--- 1/draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-02.txt 2017-05-04 11:13:10.160182239 -0700 +++ 2/draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-03.txt 2017-05-04 11:13:10.272184909 -0700 @@ -1,22 +1,22 @@ Network Working Group D. Farinacci Internet-Draft V. Fuller Intended status: Standards Track D. Meyer -Expires: October 13, 2017 D. Lewis +Expires: November 3, 2017 D. Lewis Cisco Systems A. Cabellos (Ed.) UPC/BarcelonaTech - April 11, 2017 + May 2, 2017 The Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP) - draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-02 + draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-03 Abstract This document describes the data-plane protocol for the Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP). LISP defines two namespaces, End-point Identifiers (EIDs) that identify end-hosts and Routing Locators (RLOCs) that identify network attachment points. With this, LISP effectively separates control from data, and allows routers to create overlay networks. LISP-capable routers exchange encapsulated packets according to EID-to-RLOC mappings stored in a local map-cache. The @@ -35,21 +35,21 @@ Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference 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 (c) 2017 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the document authors. All rights reserved. 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 @@ -97,33 +97,31 @@ 17.3. ISP Provider Edge (PE) xTRs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 17.4. LISP Functionality with Conventional NATs . . . . . . . 40 17.5. Packets Egressing a LISP Site . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 18. Traceroute Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 18.1. IPv6 Traceroute . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42 18.2. IPv4 Traceroute . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42 18.3. Traceroute Using Mixed Locators . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 19. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 20. Network Management Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 21. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 - 21.1. LISP ACT and Flag Fields . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 - 21.2. LISP Address Type Codes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45 - 21.3. LISP UDP Port Numbers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45 - 21.4. LISP Key ID Numbers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45 - 22. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45 - 22.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45 - 22.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48 - Appendix A. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52 - Appendix B. Document Change Log . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52 - B.1. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-02 . . . . . . . . 53 - B.2. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-01 . . . . . . . . 53 - B.3. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-00 . . . . . . . . 53 - Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53 + 21.1. LISP UDP Port Numbers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 + 22. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 + 22.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 + 22.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47 + Appendix A. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51 + Appendix B. Document Change Log . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51 + B.1. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-03 . . . . . . . . 52 + B.2. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-02 . . . . . . . . 52 + B.3. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-01 . . . . . . . . 52 + B.4. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-00 . . . . . . . . 52 + Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52 1. Introduction This document describes the Locator/Identifier Separation Protocol (LISP). LISP is an encapsulation protocol built around the fundamental idea of separating the topological location of a network attachment point from the node's identity [CHIAPPA]. As a result LISP creates two namespaces: Endpoint Identifiers (EIDs), that are used to identify end-hosts (e.g., nodes or Virtual Machines) and routable Routing Locators (RLOCs), used to identify network @@ -1027,22 +1024,22 @@ Even though this mechanism is stateful, it has advantages over the stateless IP fragmentation mechanism, by not involving the destination host with reassembly of ITR fragmented packets. 8. Using Virtualization and Segmentation with LISP When multiple organizations inside of a LISP site are using private addresses [RFC1918] as EID-Prefixes, their address spaces MUST remain segregated due to possible address duplication. An Instance ID in the address encoding can aid in making the entire AFI-based address - unique. See IANA Considerations (Section 21.2) for details on - possible address encodings. + unique. See IANA Considerations of [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis] for + details on possible address encodings. 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 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 1. When an ETR decapsulates a packet, the Instance ID from the LISP header is used as a table identifier to locate the forwarding table to use for the inner destination EID lookup. @@ -1742,21 +1739,21 @@ A mobile device can use the LISP infrastructure to achieve mobility by implementing the LISP encapsulation and decapsulation functions 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 advertised into and do not impose a cost on the global routing 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 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. 17. LISP xTR Placement and Encapsulation Methods 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. For a more detailed networkd design deployment recommendation, refer to [RFC7215]. There are two basic deployment tradeoffs to consider: centralized @@ -2056,98 +2053,51 @@ 20. Network Management Considerations Considerations for network management tools exist so the LISP protocol suite can be operationally managed. These mechanisms can be found in [RFC7052] and [RFC6835]. 21. IANA Considerations This section provides guidance to the Internet Assigned Numbers - Authority (IANA) regarding registration of values related to the 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]. + Authority (IANA) regarding registration of values related to this + data-plane LISP specification, in accordance with BCP 26 [RFC5226]. -21.3. LISP UDP Port Numbers +21.1. LISP UDP Port Numbers The IANA registry has allocated UDP port numbers 4341 and 4342 for lisp-data and lisp-control operation, respectively. IANA has updated the description for UDP ports 4341 and 4342 as follows: lisp-data 4341 udp LISP Data 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 22.1. Normative References [I-D.ietf-lisp-ddt] Fuller, V., Lewis, D., Ermagan, V., Jain, A., and A. Smirnov, "LISP Delegated Database Tree", draft-ietf-lisp- ddt-09 (work in progress), January 2017. [I-D.ietf-lisp-introduction] Cabellos-Aparicio, A. and D. Saucez, "An Architectural Introduction to the Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP)", draft-ietf-lisp-introduction-13 (work in progress), April 2015. [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis] Fuller, V., Farinacci, D., and A. Cabellos-Aparicio, "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. [I-D.ietf-lisp-sec] Maino, F., Ermagan, V., Cabellos-Aparicio, A., and D. Saucez, "LISP-Security (LISP-SEC)", draft-ietf-lisp-sec-12 (work in progress), November 2016. [RFC0768] Postel, J., "User Datagram Protocol", STD 6, RFC 768, DOI 10.17487/RFC0768, August 1980, . @@ -2270,29 +2220,29 @@ [CHIAPPA] Chiappa, J., "Endpoints and Endpoint names: A Proposed", 1999, . [I-D.farinacci-lisp-predictive-rlocs] Farinacci, D. and P. Pillay-Esnault, "LISP Predictive RLOCs", draft-farinacci-lisp-predictive-rlocs-01 (work in 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] Moreno, V. and D. Farinacci, "Signal-Free LISP Multicast", - draft-ietf-lisp-signal-free-multicast-02 (work in - progress), October 2016. - - [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. + draft-ietf-lisp-signal-free-multicast-03 (work in + progress), April 2017. [I-D.meyer-loc-id-implications] Meyer, D. and D. Lewis, "Architectural Implications of Locator/ID Separation", draft-meyer-loc-id-implications-01 (work in progress), January 2009. [I-D.portoles-lisp-eid-mobility] Portoles-Comeras, M., Ashtaputre, V., Moreno, V., Maino, F., and D. Farinacci, "LISP L2/L3 EID Mobility Using a Unified Control Plane", draft-portoles-lisp-eid- @@ -2426,39 +2376,46 @@ 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 documents were being prepared for IESG last call, and for his meticulous reviews and detailed commentaries on the 7 working group last call documents progressing toward standards-track RFCs. Appendix B. Document Change Log [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 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 Include references to new RFCs published. o Change references from RFC6833 to RFC6833bis. o Clarified LCAF text in the IANA section. 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 Created working group document from draft-farinacci-lisp -rfc6830-00 individual submission. No other changes made. Authors' Addresses Dino Farinacci Cisco Systems