draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-02.txt   draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-03.txt 
Network Working Group D. Farinacci Network Working Group D. Farinacci
Internet-Draft V. Fuller Internet-Draft V. Fuller
Intended status: Standards Track D. Meyer Intended status: Standards Track D. Meyer
Expires: October 13, 2017 D. Lewis Expires: November 3, 2017 D. Lewis
Cisco Systems Cisco Systems
A. Cabellos (Ed.) A. Cabellos (Ed.)
UPC/BarcelonaTech UPC/BarcelonaTech
April 11, 2017 May 2, 2017
The Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP) The Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP)
draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-02 draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-03
Abstract Abstract
This document describes the data-plane protocol for the Locator/ID This document describes the data-plane protocol for the Locator/ID
Separation Protocol (LISP). LISP defines two namespaces, End-point Separation Protocol (LISP). LISP defines two namespaces, End-point
Identifiers (EIDs) that identify end-hosts and Routing Locators Identifiers (EIDs) that identify end-hosts and Routing Locators
(RLOCs) that identify network attachment points. With this, LISP (RLOCs) that identify network attachment points. With this, LISP
effectively separates control from data, and allows routers to create effectively separates control from data, and allows routers to create
overlay networks. LISP-capable routers exchange encapsulated packets overlay networks. LISP-capable routers exchange encapsulated packets
according to EID-to-RLOC mappings stored in a local map-cache. The according to EID-to-RLOC mappings stored in a local map-cache. The
skipping to change at page 1, line 46 skipping to change at page 1, line 46
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 October 13, 2017. This Internet-Draft will expire on November 3, 2017.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2017 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2017 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
skipping to change at page 3, line 16 skipping to change at page 3, line 16
17.3. ISP Provider Edge (PE) xTRs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 17.3. ISP Provider Edge (PE) xTRs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
17.4. LISP Functionality with Conventional NATs . . . . . . . 40 17.4. LISP Functionality with Conventional NATs . . . . . . . 40
17.5. Packets Egressing a LISP Site . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 17.5. Packets Egressing a LISP Site . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
18. Traceroute Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 18. Traceroute Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
18.1. IPv6 Traceroute . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42 18.1. IPv6 Traceroute . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
18.2. IPv4 Traceroute . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42 18.2. IPv4 Traceroute . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
18.3. Traceroute Using Mixed Locators . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 18.3. Traceroute Using Mixed Locators . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
19. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 19. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
20. Network Management Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 20. Network Management Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
21. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 21. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
21.1. LISP ACT and Flag Fields . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 21.1. LISP UDP Port Numbers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
21.2. LISP Address Type Codes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45 22. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
21.3. LISP UDP Port Numbers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45 22.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
21.4. LISP Key ID Numbers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45 22.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
22. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45 Appendix A. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
22.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45 Appendix B. Document Change Log . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
22.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48 B.1. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-03 . . . . . . . . 52
Appendix A. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52 B.2. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-02 . . . . . . . . 52
Appendix B. Document Change Log . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52 B.3. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-01 . . . . . . . . 52
B.1. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-02 . . . . . . . . 53 B.4. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-00 . . . . . . . . 52
B.2. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-01 . . . . . . . . 53 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
B.3. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-00 . . . . . . . . 53
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
This document describes the Locator/Identifier Separation Protocol This document describes the Locator/Identifier Separation Protocol
(LISP). LISP is an encapsulation protocol built around the (LISP). LISP is an encapsulation protocol built around the
fundamental idea of separating the topological location of a network fundamental idea of separating the topological location of a network
attachment point from the node's identity [CHIAPPA]. As a result attachment point from the node's identity [CHIAPPA]. As a result
LISP creates two namespaces: Endpoint Identifiers (EIDs), that are LISP creates two namespaces: Endpoint Identifiers (EIDs), that are
used to identify end-hosts (e.g., nodes or Virtual Machines) and used to identify end-hosts (e.g., nodes or Virtual Machines) and
routable Routing Locators (RLOCs), used to identify network routable Routing Locators (RLOCs), used to identify network
skipping to change at page 22, line 43 skipping to change at page 22, line 43
Even though this mechanism is stateful, it has advantages over the Even though this mechanism is stateful, it has advantages over the
stateless IP fragmentation mechanism, by not involving the stateless IP fragmentation mechanism, by not involving the
destination host with reassembly of ITR fragmented packets. destination host with reassembly of ITR fragmented packets.
8. Using Virtualization and Segmentation with LISP 8. Using Virtualization and Segmentation with 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. See IANA Considerations (Section 21.2) for details on unique. See IANA Considerations of [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis] for
possible address encodings. details on possible address encodings.
An Instance ID can be carried in a LISP-encapsulated packet. An ITR An Instance ID can be carried in a LISP-encapsulated packet. An ITR
that prepends a LISP header will copy a 24-bit value used by the LISP that prepends a LISP header will copy a 24-bit value used by the LISP
router to uniquely identify the address space. The value is copied router to uniquely identify the address space. The value is copied
to the 'Instance ID' field of the LISP header, and the I-bit is set to the 'Instance ID' field of the LISP header, and the I-bit is set
to 1. to 1.
When an ETR decapsulates a packet, the Instance ID from the LISP When an ETR decapsulates a packet, the Instance ID from the LISP
header is used as a table identifier to locate the forwarding table header is used as a table identifier to locate the forwarding table
to use for the inner destination EID lookup. to use for the inner destination EID lookup.
skipping to change at page 37, line 46 skipping to change at page 37, line 46
A mobile device can use the LISP infrastructure to achieve mobility A mobile device can use the LISP infrastructure to achieve mobility
by implementing the LISP encapsulation and decapsulation functions by implementing the LISP encapsulation and decapsulation functions
and acting as a simple ITR/ETR. By doing this, such a "LISP mobile and acting as a simple ITR/ETR. By doing this, such a "LISP mobile
node" can use topologically independent EID IP addresses that are not node" can use topologically independent EID IP addresses that are not
advertised into and do not impose a cost on the global routing advertised into and do not impose a cost on the global routing
system. These EIDs are maintained at the edges of the mapping system system. These EIDs are maintained at the edges of the mapping system
in LISP Map-Servers and Map-Resolvers) and are provided on demand to in LISP Map-Servers and Map-Resolvers) and are provided on demand to
only the correspondents of the LISP mobile node. only the correspondents of the LISP mobile node.
Refer to [I-D.meyer-lisp-mn] for more details for when the EID and Refer to [I-D.ietf-lisp-mn] for more details for when the EID and
RLOC are co-located in the roaming node. RLOC are co-located in the roaming node.
17. LISP xTR Placement and Encapsulation Methods 17. LISP xTR Placement and Encapsulation Methods
This section will explore how and where ITRs and ETRs can be placed This section will explore how and where ITRs and ETRs can be placed
in the network and will discuss the pros and cons of each scenario. in the network and will discuss the pros and cons of each scenario.
For a more detailed networkd design deployment recommendation, refer For a more detailed networkd design deployment recommendation, refer
to [RFC7215]. to [RFC7215].
There are two basic deployment tradeoffs to consider: centralized There are two basic deployment tradeoffs to consider: centralized
skipping to change at page 44, line 29 skipping to change at page 44, line 29
20. Network Management Considerations 20. Network Management Considerations
Considerations for network management tools exist so the LISP Considerations for network management tools exist so the LISP
protocol suite can be operationally managed. These mechanisms can be protocol suite can be operationally managed. These mechanisms can be
found in [RFC7052] and [RFC6835]. found in [RFC7052] and [RFC6835].
21. IANA Considerations 21. IANA Considerations
This section provides guidance to the Internet Assigned Numbers This section provides guidance to the Internet Assigned Numbers
Authority (IANA) regarding registration of values related to the LISP Authority (IANA) regarding registration of values related to this
specification, in accordance with BCP 26 [RFC5226]. data-plane LISP specification, in accordance with BCP 26 [RFC5226].
There are four namespaces (listed in the sub-sections below) in LISP
that have been registered.
o LISP IANA registry allocations should not be made for purposes
unrelated to LISP routing or transport protocols.
o The following policies are used here with the meanings defined in
BCP 26: "Specification Required", "IETF Review", "Experimental
Use", and "First Come First Served".
21.1. LISP ACT and Flag Fields
New ACT values [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis] can be allocated through
IETF review or IESG approval. Four values have already been
allocated by this specification [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis].
In addition, LISP has a number of flag fields and reserved fields,
such as the LISP header flags field (Section 5.3). New bits for
flags in these fields can be implemented after IETF review or IESG
approval, but these need not be managed by IANA.
21.2. LISP Address Type Codes
LISP Canonical Address Format (LCAF) [RFC8060] is an 8-bit field that
defines LISP-specific encodings for AFI value 16387. LCAF encodings
are used for specific use-cases where different address types for
EID-records and RLOC-records are required.
The IANA registry "LISP Canonical Address Format (LCAF) Types" is
used for LCAF types, the registry for LCAF types use the
Specification Required policy [RFC5226]. Initial values for the
registry as well as further information can be found in [RFC8060].
21.3. LISP UDP Port Numbers 21.1. LISP UDP Port Numbers
The IANA registry has allocated UDP port numbers 4341 and 4342 for The IANA registry has allocated UDP port numbers 4341 and 4342 for
lisp-data and lisp-control operation, respectively. IANA has updated lisp-data and lisp-control operation, respectively. IANA has updated
the description for UDP ports 4341 and 4342 as follows: the description for UDP ports 4341 and 4342 as follows:
lisp-data 4341 udp LISP Data Packets lisp-data 4341 udp LISP Data Packets
lisp-control 4342 udp LISP Control Packets lisp-control 4342 udp LISP Control Packets
21.4. LISP Key ID Numbers
The following Key ID values are defined by this specification as used
in any packet type that references a 'Key ID' field:
Name Number Defined in
-----------------------------------------------
None 0 n/a
HMAC-SHA-1-96 1 [RFC2404]
HMAC-SHA-256-128 2 [RFC4868]
Number values are in the range of 0 to 65535. The allocation of
values is on a first come first served basis.
22. References 22. References
22.1. Normative References 22.1. Normative References
[I-D.ietf-lisp-ddt] [I-D.ietf-lisp-ddt]
Fuller, V., Lewis, D., Ermagan, V., Jain, A., and A. Fuller, V., Lewis, D., Ermagan, V., Jain, A., and A.
Smirnov, "LISP Delegated Database Tree", draft-ietf-lisp- Smirnov, "LISP Delegated Database Tree", draft-ietf-lisp-
ddt-09 (work in progress), January 2017. ddt-09 (work in progress), January 2017.
[I-D.ietf-lisp-introduction] [I-D.ietf-lisp-introduction]
Cabellos-Aparicio, A. and D. Saucez, "An Architectural Cabellos-Aparicio, A. and D. Saucez, "An Architectural
Introduction to the Locator/ID Separation Protocol Introduction to the Locator/ID Separation Protocol
(LISP)", draft-ietf-lisp-introduction-13 (work in (LISP)", draft-ietf-lisp-introduction-13 (work in
progress), April 2015. progress), April 2015.
[I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis] [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis]
Fuller, V., Farinacci, D., and A. Cabellos-Aparicio, Fuller, V., Farinacci, D., and A. Cabellos-Aparicio,
"Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP) Control-Plane", "Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP) Control-Plane",
draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis-01 (work in progress), March draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis-03 (work in progress), April
2017. 2017.
[I-D.ietf-lisp-sec] [I-D.ietf-lisp-sec]
Maino, F., Ermagan, V., Cabellos-Aparicio, A., and D. Maino, F., Ermagan, V., Cabellos-Aparicio, A., and D.
Saucez, "LISP-Security (LISP-SEC)", draft-ietf-lisp-sec-12 Saucez, "LISP-Security (LISP-SEC)", draft-ietf-lisp-sec-12
(work in progress), November 2016. (work in progress), November 2016.
[RFC0768] Postel, J., "User Datagram Protocol", STD 6, RFC 768, [RFC0768] Postel, J., "User Datagram Protocol", STD 6, RFC 768,
DOI 10.17487/RFC0768, August 1980, DOI 10.17487/RFC0768, August 1980,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc768>. <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc768>.
skipping to change at page 49, line 10 skipping to change at page 48, line 10
[CHIAPPA] Chiappa, J., "Endpoints and Endpoint names: A Proposed", [CHIAPPA] Chiappa, J., "Endpoints and Endpoint names: A Proposed",
1999, 1999,
<http://mercury.lcs.mit.edu/~jnc/tech/endpoints.txt>. <http://mercury.lcs.mit.edu/~jnc/tech/endpoints.txt>.
[I-D.farinacci-lisp-predictive-rlocs] [I-D.farinacci-lisp-predictive-rlocs]
Farinacci, D. and P. Pillay-Esnault, "LISP Predictive Farinacci, D. and P. Pillay-Esnault, "LISP Predictive
RLOCs", draft-farinacci-lisp-predictive-rlocs-01 (work in RLOCs", draft-farinacci-lisp-predictive-rlocs-01 (work in
progress), November 2016. progress), November 2016.
[I-D.ietf-lisp-mn]
Farinacci, D., Lewis, D., Meyer, D., and C. White, "LISP
Mobile Node", draft-ietf-lisp-mn-00 (work in progress),
April 2017.
[I-D.ietf-lisp-signal-free-multicast] [I-D.ietf-lisp-signal-free-multicast]
Moreno, V. and D. Farinacci, "Signal-Free LISP Multicast", Moreno, V. and D. Farinacci, "Signal-Free LISP Multicast",
draft-ietf-lisp-signal-free-multicast-02 (work in draft-ietf-lisp-signal-free-multicast-03 (work in
progress), October 2016. progress), April 2017.
[I-D.meyer-lisp-mn]
Farinacci, D., Lewis, D., Meyer, D., and C. White, "LISP
Mobile Node", draft-meyer-lisp-mn-16 (work in progress),
December 2016.
[I-D.meyer-loc-id-implications] [I-D.meyer-loc-id-implications]
Meyer, D. and D. Lewis, "Architectural Implications of Meyer, D. and D. Lewis, "Architectural Implications of
Locator/ID Separation", draft-meyer-loc-id-implications-01 Locator/ID Separation", draft-meyer-loc-id-implications-01
(work in progress), January 2009. (work in progress), January 2009.
[I-D.portoles-lisp-eid-mobility] [I-D.portoles-lisp-eid-mobility]
Portoles-Comeras, M., Ashtaputre, V., Moreno, V., Maino, Portoles-Comeras, M., Ashtaputre, V., Moreno, V., Maino,
F., and D. Farinacci, "LISP L2/L3 EID Mobility Using a F., and D. Farinacci, "LISP L2/L3 EID Mobility Using a
Unified Control Plane", draft-portoles-lisp-eid- Unified Control Plane", draft-portoles-lisp-eid-
skipping to change at page 53, line 5 skipping to change at page 52, line 5
The LISP working group would like to give a special thanks to Jari The LISP working group would like to give a special thanks to Jari
Arkko, the Internet Area AD at the time that the set of LISP Arkko, the Internet Area AD at the time that the set of LISP
documents were being prepared for IESG last call, and for his documents were being prepared for IESG last call, and for his
meticulous reviews and detailed commentaries on the 7 working group meticulous reviews and detailed commentaries on the 7 working group
last call documents progressing toward standards-track RFCs. last call documents progressing toward standards-track RFCs.
Appendix B. Document Change Log Appendix B. Document Change Log
[RFC Editor: Please delete this section on publication as RFC.] [RFC Editor: Please delete this section on publication as RFC.]
B.1. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-02 B.1. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-03
o Posted May 2017.
o Move the control-plane related codepoints in the IANA
Considerations section to RFC6833bis.
B.2. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-02
o Posted April 2017. o Posted April 2017.
o Reflect some editorial comments from Damien Sausez. o Reflect some editorial comments from Damien Sausez.
B.2. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-01 B.3. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-01
o Posted March 2017. o Posted March 2017.
o Include references to new RFCs published. o Include references to new RFCs published.
o Change references from RFC6833 to RFC6833bis. o Change references from RFC6833 to RFC6833bis.
o Clarified LCAF text in the IANA section. o Clarified LCAF text in the IANA section.
o Remove references to "experimental". o Remove references to "experimental".
B.3. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-00 B.4. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-00
o Posted December 2016. o Posted December 2016.
o Created working group document from draft-farinacci-lisp o Created working group document from draft-farinacci-lisp
-rfc6830-00 individual submission. No other changes made. -rfc6830-00 individual submission. No other changes made.
Authors' Addresses Authors' Addresses
Dino Farinacci Dino Farinacci
Cisco Systems Cisco Systems
 End of changes. 16 change blocks. 
81 lines changed or deleted 39 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.45. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/