Laboratories AG
Expires: September 12, 2011 D. Saucez Expires: January 6, 2012 D. Saucez
O. Bonaventure O. Bonaventure
Universite catholique de Louvain Universite catholique de Louvain
March 11, 2011 July 5, 2011
LISP Map-Versioning LISP Map-Versioning
draft-ietf-lisp-map-versioning-01.txt draft-ietf-lisp-map-versioning-02.txt
Abstract Abstract
This document describes the LISP Map-Versioning mechanism, which This document describes the LISP Map-Versioning mechanism, which
provides in-packet information about EID-to-RLOC mappings used to provides in-packet information about EID-to-RLOC mappings used to
encapsulate LISP data packets. The proposed approach is based on encapsulate LISP data packets. The proposed approach is based on
associating a version number to EID-to-RLOC mappings and transport associating a version number to EID-to-RLOC mappings and transport
such a version number in the LISP specific header of LISP- such a version number in the LISP specific header of LISP-
encapsulated packets. LISP Map-Versioning is particularly useful to encapsulated packets. LISP Map-Versioning is particularly useful to
inform communicating xTRs about modifications of the mappings used to inform communicating xTRs about modifications of the mappings used to
encapsulate packets. The mechanism is transparent to legacy encapsulate packets. The mechanism is transparent to legacy
implementations, since in the LISP-specific header and in the Map implementations, since in the LISP-specific header and in the Map
Records, bits used for Map-Versioning can be safely ignored by xTRs Records, bits used for Map-Versioning can be safely ignored by xTRs
that do not support the mechanism. that do not support the mechanism.
Status of this Memo Status of this Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted to IETF 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), its areas, and its working groups. Note that Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet- working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts. 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."
The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at This Internet-Draft will expire on January 6, 2012.
http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt.
The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.
This Internet-Draft will expire on September 12, 2011.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2011 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2011 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 BSD License. described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Requirements Notation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 2. Requirements Notation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3. Definitions of Terms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 3. Definitions of Terms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
4. EID-to-RLOC Map-Version number . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 4. EID-to-RLOC Map-Version number . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
4.1. The Null Map-Version . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 4.1. The Null Map-Version . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
5. Dealing with Map-Version numbers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 5. Dealing with Map-Version numbers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
5.1. Handling Destination Map-Version number . . . . . . . . . 7 5.1. Handling Destination Map-Version number . . . . . . . . . 7
5.2. Handling Source Map-Version number . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 5.2. Handling Source Map-Version number . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
6. LISP header and Map-Version numbers . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 6. LISP header and Map-Version numbers . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
7. Map Record and Map-Version . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 7. Map Record and Map-Version . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
8. Benefits and case studies for Map-Versioning . . . . . . . . . 12 8. Benefits and case studies for Map-Versioning . . . . . . . . . 11
8.1. Synchronization of different xTRs . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 8.1. Synchronization of different xTRs . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
8.2. Map-Versioning and unidirectional traffic . . . . . . . . 13 8.2. Map-Versioning and unidirectional traffic . . . . . . . . 12
8.3. Map-Versioning and interworking . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 8.3. Map-Versioning and interworking . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
8.3.1. Map-Versioning and Proxy-ITRs . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 8.3.1. Map-Versioning and Proxy-ITRs . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
8.3.2. Map-Versioning and LISP-NAT . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 8.3.2. Map-Versioning and LISP-NAT . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
8.3.3. Map-Versioning and Proxy-ETRs . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 8.3.3. Map-Versioning and Proxy-ETRs . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
8.4. RLOC shutdown/withdraw . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 8.4. RLOC shutdown/withdraw . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
8.5. Map-Version for lightweight LISP implementation . . . . . 15 8.5. Map-Version for lightweight LISP implementation . . . . . 14
9. Incremental deployment and implementation status . . . . . . . 16 9. Incremental deployment and implementation status . . . . . . . 15
10. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 10. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
10.1. Map-Versioning against traffic disruption . . . . . . . . 17 10.1. Map-Versioning against traffic disruption . . . . . . . . 16
10.2. Map-Versioning against reachability information DoS . . . 17 10.2. Map-Versioning against reachability information DoS . . . 16
11. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 11. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
12. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 12. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
13. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 13. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
13.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 13.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
13.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 13.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Appendix A. Estimation of time before Map-Version wrap-around . . 19 Appendix A. Estimation of time before Map-Version wrap-around . . 18
Appendix B. Document Change Log . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 Appendix B. Document Change Log . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
This document describes the Map-Versioning mechanism used to provide This document describes the Map-Versioning mechanism used to provide
information on changes in the EID-to-RLOC mappings used in the LISP information on changes in the EID-to-RLOC mappings used in the LISP
([I-D.ietf-lisp]) context to perform packet encapsulation. The ([I-D.ietf-lisp]) context to perform packet encapsulation. The
mechanism is totally transparent to xTRs not supporting such mechanism is totally transparent to xTRs not supporting such
functionality. It is not meant to replace any existing LISP functionality. It is not meant to replace any existing LISP
mechanism, but rather to complete them providing new functionalities. mechanism, but rather to complete them providing new functionalities.
The basic mechanism is to associate a Map-Version number to each LISP The basic mechanism is to associate a Map-Version number to each LISP
skipping to change at page 6, line 46 skipping to change at page 5, line 46
information is conveyed for the destination site. This means that information is conveyed for the destination site. This means that
the ETR MUST NOT compare the value with the Map-Version number of the the ETR MUST NOT compare the value with the Map-Version number of the
mapping for the destination EID present in the EID-to-RLOC Database. mapping for the destination EID present in the EID-to-RLOC Database.
The other use of the Null Map-Version number is in the Map Records, The other use of the Null Map-Version number is in the Map Records,
which are part of the Map-Request, Map-Reply and Map-Register which are part of the Map-Request, Map-Reply and Map-Register
messages (defined in [I-D.ietf-lisp]). Map Records that have a Null messages (defined in [I-D.ietf-lisp]). Map Records that have a Null
Map-Version number indicate that there is no Map-Version number Map-Version number indicate that there is no Map-Version number
associated with the mapping. This means that LISP encapsulated associated with the mapping. This means that LISP encapsulated
packets, destined to the EID-Prefix the Map Record refers to, MUST packets, destined to the EID-Prefix the Map Record refers to, MUST
NOT contain Map-Version numbers (i.e., V bit MUST always be 0). In either not contain any Map-Version numbers (V bit set to 0), or if it
other words, the Null Map-Version number signals to the ITR using the contains Map-Version numbers (V bit set to 1) then the destination
mapping that the Map-Versioning is not supported, or even if Map-Version number MUST be set to the Null Map-Version number. Any
supported it MUST NOT be used for that specific EID-Prefix. Any
value different from zero means that Map-Versioning is supported and value different from zero means that Map-Versioning is supported and
MAY be used. MAY be used.
The fact that the 0 value has a special meaning for the Map-Version The fact that the 0 value has a special meaning for the Map-Version
number implies that, when updating a Map-Version number because of a number implies that, when updating a Map-Version number because of a
change in the mapping, if the next value is 0 then Map-Version number change in the mapping, if the next value is 0 then Map-Version number
MUST be incremented by 2 (i.e., set to 1, which is the next valid MUST be incremented by 2 (i.e., set to 1, which is the next valid
value). value).
5. Dealing with Map-Version numbers 5. Dealing with Map-Version numbers
The main idea of using Map-Version numbers is that whenever there is The main idea of using Map-Version numbers is that whenever there is
a change in the mapping (e.g., adding/removing RLOCs, a change in the a change in the mapping (e.g., adding/removing RLOCs, a change in the
weights due to TE policies, or a change in the priorities) or an ISP weights due to TE policies, or a change in the priorities) or an ISP
realizes that one or more of its own RLOCs are not reachable anymore realizes that one or more of its own RLOCs are not reachable anymore
from a local perspective (e.g., through IGP, or policy changes) the from a local perspective (e.g., through IGP, or policy changes) the
ISP updates the mapping also assigning a new Map-Version number. ISP updates the mapping also assigning a new Map-Version number.
To each mapping, a version number is associated and changes each time
the mapping is changed. Note that map-versioning does not introduce
any new problem concerning the coordination of different ETRs of a
domain. Indeed, ETRs belonging to the same LISP site must return for
a specific EID-prefix the same mapping. In principle this is
orthogonal to whether or not map-versioning is used. The ETR's
synchronization problem is out of the scope of this document.
In order to announce in a data-driven fashion that the mapping has In order to announce in a data-driven fashion that the mapping has
been updated, Map-Version numbers used to create the outer IP header been updated, Map-Version numbers used to create the outer IP header
of the LISP-encapsulated packet are embedded in the LISP-specific of the LISP-encapsulated packet are embedded in the LISP-specific
header. This means that the header needs to contain two Map-Version header. This means that the header needs to contain two Map-Version
numbers: numbers:
o The Source Map-Version number of the EID-to-RLOC mapping in the o The Source Map-Version number of the EID-to-RLOC mapping in the
EID-to-RLOC Database used to select the source RLOC. EID-to-RLOC Database used to select the source RLOC.
o The Destination Map-Version number of the EID-to-RLOC mapping in o The Destination Map-Version number of the EID-to-RLOC mapping in
skipping to change at page 8, line 31 skipping to change at page 7, line 38
3. The packets arrive with a Destination Map-Version number smaller 3. The packets arrive with a Destination Map-Version number smaller
(i.e., older) than the one stored in the EID-to-RLOC Database. (i.e., older) than the one stored in the EID-to-RLOC Database.
This means that the ITR sending the packet has an old mapping in This means that the ITR sending the packet has an old mapping in
its EID-to-RLOC Cache containing stale information. The ITR its EID-to-RLOC Cache containing stale information. The ITR
sending the packet has to be informed that a newer mapping is sending the packet has to be informed that a newer mapping is
available. This is done with a Map-Request message sent back to available. This is done with a Map-Request message sent back to
the ITR. The Map-Request will either trigger a Map-Request back the ITR. The Map-Request will either trigger a Map-Request back
using the SMR bit or it will piggyback the newer mapping. These using the SMR bit or it will piggyback the newer mapping. These
are not new mechanisms; how to SMR or piggyback mappings in Map- are not new mechanisms; how to SMR or piggyback mappings in Map-
Request messages is already described in [I-D.ietf-lisp], while Request messages is already described in [I-D.ietf-lisp], while
their security is discussed in [I-D.saucez-lisp-security]. These their security is discussed in [I-D.ietf-lisp-threats]. These
Map-Request messages should be rate limited (rate limitation Map-Request messages should be rate limited (rate limitation
policies are also described in [I-D.ietf-lisp]). The feature policies are also described in [I-D.ietf-lisp]). The feature
introduced by Map-Version numbers is the possibility of blocking introduced by Map-Version numbers is the possibility of blocking
traffic from ITRs not using the latest mapping. Indeed, after a traffic from ITRs not using the latest mapping. Indeed, after a
certain number of retries, if the Destination Map-Version number certain number of retries, if the Destination Map-Version number
in the packets is not updated, the ETR MAY silently drop packets in the packets is not updated, the ETR MAY silently drop packets
with a stale Map-Version number. This because either the ITR is with a stale Map-Version number. This because either the ITR is
refusing to use the mapping for which the ETR is authoritative or refusing to use the mapping for which the ETR is authoritative or
(worse) it might be some form of attack. (worse) it might be some form of attack.
skipping to change at page 11, line 44 skipping to change at page 11, line 7
+-> +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-> +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Map-Version Number: Map-Version of the mapping contained in the Map-Version Number: Map-Version of the mapping contained in the
Record. As explained in Section 4.1 this field can be zero (0), Record. As explained in Section 4.1 this field can be zero (0),
meaning that no Map-Version is associated to the mapping, hence meaning that no Map-Version is associated to the mapping, hence
packets that are LISP-encapsulated using this mapping MUST NOT packets that are LISP-encapsulated using this mapping MUST NOT
contain Map-Version numbers in the LISP specific header and the contain Map-Version numbers in the LISP specific header and the
V-bit MUST be set to 0. V-bit MUST be set to 0.
This packet format works perfectly with xTRs that do not support Map- This packet format works perfectly with xTRs that do not support Map-
Versioning, since they can simply ignore those bits. Furthermore, Versioning, since they can simply ignore those bits.
existing and future mapping distribution protocol (e.g., ALT
[I-D.ietf-lisp-alt]) are able to carry version numbers without
needing any modification. The same applies to the LISP Map Server
([I-D.ietf-lisp-ms]), which will still work without any change since
reserved bits are simply ignored.
8. Benefits and case studies for Map-Versioning 8. Benefits and case studies for Map-Versioning
In the following sections we provide more discussion on various In the following sections we provide more discussion on various
aspects and use of the Map-Versioning. Security observations are aspects and use of the Map-Versioning. Security observations are
instead grouped in Section 10. instead grouped in Section 10.
8.1. Synchronization of different xTRs 8.1. Synchronization of different xTRs
Map-Versioning does not require additional synchronization mechanism Map-Versioning does not require additional synchronization mechanism
skipping to change at page 16, line 22 skipping to change at page 15, line 22
All of these operations, as already stated, do not need to maintain All of these operations, as already stated, do not need to maintain
any consistency among Locator Status Bits, and the way RLOC are any consistency among Locator Status Bits, and the way RLOC are
stored in the cache. stored in the cache.
Further, Map-Version can be used to substitute the "clock sweep" Further, Map-Version can be used to substitute the "clock sweep"
operation described in Section 6.5.1 of [I-D.ietf-lisp]. Indeed, operation described in Section 6.5.1 of [I-D.ietf-lisp]. Indeed,
every LISP site communicating to a specific LISP site that has every LISP site communicating to a specific LISP site that has
updated the mapping will be informed of the available new mapping in updated the mapping will be informed of the available new mapping in
a data-driven manner. a data-driven manner.
Note that what proposed in the present section is just a case study Note that what is proposed in the present section is just an example
and MUST NOT be considered as specification for a lightweight LISP and MUST NOT be considered as specifications for a lightweight LISP
implementation. implementation. In case the IETF decides to undertake such a work,
it will be documented elsewhere.
9. Incremental deployment and implementation status 9. Incremental deployment and implementation status
Map-Versioning can be incrementally deployed without any negative Map-Versioning can be incrementally deployed without any negative
impact on existing LISP elements (e.g., xTRs, Map-Servers, Proxy- impact on existing LISP elements (e.g., xTRs, Map-Servers, Proxy-
ITRs, etc). Any LISP element that does not support Map-Versioning ITRs, etc). Any LISP element that does not support Map-Versioning
can safely ignore them. Further, there is no need of any specific can safely ignore them. Further, there is no need of any specific
mechanism to discover if an xTR supports or not Map-Versioning. This mechanism to discover if an xTR supports or not Map-Versioning. This
information is already included in the Map Record. information is already included in the Map Record.
skipping to change at page 17, line 6 skipping to change at page 16, line 7
Map-Versioning does not introduce any new security issue concerning Map-Versioning does not introduce any new security issue concerning
both the data-plane and the control-plane. On the contrary, as both the data-plane and the control-plane. On the contrary, as
described in the following, if Map-Versioning may be used also to described in the following, if Map-Versioning may be used also to
update mappings in case of change in the reachability information update mappings in case of change in the reachability information
(i.e., instead of the Locator Status Bits) it is possible to reduce (i.e., instead of the Locator Status Bits) it is possible to reduce
the effects of some DoS or spoofing attacks that can happen in an the effects of some DoS or spoofing attacks that can happen in an
untrusted environment. untrusted environment.
A thorough security analysis of LISP is documented in A thorough security analysis of LISP is documented in
[I-D.saucez-lisp-security]. [I-D.ietf-lisp-threats].
10.1. Map-Versioning against traffic disruption 10.1. Map-Versioning against traffic disruption
An attacker can try to disrupt ongoing communications by creating An attacker can try to disrupt ongoing communications by creating
LISP encapsulated packets with wrong Locator Status Bits. If the xTR LISP encapsulated packets with wrong Locator Status Bits. If the xTR
blindly trusts the Locator Status Bits it will change the blindly trusts the Locator Status Bits it will change the
encapsulation accordingly, which can result in traffic disruption. encapsulation accordingly, which can result in traffic disruption.
This does not happen in the case of Map-Versioning. As described in This does not happen in the case of Map-Versioning. As described in
Section 5, upon a version number change the xTR first issues a Map- Section 5, upon a version number change the xTR first issues a Map-
skipping to change at page 18, line 16 skipping to change at page 17, line 17
DDoS attacks, where an xTR looses processing power doing checks on DDoS attacks, where an xTR looses processing power doing checks on
the LISP header of packets sent by attackers. This is independent the LISP header of packets sent by attackers. This is independent
from Map-Versioning and is the same for Loc Status Bits. from Map-Versioning and is the same for Loc Status Bits.
11. IANA Considerations 11. IANA Considerations
This document has no actions for IANA. This document has no actions for IANA.
12. Acknowledgements 12. Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank Pierre Francois, Noel Chiappa, Dino The authors would like to thank Alia Atlas, Jesper Skriver, Pierre
Farinacci for their comments and review. Francois, Noel Chiappa, Dino Farinacci for their comments and review.
This work has been partially supported by the INFSO-ICT-216372 This work has been partially supported by the INFSO-ICT-216372
TRILOGY Project (www.trilogy-project.org). TRILOGY Project (www.trilogy-project.org).
13. References 13. References
13.1. Normative References 13.1. Normative References
[I-D.ietf-lisp] [I-D.ietf-lisp]
Farinacci, D., Fuller, V., Meyer, D., and D. Lewis, Farinacci, D., Fuller, V., Meyer, D., and D. Lewis,
"Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP)", "Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP)",
draft-ietf-lisp-10 (work in progress), March 2011. draft-ietf-lisp-14 (work in progress), June 2011.
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
13.2. Informative References 13.2. Informative References
[I-D.iannone-openlisp-implementation] [I-D.iannone-openlisp-implementation]
Iannone, L., Saucez, D., and O. Bonaventure, "OpenLISP Iannone, L., Saucez, D., and O. Bonaventure, "OpenLISP
Implementation Report", Implementation Report",
draft-iannone-openlisp-implementation-01 (work in draft-iannone-openlisp-implementation-01 (work in
progress), July 2008. progress), July 2008.
[I-D.ietf-lisp-alt] [I-D.ietf-lisp-alt]
Fuller, V., Farinacci, D., Meyer, D., and D. Lewis, "LISP Fuller, V., Farinacci, D., Meyer, D., and D. Lewis, "LISP
Alternative Topology (LISP+ALT)", draft-ietf-lisp-alt-06 Alternative Topology (LISP+ALT)", draft-ietf-lisp-alt-07
(work in progress), March 2011. (work in progress), June 2011.
[I-D.ietf-lisp-interworking] [I-D.ietf-lisp-interworking]
Lewis, D., Meyer, D., Farinacci, D., and V. Fuller, Lewis, D., Meyer, D., Farinacci, D., and V. Fuller,
"Interworking LISP with IPv4 and IPv6", "Interworking LISP with IPv4 and IPv6",
draft-ietf-lisp-interworking-02 (work in progress), draft-ietf-lisp-interworking-02 (work in progress),
March 2011. June 2011.
[I-D.ietf-lisp-ms] [I-D.ietf-lisp-ms]
Fuller, V. and D. Farinacci, "LISP Map Server", Fuller, V. and D. Farinacci, "LISP Map Server",
draft-ietf-lisp-ms-07 (work in progress), March 2011. draft-ietf-lisp-ms-09 (work in progress), June 2011.
[I-D.saucez-lisp-security] [I-D.ietf-lisp-threats]
Saucez, D., Iannone, L., and O. Bonaventure, "LISP Saucez, D., Iannone, L., and O. Bonaventure, "LISP Threats
Security Threats", draft-saucez-lisp-security-03 (work in Analysis", draft-ietf-lisp-threats-00 (work in progress),
progress), March 2011. July 2011.
Appendix A. Estimation of time before Map-Version wrap-around Appendix A. Estimation of time before Map-Version wrap-around
The present section proposes an estimation of the wrap-around time The present section proposes an estimation of the wrap-around time
for the proposed 12 bits size for the Map-Version number. Using a for the proposed 12 bits size for the Map-Version number. Using a
granularity of seconds and assuming as worst-case that a new version granularity of seconds and assuming as worst-case that a new version
is issued each second, it takes slightly more than 1 hour before the is issued each second, it takes slightly more than 1 hour before the
version wraps around. Note that the granularity of seconds is in version wraps around. Note that the granularity of seconds is in
line with the rate limitation policy for Map-Request messages, as line with the rate limitation policy for Map-Request messages, as
proposed in the LISP main specifications ([I-D.ietf-lisp]). proposed in the LISP main specifications ([I-D.ietf-lisp]).
skipping to change at page 20, line 26 skipping to change at page 19, line 26
| 15 | 22 Days | 9 Hours | | 15 | 22 Days | 9 Hours |
| 14 | 11 Days | 4 Hours | | 14 | 11 Days | 4 Hours |
| 13 | 5.6 Days | 2.2 Hours | | 13 | 5.6 Days | 2.2 Hours |
| 12 | 2.8 Days | 1.1 Hours | | 12 | 2.8 Days | 1.1 Hours |
+---------------+---------------------+----------------------+ +---------------+---------------------+----------------------+
Figure 5: Estimation of time before wrap-around Figure 5: Estimation of time before wrap-around
Appendix B. Document Change Log Appendix B. Document Change Log
o Version 02 Posted July 2011.
* Added text in Section 5 about ETR synchronization, as suggested
by Alia Atlas.
* Modified text in Section 8.5 concerning lightweight LISP
implementation, as suggested by Alia Atlas.
* Deleted text concerning old versions of [I-D.ietf-lisp-ms] and
[I-D.ietf-lisp-alt] in Section 7, as pointed out by Alia Atlas.
* Fixed section 4.1 to be less restrictive, as suggested by
Jesper Skriver.
o Version 01 Posted March 2011. o Version 01 Posted March 2011.
* Changed the wording from "Map-Version number 0" to "Null Map- * Changed the wording from "Map-Version number 0" to "Null Map-
Version. Version.
* Clarification of the use of the Null Map-Version value as * Clarification of the use of the Null Map-Version value as
Source Map-Version Number and Destination Map-Version Number. Source Map-Version Number and Destination Map-Version Number.
* Extended the section describing Map-Versioning and LISP * Extended the section describing Map-Versioning and LISP
Interworking co-existence. Interworking co-existence.
skipping to change at page 21, line 18 skipping to change at page 20, line 32
TU Berlin - Deutsche Telekom Laboratories AG TU Berlin - Deutsche Telekom Laboratories AG
Ernst-Reuter Platz 7 Ernst-Reuter Platz 7
Berlin Berlin
Germany Germany
Email: luigi@net.t-labs.tu-berlin.de Email: luigi@net.t-labs.tu-berlin.de
Damien Saucez Damien Saucez
Universite catholique de Louvain Universite catholique de Louvain
Place St. Barbe 2 Place St. Barbe 2
Louvain la Neuve Louvain-la-Neuve
Belgium Belgium
Email: damien.saucez@uclouvain.be Email: damien.saucez@uclouvain.be
Olivier Bonaventure Olivier Bonaventure
Universite catholique de Louvain Universite catholique de Louvain
Place St. Barbe 2 Place St. Barbe 2
Louvain la Neuve Louvain-la-Neuve
Belgium Belgium
Email: olivier.bonaventure@uclouvain.be Email: olivier.bonaventure@uclouvain.be
 End of changes. 24 change blocks. 
73 lines changed or deleted 84 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/