draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-03.txt   draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-04.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: November 3, 2017 D. Lewis Expires: January 18, 2018 D. Lewis
Cisco Systems Cisco Systems
A. Cabellos (Ed.) A. Cabellos (Ed.)
UPC/BarcelonaTech UPC/BarcelonaTech
May 2, 2017 July 17, 2017
The Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP) The Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP)
draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-03 draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-04
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 November 3, 2017. This Internet-Draft will expire on January 18, 2018.
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 22 skipping to change at page 3, line 22
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 UDP Port Numbers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 21.1. LISP UDP Port Numbers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
22. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 22. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
22.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 22.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
22.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47 22.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
Appendix A. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51 Appendix A. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
Appendix B. Document Change Log . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51 Appendix B. Document Change Log . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
B.1. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-03 . . . . . . . . 52 B.1. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-04 . . . . . . . . 52
B.2. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-02 . . . . . . . . 52 B.2. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-03 . . . . . . . . 52
B.3. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-01 . . . . . . . . 52 B.3. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-02 . . . . . . . . 52
B.4. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-00 . . . . . . . . 52 B.4. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-01 . . . . . . . . 52
B.5. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-00 . . . . . . . . 52
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
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
skipping to change at page 4, line 44 skipping to change at page 4, line 47
connects. Typically, each block is a sub-block of a service connects. Typically, each block is a sub-block of a service
provider Classless Inter-Domain Routing (CIDR) [RFC4632] block and provider Classless Inter-Domain Routing (CIDR) [RFC4632] block and
is aggregated into the larger block before being advertised into is aggregated into the larger block before being advertised into
the global Internet. Traditionally, IP multihoming has been the global Internet. Traditionally, IP multihoming has been
implemented by each multihomed site acquiring its own globally implemented by each multihomed site acquiring its own globally
visible prefix. LISP uses only topologically assigned and visible prefix. LISP uses only topologically assigned and
aggregatable address blocks for RLOCs, eliminating this aggregatable address blocks for RLOCs, eliminating this
demonstrably non-scalable practice. demonstrably non-scalable practice.
Routing Locator (RLOC): An RLOC is an IPv4 [RFC0791] or IPv6 Routing Locator (RLOC): An RLOC is an IPv4 [RFC0791] or IPv6
[RFC2460] address of an Egress Tunnel Router (ETR). An RLOC is [RFC8200] address of an Egress Tunnel Router (ETR). An RLOC is
the output of an EID-to-RLOC mapping lookup. An EID maps to one the output of an EID-to-RLOC mapping lookup. An EID maps to one
or more RLOCs. Typically, RLOCs are numbered from topologically or more RLOCs. Typically, RLOCs are numbered from topologically
aggregatable blocks that are assigned to a site at each point to aggregatable blocks that are assigned to a site at each point to
which it attaches to the global Internet; where the topology is which it attaches to the global Internet; where the topology is
defined by the connectivity of provider networks, RLOCs can be defined by the connectivity of provider networks, RLOCs can be
thought of as PA addresses. Multiple RLOCs can be assigned to the thought of as PA addresses. Multiple RLOCs can be assigned to the
same ETR device or to multiple ETR devices at a site. same ETR device or to multiple ETR devices at a site.
Endpoint ID (EID): An EID is a 32-bit (for IPv4) or 128-bit (for Endpoint ID (EID): An EID is a 32-bit (for IPv4) or 128-bit (for
IPv6) value used in the source and destination address fields of IPv6) value used in the source and destination address fields of
skipping to change at page 16, line 15 skipping to change at page 16, line 15
^ + Destination EID + ^ + Destination EID +
\ | | \ | |
\ + + \ + +
\ | | \ | |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
5.3. Tunnel Header Field Descriptions 5.3. Tunnel Header Field Descriptions
Inner Header (IH): The inner header is the header on the datagram Inner Header (IH): The inner header is the header on the datagram
received from the originating host. The source and destination IP received from the originating host. The source and destination IP
addresses are EIDs [RFC0791] [RFC2460]. addresses are EIDs [RFC0791] [RFC8200].
Outer Header: (OH) The outer header is a new header prepended by an Outer Header: (OH) The outer header is a new header prepended by an
ITR. The address fields contain RLOCs obtained from the ingress ITR. The address fields contain RLOCs obtained from the ingress
router's EID-to-RLOC Cache. The IP protocol number is "UDP (17)" router's EID-to-RLOC Cache. The IP protocol number is "UDP (17)"
from [RFC0768]. The setting of the Don't Fragment (DF) bit from [RFC0768]. The setting of the Don't Fragment (DF) bit
'Flags' field is according to rules listed in Sections 7.1 and 'Flags' field is according to rules listed in Sections 7.1 and
7.2. 7.2.
UDP Header: The UDP header contains an ITR selected source port when UDP Header: The UDP header contains an ITR selected source port when
encapsulating a packet. See Section 12 for details on the hash encapsulating a packet. See Section 12 for details on the hash
skipping to change at page 16, line 42 skipping to change at page 16, line 42
[RFC6935] [RFC6936]. When a packet with a zero UDP checksum is [RFC6935] [RFC6936]. When a packet with a zero UDP checksum is
received by an ETR, the ETR MUST accept the packet for received by an ETR, the ETR MUST accept the packet for
decapsulation. When an ITR transmits a non-zero value for the UDP decapsulation. When an ITR transmits a non-zero value for the UDP
checksum, it MUST send a correctly computed value in this field. checksum, it MUST send a correctly computed value in this field.
When an ETR receives a packet with a non-zero UDP checksum, it MAY When an ETR receives a packet with a non-zero UDP checksum, it MAY
choose to verify the checksum value. If it chooses to perform choose to verify the checksum value. If it chooses to perform
such verification, and the verification fails, the packet MUST be such verification, and the verification fails, the packet MUST be
silently dropped. If the ETR chooses not to perform the silently dropped. If the ETR chooses not to perform the
verification, or performs the verification successfully, the verification, or performs the verification successfully, the
packet MUST be accepted for decapsulation. The handling of UDP packet MUST be accepted for decapsulation. The handling of UDP
checksums for all tunneling protocols, including LISP, is under zero checksums over IPv6 for all tunneling protocols, including
active discussion within the IETF. When that discussion LISP, is subject to the applicability statement in [RFC6936].
concludes, any necessary changes will be made to align LISP with
the outcome of the broader discussion.
UDP Length: The 'UDP Length' field is set for an IPv4-encapsulated UDP Length: The 'UDP Length' field is set for an IPv4-encapsulated
packet to be the sum of the inner-header IPv4 Total Length plus packet to be the sum of the inner-header IPv4 Total Length plus
the UDP and LISP header lengths. For an IPv6-encapsulated packet, the UDP and LISP header lengths. For an IPv6-encapsulated packet,
the 'UDP Length' field is the sum of the inner-header IPv6 Payload the 'UDP Length' field is the sum of the inner-header IPv6 Payload
Length, the size of the IPv6 header (40 octets), and the size of Length, the size of the IPv6 header (40 octets), and the size of
the UDP and LISP headers. the UDP and LISP headers.
N: The N-bit is the nonce-present bit. When this bit is set to 1, N: The N-bit is the nonce-present bit. When this bit is set to 1,
the low-order 24 bits of the first 32 bits of the LISP header the low-order 24 bits of the first 32 bits of the LISP header
skipping to change at page 45, line 14 skipping to change at page 45, line 14
[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-03 (work in progress), April draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis-05 (work in progress), May
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 45, line 44 skipping to change at page 45, line 44
[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, Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997, DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>. <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[RFC2404] Madson, C. and R. Glenn, "The Use of HMAC-SHA-1-96 within [RFC2404] Madson, C. and R. Glenn, "The Use of HMAC-SHA-1-96 within
ESP and AH", RFC 2404, DOI 10.17487/RFC2404, November ESP and AH", RFC 2404, DOI 10.17487/RFC2404, November
1998, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2404>. 1998, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2404>.
[RFC2460] Deering, S. and R. Hinden, "Internet Protocol, Version 6
(IPv6) Specification", RFC 2460, DOI 10.17487/RFC2460,
December 1998, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2460>.
[RFC3168] Ramakrishnan, K., Floyd, S., and D. Black, "The Addition [RFC3168] Ramakrishnan, K., Floyd, S., and D. Black, "The Addition
of Explicit Congestion Notification (ECN) to IP", of Explicit Congestion Notification (ECN) to IP",
RFC 3168, DOI 10.17487/RFC3168, September 2001, RFC 3168, DOI 10.17487/RFC3168, September 2001,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3168>. <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3168>.
[RFC3232] Reynolds, J., Ed., "Assigned Numbers: RFC 1700 is Replaced [RFC3232] Reynolds, J., Ed., "Assigned Numbers: RFC 1700 is Replaced
by an On-line Database", RFC 3232, DOI 10.17487/RFC3232, by an On-line Database", RFC 3232, DOI 10.17487/RFC3232,
January 2002, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3232>. January 2002, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3232>.
[RFC4086] Eastlake 3rd, D., Schiller, J., and S. Crocker, [RFC4086] Eastlake 3rd, D., Schiller, J., and S. Crocker,
skipping to change at page 46, line 25 skipping to change at page 46, line 21
(CIDR): The Internet Address Assignment and Aggregation (CIDR): The Internet Address Assignment and Aggregation
Plan", BCP 122, RFC 4632, DOI 10.17487/RFC4632, August Plan", BCP 122, RFC 4632, DOI 10.17487/RFC4632, August
2006, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4632>. 2006, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4632>.
[RFC4868] Kelly, S. and S. Frankel, "Using HMAC-SHA-256, HMAC-SHA- [RFC4868] Kelly, S. and S. Frankel, "Using HMAC-SHA-256, HMAC-SHA-
384, and HMAC-SHA-512 with IPsec", RFC 4868, 384, and HMAC-SHA-512 with IPsec", RFC 4868,
DOI 10.17487/RFC4868, May 2007, DOI 10.17487/RFC4868, May 2007,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4868>. <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4868>.
[RFC5226] Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an [RFC5226] Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an
IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 5226, IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", RFC 5226,
DOI 10.17487/RFC5226, May 2008, DOI 10.17487/RFC5226, May 2008,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5226>. <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5226>.
[RFC5496] Wijnands, IJ., Boers, A., and E. Rosen, "The Reverse Path [RFC5496] Wijnands, IJ., Boers, A., and E. Rosen, "The Reverse Path
Forwarding (RPF) Vector TLV", RFC 5496, Forwarding (RPF) Vector TLV", RFC 5496,
DOI 10.17487/RFC5496, March 2009, DOI 10.17487/RFC5496, March 2009,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5496>. <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5496>.
[RFC5944] Perkins, C., Ed., "IP Mobility Support for IPv4, Revised", [RFC5944] Perkins, C., Ed., "IP Mobility Support for IPv4, Revised",
RFC 5944, DOI 10.17487/RFC5944, November 2010, RFC 5944, DOI 10.17487/RFC5944, November 2010,
skipping to change at page 47, line 43 skipping to change at page 47, line 38
[RFC7835] Saucez, D., Iannone, L., and O. Bonaventure, "Locator/ID [RFC7835] Saucez, D., Iannone, L., and O. Bonaventure, "Locator/ID
Separation Protocol (LISP) Threat Analysis", RFC 7835, Separation Protocol (LISP) Threat Analysis", RFC 7835,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7835, April 2016, DOI 10.17487/RFC7835, April 2016,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7835>. <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7835>.
[RFC8061] Farinacci, D. and B. Weis, "Locator/ID Separation Protocol [RFC8061] Farinacci, D. and B. Weis, "Locator/ID Separation Protocol
(LISP) Data-Plane Confidentiality", RFC 8061, (LISP) Data-Plane Confidentiality", RFC 8061,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8061, February 2017, DOI 10.17487/RFC8061, February 2017,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8061>. <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8061>.
[RFC8200] Deering, S. and R. Hinden, "Internet Protocol, Version 6
(IPv6) Specification", STD 86, RFC 8200,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8200, July 2017,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8200>.
22.2. Informative References 22.2. Informative References
[AFN] IANA, "Address Family Numbers", August 2016, [AFN] IANA, "Address Family Numbers", August 2016,
<http://www.iana.org/assignments/address-family-numbers>. <http://www.iana.org/assignments/address-family-numbers>.
[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-02 (work in
progress), November 2016. progress), May 2017.
[I-D.ietf-lisp-mn] [I-D.ietf-lisp-mn]
Farinacci, D., Lewis, D., Meyer, D., and C. White, "LISP Farinacci, D., Lewis, D., Meyer, D., and C. White, "LISP
Mobile Node", draft-ietf-lisp-mn-00 (work in progress), Mobile Node", draft-ietf-lisp-mn-00 (work in progress),
April 2017. 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-03 (work in draft-ietf-lisp-signal-free-multicast-04 (work in
progress), April 2017. progress), May 2017.
[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 52, 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-03 B.1. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-04
o Posted July 2017.
o Changed reference of IPv6 RFC2460 to RFC8200.
o Indicate that the applicability statement for UDP zero checksums
over IPv6 adheres to RFC6936.
B.2. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-03
o Posted May 2017. o Posted May 2017.
o Move the control-plane related codepoints in the IANA o Move the control-plane related codepoints in the IANA
Considerations section to RFC6833bis. Considerations section to RFC6833bis.
B.2. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-02 B.3. 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.3. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-01 B.4. 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.4. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-00 B.5. 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
Tasman Drive Tasman Drive
San Jose, CA 95134 San Jose, CA 95134
USA USA
EMail: farinacci@gmail.com EMail: farinacci@gmail.com
Vince Fuller Vince Fuller
Cisco Systems Cisco Systems
Tasman Drive Tasman Drive
San Jose, CA 95134 San Jose, CA 95134
USA USA
EMail: vince.fuller@gmail.com EMail: vince.fuller@gmail.com
Dave Meyer Dave Meyer
Cisco Systems Cisco Systems
 End of changes. 20 change blocks. 
29 lines changed or deleted 38 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/